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