HomeMy WebLinkAboutPROSPECT 7-ELEVEN STORE NO. 35506 - PDP - PDP120002 - DECISION - CORRESPONDENCE-HEARINGProspect 7-Eleven Store No.;35506, PDP120002
Administrative Hearing Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
April 23, 2012
Page 9 of 9
SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS
The Hearing Officer makes the following findings of fact:
1. The proposed land use is permitted in the NC — Neighborhood
Commercial District.
2. The Project Development Plan complies with applicable General
Development Standards contained in Article 3, subject to two conditions.
3. The Project Development Plan complies with applicable district standards
of Section 4.23, N-C Zoning District.
DECISION
The Prospect 7-Eleven Store No. 35506, PDP120002 is hereby approved by the
Hearing Officer, subject to the following two conditions:
At the time of submittal for Final Plan, the outdoor storage of the
propane tanks shall be screened pursuant to Section 3.5.1(1).
2. At the time of submittal for Final Plan, the applicant shall provide a
driveway stub to the east property line, approximately 20 feet in width,
for the purpose of gaining cross -access among the various parcels
located within the Neighborhood Commercial zone district at the time
the adjoining parcel(s) undergo redevelopment. Interim landscape
features such as large planters may be substituted for a planting bed in
order to mitigate the additional hard surface.
Dated this 23`d day of April, 2012 per authority granted by Sections 1.4.9(E) and
2.1 of the Land Use Code.
Ted Shepard
Chief Planner
Prospect 7-Eleven Store No. 35506, PDP120002
Administrative Hearing Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
April 23, 2012
Page 8 of 9
With regard to lighting, the proposed lighting plan indicates that there are no foot-
candle measurements that exceed one -tenth as measured twenty feet from the
property line, thus complying with the applicable standard.
With regard to testimony as to rezoning the subject or surrounding parcels, there
is no proposed rezoning of the parcel. The corner is zoned N-C, Neighborhood
Commercial, which allows for convenience retail as a permitted use, subject to
administrative review. Nor are there plans to rezone any of the surrounding
residential properties into a non-residential zone district.
With regard to Section 3.2.2(A and B) — Access, Circulation and Parking, the plan
as submitted does not provide a driveway stub for future access to the property
to the east. Instead, the east property line features a continuous shrub bed. One
of the key design principles of development in the Neighborhood Commercial
zone district is inter -connectivity among various parcels. Parking lot perimeter
landscaping may provide openings in the required screening for the purpose of
providing an access way (Section 3.2.1(E)(4). While a prototypical commercial
center would be under single ownership, where cross -access would not be an
issue, this corner has been historically divided among various owners.
Therefore, it is incumbent upon each new project to provide the opportunity for
future cross -access. This prevents unnecessary congestion at the intersection.
Accordingly, the following condition of approval is mandated:
At the time of submittal for Final Plan, the applicant shall provide a
driveway stub to the east property line, approximately 20 feet in width, for
the purpose of gaining cross -access among the various parcels located
within the Neighborhood Commercial zone district at the time the adjoining
parcel(s) undergo redevelopment. Interim landscape features such as
large planters may be substituted for a planting bed in order to mitigate the
additional hard surface.
Prospect 7-Eleven Store No. 35506, PDP120002
Administrative Hearing Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
April 23, 2012
Page 7 of 9
There are a number of jurisdictions across the nation that indeed include
protections for local business establishments and restrict the number of chain
stores. These regulations define and refer to "formula business" and seek to
address issues primarily related to the fast food industry and large -format
retailers. While these examples demonstrate the wide range of issues
addressed by municipal zoning codes, the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code
does not contain any such provisions. The competitive aspects inherent in our
capitalistic system are left to the marketplace and not regulated by zoning. A
recent is example is the approval of a new King Soopers across the street from
an established Albertsons along North College Avenue.
Testimony related to safety, traffic mitigation, sight distance, access, lighting and
zoning, however, are in the public interest and found to be pertinent to the
evaluation of this project.
With regard to pedestrian and bicycle safety, traffic mitigation and sight distance,
these issues were analyzed by the Transportation Impact Study (T.I.S.) which is
required to be submitted to the City of Fort Collins for evaluation. The City's
Traffic Operations Department and Transportation Planning Department agree
with findings of the T.I.S. Essentially, the proposed P.D.P. improves the existing
condition from a traffic engineering perspective.
The current facility has four curb cuts, two along each street. The proposed
P.D.P. closes two curbs, one per street, leaving only two which are to be located
as far away from the intersection as practical. A variance to allow these
driveways to be less than 460 feet from the intersection was granted by the City
of Fort Collins Engineer. The granting of this variance is outside the purview and
jurisdiction of the Hearing Officer.
The current facility has no public sidewalks. The proposed P.D.P. adds two new
public sidewalks where there are currently none. There would be direct
connecting walkways between the public sidewalks and the two building
entrances without crossing a driveway.
The number of new vehicle trips compared to the existing facility is minor and
does not impact the intersection. There is no need for auxiliary turn lanes.
The proposed placement of the building has been analyzed and there is no sight
distance issue with respect to motorists being able to see other vehicles.
The site will continue to be served by bike lanes on both Prospect Road and
Overland Trail and by Transfort Routes 2 and 3.
Prospect 7-Eleven Store No. 35506, PDP120002
Administrative Hearing Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
April 23, 2012
Page 6 of 9
There is a concern that the project represents a rezoning to
commercial and that nearby residential properties could be re-
assessed to a higher tax rate as a result.
4. Applicant Response:
After public testimony, the applicant was allowed to respond to public testimony.
5. Staff Response:
Following the applicant response, staff was allowed to respond to both public
testimony and the applicant's response.
6. Questions:
At this point in the hearing, the public was invited to ask specific questions to
address any issue that may not have been covered or needed clarification. This
opportunity was limited to questions only and was not open to new testimony.
One question pertained to the future potential access with the adjoining property
to the east. Questions were referred to both staff and the applicant.
7. Written Testimony:
In addition, to public testimony at the hearing, written testimony has been
submitted. Fifteen letters were received. As with the verbal testimony, most of
the letters stated their opposition to the project primarily based on the support for
a locally owned business versus a nationally owned business. And, as with the
verbal testimony, the letter writers commented on the loss of convenience with
the proposed removal of the existing fueling facility.
8. Decision and Findings:
Both written and verbal public testimony are valuable components in
consideration of the subject Project Development Plan (P.D.P.). The testimony
regarding the community value of enjoying a long-established business that
offers a product at a competitive price was sincere, heartfelt and, at times,
emotional. The passion around this issue was heard loud and clear.
Prospect 7-Eleven Store No. 35506, PDP120002
Administrative Hearing Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
April 23, 2012
Page 5 of 9
• The existing business is locally owned and operated, highly
regarded and has been serving the neighborhood for decades. In
contrast, the proposed business is a nationally owned and operated
business. The City of Fort Collins should be encouraging local
businesses versus national businesses.
• There is a concern that the proposed convenience store will be a
formidable competitor and put the existing convenience store
located on the adjoining property to the east out of business.
• The existing U-Pump-It is conveniently located and serves a wide
trade area. The loss of this fueling facility will mean longer trips to
and from more distant gas stations resulting in inconvenience and a
higher number of vehicle miles travelled. In addition, the existing
facility sells gas at a price lower than the nearest competition so
customers not only have to drive further but pay more.
• There is a concern that there will be an increase in traffic in the
neighborhood. Public roadway improvements should anticipate a
redevelopment of the land owned by Colorado State University
around Hughes Stadium. Accordingly, there should be
consideration given to constructing medians in both streets so that
the driveways are restricted to right -in / right -out turn movements
only.
There is a concern about the proposed retail convenience store
having a negative impact on the general safety for pedestrians and
bicyclists in the immediate area. Since both Prospect Road and
Overland Trail are classified as arterial streets, crossing each
should be safe, especially for children and senior citizens.
• The proposed driveway on Prospect Road is too close to the
intersection and does not meet minimum requirements per City
regulations.
• The placement of the proposed building will create a blind corner
for motorists at the intersection.
0 The lighting will be intrusive.
Prospect 7-Eleven Store No. 35506, PDP120002
Administrative Hearing Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
April 23, 2012
Page 4 of 9
d. Section 3.2.1(E)(5) — Parking Lot Interior Landscaping
e. Section 3.2.1(E)(6) —Screening
2. Section 3.2.2 — Access, Circulation and Parking
a. Section 3.2.2(K)(2) — Maximum Parking Allowance
3. Section 3.2.4 — Site Lighting
B. Division 3.3.5 — Engineering Design Standards
C. Division 3.5.1 — Building and Project Compatibility
1. Section 3.5.1(E)(F) — Materials and Color
2. Section 3.5.1(1) — Outdoor Storage
Propane tanks for sale will be located on the east side of the
building, just north of the east entrance, over 20 feet from
West Prospect Road. It is recommended that this area be
screened using similar colors or materials as the building.
3. Section 3.5.1 (J) — Operational/Physical Compatibility
4. Section 3.5.3,(B)(1) - Orientation to a Connecting Walkway
5. Sections 3.5.3 (D)(1-6) — Character and Image
D. Division 3.6.4 — Transportation, Circulation, Level of Service
3. Public Testimony:
Nineteen citizens provided public testimony. The key issues and concerns
presented during public testimony are summarized below.
The preponderance of testimony addressed a variety of issues pertaining to the
loss of the existing business establishment, U-Pump-It. Since this business
currently operates on a ground lease, the pending sale of the land by the owner,
Peerless Tyre Company, to the applicant, Verdad Real Estate, for the
construction of a new 7-Eleven retail store, would mean removal of the existing
building, gas pumps and underground gasoline storage tanks. Regarding these
and other issues, testimony included the following:
Prospect 7-Eleven Store No. 35506, PDP120002
Administrative Hearing Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
April 23, 2012
Page 3 of 9
FACTS AND FINDINGS
This Project Development Plan complies with the applicable requirements of the
City of Fort Collins Land Use Code more specifically:
• Division 2.2 - Common Development Review Procedures for Development
Applications — Article Two;
• Division 3.2 - Site Planning and Design Standards, Division 3.3 -
Engineering Standards, Division 3.5 - Building Standards, and Division 3.6
- Transportation and Circulation — Article 3;
• Division 4.23 Neighborhood Commercial — Article 4.
Convenience retail stores are permitted in the N-C — Neighborhood Commercial
zone district, subject to an admigistrative review. The P.D.P. complies with the
purpose of the N-C zone as it provides a convenience retail store that would be
part of an existing neighborhood commercial area.
1. Division 4.23 — Neighborhood Commercial District
The PDP meets the applicable Development Standards:
1. Section 4.23(E)(1) — Site Planning.
2. Section 4.23(E)(2) — Block Requirements.
2. Article 3 — General Development Standards
The Prospect 7-Eleven store complies with all applicable General
Development Standards:
A. Division 3.2 — Site Planning and Design Standards
1. Section 3.2.1 — Landscaping and Tree Protection
a. Sections 3.2.1(D)(2)(a,b,c) —Street Trees
b. Section 3.2.1(D)(3) —Minimum Species Diversity
c. Section 3.2.1 (E)(4)(a) — Parking Lot Perimeter Landscaping
Prospect 7-Eleven Store No. 35506, PDP120002
Administrative Hearing Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
April 23, 2012
Page 2 of 9
that the hearing was properly posted, legal
notices mailed and notice published.
PUBLIC HEARING
The Hearing Officer, presiding pursuant to the Fort Collins Land Use Code,
opened the hearing at approximately 5:15 p.m. on April 18, 2012 in Conference
Room A at 281 North 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; (3) a sign up sheet of persons
attending the hearing; (4) written comments; and (5) a tape recording of the
hearing. The Land Use Code, 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:
Courtney Levingston, City Planner
From the Applicant:
Jen Volin, Verdad Real Estate, 1121 Grant Street, Denver, CO. 80203
From the Public:
Nineteen citizens provided public testimony.
Written Comments:
Fifteen letters were received from interested citizens.
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:
April 18, 2012
Prospect 7-Eleven #35506
PDP120002
Verdad Real Estate
1121 Grant Street
Denver, CO. 80203
Peerless Tyre Company
5000 Kingston Street
Denver, CO. 80239
Ted Shepard
Chief Planner
This is a request for a convenience retail store (without fuel sales) on a 0.357
acre site located at the southeast corner of South Overland Trail and West
Prospect Road. As proposed, the existing gasoline station and associated
building will be demolished and a new convenience retail store without fuel sales
would be constructed. The new convenience retail store would be one-story, 20
feet in height, and contain approximately 2,787 square feet.
SUMMARY OF HEARING OFFICER DECISION: Approval with Two Conditions
ZONING DISTRICT: Neighborhood Commercial
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING: Evidence presented to the Hearing Officer
established no controversy or facts to refute
Planning, Development & Transportation Services
rt C_Clty of
Collins
April 23, 2012
Community Development & Neighborhood Services
281 North College Avenue
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580
970.416.2740
970.224.6134- fax
fcgov. com
Attendee of the Prospect 7-Eleven Store No. 35506 Project Development Plan,
#PDP120002 Public Hearing,
Please find attached to this letter a copy of the Type I Administrative Hearing Findings,
Conclusions and Decision for the Project Hearing of the Prospect 7-Eleven Store No.
35506 Project Development Plan, #PDP120002.
Pursuant to Section 2.2.7(D) of the Fort Collins Land Use Code, this Decision has been
mailed to the applicant and any person who attended and/or provided testimony at the
public hearing held on April 18, 2019
This final decision of the Administrative Hearing Officer may be appealed to the City
Council, in accordance with Chapter 2, Article II, Division 3 of the City Code, within 14
calendar days of the date of final action April 23, 2012 by the Hearing Officer. The
deadline to file an appeal is 5:00 p.m. on May 7, 2012. Guidelines explaining the
appeal process, including the Code provisions previously referenced, can be found
online at fcgov.com/cityclerk/appeals.php, or may be obtained in'the City Clerk's Office
at 300 LaPorte Avenue.
If you have any questions about the attached Decision or the appeal process, please
contact me at 970-221-6343.
Sincerely,
Ted Shepard
Chief Planner