Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLINCOLN PARK (FORMERLY LINCOLN MIXED-USE PDP), 1110 E. LINCOLN - PDP - 40-94G - DECISION - FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & DECISIONAdministrative Public Hearing Sign -In Project: Meeting Location ✓i r4a ✓ �b I IV . Date: �u h e, 2 v. a o v PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY -'Name Address Phone Email O e r121 A 410 ry a Y'3j D cO a C� J L - r L64 700 ,4-. ,via, f,C;A�,- .�V iQ WUWv 5.3 -tk / /^ r �y � ���►TE K.'C-Gd L qyN J F�,' FV (-v �O 5000 G Lincoln Park PDP Administrative Hearing Findings, Conclusions, and Decision June 28, 2007 Page 6 of 6 detention area shown as Lot 4 is developed with slopes allow for multi -use of that area. D. The Lincoln Park Project Development Plan complies with all applicable General Development Standards contained in Article 3 of the Land Use Code. DECISION The Lincoln Park Project Development Plan #40-94G, is hereby approved by the Hearing Officer subject to the condition set forth above regarding development of the detention area. Dated this 29th day of June 2007. 0 "� Claire B. Levy Attorney 6 Lincoln Park PDP Administrative Hearing Findings, Conclusions, and Decision June 28, 2007 Page 5 of 6 The Staff Report summarizes the PDP's compliance with the applicable site planning and design, access, circulation, parking, engineering, building and project compatibility, building design and transportation standards and there was no evidence submitted at the hearing to contradict the statements and conclusion of the Staff Report concerning compliance or to otherwise refute compliance with the Article 3 Standards. The proposed buildings and uses are compatible with the surrounding area and meet the requirements of Section 3.5.1 regarding Building and Project Compatibility. The parking plan merits mention. The proposal exceeds the minimum required number of parking spaces. The developer stated this is necessary to meet market expectations and to assure adequate guest parking in addition to the parking required for residents. The Hearing Officer notes that the additional parking is aggregated in parking lots that separate Buildings 8, 9, 10 and 12 from the rest of the development. This configuration also results in those buildings being accessed primarily from a parking lot rather than a residential street. In addition, the front of Buildings 8, 9 and 10 face the rear of buildings 21, 22 and 23. Although this configuration complies with the letter of the standards in Article 3, the configuration effectively results in those buildings being somewhat segregated from the rest of the development and being primarily oriented toward a parking lot, which does not comply with the spirit and overall intent of the Land Use Code. The Hearing Officer recommends that the developer attempt to scatter some of the extra parking throughout the development and provide an ample tree buffer between the rear access of Buildings 21-23 and the front of Buildings 8 — 10. SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS A. The Lincoln Park Project Development Plan is subject to administrative review and the requirements of the Land Use Code (LUC). B. The Lincoln Park Project Development Plan is consistent with the adopted East Mulberry Corridor Plan. C. The Lincoln Park Project Development Plan complies with all applicable district standards of Section 4.6 of the Land Use Code provided the 5 Lincoln Park PDP Administrative Hearing Findings, Conclusions, and Decision June 28, 2007 Page 4 of 6 A. The Project Development Plan complies with all applicable requirements of Article 4 and the MMN zone district. The Staff Report summarizes the PDP's compliance with these standards. In particular the project complies with the Land Use and Density standards, in that it consists of attached multi -family dwellings, single family attached dwellings and carriage houses, and meets the minimum density requirement for the MMS zone. The lot pattern complies with Section 4.6(D)(2)(d) with the exception of Buildings 15 and 16, which do not front directly on a public street. Those units are connected to the street and public sidewalk through a pedestrian spine, thus satisfying the standard. The Hearing Officer has additional concerns about Buildings 8, 9, 10 and 12 in that although they face toward streets they are primarily oriented towards parking lots. Those concerns are discussed more fully below. Section 4.6(D)(3) requires at least ninety percent of the dwellings to be located within 1,320 feet of a privately owned park or a central feature or gathering place that is located either within the project or within adjacent development. The proposed pool area complies with the size, location and accessibility criteria for a privately owned park. The Hearing Officer finds that it does not fully comply with Section 4.6(D)(3)(b)4 in that the proposed design shows the use limited to a small swimming pool, which does not allow for a variety of uses by various age groups. The developer testified at the hearing that the storm drainage detention area would be very shallow and would be designed with slopes that will allow recreational use of that area. Based on that testimony, the Hearing Officer finds that the pool together with the storm drainage area comply with Section 4.6(D)(3). B. Development Standards Speck to the MMN District Section 4.6 (E)(1) requires that each development be composed of complete blocks bounded by public or private streets and within a prescribed maximum size in order to promote attractive streets that provide direct pedestrian movements. The proposal meets the design requirements of this section since block sizes range from just under 2 acres to 4.7 acres, which is substantially less than the 7 acre maximum. More than 50% of the block faces consist of building frontages. No buildings exceed 3 stories. 5. Compliance with Article 3 of the Land Use Code — General Development Standards 4 i Lincoln Park PDP Administrative Hearing Findings, Conclusions, and Decision June 28, 2007 Page 3 of 6 None FACTS AND FINDINGS 1. Background The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: N: R-L; Existing Single Family Housing (Andersonville Subdivision, Via Lopez/San Cristo) with Single Family Housing (Alta Vista) and Agricultural beyond. S: C; Bull Run Apartments, Wal-Mart E: I; Vacant; Existing Industrial Uses W: I; Vacant; Existing Industrial Uses The property was annexed in December 1994 as part of the East Lincoln Third Annexation. A City Plan Structure Plan map designation amendment and rezoning from I -Industrial to M-M-N was approved in 2002. No neighborhood meeting was required for this project and none was held. 3. Compliance with the East Mulberry Corridor Plan The site is located within the boundary area of the East Mulberry Corridor Plan. With a Land Use designation of "Medium Density Residential' on the adopted Framework Plan, the Project is consistent with the Plan. The Proposed Street Network Plan identifies the relocation of Lemay Avenue to accommodate a grade separated intersection at Vine Drive, realignment of Lincoln Avenue, and construction of an extension to Duff Drive. All three of these future street improvements will directly impact the Project. A small corner of the property, to be platted as Tract 1 and containing 14, 903 sq. ft. in area, is located within the boundary area of the Northside Neighborhoods Plan. This parcel will remain undeveloped although it lies within the PDP boundary. 4. Compliance with Article 4 and the MMN— Medium Density Mixed Use Neighborhood District Standards: 3 Lincoln Park PDP Administrative Hearing Findings, Conclusions, and Decision June 28, 2007 Page 2 of 6 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING: Evidence presented to the Hearing Officer established no controversy or facts to refute that the hearing was properly posted, legal notices mailed and notice published. The Hearing Officer, presiding pursuant to the Fort Collins Land Use Code, opened the hearing at approximately 4:05 p.m. on June 28, 2007 in Conference Room A, 281 N. College Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. HEARING TESTIMONY, WRITTEN COMMENTS AND OTHER EVIDENCE: The Hearing Officer accepted during the hearing the following evidence: (1) Planning Department Staff Report; (2) application, plans, maps and other supporting documents submitted by the applicant and the applicant's representatives to the City of Fort Collins; and (3) a tape recording of public testimony provided during the hearing. The LUC, the City's Comprehensive Plan (City Plan), and the formally promulgated policies of the City are all considered part of the evidence considered by the Hearing Officer. The following is a list of those who attended the meeting: From the City: Cameron Gloss, Planning and Zoning Director From the Applicant: Jon Prouty, Applicant Kaye Vincent, Lagunitas Companies Shane Boyle, North Star Design Louise Herbert, VF Ripley Associates From the Public: Dan and Shirley Ellsworth, 1101 E. Lincoln Avenue Norman Royval, 4310 Woody Creek Lane Bruce Griffith, 2910 S.E. Frontage Road Written Comments: Fj Lincoln Park PDP a� Administrative Hearing Findings, Conclusions, and Decision June 28, 2007 Page 1 of 6 CITY OF FORT COLLINS ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER TYPE I ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING DATE: PROJECT NAME: CASE NUMBER: APPLICANT: OWNER: HEARING OFFICER: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: June 28, 2007 Lincoln Park Project Development Plan 40-94G Lagunitas Companies Go Jon Prouty 3944 JFK Parkway, Suite 12E Fort Collins, CO 80525 Webster Associates 705 Kirtley Road Lusk, WY 82225 Claire B. Levy, Attorney The Applicant has submitted a Project Development Plan (referred to herein as the "Project" or the "PDP") proposing a 166 dwelling units within 23 buildings on 15.5 gross acres. The housing types include a mix of 121 townhouses, 27 flats, 6 attached units and 12 carriage houses above garages. Primary access will be via Lincoln Avenue and through newly dedicated streets internal to the site. The property is located at the northeast corner of Lincoln and Lemay Avenues. SUMMARY OF HEARING OFFICER DECISION: Approval subject to conditions ZONING DISTRICT: M-M-N, Medium Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood