Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTHE DISTRICT @ CAMPUS WEST PDP - APPEAL OF H.O. DECISION - PDP120003 - CITY COUNCIL PACKET - RECOMMENDATION/REPORT (3)July 17, 2012 -6- ITEM conditions. The development review process has allowed for a robust citizen participation process that has -resulted in plan revisions that further promote neighborhood compatibility." ATTACHMENTS 1. City Clerk's Public Notice of Appeal Hearing and Notice of Site Visit 2. Notice of Appeal - Amended Notice of Appeal, Robert Meyer, Appellant, filed May 29, 2012 - Notice of Appeal, Zeta Tau Alpha Fraternity Housing Corporation, filed May 21, 2012 3. Staff Report Provided to the Administrative Hearing Officer, with attachments, April 9 and 23, 2012 4. Materials submitted by Applicant to the Administrative Hearing Officer, April 9 and 23, 2012 5. Materials submitted by Citizens Prior to the Administrative Hearing, April 9 and 23, 2012 6. Materials submitted by Citizens at the Administrative Hearing, April 9 and 23, 2012 7. Verbatim Transcript of Administrative Hearing, April 9, 2012, continued to April 23, 2012 8. Staff Powerpoint presentation to Council July 17, 2012 -5- ITEM addresses suggestions for mitigation as provided in this section of the code. Issues of safety and security for the wonieh residents of the sorority will be created. Section 3.5.1(D) (D) Privacy Considerations. Elements of the development plan shall be arranged to maximize the opportunity for privacy by the residents of the project and minimize infringement on the privacy of adjoining land uses. Additionally, the development plan shall create opportunities for interactions among neighbors without sacrificing privacy or security. (See Figure 6.) On page 16 of the Hearing Officer's decision, the Hearing Officer states: "The security and privacy of the sorority are a different issue. Privacy is a concern anytime two buildings are constructed within visual distance from one another. Both buildings will undoubtedly contain windows facing each other. Privacy for the sorority cannot be guaranteed nor can the privacy for the residents of the proposed development be guaranteed. The best control of privacy is with each individual. The individual can control the windows and shades of their respective room as well as their own conduct." E. Meyer: Failure to Property Interpret and Apply Section 3.5.1(G) Building and Project Compatibility — Views Meyer states, "This section of the Code provides for structures which will not substantially alter the opportunity for and quality of desirable views. During the hearing process, we provided film footage of the'in your face'view that residents in our properties will experience when they walk out of their units and view the parking garage being proposed." Section 3.5. l(G)(1)(a) 1. Views. A building or structure shall not substantially alter the opportunity for, and quality of, desirable views from public places, streets and parks within the community. Desirable views are views by the communityofthe foothills, mountains and/orsignificantlocallandmarks (i.e., Long'sPeak, Horsetooth Mountain). Techniques to preserve views may include, but are not limited to, reducing building or structure mass, changing the orientation of buildings and increasing open space setbacks. The Hearing Officer states on page 18 of the decision; "The C-C zone and the TOD clearly envision this area for high density development. The surrounding buildings included the Sunstone Condo, apartments and the sorority are higher density developments, but not as dense as the C-C zone and TOD permit. The transition from the existing single family homes to high density development will be accomplished, in part, by this development. The neighborhood scale will also change as envisioned by the Land Use Code. The P.D.P. meets this standard.° SUMMARY The Staff Report provided the following conclusion: "The P.D.P. is located within the Campus West Study Area (not a Subarea Plan) which calls attention to the redevelopment potential of this mature neighborhood adjacent to the Colorado State University campus. Such redevelopment would fulfill the vision of the Community Commercial zone as an urbanizing and walkable district. In evaluating the overall impacts of the P.D.P., staff finds that The District at Campus West complies with the applicable standards related to compatibility. Staff acknowledges that the overall scope of the P.D.P. represents a significant change when compared with the existing development pattern of the immediate surrounding area. It has been the common experience of most neighborhoods that re -development in fulfillment of the adopted vision of City Plan is uncomfortable. Despite these growing pains, this is how all cities evolve over time in response to changing social and economic July 17, 2012 -4- ITEM C. ZTA: Failure to Properly Interpret and Apply Section 3.5.1(B) — Architectural Character - of the Land Ose Code, - ZTA states, "The Hearing Officer made no finding that the proposed mass and scale of the proposed development 'set an enhanced standard of quality" for the area. Rather, the Hearing Officer simply found that the 'area has no predominant architectural character.' Despite the considerable testimony from the public regarding the fact that the mass and scale of the proposed building were not compatible with the existing area, the Hearing Officer failed to establish the standards set forth in Section 3.5.1(B)." Section 3.5.1(B) (B) Architectural Character. New developments in or adjacent to existing developed areas shall be compatible with the established architectural character of such areas by using a design that is complementary. In areas where the existing architectural character is not definitively established, or is not consistent with the purposes of this Land Use Code, the architecture of new development shall set an enhanced standard of quality for future projects or redevelopment in the area. Compatibility shall be achieved through techniques such as the repetition ofrooflines, the use of similarproportions in building mass and outdoor spaces, similar relationships to the street, similar window and door patterns, and/or the use of building materials that have color shades and textures similar to those existing in the immediate area of the proposed infill development. Brick and stone masonry shall be considered compatible with wood framing and other materials. • Page 8 of the Staff Report addresses Section 3.5.1(13): "(1.) Architectural Character As documented in the Campus West Area Study, there is no predominant architectural character in the area. Consequently, the standard requires that new development shall establish an enhanced standard of quality for future projects in the area. This P.D.P. sets an enhanced standard with a high level of articulation and mix of quality exterior materials. Balconies add interest to the fagade and the flat roofs are mitigated with cornices and overhangs. Although Building One is long, its length is mitigated by recesses and projections that create well-defined shadow lines. The pedestrian scale of Building One is highlighted by the common area and courtyard being placed directly behind the sidewalk. This area features a one-story component bringing the height and mass down to a pedestrian scale. All buildings contain sufficient architectural features, such as overhangs, entry features and seat walls so that there is both horizontal and vertical relief. (2.) Building Size, Height, Bulk, Mass, Scale The three proposed buildings are larger than existing buildings in the surrounding area. As mitigation, the buildings are sub -divided into modules defined by their projecting and recessed components. The flat roofs help lowering the overall height. There are no large, massive, blank walls." • The Hearing Officer considered the testimony of all parties. Page 14 of the Hearing Officer's Decision addressed Section 3.5.1 — Architectural Character: "It is clear that the area'has no predominant architectural character. The mixture of condominiums, sorority and apartments in the area are of different ages and architecture. The finding of the Campus West Area Study underscores the lack of a predominant architectural character. The proposed architectural character contains the elements and treatments sought by the standards." D. Meyer: Failure to Properly Interpret and Apply Section 3.5.1(D) Building and Project Compatibility — Privacy Considerations Meyer states, "Privacy was a major concern voiced by residents of the sorority located directly north of the proposed projects 5 story, Building 3. In our view, the Hearing Officer discounted the concern by suggesting that residents in both facilities will need to pull their window shades down and be responsible for their own conduct which hardly July 17 2012 -3- ITEM B. Meyer: Failure to Properly Interpret and Apply Section 3.2.3(D) Shading versus Section 3.5.1(G)(1)(a)2 Shadowing Meyer states, "Page 8 of the Hearing Officer's report discusses Section 3.2.3(D) of the Code and argues that provisions for mitigation of shading do not apply to any development located in zones determined to be Community Commercial. And, on page 19 the Hearing Officer concludes that 'Staff correctly noted that Section 3.2.3(D)(1) specifically exempts buildings in the C-C zone that exceed 40 feet in height from having to comply with shading standards. Section 3.5.1(G)(1)(a)2 duplicates Section3.2.3(D).'" Meyer contests this conclusion. While Meyer acknowledges the provision stated in Section 3.2.3(D), his opinion is that the project buildings still must comply with Section 3.5.1(G), and that they are not "duplicates." Section 3.5. f(G)(1)(a)2. 2. Light and Shadow. Buildings or structures greater than forty (40) feet in height shall be designed so as not to have a substantial adverse impact on the distribution of natural and artificial light on. adjacent public and private property. Adverse impacts include, but are notlimited to, casting shadows on adjacent property sufficient to preclude the functional use of solar energy technology, creating glare such as reflecting sunlight or artificial lighting at night, contributing to the accumulation of snow and ice during the winter on adjacent property, and shading of windows or gardens for more than three (3) months of the year. Techniques to reduce the shadow impacts of a building may include, but are not limited to, repositioning of a structure on the lot, increasing the setbacks, reducing building or structure mass or redesigning a building or structure's shape. Pages 9-10 of the Staff Report contain an analysis of the portions of Section 3.5.1(G) that pertain to light and shadow. The complete quote from the Staff Report is as follows: "As noted, Section 3.2.3(D) specifically exempts buildings in the C-C zone that exceed 40 feet in height from having to comply with shading standards. Section 3.5.1(G)(1)(a)2, duplicates Section 3.2.3(D). Nevertheless, it may be important to evaluate compliance with this standard since shadowing was identified as a concern by citizens attending the neighborhood information meetings." Based on this concern, the Staff Report goes on to state: "The applicant has provided a shadow analysis. Section 3.5.1(G(1)(a)2, states that adverse impacts include, but are not limited to, the casting of shadows on adjacent property sufficient to preclude the functional use of solar energy technology, creating glare such as reflecting sunlight or artificial lighting at night, contributing to the accumulation of snow and ice during the winter on adjacent property, and the shading of window or gardens for more than three months of the years. The shadow analysis indicates that there is shadowing on the garden level units of Sunstone Condos on December 23rd under present conditions due to existing trees along the shared property line with The District. With the addition of Buildings One, Two and Three, on December 22nd, this shadowing impacts the second level of Sunstone Condos. On the 22nd of November and January, the shadows cast by The District are reduced back down to impacting the only the garden level. Staff concludes that even if Section 3.5.1(G)(1)(a)2. was not exempted by 3.2.3(D), that shadows cast by Buildings One, Two and Three would not have a substantial adverse impact on the distribution of natural and artificial light on adjacent public and private property for more than three months over and above that which is the present condition." While the Hearing Officer elected to consider the provisions of Section 3.5.1(G)(1)(a)2, to be inclusive of the "shading standards" as contained in Section 3.2.3(D) and thus not applicable to the C-C zone district, Staff provided an analysis based on the evidence presented in both public hearings. This analysis led staff to find that shadowing occurs on the adjoining buildings during the three month timeframe specified in the standard. This shadowing, however, is not found to constitute a substantial adverse impact. July 17, 2012 -2- ITEM On May 7, 2012, the Hearing Officer provided a decision approving the P.D. P. with the one condition as recommended by staff that the vacation of two public streets -follows proper procedures. THE QUESTION COUNCIL NEEDS TO ANSWER Did the Hearing Officer fail to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Land Use Code? ALLEGATIONS ON APPEAL On May 21, the Zeta Tau Alpha (ZTA) Fraterhity Housing Corporation filed a Notice of Appeal. On May 29, Robert M. Meyer filed an amended Notice of Appeal, The ZTA appeal alleges that the Hearing Officer failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Land Use Code, specifically Sections 3.2.3(A,D) and 3.5.1. The Meyer appeal also alleges that the Hearing Officer failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Land Use Code, specifically Sections 3.2.3(D) and 3.5.1(B,C,D and G). A. ZTA: Failure to Properly Interpret and Apply Section 3.2.3 of the Land Use Code. ZTA states, "In accordance with Section 3.2.3(A), 'a goal of'this Section is to ensure that site plan elements does not excessively shade adjacent properties, creating a significant adverse impact upon adjacent property owners.' This standard was ignored by the Hearing Officer." ZTA maintains that instead, the Hearing Officer only took Section 3.2.3(D) into consideration and only to find that Section 3.2.3(D) "shall not apply to structures within the Community Commercial district." While the Appellant does not disagree that Section 3.2.3(D) does not apply to the proposed development, the remainder of Section 3.2.3 does apply and the stated goal found in Section 3.2.3(A) must be a consideration for approval of the proposed development. It was an error to discount the shading studies conducted by the public and Appellant on the grounds that the Hearing Officer "has not authority to impose the shading standard." ZTA contends that the Hearing Officer has the authority to impose requirements to prevent adverse impacts from shading and that such authority is found in the purpose statement per Section 3.2.3(A). Section 3.2.3(A) Access, Orientation, Shading - (A) Purpose. It is the City's intent to encourage the use of both active and passive solar energy systems for heating air and water in homes and businesses, as long as natural topography, soil or other subsurface conditions or other natural conditions peculiar to the site are preserved. While the use of solarenergy systems is optional, the right to solar access is protected. Solar collectors require access to available sunshine during the entire year, including between the hours of 9:00 am and 3:00 pm, MST, on December 21, when the longest shadows occur. Additionally, a goal of this Section is to ensure that site plan elements do not excessively shade adjacent properties, creating a significant adverse impact upon adjacent property owners. Thus, standards are set forth to evaluate the potential impact of shade caused by buildings, structures and trees. Section 3.2.3(D) (D) Shading. (1) The physical elements of the development plan shall be, to the maximum extent feasible, located and designed so as not to cast a shadow onto structures on adjacent property greater than the shadow which would be cast by a twenty -five-foot hypothetical we// located along the property lines of the project between the hours of 9:00 am and 3:00 pm, MST, on December 21. This provision shall not apply to structures within the following high -density zone districts: Downtown, Community Commercial. With regard to Section 3.2.3(D), the Hearing. Officer states on page 12 of the decision: "The provision shall not apply to structures within the Community Commercial district. Because this provision does not apply to structures within the Community Commercial district, the Hearing Officer has no authority to impose the shading standard." DATE: July 17, 2012 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY STAFF: Ted Shepard FORT Consideration of Two Appeals of the Hearing Officer's May 7, 2012 Decision to Approve the District at Campus West Project Development Plan. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In January 2012, Fort Collins Student Housing, LLC, submitted a Project Development Plan for multi -family dwellings in the C-C, Community Commercial zone district. As proposed, the project consists of the redevelopment of 16 existing houses and vacation of two public streets on the north side of West Plum Street for the purpose of constructing three new buildings, including a parking structure, containing 193 dwelling units on 3.34 acres. The parcel is between Aster Street on the east and City Park Avenue on the west. On April 9, 2012 and on April 23, 2012, the Hearing Officer conducted public hearings in consideration of The District at Campus West P. D. P. On May 7, 2012, after testimony from the applicant, the public and staff, the Hearing Officer issued a written decision approving the P.D.P. with one condition ensuring proper vacation of public streets. On May 21, the Zeta Tau Alpha (ZTA) Fraternity Housing Corporation filed a Notice of Appeal. On May 29, Robert M. Meyer filed an amended Notice of Appeal. Both appeals seek redress of the Hearing Officer's decision. The ZTA appeal alleges that the Hearing Officer failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Land Use Code, specifically Sections 3.2.3(A) and 3.5.1. The Meyer appeal also alleges that the Hearing Officer failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Land Use Code, specifically Sections 3.2.3(D) and 3.5.1(B,C,D and G). BACKGROUND 1 DISCUSSION The PDP represents the redevelopment of 16 existing houses and vacation of two public streets. The site is located within the Campus West Study Area. The proposed land use, multi -family, is permitted in the C-C zone district subject to Administrative Review. The dwelling units would be distributed among three buildings and include a mix of two, three and four -bedroom units, and would be divided in the following manner: 28 two -bedroom (14%); 42 three -bedroom (22%) and 123 four -bedroom (64%). There would be a total of 674 bedrooms each of which would be leased individually. There would be 495 off-street parking spaces and located within a parking garage with five levels. In addition, 332 bicycle parking spaces are proposed. Two dead-end streets, Columbine and Daisy, would be vacated. Bluebell Street would connect north to Baystone Drive. The project includes a clubhouse, pool, fitness center and computer lab. A Modification of Standard to Section 3.5.2(D)(2) regarding setbacks from public streets for Building Three was granted for being in compliance with Section 2.8.2(H)(1) and is not at issue for either appeal. The Community Commercial zone district allows a maximum height of five stories. Moving along Plum Street from west to east, Building One would be five stories and would step down to four stories on the north side. Building Two would be a five level parking structure featuring a three-story residential componentfacing Plum Street. Building Three would be a five story building. ACTION OF THE HEARING OFFICER The Hearing Officer conducted two public hearings. The first hearing on April 9, 2012 was continued to April 23, 2012. At both hearings, the Hearing Officer considered the testimony of the applicant, affected property owners, the public and staff. The Administrative Review process allows the Hearing Officer ten working days to render a written decision.