HomeMy WebLinkAboutGRIT ATHLETICS FACILITY - PDP - PDP160024 - DECISION - FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & DECISION1
11/17/2016
Q:\USERS\FORT COLLINS LAND USE\GRIT\DECISION-110716.DOCX
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
TYPE 1 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING
FINDINGS AND DECISION
HEARING DATE: November 7, 2016
PROJECT NAME: GRIT Athletics Facility
CASE NUMBER: PDP 160024
APPLICANT: RSW Holdings LLC
c/o TB Group
444 Mountain Avenue
Berthoud, CO 80513
OWNER: RSW Holdings LLC
2120 Milestone Drive
Fort Collins, CO 80516
HEARING OFFICER: Kendra L. Carberry
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request to build a one-story, 7,545-square-foot building on a
vacant lot at 846 S.E. Frontage Road, to be used as a non-profit wrestling facility. Approximately
4,784 square feet will be devoted to limited indoor recreation, 1,694 square feet will be used as
office space, and 1,067 square feet will be used for equipment storage. There will be 19 parking
spaces.
SUMMARY OF DECISION: Approved
ZONE DISTRICT: General Commercial (CG)
HEARING: The Hearing Officer opened the hearing at approximately 5:30 p.m. on November 7,
2016, in the Conference Room A, 281 North College Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado.
EVIDENCE: During the hearing, the Hearing Officer accepted the following evidence:
(1) Planning Department Staff Report; (2) application, plans, maps and other supporting
documents submitted by the applicant; and (3) a copy of the public notice (the formally
promulgated policies of the City are all considered part of the record considered by the Hearing
Officer).
TESTIMONY: The following persons testified at the hearing:
From the City: Ted Shepard
From the Applicant: Cathy Mathis, James Olson, Mike Oberlander
From the Public: Shelley MacDonald
2
11/17/2016
Q:\USERS\FORT COLLINS LAND USE\GRIT\DECISION-110716.DOCX
FINDINGS
1. Evidence presented to the Hearing Officer established the fact that the hearing was
properly posted, legal notices mailed and notice published.
2. The PDP complies with the Northern Colorado I-25 Corridor Plan – Regional
Communities (2001) and the I-25 Sub-area Plan (2003).
3. The PDP complies with the applicable General Development Standards contained in
Article 3 of the Code.
a. The PDP complies with Section 3.2.1, Landscaping and Tree Protection, because
existing trees will be preserved and additional trees and shrubs will be provided around all
four sides of the site.
b. The PDP complies with Section 3.2.1(E)(4)(a)(b), Parking Lot Perimeter
Landscaping, because the parking lot along the southwest edge of the property, facing the
Honda Motorcycle Dealership, includes various shrubs.
c. The PDP complies with Section 3.2.1(E)(5), Parking Lot Interior Landscaping,
because the parking lot includes three landscape islands along the southwest edge, with
one tree per island.
d. The PDP complies with Section 3.2.2(B), Access, Circulation and Parking, because
existing private driveways lead to the parking lot, which includes 19 stalls.
e. The PDP complies with Section 3.2.2(C)(4), Bicycle Parking, because the PDP
provides four bicycle parking spaces, one of which is enclosed.
f. The PDP complies with Section 3.2.2(C)(5), Walkways, because a walkway links
the front door of the building to the public sidewalk along the Southeast Frontage Road.
g. The PDP complies with Section 3.2.2(J), Setbacks, because the Southeast Frontage
Road is classified as a local street, and the vehicular use area is separated from the street
by more than 10'.
h. The PDP complies with Section 3.2.2(K)(2), Non-residential Parking
Requirements, because the PDP includes 19 on-site parking spaces.
i. The PDP complies with Section 3.2.4, Site Lighting, because pole-mounted and
building-mounted lighting will feature sharp cut-off and fully shielded luminaries.
j. The PDP complies with Section 3.2.5, Trash and Recycling Enclosure, because the
enclosure will feature exterior masonry materials that match the building, and a solid gate.
k. The PDP complies with Section 3.4.1(E)(I), Establishment of Buffer Zones, Design
and Aesthetics, because the PDP will not degrade the limited off-site ecological features.
3
11/17/2016
Q:\USERS\FORT COLLINS LAND USE\GRIT\DECISION-110716.DOCX
Any visual impacts to the Boxelder Creek corridor are mitigated by a row of large, dense
shrubs planted along the southeastern boundary of the property.
l. The PDP complies with Section 3.5.3(C)(1), Relationship of Buildings to Streets,
Walkways and Parking – Orientation to a Connecting Walkway, because the southwest
building entrance is as close to the street as possible and features 2 full-height windows.
m. The PDP complies with Section 3.5.3(D)(E), Commercial Architecture, because
the building features architectural details that break up the mass, articulate the facades and
do not duplicate a standardized prototype design.
4. The PDP complies with the applicable standards contained in Article 4 of the Code for the
CG zone district.
a. The PDP complies with Section 4.21(B)(2), Land Use, because a Limited Indoor
Recreational Facility less than 5,000 square feet is a permitted use in the CG zone subject
to Administrative Review.
b. The PDP complies with Section 4.21(E)(2), Site Design, because it provides for a
continuous detached sidewalk, with street trees, which links the PDP on both sides to the
business park.
5. The Modification of Standard (Section 3.9.5(A)(1)) meets the applicable requirements of
Section 2.8.2(H) of the Code:
a. The Modification will not be detrimental to the public good.
b. The flat roof design proposed in the PDP will promote the general purpose of the
standard for which the Modification is requested equally well or better than would a plan
which complies with the standard because: there will no rooftop mechanical equipment
and that the location of the building is such that it is not highly visible from the elevated
interchange; there is no cohesive or unified architectural theme that establishes a
distinctive character; the site is an infill parcel lanked by two flat-roofed buildings; and as
such, the building, as designed, will match the context of the surrounding area.
ANALYSIS
Ms. MacDonald raised several concerns during the hearing on behalf of the Honda motorcycle
dealership adjacent to the PDP site. Those concerns focused on emergency access, trucks backing
up, overspray from washing motorcycles and payment for irrigation and electricity for landscaped
areas. At the hearing, the applicant agreed to adjust the landscaping in the overspray area, in
compliance with City standards. The applicant intends to obtain an access easement from the
owner of the property to the east, and the Colorado Department of Transportation supports the
shared access onto the frontage road. The applicant further agreed to take measures during
construction to assist trucks with access to the Honda property. Finally, the applicant agreed to
address the issue with the irrigation and electricity. As such, the Hearing Officer finds that the
concerns have or will be adequately addressed by the applicant and should not affect the approval
of the PDP.
4
11/17/2016
Q:\USERS\FORT COLLINS LAND USE\GRIT\DECISION-110716.DOCX
DECISION
Based on the foregoing findings, the Hearing Officer hereby enters the following rulings:
1. The PDP and Request for Modification are approved as submitted.
DATED this 17th day of November, 2016.
_____________________________________
Kendra L. Carberry
Hearing Officer