Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPINNACLE TOWNHOMES - PDP - 34-00A - DECISION - FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & DECISIONN14►--i e 7L-pDR:G.SS `r eLo- 2tcfoq FPGGWC;C>D Lnf - JAc�R�E T{�u5�t_Lo �c , gosz5 1-7aLiF �aCc�h�wen C� pr. , Cc. E-t-4AZL_. ySa ��s3 � 4+Es� •cow, I ;?3,z 9 Art"0xz( 64 flpz-1?51ov Z315.5 LJ wt�Jl 'r' illZ-�jJl� Tr escc)m '� 70o w d S4. �14 h Z�I�� quo F. �l oede� 907 Q )0525 YY3—W Aasx544- TML4 y6Uh_J S133 G943(e fake TJr gat-71a7 �, � D7W Go 7 (✓1 � G+� � �o w h L, �.t'►,,c � '� J� � - � VY� I vti i� f►"a-I-, v � i-�C� � ►'� ,TA �j va VI VGA VVI e, Z� LZJ. `Z�)AE,.L42— � (i� 7,-r 16) � -+ T� - kA A. ; I � zZt A--.C�42�1o KcrAzq�--,Af ;�i�N:w ;� it �/2�uB/f S 'J/Y �.2�okf1��'E/✓ �! ;' ��' - �' � 3 C, I-�.1e�n ��.�1� I�"1 c�l�;� Sri `�►�-63�3��,�_�,� 1(�J4 aki,4� .c�✓ s""beepY,���e� GyrAcAtio -- -- 13 0` Sl' uE2 sT. /4tklKIsaA 'C 33 C � t� � �b 92 I T6 , Goo�Ez� S�Hvtl - ��NI1VIt5'fT/y{�1�1�. AM ness 70/r%oyc/� �✓! 8�z r Z � 15. 5 2) 11 �e�rt� d5 I 007 E.Frojoecfi gN 15Z S /a% C_-�6_y22kS,!q Icy /70�-� ��Rl/IJ�r6✓1%�L���JS Ct \ ,(H-fb6tT S i . Sz�)5 z,- q , E_ L.�z- st Eq z 4903 Ea rdwWo - -Dr, 805a5 Fcl (632 6)k 4N ,) SDSaJ— i F C . li So yC-- 5 `IAS YID �es �eS y� yc FEB-27-02 WED 03:52 PM FAX NO. P. 11 City of Fort Collins — Type 1 Administrative Hearing Findings, Conclusions, and Decision . Pinnacle Townhomes Project Development Plan - #34-OOA Administrative Hearing Dates: January 16 and February 13, 2002 Page g B. The PDP complies with all applicable district standards of Section 4.4 of the Land Use Code, (LMN) Low Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood zone district. C. The Project Development Plan complies with all applicable General Development Standards contained in Article 3 of the Land Use Code, DECISION The Hearing Officer hereby unconditionally approves the Pinnacle Townhomes Project Development Plan, 434 OOA. DATED THIS 27" day of February 2002. Linda C. Michow, Hearing Officer LCM157 0G9.181402524, 01 City of Fort Collins — Type 1 Administrative Hearing Findings, Conclusions, and Decision Pinnacle Townhomes Project Development Plan - #34-OOA Administrative Hearing Dates: January 16 and February 13, 2002 Page 8 Prospect is a transportation corridor, linking to the interstate and carrying "outside" traffic in addition to local traffic. According to Mr. Stanford's testimony, E. Prospect's linkage to the interstate causes it to experience steady fluctuations in traffic throughout the day. Mr. Stanford further explained that such steady fluctuations in traffic on any given day and on any given afternoon on any given day would result in fluctuations in the numbers found in any traffic analysis. As Mr. Stanford testified, the traffic generated by this Project would have no significant impact on Prospect Road, particularly in light of the steady and normal fluctuations in traffic on this roadway. Mr. Stanford concluded by testifying that City staff supports the Applicant's TIS and believes the TIS was performed "accurately, fairly and honestly." Based on the extensive testimony and evidence presented on the issue of traffic impacts affecting E. Prospect Road, the Hearing Officer is convinced that the traffic congestion on E. Prospect Road is an existing problem which will not deteriorate in any significant manner by the traffic generated from this Project. The Hearing Officer acknowledges and appreciates that the residents have done their homework in framing their concerns; however, the weight of the evidence presented by the Applicant and corroborated by the City staff, supports a finding of compliance with Section 3.6. Moreover, the steady fluctuation in traffic on E. Prospect explains, to some degree, the discrepancy in traffic counts between the Applicant's traffic consultant and those generated by the residents. As the testimony of the Applicant's traffic consultant reveals, the fact that school was not in session when the Applicant's traffic counts were performed would not impact the result since the measurement of afternoon peak hours is performed outside of school hours. Although the Hearing Officer finds that many of the concerns raised by the opponents of the PDP are insightful and might potentially improve the acceptance of the PDP by the neighboring landowners, the PDP must be judged under the existing applicable regulations of the Fort Collins Land Use Code. These regulations provide sufficient specificity to determine that the Applicant and Owner have designed the PDP in conformance with the applicable regulations. There is no authority for the Hearing Officer to mandate that the Applicant or Owner exceed the minimum requirements of the Land Use Code in designing the development. SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS A. The PDP satisfies the development standards of the LMN Zone District. LC M\57069.18\402524.01 City of Fort Collins — Type 1 Administrative Hearing Findings, Conclusions, and Decision Pinnacle Townhomes Project Development Plan - #34-OOA Administrative Hearing Dates: January 16 and February 13, 2002 Page 6 of the site and that only 8.3% of that buffer zone will be disturbed by development. The site plan incorporates a trail extension connecting the proposed development with the Spring Creek Trail and, according to the staff report, this type of passive recreational use is consistent with the goals and objectives of the City's natural resources program. While public testimony expressed concern about the potential disturbance of the natural habitat adjacent to Spring Creek, the overwhelming evidence introduced at the hearing supports the finding that this Project conforms to Section 3.4.1 of the LUC. Building and Project Compatibility. Section 3.5.1 of the LUC requires that new developments be designed to be compatible with the established architectural character of the area. Pursuant to this section, compatibility is achieved through repetition in roof lines, use of similar proportions in building mass, and similar building materials. The Staff Report indicates that the proposed residential units within the Pinnacle Townhomes Project are similar in pitched roof forms, fenestration and building materials to those found within the surrounding neighborhoods. The Applicant further testified at the hearings that the residential buildings are similar in size, height and colors to those existing in the surrounding neighborhoods. No testimony was presented at the hearings to contradict this issue. Transportation and Circulation (Traffic). Section 3.6 of the LUC imposes standards for street layout, design, traffic impacts, etc. The Staff Report indicates that the Project is in compliance with the City's Master Street Plan and Section 3.6 of the LUC. A common issue repeatedly raised by many opponents involved adverse traffic conditions and the safety of children along E. Prospect Road. The opponents expressed concern about the number of schools in the area, the presence of children, and the existing traffic congestion during peak times on E. Prospect Road. The opponents objected to the Applicant's transportation impact study ("TIS") and questioned its reliability based on the following: (1) data errors (e.g., collected during summer, insufficient data relative to accident analysis, etc.); (2) formatting errors; (3) and incorrect reliance on level of service standards. These objections are contained in a five page document labeled "Citizens Concerns — Issues with Traffic Study" which one resident, Mr. Cap Smith, introduced into the record at the February LC M\57069.18\402524.01 City of Fort Collins — Type 1 Administrative Hearing Findings, Conclusions, and Decision Pinnacle Townhomes Project Development Plan - #34-OOA Administrative Hearing Dates: January 16 and February 13, 2002 Page 5 increase flows. However, it will not increase any 100 year flow because the Project's time to peak of 10-12 minutes will "beat the peak" of any larger flood which would peak in 30 minutes. Testimony from the city's stormwater utility department staff further indicated that the City has been sensitive about this Project (given its location near Spring Creek) and that the Applicant has followed every step required by the City. Evidence submitted by the Applicants also indicates that the Project has been designed to handle subsurface flows despite the high groundwater level of the Project site. As referenced in the Engineer's Report, the Applicant has hired a geotechnical consultant to make specific recommendations concerning subsurface flows and these recommendations have been incorporated into the final utility plans of the Project. Some residents expressed concern about existing ground water problems in their neighborhoods and hoped that this Project would address the underground water issues. It appears, based on the Applicant's testimony and Engineer's Report, that the issue of groundwater levels has been adequately addressed to the satisfaction of the Hearing Officer and City staff. There was also testimony presented at the hearings concerning the Project's impact on the trail adjacent to Spring Creek. The Applicant's consultants testified that a swale would be constructed which will redirect water away from the trail. Testimony presented by City staff revealed that flooding on the trail is an existing condition which is caused by a number of factors, including new development as well as natural deposition of silt in the creek. It appears from the City staff's testimony that the trail flooding is an existing problem, which is currently under review by the City's Parks Department. It is the Hearing Officer's position, consistent with Colorado judicial opinions and state law, that no single applicant should be responsible for mitigating the impacts of development beyond that caused by the particular project. Therefore, based on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Project complies with Section 3.3.3 of the LUC. Environmental and Natural Habitat. Section 3.4.1 of the LUC applies to this Project because a portion of the site is located within a designated grassland natural habitat. According to the staff report, in order to be in compliance with this Section, the development must be directed away from Spring Creek, minimize impacts through buffer zones and enhance the existing conditions. The site plan indicates that a 100 foot -wide buffer zone adjacent to the Spring Creek drainage constitutes 1.39 acres LC M\57069.18\402524.01 City of Fort Collins — Type 1 Administrative Hearing Findings, Conclusions, and Decision Pinnacle Townhomes Project Development Plan - #34-OOA Administrative Hearing Dates: January 16 and February 13, 2002 Page 4 Landscaping and Tree Protection. The staff report outlines the Project's conformance with Section 3.2.1 concerning landscaping and tree protection and there was no evidence introduced at the hearings to contradict the Staff Report. Parking and Access. The staff report outlines the Project's conformance with Section 3.2.2 concerning access, circulation and parking. The Applicant testified at the hearing that the PDP complies with all applicable general development standards found in Section 3. There was no evidence introduced at the hearings to contradict the Staff Report; therefore, the Hearing Officer finds that the Project is in conformance with Section 3.2.2. Water Hazards. The staff report indicates the Project's conformance with Section 3.3.3 concerning water hazards. Specifically, Section 3.3.3(A) requires that lands which are subject to flooding or are located in a natural drainage way shall only be approved for development where the Project: (1) complies with the City's Stormwater Design Criteria and Construction Standards; (2) complies with the City's floodplain regulations and (3) incorporates mitigation measures so as not to adversely impact natural habitat and features. The Applicant's testimony at the hearings reflects that it has complied with the City's standards, including the City's recently adopted rainfall standards, which are stricter than those in place at the time of the 1997 flood event. In further support of its compliance with City standards, the Applicant submitted, at the February 131h hearing, a document prepared by Shear Engineering Corporation labeled Pinnacle Townhomes ("Engineer's Report"). This document outlines the Project's compliance with the City's design standards for water, sewer, storm drainage, flood protection, water quality and erosion control. A brief review of this Engineer's Report reveals that building elevations have been determined based on both FEMA and City of Fort Collins flood protection requirements. The Applicant further testified that the Project is designed with flood protection by prohibiting basements in those units lying within the 100 year floodplain of Spring Creek. Several residents expressed legitimate concerns about the Project's proximity to Spring Creek and the potential for flooding. The Applicant explained in great detail how the Project is graded and designed to carry overflow via the street system. As the Applicant's engineer explained in the hearings, the development will certainly LC M\57069.18\402524.01 City of Fort Collins — Type 1 Administrative Hearing Findings, Conclusions, and Decision Pinnacle Townhomes Project Development Plan - #34-OOA Administrative Hearing Dates: January 16 and February 13, 2002 Page 3 The staff report indicates that the residential uses contemplated in the PDP are permitted within the LMN zone district. No evidence- presented at the hearings contradicted this finding. Therefore, the Hearing Officer concludes that the proposed uses are permitted within the LMN zone district. 2. Compliance with LMN District Standards (Article 4): The Project Development Plan complies with all applicable requirements of Article 4 and the LMN Zone District. The staff report summarizes the PDP's compliance with these standards. In particular, the density of the PDP, 7.86 units per gross acre, is less than the maximum permitted density of 8 units per gross acre. See Section 4.4(D)(1)(b) of the LUC. According to the staff report, the Project is also in conformance with Section 4.4 (E)(3), which allows for a maximum building height of two and one-half stories. While there was no direct testimony or evidence presented at the public hearings to contradict the Project's compliance with these standards, the testimony of Joan Schubart (representing homeowner opponents) identified one of three major areas of concern as "building of community." Ms. Schubart testified that the surrounding residential neighborhoods of Prospect Springs, Prospect Commons, Brookhaven, and Spring Meadows are "eclectic" and not as dense as that proposed in this Project. The testimony of Ms. Schubart indicates a perception that property values are enhanced through less dense developments. The Hearing Officer finds that the density of 7.86 units per gross acre is within the City's maximum permitted density of 8 units per acre. While a less dense development may be desired by neighboring property owners, there is no basis in the City's LUC upon which the Hearing Officer could require a reduction in the Project's density. Moreoever, the Hearing Officer finds that the Project is compatible with surrounding land uses as developments to the south and west include condominiums and townhomes as well as duplex and fourplex units. 3. Compliance with Article 3 — General Development Standards: The Project Development Plan complies with all of the applicable requirements of Article 3, as explained below. LC M\57069.18\402524.01 City of Fort Collins — Type 1 Administrative Hearing Findings, Conclusions, and Decision Pinnacle Townhomes Project Development Plan - #34-OOA Administrative Hearing Dates: January 16 and February 13, 2002 Page 2 City staff and the Applicant requested a continuance in order to address drainage issues on the site, which continuance was granted by the Hearing Officer. The hearing was rescheduled to February 13, 2002; re -notification of the time and date of the hearing was necessary because the hearing was not continued to a time and date certain. RECORD OF HEARING: The Hearing Officer accepted during the hearings the following evidence: (1) Planning Department Staff Report; (2) application, plans, maps, and other supporting documents submitted by the Applicant and the Applicant's agents to the City of Fort Collins; (3) a sign-up sheet of persons attending the hearings and citizens speaking in favor of or against the application; (4) numerous electronic mail and other written correspondence to and from the planning staff and members of the public concerning the Project; (5) a written outline of a power -point presentation by members of the public opposed to the Project; and (6) a tape recording of testimony provided during the hearings. The Fort Collins Land Use Code ("LUC"), the City's Comprehensive Plan, and the formally promulgated policies of the City are all considered part of the evidence considered by the Hearing Officer. FACTS AND FINDINGS In 1986 the property received approval of Planned Unit Development (PUD) zoning which permitted thirty-nine (39), two bedroom condominium units on 5.3 acres of the property. Since no substantial building or site improvements were completed within the vested three-year approval period, the PUD expired. Through the 1986 PUD approval, the northerly 20 feet of the property was dedicated to the City of Fort Collins for future improvements to East Prospect Road. 1. Permitted Uses within LMN Zone District: The proposed development is adjacent to the following surrounding zoning and land uses: N: RL Detached single family houses, duplexes, 1 sc Baptist Church, Lesher Junior High School. S: LMN Spring Creek and public regional trail, condominiums, townhouses. E: LMN detached single family houses, truck repair shop, small service businesses. W: LMN Detached single family houses, duplex and fourplex units housed within former single family dwellings, pasture, Barton early childhood center/Discovery Center. LC M\57069.18\402524.01 CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER TYPE 1 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND DECISION ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING DATES: January 16 and February 13, 2002 PROJECT NAME: Pinnacle Townhomes Project Development Plan - #34-OOA APPLICANT: Pinecrest Planning and Design c/o Tom Dugan 4225 Westshore Way Fort Collins, Colorado 80525 OWNER: Pinnacle FTC, LLC 142 Summitview Fort Collins, Colorado 80524 HEARING OFFICER: Linda Michow, Esq. Gorsuch Kirgis LLP Tower I, Suite 1000 1515 Arapahoe Street Denver, Colorado 80202 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Applicant has submitted a Project Development Plan (referred to herein as the "Project' or the "PDP") proposing a total of 53 units on 6.739 acres, including thirty-four (34), two -bedroom townhouses, sixteen (16) attached dwellings housed within two buildings and three (3) detached single family houses. The site is located south of East Prospect Road, one -quarter mile west of Lemay Avenue. SUMMARY OF HEARING OFFICER DECISION: Approval ZONE DISTRICT: Low Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood (LMN). NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING AND NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING: Evidence presented to the Hearing Officer established no controversy or facts to refute that the hearing, on both dates, was properly noticed in accordance with the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code. Two neighborhood meetings were also held. PUBLIC HEARING: The Hearing Officer, presiding pursuant to the Fort Collins Land Use Code, opened the hearing at approximately 5:00 p.m. on January 16, 2002 in a conference room of the City of Fort Collins Planning Department located at 281 North College Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. At the conclusion of the January 16th hearing, LC M\57069.18\402524.01 City of Fort Collins — Type 1 Administrative Hearing Findings, Conclusions, and Decision Pinnacle Townhomes Project Development Plan - #34-OOA Administrative Hearing Dates: January 16 and February 13, 2002 Page 7 13, 2002 hearing - over the objection of the Applicant'. This document includes results of a traffic count performed by several residents in the area and suggests that the Applicant's TIS finding of "no negative impact" is erroneous. The opponents urged the Hearing Officer and the City staff to postpone a decision on this Project until the City could undertake a comprehensive, systematic analysis of the Prospect Road corridor. The evidence presented by these citizens was refuted by extensive testimony from the Applicant's traffic engineer and the City's traffic engineer concerning the impacts of this Project on the level of service of E. Prospect Road. The Applicant's engineer testified that the traffic problems expressed at the hearing are "corridor" issues rather than specific to this Project. The Applicant's traffic engineer, Mr. Coppola, defended the TIS and the underlying methodology, stating that he used national trip generation rates and Fort Collins' level of service standards in evaluating traffic impacts. Mr. Coppola's testimony revealed that the traffic generated by the Project would add 1-1.5% additional traffic during afternoon peak hours. He explained that if 100 cars traveled on Prospect, the Project would only increase that number to 101. The Applicant's traffic consultant further testified that the City's staff approved of the TIS and that the City acknowledges that E. Prospect is already a constrained corridor. In response to complaints about the traffic analysis being performed during the summer when the neighboring schools are not in session, Mr. Coppola explained that the school is not a factor when analyzing afternoon peak hours, which are typically 25% higher than the morning peak hours. The City traffic engineer's testimony supports the evidence and testimony presented by Mr. Coppola. As testified to by Mr. Stanford, E. Prospect is a "tough" roadway that — regardless of this Project - "needs work." Mr. Stanford's testimony indicates that a host of factors contribute to the road's traffic problems, including traffic generated from existing developments such as Prospect Springs and a twenty-year old communication system that is failing. Mr. Stanford testified that the City experiences a 30% failure rate of signals on a daily basis and that the signal at Lemay and E. Prospect is down regularly. Mr. Stanford's testimony revealed that E. 1 The Applicant's objection arose from the Applicant's understanding that the continued hearing would be limited to drainage and design issues. At a recess in the February 13'h hearing, the Hearing Officer reviewed the tape recording of the January 16, 2002 hearing to determine the manner in which the hearing was continued. The Hearing Officer confirmed that at the conclusion of the January 16 meeting, all issues "were still on the table." The Applicant was given an opportunity at the February 13 hearing to request a continuance in order to secure the presence of its traffic consultant; the Applicant declined this opportunity. LC M\57069.18\402524.01