Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBRICK STONE APARTMENTS ON HARMONY - PDP ..... APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL - PDP160019 - AGENDA - CITY STAFF1 Consideration of Two Notices of Appeal of the Planning and Zoning Board Decision to Approve the Brick Stone Apartments on Harmony Project Development Plan City Council Hearing - December 6, 2016 Brick Stone Apartments on Harmony PDP 2 Project Overview:  Request for PDP for 3-story multi-family apartment building with lower level parking located at 201 E. Harmony Road  116 dwelling units (176 bedrooms) on 5 acres  Providing 197 parking spaces  Limited access to site from Harmony (shared access drive)  Proposed multi-family use permitted in Harmony Corridor zone District subject to Planning and Zoning Board Review 3 Brick Stone Apartments on Harmony PDP - Appeal Project Summary: 10/13/16 - Type II Planning and Zoning Board Hearing held and decision made to approve the Brick Stone Apartments on Harmony Project Development Plan (PDP) 10/27/16 - Two Notices of Appeal submitted 12/5/16 - City Council site visit 12/6/16 - City Council Hearing 4 Brick Stone Apartments on Harmony PDP - Appeal Notices of Appeal: 1. Amanda Morgan (Harmony Road Apartments) 301 E. Harmony Road 2. David Agee and David Ramsey (Fairway Estates HOA) 4635 Venturi Lane/4675 Venturi Lane Assertion of Notice of Appeal No. 1 5 The Hearing Officer failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the City Code, Land Use Code, and Charter:  Land Use Code Section 1.2.2 (C) The purpose of this Code is to improve and protect the public health, safety and welfare by: (C) Fostering the safe, efficient and economic use of land, the city’ s transportation infrastructure, and other public facilities and services. Assertions of Notice of Appeal No. 1 6 The Appellant states: “Testimony was offered at the…Board hearing stating that the Brick Stone Apartments project does not meet these sections of the Code…” “…The majority of the residents are dependent on mobility devices…who will have to cope with the safety issues…because of the shared driveway concept…Because of our special needs, we are extremely concerned that our safety and lives will be at risk”... 7 The Appellants reference the Land Use Code Article 1 for basis of Appeal Assertions Article 1  Provides general provisions and purpose statements, which are not considered regulatory  Provides a basis for the more prescriptive standards in Articles 2, 3 and 4 Notice of Appeal No. 1 – Findings Pertinent and related to Appeal Assertion Pertaining to LUC Section 1.2.2. 8 The Appellants reference the Land Use Code Article 1 for basis of Appeal Assertions  Staff evaluates development review applications including the Brick Stone Apartments on Harmony PDP for compliance with the general purposes and intent in the Land Use Code Article 1; and  As the project complies with the related more specific requirements of Articles 2, 3 and 4, and requirements in the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards (LCUASS) Notice of Appeal No. 1 – Findings Pertinent and related to Appeal Assertion Pertaining to LUC Section 1.2.2. 9 Notice of Appeal No. 1 – Findings Pertinent and related to Appeal Assertion Pertaining to LUC Section 1.2.2. Evidence pertinent to the Assertion is obtained from information available at the Planning and Zoning Board Hearing including:  Staff Report  Verbatim Transcripts  Hearing presentation  Other files on record 10 Notice of Appeal No. 1 – Findings Pertinent and related to Appeal Assertion Pertaining to LUC Section 1.2.2. Harmony Corridor Access Control:  Harmony Corridor Plan and Harmony Access Control Plan determine site access for properties within Harmony corridor  201 E. Harmony (Project Site) is required to have one access point  Access to site is by a shared drive located at 301 E. Harmony (Harmony Road Apartments)  Site access is limited to a right-in and right-out configuration 11 Notice of Appeal No. 1 – Findings Pertinent and related to Appeal Assertion Pertaining to LUC Section 1.2.2. Harmony Corridor Access Control:  Shared access drive is located further to east from College Ave to minimize traffic conflicts and improve safety  Access control not allowing any left turn movements at shared drive  Reflects safer approach for accesses onto these higher speed arterial roadways  Project adding a 3rd travel lane on Harmony – extending ability for turning movement to merge into through traffic better along entire frontage 12 Notice of Appeal No. 1 – Findings Pertinent and related to Appeal Assertion Pertaining to LUC Section 1.2.2. Shared Access Drive:  With approval of the Harmony Road Apartments Project (Fort Collins Supportive Housing) the access drive includes a 40 foot access easement for 201 E. Harmony – Project site  Drive aisle width is 30 feet for shared access, vs. the standard 24 foot drive aisle  The wider access drive is planned for additional traffic volume for both the existing Harmony Apartments and Brick Stone Apartments 13 Notice of Appeal No. 1 – Findings Pertinent and related to Appeal Assertion Pertaining to LUC Section 1.2.2. Pedestrian Safety:  Project completes sidewalk system in area filling the gap between College Avenue and JFK/Hogan intersections along Harmony  Provides a direct connection from access drive to enhanced crosswalks at JFK and Hogan at Harmony and College and Harmony for reaching destinations in all directions  Provides direct access to new bus stop on Harmony 14 Notice of Appeal No. 1 – Findings Pertinent and related to Appeal Assertion Pertaining to LUC Section 1.2.2. Maintenance of access drive:  Applicant will continually maintain access drive  Including maintain sidewalks along frontage of Harmony and connections to apartments 15 Notice of Appeal No. 1 – Findings Pertinent and related to Appeal Assertion Pertaining to LUC Section 1.2.2. Compliance with Land Use Code (LUC) Requirements:  Based on Traffic Study, no additional improvements warranted at the College/Harmony intersection or the JFK/Hogan and Harmony intersection  Project meets all LUC transportation level of service requirements for bikes, pedestrians, transit and automobiles  Project improves safety for all travel modes in area Assertion of Notice of Appeal No. 2 16 The Hearing Officer failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the City Code, Land Use Code, and Charter:  Land Use Code Article 1, Section 1.2.2 (C) (E) (I) (M) (N) Assertion of Notice of Appeal No. 2 17 The purpose of this Code is to improve and protect the public health, safety and welfare by: (C) Fostering the safe, efficient and economic use of land, the city’ s transportation infrastructure, and other public facilities and services. (E) avoiding the inappropriate development of lands and providing for adequate drainage and reduction of flood damage. (I) minimizing the adverse environmental impacts of development. (M) ensuring that development proposals are sensitive to the character of existing neighborhoods. (N) ensuring that development proposals are sensitive to natural areas and features. Assertions of Notice of Appeal No. 2 18 The Appellants state: “Testimony was offered at the…hearing stating that the…project does not meet these sections of the Code. More testimony will be offered at the City Council Appeal Hearing in support of these allegations…” 19 Notice of Appeal No. 2 – Findings Pertinent and related to Appeal Assertion Pertaining to LUC Section 1.2.2. Traffic Safety:  Harmony Corridor Plan and Harmony Access Control Plan determine site access for properties within Harmony corridor  201 E. Harmony (Project Site) is required to have one access point  Access to site is by a shared drive located at 301 E. Harmony (Harmony Road Apartments)  Site access is limited to a right-in and right-out configuration 20 Notice of Appeal No. 2 – Findings Pertinent and related to Appeal Assertion Pertaining to LUC Section 1.2.2. Traffic Safety:  Shared access drive is located further to east from College Ave to minimize traffic conflicts and improve safety  Access control not allowing any left turn movements at shared drive  Reflects safer approach for accesses onto these higher speed arterial roadways  Project adding a 3rd travel lane on Harmony – extending ability for turning movement to merge into through traffic better along entire frontage 21 Notice of Appeal No. 2 – Findings Pertinent and related to Appeal Assertion Pertaining to LUC Section 1.2.2. Traffic Safety:  With the limited access, all trips into the site must come from the west  All trips leaving the site will head to the east  This is typical of all right-in, right-out accesses on arterials, which are further controlled by continuous medians  There are allowed U-turn movements at these intersections  If…those turn movements were taken away…there…are some options that are available 22 Notice of Appeal No. 2 – Findings Pertinent and related to Appeal Assertion Pertaining to LUC Section 1.2.2. Traffic Safety:  A key to a successful access control plan are either re-circulation roads, such as Mason and JFK which get people back out to other signalized intersections so they can go different directions, or the allowance of U-turns  Left turns that are being made, or the U-turns that would be made, would also be done under protected left-turn arrows, which are significantly safer  People generally make left, or U-turns, when it’s safe and reasonable to do so  There are numerous right-in, right-out accesses all over the city; they are becoming more common…a normal course of urban access control 23 Notice of Appeal No. 2 – Findings Pertinent and related to Appeal Assertion Pertaining to LUC Section 1.2.2. Traffic Safety:  Based on Traffic Study, no additional improvements warranted at the College/Harmony intersection or the JFK/Hogan and Harmony intersection  Project meets all LUC transportation level of service requirements for bikes, pedestrians, transit and automobiles  Project meets technical requirements of the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards  Project improves safety for all travel modes in area 24 Notice of Appeal No. 2 – Findings Pertinent and related to Appeal Assertion Pertaining to LUC Section 1.2.2. Pedestrian Safety:  Harmony Corridor Plan and Harmony Access Control Plan determine site access for properties within Harmony corridor  201 E. Harmony (Project Site) is required to have one access point  Access to site is by a shared drive located at 301 E. Harmony (Harmony Road Apartments)  Site access is limited to a right-in and right-out configuration 25 Notice of Appeal No. 2 – Findings Pertinent and related to Appeal Assertion Pertaining to LUC Section 1.2.2. Pedestrian Safety:  U-turns that would be made, would also be done under protected left-turn arrows, which are significantly safer. That’s not in conflict with other flows of traffic, with pedestrians  Pedestrian phases always come on with the through movements, not the left turns, and that there’s no accident history at all that says that U-turns are dangerous  People generally make left, or U-turns, when it’s safe and reasonable to do so 26 Notice of Appeal No. 2 – Findings Pertinent and related to Appeal Assertion Pertaining to LUC Section 1.2.2. Pedestrian Safety:  As for the crossing over, Harmony Road is one of the most heavily travelled roadways in the community. The median is landscaped  This actually completes the sidewalks system in the area  It connects them to two enhanced crosswalks, either at JFK and Hogan and at Harmony Road…or at College Avenue. So it does improve safety. The project is also adding a bus stop 27 Notice of Appeal No. 2 – Findings Pertinent and related to Appeal Assertion Pertaining to LUC Section 1.2.2. Environmental Impact:  Site contains .037 acres of fringe low value wetlands as part of Mail Creek Impoundment  The general buffer distance for wetlands less than one-third of an acre is 50 feet  This project is proposing a natural habitat buffer zone of 1.58 acres covering approximately 36% of the site area; the average buffer width is 68 feet  Below dammed structure…would start with a 100-foot buffer…for tributaries to Fossil Creek…but that does not start until well after this section 28 Notice of Appeal No. 2 – Findings Pertinent and related to Appeal Assertion Pertaining to LUC Section 1.2.2. Environmental Impact:  The Ecological Characterization Study discovered no known occurrences of habitat for sensitive or specially valued species… and overall ecological value as low  Project providing enhanced landscaping for highest value habitat with native planting materials in buffer area of site  Proposed building and parking moved from highest ecological value and remaining impacts mitigated 29 Notice of Appeal No. 2 – Findings Pertinent and related to Appeal Assertion Pertaining to LUC Section 1.2.2. Storm Drainage Impact:  Project meets/exceeds Stormwater Criteria for water quality treatment, Low Impact Development (LID) and detention for larger storms  The requirement of the Code is for 50% standard water quality treatment and 50% LID treatment  Improves water quality leaving site with 100% LID treatments  The water quality actually entered into the Mail Creek drainage is improved… there’s improved water quality going into the drainage area below site 30 Notice of Appeal No. 2 – Findings Pertinent and related to Appeal Assertion Pertaining to LUC Section 1.2.2. Storm Drainage Impact:  Reduces runoff from the site in major storm events by on-site detention  Releases developed runoff at a 2-year historical undeveloped release rate  No impact to floodplain/floodway or downstream flooding because of the onsite detention and slower release rate of those storms Assertions of Notice of Appeal No. 2 31 The Hearing Officer failed to conduct a fair hearing, in that: The Board considered evidence relevant to its findings, which was substantially false or grossly misleading.  The Appellants intend to introduce new testimony from a traffic engineer that the Traffic Study for the project is grossly misleading as to current and future traffic conditions.  And introduce new testimony from a stormwater engineer that the Drainage Report for the project does not address the dangers of building such a project in close proximity to the floodway. Assertions of Notice of Appeal No. 2 32 The Hearing Officer failed to conduct a fair hearing, in that: The Board considered evidence relevant to its findings, which was substantially false or grossly misleading.  Staff has not received any new information from the Appellants since the Hearing to support their assertions, and as a result is unable to appropriately respond to these claims listed above as part of this Agenda Item Summary. Resource Slides 33 Transportation Improvements 34 Site New Transit Stop Site New 3rd Travel/Turn Lane New Sidewalk Shared Access Drive Fringe Wetlands and Buffer Area 35 50’ Buffer Area Fringe Wetlands Site Context of Area 36 Site