The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCAPSTONE COTTAGES - PDP - PDP140004 - REPORTS - CITY STAFFConsideration of Appeal of the Decision to Approve the Capstone Cottages Project Development Plan Capstone Cottages Appeal Project Summary: 12/3/15 - Type I Administrative Hearing held for the Capstone Cottages Project Development Plan (PDP) 12/17/15 - Hearing Officer issued a decision to approve the PDP 12/30/15 - Notice of Appeal submitted 2 Assertions of Appeal 3 1. The Hearing Officer failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Land Use Code by approving the project for:  Section 3.5.1 – Building and Project Compatibility  Section 3.6.4 – Transportation Level of Service Requirements Assertions of Appeal 4 2. The Hearing Officer failed to conduct a fair hearing in that specifically:  Section 2.2.7 – Public Hearing  Decision Maker substantially ignored its previously established rules of procedure, and was biased against the appellant Capstone Cottages PDP  Request for PDP for 201 dwelling units on 28.29 acres  Net residential density 8.17 dwelling units per acre  888 Bedrooms (Extra Occupancy)  738 parking spaces  Club house and pool/recreation center  Interim street connections to Lemay  Proposed round-a-bout intersection on E. Lincoln  Site zoned Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood  Request for modification of standard for the M-M-N density 5 Assertions of Appeal 6 1. The Hearing Officer failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Land Use Code by approving the project for:  Section 3.5.1 – Building and Project Compatibility Assertions of Appeal 7 Summary of Assertions in the Appeal:  “The PDP does not comply with Section 3.5.1  …design of buildings are not truly residential in character  …not compatible with…neighborhoods to north…east  …PDP proposes weak buffer …between residential buildings and the industrial neighborhood…  …PDP does not provide a transition… to single-family residential uses to the north and west.” LUC Article Three – General Development Standards 8 Section 3.5.1 – Building and Project Compatibility:  Compatible with established architectural character in area  Or set enhanced standard of quality for new development in area  Building size, height, mass, and scale  Compatible building materials From Hearing Presentation Established Architectural Character in Area From Hearing Presentation 9 Capstone Cottages Proposed Building Design From Hearing Presentation 10 11 Evidence pertinent to the Assertion from the Hearing Officer Findings (Page 2):  PDP complies with Section 3.5.1…  Buildings are residential in character  Compatible with residential neighborhoods  PDP proposes buffer between residential buildings and industrial  PDP provides a transition from these more intense land uses to the single-family residential uses to the north  Hearing Officer only permitted to consider compatibility of buildings…not compatibility of eventual occupants… Building and Project Compatibility Section 4.6 – Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhoods 12 Evidence pertinent to the Assertion from the Staff Report (Page 5):  The Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood District is intended to be a setting for concentrated housing within easy walking distance of transit and a commercial district… form a transition and a link between surrounding neighborhoods and the commercial core … 13 Evidence pertinent to the Assertion from the Staff Report (Page 5):  PDP consistent with stated purpose of the zone district  Provides higher density housing within walking distance to commercial center/transit service  Provides land use transition/link between surrounding neighborhoods and commercial center Section 4.6 – Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhoods Assertions of Appeal 14 1. The Hearing Officer failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Land Use Code by approving the project for:  Section 3.6.4 – Transportation Level of Service Requirements Assertions of Appeal 15 Summary of Assertions in the Appeal:  The PDP does not comply with Section 3.6.4 – Transportation Level of Service Requirements…  …Traffic Impact Study…will not maintain the City’s adopted Level of Service standards…  …PDP will impact the traffic is all areas  …concerns from the owners, industrial area to the east about parking and traffic…  …Adequate Public Facilities has not been factored due to the forecasting by the applicant… 16 Evidence pertinent to the Assertion from the Staff Report (Page 11-12):  Capstone Cottages provides for vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle facilities necessary to maintain the City’s adopted Level of Service Standards... Evidence pertinent to the Assertion from the Staff Report (Page 18):  …The Vine and Lemay intersection meets overall level of service criteria and adequate public facilities are not triggered based on the traffic projections of the traffic study… Section 3.6.4 – Transportation LOS Requirements Section 3.6.4 – Transportation LOS Requirements 17 Evidence pertinent to the Assertion from the submitted Traffic Impact Study (March, 2015)):  ...the submitted traffic impact study dated March 2015 did not assume the Lemay re-alignment in the short term future (2019).  …The level of service requirements had to be met assuming full build-out of Capstone and only existing or planned and funded improvements that will be completed in the short term.…  The…20-year analysis is a planning level review and did include re-alignment as well as significant regional and area growth. Section 3.6.4 – Transportation LOS Requirements 18 Evidence pertinent to the Assertion from the Hearing Officer Findings and Decision (Page 3):  The PDP complies with Section 3.6.4, Transportation Level of Service Requirements, because the Transportation Impact Study submitted with the application demonstrates that the PDP, as designed, will maintain the City's adopted Level of Service standards. More specifically, the PDP has been designed to minimize traffic impacts to the neighborhoods to the north by keeping traffic off of Lemay Avenue, at least until Lemay Avenue is realigned. Concerns of Traffic to the East 19 Evidence pertinent to the Assertion from the submitted Traffic Impact Study (March, 2015)):  The Traffic Impact Study dated March 2015 assumed only nominal traffic from Capstone using the new Webster and Duff connections. Evidence pertinent to the Assertion from the Staff Report (Page 26-27):  The amount of traffic that we expect might go to the east…that would be via Webster or Duff or even Lincoln, would be on the order of 5%. And that turns out to be single digit numbers in the peak hours, single digit vehicle numbers…so it’s a very small number… Assertions of Appeal 20 2. The Appellants assert that the Hearing Officer failed to properly conduct a fair hearing in that:  …The Decision Maker substantially ignored its previously established rules of procedure, and was biased against the appellant.  …The Decision Maker failed to ask residents questions pertaining to what was shared at the hearing by residents. Section 2.2.7 – Public Hearing 21 Evidence pertinent to the Assertion from the Order of Proceedings Board used at Hearing by the Hearing Officer: Section 2.2.7 – Public Hearing 22 Evidence pertinent to the Assertion from the Hearing Verbatim Transcript (Page 2):  Ms. Carberry:…The order of proceedings is right here (Order of Proceedings Board at Hearing – outlining 9-steps), except that we…will not be doing the project overview…typically we do the applicant presentation first…Okay, so we’re going to skip number one, other than that, that’s the order of proceedings.  …we’ll limit each person’s comments to five minutes… rather than have a back and forth, is if you have questions, please state your questions…both the City and the applicant will write them down…then I’ll give them an opportunity to answer them after everyone is done… Consideration of Appeal of the Decision to Approve the Capstone Cottages Project Development Plan Resource Slides 25 PDP Background PDP Background 26 Capstone Cottages Site Lemay Ave PDP Background 27 LUC Article Three – Section 3.2.2 – Access and Circulation 28 Site Access:  Lemay Ave  Lincoln Ave  New Minor Arterial St.  Webster Ave  Duff Drive  Internal Private Drives Ex. Zoning/Land Use 29 Resource Slide Master Street Plan 30 Zoning 31 East Mulberry Corridor Plan 32