The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutBELLA VISTA - PDP - 45-01A - DECISION - FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & DECISIONY e �...._�._-.�.�-',�•,�_ fie, . ��R a a Ala `e ,;"mac... A- 1 In \ US AA A - 1 . � � .�• 3r { �'4;� � ma's^ - ..' s•. • ;-; sa it i ,t A, ! `<. Mvc rr bn.i91;ri s a -i� 11 Q. f -/► t•.a 1 eJ ' i L\ �•I S m 4-777, VnE! w h, ,,;,,.,..�+vveR'n""�#�.r.p.:eJ3C1 A"AS"C•w.i:Y'is�'O:k. r' ��-��^`� i M_� r ma's.-.�,.�'r9.1. - ._• _ +It'd•• .. ... .. .19 VIP MR NA w I . 1I✓ • Vwl ._.. 11 �u �� t` �j �-- • No Text 1. ♦. . I • / _' ....rr � •• \M I,Tr . �J y,.t� n ' �4 yl-�!. ..r- s . I City of Fort Collins — Type 1 Administrative Hearing Findings, Conclusions, and Decision Bella Vista, Project Development Plan, #45-01A Administrative Hearing Date: April 10, 2003 Page 12 5. The PDP complies with all applicable Land Use and Development Standards contained in Article 4, Division 4.5 DECISION DATED THIS 24th day of April, 2003 The Hearing Officer hereby approves the Bella Vista Project Development Plan, Case No. 45-01A. Linda C. Michow City of Fort Collins — Type 1 Administrative Hearing Findings, Conclusions, and Decision Bella Vista, Project Development Plan, #45-01A Administrative Hearing Date: April 10, 2003 Page 11 The Applicant recently received approval to rezone the property from T- Transition to MMN, Medium Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood. The staff report indicates that residential and limited commercial uses are permitted within the MMN zone district. According to Section 4.5(A) of the LUC, the purpose of the MMN zone district is to allow for "concentrated housing within easy walking distance of transit and a commercial district." In addition, the MMN zone district is intended to serve as a transition and "a link between surrounding neighborhoods and the commercial core." As stated in the staff report, the Project would provide "transition from single family, medium density single family and multi -family, and high density multi -family residential to business uses and the commercial corridor along South College Avenue." See Staff Report, p. 3. The Hearing Officer finds that the Project complies with the purpose and the requirements of the MMN zone district. The Hearing Officer further notes that the Project complies with the land use standards of the MMN zone district, in that the Project exceeds the minimum average density requirement of 12 units per net acre. There was no evidence at the hearing to contradict this finding; therefore, the Hearing Officer concludes that the proposed uses are permitted within the MMN zone district and the Project complies with all applicable standards of the MMN zone district. With regard to the three-story building height limitation, the findings of the Hearing Officer are set forth above in the discussion concerning Article 3. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The PDP satisfies the applicable requirements of Article 2. 2. The PDP complies with all applicable General Development Standards contained in Article 3 of the LUC. 3. The PDP satisfies the "contextual' building height set forth in Section 3.8.17(A)(3) of the LUC as it proposes building heights between the zone district maximum height limit and the height of the adjacent Marriott building. 4. The proposed land uses are permitted in the MMN — Medium Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood Zone District of the LUC. City of Fort Collins — Type 1 Administrative Hearing Findings, Conclusions, and Decision Bella Vista, Project Development Plan, #45-01A Administrative Hearing Date: April 10, 2003 Page 10 ■ In the long range future, given development of Bella Vista, the key intersections will operate acceptably during peak hours. ■ Acceptable level of service is achieved for pedestrian, bicycle and transit modes based upon the measures in the multi -modal transportation guidelines. Traffic concerns were noted by several residents in the surrounding area. The testimony of these individuals reflect concerns about the amount of traffic on Horsetooth Road, safety of access onto Horsetooth Road, turns into Bella Vista from eastbound Horsetooth Road, and an increase in traffic noise. These concerns were addressed by the City's Traffic Engineer. The City Traffic Engineer testified that the Bella Vista Project will have minimum traffic impacts compared to the amount of existing traffic on Horsetooth Road. According to the Traffic Engineer, 30,000 vehicles already travel on Horsetooth Road, so the addition of 1,000 vehicles per day generated by the Bella Vista Project is not significant. With regard to the concern for making left turns into Bella Vista, the Traffic Engineer testified that it is difficult to make a left turn on any arterial during peak hours from a stop sign -controlled intersection. The Traffic Engineer stated that the raised medians initially proposed by the Applicant would create offsets in the travel lanes, and therefore were not considered safe. The removal of the raised medians occurred at the direction of the City. The Traffic Engineer concluded that the Project conformed to the requirements of Section 3.6.4 in terms of level of service and sufficient capacity at existing, key intersections. The Hearing Officer finds, based on the testimony of the City Traffic Engineer and the Applicant's Transportation Impact Study, that the Project complies with Section 3.6.4 of the LUC. 3. Article 4. The Project's Proposed Uses for Residential and Limited Commercial are Permitted Uses within the Medium Density Mixed Use Neighborhood (MMN) Zone District: The staff report states that the proposed development is adjacent to the following surrounding zoning and land uses: N: MMN; Existing multi -family residential (Aspen Leaf Apartments). S: MMN; Existing residential (Cove Island). W: C; Existing business, commercial, office uses (South College Avenue Corridor). E: MMN; Existing multi -family residential (Aspen Leaf Apartments). City of Fort Collins — Type 1 Administrative Hearing Findings, Conclusions, and Decision Bella Vista, Project Development Plan, #45-01A Administrative Hearing Date: April 10, 2003 Page 9 Similarly, the Hearing Officer finds, based on the evidence and testimony presented, that the Applicant has satisfied the remaining three criteria set forth in Section 3.5.1(G) relating to light and shadows, privacy, and neighborhood scale. For all of the above stated reasons, the Hearing Officer concludes that the Bella Vista Project complies with the contextual height regulation and special review criteria for buildings exceeding 40 feet in height. Section 3.5.3 Mixed Use, Institutional and Commercial Buildings. Section 3.5.3(B)(1) of the LUC requires that at least one main entrance of a mixed -use building open onto pedestrian walkways and connecting walkways. According to the staff report, each of the three buildings has one or more entrances facing and opening onto sidewalks and walkways. In addition, Subsection (B)(2) requires that the Bella Vista buildings be at least 10' and no more than 25' behind the right-of-way of the adjoining East Horsetooth Road, and no more than 15' from the right-of-way of Stanford Road. The staff report indicates, and there was no evidence to contradict, that the Project meets these requirements. 3.6 Transportation and Circulation. 3.6.4 Transportation Level of Service Requirements. Section 3.6.4 provides that a proposed development must demonstrate that all adopted Level of Service standards will be achieved for all modes of transportation, including vehicular, pedestrian, bicycle and transit. In conformance with Section 3.6.4(B), the Applicant submitted a Transportation Impact Study, dated November 2001, prepared by Matthew Delich, P.E., which analyzes the projected impacts of the Bella Vista Project on all modes of transportation. The Study concludes: • At full development, Bella Vista will generate approximately 1097 daily trips with 93 morning peak hour trips and 88 afternoon peak hour trip ends. ■ Current operation at the key intersections (Horsetooth/Stover and Horsetooth/Stanford) is acceptable. ■ Additional signals will not be warranted at any of the key unsignalized intersections ■ In the short range future, the key intersections will operate acceptably. City of Fort Collins — Type 1 Administrative Hearing Findings, Conclusions, and Decision Bella Vista, Project Development Plan, #45-01A Administrative Hearing Date: April 10, 2003 Page 8 was no evidence presented to indicate that there will be a substantial interruption of views from public places due to the proposed height of the buildings in Bella Vista. Regarding light and shadow, the Applicant provided a shadow analysis of the Project, performed on December 21st at 9 a.m., noon and 3 p.m., which shows that the proposed buildings will cast minimal shade on adjacent buildings. More significantly, the staff report states that these minimal shadows will not preclude the functional use of solar energy and will not shade buildings, windows or gardens. The Hearing Officer finds that no contradictory evidence was presented at the hearing. The evidence also reflects that the privacy of adjacent public and private properties will not be affected by the Project. Since the Project is separated from surrounding land uses by arterial and collector streets, the distances between the Project and surrounding uses are anywhere between 160' and 250'. The Aspen Leaf Apartments to the north and east is further buffered by existing parking lots. The effect of the Project on the neighborhood scale is evaluated by the relative height, mass, and building scale to human scale. The evidence presented at the hearing reflects that the surrounding buildings vary in height from 40' to 60.5' and that the proposed buildings will not exceed this contextual height. In addition, the proposed building footprints are no larger than those in the surrounding area. The Applicant's architect also testified that the mass of the proposed buildings is broken up by the use of articulated facades and stepping of the three buildings. The building setbacks are also similar to other residential developments. The architect stated that the proposed buildings are residential in character through the use of architectural features such as gables, bay windows, cornices, and dormers. There was testimony opposing the proposed heights of the buildings based on its effects on views and privacy of adjacent residential areas, including Cove Island and Aspen Leaf Apartments. Yet the materials presented by Mr. Kitze provide that the only views from Aspen Leaf Apartments affected by the Project are from the recreation area and parking lots. The Hearing Officer finds that any proposed building on the Bella Vista site, of even three stories in height, will have some effect on the views of the foothills. The critical question is whether the proposed buildings will substantially alter the opportunity for and quality of desirable views. The Hearing Officer finds that this Project will not have a substantial effect on the opportunity for views from public places, streets and parks within the area. City of Fort Collins — Type 1 Administrative Hearing Findings, Conclusions, and Decision Bella Vista, Project Development Plan, #45-01A Administrative Hearing Date: April 10, 2003 Page 7 Even assuming for the sake of argument that adjacency, in the context of Section 3.8.17, means abutting or contiguous, the Marriott building site can be considered a contiguous lot. The Marriott is located on Lot 3 of an existing subdivision that lies immediately adjacent to Stanford Road. As Mr. Olt, City Planner, testified, while there may be more than one parcel on Lot 3 for property taxation purposes, these parcels are not subdivided and are therefore technically considered one lot. Therefore, regardless of how "adjacent lot" is interpreted, the Marriott site is on a lot adjacent to the Project site, exclusive of Stanford Road. Based on this finding, the Bella Vista Project is authorized, pursuant to Section 3.8.17(A)(3), to incorporate buildings with heights ranging between three and six - stories, subject also to the criteria set forth in Section 3.5.1(G). Section 3.5.1(G) provides for a special review process to evaluate buildings proposed to be in excess of forty feet, requiring that the following criteria be satisfied: ■ A building shall not substantially alter the opportunity for, and quality of, desirable views from public places, streets and parks within the community. ■ Buildings shall be designed so as not to have a substantial adverse impact on the distribution of natural and artificial light on adjacent public and private property. Adverse impacts include casting shadows on adjacent property sufficient to preclude the functional use of solar energy technology, creating glare such as reflecting sunlight or artificial lighting at night, and contributing to the accumulation of snow and ice during the winter on adjacent property. ■ Buildings shall be designed to avoid infringing on the privacy of adjacent public and private property, particularly adjacent residential areas and public parks. ■ Buildings shall be compatible with the scale of the neighborhoods in which they are situated in terms of relative height, height to mass, length to mass, and building or structure scale to human scale. With regard to views, the staff report indicates that the proposed heights of the three buildings will not substantially alter the opportunity for desirable views of the foothills to the west. As stated in the staff report, because there is significant earthen berm and dense mature landscaping in front of the Cove Island residences, only 2-3 homes will be adversely affected by the proposed buildings in the Bella Vista Project. Moreover, there City of Fort Collins — Type 1 Administrative Hearing Findings, Conclusions, and Decision Bella Vista, Project Development Plan, #45-01A Administrative Hearing Date: April 10, 2003 Page 6 Interpretation No. 2-02 should be upheld if there is any reasonable basis in the record for such interpretation. Turning to the evidence in the record, the Administrative Interpretation cites to Black's Law Dictionary for the common definition of adjacent, which is "lying near or close to, but not necessarily touching." This definition makes sense in terms of the contextual height provision of the LUC, as the term "contextual" itself implies the surrounding environment or setting. Mr. Kitze contends, relying on Webster's Dictionary, that "adjacent" means "nothing of a like kind between articles." Applied to the Bella Vista Project, Mr. Kitze argues that the Marriott hotel site cannot be considered an adjacent lot because the City's zoning map shows intervening lots between the lot on which the Marriott is located and the Project site. Other testimony in opposition suggested that the Marriott cannot be considered part of the neighborhood because it is "over one city block away" from the Project. This strained interpretation fails to consider the most common definition of "adjacent," also found in the edition of Webster's Dictionary cited by Mr. Kitze, that means "not distant or far off: nearby but not touching." Mr. Kitze's interpretation would defeat the purposes of Section 3.8.17 and Section 3.5.1(G), which are to provide flexibility and creativity in the architectural design and height of development projects. Moreover, had the City intended to allow contextual height only in the case of "adjoining" or abutting lots, it would have used these more explicit terms rather than "adjacent". Finally, the Marriott is approximately 500' from the Project, which is, by any definition, in close proximity to the Project. Therefore, the Hearing Officer finds that there is ample evidence in the record to uphold Administrative Interpretation No. 2-02 as it defines the term "adjacent" relative to Section 3.8.17. In terms of evaluating what is an adjacent lot in the Bella Vista Project, the lot on which the Marriott hotel is located should be considered adjacent. As Administrative Interpretation No. 2-02 provides, adjacency should be evaluated by various factors, including topography, existence of large trees, width of streets and angles of vision predominately used in observing the building. Photographs of various views of the proposed Project site illustrate that the Marriott appears "adjacent" when looking north to the site from the residential development of Cove Island and west towards the site. These photographs, copies of which are attached to this Decision as Exhibit A, clearly depict the Marriott, as well as a nearby office building, within the surrounding area of the Project site. In addition, the staff report states that two-story, three-story and six -story buildings exist in the surrounding area. City of Fort Collins — Type 1 Administrative Hearing Findings, Conclusions, and Decision Bella Vista, Project Development Plan, #45-01A Administrative Hearing Date: April 10, 2003 Page 5 design within the context of harmonious neighborhood planning and coherent environmental design, to protect access to sunlight, to preserve desirable views and to define and reinforce downtown and designated activity centers." The rules of statutory (and ordinance) construction require that various provisions of a statute or ordinance be read together with all other provisions relating to the same subject. See City of Thornton v. Replogle, 873 P.2d 30 (Colo. App. 1993), affd, City of Thornton v. Replogle, 888 P.2d 782 (Colo. 1995). Read together, it is clear from these building height -related provisions that the intent of the LUC is to allow for heights greater than the maximum limits established in Article 4. If this were not the case, then Section 3.8.17(A)(3) would be rendered meaningless in most zone districts. Colorado courts have long recognized that in construing statutes and ordinances, interpretations that render certain provisions meaningless are to be avoided. See People v. Terry, 961 P.2d 500 (Colo. App. 1997), affd, Terry v. People, 977 P.2d 145 (Colo. 1999); Commercial Service of Perry. Inc. v. Fitzgerald, 856 P.2d 58 (Colo. App. 1993). The contextual height provision set forth in Section 3.8.17(A)(3) allows for flexibility in building heights regardless of the underlying zone district's maximum building height restriction. As the term suggests, and as Mr. Olt explained at the hearing, "contextual" building height implies that building heights will be evaluated based on surrounding building heights in the area. It requires that a contextual building height fall within any point between the zone district maximum height limit and the height of a building that exists on a lot that is adiacent to the subject lot. (Emphasis added). At the request of Mr. Kitze, the Current Planning Director issued Administrative Interpretation No. 2-02, dated April 12, 2002, regarding the meaning of "adjacent" in Section 3.8.17(A)(3). According to this Administrative Interpretation, and based on references to Black's Law Dictionary and Webster's Third New International, "something adjacent is located nearby, but is not necessarily physically touching." The Administrative Interpretation opines that the term "adjacent" in the context of Section 3.8.17(A)(3) will be evaluated on a case -by -case basis, looking at factors such as: topography, existence of large trees; width of adjacent streets; and angles of vision predominately used in observing the building(s). In other words, "adjacent" lot does not mean, as certain opponents of the Project have suggested, a lot that necessarily touches or abuts the lot in question. Colorado courts have held that an administrative agency's interpretation of its own regulations is generally entitled to great weight and should not be disturbed on review unless plainly erroneous or inconsistent with such regulations. See Jiminez v. Industrial Claims Appeals Office, 51 P.3d 1090 (Colo. App. 2002). Accordingly, Administrative City of Fort Collins — Type 1 Administrative Hearing Findings, Conclusions, and Decision Bella Vista, Project Development Plan, #45-01A Administrative Hearing Date: April 10, 2003 Page 4 3.3 Engineering Standards. The staff report summarily states that the Project complies with all applicable engineering standards, including general plat requirements and design standards. There was no contradictory evidence presented at the hearing; therefore, the Hearing Officer finds that the Proposal complies with the Engineering Standards set forth in Section 3.3 of the LUC. 3.5 Building Standards. 3.5.1 Building and Project Compatibility. The purpose of this Section is to "ensure that the physical and operational characteristics of proposed buildings and uses are compatible when considered within the context of the surrounding area." The staff report explains that the proposed buildings in Bella Vista will be similar to those of existing buildings in the Aspen Leaf Apartment complex. Stucco and concrete tile roofs used on the proposed buildings will be similar to and compatible with materials used on existing buildings in the area. There was no testimony or evidence presented to contradict the staff report. 3.5.1(G) and 3.8.17 Building Height Review/Contextual Height. With regard to building height, according to the staff report, the proposed buildings will range in height from 48'6" to 61'8" at the top of the parapet walls on the roofs of the buildings. The majority of opposition to the Project, as evidenced by the testimony and written correspondence received at the hearing, focuses on this feature of the Project. There are several provisions in the LUC that address building height, each of which will be discussed below in the context of the Bella Vista PDP. First, Section 4.5(E)(1)(d) imposes a building height limit of three stories on any development within the MMN zone district. However, Section 3.8.17(A)(3) provides: [R]egardless of the maximum building height limit imposed by the zone district standards of this Land Use Code, applicants shall be allowed to use a "contextual height" limit. The allowed "contextual" height may fall at any point between the zone district maximum height limit and the height of a building that exists on a lot that is adjacent to the subject lot... Finally, Section 3.5.1(G) addresses the process by which the decision maker of a project can evaluate buildings or structures that exceed forty (40) feet in height. The intent of this provision is to "encourage creativity and diversity of architecture and site City of Fort Collins — Type 1 Administrative Hearing Findings, Conclusions, and Decision Bella Vista, Project Development Plan, #45-01A Administrative Hearing Date: April 10, 2003 Page 3 Section 3.2. Site Planning. 3.2.1 Landscaping and Tree Protection. The staff report outlines the PDP's conformance with Section 3.2.1 concerning landscaping and tree protection. Specifically, the Project complies with screening requirements in that the on -site parking areas will be screened from East Horsetooth Road to the south and Stanford Road to the west by the buildings. The parking area above the underground parking garage will be screened from the Aspen Leaf Apartments with walls and deciduous and evergreen trees and shrubs. There was no evidence introduced at the hearing to contradict the staff report; therefore, the Hearing Officer finds that the Project complies with Section 3.2.2 of the LUC. 3.2.2 Access. Circulation and Parking. The staff report outlines the Project's conformance with Section 3.2.2 concerning access, circulation and parking. Specifically, the staff report notes that the design of the Project provides for: bicycle parking in the amount of 8% of the total number of automobile parking spaces; ■ direct sidewalk connections from all three buildings to East Horsetooth Road and Stanford Road. ■ vehicular access via new curb cuts from East Horsetooth Road and Stanford Road to the underground parking garage and parking area above -ground. The staff report indicates that no landscaping is provided for the above -ground parking garage. Although Section 3.2.2(M)(1) requires landscaping for any parking lot containing at least 1800 square feet, the City's Current Planning Director issued Administrative Interpretation No. 03-02, dated June 12, 2002, which finds that the uncovered parking spaces located on top of the upper deck of the parking garage do not have to comply with Section 3.2.2(M)(1). This Interpretation is based on the reasoning that these parking spaces, located on top of the upper parking garage deck, are part of a parking garage, rather than a parking lot. The Hearing Officer finds there is a reasonable basis for this Administrative Interpretation, and therefore, upholds Interpretation No. 03-02. See City and County of Denver v. Board of Adjustment for City and County of Denver, 55 P. 3d 252 (Colo. App. 2002). City of Fort Collins — Type 1 Administrative Hearing Findings, Conclusions, and Decision Bella Vista, Project Development Plan, #45-01A Administrative Hearing Date: April 10, 2003 Page 2 PUBLIC HEARING: The Hearing Officer, presiding pursuant to the Fort Collins Land Use Code, opened the hearing at approximately 6:15 p.m. on April 10, 2003 in the City Council Chambers at City Hall, 300 West LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. RECORD OF HEARING: The Hearing Officer accepted during the hearing the following evidence: (1) Planning Department staff report, as amended at the hearing; (2) application, plans, maps, reports and other supporting documents submitted by the Applicant and the Applicant's agents to the City of Fort Collins; (3) written correspondence and e-mail correspondence between members of the public and City staff concerning the Project; (4) photographs taken of the Project; and (5) a tape recording of testimony provided during the hearing. The Fort Collins Land Use Code ("LUC"), the City's Comprehensive Plan, and the formally promulgated policies of the City are all considered part of the evidence considered by the Hearing Officer. Subsequent to the hearing, Mr. Tom Kitze, who testified at the hearing, informed City staff that all of his prior e-mail correspondence had not been submitted to the Hearing Officer for consideration. Mr. Olt, City Planner for the Project, then contacted the Hearing Officer to request a determination whether such additional correspondence could be admitted into the record. Section 2.2.7(F) of the LUC states that the record shall consist of "all exhibits, including without limitation, all writings, drawings, maps, charts, graphs, photographs and other tangible items received or viewed by the decisionmaker at the proceedings..." (Emphasis added). It would violate an applicant's due process rights to accept evidence after the conclusion of the hearing because the applicant would be foreclosed from evaluating and/or rebutting such evidence. The Hearing Officer cannot accept evidence submitted after the conclusion of the hearing. FACTS AND FINDINGS 1. Article 2. The Bella Vista PDP conforms with the requirements set forth in Section 2.2 and 2.4. This Project has been processed according to the standards in Article 2 of the LUC in that it is subject to Type I administrative review of a project development plan. 2. Article 3. General Development Standards. The Project complies with applicable provisions of the General Development Standards, as explained below. City of Fort Collins Community Planning and Environmental Services Current Planning CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER TYPE 1 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND DECISION ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING DATE: PROJECT NAME: APPLICANT: April 10, 2003 Bella Vista, Project Development Plan — Case No. 45-01 A Stanford Development, LLC c/o Cityscape Urban Design, Inc. 3555 Stanford Road, Suite 105 Fort Collins, Colorado 80525 OWNER: Stanford Development, LLC 419 Canyon Avenue Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 HEARING OFFICER: Linda C. Michow, Esq. Gorsuch Kirgis LLP Tower I, Suite 1000 1515 Arapahoe Street Denver, Colorado 80202 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Applicant has requested approval for a mixed -use project ("Project' or "PDP") on three acres at the northeast corner of East Horsetooth Road and Stanford Road. The Project Development Plan (PDP) includes a total of 81 residential dwelling units plus an additional 16,000 square feet of limited commercial on the first two floors of the building closest to the intersection of East Horsetooth Road and Stanford Road. Consistent with the MMN Zone District, the commercial uses could include artisan/photography studios or galleries, short-term lodging (bed and breakfasts), convenience retail without fuel sales, home occupations, and small food service spaces. SUMMARY OF HEARING OFFICER DECISION: Approval. ZONE DISTRICT: Medium Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood (MMN). NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING AND NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS: Evidence presented to the Hearing Officer established that the hearing was properly noticed in accordance with the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code. Although not required for a Type I development proposal, two neighborhood meetings were held on November 14, 2001 and November 13, 2002. L C M \57069.25\440850.01 281 North College Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6750 • FAX (970) 416-2020