Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 03/07/2006 - CONSIDERATION OF THE APPEAL OF THE DECEMBER 13, 20 ITEM NUMBER: 31 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY DATE: March 7, 2006 FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL STAFF: Anne Aspen SUBJECT Consideration of the Appeal of the December 13,2005 Determination of the Administrative Hearing Officer to Approve the Raven View Project Development Plan(PDP)and Modification of Standard. RECOMMENDATION Council should consider the appeal based upon the record and relevant provisions of the Code and Charter, and after consideration, either: (1) uphold, overturn, or modify the administrative hearing officer's decision; or (2) remand the matter to the administrative hearing officer for further consideration of issues raised on appeal. BACKGROUND The Raven View PDP is a proposed residential infill and redevelopment project. The property is in the LMN— Low Density Mixed-use Neighborhood District. A total of fifty-one single-family attached and detached units are proposed on an 8.18 acre infill and redevelopment parcel located southeast of the intersection of Taft Hill and Mulberry Roads,behind the existing residential parcels that line Mulberry and Taft Hill Roads. The net residential density proposed is 6.23 dwelling units per acre. The proposed project involves the removal of one existing single-family attached residence on Taft Hill Rd., and a number of outbuildings on site. New construction will include eighteen 3-bedroom, single-family detached homes on a mix of standard and small lots, and thirty-three 2-bedroom, single-family attached homes. Onsite detention is proposed on the northeast of the site. March 7, 2006 -2- Item No. 31 N IN UN AIN AVE WDRE R GRMg1AEW PARK 0 POL CITYPARK CITY PARK NNE GOLF COURSE J� �P 4� 9 FOR C s Lh N SITE MAN ❑ Cstl MA #12-05 Raven View PDP, Type I N A 3/90-005 1 inch equals 600 feet VICINITY MAP March 7, 2006 .3. Item No. 31 CONTEXT DIAGRAM 4\ Hauer w. f C1n4 CITY PARK NINE GOLF COURSE / [anwvrr o�nncr �[ on�iuct � ., oor[NT w. CIaO MAZY �_ Ir{' ZON[ II II II II F CHURCE awn � Ft PARKMOBE HOME PARK a a n Naucr NIL[.ATtl ucx N«� «[OA[ a uw[ PARK 00"SCHOOL NNn CONTEXT MAP March 7, 2006 -4• Item No. 31 OVERALL SITE PLAN �f .,W,..• III III M_..a ..,,�.R I I I f I I I I I I 1 I I I tl / i I e1 Nm In: r ili nl 1 II • � II II __�L � _,t I wa l 11 I I � i m• - ��. 'u 11 ',i III Ilw II '.i"'•1 OVERALL SITE PLAN LANDSCAPE PLAN rt I I YI � � I _ t RAVEN VIEW 8 LANDSCAPE PLAN March 7, 2006 -5• Item No. 31 In response to staff comments on the applicant's Transportation Impact Study (TIS) in the first round of development review,the applicant submitted an Amended Response dated April 27,2005 to staff. Subsequently,the applicant submitted a request for Modification of Standard to address the pedestrian level of service standard contained in Section 3.6.4 of the Land Use Code. The pedestrian level-of-service standard is in place to ensure that new pedestrian routes meet five criteria: directness, continuity, street crossings, visual interest and amenities, and security. According to the applicant's traffic engineer, the proposed project's pedestrian routes fell short of the standard in two categories: directness and continuity. The directness issue was problematic for two of the three identified pedestrian destinations (Moore Elementary and residential to the south, and residential to the east)because the actual travel distance is much greater than the distance as the crow flies. Regarding the continuity issue, the sidewalks are continuous in that there are no gaps in the sidewalk connection from the site to the elementary school; the modification is needed, however,because the sidewalks are not detached or wide enough by today's engineering standards. This is due to existing sidewalks that were constructed under previous street standards. The applicant based the request for modification on Section 2.8.2 (H)(3): "there are exceptional physical conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional situations,unique to such property...that prevent the applicant from meeting the standard". In this case,there are two exceptional situations. Most notably, there is no way for the applicant to provide a more direct connection because all of the possible more direct routes would be through privately owned property. The owner made a good faith attempt to secure a pedestrian easement through adjacent properties, but no residents would grant such an easement. The applicant is not able to provide public sidewalks through private property without the consent of the property owners. The other exceptional situation is that,as noted above, existing sidewalks along Taft Hill Rd. do not meet today's standards for continuity. Because of the nature of the existing conditions, the applicant requested the pedestrian level of service standards be waived since directness and continuity could not be attained. Transportation and Planning staff concurred with this rationale. The staff recommendation for the project and modification of standard was approval. On December 13, 2005, an administrative hearing was conducted to receive presentations and testimony on the Raven View Project Development Plan (PDP) and Modification of Standard proposal. Staff received no written comments pertaining to this project prior to the hearing. Staff received one phone call from an abutting resident regarding screening fencing between existing and proposed residences prior to the hearing. Staff passed that concern along to the applicant, who addressed the issue in the plan set submitted for the hearing. At the hearing, neighbors expressed their fear that the project will cause an unsafe condition for pedestrians,particularly school children traveling along Taft Hill Road to Moore Elementary School. Neighbors added that the lack of City sidewalk maintenance after snowfalls will compound the problem. After deliberation,the administrative hearing officer concurred with the staff recommendation and approved the Raven View Project Development Plan and Modification of Standard. Specifically, the hearing officer found that: March 7, 2006 -6- Item No. 31 A. The Raven View Project Development Plan and Request for Modification of Standard are subject to administrative review and the requirements of the Land Use Code (LUC). B. The Raven View Project Development Plan 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 Raven View Project Development Plan request for modification of standard to the Transportation Level of Service requirements for pedestrian movements (Section 3.6.4) is warranted by reason of Section 2.8.2(H)(3) "existing exceptional physical hardship and unique physical characteristics" based on site configuration, location and proximity to existing public sidewalks. D. The Raven View Project Development Plan complies with all applicable General Development Standards contained in Article 3 of the Land Use Code, except where a modification has been granted under this approval. ALLEGATION ON APPEAL On January 11, 2006, a Notice of Appeal was received by the City Clerk's office regarding the decision of the administrative hearing officer. An Amended Notice of Appeal was received by the Clerk's Office on January 25, 2006. In the Notice of Appeal from the Appellants Lois and Robert Gore, Eric Stenner, and Charles Fletcher, it is alleged that: • Relevant laws of the Land Use Code were not properly interpreted and applied. QUESTIONS COUNCIL NEEDS TO ANSWER • Was the hearing officer correct in finding that there was a unique physical characteristic about the property that,when coupled with the strict application of the Land Use Code, created a hardship? Do the physical characteristics of the site preclude alternative pedestrian connections that comply with the City's LOS standards, and if so, would the application of the LOS standards work a hardship upon the applicant? Is the sidewalk along South Taft Hill Road such that persons can use it to get to destinations in the neighborhood safely enough to not be detrimental to the public good? STAFF ANALYSIS OF RELEVANT ISSUES Pedestrian Level of Service Appellants' Claims The Appellants claim that in granting the modification, the hearing officer significantly erred in interpreting code. Specifically, the Appellants claim that: • staff may not have considered the proposed route to school as a "School Walking Area" as defined in the level of service documentation and therefore may have March 7, 2006 -7- Item No. 31 inadvertently lowered the necessary level of service, and that • in allowing the modification,the hearing officer agrees that it is not necessary for the developers to provide an acceptable bicycle and pedestrian route to school and other neighborhood activities, and that • staff appears to concur that forcing all the residents of the development, especially school-age children, to walk along Taft Hill is an acceptable risk. STAFF ANALYSIS & CONCLUSION The applicant's Pedestrian Level of Service worksheet identifies all of the destinations within walking distance of this one as being within a "School Walking Area" as defined in the level of service documentation, thus triggering the more stringent level of service standards that staff used to evaluate the proposal. Staff and the hearing officer acknowledge the importance of safe walking routes to school. By granting this modification, the hearing officer was not condoning unsafe conditions. The hearing officer stated in his decision that he: "acknowledges and appreciates that residents have provided careful thought in the framing of their concerns about pedestrian access;however, the weight of evidence presented by the applicant and corroborated by the City staff, supports a finding that this infill and redevelopment site is physically constrained, alternative pedestrian connections are not available, and that the existing sidewalks along S. Taft Hill Road, while not optimal, provide a sufficient route to the school." In summary,after evaluating the Raven View request for modification of standard,staff determined that the request as submitted satisfied the requirements for modification in Section 2.8.2 (H)(3) because of the exceptional physical conditions and situations existing around this infill site. Therefore, staff recommended approval of the modification request to the administrative hearing officer and the hearing officer concurred, though it should be noted that the hearing officer did not specifically address whether granting the modification would be detrimental to the public good. LIST OF RELEVANT CODE PROVISIONS • Division 2.8 Modification of Standards Section 2.8.2 (H) Step 8 (Standards): Applicable, and the decision maker may grant a modification of standards only if it finds that the granting of the modification would not be detrimental to the public good, and that: (1) the plan as submitted will promote the general purpose of the standard for which the modification is requested equally well or better than would a plan which complies with the standard for which a modification is requested; or March 7, 2006 -8- Item No. 31 (2) the granting of a modification from the strict application of any standard would, without impairing the intent and purpose of this Land Use Code, substantially alleviate an existing, defined and described problem of city- wide concern or would result in a substantial benefit to the city by reason of the fact that the proposed project would substantially address an important community need specifically and expressly defined and described in the city's Comprehensive Plan or in an adopted policy, ordinance or resolution of the City Council,and the strict application of such a standard would render the project practically infeasible; or (3) by reason of exceptional physical conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional situations,unique to such property,including,but not limited to, h sical conditions such as exceptional n wn p ynarrowness, shallowness or topography,or physical conditions which hinder the owner's ability to install a solar energy system, the strict application of the standard sought to be modified would result in unusual and exceptional practical difficulties, or exceptional or undue hardship upon the owner of such property, provided that such difficulties or hardship are not caused by the act or omission of the applicant; or (4) the plan as submitted will not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code that are authorized by this Division to be modified except in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered from the perspective of the entire development plan,and will continue to advance the purposes of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2. Any finding made under subparagraph (1), (2), (3) or(4) above shall be supported by specific findings showing how the plan,as submitted,meets the requirements and criteria of said subparagraph (1), (2), (3) or(4). • 3.6.4 Transportation Level of Service Requirements (A) Purpose. In order to ensure that the transportation needs of a proposed development can be safely accommodated by the existing transportation system, or that appropriate mitigation of impacts will be provided by the development,the project shall demonstrate that all adopted Level of Service (LOS) standards will be achieved for all modes of transportation. (B) General Standard. All development plans shall adequately provide vehicular,pedestrian and bicycle facilities necessary to maintain the adopted transportation Level of Service standards contained in Part fI of the City of Fort Collins Multi-modal Transportation Level of Service Manual for the following modes of travel:motor vehicle,bicycle and pedestrian.The Transit LOS standards contained in Part tI of the Multi-modal Transportation Manual will not be applied for the purposes of this Section. (C) Transportation Impact Study.In order to identify those facilities that may be required in order to comply with these standards, all development plans ..__.. .. . ....... .. March 7, 2006 -9- Item No. 31 must submit a Transportation Impact Study approved by the Traffic Engineer, consistent with the Transportation Impact Study guidelines maintained by the city. (Since the pedestrian level of service standards themselves are not contained within the Land Use Code, pertinent sections are attached for your convenience.) ACTIONS COUNCIL MAY TAKE A. If Council finds that the relevant laws of the Land Use Code were properly interpreted and applied, then Council should uphold the decision of the administrative hearing officer. B. If Council finds that the relevant laws of the Land Use Code were not properly interpreted and applied, then Council should overturn or modify the decision of the administrative hearing officer. C. If Council finds that issues raised during the appeal merit receipt and consideration of additional information by the hearing officer, then Council should remand the item to the administrative hearing officer for rehearing. ATTACHMENTS 1. City Clerk's Notice of Appeal Hearing mailed to parties-in-interest on February 24, 2006 2. Appellant's Amended Notice of Appeal, dated January 25, 2006 3. Materials provided to the Administrative Hearing Officer for consideration of the Project Development Plan and Request for Modification of Standard on December 13, 2005 4. Verbatim transcript of the December 13, 2005 Administrative Hearing 5. Administrative Hearing Officer's Decision 6. Pertinent pedestrian level of service standard information ATTACHMENT 1 City Clerk's Notice of Appeal Hearing mailed to parties-in- interest on February 24, 2006 ATTACHMENT 6aCity Clerk City of Fort Collins NOTICE The City Council of the City of Fort Collins, Colorado,on Tuesday,March 7, 2006 at 6:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter may come on for hearing in the Council Chambers in the City Hall at 300 LaPorte Avenue, will hold a public hearing on the attached appeal from the decision of the Hearing Officer, made on December 30, 2005 regarding the Raven View PDP Modification of Standard, #12-05/12-05A. If you wish to comment on this matter,you are strongly urged to attend the hearing on this appeal. If you have any questions or require further information please feel free to contact the City Clerk's Office(970-221-6515) or the Current Planning Department (970-221-6750). Any written materials that any party-in-interest may wish the City Council to consider in deciding the appeal shall be submitted to the City Clerk no later than 12:00 p.m. on Wednesday, March 1 [Section 2-54(b)of the City Code]. Section 2-56 of the City Code provides that a member of City Council may identify in writing any additional issues related to the appeal by February 28. Agenda materials provided to the City Council,including City staff s response to the Notice of Appeal,and any additional issues identified by City Councilmembers and any party-in-interest,will be available to the public on Thursday, March 2, after 12:00 noon in the City Clerk's Office and on the City's website at: http://fcgov.com/cityclerk/agendas.php. The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call the City Clerk's Office(970-221-6515;TDD 970-224-6001)for assistance. O�tWa Wanda M. Krajicek City Clerk Date Notice Mailed: February 24, 2006 cc: City Attorney Chair, Planning and Zoning Board Current Planning Department Appellant/Applicant 300 LaPorte Avenue • PO.Box 580 • Fort Collins,CO 80522-0580 • (970)221-6515 • FAX(970)221-6295 ATTACHMENT 2 Appellant's Amended Notice of Appeal, dated January 25, 2006 ATT ENT 2 January 20, 2006 JAN2 g Wanda Krajicek City Clerk, City of Fort Collins Re:Amended Request for Appeal of Administrative Decision on Raven View PDP Modification of Standard#12-05/12-05A Dated December 30, 2005 Dear Wanda, This letter will serve as notice that undersigned request an appeal of the ruling of the administrative officer per the above project on the grounds that in granting a waiver of the Transportation Level of Service (LOS) requirement for pedestrian movements of Section 2.8.2(H)(3)the administrative officer and duly appointed city staffers significantly erred in interpreting city code. Specifically, in allowing waiver of the LOS,the city staff agrees that in developing the property it is not necessary for the developers to provide an acceptable bicycle and pedestrian commute to school, and other neighborhood activities. The city staff would appear to concur with the developers that forcing all the residents of the development, and most specifically the school-age children, to walk parallel to the arterial street of Taft Hill Road is a safe and acceptable risk to promote the development of this property. The undersigned differ with the view of the city and the developers that children walking to school along a narrow arterial street is an acceptable risk. The section of Taft Hill Road which is in question is an area where evasive maneuvers by motorists is significantly restricted due to the narrow design of the roadway and high volume of traffic. In addition,the section of Taft Hill Road where school children will be forced to walk every day offers only a four foot width of sidewalk which directly abuts the traffic lanes of Taft Hill Road, compromising the safety of the children on fair weather days, and further eroding that margin of safety in inclement weather or darkness. Though unknown,the undersigned also contend that the city staff may not have considered the proposed route to school as a"School Walking Area" as defined in the LOS documentation and in not choosing an accurate designation of the area, inadvertently lowered the necessary LOS. Below is pasted a chart of the City Required LOS for these areas, as well as the Appellant's estimate of LOS post-development as well as the known city staff LOS estimate from the review meeting. i City Appeal III Expected LOS City Staff LOS Estimate Assesement Directness B E Fail <-Waiver Granted 12/30/05 Continuity B C Unknown Street Crossings B D Unknown Visual Interest&Amenity C D Unknown Security B C Unknown Notes:Score of"A"=Best, "E"=Worst Info from City of Fort Collins Pedestrian Level of service 1996 It should be noted that even at the lowest pedestrian level of service, defined as: "Other Areas"the same table would appear as: City Appeal Expected LOS City staff f I itiMt; LOS Estimate Assessment Directness C E Fail <-Wai%er Granted 12/30/05 Continuity C C Unknown Street Crossings C D Unknown Visual Interest&Amenity C D Unknown Security C C Unknown Notes:Score of A"=Best, "E"=Worst Info from City of Fort Collins Pedestrian Level of Service 1996 To borrow from the LOS documents: "The following(noted above) defines the minimum acceptable standards by Pedestrian Facilities Plan Area. It should be noted that numerous locations within a city will not achieve the minimum LOS. Because of limited funding, improvements should be prioritized toward activity areas, routes to school,parks, and transit To cap the current problem, new developments, both public and private, as well as major street improvements and redevelopment should adhere to the pedestrian LOS standards. " Thou it is accurate that the administrative officer may t a waiver of these LOS requirements, in P� Y g� 4 the instance of the proposed Raven View development,the waiver of these LOS requirements will result in a dangerous situation for future residents of the development. We believe it is important for the City Council to review our concerns in an objective forum. Regards, Lois and Robert Gore 521 Crestmore PI 482-6448 Adjoining Landowner Eric Stenner 1 63 Magnolia St 4 � 16-6370 Adjoining Landowner Charles Fletcher 2025 W Mulberry St C �/ Ph: A2-- 80si Adjoining Landowner Amended to name Lois and Robert Gore, at contacts as listed above, as the lead appellants and authorized to receive City notices on behalf of all appellants. ATTACHMENT Materials provided to the Administrative Hearing Officer for consideration of the Project Development Plan and Request for Modification of Standard on December 13, 2005: o Site map o 8 1/2" s 11" complete plan set o Amended response to staff comments, a memo from Traffic Engineer Matt Delich dated April 27, 2005 o Request for Modification of Standard from Traffic Engineer Matt Delich dated October 6, 2005 ■ IN SITE NINE ■ON �iiAll� IIIIIIINI ' �'!■�'"�� z ■■■ FP� ^ c . � 2 � § � 9§ � , \ \ \ GDDI leg amTmmvll �§ > � IM B _ ? « |§ \ 2� | . � \ � ) �� 4 0 {4 f 5 _ to, = r S TAFT RRIR°.� y C�7 Wo I 165' LOT III R � .. 1 --+ •p' 9 T � oP1YRlt DR VE E y s I \\. •Loy _ - _ _ o�>u�. _ ---_ ____�_ R�"J f4> 1 .. - EeYYMI O i12 A�l MCASTRUT li I$-S E" tl P g b- ° II a ) 0 OT4 �� L f ° e 1 LOi4 14t E SF � I a I I� St as a� - eT aazn _ a OK RT xe tl sera -- ARK BO B' 11A'135^l CREST ..M. -. 5. S.TAn HILL ROAD I • 1�1 I' � z � II, i I 4 \\ fnY V L I I I i Y an` rzc l m v1 4 na U a p q s PICASTREET—a 60 I I I F Yc I >.e L--------- --- —y` IG r I i r vnc oowz _r Fa r I - ROOK STREET l ..nun �a nMD�� x N s r a 7 a i I 1 — y � 1 3 j a$ B A i; a � a b' Y 8 a 4 - t Al € z , F - _ 8 " zz � � � � lolol IF-7� fBlllk. I �j I Avg ''� I-i I POR ILL j� III f, �iLE -Mj 171C owl Itf: lloin � it � I III IjII I t� K III j'I I �� 61-• �g 111 I � it $ � 1 13 d 1 'i , i gig I r �r I II i r i a �li!it 0 y II I �C w C� 55== 4 b "e C ie Vxi ! i i A II i C S u I I ■C d P a ro I ; � 0.O0 PEG, ., MBMORANDDb7 Q �a�yy J. `>x mCD VOo c� 00 v TO: Russ Wells, Anchor Development a ^^^ o Tom Peterson, Stanford Real Estate ^, p 6 City of Fort Collins o ci'•... �.�c-�Ri� . 0 o FROM: Matt Delich �NAL o U x DATE: April 27, 2005 Z LL SUSJECT: Raven View Development Transportation Impact Study - w Amendment response to staff comments (File: 0477ME02) 0 J o This memorandum provides responses to Fort Collins staff > N comments with regard to the TIS. The comments addressed herein Q Co pertain to the current site plan and pedestrian level of service. z CD a o Comment 90 indicates that the TIS needs to be updated to x M reflect the current site layout. The new site layout shows 36 single w w family attached and 18 single family detached dwelling units with a isingle access to Taft Hill Road. The site plan shown in the TIS had N LL 38 single family attached and 19 single family detached dwelling N units with the same single access to Taft Hill Road. There would be cli little purpose to update the TIS with the new dwelling unit count, since the morning and afternoon peak hour trip generation is reduced by 3 and 0 trip ends, respectively. The calculated level of service and conclusions with regard to intersection operation will not change. Comment 21 discusses pedestrian LOS with regard to including the City Park Nine golf course as a destination and the directness measurement. The TIS addressed pedestrian LOS on page 17 and in Appendix F. The comment regarding the proximity to City Park Nine is not valid. Both the club house and driveway from City Park Drive are more than 0.25 miles from the northeast edge of the site. The W distances were scaled from an aerial photograph. Therefore, it is d concluded that City Park Nine as a pedestrian destination is not Z appropriate. w = z In my judgment, the City staff interpretation of the (� C3 "directness" measurement is contrary to practical logic, especially J W as it relates to "in fill" development. As defined by staff, the W o minimum pedestrian distance to/from the residential neighborhood to r the east and Moore Elementary School to the southeast would go through the yards of private property. It would not follow a p practical route that would be available to a pedestrian. The actual 7 U) distance to either of these destinations would be via sidewalks along z Taft Hill Road and Mulberry Street or Taft Hill Road and Orchard °C Place. At the request of City staff, I have changed the directness ~ measure to these two destinations to fit the staff interpretation. W � The Pedestrian Influence Area graphic and Pedestrian LOS Worksheet, LL reflecting this change, are provided in Appendix A. The "directness" factor for Moore Elementary School is at LOS E and for the Q H neighborhood to the east is at LOS F. It is my understanding that the calculated level of service for directness will not cause City staff to recommend denial of the Raven View Development. APPENDIX A i Ol J j Q CIL a ti N ti a e4 m M w IkI m1�allzol o O •V • I •Y W O m T i E N o n It'° n. � O u It [it cG ; ' O U 05 V HriT-4 _ C rn o � x C I (%3 O N Q m .T-4 u co u ti C Ip .OSO '�J i 0 i° .c O �- C � 4 N MEMORANDUM 00 co L CO CV) To: Anne Aspen, Fort Collins Planning • OLO Susan Joy, Fort Collins Engineering 0 6 Eric Bracke, Fort Collins Traffic Engineer C Russ Wells, Anchor Development Corporation o o Tom Peterson, , S�tannffoord Real Estate LLC O r J U r- From: Matt Delich o LL Date: October 7, 2005 J w JSubject: Raven View Development Transportation Impact Study - Response to staff comments (File: 0477ME03) CD w oN 0 m This memorandum responds to transportation related comments contained > in Staff Project Review for Raven View PUP, Type 1, dated October 5, 2 2005. The comments are: #108 - Pedestrian LOS; and #90 - Traffic w Study. N O_ The pedestrian level of service comment is being addressed in a N separate letter requesting a modification of standard. I had a N conversation with David Averill, Transportation Planner. He requested the modification letter. I am sending five copies to Anne Aspen and one copy directly to David Averill. The traffic study comment requests another copy of the updated TIS. The traffic study was not updated, but an amendment memorandum (dated April 27, 2005) was prepared and submitted. This memorandum provided updated pedestrian level of service analysis and a request to accept the TIS and the memorandum, rather than revising the entire TIS for a few minimal changes. It is respectfully requested that these two documents (the TIS and the Memorandum) be accepted as they currently stand. Thank you. jL Z W t Z v Z J W W G 0 y Z 3 W an U LL Q Q Q C APPENDIX A o� J j Q P d J ib 14 ti a C4 m AB M @ll CQ I o a a _ a o E ; 3` • el c) cJ c� c J c� v c m O sr 6 W �r 6 U (.+ C v V v V v , ,.... rr\j Q V � L m L. Q1 d r j1 �I J v ul O ? . � 05 - O u 1 3 IjCw(CC cm m C � ~ v � O Li � o � � N ATTACHMENT 4 Verbatim transcript of the December 13, 2005 Administrative Hearing 1 ADMINISTRATIVE PVSLIC REARING MEETING OF DECEMBER 13, 2005 281 North College Avenue Conference Room A Fort Collins, Colorado 80524 RAVEN VIEW PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND MODIFICATION OF STANDARD CAMERON GLOSS, ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER ANNE ASPEN, PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2 1 P R O C E E D I N G S 2 MR. GLOSS: Good evening. I would like to welcome 3 you to the administrative public hearing for the Raven View 4 Project Development Plan and request for Modification of Standard. 5 I 'm Cameron 6 Gloss. I 'm the Director of Current Planning here at the 7 City, and I will be this evening' s administrative hearing 8 officer. 9 These administrative hearings are oftentimes less 10 formal than the Planning and Zoning Board hearings, but, 11 given the number of folks we have in attendance this evening, 12 we are going to keep this relatively formal, in that we are 13 going to start with our set procedure, and that is listed 14 here on the wall . 15 We start out by having a presentation by the staff. 16 Anne Aspen is the City Planner that was assigned to review 17 this project and to evaluate it based on standards in the 18 City' s Land Use Code. She' s going to be making a 19 recommendation and giving some background information, and 20 then the applicant is going to have the opportunity for 21 presentation. 22 And, after that point, I am going to open it up for 23 public comment, and that 's where you all come in. And when 24 you do make a comment, I would like you to very clearly speak 25 up, give us your name and your address. We have some 3 1 relatively low-tech recording equipment that we are using 2 here this evening, not being in the council chambers, so you 3 need to speak clearly. Because we need to have an accurate 4 record, should there be an appeal of this project and it 5 would go on to City Council on appeal, that we can register 6 meeting minutes or detailed minutes of this hearing. So with 7 that being the only item that we have on tonight 's agenda, we 8 will start with the staff report. 9 MS. ASPEN: I am Anne Aspen, and I 'm the current 10 Planning Department Planner on this project. And I just want 11 to remind you there is a sign-in sheet going around. If you 12 are here for any reason, please sign in so that we have a 13 record of your address and your name. 14 This hearing is for the Raven View Project 15 Development Plan and the modification of standard. It' s a 16 request to develop an 8 .18 acre study into 51 residential 17 units, 18 of which are single family detached units, and 33 18 of which are single family attached units. There is a 19 modification of standard request regarding the pedestrian 20 level of service and how it was documented in the TIS, 21 transportation impact study. 22 This property is located on the south side of 23 Mulberry, just east of Taft Hill Road. It' s within the LMN, 24 low-density/mixed-use neighborhood district. Staff 25 recommends approval of both the PDP and the modification. 4 1 MR. GLOSS: Thank you. Would the applicant like to 2 make a presentation? 3 MR. PETERSON: Yes, I would. For the record, I 'm 4 Tom Peterson. I 'm a planner here in Fort Collins, 3555 5 Stanford Road. I have with me tonight the development team 6 who has been working on this application for quite a while. 7 1 am going to ask each of them to say a little bit about 8 their respective areas, and perhaps answer some of the 9 questions that some of the audience members qu may have about 10 this application. 11 Starting here in the back, here in the blue shirt, 12 is Nick Haws from Northern Engineering. He' s an 13 engineer. Lori Darling, who is the architect of 14 record, who has been designing the single family homes, the 15 multifamily homes. Next to me, here, is Matt Delich, 16 the traffic engineer. He is probably -- you are 17 probably going to hear from him a little more than the rest 18 of us . And behind me, one of the owners, Wayne Hochstetler. 19 This application has been in process since 2004. 20 There was a neighborhood meeting at Moore Elementary School 21 on this, although we have had trouble tracking down the 22 records to that, but we did go through a whole raft of issues 23 at that point with concerns that the neighborhood had. 24 In addition to that, since that time, we have been 25 working very closely with the Staff and the City of Fort 5 1 Collins and its various departments to go through and meet 2 the standards and criteria that the City has set for design 3 issues. And, frankly, it has been a long and very thorough 4 process in my opinion, having done lots of these applications 5 over the years. 6 Basically, what I think that I would like to do, as 7 a start, is maybe have Lori Darling just talk about the basic 8 layout, the types of units, the locations, perhaps give a 9 couple of quick examples . 10 But I would like, Nick, if you would, to cover, 11 sort of very quickly, the typical engineering issues that 12 neighbors are usually concerned about. How the drainage 13 works. Where the roads are going to be. How the roads meet 14 the standards and criteria for electric power and sanitary 15 sewer and water, those types of issues . Where they will come 16 from. 17 And finally, I am going to ask Matt Delich to 18 provide a little testimony for the record. And again, Mr. 19 Gloss, this is really at your discretion, how much you want 20 me to go into that, since we have some really elaborate 21 studies. We are happy to cover that at depth in the records, 22 so if you would just guide me on that when we get to that 23 point. 24 And then, finally, I will try to provide a real 25 quick summary before we go into the public comment portion of 6 1 the hearing. And, again, with the hearing officers 2 permission, where appropriate, we will try to answer 3 questions as they come up. 4 MR. GLOSS: Okay. How I would like to handle that 5 is have you complete your presentation, and then take the 6 public comments and then respond. And we can have a rebuttal 7 period as well if we need to. 8 MR. PETERSON: Okay. Lori, could you start off by 9 talking about the location, design, and considerations that 10 have gone into the unit placement, because this plan is a bit 11 different from what was presented at the neighborhood 12 meeting. 13 As some of you have observed, as you have been 14 talking here, there actually is a less number of units than 15 we started with, and the design of the plan has changed, 16 somewhat, again, to reflect some of the issues that we heard 17 at that meeting. 18 MS. DARLING: Good evening. Again, my name is Lori 19 Darling. I 'm the architect for the project and have given a 20 basic layout working with the civil engineer but also worked 21 on the design of the single family units and a little bit of 22 the attached units . 23 All of these homes are for sale. It' s not an 24 apartment complex. They are all single family homes. The 25 ones in the center are attached to each other, and the ones 7 1 on the perimeter are single family. So, in general, we are 2 coming to Taft Hill Road on this side. Mulberry is up here, 3 and we are entering off of Taft Hill, and there are certain 4 criteria that the City and County have about how far apart 5 roads can be from intersections and such. 6 So we have set this road where we need to be off of 7 the intersection and coming into our neighborhood. We have 8 set the Taft end of it -- is all landscaped. And the 9 perimeter to the north and south side are the single family 10 unit lots . And, in a second, I will show you the options on 11 what those homes can be. 12 We have set this up so that on the backside here, 13 there are no homes, that this will be all landscaped in the 14 back. This lot is larger than the rest so that there can be 15 an additional bit of distance between that home and the next 16 lot to the east. And this area, here, is an easement that we 17 have to get to our drainage, so it has a larger swath of 18 landscape as well to the east. 19 To the north and south, the rear lot lines, the 20 homes, the envelopes, are split a little bit to the front. 21 So again, the back will have a little bit more room as you 22 head off to the property line. 23 So the single families are to the north and south, 24 and the attached -- I mean, they are still single family but 25 are more in the center, and we created a ring of those, kept 8 1 the landscape to the east. And, on this side, we have got 2 the road to the east with the landscaping along the edge. 3 So, again, trying to keep as few buildings right up 4 against the propertyline as we can. These units in here,, 5 they have attached garages, here and here. These, with the 6 little 'ILI' on them, these are their garages, so they are set 7 right there. We have off-street parking, some of it, but 8 also, this is a private road. You can park on the street 9 like normal roads in the City. Sidewalks throughout. 10 Sidewalk connections from all of the attached units down to 11 the sidewalks. 12 I think that about covers it in that regard. We do 13 have a stub-in, if somebody ever wanted to develop this 14 property, they can' t have another road right next to -- you 15 can' t have them so close together. So that they would come 16 in and use this road also, or whatever the case may be. 17 The color drawings of the homes, this is an example 18 of the attached units, very simple. They are not that tall, 19 trying to keep the scale with what is out there in that part 20 of town, not doing anything overly large or overly tall . The 21 colors are very -- what word am I looking for? Comfortable, 22 I guess, would be a good word for the color choices. 23 And then the detached units are all under 2, 000 24 square feet, again, not all that tall . I think we have 25 got - 28 feet is our tallest unit. And, then, we have got a 9 1 series of color choices and a series of floor plan choices 2 that can go in any slot. And there are certain lots though g 3 that will fit only certain floor plans, and that is much more 4 detailed than you need right now. And I think that is it for 5 the colors and styles. 6 MR. GLOSS: I hate to just have this level of 7 formality where we can' t interact, but, I think, given the 8 number of people here, if you could hold the questions -- and 9 I am sorry to interrupt you -- but we will kind of summarize 10 all of those after the applicant has a little bit more 11 opportunity for this type of interchange. 12 MR. PETERSON: And I will ask the engineer of 13 record from Northern Engineering to come up and, really, just 14 briefly touch on the infrastructure type of systems that you 15 get when you do development, and point out, where possible, 16 obviously, how those might affect neighboring property owners 17 in some way, shape, or form. 18 MR. HAWS: I will try to keep it brief, and not 19 bore the neighborhood with technical engineering issues, but 20 like Tom said, put it in a context of how it 's going to tie 21 in and interact. Most of you probably know that are here, 22 but it 's not obvious on the plan, that these are all existing 23 constructed homes with people living in them along the edge. 24 Up here would be Mulberry Street, and it also has 25 existing residences all along it, as does Taft. So the 10 1 average person might not know that this undeveloped ground is 2 sitting back here. So it 's a true in-fill project, and we 3 are trying to kind of blend in with what is occurring, and 4 best suit everyone's needs. 5 One issue that is not directly engineering, but I 6 will just briefly mention it because it has come up. In 7 addition to the landscape buffer over here, to kind of 8 acknowledge the existing residences, there will be a full 9 fence along this property line. 10 And the main objective is to eliminate headlight 11 glare on this roadway from lighting, I guess, in the existing 12 back yards. So that has been considered, and that 's the issue 13 or the remedy that we are proposing for that. 14 Basic utilities will connect to the water and Taft 15 Hill and loop that up to the easement back to Mulberry. This 16 easement is also a dual purpose. It's going to serve 17 emergency fire access . So it will not be through streets or 18 through a pedestrian connection, but it will be there to 19 allow emergency vehicles, fire and that sort. 20 And we were able to create a storm water solution 21 that actually improved this area. And people may not know, 22 and being undeveloped, we don' t have a lot of run-off, but 23 there really is no defined out-fall for this. So, I guess in 24 a layman' s sense, it just kind of drains through people's 25 back yards as it is, and fortunately, because the rates aren' t 11 I very high now. 2 But, with this plan, we are able to collect that 3 all in the street system and pipe it up here to this 4 detention pond and release it into the major storm sewer 5 system that the City installed in Mulberry a couple of years 6 back and get it into a system that can accommodate it and not 7 adversely impact the neighborhood. I think that ' s kind of a 8 quick review. 9 We do have sanitary sewer that we' ll be bringing out 10 from Mulberry as well . So water and sewer will be served by 11 the City of Fort Collins. And that 's the short and dirty of 12 it. 13 MR. PETERSON: Nick, could I ask a couple of 14 questions just for the record? Do the standards and criteria 15 that you used when designing this, as Northern Engineering 16 used, do they meet City standards and criteria? 17 MR. HAWS: This plan does . At this point, we are 18 not proposing any engineering variances from the street 19 criteria, which is difficult to do, quite frankly. They are 20 not necessarily set up, but through the design team and Lori 21 Darling's office, we were able to come up with a plan; these 22 eyebrows around the corner to allow fire trucks to navigate 23 the corners. We are providing these street stubs . 24 So it' s to the adjacent properties in the event 25 they were to develop in the future. So, in the future then, 12 1 just a circulation system that satisfies the various 2 criteria. 3 MR. PETERSON: So, really, there are no variances 4 that are being requested for street or utility designs? 5 MR. HAWS: Designs, correct, not at this time. 6 There is the one modification I want. 7 MR. PETERSON: I well let Matt talk about that 8 modification, the pedestrian service modification. Again, 9 just a couple of things for the record. Is there going to be 10 electric here, and, if so, where is it going to come from? 11 MR. HAWS: Yes . City Light and Power will tie 12 into electric on Taft, and they will typically just bring 13 that along the front of the streets and kind of follow the 14 street network and provide electric power service for street 15 lights and residential electric service. 16 MR. PETERSON: Is there going to be any natural gas 17 with this project? 18 MR. HAWS: Similarly, the natural gas, and I 19 haven' t had intimate contact with the gas provider, but they 20 will typically parallel or follow suit with the electric 21 route. 22 MR. PETERSON: Okay. So in terms of -- let me ask 23 the question a slightly different way. In terms of all of 24 the criteria that you have to design for as an engineer with 25 City standards, in terms of access, parking, site lighting, 13 1 plat standards and development, and that sort of thin you 9 2 have met all the standards and criteria that the City has set 3 up? 4 MR. HAWS: Yes, the staff report would kind of -- 5 MR. PETERSON: The staff report reflects that. 6 MR. DELICH: Yes. 7 MR. PETERSON: Okay. Well, I think that is about 8 it. Again, we are trying to cover this as quickly as we can. 9 So I would next ask Mr. Delich to come up and talk about 10 briefly, very briefly, about the traffic impact study in 11 perhaps a little more detail about the variance of standards, 12 so we are asking for the pedestrian level of service. 13 NEIGHBORHOOD MEMBER: Could I go back? He just briefly 14 mentioned the storm or the water drainage there. I don' t - 15 I 'm not sure exactly where that is, where the drainage -- 16 MR. GLOSS: Since you've asked that, maybe Mr. 17 Haws could come up and explain how the storm drainage will 18 be provided. 19 MR. HAWS: Because it 's not in a very close area 20 to the floodplain. There is no mapped floodplain through the 21 property boundary. There are some master flood designs in 22 and around here, but this property boundary is not subject to 23 additions within those floodplain limits, but I guess to 24 further describe the drainage pattern, what we will do in 25 here, is this street will generally slope the direction that 14 1 I am showing around here, as well as here. 2 So the lots will drain into the street, and that 3 will kind of concentrate and convey water over here. We will 4 have inlets that will pick up the water in an underground 5 pipe and pipe it up to this area, which is part of the 6 proposed development. 7 This will be the detention pond, and that will, you 8 know, pond up with water, contain it at a rate and allow for 9 sediment to fill up and trickle out, and also dual purpose 10 with water quality treatment within this landscaped pond 11 area. That will have an outlet box that controls that rate 12 and allows it to back up in here, so that when it' s piped up 13 into Mulberry, it ' s at a slower rate. 14 MR. PETERSON: It goes directly into the pipe, does 15 it not, on Mulberry? Is that what you are saying? 16 MR. HAWS: Yes, it ' s underground from here into 17 the large -- 18 THE SPEAKER: I guess the concern that I have is 19 that I have this property right here on Mulberry and Taft 20 Hill . It would appear to me that that would be -- which they 21 say the floodplain is real close, in terms of -- I just 22 talked to the City, and they said that it is, you know, the 23 property that I have is not in a floodplain, but if you're 24 moving more water in that direction, will that be a problem, 25 I guess is the question that I have. 15 1 MR. HAWS: No, it ' s not, and one thing that we had 2 to do in our engineering analysis is prove that even though 3 we are detaining water here and releasing it at less than 4 historic rates, that the existing system in Mulberry itself 5 is not adversely impacted by this rate. Albeit is small, we 6 did have to verify that on down the line by the golf 7 course -- this flow is added to that -- and verify that it 8 can handle it without flooding. 9 MR. PETERSON: And that will then have water the 10 majority of the time in it, or is it anticipated that it will 11 be dry? 12 MR. HAWS: It 's designed to be dry with that water 13 quality feature. It may get wet for up to 40 hours in summer 14 rainstorms to allow the particulates to settle, but then it 15 will be dry after that. 16 MR. GLOSS: If I can just ask to hold -- if there 17 are any questions until after we get through the staff 18 presentation, then we will be able to come back to everybody. 19 MR. DELICH: Thanks . I 'm the traffic engineer. I 20 performed the traffic study, transportation study, for this 21 development at a higher number of units than are being 22 proposed right now. All of the key intersections that I was 23 required to analyze offered (inaudible) accepted with the 24 project 's operational criteria. 25 The issue with the modification is for a pedestrian 16 1 level of service criteria, the directness measure. 2 Pedestrian level of service has to be analyzed in the traffic 3 study, and the measure that is not met, is the route to the 4 various destinations . And there are essentially three 5 destinations as defined by the City of Fort Collins for the 6 development. 7 One is the existing residential that exists right 8 here on the other side of Taft. The directness measure for 9 this residential is met according to the criteria. It ' s this 10 one, and this one is not met, and let me explain what all 11 that means . The directness measure is a function of the 12 minimum route to the destination versus the actual route to 13 those destinations . 14 Now, the minimum route to these destinations is 15 straight this way through these back yards or straight this 16 way through these back yards. The route that these people 17 will have to take is to come out to Taft Hill and go up to 18 Mulberry and down into the development or down and then take 19 Orchard into this development. 20 So the directness measure is not met, and that is 21 what the modification is all about tonight, as far as that 22 one, anyway. It can' t be met without people climbing over 23 fences, so, logically, practically, it cannot be met. So I 24 think the staff agrees with that or concurs with the planners 25 or concurs with the modification, and I will leave it at that. 17 1 MR. GLOSS: Thank you. Now, we have the 2 opportunity for public comment. As this has been advertised 3 as a public hearing, now would be the opportunity for you to 4 speak. As I mentioned to you before, if you could please 5 state your name and address for the record, and we will 6 collect your comments, and I will give you, sir, the 7 opportunity for the first comment. 8 MR. FLETCHER: Sure. Rick Fletcher at 2025 West 9 Mulberry. The fire access road, can you explain exactly where 10 that 's at? 11 MR. PETERSON: Counsel, if it ' s all right, if I 12 could have the various parties come up to the mike. 13 MR. GLOSS: Sir, if you would like to, if Mr. 14 Fletcher would come up as well. Is that clear? Was his 15 question clear? 16 MR. HAWS: I believe it was. Maybe to elaborate 17 or to further explain where, relative to the existing homes, 18 this emergency exit is . And I guess it would be hard to know 19 and who is granting this easement is Val Gray, and I wouldn't 20 expect everyone to know who that gentleman is or where his 21 home is. It 's situated -- like, the third one in. 22 THE SPEAKER: Also there's -- this plan shows -- it 23 is the footprints of where this is . 24 MR. GLOSS: If anyone would like to come up to the 25 table to view, it may be kind of hard to read. 18 1 MR. HAWS: Yes, it is . And it would be entirely 2 contained on his property to the back. There is not 3 easements being asked from anyone else for this, the 4 construction or the permanent existence of that emergency 5 exit. So it will be paved to satisfy fire requirements . It 6 will be -- have drive-over signage. Again, to not be used as 7 a vehicular or pedestrian thoroughfare, but they satisfy fire 8 requirements . Does that clarify it? 9 MR. GLOSS: Yes, thank you. 10 MR. GORE: Mr. Gore, 521 Crestmore Place. Is 11 there any intention to change or to alter the terrain in the 12 area of this detention pond? I ask because the level of that 13 terrain is slightly higher than the lots to the east, and 14 there is also some existing drainage back there. There is a 15 drainage ditch, and there is some drainage in the area to the 16 street. 17 MR. HAWS: Yes, if you would like to see the 18 specifics, we have a grading plan. But, yeah, the intention 19 is the pond will sit lower and be carved out. The -- all of 20 it will undergo some topographical changes, nothing dramatic, 21 but the mass of the topography. But, yes, there will be 22 grading operations and mostly at the pond area. 23 MR. FLETCHER: I would like to see that, because it 24 affects us . If it is not deep enough, it' s my back yard. 25 MR. GLOSS: Excuse me. There is a detailed 19 1 question. I guess, those of you that would like to take a 2 look at the grading, I think there are grading plans here. 3 Mr. Haws, if you wanted to turn to those drawings, maybe 4 that could allay the concerns of the neighbors . 5 MR. PETERSON: Because what you are asking is by 6 doing this, is this going to change the drainage in my yard? 7 Is it going to cause something to flow back or stop? 8 MR. FLETCHER: If it is holding back all the water 9 for that one detention area, it is understandable, but I 10 don' t want it receding into my house, and I understand that 11 you have probably looked at that. 12 MR. HAWS: I will testify that it has been 13 designed and analyzed by the City Stormwater staff. 14 MR. GLOSS: While you're looking for that drawing, 15 if we could go on to any additional comments. 16 MS. GORE: Actually, on the same -- Gore, 521 17 Crestmore -- is there going to be landscaping done on the 18 detention area or is it just going to be an open area? 19 MR. GLOSS: Would the applicant like to speak on 20 the landscape detention area? 21 MR. PETERSON: I will just have him address that 22 when he gets to the right set of plans . 23 MR. HAWS: I apologize. This is not the final . 24 This is a working set of drawings, but I can illustrate the 25 landscape design on the pond. 20 1 MR. GLOSS: Those of you that would like to take a 2 look at grading and landscaping, you are welcome to come up 3 to the table. 4 THE SPEAKER: Can you just give us an idea of the 5 volume of soil you are taking out for the -- 6 MR. HAWS: I don' t know volumes, but if we look at 7 these elevations here, there will be a berm along this 8 property line to kind of further protect the existing homes. 9 So this will be built up, and then this is -- would be that 10 structure that collects the concentrated water and pipes it 11 out to Mulberry. At this point, is on the order of 7 feet at 12 the lowest point of the pond there. 13 THE SPEAKER: So this is Taft? 14 MS. GORE: No. This is Taft here. 15 MR. HAWS: And I understand that ' s in h going through 16 Ms . Patterson' s driveway right there. 17 MS. GORE: There is that one pipe that eases 18 between, just on the south out of your property, and I don' t 19 know what happens to that. That was Patterson' s. 20 MR. HAWS: We abandoned that. 21 MS. GORE: And you have abandoned them? Okay. 22 MR. PETERSON: And in addition, Nick, there is 23 overland flow instead of - in the event of, right? 24 MR. HAWS: Another design consideration and analysis 25 is, if this were to fail or we had a catastrophic flood like 21 1 197, or if this plugged up for any reason, the emergency 2 spill path is down Patterson's driveway and not to the east 3 in the existing back yards. And that is part of the 4 design and analysis that Stormwater staff set. 5 MS. GORE: We have a basement and nobody else does, 6 and that obviously will affect us. I have had enough 7 problems with water there. 8 MR. HAWS: This plan will obviously affect -- 9 MS. GORE: No. No. I said we have had enough 10 water problems . I don' t want any more. You don' t know if 11 there is going to be -- 12 THE SPEAKER: Do these properties have basements? 13 I 've missed it. 14 MR. HAWS: Yes. 15 MS. GORE: And is the detention landscaped? Was 16 the plan to plant it with natural grasses and, basically, 17 what it has right now, just to plant the natural grasses back 18 in? 19 MR. PETERSON: And frankly, the reason for that, 20 speaking from the storage experience, is the City is not all 21 that keen on putting vegetation in detention basins, because 22 their perception is, or their experience is, I probably 23 should say, is that trees and landscaping take away from the 24 volume of detention. 25 Although, you can go around town and look at many 22 1 old detention basins, and they have lots of trees in them, 2 and little measurements that shows what happens when it hits 3 flood stage and stuff, but they haven' t done that for quite a 4 few years now. 5 MR. GLOSS: All right. There are quite a few other 6 people getting ready to ask questions. Ms . Gore, would you 7 like to -- 8 MS. GORE: I just wanted to know, you are talking 9 about a 6-foot fence that is adjacent to the properties on 10 the east. Are you addressing who is taking down the existing 11 fences that are there now? I don' t want a double fence. 12 MR. HAWS: On the Grace property and Patterson's 13 property? 14 MS. GORE: No. The properties that are on 15 Crestmore. We all have fences. 16 MR. HAWS: They are on the east side, and if they 17 are -- they would not be affected if they are on your 18 property. 19 MS. GORE: No. I don' t want two fences. If you' re 20 putting up a 6-foot cedar fence, and I have a fence, who is 21 taking down my fence? 22 MR. HAWS: Well, right now, as it stands, we can 23 work through that. We can' t go on your property. We can' t 24 just take your fence down, but we sure can work through that. 25 MR. PETERSON: For the record, there would still be 23 1 two fences there. But what the applicant is saying, for the 2 record, but we would be happy, per the individual 3 circumstances, to look at it. Because the cedar fence would 4 be, in some of the lots there, somewhat of an improvement, no 5 offense to anybody. 6 MR. GLOSS: Other comments? Yes, sir? 7 THE SPEAKER: I have a question about the price of 8 the homes. 9 MR. HAWS: We estimate that the townhomes, the 10 attached single family, will be approximately $180, 000, in 11 that range, the base price. And then the single family 12 detached homes that are all the way around the perimeter, 13 they probably would start at around $200, 000 and go up from 14 there. 15 MR. PETERSON: If I could, Mr. Gloss, have 16 Mr. Wells, who is also one of the applicants, answer that 17 question, who has come into the meeting. 18 MR. GLOSS: Thank you. Sir, you had your hand up? 19 MR. GONZALES: My name is Arthur Gonzales. I own 20 the property at 532 South Taft Hill Road, and my only concern 21 is, I need access to the back of my property. I am not able 22 to access my back lot from my house. So it ' s imperative that 23 2 have access to the back of my property. That ' s my only 24 concern, is, you know, I need access to the back of my 25 property. 24 1 MR. GLOSS: I have to ask, upon looking at the 2 development plan, is there indication here that with this 3 plan that you would not have access in the future? 4 MR. GONZALES: First of all, I am a little bit 5 disappointed in the drawings that I am seeing. This is my 6 property here. And I imagine, in looking at this schematic, 7 you see, this is -- 8 MR. PETERSON: Actually, if I could, maybe look at 9 the engineering plans because those show the houses a little 10 better. 11 MR. GONZALES: Thank you. And I am just concerned. 12 I just wanted to state my concern. And South Taft Hill Road 13 is where? And 532 is -- see, on this little -- right here, 14 this is my property right here. It ' s the little one with the 15 little boot right here, and it ' s kind of splitting it right 16 down the middle there. 17 MR. HAWS: So I looks like there are some 18 driveways here, and it has a circular-type driveway? 19 MR. GONZALES: No. I 'm to the north of the 20 circular driveway. That 's my neighbor to the south. This is 21 my property right here. Affirmative. 22 MR. HAWS: You are here, right? Or this one here. 23 MR. GONZALES: I think this is the circular one in 24 here. 25 MR. PETERSON: I 'm not sure. It 's hard to tell . 25 1 On the corner here, it comes all the way back this way. So 2 how many houses are you up from the corner? 3 MR. GONZALES: Three or four. I believe this is -- 4 this is -- I believe this is my property right here. 5 MR. PETERSON: Okay. So it would be this one, but 6 you have a bigger backyard, don' t you? 7 MR. GONZALES: Affirmative. That is the rationale 8 why I need that. 9 MR. PETERSON: This is what you call the "boot 10 lot"? 11 MR. GONZALES: Affirmative, yes. 12 MR. HAWS: And it looks like you presently have 13 access -- 14 MR. GONZALES: Well, I don' t. Through the gracious 15 -- you know, the gentleman over here occasionally -- I don' t 16 go there a lot. But, occasionally, he allows me to just roll 17 across his land and access it that way. But, right now, you 18 know, I don' t need to go back there a lot, but, obviously, if 19 this is going to be -- 20 MR. GLOSS: Excuse me. We are trying to record 21 this. Can we be respectful of the speaker? 22 MR. GONZALES: Thank you. So I just need to have 23 access back there. You never know. Someday, I may have to 24 put a horse back there or whatever the deal is, but I need 25 access to it. And it 's been there. There is a gate back 26 1 there, and I am able to roll in and out of there. It 's just 2 that I don' t have access to it through the front of my house. 3 That 's my only concern. I just need access to the back of my 4 property. 5 MR. GLOSS: Okay. The applicant, would they like 6 to respond? 7 MR. GONZALES: If there ' s a road, then I am a happy 8 camper. That is all that I am concerned about. 9 MR. WELLS: This is Russ Wells again. And where 10 exactly is your property in relation to -- this is the 11 edge -- 12 MR. GONZALES: This is my property. 13 MR. WELLS: Val Gray will still own this property. 14 MR. GONZALES: But what about the existing 15 property? Will there be a place for me to access my 16 property? 17 MR. WELLS: We plan to put a fence up just for 18 privacy. 19 MR. GONZALES: As I had said, will you have to go 20 and put a gate on that property so that I can drive in and 21 out of it? Because that is what I would need. I have to 22 have access to my property. I have to. 23 MR. WELLS: It would be right in this section, but, 24 like you said, it is by permission of Mr. Gray. But Mr. Gray 25 still owns the property. 27 1 MR. GONZALES: But I am not really talking about 2 Mr. Gray' s property. I 'm talking about your property that' s 3 taking three-quarters of the backside of my property. That 's 4 what I 'm concerned about. I need a gate. 5 MR. WELLS: So you want to drive through the 6 landscaping to get to the back of -- 7 MR. GONZALES: No. I need -- I don' t care if I am 8 going through landscaping or what I 'm going through. I need 9 access to the back of my property is what I 'm saying, period. 10 MR. PETERSON: Well, there are probably several 11 issues here. One is whether or not we can -- if that ' s awa y 12 from the public street system, that portion of it. So 13 there' s kind of a legal question there, of whether or not we 14 can do that, as long as you can use Mr. Gray's . 15 The second is the City has got us doing some 16 landscaping in there, and I don' t recall what all off the top 17 of my head, but the City would have to agree, assuming that 18 we could come to some agreement. But we would not have an 19 obligation to do landscaping, at least on the strip for a 20 gate. 21 MR. GONZALES: That is what we are asking is that 22 you make those recommendations. That 's the whole idea of 23 this meeting. That ' s what I 'm asking is that you make those 24 recommendations. So that we have the time to say that Mr. 25 Gonzales needs access to the back of his property. 28 1 MR. PETERSON: I am not a lawyer, but you have to 2 be careful how you do these things, because you will be 3 coming through a private development. 4 MR. GONZALES: That 's what the whole ideas is. You 5 asked for my opinion. That is what I 'm stating. I need 6 access to the back of my property. 7 MR. PETERSON: I think that we should probably 8 think about that and talk to the City, if we can do it. 9 MR. HAWS: If we can accommodate it. 10 MR. GONZALES: I need to know that as soon as 11 possible, if you are going to be able to do that for me or 12 not. 13 MR. WELLS: This is Russ wells again. That 14 driveway, that will be controlled by the homeowner's 15 association and maintained by the homeowner's association. 16 And it 's kind of the back yards of the people who would live 17 there, so we have to take into consideration the future 18 owners that will live there and look at all of that. But we 19 will be glad to look at it. 20 MR. GONZALES: That is what I need, to put it down. 21 Let ' s -- you know, let ' s come to terms with this. So, you 22 know, the sooner the better I know what is going to become of 23 this, whether you are going to concur with that decision or 24 not. And I need to know who I contact on that specifically. 25 MR. PETERSON: It will be Mr. Wells. 29 1 MR. GONZALES: So I need to touch base with Mr. 2 wells? 3 MR. PETERSON: Let me ask one question. Is the 4 reason that you can' t get in your backyard is because your 5 side yards are too narrow to -- 6 MR. GONZALES: Affirmative. It 's not like the 7 neighbor to the south of me has a gated driveway. It ' s just 8 the way that it was set up from the day that I bought it, you 9 know. I 'm talking about a half an acre in the back of my 10 property. We are not talking about a little tiny backyard. 11 It 's an entire lot. The first time I saw the house, there 12 was a horse in the backyard, and all of this property is 13 zoned for livestock. 14 MR. PETERSON: It wasn' t your horse? 15 MR. GONZALES: No, it was not my horse. No. 16 MR. PETERSON: For the record, we will take a look 17 at it, and Mr. Wells will be able to meet with Mr. Gonzales 18 and see if we can work out an equitable solution. And, 19 again, with the caveat that the City will cooperate with any 20 solution that we -- 21 THE SPEAKER: From that standpoint, I would not be 22 authorized to require that an access be provided, in that 23 there's not a public access easement recorded against the 24 property that gives you the right today to that access, 25 unless there' s something, that I would say is a proscriptive 30 1 right that has been established to -- 2 MR. GONZALES: Well, I have -- there is a fence in 3 the back now. In other words, now, there is a fence in the 4 back. 5 THE SPEAKER: I understand. What I am getting at 6 is I don' t have any authority. 7 MR. GONZALES: I am not asking you to make the 8 decision now. I realize that. 9 MR. PETERSON: What he is saying is the City can' t 10 require us to do it. What we are saying is we will take a 11 very serious look at it, because the history of these 12 particular owners are that they try to be responsible and 13 want to deal with the neighbors as best they can. So we will 14 take a look at it. It' s a very unique situation you have. 15 At least, I hope that nobody else jumps up and says we have 16 the same situation. 17 MR. GONZALES: I don' t understand why -- I mean, 18 for instance, there are two properties from me. If that was 19 my property, I would be saying the same thing. I can only 20 speak for myself, and, once again, I need to touch base with 21 the powers that be. 22 MR. PETERSON: Mr. Wells, and before you leave, 23 let 's get your phone number, and we will -- 24 MR. GONZALES: Very good. Thank you, very much. 25 MR. GLOSS: Yes, sir? 31 1 MR. ELIASON: Sam Eliason, 529 Crestmore Place. 2 Did you guys explore any pedestrian issues and have any 3 concerns of just not going through this modification and, 4 say, well -- 5 MR. PETERSON: We had a neighborhood meeting, and I 6 think I talked to virtually everyone that was there on the 7 Crestmore strip, and asked that question in one way or 8 another. 9 And, again, this was in 2004, in the summer of 10 2004, and I didn' t get a very positive response, that anybody 11 wanted to give up the pedestrian right-of-way. And, again, 12 the Crestmore lots are relatively -- I don't remember the 13 exact year that Crestmore was put in, but I want to say that 14 it was in the 150s. 15 And there was nobody -- if somebody wanted to come 16 forward and talk to us, we would certainly look into it. We 17 don' t want to ask for a variance if we don't need one. But, 18 again, I g would be surprised. Again, looking at the lot 19 pattern and looking at all of the houses on Crestmore street, 20 whether anybody would want to do that. But we are open for 21 that, but I hate asking for a variance. 22 MR. ELIASON: (Inaudible) . 23 MR. PETERSON: I had a whole group of people around 24 me that were talking to me about Crestmore issues. For the 25 record, what I heard at the meeting were drainage issues . I 32 1 heard compatibility issues with the types of -- one of the 2 issues, again, that was alluded to in Nick's testimony was 3 the headlight issue and whether that would impact it. 4 And one of the issues with people in this 5 particular development is coming through their yards, and 6 that was very clear at the hearing. And, again, we have 7 tried to address it with the cedar fence, with the redesign, 8 because the original design had units over there. 9 We threw those away, and then, when we got into the 10 redesign of the units and stuff, we ended up with that green 11 strip there. So, again, we tried to address, as best we 12 could, the neighborhood concerns and the City concerns. 13 MR. ELIASON: What about any sort of easement up 14 here? I know that one of the reasons I live here and a lot 15 of these people live here is that access. It just seems like 16 it would be better for the development to have some sort of 17 access, a direct walking path. 18 MR. PETERSON: It 's a darn good question, and the 19 answer, again for the record, is that we have explored that, 20 and, again, correct me if I 'm wrong, with both the owner of 21 the fire access easement and the other easement about having 22 public access . And the answer was resoundingly "no. " So you 23 still have your access in Crestmore to the park. You just 24 won' t be able to cut through the back yards anymore. That' s 25 the way that it is . 33 1 MR. ELIASON: We never did it. 2 MR. PETERSON: Well, I used to live over in the 3 neighborhood on the other side, and I never did either. 4 MR. ELIASON: No. I was thinking of the future 5 landowners . 6 MR. PETERSON: And that was probably about the 7 second question that the City asked us, and we explored that 8 in some depth, because pedestrian access is obviously an 9 important issue. 10 MR. ELIASON: That and the elementary school, 11 obviously. 12 MR. PETERSON: Yeah, I would love to have a 13 connection with the elementary school, believe me, and the 14 landowner to the south was resistant to that. And, actually, 15 he had the best shot. We looked at that, too. 16 MR. GLOSS: Okay. Yes, sir? 17 MR. STENNER: Eric Stenner, 917 West Magnolia 18 Street. I want to expound on that a little bit so that Mr. 19 Delich -- if I said that right -- Mr. Wells has indicated 20 the pricing range of this would attract families, probably 21 children into that area, and I think that this price range 22 would do that. I 'm assuming that they would attend Moore 23 Elementary School. 24 So, if we have got one child per house, we have got 25 50 kids that every day have to walk out on Taft Hill where 34 1 the speed limit is 35, most of the time, 45 miles per hour on 2 a thin strip of concrete next to the road, that oftentimes in 3 the wintertime is under two to three feet of ice. I 'm just 4 curious. Why is the City okay with this? 5 MR. DELICH: Matt Delich again. It' s because 6 we cannot get the direct connection through the properties to 7 the south, a pedestrian connection to the properties to the 8 south. There is not likely to be one child per home going to 9 Moore Elementary because of the ages . 10 It will probably be less than that, and I think 11 that the school district has a factor of what they apply to 12 that that might go there. I don' t think that it 's one per 13 household, but, be that as it may, ail of those kids are 14 going to have to go out to Taft Hill Road, go south to the 15 next intersection and go east. And that ' s the way it is. 16 It 's the way people who live along Taft Hill Road 17 right now who have children of that age access Moore 18 Elementary School . And these kids will be joining them on 19 that walk along Taft Hill . 20 MR. ELIASON: And the City is okay with putting 21 those kids on that street? 22 MR. PETERSON: For the record, and I 'm sorry to 23 have to keep saying that, but this is an official hearing, 24 but the traffic study and the pedestrian analysis we have 25 done, meets the standards and criteria that the City sets for 35 1 traffic and pedestrians . 2 The way that this works, just as a little bit of 3 additional information, is the traffic engineer has to sit 4 down with the City before he even starts and come to 5 agreement about what questions and issues are going to be 6 there. And frequently, the school question or how the 7 traffic is going to work are questions that are requested of 8 the traffic engineer to explore in depth. 9 And again, we have met everything the City has 10 asked us to do and demonstrated that we meet the criteria. 11 And the City, of course, is always free to change criteria, 12 but I don' t think they've done that in a long time with these 13 side roads, in-fill . And that is opinion, not -- 14 MR. ELIASON: But my concern is that Taft Hill is 15 not -- I mean, it' s a very high-speed road, and you' re going 16 to have -- I mean the folks who are choosing to live on Taft 17 Hill understand that. 18 The folks that are choosing to live in here may not 19 have that as a consideration at the point in time they are 20 looking to purchase, and I am concerned that you are going to 21 have a lot of children in the age range of 5 to 12 every day, 22 dark, rain, snow, ice, now coming along Taft Hill. And I 23 think that the City needs to consider that much more 24 seriously than they are doing in this development. 25 MR. HOCHSTETLER: For the record, I 'm Wayne 36 1 Hochstetler. Just in relationship to what he said, the 2 townhomes, the attached units, they are two-bedroom units. 3 Those would not typically attract children. 4 In fact, we have that as a project, and they don' t 5 have children. I am not going to say they don' t have any, 6 but they typically do not have children, but the single 7 family would have or could have children. 8 MR. GLOSS: Yes? 9 MR. FLETCHER: Rick Fletcher. Just two questions. 10 I 'm on the north side there. So are people' s back yards going 11 to come right up to my fence? And we have got fences on the 12 east and west side. Why can' t we have fences on the north 13 and south? 14 MS. DARLING: There is a fence all along the -- no, 15 all along the south. The only place there is not a fence at 16 the moment are the single family detached on the north. And, 17 certainly, where the retention pond is there would be no 18 reason for a fence there. We just don' t have it shown for 19 the last three and a half lots, if you will, to the left of 20 the homes. 21 MR. FLETCHER: And what are those? I 'm just 22 curious. 23 MS. DARLING: There is no reason why you can' t put 24 one there. If you like a fence there, we can put a fence 25 there. 37 1 MR. PETERSON: You know, one of the reasons that we 2 looked at that, again, for the record, is because those lots 3 have a lot more depth than the Crestmore lots and the Taft 4 Hill lots. 5 MR. FLETCHER: Are the back yards landscaped? Are 6 the yards landscaped for the single family units? 7 MS. DARLING: It' s up to the landowner. 8 MR. FLETCHER: So they are purchased unlandscaped? 9 MR. PETERSON: Correct. 10 MR. FLETCHER: They are not required to landscape 11 them by City code? 12 THE SPEAKER: The covenants, they say they have -- 13 typically, they have a year to 18 months or something to get 14 their landscaping in. 15 MR. FLETCHER: Do we have first shot at buying 16 these properties? 17 THE SPEAKER: Sure. What ' s your name and address? 18 MR. HEINE: I 'm 622 Taft, and is there -- I 'm 19 here for a friend, Barbara Carpenter, and on this side, the 20 west side, is there a fence along those? 21 MR. HAWS: Yes. 22 MR. HEINE: And then, can you tell me, the 23 entrance to the development, what that house is? I can' t 24 figure it out on the map, which house I am. 25 MS. DARLING: This one is the best one to look at. 38 1 MR. HEINE: So, do you know (inaudible) ? 2 MS. DARLING: I don't know. 3 THE SPEAKER: 622 , yeah, it was posted. 4 THE SPEAKER: It had a development proposal sign in 5 front, and this is the one where the street -- this is 614 6 here, and then the next one is 618, 620, and then 622 . So 7 this is 614? 8 MR. GLOSS: Okay. Any other comments? 9 MS. GORE: If this is approved, how long do you 10 think construction will be underway? How long to develop? 11 Not when it' s going to start, but how long is the project? 12 MR. WELLS: I 'm Russ Wells, and -- well, the 13 infrastructure would be put in first, obviously, and that 14 might take four to six months, maybe less. And then the -- 15 all of the lots by the City requirement are seeded, you know, 16 in case they are not built up right away. 17 The grass grows, and it ' s kind of a natural grass 18 that protects from dust and environmental problems . But we 19 would immediately start building the structures, the houses, 20 that will go in there. And the build-out depends upon the 21 absorption by sales, and that -- you know, what we have 22 experienced, it might be a year and a half or two years. 23 MS. GORE: Okay. My concern is here is a totally 24 natural area. I mean, there are foxes back there. There are 25 tons of rodents back there, and they are going want to find a 39 1 new place to live. Is anyone going to assist us in rodent 2 mitigation? I have no rodents. I haven' t for 21 years. 3 MR. WELLS: I don' t know how to respond to that. 4 MS. GORE: Will Y you a for someone to come in Y pay 5 to exterminate my house? 6 MR. WELLS: We've never had complaints of that. 7 MR. PETERSON: If I could, By "rodents, " you mean 8 field mice rather than rats? That is kind of a different 9 issue. Cats? 10 MS. GORE: I have had two, but I don' t want them 11 to be eating field mice. Thank you. I mean, there are 12 wildlife back there. There is a fox back there, so we know 13 that there's something back there that they are living on. I 14 don' t think they go to King Soopers. 15 MR. GLOSS: Yes? 16 MR. ELIASON: Sam Eliason, 529 Crestmore. As far 17 as the fences go, I assume those go in last or first or -- 18 MR. WELLS: Well, they would go in with the 19 landscaping, probably towards the end of the infrastructure 20 phase -- 21 MR. ELIASON: It seems like it would be nice if 22 they went in at the beginning. 23 MR. WELLS: Well, they essentially do. There' s an 24 erosion control fence that would go in first, and that might 25 help with the rodents. It' s about 2 feet high, and the whole 40 1 site is surrounded by that, initially. And it controls 2 water and -- 3 MR. PETERSON: And tastes like cheese. 4 MR. ELIASON: What about the construction schedule 5 and how would that progress? 6 MR. PETERSON: Before Russ answers it, there are 7 still a couple more steps beyond this meeting. The City has 8 a very elaborate -- what they call "final compliance review. " 9 So, essentially, once the hearing, from our perspective, once 10 the hearing officers ' decision is made, we end up in a 11 resubmittal of final plans to the City. 12 And, again, the City requirements are very 13 extensive and detailed, even more so than what you are seeing 14 with these plans, which have a high degree of footage to 15 them. The first pass, correct me I 'm wrong, Anne, and that 's 16 about four weeks after we submit. 17 Then, if we have to make corrections, however long 18 it takes us to get those done, then we start another 19 three-week process with the City. So you can easily go 60 to 20 120 days before you finish with the City, from tonight's 21 meeting, where you have a full set of plans signed, the plat 22 documents signed and all of that. It can be longer than 23 that. 24 And I think I will let the applicant address when 25 they want to start, but I think what they have indicated, 41 1 that the would obviously like to et going as soon as h Y Y 5 4 4 they 2 can so that they can get the improvements done so that they 3 have something they can market. But I will let them address 4 it a little more specifically. 5 THE SPEAKER: So following that time line, say, 6 it ' s December or so, conceivably in March or soon after that, 7 we could be starting the operation. 8 MR. GLOSS: Yes, sir? 9 MR. PATTERSON: I 'm Billy Patterson here for Betty 10 Patterson for 2009 West Mulberry, and I 'm sorry if I missed 11 this, but as far as the fencing on the north side, including 12 to the north of the retaining pond, is there going to be 13 fencing? 14 MR. WELLS: On the north, do you mean like between 15 Ms. Patterson' s property and the detention pond? In 16 addressing that, Cameron asked us to address that. We are 17 open to fencing the entire perimeter of the site, and we have 18 discussed that. 19 MR. PATTERSON: And the reason that I think that is 20 important, is we have been talking about access to City Park, 21 where there is not fencing, and I can see people going 22 through Mr. Fletcher' s property and Ms. Patterson' s property 23 to get to Mulberry unless there is some sort of barrier. 24 MR. WELLS: Now, the only exception to that, that I 25 can see, is where the overland flow of the flood waters, if 42 1 there is -- there might be an opening for some reason there 2 or some kind of special situation. But, for the record, the 3 developer is open to having the entire site fenced all the 4 way around. 5 MR. PATTERSON: Thank you. So how do we address 6 that later on? When does that come up? Or when is a 7 decision made or how does that work? 8 MR. WELLS: Well, you mean some kind of a 9 guarantee? 10 MR. PATTERSON: Yes . 11 MR. WELLS: I don' t think the City can guarantee 12 it, and I can' t guarantee it right now, but I will just say 13 that we will do it. How about that? 14 MR. PETERSON: As a way -- kind of for the record, 15 the City cannot require it. Okay? What the developer is 16 saying is that they will do it, and where it shows up will be 17 on the final plans that are approved by the City. And those 18 are public documents, so you get a notice. Come in and look 19 at them, and you will see them, or, frankly, just call the 20 developer. It ' s fast. He does return phone calls . He' ll be 21 out there everyday. 22 MR. GLOSS: I will note that in the record, and 23 that will be a requirement. I ' ll note that you intend to 24 construct a fence. 25 MR. PATTERSON: Yeah. We will modify the plans to 43 1 show that. Do you need a summary from me? 2 MR. GLOSS: If you would like one, that 's fine, but 3 I think that we have heard from a lot of residents and 4 captured their comments, and I believe we have gone through 5 and talked about them. Are there any additional comments 6 that you would like to respond to? 7 MR. PETERSON: No. Other than we say that we 8 believe that in terms of the submittal that we provided 9 tonight, that we have attempted to show we have met all City 10 standards and criteria and have addressed the staff concerns 11 and the concerns that we heard made at the neighborhood 12 meeting in the summer of 2004. 13 MR. GLOSS: One last call . Are there any other 14 comments that you would like to make? With that, I would 15 like to thank all of you for taking your time out of your 16 busy schedules to be here. I will be preparing that written 17 summary and a decision, and I will get that out to you. And 18 it will probably be the beginning or middle part of next 19 week. 20 And, with that, we are adjourned. Thank you. 21 22 23 24 25 44 1 STATE OF COLORADO ) TRANSCRIBER' S CERTIFICATE 2 COUNTY OF LARIMER ) 3 I, Lela A. Brister, Court Reporter and Notary Public, 4 State of Colorado, hereby certify that the foregoing 5 proceedings, taken in the matter of the Administrative Hearing 6 at 281 North College Avenue, Fort Collins, 7 Colorado, duly transcribed by me and reduced under my 8 supervision to the foregoing 43 pages; that said transcript 9 is an accurate and complete record of the proceedings so 10 taken. 11 I further certify that I am not related to, employed 12 by, nor of counsel to any of the parties or attorneys herein 13 nor otherwise interested in the outcome of the case. 14 Attested to by me this 17th day of February, 2006. 15 16 Lela A. Brister 17 Meadors Court Reporting, LLC 171 North College Avenue 18 Fort Collins, Colorado 80524 (970) 482-1506 19 My commission expires October 6, 2007 20 21 22 23 24 25 ATTACHMENT Administrative Hearing Officer's Decision Communy Planning and Environmental _ _vices Current Planning City of Fort Collins CITY OF FORT COLLINS ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER TYPE I ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING DATE: December 13, 2005 PROJECT NAME: Raven View Project Development Plan and Modification of Standard CASE NUMBER: #12-05 and 12-05A APPLICANT: Tom Peterson, AICP Stanford Real Estate 3555 Stanford Rd. #204 Fort Collins, CO 80525 OWNER: Betty Patterson 2009 W. Mulberry St. Fort Collins, CO 80521 Val Gray 614 W. Mulberry St. Fort Collins, CO 80521 HEARING OFFICER: Cameron Gloss Current Planning Director PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Applicant has submitted a Project Development Plan (referred to herein as the "Project" or the "PDP") proposing a 51-unit residential development , including 18 detached single family units and 33 attached single family units. The Applicant is concurrently requesting a modification of standard regarding the pedestrian level of service. The property is located approximately 400 feet south of W. Mulberry Street and just east of Taft Hill Road. 281 North College Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6750 • FAX (970)416-2020 Raven View PDP/Modification Administrative Hearing Findings, Conclusions, and Decision December 13, 2005 Page 2 of 7 SUMMARY OF HEARING OFFICER DECISION: Approval ZONING DISTRICT: LMN — Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhood. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING: Evidence presented to the Hearing Officer established no controversy or facts to refute 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 5:30 p.m. on December 13, 2005 in Conference Room A, 281 N. 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; and (3) a tape recording of public testimony provided during the hearing. The LUC, 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: Anne Aspen, City Planner From the Applicant: Tom Peterson, Applicant Wayne Hochstetler Russ Wells Matthew Delich, Consulting Traffic Engineer Nick Haws, Northern Engineering Lori Darling, Lyman Davidson Dooley Architects Barbara Debona, Lyman Davidson Dooley Architects 2 Raven View PDP/Modification Administrative Hearing Findings, Conclusions, and Decision December 13, 2005 Page 3 of 7 From the Public: Scott, Val and Dolores Gray, 614 South Taft Hill Road Frank Heine, 622 South Taft Hill Road Art Gonzales, 532 South Taft Hill Road Robert and Lois Gore, 521 Crestmore Place Eric Stenner, 917 W. Magnolia Street Sam Eliason, 529 Crestmore Place Larry Dunn, 2209 Glenmore Court Charles Fletcher, 2025 W. Mulberry Street Betty Patterson, 4418 Harpoon Court Written Comments: None FACTS AND FINDINGS 1. Compatibility with Surrounding Uses The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: N: LMN—Low Density Mixed-use Neighborhood District—Existing residential with POL—Public Open Lands (City Park Nine Golf Course) beyond; W: RL—Low Density Residential District—Existing residential with LMN beyond; S: RL—Low Density Residential District—Existing residential with MMN— Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood beyond; E: RL—Low Density Residential District—Existing residential. The property proposed for development is 8.18 acres in size. The Applicant proposes a total of 51 single-family units: 33 single-family attached units, 16 single-family detached units on small lots and 2 single-family detached units on standard lots. The net residential density proposed is 6.23 dwelling units per acre. Testimony was offered at the hearing by neighboring residential landowners conceming the anticipated or feared impacts of the proposed development and its design upon surrounding residences. These impacts included diminished vehicular access to adjacent properties, and perceived negative impacts to storm drainage flows and visual quality. Evidence established that one neighborhood meeting was made available for the neighboring residents to engage the Applicant and Owners in the property s 3 Raven View PDP/Modification Administrative Hearing Findings, Conclusions, and Decision December 13, 2005 Page 4 of 7 design and operational issues. The Applicant acknowledged that they had taken steps to adjust the design of the proposed development plan to help mitigate impacts on the neighboring residents. It was further acknowledged that some of the residents at the public hearing were not in attendance at the neighborhood meeting and, therefore, did not provide comment earlier in the review process. One issue related to the impacts to future vehicular access on the adjacent . property to the west, addressed as 532 S. Taft Hill Road, which presently derives secondary access through the proposed development site. The development plan includes a landscape strip and fence along the west property line which would prohibit access to 532 S. Taft Hill Road in the future. The property owner of 532 S. Taft Hill made a request at the public hearing that the applicant make design modifications to the development plan that would permit continued vehicular access from the subject property to 532 S. Taft Hill Road. No evidence was presented at the hearing substantiating existence of an access easement on the subject property that would grant such access rights nor that a prescriptive right had been legally established through court action. None of the City's development standards require that the informal access used by the adjacent property owner continue or be physically accommodated in the future. Therefore, the hearing officer is not authorized to require the Applicant to provide a future vehicle connection to the adjacent property. It was noted by the Applicant during the hearing that they would be willing to confer with the property owner to arrive at a potentially amicable solution. A common issue repeatedly raised by many residents involved adverse storm drainage impacts. It was an expressed fear of some neighbors that the stormwater runoff from the site could create an unreasonable and significant adverse impact to the neighborhood. As part of the Applicant's testimony, substantial attention was given to the issue of site grading and the design of the stormwater detention pond. As outlined in the Applicant's Final Drainage and Erosion Control Report and corroborated by the Applicant's Engineer at the hearing, runoff water will be detained on the property and will release at a two- year historic rate. In addition to the quantity of water, the detention design will ensure the quality of water. The site will be graded to transfer all stormwater flows generated from the development to the street system which will collect in a detention pond located on Tract E and then release to an existing underground storm sewer system. The detention pond will be landscaped with native grasses consistent with policies of the City's Stormwater utility. Based on the proposed drainage design and the testimony of the consulting engineer, the Hearing Officer is convinced that the applicable storm drainage standards will be met. To minimize visual impacts of the development to adjacent properties, and enhance privacy, the Applicant stated an intent during the hearing to extend the 6'-high wood fence along the entire project perimeter, If physically feasible, even 4 Raven View PDP/Modification Administrative Hearing Findings, Conclusions, and Decision December 13, 2005 Page 5 of 7 though it is not required under the City's development standards. The proposed development plan does not show fencing surrounding the detention pond located on proposed Tract E or along the single family lots located north of Corvid Way It was acknowledged that any fencing installed around the detention pond would need to facilitate the movement of storm drainage. As a response to a public comment, the Applicant also indicated a willingness to examine other design options rather than a back-to-back fence design that will result when the proposed 6 foot fence is constructed along the east property line and behind existing fences along the rear property lines of lots fronting Crestmore Drive. The Hearing Officer respectfully requests that the applicant consider consulting with the property owners potentially impacted by the development with respect to the fence design. Although the Hearing Officer finds that some of the neighborhood compatibility concerns raised by the opponents of the PDP were insightful and might potentially improve 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 Owners have designed the PDP in conformance with the applicable regulations and there is no authority for the Hearing Officer to mandate that the Applicant or Owners exceed the minimum requirements of the Land Use Code, and other applicable regulations, in designing the development. 2. Compliance with Article 4 and the LMN— Low Density Mixed Use Zoning District Standards: 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 proposed residential density of 6.23 dwelling units per net acre is less than the maximum allowable residential density of 8 (eight) dwelling units per net acre permitted within the zone district. The development is exempt from the minimum density requirements in that it is located entirely within the City's designated /nfi//Area. Though this project is under 30 acres, the proposal includes three distinct housing types including single family attached units, single family detached units on standard lots and single family detached units on small lots. The Project is also in conformance with Section 4.17(D), land use standards relating to building height, calling for buildings to be two and one-half(2 %) stories or less. 5 Raven View PDP/Modlflcation Administrative Hearing Findings, Conclusions, and Decision December 13, 2005 Page 6 of 7 3. Compliance with Article 3 of the Land Use Code— General Development Standards The Project Development Plan complies with all applicable sections of Article 3 of the LUC except the Transportation Level of Service standards found in Section 3.6.4(B)(2). The Staff Report summarizes the PDP's compliance with the applicable site planning and design, access, circulation, parking, solar access, engineering, building and project compatibility, building design, and transportation standards (except as noted) and there was no evidence submitted at the hearing to contradict the statements and conclusion of the Staff Report concerning compliance or to otherwise refute compliance with the Article 3 Standards. 3. Compliance with the Review Criteria for Modification to Standard-Request to Modify the Pedestrian Level of Service (LOS) Standard In addition to the neighborhood compatibility issues that were raised, testimony provided at the hearing questioned the justification for a modification of the Transportation Level of Service Standards for pedestrian access. It was an expressed fear of some neighbors that the Project will cause an unsafe condition for pedestrians and, in particular, school age children housed within the development continuing to Moore Elementary school located to the south. The Applicant testified at the hearing that attempts were made to provide a more direct pedestrian connection from the development through the abutting property to the south, but the adjacent property owner was unwilling to grant a pedestrian access easement. Neighbors mentioned the perceived lack of City sidewalk maintenance as a deterrent to safe passage along the sidewalk, with particular emphasis on winter conditions. The Hearing Officer notes that sidewalk maintenance responsibility within the City of Fort Collins falls directly to abutting property owners. Property owner maintenance activities ranges all the way from sidewalk reconstruction, in cases were this is substantial vertical displacement or the concrete is structurally failing, to the prompt removal of snow and ice within 24 hours of winter storms pursuant to Section 24-21 of the City Code. There was discussion during the hearing about other comparable routes to school within the area. In particular, it was noted that there are schools within the Poudre School District, including nearby Moore and Dunn Elementary Schools, with pedestrian routes to school that include segments of attached sidewalks abutting arterial streets 6 ATTACHMENT 6 Pertinent pedestrian level of service standard info: o Multimodal Transportation Level of Service Manual excerpted from the City of Fort Collins Transportation Master Plan o Pedestrian Level of Service Workbook O `. ""-" ! s a o � J i rt O •v _.. ......_...... __.. __.... --... --- ............. � > INag iF$ a m sa • eyy'`-' cx • y �moAf. q � = p•om � Nn3 � �a� •> ,4 a � 9 Q o c'� � a o 3 ... 14e [[''��'" v_n o G R m .7 m 6qn � ffi'C Sa.pe' m '^ $0� .. ` t7i0 mn'O nay ° 101 S� ; � n �.� � nn 2 a'S�� m � G_ n 00 O �.•�O QFr � 0,=7 n � bo'.�.�a poxoo 1 am moo � CI W `i 1 G.O `< n 3. m �u .e Y w •< 3 a1 •� 3aaza .aoO°' o 'Y � " 3 $cE 3aonm � Q S� o = uy O Sti Dc ygm a�•�'o � Ss v � 7ag o �wmm x mL+� - � fP•z$ ya` oou ' v a 33i :Z3. y �•1 S o m Y t 00o n no n a � n o•y a•. 1 . yE• . a �4 'au a u E,'R—' no ns °T—� xSo ya Y 3 x .��• `G i p `< �•w � n n _ q n asp T _ x .y p n rT o o ea O � II X m o� p��, w R•R c7iw � i � Y N n � •• a '•-' () vS �$_m �� o•� Y5�"a f,'8.� 3°� m � �v Sw am•a L,Q? 1 S� Y CYa x V1O � GGooi w � nu.� �o'o v1�m' °' Q ' yn 'O i Z SStn �'asg6y � ^ Rm •' o pN P S. vq g $m cn n pCOuw a gP. ysx o Y w� c w y C. R 01 .7.. ^ � n b w 1 w m A 4� �9 E 6� C � n O• � SI N ss eo 3m 9m •Y.=m a�.. m ".�.n �Q � c3 .•tlI �= •�.YC`�< iS �� ;i5 m k'.^. � m n rTu u u 1 P ■ ^qan ggIt 9 3 " ; =azT � age • ate • ��a • 3 r 0 � O � Z o � F � g�� 3 � 3yR S¢,m•.Q o9 Y. '0 �aad c �Tc ag " a ��d i ' s % ti a � ° y = va� Sr � o Q .�d n �' ,r.fj�� O•� a A� r y �g Y d v 9 ���� -• �.P >�r -Fit N 6 'O S. V`C (]^ d" TJ N T S r m > r�A. O T O• .i Y. N b P G A w ra `�Sj �S >-S qd 9 O < ro ryy a .-i E O m 9 q 'J `Qf6�IT 7 2 C m81 r a > 9. "• cm q_ wq c i 0 �� no Flit rD �m �. A m m m aA4Vga ^s " 33.am 5G 4 T��KnBnTi a >� 3i� c �c r Y sI( A a m oy asy$s 3q�ea grgq CDs sa4.�C 3•e gc=�°, � k \ El �. ■ � 9 � � E Eel f ! $ , \ $ } | | } | } REM, } | ƒ ) ! \ } � � E . . |§ f 3 EII I ! PEDESTMAN LEVEL Of SERVICE Ray A. Moe Director of Transportation Services Balloffet and Associates, Inc. Kathleen Reavis Transportation Planner City of Fort Collins he City of Fort Collins Master Transportation Plan provides level of service LOS) standards for each travel mode including motor vehicle, public tran- sit, bicycle, and pedestrian. The objectives of these LOS standards guide public and private planning for mobility and accessibility in all transportation modes. In preparing the Pedestrian LOS standards and methodology, it became evident that pedestrian measures such as pedestrian density and flow rate as defined by the Highway Capacity Manual were inappropriate for Fort Cotlfns Colorado, a medium- size urban area. Therefore a planning LOS set of procedures was developed to evaluate existing conditions and proposed public and private projects. It should be further noted that the determination of the methodologies is but half of the LOS analysis procedure. LOS targets or standards were also defined for dif- ferent areas within the City. Level of Service Measurements As an outgrowth of the pedestrian problem definition, a pedestrian facility-specific LOS measurement procedure was established for each of five problem areas. These definitions are presented in the Pedestrian Level of Service Chart. The five problem areas for which LOS procedures were developed are as follows: • Directness • Continuity • Street Crossings •Visual Interest and Amenity • Security BALLOFFET AND ASSOCIATES. INC. Directness trip origin to trip destination divided by LEVEL OF ACTUAL DISTANCE/ Measurement of the walking trip length. the minimum distance (as the crow SERVICE MEASURED DISTANCE RA' A < 1.2 The measure of directness is simply flies) between those two points. Actual B 1.2- 1.a p y destination is further defined by either p 1.6- 1.8 how well an environment provides direct E 1.8- 2.0 pedestrian connections to destinations existing conditions or the proposed r .8 2. public/private development. such as transit stops, schools, parks, An actual/minimum (A/M) ratio of less commercial areas, or activity areas. The To measure the directness LOS requires than 1.2 is considered an A, whereas an grid street pattern typifies the ideal sys- selecting one or two trip origin locations A/M ratio of 2.0+ would be considered tem where one can go north or south, in a smaller development and up to five a F. An A/M ratio of below 1.0 could be or east or west to easily get to one's or six representative trip origin loca- destination. The common curvilinear achieved with the introduction of a lions in a larger development.Trip diagonal street. Ideally,development residential subdivision which may have destinations are then identified. proposals should be self-mitigated to cul-de-sacs that back onto a commer- achieve acceptable LOS standards prior cial center,transit stop, school, or park ITrip destinations are those locations to might be physically to submittal to the City. mi g p y y proximate to a po- which pedestrians may walk, such as i tential pedestrian destination, however, transit stops, schools, parks,trails, and i Continuity often require a circuitous route which commercial areas. These destinations Measurement of the completeness of the deters pedestrians trips. should be within approximately one- sidewalk system. quarter mile, but could be greater (e.g., A continuous pedestrian system from The directness LOS measure is based junior high schools and high schools origin to destination is critical for on a ratio of the actual distance from a have.a one-mile and one and one half- I pedestrian mobility. Continuity is A ® LOS Excellent mile walking distance,respectively). If measure of both the physical consis- ®®� no pedestrian destinations are within tency and type of pedestrian sidewalk, the immediate study area, the direct- and the visual connection from one mess LOS is not applicable. Connections block to the next. SEEMto arterials that could eventually sup- ® port transit should be evaluated. LOS A is achieved when the pedestrian LOS Minimum If the directness LOS is defined by the sidewalk appears as a single entity with a major activity area or public open space. ®�� grid system,the minimum distance is 1 Wigthe measurement from a representative LOS B provides a quality continuous trip origin to destination by the north/ stretch of pedestrian networks which south axis. are physically separated with land- scaped parkways. LOS Poor The actual distance is either the existing distance to walk from an origin to desti- LOS C provides for a continuous pedes- nation,or the distance if the development trian network on both sides of the was constructed. streets; however,these sidewalks may not be built to current standards. ■ elleele — The actual/minimum ratio and level of A=Actual distance to walk service table is as follows: LOS D reflects areas where there may M= Measured minimum distance not be sidewalks on both sides of the X=Destination y CITY OF FORT COLLINS PEDESTRIAN LEVEL OF SERVICE t Street crossing LOS Signal indication was correlated to the Signal heads are easily visible to the pedestrian and the motorist. pedestrian exposure ® ® to the automobile Lighting Levels and design elements Intersection and crosswalks are well lit which positively re- so that the pedestrian is visible at night. © ® Elect the pedestrian Pedestrian Signal Indication • presence.The follow- Some signals have the walk phase ing are key street automatically set for each cycle. This is desirable for all activity areas, as it crossing elements ® states the importance of the pedes- f that need to be exam- trian. An alternative is the pedestrian ined when measuring button, where the pedestrian presses OE7T7 a street crossing's the button, waits for the cycle to re- peat, and gets the walk phase. The LOS. third type of signal does not have any walk phase. For an actuated signal this Number of Lanes type of pedestrian indication is O unac- e greater Thter the number e ceptable, since the only way a of lanes to cross, the pedestrian gets a green light is when --.�.�--- -»---- -- greater the exposure of an automobile on the side street actr the pedestrian to vehicles. In addition, vates the cycle. street or there are breaches in the system wider streets tend to carry higher vol- umes of traffic and higher speeds. Pedestrian Character 7S E reflects areas where there are Median Refuge Areas Signing, striping, and roadway charac- t { x . ;nificant breaks in the system. ter strongly suggest the presence of z Painted medians offer little refuge, pedestrian crossing. LOS F is a complete breakdown in the other than getting out of a lane of traf- fic. Substantive raised medians of Sight Distance pedestrian flow where each pedestrian significant width increase a sense of Unobstructed view between the motor- selects a different route because no safety for the crossing pedestrian. ist and the pedestrian. This can be a pedestrian network exists. particular problem when a vehicle Crosswalks driver intends to make a left turn under Street Crossings Crosswalks are present and well the permissive left turn phase and has marked. Measurement of the pedestrian safety in crossing a street. ; I If one cannot safely cross a street to get f Street to one's destination, there is little likel i- ® t;gntmg hood that a change in mode from the J automobile will take place. Because cros walk l/ street crossings place the pedestrian in the middle of the street involving both /Sight Refuge the pedestrian and automobile driver, Island J\ the measurement of a street crossing oirecdonaI ® "' becomes very complex. Achieving a comer Ramps high LOS for street crossings requires i Number of Pedestrian Signal Indication Travel lanes •nificant investment. BALLOFFET AND ASSOCIATES, INC. difficulty seeing around the opposing Unsignalized Intersection to appalling. Compatibility with local f j left-turning vehicle. Crossing the Minor Street architecture and enhancements, such a The problem at these locations is the Corner Ramps vehicle traveling along the arterial turn- fountains, benches, and lighting improve Directional corner ramps are preferred ing right or left onto the minor street, visual interest of the area for pedestrians. because they notify drivers of intended while being urged along by a following pedestrian walking direction. vehicle. Security Measurement of the pedestrians'sense of Street Crossing Types Mid-Block Crossing security. There are four types of street crossings. Similar to unsignalized major street Each has inherent differences. crossing, including number of lanes to Pedestrians require a sense of security, cross, lack of crosswalk presence, light- both through visual line of sight with Signalized Intersections ing, raised median, and corner ramps. vehicle drivers and separation from ve- Signalized intersections pose major P pedestrian crossing problems due to Street Crossing hicles. Major portions of the city's high volumes, turning vehicles, vehicles LOS Measurements sidewalks along arterials are narrow that stop in the crosswalk, a significant number of lanes to cross, signal indica- For each street crossing type, the ideal and adjacent to high-volume, high- tion that is difficult to read or condition as defined in the Pedestrian speed travel lanes. Other sidewalks are understand, lack of visual connection LOS Chart assigns the highest LOS to intimidating because they are not visible with automobiles, lack of vehicle driver the crossing with the greatest number of to the motorist and surrounding activi- respect, lack of raised median protec- tion, no corner ramps, and no or design elements with the minimum inconvenient pedestrian buttons. number of lanes. As pedestrian design should also be examined based on elements are added,the LOS improves. lighting levels and sight distance. Unsignalized Intersection As lanes are added, the LOS is lowered. Crossing the Major Street Pedestrian Facilities Pla Problems are similar to signalized inter- C sections with even greater concern for Visual Interest and While there is one set of LOS measure. the number of lanes to cross, speed of Amenity ment for all pedestrian facilities, vehicles,and lack of adequately marked Measurement of the pedestrian systems at- acceptable LOS thresholds vary by type crosswalks with good lighting, raised tractiveness and features. of activity area. It would not be logical median, visibility, and corner ramps. The attractiveness of the pedestrian net- to require the same LOS standard every- work can range from visually appealing where. As an example, the needs and ( r t� Street Trees Visual interest Pedestrian Scale Lighting �tt ^ / T �.j� 0 pi \ _ , T / 77—V T Street furnitureJb- ' / — Considerable Walking Widths'' CITY OF FORT COLLINS PEDESTRIAN LEVEL OF SERVICE 'andards for a downtown area which is Pedestrian Districts a very high automobile dependency. hly pedestrian-dependent, is signifi- This area reflects the highest pedestrian By providing pedestrians linear connec- environment desired, a location where tions between retail uses and the cantly different in character and need all LOS standards are A or B. This area adjacent residential areas, pedestrian than an outlying residential area not would be appropriate for downtown activity along these corridors could be proximate to schools or transit.There- and university areas, which typically significantly improved. Pedestrians are fore a pedestrian facilities plan should have the highest pedestrian activity in a more likely to walk to areas within one- city. This pedestrian district would also quarter mile of neighborhoods and be developed to identify the existing reflect proposed activity areas as de- retail areas with higher pedestrian LOS. and/or anticipated pedestrian activity fined by the city's comprehensive plan. areas from which to assign LOS stan- School Walking Areas dards.There are five designations Activity Corridor/Centers These include all routes within a one- This area is defined by the primarily mile walking radius of an existing defined in this plan: commercial corridors. Other areas have public school and around sites desig- nated for future public schools. Transit Corridors r•••••• ••�......•••• Areas within one-quarter identified exist- ing transit and routes ' t' � 'n the _ I O `•. Transit 20 Year Plan.•` Other i....., •+x, � — This category includes all locations not :••••••••••••••••••••...............• + falling within one of the four previous i....... ........t - - - areas. O jCE `,.. :..° E ;..... : t 8g LEGEND ..................... Growth Area i....i Bicycle Trail "...... C--- s F_xisHrg Fv(ure V �� e v Pedestrian District lllllll � u ActiWty Corridor m mII Activity Center O O NM ro Smle 01 BALLOFFET AND ASSOCIATES. INC. LOS Thresholds TargetPedestrian The following defines the minimum ! acceptable standards b Pedestrian Fa- Directness Continuity Street Visual Interest Security P y Crossings and Amenity cilities Plan Area. It should be noted that numerous locations within a city Pedestrian Districts A A B A A will not achieve the minimum LOS. — Because of limited funding, improve- Activity Corridor B B B B ments should be prioritized toward and Centers activity areas, routes to schools, parks, School B B B B and transit. To cap the current prob- Walking Areas lem, new developments, both public and private, as well as major street im- Transit B C C C B Corridors provements and redevelopment, should adhere to the pedestrian LOS Other Areas C standards. within City Applications Vehicle, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian improvements to facilitate acceptable be required to construct off-site pedestrian LOS analysis is required for all pro- pedestrian street crossings. Street im- improvements to achieve acceptable posed public and private developments provements are unacceptable if they pedestrian LOS, similar to the request and arterial improvements. Street im- reduce pedestrian LOS below accept- to provide off-site mitigations to achieve provements may require pedestrian able levels. Private developments may acceptable automobile LOS. C BALLOFFETI ift dPort CoWa. 8 Associates, Inc. 2000 Vermont Drive P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins,CO 80525 USA Fart Collins, CO 80522 USA Phone 970 223-2239 Phone 970 221-6608 FAX 970 223-2320 FAX 970 221-6239 E-mail: banda@webaccess.net E-mail: kreavis@ci.fort-collms.co.us In association with: Shapins Associates and Zimmer-Gunsul-Frasca ' I Fort Collins Pedestrian Levels of Service A B C D E F Directness Excellent and direct Excellent and direct Minimum acceptable Increasing lack of Pow directness and No directness or connectivity through full connectivity with clear directness connectivity directness, connectivity connectivity. Pedestrians connectivity. Total utilization of urban linear and visual standard. Urban space and linearity with perception of a linear pedestrian disorientation, space, streets, transit, connection to transit become less coherent incoherent and connexion to desired no linearity and activity centers with facilities, streets and with the beginnings of confusing direction and destination falters and confusing. clear linear visual activities, discomfort wdh visual visual connexion to serves only the person statements. clarity and lack of pedestrian destinations. with no other choice. linearity. (A/M Ratio <1 .2)* (A/M Ratio 1 .2 to 1 .4)* (A/M Ratio 1 .4 to 1 .6)' (A/M Ratio 1 .6 to LEW (A/M Ratio 1 .8 to 2.0)* [A/M Ratio >2.0)* Continuity Pedestrian sidewalk Continuous stretches of Continuous stretches of Pedestrian corridors are Significant breaks in Complete breakdown in appears as a single entity sidewalks which are sidewalks which may not well connected with continuity. pedestrian traffic flow as Williamt aI'or activity physically separated by a have variable widths, several breaches in the each pedestrian selects a area or public open landscaped parkway. with and without pedestrian network. different mute as no space. landscaped parkways, network exists. Signals** 3 or fewer lanes to cross; 4 or 5 lanes to cross; 6 or more lanes to cross; Missing 5 elements of A Missing 6 elements of A Missing 7 elements of A signal has clear signal has clear signal has clear Missing 4 elements of B Missing 5 elements of B Missing 6 elements of B vehicular and pedestrian vehicular and pedestrian vehicular and pedestrian indications; indications; indications; Missing 2 elements of C Missing 4 elements of C Missing 5 elements of C well marked crosswalks; well marked crosswalks; well-marked crosswalks; good lighting levels; good lighting levels; good lighting levels; pedestrian refuge area: pedestrian refuge area: raised medians at least 6' raised median at least G wide with low plantings wide with low plantings or features; or features; standard curb ramps; standard curb ramps; standard curb ramps; automatic pedestrian automatic pedestrian automatic pedestrian signal phase; signal phase; signal phase; amenities, signing, amenities, signing, amenities, signing, sidewalk, and roadway sidewalk, an roadway sidewalk, an roadway character strongly character strongly character strongly suggest the presence of a suggest the presence of a suggest the presence of a pedestrian crossing pedestrian crossing; pedestrian crossing drivers and pedestrians drivers and pedestrians drivers and pedestrians have unobstructed views have unobstructed views have unobstructed views of each other. of each other. of each other. Missing 2 elements of A Missing 4 elements of A Missing 2 elements of B Umignalized, 3 or fewer lanes to cross; 4 or 5 lanes to cross; 6 or more lanes to cross; Missing 3 elements of A Missing 4 elements of A Missing 5 elements of A crosstn the major street*a well-marked crosswalks; well-marked crosswalks; well-marked crosswalks; Missing 2 elements of B Missing 3 elements of B Missing 4 elements of B good lighting levels; good lighting levels; good lighting levels; Missing 1 element of C Missing 2 elements of C Missing 3 elements of C pedestrian refuge area: pedestrian refuge area: raised median at least 6' raised median at least 6' wide with low plantings wide with low plantings orfeatures; or features; standard curb ramps; standard curb ramps; standardcWbyari signing sidewalk, and signing sidewalk, and signing 61111 ' vdY and roadway character roadway character roadway C}'GK. - � strongly suggest the strongly suggest the strongly supgeu^ the £ presen p agestrian presence of_a pedestrian presenceo armdestrian wossin crossing crossing L+_ drivers and pedestrians drivers and pedestrians drivers and p�kicans have unobstructed views have unobstructed views have url=*r fad views of each other. of each other. of each olftaR. " Missing 1 element of A Missing 2 elements of A Missing 1 element of B Unsignalized, Well-marked crosswalks; Missing 1 element of A Missing 2 elements of A Missing 3 elements of A Missing 4 elements of A Missing 5 elements of A crosstn' 'the minor street* good lighting levels; standard curb ramps; signing sidewalk, and roadway character strongly suggest the presence ofa pedesman crossing drivers and pedestrians have unobstructed views of each other. Mid-block major 3 or fewer lanes to cross; 4 or 5 lanes to cross; 6 or more lanes to cross; Missing 3 elements of A Missing 4 elements of A Missing 5 elements of A street crossing*** raised median at least 6' raised median at feast 6' Missing 2 elements of Missing 3 elements of B Missing 4 elements of B wide with low plantings wide with low plantings or features; or features; Missing 1 element of C Missing 2 elements of C Missing 3 elements of C signing sidewalk and signing sidewalk and signing sidewalk and roadway character roadway character roadway character strongly suggest the strongly suggest the strongly suggest the presence o a pedestrian presence oPa pedestrian presence of a pedestrian crossing; crossing crossing; drivers and pedestrians drivers and pedestrians drivers and pedestrians have unobstructed views have unobstructed views have unobstructed views of each other; of each other; of each other; well marked crosswalks; well marked crosswalks; well marked crosswalks; good lighting levels; good lighting levels; good lighting levels; standard curb ramps. standard curb ramps. standard curb ramps. Missing 1 element of A Missing 2 elements of A Missing 1 element of B Visual Interest and visually a pealin and Generous sidewalks, Functionally operational Design ignores rMaior an:convenience Total discomfort and Amenity compatible with focal visual clarity some street with less importance to pedestrian with negativestentgn has intimidation. architecture. Generous furniture and visual interest or mental image. keds of sidewalk width, active landscaping no blank amenity. building fronta es, street walls. pedestrian lightng street trees and quality street furniture. Security Sense of security Good lighting levels and Unobstructed lines of Sidewalk configuration reaches in Streetscape is pedestrian enhanced by presence of unobstructedlines of sight. and parked cars may pedestrian visibility from intolerant. other people using sight. inhibit vigilance from street, adjacent land uses sidewalks and visi iuly the street. and activities. from adjacent buildings. Good lighting and clear 't sight lines. j i * A/M Ratio: Actual distance between pedestrian origin/destination divided by minimum distance defined by a right angle grid street system. ** A signalized intersection LOS will go u� one level of service with a dedicated pedestrian signal phase and/or a colored or textured crosswalk. *^ Unslgnalized crossing at intersection o major street (minor arterial to major arterial) and minor street (local, connector and collector). i Raven View PDP/Modification Administrative Hearing Findings, Conclusions, and Decision December 13, 2005 Page 7 of 7 The Hearing Officer acknowledges and appreciates that residents have provided careful thought in the framing of their concerns about pedestrian access; however, the weight of evidence presented by the Applicant and corroborated by the City staff, supports a finding that this infill development site is physically constrained, alternative pedestrian connections are not available, and that the existing sidewalks along S. Taft Hill Road, while not optimal, provide a sufficient route to the school. SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS A. The Raven View Project Development Plan and Request for Modification of Standard is subject to administrative review and the requirements of the Land Use Code (LUC). B. The Raven View Project Development Plan 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 Raven View Project Development Plan request for modification of standard to the Transportation Level of Service requirements for pedestrian movements of Section 2.8.2(H)(3) is warranted by reason of existing exceptional physical hardship and unique physical characteristics based on site configuration, location and proximity to existing public sidewalks. D. The Raven View Project Development Plan complies with all applicable General Development Standards contained in Article 3 of the Land Use Code, except where a modification has been granted under this approval. DECISION The Raven View Request for Modification of Standard to Section 2.8.2(H) (3) and Project Development Plan #12-05/12-05A, is hereby approved by the Hearing Officer Without Condition. Dated this 30th day of December 2005, per authority granted by Sections 1.4.9(E) and 2.1 of the Land Use Code. Cameron Gloss Current Plannin Director 7