Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 03/18/2003 - CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL OF THE CARIBOU APARTMEN ,5717' 1;T AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ITEM NUMBER: 25 FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL DATE: March 18, 2003 lip FROM: Bob Barkeen SUBJECT : Consideration of an Appeal of the Caribou Apartments, Project Development Plan, File #18-02, filed by Janet Winters. RECOMMENDATION: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Caribou Apartments Project Development Plan is a development application for 193 multi- family residential units on 10.8 acres of land located at the southwest comer of Caribou Drive and Timberline Road. The project was presented to the Planning and Zoning Board for consideration on January 16, 2003. The Planning and Zoning Board approved the project by 5-0 vote. The Notice of Appeal was filed in the City Clerks Office on January 30, 2003 by the appellant, Janet Winters. An amended Notice of Appeal, which supercedes the original, was submitted on February 20, 2003. Janet Winters is eligible to file the appeal by being a "party in interest", where she received notification of the hearing as well as testifying at the January 16, 2003 Planning and Zoning Board Hearing. The Appeal is based on Section 2-48(b)(1) and Section 2-48(b)(2) of the City Code which states the Planning and Zoning Board improperly adopted the Caribou Apartments Project Development Plan by: (1) Failure to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Code and Charter; (2) Failure to conduct a fair hearing in that: a. The board or commission substantially ignored its previously established rules of procedure; b. The board or commission considered evidence relevant to its findings which was substantially false or grossly misleading; or C. The board or commission improperly failed to receive all relevant evidence offered by the appellant." DATE: ITEM NUMBER: A staff memorandum is attached which provides analysis and a staff response to the allegations raised in the appeal letter. The verbatim transcript of the January 16, 2003 Planning and Zoning Board meeting and the January 16, 2003 Staff Report are attached. City Clerk ,a City of Fort Collins NOTICE The City Council of the City of Fort Collins, Colorado, on Tuesday, March 18, 2003, at 6:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter may come on for hearing in the Council Chambers in City Hall at 300 LaPorte Avenue, will hold a public hearing on the attached appeal from the decision of the Planning and Zoning Board made on January 16,2003 regarding the Caribou Project#18-02A filed by Janet Winters. You may have received previous notice on this item in connection with hearings held by the Planning and Zoning Board. 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 (221-6515) or the Planning Department (221-6750). Section 2-56 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins provides that a member of City Council may identify in writing any additional issues related to the appeal by March 11,2003. Agenda materials provided to the City Council, including City staffs response to the Notice of Appeal, and any • additional issues identified by City Councilmembers, will be available to the public on Thursday, March 13, after 10:00 a.m. in the City Clerk's Office. 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 (221-6515) for assistance. Wanda M. Krajicek City Clerk Date Notice Mailed: March 7, 2003 cc: City Attorney Planning Department Planning and Zoning Board Chair Appellant/Applicant • 300 LaPorte Avenue • P.O.Box 580 • Fort Collins,CO80522-0580 • (970)221-6515 • FAX(970)221-6295 GV\/ED ACTION BEING APPEALED: (AMENDED APPEAL) L Approval by Planning and Zoning Board of Caribou Project# 18-02A on 1-16-2003. APPELLANT: Janet Winters SPECIFIC GROUNDS FOR APPEAL ARE DEFINED IN "APPEAL GUIDELINES" (REVISED 4-99) MANUAL. GROUNDS FOR THIS APPEAL INCLUDE: RELEVANT LAWS WERE NOT PROPERLY INTERPRETED AND APPLIED. This is unclear at this point. THE BOARD, candISSION OR OTHER DECISION MAIO;R FAILED TO HOLD A FAIR HEARING BY: O ... O IGNORING ITS PREVIOUSLY ESTABLISHED RULES OF PROCESS, O CONSIDERING SUBSTANTIALLY FALSE OR GROSSLY MISLEADING EVIDENCE, O IMPROPERLY FAILING TO RECEIVE ALL RELEVANT EVIDENCE OFFERED. —SUMMARY OF FACTS— NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING- 7/24/2002 • In a discussion with both the planner and developer at the neighborhood meeting, there was an assurance made that there would be many opportunities for neighborhood involvement and input. They discussed the fact that there were 'lots" of meetings held with neighbors for the Fox Meadows project, and they would do the same for this project. In fact, they indicated that they appreciated the input. • The project planner confirmed that meeting minutes would be sent to those requesting it, and pointed out where to mark on the sign-up sheet, the request for a copy of the meeting minutes. COMMUNICATION— • In addition to not being provided any opportunities for input into the project through "future neighborhood meetings", there has been no response to the questions from neighborhood meeting communicated, as promised. • The P&Z Board voiced concern around not providing requested information and pointed out issues of credibility. • If what was assured in the Neighborhood Meeting actually occurred, these issues more than likely would have been hammered out, thus minimizing these kind of surprises. - 1 - TRA"Ic-- • The traffic study provided with the Staff Report does not show what the dates are for data presented. By looking at traffic studies for other projects along of the same stretch of Timberline, there are conflicting numbers and conflicting outcomes of traffic volumes. How can it be said that the addition of up to 700 individuals on a 10 acre lot of land will not impact traffic flow? • Safety issues around the increased difficulty of trying to turn east on Caribou from southbound Timberline are not accurately reflected with this report. • Large increase of traffic and traffic speed since the opening of the Harmony corridor; date of data collection done before or after this increase volume? Should be after. • Traffic and safety Issues brought up in the Neighborhood meeting have not been adequately addressed. • Street facing front doors mean very few feet for a child to run into a large, fast paced arterial. • Two affordable housing projects within '/z mile from one another, and there is currently no bus service on Timberline. • Discussion around additional parking availability on Caribou, particularly at night did not take into consideration that there are semi trucks that park overnight almost nightly. ARCHITECTURE— • "CONDO-OPOLIS", a term used by a board member when expressing concern over buildings looking the same. • The layout of the buildings; the developer stated in the Neighborhood Meeting they had tried about 20 different patterns of the layout. When asked if there were any environmental, structural or code requirements for the layout they choose, and the response was no. • Question about the layout was asked at the P&Z meeting, however it appears that the response based upon Article 3 code may be incomplete and/or inaccurate as to why decision was made. • 3 —story wall impacting privacy, sun and view of homeowners across the street. Presentation did not include the east view from the project lot, which may have shown impact; again incomplete information. • Question posed to group in both meetings, "How many feet from balcony (Sunstone) to balcony (Caribou)?" Still no definitive answer. WETLAND AND ENVIRONMENTAL— Conflicting information between the reports, meeting minutes and the discussion at the Neighborhood meeting regarding the wetland. There was much discussion around - 2 - what the developer of the storage units had to do to meet the code and honor the buffer zone. Where was this addressed for this project? • Won't this project displace the birds landing and hunting in the wetland? A recent house guest stated how much they enjoyed watching the birds in the pond across the street. In addition to the geese they commented on observing the hunting done by a Hawk, as well as commenting on the massive wing span of the Eagle that seems to "like to hang out there." "WHO Is MANAGING THE BIG PICTURE? This question was brought to the developer, planner, and the P&Z Board. For example: The TOTAL SUM of projects alono a 1'/2 mile of Timberline: o Project providing a thoroughfare for large semi-trucks to the gravel yard just a couple of blocks from this project, o Albertson's Shopping Center % mile south of the project, o Business offices and housing going up across the street, o King Soopers approximately 1 mile north of this project, o Main route for fire department trucks and ambulances heading south to Harmony. BIG PICTURE- This complex just squeaks by many of the codes. A 40 ft. tall building requires specific components that address issues of privacy, view, etc. An example of . just squeaking by can be made by looking at the building plans which indicate that 6 of the 7 buildings will be 39 feet, 10'/. inches. Just one extra 2x4 on any of the 3 floors of this complex would require the developer to build in a neighborhood, not on top of it. Why is the traffic study "rounded off to the number 5, but 39 FEET,10% INCHES is not rounded up to 40 feet? The recommendation of the Staff Report is to approve this project, however, this is based upon missing, inaccurate and inconsistent information. MOTION FROM THE P&Z BOARD: Based upon the recommendation of the staff report (which, unbeknownst to the P&Z Board was based upon missing, inaccurate and inconsistent information) motioned to approve. DISCUssION PRIOR TO VOTE: "...MY GUT SAYS THIS THING HAS PROBLEMS: • TRAFFIC..., • ENCROACHMENT OF THE BUFFER ZONE..., • ORIENTATION OF THE BUILDINGS COULD HAVE BEEN DIFFERENTLY. THE CITIZEN • BROUGHT UP SOME GOOD POINTS..., - 3 - • DISPERSION, NOT SATURATION..., • 1 HOPE THIS IS NOT GOING TO BE IN YOUR FACE UNIT. I HOPE IT TURNS OUT TO BE QUALITY. BUT IF IT DOESN'T, THEN WE WILL HAVE COMMENTS FROM CITIZENS.... SUMMARY Upon initial review of the documentation (obtained the day before the appeal deadline), the missing and incomplete information was first noted. For example, the information in the Staff Report discussing the neighborhood meeting of 7/24/02 is not only incomplete, it does not accurately reflect all of the discussion. The P&Z Board was required to make a decision based upon inaccurate information on many different fronts. How can the board make a fair decision when they are not presented with all of the true facts? Issues of concern include: ■ Documentation provided to the P&Z Board was incomplete, inaccurate, and has multiple inconsistencies in data, code interpretation, etc. ■ There was conflicting information between the presentation and the documentation provided to the P&Z Board. ■ The issues presented in the neighborhood meeting, and again in the council meeting have never been adequately addressed. ■ Promises made by the Project Planner and the developer's team were not kept, which impacted the outcome of this project, and ultimately the community of Fort Collins. This project does indeed have many problems that we as a community have the opportunity to proact on. How often do we get the chance to go back and make sure things are done right? There is no need to push through a problematic project. An apartment project that houses 700 people (not including visitors) leaves a huge footprint that is encroaching on buffer zones and neighbors alike. Please send this back to the drawing board, and recommend that this project incorporated itself into the existing neighborhood, instead of stepping on it. Signed: t ----------------- J/ arlet Winters 4345 Gemstone Lane, Ft. Collins, Co 80525 970-266-0933 (H) 970-278-8767 (W) - 4 - Community Planning and Environmental Services 4a Current Planning City of Fort Collins TO: Mayor and Members of City Council FROM: Bob Barkeen, City Planner THRU: John Fischbach, City Manager Greg Byrne, Director C.P.E.S. Cameron Gloss, Current Planning Director DATE: March 18, 2003 RE: Caribou Apartments Project Development Plan, Current Planning File #18-02A, Appeal to City Council The purpose of this memo is to respond to an appeal regarding the January 16, 2003 decision of the Planning and Zoning Board to approve the Caribou Apartments Project Development Plan. Section 2-48(b) of the City Code states: "Except for appeals by members of the City Council, for which no grounds need be stated, the permissible grounds for appeal shall be limited to allegations that the board or commission committed one or more of the following errors: (1) Failure to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Code and Charter; (2) Failure to conduct a fair hearing in that: a. The board or commission exceeded its authority or jurisdiction as contained in the Code and Charter; b. The board or commission substantially ignored its previously established rules of procedure; C. The board or commission considered evidence relevant to its findings which was substantially false or grossly misleading; or . d. The board or commission improperly failed to receive all relevant evidence offered by the appellant." 281 North College Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970)221-6750 • FAX(970)416-2020 The Appeal is based on Section 2-48(b)(1) and Section 2-48(b)(2). The appellant has made several allegations. The pertinent Code sections are stated in Italics. The arguments are briefly summarized below in bold followed by a staff response. 1. ALLEGATION: The Board failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Code and Charter by approving_the Caribou Apartments Project Development Plan. PERTINENT CODE SECTIONS: A. Section 2.48(b)(1) - Appeals The Board failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Code and Charter. B. APPELLANTS' ARGUMENT: Argument: While the appellant does not site specific Code sections in the appeal letter, the appellant does make several allegations that are based on the Board failing to properly interpret relevant sections of the Land Use Code. These are summarized from the appe►lant's letter below: Traffic • Street facing (building) doors mean very few feet for a child to run into a large, fast paced arterial. • Two affordable housing projects within ''/2 mile from one another, and there is currently no bus service on Timberline. Architecture • "Condo-oplis", a term used by a board member when expressing concern over buildings looking the same. • The layout of the buildings. The developer stated in the Neighborhood Meeting they had tried about 20 different patterns of the (site plan) layout. When asked if there were any environmental, structural or code requirements for the layout they chose, and the response was no. • Question about the layout was asked at the P&Z meeting, however, it appears that the response based upon Article 3 code may be incomplete and/or inaccurate as to why (a) decision was made. • 3-story wall impacting privacy, sun and view from the project lot, which may not have shown impact; again, incomplete information. • Question posed to group in both meetings, "How many feet from balcony (Sunstone) to balcony (Caribou)?" Still no definite answer. 2 Wetland and Environmental • Won't this project displace the birds landing and hunting in the wetland? A recent houseguest stated how much they enjoyed watching the birds in the pond across the street. In addition to the geese, they commented on observing the hunting done by a hawk, as well as commenting on the massive wingspan of the eagle that seems to "like to hang out there." "Manaaine the Me Picture" • This complex just squeaks by many of the codes. A 40-foot tall building requires specific components that address issues of privacy, view, etc. An example of just squeaking by can be made by looking at the building plans, which indicate that 6 of the 7 buildings will be 39 feet 103/4 inches (in height). Just one extra 2x4 on any of the three floors of this complex would require the developer to build in a neighborhood, not on top of it. Why is the traffic study rounded off to the nearest number 5, but 39 feet, 10 ;/4 inches is not rounded up to 40 feet. C. Staff Response: The appellant must demonstrate that the Board failed to properly interpret relevant Sections of the Code. The appellant has not cited specific Sections of the Code upon which the project does not comply, nor has the appellant provided any facts from the • record or the staff report which would support the allegations. Staff response to the allegations are included below: Traffic Section 3.5.2 (13)(1) of the Land Use Code (LUC) Residential Building Setbacks and Lot Width, require a minimum 30 foot setback from buildings and entrances to the front property line (back of right-of-way), This equates to a distance of 45 feet from the building entrance to the street curb along Timberline Road. The appellant has not included any factual evidence or documentation that this distance is inadequate, or that children running from a building entrance to the street will pose a safety hazard. There are building entrances just as close, or closer to an arterial street throughout Fort Collins, and there has not been any evidence presented to suggest these building entrances will pose a threat to public safety. The closest designated affordable housing project is located at the southeast comer of Timberline Road and Horsetooth Road. While there is no code requirement that dictates the spacing or density of multi-family projects within Fort Collins, these two mixed income projects provide a valuable housing need to the community. Policies within City Plan state that "A variety of housing types and densities will be available throughout the urban area for all income levels," and "The City will encourage the creation and expansion of affordable housing . opportunities and preservation of existing housing stock." 3 While there is not a requirement for affordable housing to be located along transit routes, Transfort will be providing service to the site in the near future. The site plan included in the Planning and Zoning Board packet shows a bus drop-off lane directly adjacent to the Caribou Apartments for the future bus service. The Board found, upon review of the information provided within the staff report, the project plans, the presentation at the hearing, and the neighborhood testimony that the Caribou Apartments meets the criteria in Section 3.5.2(D)(1) of the LUC Architecture Residential building design is provided in Section 3.5.2 of the land use code. The appellant has not provided any evidence to suggest that such residential buildings are non-compliant with this section. The Caribou Apartments site plan was developed based on the purpose statements included within Section 3.5.2—Residential Building Standards and Section 4.22 — Employment Zone District. Section 3.5.2(C)(1) — Orientation of Dwellings to Streets and Parking. states that "Every front fagade with a primary entrance to a dwelling unit shall face the adjacent street to the extent reasonably feasible." This requirement places the buildings closer to the street and helps provide a pedestrian-oriented development and promotes visual interest along the street block. The site plan accomplishes this by having the residential buildings front onto Timberline Road, Caribou Drive and the internal private drive. The staff report provides analysis on this code section. The appellant has not provided any information demonstrating the site plan is inconsistent with this code section. The staff report includes an analysis of Section 3.2.3(D)(1) of the Land Use Code, Solar Access, Orientation and Shading. This standard assesses impacts on adjacent properties based on shadow analysis completed at 9:00 am and 3:00 pm during December 21 (winter solstice). Projects may not cast a shadow onto structures on adjacent properties greater than a hypothetical 25-foot wall located on the project property line, between the hours of 9:00 am and 3:00 pm on December 21'. The applicant did complete a shading study which did not show any impact to the residences adjacent to this site. Building elevations provided to the P&Z show all sides of the building elevations. While the building elevations are three stories in height, and could block views to the west from the properties located to the east, there is not a code requirements that states private property owners have an inherent right to a particular view. Privacy consideration described in Section 3.5.1(D) —Privacy Considerations, are to be reviewed in context with the requirements in Section 3.5.2 — Residential Building Standards and Section 4.22 — Employment Zone District. These two sections do not provide any measurable standards to evaluate where buildings should be located, other than the building setback and building orientation standards in Section 3.5.2. There appears to be a 230-foot separation from the front of the Caribou Apartment buildings to the rear of the Sunstone Townhome buildings. While there 4 is no separation requirements within the LUC for a situation such as this, the distance is 11 times greater than what would be permitted in the scenario where the project were to develop directly behind the Sunstone Townhomes, rather than be separated by Timberline Road. The Board found, upon review of the information provided within the staff report, the project plans, the presentation at the hearing, and the neighborhood testimony that the Caribou Apartments met the criteria of Sections 3.5.2.(B)(1) — Housing Model Variety, 3.5.2(C)(1) — Relationship of Dwelling to Streets and Parking, 3.5.1(C) — Building Size,Height, Bulk, Mass, Scale; and 3.5.1(D) — Privacy Considerations. Wetland and Environmental The site is adjacent to a large wetland that is shown on the City's Natural Habitats and Features inventory map. Any development that is proposed within 500 feet of such a feature is subject to the review criteria included within Section 3.4.1 — Natural Habitats and Features. Section 3.4.1(C) General Standards, requires applicants to reposition structures, to the maximum extent feasible to minimize the impacts on the adjacent wetland. The applicant has arranged the buildings to minimize their impacts on the adjacent wetland, and provided a natural habitat and features buffer zone to . protect the adjacent feature. The developer is also enhancing the existing conditions by adding addition native vegetation to the site, as well as restoring and replacing the habitat along the northern end of the wetland and restoring any area that may be disturbed also with native vegetation. An ecological characterization study was prepared by the applicant, pursuant to Section 3.4.1(D)(1) —Ecological Characterization Study, detailing information on wildlife, plant life and other natural characterizations in need of protection. The applicant was also required to submit an additional study to provide more in-depth evaluation of the use by waterfowl and shorebirds. This information helped to determine if a buffer zone was needed and to what extent. This buffer and enhancement plan was shown on the plan presented to the Planning and Zoning Board. A current delineation was required, this also helped to determine what buffer zones would apply to the project. This study was completed pursuant to Section 3.4.1(D)(2)—Wetland Boundary Delineation in the LUC. A determination on the buffer zone distance was made by the Natural Resources Director and staff, based on information from the required studies and delineation, from interviews from several neighbors who live adjacent to the wetlands and through City data. The developer requested some encroachment in to the buffer zone to allow for some parking garages, a portion of the surface parking, and to allow some non-native plant material to be planted within the buffer zone. This encroached was allowed by NDR, pursuant to Section 3.4.1(E)(1) Buffer Zone Performance Standards. Because of this encroachment, the applicant was 5 required to conform with all of the performance standards list under 3.4.1(E)(1)(a)-(h). The applicant redesigned the project to create large voids for waterfowl flying in to the site, revegetation and enhancing the buffer zone, repositioning building to create walls between the habitat and the project. The NRD determined that the development activities that are allowed by the Land Use Code to be within a buffer zone would allow restoration activities, utility installation, and construction of pedestrian walkway. The applicant was able to comply with the requirements in 3.4.1(I) Design & Aesthetics. By shifting buildings to provide better visibility for the waterfowl flying in to the wetland and protect views into and out of the large natural habitat. This also helped to break up the massing appearance of the structures. Additional native vegetation was added which helps to screen the manmade facilities and work to blend the project with the natural visual character of the area. The NRD required the applicant to provide detail information on timing of wildlife use on the property. This information is necessary pursuant to Section 3.4.1(N) Standards for Protection During Construction, and has been used to restrict construction activity adjacent to the natural habitat during times of heavy wildlife use. Limits of construction have also been designated with fencing required to help eliminate the disturbance into the natural habitat. The applicant has submitted documentation proving that they are in compliance with all federal environmental regulations. The Board found, upon review of the information provided within the staff report, the project plans, the presentation at the hearing, and the neighborhood testimony that the Caribou Apartments met the criteria of Sections 3.4.1(A)(b) - Applicability, 3.4.1(C) - General Standards. 3.4.1(D)(1) - Ecological Characterization Study, 3.4.1(13)(2) - Wetland Boundary Delineation, 3.4.1(E) - Establishment of Buffer Zones, 3.4.1(E)(1) - Buffer Zone Performance Standards, 3.4.1(E)(2) - Development Activities Within the Buffer Zone, 3.4.1(I) Design & Aesthetics, 3.4.1(N) - Standards for Protection During Construction, and 3.4.1(0) - Proof of Compliance. "Mana¢ina the Bia Picture" The appellant refers to Section 3.5.1(G) Building Height Review in the appeal letter. This section applies to all projects proposing buildings greater than 40 feet in height. The purpose of this section is to provide additional information to the decision-maker on Views, Light and Shadow, Privacy, and Neighborhood Scale. While the project is not subject to this Section, the appellant argues that had it been, the project would look much different. It is staff's opinion, based on the review standards within this section, that the project may not appear any different than proposed. Views may only be preserved from public spaces (parks or open space areas) and not from private lots, as desired from the appellant. A shadow analysis was completed, and did not show any impact on the adjacent properties (This analysis was already completed and provided to the Planning and Zoning 6 . Board). The building height would be compatible, since the area already includes two and three story buildings (The Employment Zone District permits buildings up to four stories in height). The project would not infringe on the privacy of adjacent residential, since the closest residential buildings are well over 230 feet away. The Board found, upon review of the information provided within the staff report, the project plans, the presentation at the hearing, and the neighborhood testimony that the Caribou Apartments met the applicable criteria within Section 3.5.1 of the LUC. 2. ALLEGATION: The Board failed to hold a fair hearing by: Ignoring its previously established rules of process Considering substantially false or grossly misleading evidence, Improperly failing to receive all pertinent evidence offered. PERTINANT CODE SECTIONS: A. Section 2.48(b)(2) The Board failed to conduct a fair hearing in that: a. The board or commission substantially ignored its previously established rules of procedure; b. The board or commission considered evidence relevant to its findings which was substantially false or grossly misleading; or C. The board or commission improperly failed to receive all relevant evidence offered by the appellant." B. APPELLANTS' ARGUMENT Argument: The appellant includes several allegations of the Board failing to conduct a fair hearing for the Caribou Apartments Project Development Plan. These allegations have been summarized from the appellant's appeal letter: Neighborhood Meeting • In a discussion with both the planner and developer at the neighborhood meeting, there was an assurance made that there were would be many opportunities for neighborhood involvement and input. They discussed the fact that there were "lots" of meetings held with neighbors for the Fox . Meadows project, and they would do the same for this project. In fact they indicated that they appreciate the input. 7 • The project planner confirmed that meeting minutes would be sent to those requesting it, and pointed out, where to mark on the sign-up sheet, the request fora copy of the meeting minutes. Communication • In addition to not being provided any opportunities for input into the project through "future neighborhood meetings"; there has been no response to the questions from neighborhood meeting communicated, as promised. • The P&Z Board voiced concern around not providing requested information and pointed out issues of credibility. • If what was assured in the Neighborhood Meeting actually occurred, these issues more than likely would have been hammered out, thus minimizing these kinds of surprises. Traffic • The traffic study provided with the Staff Report does not show what the dates are for data presented. By looking at traffic studies for other projects along the same stretch of Timberline, there are conflicting outcomes of traffic volumes. How can it be said that the addition of up to 700 individuals on a 10-acre lot of land will not impact traffic flow? • Safety issues around the increased difficulty of trying to turn east on Caribou from Southbound Timberline are not accurately reflected with the report. • Large increase of traffic and traffic speed since the opening of the Harmony Corridor; date of collection done before or after this increase volume? Should be after. • Traffic and safety issues brought up in the Neighborhood meeting have not been adequately addressed. • Discussion around additional parking available on Caribou, particularly at night did not take into consideration that there are semi-trucks that park overnight almost nightly. Wetland and Environmental • Conflicting information between the reports, meeting minutes and the discussion at the neighborhood meeting regarding the wetland. There was much discussion around what the developer of the storage units had to do to meet the code and honor the buffer zone. Where was this addressed for this project? "Who is Mana¢ina the Bi¢Picture" • This question was brought to the developer, planner and the P&Z Board. For example: The total sum of projects along a 1 '/2 mile of Timberline: Project providing a thoroughfare for large semi-trucks to the gravel yard just a couple of blocks from this project, 8 Albertson's Shopping Center '/a mile south of the project, Business offices and housing going up across the street, King Soopers approximately 1 mile north of this project, Main route for fire department trucks and ambulances heading south to Harmony. Summary • Documentation provided to the P&Z Board was incomplete, inaccurate, and has multiple inconsistencies. In data, code interpretations,etc. • There was conflicting information between the presentation and the documentation provided to the P&Z Board. • The issues presented in the neighborhood meeting, and again in the Council (P&Z) meeting have never been adequately addressed. • Promises made by the Project Planner and the developer's team were not kept, which impacted the outcome of this project, and ultimately the community of Fort Collins. C. Staff Response: The notice of appeal is largely based on accusations that the Planning and Zoning Board failed to adequately conduct a public hearing, mainly due to lack of, or conflicting information. Planning and Zoning Board Public Hearings are held pursuant to Section 2.2.7 — Public Hearings, in the Land Use Code. Staff has responded to the allegations raised by the appellant below: Neighborhood Meetin¢ Section 2.2.2 of the LUC — Neighborhood Meetings, describes the purpose of Neighborhood Meetings. Neighborhood Meetings are required for all projects processed as Type II (Planning and Zoning Board) Review. The neighborhood meeting for the Caribou Apartments was held on July 24, 2002. The purpose of this meeting was to inform the neighbors of the application and to identify issues and concerns from the neighborhood. In addition to the neighborhood meeting, additional neighborhood involvement can be made at any time during the review of the project. Letters may be submitted, the plans may be reviewed, and the project planner is available to answer questions and hear concerns related to the project. All of this input is encouraged. Public hearing notifications were also sent to adjacent neighbors informing them of the Planning and Zoning Board hearing for the Caribou Apartments. Staff did receive several letters from the adjacent neighbors, which were forwarded to the Planning and Zoning Board. Notes from the neighborhood meeting are hand written on an easel during the meeting. These notes are kept with the project file and are also available for public inspection at any time. Section 2.2.2(E) - Summary of Neighborhood Meeting, requires a summary of meeting notes be included within the staff report forwarded to the Planning and Zoning Board. A summary of the notes were included in the staff . report and forwarded to the Planning and Zoning Board. No additional meetings 9 were scheduled, nor committed to, during the neighborhood meeting or otherwise in the review process. Based on the information provided within the staff report, the testimony provided at the hearing, and the project presentation, The Board properly conducted the January 16, 2003 public hearing for the Caribou Apartments, pursuant to Section 2.2.7 of the Land Use Code. Communication Most of the issues raised at the neighborhood meeting related to the existing wetlands within the regional stormwater detention pond immediately south of the project. A representative from the Natural Resources Department was at the meeting and continued to enlist input from the neighbors directly adjacent to the wetland. Their input was valuable, in that staff was able to give the applicants consultant direction when preparing the ecological characterization study for the project. The adjacent neighbors were also had input on the location of garages and parking lots along the southern portion of the project, to minimize the amount of disturbance the project would have on the wetland. A number of the relocated spruce trees were also located in the wetland buffer zone as a request by the neighbors to minimize the impacts of the project on the wetlands. The siltation of the wetlands and the effects it is having on the capacity of the wetlands as a storm drainage detention pond was also an issue. Representatives from the Storm Drainage Utility Department will develop a low-flow channel through the wetlands to provided more efficient drainage and minimize the potential for flooding which currently exists. While it is clear that the requests made by the appellant for the right-turn arrow onto Caribou do not meet traffic warrants, Traffic Operations will continue to monitor the intersection and respond accordingly when traffic warrants are met for the intersection improvements. While public testimony is encouraged at the public hearing, Article 2 of the Land Use Code does not require the Planning and Zoning Board to modify or deny a project based on public disapproval of the project, especially when such concern(s) is not supported by City Code or the Land Use Code. Traffic The Traffic Operation Department conducted the review of the Transportation Impact Study (TIS) submitted by the applicant. The scoping meeting for the traffic study was conducted in March 2002. The traffic counts used in the study were taken in February 2002. The TIS was completed and dated June 2002. This time frame is typical for traffic studies and the counts used in the analysis are reasonable. The Traffic Operations Department is not aware of any safety issue that currently exists at the intersection of Caribou and Timberline. The appellant mentions a safety problem with the southbound left turn vehicle to eastbound Caribou. In 2001, there were four accidents at this intersection (exceptionally low rate of 0.52 accidents per million vehicles) and none of these accidents involved a southbound left turning vehicle. The Traffic Operations Department has been 10 . working on the Harmony Corridor for the past year of the ATMS and we do not believe any significant problems exist on the corridor at this time. It is true that the volumes are increasing rapidly due to all the development in the area. On-street parking was only discussed at the hearing as it relates to overflow parking for the project. On-street parking is not necessary to satisfy the off-street parking requirement found in Section 3.2.2(K)(1)(a). This testimony is included within the minutes of the P&Z meeting. Based on the information provided within the staff report, the testimony provided at the hearing, and the project presentation, The Board properly conducted the January 16, 2003 public hearing for the Caribou Apartments, pursuant to Section 2.2.7 of the Land Use Code. Wetlands and Environmental Natural Resource Staff reviewed the ecological characterization study. The results of this study were included within the staff report. Exhibits showing the wetland delineation, buffer enhancement and activities within the buffer were included with the presentation to the Planing and Zoning Board. "Who Mana¢es the Bi¢Picture" The appellant includes additional projects, either approved or under review, • within the vicinity of the Caribou Apartments, as a reason for not holding a fair hearing. While the adjacent projects have been used in calculating additional traffic demand within the traffic study and road improvements for this project, each project must go through its own review process and demonstrate compliance with the City's Zoning Code and Land Use Code. Summary The appellant alleges that information presented to the P&Z Board was incomplete, inaccurate, and inconsistent. The appellant cites the lack of proper traffic information, lack of building elevations (along Timberline), missing ecological characterization report, missing distances from Caribou Apartment to the Sunstone Townhomes, and an incomplete summary of the neighborhood meeting notes. It is staff's opinion that not only was this information provided in the staff report, staff presentation and the project plan, but the testimony given by the appellant at the Planning and Zoning Board Meeting and additional letters submitted by the adjacent neighbors provided adequate information relating to neighborhood concern. Based on the information provided within the staff report, the testimony provided at the hearing, and the project presentation, The Board properly conducted the January 16, 2003 public hearing for the Caribou Apartments, pursuant to Section 2.2.7 of the Land Use Code. tt CONCLUSION: Section 2.4.2(H) of the Land Use Code establishes certain criteria which must be met in order for the Planning and Zoning Board to approve a project development plan such as the Caribou Apartments. The Board found, upon review of the information provided within the staff report, the project plans, the presentation at the hearing, and the neighborhood testimony that the Caribou Apartments met all of the applicable criteria within Articles 3 and 4 of the Land Use Code, and, based on this information, approved the Caribou Apartments by a 5 — 0 vote. The copies of the staff report, a verbatim transcript of the meeting minutes has been attached to this memorandum. The rule of conduct for holding public hearings and reviewing development applications is included within Section 2.2 of the Land Use Code. This section describes the purpose and summary requirements for a neighborhood meeting and conduct and order of public hearings in front of the Planning and Zoning Board. The Board considered all relevant information relating to the project, and conducted the hearing in accordance with Section 2.2.7 of the Land Use Code. Attachments include the verbatim transcript of the hearing and the Planning and Zoning Board Staff Report. 12 ITEM NO. q MEETING DATE 1[16/03 STAFF Bob Barkeep City of Fort Collins PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD STAFF REPORT PROJECT: Caribou Apartments Project Development Plan - #18-02A [Type II Planning and Zoning Board Review] OWNER: Hendricks Communities, LLC 1165 South Pennsylvania Street, Suite 200 Denver, CO 80210 APPLICANT VF Ripley Associates 401 West Mountain Avenue, Suite 201 Fort Collins, CO 80521 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Caribou Apartments is a project development plan for a 193 unit multi-family complex located along the west side of Timberline Road and south of Caribou Drive. The project is located on 10.8 acres of land and will yield a gross density of 17.8 units/acre. The multi-family buildings will be arranged into two - 20 unit buildings, two - 32 unit buildings and two - 44 unit buildings. The buildings will range from two to three stories in height. Off street parking will be provided in both surface parking stalls and in detached garage units. A clubhouse with recreation amenities is also included with the project. The site currently has a single-family residence on the property. This house is not incorporated into the site plan and will be razed. The property is zoned E — Employment District. A subdivision plat is accompanying the project development plan. This plat will create a tract upon which the project will be developed and dedicate all necessary rights-of-way and easements to support the project. RECOMMENDATION: Approval EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: This project has been reviewed in accordance with the applicable requirements of the Land Use Code (LUC) and was found to be in substantial compliance with the following: 1. The proposed land uses are permitted in the (E) Employment District. COMMUNITY PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 281 N.College Ave. P.O.Box 580 Fort Collins,CO 80522-0580 (970)221-6750 PLANNING DEPARTMENT Caribou Apartments, Project Development Plan #18-02A Type II Planning and Zoning Board Review Page 2 2. The Project Development Plan complies with all applicable district standards of Section 4.22 of the Land Use Code, (E) Employment District. 3. The Project Development Plan complies with all applicable General Development Standards contained in Article 3 of the Land Use Code. FINDINGS and ANLYSIS: 1. Background The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: N: E — undeveloped S: E — storm drainage detention pond E: RL— attached single family W: E — enclosed mini-storage The propeIn was annexed in September 1977 and June 1986 as part of the Harmony 2" Annexation and Chadwick Annexation. 2. Division 4.22 of the Land Use Code, Employment Zone District The use of multi-family residential is permitted in the E zone district subject to Planning and Zoning Board Review (Type II). Multi-family residential is included as a secondary use within the E zone district. The PDP meets the applicable Land Use Standards as follows: A. Section 4.22(D)(4) Dimensional Standards The proposed buildings are three stories in height, the maximum height permitted for residential buildings within the E zone district. B. Section 4.22(D)(3) Density The minimum overall residential density within the E zone district is 7 units per net acre of land. Caribou Apartments proposes 193 units on 9.5 acres of net land area for an overall density of 20.3 units/acre. C. Section 4.22(D)(6) Mix of Housing Types A minimum of two housing types shall be included in all residential developments greater than 10 acres in size. The proposed PDP includes 192 multi-family residential units and a mixed—use dwelling unit (caretaker's residence). These two unit types are consistent with the criteria in this Section. D. Section 4.22(D)(7) Access to Park , Central Feature or Gathering Place Caribou Apartments, Project Development Plan #18-02A Type II Planning and Zoning Board Review Page 3 A 10,000 sq.ft. open area is provided in front of Building 4 which will provide a functional gathering place for residences of the project. Additional recreation amenities are included within the clubhouse, which includes an outdoor pool, patio and seating areas. 4. Article 3 of the Land Use Code — General Development Standards The Project Development Plan complies with all applicable General Development Standards as follows: A. Division 3.2,1 Site Planning and Design Standards 1. Section 3.2.1 , Landscaping and Tree Protection Landscaping has been provided in all areas which will not be included in parking areas, drives or building footprints. The landscape plan provides a variety of canopy trees, ornamental trees, shrubs and ground covers. The landscape plan has been designed to use plants to enhance building design, soften walls and building mass and visually break up parking areas. All plant materials are of adequate size and diversity as required by this section. The landscape plan is in compliance with the City's water • conservation standards. Street canopy trees have been located within the parkway of the detached sidewalks along Timberline Road and Caribou Road. Street trees will also be provided along the internal private street. There are a number of existing trees on this lot. Approximately five trees are shown to be removed by the development of the project. Four of these trees are considered to have significant community value, as determined by the City Forester. Additional trees will be planted within the project, pursuant to the mitigation measures within Section 3.2.1(F) of the LUC to offset the impacts from removing these trees. Fifteen remaining spruce and pine trees will be relocated within the site. Sight distance easements are shown on the subdivision plat and landscape plan. Buildings, evergreen trees and large shrubs will not be located within these easements. Four trash enclosures will provide screening of trash collection areas within the project. • 2. Section 3.2.2, Access, Circulation and Parking Caribou Apartments, Project Development Plan #18-02A Type II Planning and Zoning Board Review Page 4 Walkways within the site are aligned to take direct access from the adjacent public sidewalks along Caribou Drive and Timberline Road. An internal sidewalk system is provided that will follow the internal private road. Sidewalks from building entrances will provide direct connection to the internal sidewalk system and to the walks along Caribou Drive and Timberline Road. Bicycle parking will be provided in bike racks located near each of the residential buildings. All walkways are of the minimum width necessary to serve their function. The parking lot has been broken down into smaller, landscaped lots. Landscape islands are designed to distribute the parking areas and define the entrances to individual lots. All off-street parking areas will be located within the property served by the parking. Parking areas will be paved and striped in conformance with City standards. The number of off-street parking stalls will be based on the number of bedrooms for each unit within the project. The project will provide 72 — single bedroom units and 121 - two bedroom units. With a ratio of 1.5 spaces for each single room unit and 1.75 spaces for each two-bedroom unit, a total of 320 spaces are required. The site plan shows a total of 320 off-street spaces. 265 spaces will be provided in surface lots, where the remaining 55 will be provided in covered garage parking. It is the intent of the developer that these garage spaces not be included with the basic unit rental price, rather at an additional charge. The project is not subject to the requirements of Section 3.2.2(K), since it was submitted on June 14, 2002. This date is before the effectuation period of the fall land use code changes which adopted this new parking standard. These garages are distributed throughout the project. Each individual garage building will be limited to 5 stalls in width. Twelve of the spaces are designated for handicapped persons. 3. Section 3.2.3, Solar Access, Orientation, Shading Due to the location of the buildings within the property, and the location of other structures adjacent to the property, the proposed buildings will not cast a shadow during the times specified in the LUC. 4. Section 3.2.4, Site Lighting A photometric plan has been submitted in conjunction with the PDP. This plan shows compliance with both on and off-site lighting standards within the LUC. All site lighting within this project must meet City standards for exterior lighting. Caribou Apartments, Project Development Plan #18-02A Type II Planning and Zoning Board Review Page 5 B. Division 3.3, Engineering Standards 1. Section 3.3.1, Plat Standards The subdivision plat has been reviewed against the standards included within the LUC and found to be in substantial compliance with those standards. 2. Section 3.3.2, Development Improvements Prior to the approval of the final compliance plans, a development agreement will be drafted detailing the improvements required by the applicant as part of the building permit process, and the timing of installation of such improvements. 3. Section 3.3.3, Water Hazards This property is not located within a designated floodplain or natural drainage swale. There are no irrigation ditches within the vicinity to cause a significant impact upon the drainage pattern of the property. 4. Section 3.3.5, Engineering Design Standards . The PDP has been reviewed pursuant to the adopted design standards in place for water, sewer, storm drainage, electric, walkways and streets which will serve this development. C. Division 3.4, Environmental, Natural Area, Recreational and Cultural Resource Protection Standards 1. Section 3.4.1, Natural Habitats and Features The property is adjacent to the Timberline Stormsewer Wetland. This wetland is south of the site, and is part of the Foothills Drainage Basin. Since this wetland is greater than 1/3 acre in size, the Land Use Code requires a minimum 100-foot buffer from the perimeter of the wetland be established. The site plan includes a 100-foot buffer from the wetland, however several of the garages, and a portion of the parking lot encroach within this buffer. This encroachment is permissible, since it is less than 20 percent of the buffer distance. Thirteen of the relocated evergreen trees from the site will be replanted in this buffer area as part of the mitigation measures for this encroachment. Storm run-off from the site will be contained in a water quality pond before entering into the public storm drainage system. 2. Section 3.4.7 Historic and Cultural Resources. Caribou Apartments, Project Development Plan #18-02A Type II Planning and Zoning Board Review Page 6 The existing house on the site is not eligible for local landmark designation. This building will be razed prior to development. D. Division 3.5, Building Standards 1. Section 3.5.1, Building and Project Compatibility Any new development next to existing developed areas must be designed to be complimentary with those structures. The use of repetitive building elements such as building mass, windows, roof lines, must have a similar relation to the street and materials. Buildings should also be similar in size and height, or, if larger, be articulated and subdivided into massing that is proportional to the mass and scale of other structures on the same block. The project is adjacent to an existing mini-storage facility to the west. The residential area to the east of the project, east of Timberline Road, consists of attached-single family residential, two stories in height. The Caribou Apartments buildings will have similar building materials, forms and height with existing residential in the immediate vicinity. The proposed buildings are less than 40 feet in height, and do not warrant special height review considerations. The PDP is not proposing any outdoor storage or loading areas, all trash collection areas are greater than 20 feet from public transportation facilities. 2. Section 3.5.2, Residential Building Standards Every front fagade with a primary entrance to a dwelling unit shall face the adjacent street, or face onto a 'major walkway spine' that connects to a public street sidewalk. Buildings with four units or greater shall also have at least one building entrance face onto the adjacent street that is smaller than an arterial, or has on street parking. All of the buildings have been designed to provide direct access to the front public sidewalk. Each building provides several entrances onto the adjacent street sidewalk. Building setbacks are consistent with the minimum distance required within the Land Use Code. E. Division 3.6, Transportation and Circulation 1. Section 3.6.1, Master Street Plan This PDP is in substantial compliance with the City of Fort Collins Streets Master Plan. Caribou Apartments, Project Development Plan #18-02A Type II Planning and Zoning Board Review Page 7 2. Section 3.6.4, Transportation Level of Service Requirements The applicant for this project conducted a Transportation Impact Study. The study concluded that the Caribou Apartments PDP will generate 98 morning peak hour trips, 122 evening peak hour trips, and 1284 total daily trips. These additional trips will fall within the accepted ranges of the City's Level of Service Standards. The report concluded that all intersections impacted by the project will continue to operate acceptably, and the pedestrian, bicycle and transit levels of service will operate at acceptable levels of service. 3. Section 3.6.6, Emergency Access The buildings will be located within 150 feet of the internal street. The individual residential units will include fire sprinklers. F. Division 3.7, Compact Urban Growth Standards 1. Section 3.7.2, Contiguity The project is located within the Infill Area of the City of Fort Collins. 2. Section 3.7.3, Adequate Public Facilities The provision of adequate public facilities for transportation, water, wastewater, storm drainage, fire and emergency services, and electrical power will be in place prior to the issuance of a building permit, or adequate security posted for any such improvement not in place prior to the issuance of a building permit. 5. Neighborhood Information Meetinq A neighborhood meeting was held on July 24, 2002 at Kruss Elementary School. There were approximately 7 neighbors in attendance at this meeting. Particular items of concern expressed by the neighbors are: Concern over development impacting the adjacent wetlands within the Timberline Stormwater Wetland. Would like to see as little disturbance as possible adjacent to wetlands. Concern with the increased traffic onto Timberline Road. An increase in traffic may ultimately require a median, limiting access onto Harmony Drive. Traffic has increased significantly on Timberline, creating additional safety concerns. Neighbors within the Suntown Townhomes to the east of Timberline Road had concerns with the potential loss of views to the west due to the scale of the buildings. Caribou Apartments, Project Development Plan #18-02A Type II Planning and Zoning Board Review Page 8 FINDINGS OF FACT/CONCLUSIONS After reviewing the Caribou Apartments Project Development Plan #18-02A, staff makes the following findings of fact and conclusions: 1. The proposed land uses are permitted in the Employment zone district. 2. The Project Development Plan complies with all applicable district standards of Section 4.22 of the Land Use Code, Employment Zone District. 3. The Project Development Plan complies with all applicable development standards contained within Article 3 of the Land Use Code. RECOMMENDATION: Approval BOB ■�� �� ■■■IN ■������ ►��Ii■ir ii����i 1: . '. .ice �� \r r-i0•: son soon MOFM r ■� �� �, I : � �■� �. n M r� i I I j99�1 a"E99I Ii9 i i fill If �11110 lE'1Ead# [1 4ittj! E --1 [a{{E(EEa E E Eta 9�sa "'• ._-� O A� �\ '• 3-e ` tt � aa► ifill •E 9j' yi 1 a l `r- E /fTii I 9 l 9a ag ................ o I ELL 9 � Q I m v all N I I i • 'p • r � ZD II n � I Lo� IZ N Z -- - --- -- -- - — -- PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN Plant List Plant Notes Water Usage Table ...iM w•_. rr„xrv.w:.,.w,.:•s n..wwn:•rw w.wx,un. - rvn vr....w w._ _,�.aw•,.,n �p mn ,w.�.•.,.- r,.:w ,w.v,.n.,_•,. .yy._:.r_���u..r.' wM M � MMi :� "x•�:.y x�rN�u,d v. r..., .w rr•u w••,/Y.✓.ru :.fin ww'.w uw_,xn.,x x. n�u.w+au. srr..•, �:� rM ur wx n.xw.w r.r,.r..w.w....wu un.x, n. ..�r�r.•r�wr' .wr.w.:,,y.�uu y.rvWm, :..'.y.r-.n.�N�tii'.w. .q ,:,w.,...w�nr, �wn M+w. uw w..•,r w.0 r... ...wru..xr r,_x •� i M A R T I N CARIBOU APARTMENTS x.xx.x..x: .....,,... O.NX uxosurr xorrs1..w, —3 a S'MEEpp II: d I,. sSR� � SI �.,. lei► ®II .o' '�:��'�� D6 � �' �� 1 c, �� �� ,`� ire �IIiP► � ,��� C�1 ,,, �� ,-=��� �,��� �' � �, E".� all a,,�M +� - I�� ;1�i1 lad Yid �- �-• ,� ��s �1 �I, fit J �fi` �� I;����p IIC� .'' �r,-! ��s vQ'�• 10,E PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN KEY PLAN � I rM sl�r� _ ---� - L—'--- -- ; Legend I I •m . vfw -r ,w.. ""ki t ram. i»�\ ,wi rsn � I�y� I',.Lv � .m w (D - I , L-1 ,✓_ _ �if�ia <=. �'..' -�_ s A...4 � -..e, ew I I � 11�-;-1 .�...�ew �.. �\, , . ..`�'• ipw:—r a i fwe .,nr } i 14 I I�`} .......ew a .�.� „� Ey J i t J .�vvvv ,noF r Ir}j I CARIBOU APARTMENTS \•, - �^� ,� � � na, ��`'�'����#- t�1`\� Ili i III � }� .�...��` ..,.�..,n�a ' GNUSGrE Mx xoxm C a 16 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN VABg1PO.D I _ 1 III II; 1 I I Irl pq 11,, � 2 I >> I II ' F \F PIPIET 1�MARTIN I � CARIBOU APARTMENTS -�� I• °�P�M��� � Blryla M�lm Pa.[MIT"Tox vux L a 1 L PROTECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN \� w� n I ( 11 wm'w"`wwsww —F3"— t --lrmywa \ (='�'°iaiiAumimwrn' ___� Iwwapv C rwwmwf. �) �)w�waw®ww[Wr R(N (.I Is)mvs��W.wma... �µ /n\ I)'mlwm.wm.wrwn... Ih_ Ewa wuwin�w Y 6 _ti ..lJ✓-. (:) �wwwslw / \. -_. wmeewl�.�atxCwwawwR RAN li)Irwvwwwwxwaam M ()-- f�. slww°w°w°'ww..v.�w �� _{•) C0 .,awn wmw {:).walw.s�m m�www.w.a — � ' �- _ sws ammm�own � A e.aammsan.wn QQ mM{Mwa mlwww� Y Iw) I( f \ 1� wlPl wtwxnlwlwvwclM]6 �Otlatwwml w/lnwMMWwnIMF � 1� (sl a.exslwm.w.l�""i an. -.�'�.. -�y mwi`svmia��w.u"�sc:r "`w s' U � () �.w,'^w^'^'•.ww,wn. ��) wwww. 7 �� me.ww�ma �s2 �� G)ml.slwmrlom.ewmw .. lilwwu.nnrsa // � "�" smiws saw ssnw� I wwum.wnelr wcm 1. U wlwlwwwglwolwVaw � -_ y� - _ � Nr711A1 a STANDARD TREE PLANTING MULTI-TRUNK TREE PLANTING DETAIL EVERGREEN TREE PLANTING t7 i C' w.. -`i.'r u.me.eawnmww wrcwo STEEL EDGING M wOlx6 wtix Iw01wLL 'sawa Mvd Q�fP� I g a .wwwaa CARIBOU APARTMENTS Q () -� Ilmxw.a. 3fs.[gy ,� awwwro..riawrartrwuxawxoo svwwnwwrt. vmnmwe SHRUB PLANTING ...m�w..,a.,2',� GROUNDCOVER,ANNUAL&PERENNIAL BED WDWK usmns 7 a 1 L SOME SIAM El pmi OF 141, ®C11 = Ul '_ � _ 11,` III PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN BUILDING 11 FRONT ELEVATION CARIBOU APARTMENTS BUILDING 11 ELEVATIONS 9�16 •1 1 1' i Ian i �� _ ���►��� SM � ° Il��i �� ■o� �,�� �� �51■::11 €11 !ih 11� 0� 555 0� �i,! 0• �0 n'h' ,_ �s 0�- n,i IF= II ��� L � � � �• ,:. a-� �f��il f�■ilk Mil� PROTECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN mki .4mi; flgNl k1EVAlpl1 IFFi&OEElEVAiION IYtlR510E 6EVAl10N I YP RIPIAY IMTEAVil31Ef.EN� 1 M A R T t N CARIBOU APARTMENTS 0]..A R.F1EVAl10lI CLUB HOUSE ELEVATIONS - ELU.MF FERAU M5 11 a 16 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN a -------------I L—_ _ —_J 6A 10 MY F110111fl A" 5A 10 MYNM F AT „n.e � _ MIITER1Al6lEGENH - -4At � W1Wl lQT A mrW'4 wW L —J Wv w.:m�'meaw'nw 50AY SME ATIOR S.MY AI 10-BAY WOES ATM 1 _ W ________ S-HAY RFM EI£'A110N IO.MYSIOE ELEVAIIOH YF RIf18T �1^ MARTIN CARIBOU APARTMENTS W/n.l0.nn.ldOWo 51AIY11Y Wrt: I¢Y1l�NOIL 511„ GARAGE ELEVATIONS „n.e �� GA EEIEYATMn 1 2« 1 6 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN 1 k LegaW it Jl 1 � 1 . � 1 1 , I �4 yrRhkRY mMARnT1N i CARIBOU APARTMENTS 1 - --. wnnnrnm.ru�:nu m,n<wlmc�wwro al.,f.rl�.�rl�r"rw�1113�16 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN I�iII I L � II sal I I II I � I _ � I mMARTIN - �� I� I CARIBOU APARTMENTS 3�—� I l �I ANMIIN MIF. IA'IctI 1 .IIOM SITE PLAN 1 ' I . � PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN I 11 �.� -- - Jill III I I MARTIN - i r _ CARIBOU APARTMENTS - .MEmxen.�uww:n.in<w:iu.fn � �� it I •IJil sue.n�mn: wwnMvse oven SITE PLAN 14 m 1//� 9:OUAM.SN�OOMft�X V PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN Ill - - _ T I Ii - __ 1 r I M A R T I N I CARIBOU APARTMENTS i �`F-J ' , •i fIRPI11XP3rt: P.P.vII.P�: SITE PLAN '•^�• 3!WPA.SIIRoOW% 15 or 16 ! ! i PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN ............. 7 -c fiit Zi FIX URE DETAIL Q ZZ.EI TAIL R XIV.EE DE -��YJ"' w-v .......... .......... wi __ MARTIN CARIBOU APARTMENTS PHOIg.�IPW.,ELAN 16-16 I. INTRODUCTION This transportation impact study addresses the capacity, geometric, and control requirements at and near the proposed development of the Caribou Apartments. The proposed Caribou Apartments site is located in the southwest quadrant of the Timberline/Caribou intersection in Fort Collins, Colorado. During the course of the analysis, numerous contacts were made with the project developer (Hendricks Communities, LLC) , the project planning consultant (V•F Ripley) , the project engineering consultant (North Star Design) , the Fort Collins Traffic Engineering staff, and the Fort Collins Transportation Planning staff. This study generally conforms to the format set forth in the Fort Collins transportation impact study guidelines contained in the "Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards." A Base Assumptions Form and related information are provided in Appendix A. The study involved the following steps: - Collect physical, traffic, and development data; - Perform trip generation, trip distribution, and trip assignment; - Determine peak hour traffic volumes; - Conduct capacity and operational level of service analyses on key intersections; - Analyze signal warrants; . - Conduct level of service evaluation of pedestrian, bicycle, and transit modes of transportation. 1 II. EXISTING CONDITIONS The location of the Caribou Apartments is shown in Figure 1. It is important that a thorough understanding of the existing conditions be presented. Land Use Land uses in the area are primarily either residential, commercial/office, or school (Fort Collins High School) . Land adjacent to the site is flat (<2% grade) from a traffic operations perspective. The center of Fort Collins lies to the northwest of the proposed Caribou Apartments. Roads The primary streets near the Caribou Apartments site are Timberline Road, Harmony Road, Caribou Road, and Horsetooth Road. Timberline Road is adjacent to the east side of the Caribou Apartments site. It is classified as a six-lane arterial on the Fort Collins Master Street Plan. Currently, Timberline Road has a four-lane cross section near the Caribou Apartments site. At the Timberline/Harmony intersection, Timberline Road has two travel lanes in each direction, northbound and southbound dual left-turn lanes, and northbound and southbound right-turn lanes. At the Timberline/Caribou intersection, Timberline Road has two travel lanes in each direction, and northbound and southbound left-turn lanes. At the Timberline/Horsetooth intersection, Timberline Road has two travel lanes in each direction, and northbound and southbound left-turn lanes. The Timberline/Harmony, Timberline/Caribou, Timberline/Horsetooth intersections are signalized. The existing speed limit in this area is 40 mph. Harmony Road is approximately 0.5 miles south of the Caribou Apartments site. It is an east-west street designated as a six-lane arterial street on the Fort Collins Master Street Plan. Currently, it has a four-lane cross section with appropriate auxiliary lanes. At the Timberline/Harmony intersection, Harmony Road has two travel lanes in each direction, eastbound and westbound dual left-turn lanes, and eastbound and westbound right-turn lanes. The existing approach speed limit in this area is 45 mph. Caribou Road is adjacent to the north side of the Caribou Apartments site. It is an east-west street designated as a minor collector street east of Timberline Road on the Fort Collins Master Street Plan. West of Timberline Road, Caribou Road is not classified. Therefore, it is considered to be either a local street or a connector street. Currently, it has a two-lane cross section near the site. At the Timberline/Caribou intersection, Caribou Road has eastbound and westbound left-turn lanes, one through lane in each direction, and eastbound and westbound right-turn lanes. 2 Horsetooth Road is approximately 0.5 miles north of the Caribou Apartments site. It is classified as a four-lane arterial on the Fort Collins Master Street Plan. Currently, Horsetooth Road has a four-lane cross section. At the Timberline/Horsetooth intersection, Horsetooth Road has two travel lanes in each direction, eastbound dual left-turn lanes, a westbound left-turn lane, and a westbound right-turn lane. The existing speed limit in this area is 40 mph. Existing Traffic Recent peak r traffic counts at the key intersections A The hour shown in Figure 2. Raw traffic data is provided in Appendix traffic data for the Timberline/Harmony intersection was collected in January 2002, and the traffic data for the Timberline/Caribou and Timberline/Horsetooth intersections was collected in February 2002. All count data was . collected by the City of Fort Collins. Existing Operation The key intersections were evaluated using techniques provided in the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual. Using the current peak hour traffic shown in Figure 2, the current peak hour operation is shown in Table 1. Calculation forms are provided in Appendix B. A description of level of service for signalized and unsignalized intersections from the 2000 tor Highway Capacity Manual and a table se P o the Fort endixCollinB. MoThe Vehicle LOS Standards (Intersections) are provided i Appendix key intersections operate acceptably during both the morning and afternoon peak hours. Acceptable operation at signalized intersections during the peak hours is defined as level of service D or better. At unsignalized intersections, acceptable operation is considered to be at level of service E for any approach leg for an arterial/local intersection. Pedestrian Facilities There are pedestrian facilities along the south side of Harmony Road and along both sides of Horsetooth Road. Sidewalks exist along the east side of Timberline Road and on the west side of Timberline Road north of Caribou Road. Except for a short segment near Harmony Road, there are no sidewalks on the west side of Timberline Road, south of Caribou Road. Sidewalks will be incorporated within and adjacent to this development. Bicycle Facilities Bicycle lanes exist on Harmony Road, Horsetooth Road, Timberline Road, and on Caribou Road east of Timberline Road. Caribou Road has 4 m Na E H n n r' ry -160/138 410/547 J j �169/89 302217 * Horsetooth 477/437 —► o ,� 141231 N O cm N n O O O ` N —91138 v n in 5/0 111/57 Caribou 3/4 m m 23172 C Ln n to co v> <n rr n co in m � N 319276 NI in `In ►--818/1211 J i l 157212 209296 \\\ J� Harmony 1010/999 —*: N 0) Ln 1201177 Ln a in Gf C N N N �- AM/PM RECENT PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 2 S no bicycle lanes adjacent to and west of the Caribou Apartments site. Bike lanes are not required on local or connector streets. Transit Facilities Currently, Transfort does not serve this area of Fort Collins. TABLE 1 Current Peak Hour Operation EB C D Timberline/Harmony WB C CNB D D (signal) SB D D OVERALL C D EB C C WS C C Timberline/Caribou NB A A (signal) SB A A OVERALL A A EB C C WB B C Timberiine/Horsetooth NB C C (signal) SB C C OVERALL C C 6 III. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Caribou Apartments is an affordable residential development consisting of 192 apartment dwelling units. Caribou Apartments is located in the southwest quadrant of the Timberline/Caribou intersection in Fort Collins. Figure 3 shows a site plan of the Caribou Apartments. The short range analysis (Year 2005) includes development of the Caribou Apartments and an appropriate increase in background traffic, due to normal growth and other potential developments in the area. The long range analysis year is considered to be 2020. The site plan shows two accesses to the Caribou Apartments site. One access is a full-movement access to Caribou Road that will provide primary access to the site. The second access to Timberline Road is a right-in/right-out only access. Trip Generation Trip generation is important in considering the impact of a development such as this upon the existing and proposed street system. A compilation of trip generation information contained in Trip Generation, 6u' Edition, ITE was used to estimate trips that would be generated by the proposed/expected uses at this site. Table 2 shows the expected trip generation on a daily and peak hour basis. TABLE 2 Trip Generation 9PH��EWWI r 220 Ap Rants 192 D.U. 1 6.69 1 1284 10.081 15 10.431 83 10.42 1 82 10.21 1 40 Trip Distribution Directional distribution of the generated trips was determined for the Caribou Apartments. Future year data was obtained from the NFRRTP and other traffic studies. Figure 4 shows the trip distribution used for the Caribou Apartments. Background Traffic Projections Figures 5 and 6 show the respective short range (2005) and long range (2020) background traffic projections. Background traffic projections for the short range and long range future horizons were obtained by reviewing the NFRRTP, reviewing traffic studies for other developments, and reviewing historic count data for this area of Fort m a N E o N Horsetooth 5% r — Caribou I Site L — J 1 20% 20% Harmony 0 o l to t TRIP DISTRIBUTION Figure 4 1 9 m L N E O Uf o m o 175/155 �—75110 0 75/100 i t / Horsetooth 325240 515/485 —� ,� 0 0 155255 - L c M M v N n 0 i Go Q n 95/40 Ln m eo M f_515 115/60 ` 1 r 5/5 Caribou ' 5/5 —J/ TI'1I o c o 25f/5 —y N o re o, 0 0 0 Ln o 000 N *—3401310 a co M �—870/1365 170240 Harmony 235/330 --J' -1 1135/1110 —► 00 C 135/195 —y o L_ m Pl La N AM/PM Rounded to Nearest 5 Vehicies SHORT RANGE (2005) BACKGROUND Figure 0 ' PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC 10 m • c m N E LO � 00o � N •f rn � 215/275 'I M iI) �-590/785 1 1 ` 115/175 — / f r Horsetooth 410/330 690/625 O w o 225/295 o o N O CDC N m t0 U3 O LO N o 105/90 Z O � � CD �►-15110 35/10 f-95/30 /—120/80 Caribou 10130 Ca NOM 5/10 o 35/90 Se 30/90 o Lo `o N a- � e M co 380/485 "ILO' v f-1295/2745 1 /—225/275 i fff 270/340 Harmony �-- AM/PM 243=030 —� o iO to CD 305/420 CD Rounded to Nearest 5 Vehicles � 0 LONG RANGE (2020) BACKGROUND Figure 6 PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Collins. The long range background traffic assumes um are developed.all vacant ts parcels to the north of the Caribou AP generation. It A business park land use was use to forecast this trip g is also assumed that the vacant parcel east of Timberline Road and north of Caribou Road is developed. Office use, ont a floor this parcel.area ratio of 0.3, was used to forecast the trip generation Trip Assignment Trip assignment is how the generated and distributed trips are expected to be loaded on the street system. The assigned trips are the e 7 shows the resultant peak l of hour trafficlbution assignmentcwith a full-movement t access to te generated to Road and a right-in/right-out access to Timberline Road. Caribou Figure 8 shows the short range ctions.total morning the elong nrange hour traffic at the key raffi sat the key intersections. (2020) total p Signal warrants raffic signals are not installed at any As a matter of policy, t location unless warrants are met according to the l on Uniform Manua Traffic Control Devices. All of the key intersections are currently signalized. I Operation Analysis Capacity analyses were performed at the key intersections.analysis, 1 operations an year e2005were condition to Thefor longthe range short analysis reflects a reflecting a Y year 2020 condition. Using the traffic volumes shown in Figure 5, the key intersections kground condition as operate in the short or angeseaanalyses are pr vided 1inlApp Appendix cated in Table The Calculation forms peak hours. key intersections will operate acceptably during the p Using the traffic volumes shown in Figure 6, the key intersections analyses are provided in Appendix D. The Calculation forms for these operate in the long range background condition as indicated in Table . key intersections will operate acceptably. Using the traffic volumes shown in Figure 8, the key intersections ope rate in the short range total condition as indicated lyses are in Table 5' Calculaon forms intersectionsfor these will operate a acceptably. provided in The Appendix E. Using the traffic volumes shown in Figure 9, the key intersections operate in the long range total condition as vided indicated are pin formsin Table 6. Calculation intersect onsfor will operatethesealyses acceptably• Appendix F. The key I 12 m m N E i= r c> 1A 3/16 - Horsetooth N 13/67 Caribou NOM�1, � � 38/18 co4/2 —� Z 16/8 Lo N co Lo m V) RT-in/RT-out 25112 m m r � so m 3116 Harmony 3/17 m . a �- AM/PM SITE GENERATED Figure 7 PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC 13 m A& a N E i= LO o uo oe R "k—1751155 coo0 CC 1O N —4451610 75/105 325/240 f �/ 1 �/ Horsetooth T I 515/485 Ln o 0 160/270 -- o o N 10 A O 0 N o N 95/40 —65/35 5 co ce) - -5/10 !�15(70 I 1 �1115160 35/90 445/25 J T Caribou NOM 10/10 ,o uo 0 co Z 40/85 �1. 0 0 0 fA 1 NmJ N U Q tI1 0 41 to T RT-in/RT-out 251155 345/325 tI) /I° fQ —870/1365 1 —170/240 /01 R I Harmony 240/350 l �---AM/PM 1135/1110 o 0 o 1351195 Rounded to Nearest ` o N 5 Vehicles SHORT RANGE (2005) TOTAL Figure 8 PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC 14 m E N r N 215/275 5901785 J i f—115/180 Horsetooth 410/330 l I 6901625 —'^ Ln 230/310 —1, fW2) 0, a V)LO rn M M 35/10 cl' °�° 105/90 Z Z I� r 95/30 D 15/15 J 1 L 15l/0 120/80 / Caribou NOM � 50150 I(' 35195 0 10/15 -� n co o p p 45l100 0 n NOM ZZ � o � o o 04 . N N m Lo ID Q JLn �1 n / 1 V1 RT-in1RT-out 25/15 C2U, t`f Se 0o 0 m 345l325 C' r 870/1365 J 170/240 Harmony 240l350 1135/1110 —� C o0 0 �— AM/PM 1351195 �1. cc o Rounded to Nearest ` M U N ,t 5 Vehicles LONG RANGE (2020) TOTAL Figure 9 PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC 15 TABLE 3 Short Range (2005) Background Peak Hour Operation [? EB C WB C D Timberiine/Hart NS D Dnony D (signal) SB D OVERALL C D EB C C WB p C A Timberline/Caribou NB A A (signal) SB A OVERALL A A EB C C WB C C C C Timberiine/Horsetooth NB C C (signal) SB C OVERALL C TABLE 4 Long Range (2020) Background Peak Hour operation # i . D C EB E WB B _ D E Timberline/Hannony NB D D (signal) SB D OVERALL D EB C C WB C C A A Timberiine/Caribou NB A A (signal) SB A OVERALL A SB LT/RT A A Caribou/Site Access . EB LT A A (stop sign) EB p E WB C D NB C D Timberline/Horsetooth C D (signaQ SB D OVERALL C 16 TABLES Short Range (2005)Total Peak Hour Operation ihF EB C WB C D Timberline/Harmony NB D D (signal) SB D D OVERALL C D Timberline/RT-in/RT-out Access EB RT B B (stop sign) C EB C WB D C Timberline/Caribou NB A A (signal) SB A A OVERALL A A B LT/RT A A Caribou/Site Access NB LT A A (stop sign) C C EB WB C C Timberiine/Horsetooth NB C C (signal) SB C C OVERALL C C TABLE 6 Long Range(2020)Total Peak Hour Operation EB D C WB B E Timberline/Harmony NB D E (signao SB D D OVERALL D D Timberline/RT-in/RT-out Access EB RT B C (stop sign) EB C C WB C C Timberline/Caribou NB A A (signal) SB A A OVERALL tA A NB LT/f/RT A Caribou/Site Access SB LT/T/RT B (stop sign) EB LT A WB LT A A EB adE EWB D Timberline/Horsetooth NB D (signal) SB D OVERALL D ie . Geometry The short range geometry is shown in Figure 10. The short range geometry is the same as the current geometry at each of the signalized intersections. There are some right-turn movements (SB RT at Timberline/ Horsetooth and NB RT at Timberline/Horsetooth) which will exceed the threshold volume for a right-turn lane with the background traffic. The Caribou Apartments will contribute no traffic to these movements. As such, the Caribou Apartments should not contribute to fund these right-turn lanes if the City chooses to build them. In addition, the eastbound right-turn volume at the Timberline/Hors etooth intersection currently (2002) exceeds the threshold volume for a right- turn lane. The City has chosen not to build this right-turn lane when the property in the southwest quadrant of this intersection was developed. Even though the Caribou Apartments will contribute some traffic to this intersection, this development cannot be expected to participate in building this right-turn lane, since the City did not take this action earlier. Based upon Figure 8-04 in the "Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards," a southbound right-turn lane at the proposed right-in/right-out access is not warranted. However, the Caribou Apartments developer and the City have agreed that this southbound right-turn lane should be incorporated into the site design. When Timberline Road is widened to a six-lane cross section, this right- turn lane will become a southbound through lane. At the 40 mph posted speed, this right-turn lane should be 315 feet long including taper at ws/3. This design is being performed by North Star Design. The long range geometry is shown in Figure il. The only difference .between the short range and long range geometry are the additional through lanes on Harmony Road. In the long range future, the geometry is the minimum necessary to achieve acceptable operation. If the City widens Timberline Road to a six-lane cross section or builds turn lanes where they do not currently exist, then the level of service shown in Table 6 will be improved. As mentioned above, there are some right-turn lanes that are warranted with the background traffic. These right-turn lanes are not required from an operations perspective. Street Classification Figure 12 shows the forecasted long range daily traffic on the dividing west leg of Caribou Road. These volumes were determined by eak hourtis average of the long range peak hour traffic by 0.1 (the p typically 10% of the daily traffic) . The daily volume forecast on Caribou Road, west of Timberline Road, is just ,above the upper limit of a commercial local or connector street. Given that the daily volume above 2500 vehicles per day is on a short segment of approximately 450 feet in length, and there are three eastbound approach lanes, it is recommended that Caribou Road, west of Timberline Road, be classified as a commercial local street. The existing width of Caribou Road (48 feet) , west of Timberline Road, can accommodate all the cross sectional elements of a commercial local street. 19 m A& a N E F Warranted with background tratfic�'fJly l �l-- ' 1 1 Horsetooth Warranted with background traffic� f- 1 Caribou 11 I ~ Warranted with background traffic Site Harmony — - Denotes Lane —� SHORT RANGE (2005) GEOMETRY Figure 10 20 . . m ,1 . c E N Warranted with background traffic R f � Horsetooth Warranted with background traffic Caribou �—Warranted with background traffic Site r Harmony -�— - Denotes Lane 0 LONG RANGE (2005) GEOMETRY Figure 11 21 Pedestrian Level of Service Appendix G contains a map of the pedestrian influence area that is within 1320 feet of the Caribou Apartments site. There will be two pedestrian destinations within 1320 feet of the Caribou Apartments. These are: 1) the office/commercial area north of the site, and 2) the residential area east of the site. Fort Collins High school, Boltz Junior High School, and Kruse Elementary School will serve the Caribou Apartments. Fort Collins High School and Kruse Elementary School are within one mile of the Caribou Apartments. Boltz Junior High School is beyond one mile from the Caribou Apartments. Since it is within one mile of a school, this site is in an area type termed "school walking area." There are no sidewalks adjacent to the Caribou Apartments. However, with this development, it is assumed that this gap in the sidewalk system will be completed. The pedestrian level of service (LOS) for this area type is B for all factors, except visual interest and amenities, which is LOS C. This minimum criteria applies to all destinations, even though the destinations are not school related. The Pedestrian LOS Worksheet is provided in Appendix G. With the assumed future pedestrian facilities adjacent to the site, the pedestrian level of service will be acceptable for those destinations within 1320 feet of the Caribou Apartments. Appendix G also contains school route plans from the Caribou Apartments to each of the schools that will serve it. The pedestrian level of service to Fort Collins High School will be acceptable via a route to the north along Timberline Road. The pedestrian level of service to Boltz Junior High School will be acceptable via a route to the north along Timberline Road, to the west along Horsetooth Road, and to the north along Camelot Drive. The pedestrian level of service to Kruse Elementary School will be acceptable, except for the continuity standard. The most direct route is to the south along Timberline Road, to the west along Harmony Road, and south along Innovation Drive or McMurray Avenue. It is not reasonable that the Caribou Apartments should be responsible for completing gaps in the sidewalk system along Timberline Road or Harmony Road. This should be the responsibility of the adjacent property owners or the City of Fort Collins, when these streets are improved to their respective ultimate cross sections. City transportation planning staff has indicated that there will be a grade-separated crossing of the railroad tracks. This crossing will connect the Timberline Stormwater Wetland to Golden Meadows Park. Kruse Elementary School is adjacent to the Golden Meadows Park. When this occurs, this crossing will provide a shorter route from the Caribou Apartments to Kruse Elementary School. This crossing will be a City funded capital improvement. While a construction schedule has not yet been determined, staff has indicated that construction in 3-5 years is expected. Bicycle Level of Service Appendix G contains a map of the bicycle influence area that is within 1320 feet of the Caribou Apartments. Based upon Fort Collins 23 bicycle LOS criteria, there is one destination areas within 1320 feet • of the Caribou Apartments. This is the commercial area in the northeast quadrant of the Timberline/Harmony intersection. A bicycle LOS worksheet is provided in Appendix G. The bicycle level of service is acceptable. Transit Level of Service Currently, this area has no transit service. The Fort Collins 2015 Transit System Map shows that Timberline Road will have high frequency (20 minute) transit service in the future. A future transit level of service worksheet is provided in Appendix G. Transit level of service will be acceptable. • 24 IV. CONCLUSIONS This study assessed the impacts of the Caribou Apartments nd long range street system in the development on the short range a vicinity of the proposed development. As a result of this analysis, the following is concluded: The development of the Caribou Apartments is feasible from a traffic engineering standpoint. At full development, the Caribou I, Apartments will generate approximately 1284 daily trip ends, 98 morning peak hour trip ends, and 122 afternoon peak hour trip ends. Current operation at the key intersections is acceptable. All of the key intersections are currently signalized. i In the short range future, given development of the Caribou Apartments and an increase in background traffic, the key intersections will operate acceptably. In the long range future, given development of the Caribou Apartments, the key intersections will operate acceptably. Caribou Road, west of Timberline Road, should be classified as a commercial local street. Acceptable level of service is' achieved for pedestrian, bicycle, and transit modes based upon the measures in the multi-modal transportation guidelines, except for the connectivity standard to Kruse Elementary School. When the City funded grade-separated crossing of the railroad tracks is built, the new route to Kruse Elementary School will meet the connectivity standard. 25 Community Planning and Environmental Services �� , yc,,p,Pp1 Natural Resources Department City of Fort Collins MEMORANDUMTO* Planning and Zoning Board From Doug Moore, Environmental Planner CC: Michelle Pawar, Cameron Gloss Dmw 01/16/03 Re: Natural Habitat and Features Buffer Standards applied to Caribou Apartments-PDP The purpose of this memo is to inform the Board how Natural Habitat and Features Buffer Zone Standards were applied to the Caribou Apartments Project Development Plan. The Caribou Apartments Project is located along the west side of Timberline Road and south of Caribou Drive. Adjacent to the south side of this site is a wetland area that comprises over 1/3 of an acre. After review of the Ecological Characterization Study provided by the applicant and consulting with two wildlife experts who reside in the adjoining neighborhoods, the Natural Resources Department (NRD) staff determined a 100'buffer from natural habitat would be adequate. SWith this established buffer, the applicant still needed an encroachment into the area to make their project work The Land Use Code allows applicants to either use the Buffer Zone Standards Table (article 3, page 65) or seek a modification to any portion of the table distances, provided the Buffer Zone Performame Standards are met(Section 3.4.1(D)). This modification requires approval from the decision-maker, whom in this case was Michelle Pawar, and the NRD. If the applicant wishes to encroach even more, leaving less then 800%of the minimum general buffer distance recommended in the Buffer Zone Standards table, then compliance to the Buffer Zone Performance Standards and review by your board are required. The applicant's project required an encroachment of 18.9% (0.14 acres needed to meet parking requirements and 0.07 to relocate normative trees). The Land Use Code permits only native vegetation within a buffer zone. However, by relocating the non-native trees wfthin the buffer zone the applicant is able to accommodate screening of the project from both the natural habitat and the adjoining neighborhood. In addition, some different species of birds will use these trees for habitat. The applicant also redesigned the parking garages so that they backed into the buffer area. This helps to screen and decrease the impacts to the habitat. The applicant shifted several units and the clubhouse, creating visual open voids for migratory birds. This shift also resolved compliance issues related to the Visual Character of Natural Features Standard (3.4.1(1)(2)). During this redesign, additional native landscaping and the development of an extensive revegetation plan were added, further enhancing the habitat and compliance with the Buffer Zone Performance Standards. Attached to this letter is the plan depicting the encroachment into the buffer zone and a letter for the applicant's environmental consultants detailing how they have complied with the Buffer Zone Performance Standards. • e Page 1 281 North College Avenue • P.O.Box 580 • Fort Collins,CO 80522-0580 • (970)221-6600 • FAX(970)224-6177 I T k C MDAM CREED h%0S0CHAU[EZ9INC. 6 Wilshire Ave. • Fort Collins,Colorado 80521 • (970)493-4394 August 9, 2002 Cathy Mathis VF Ripley Associates, Inc. 401 W. Mountain Ave., Suite 201 .Fort Collins, CO 80521 RE: Caribou Project—Compliance with City of Fort Collins Buffer Zone Performance Standards At the request of Doug Moore with the City of Fort Collins Natural Resources Department, I have evaluated current development plans for the Caribou Project site with respect to compliance with City of Fort Collins Buffer Zone Performance Standards stipulated under Section 3.4.1 (E)of the City of Fort . Collins Land Use Code. The following provides my evaluation for each applicable standard and requirement within this section of the Land Use Code. 3.4.1 (E) (3)—Buffer Zone Distances . The only natural habitat or feature on or near the Caribou project site is a storm water detention wetland along the south property boundary. The wetland is greater than 0.3 acre and consists primarily of dense stands of cattails with a small,open water pond near its west end. Residential development exists immediately adjacent to the south edge of the wetland, and mowed, non-native grassland abuts the north side of the wetland. As documented by observations and reporting provided to the City by local resident Dwight Smith,the open water pond and surrounding cattail stands serve to attract a wide variety of migratory waterfowl and shorebirds as well as a number of urban-adapted songbird and mammalian species that rely on wetlands for water, nesting,forage, and/or security cover. However,the relative small size of this wetland, lack of diversity in terms of wetland communities and vegetation cover,and surrounding urban development precludes large numbers or significant waterfowl or shorebird use of this site. Therefore, the Buffer Zone Standard of 100 feet for wetlands,greater than 0.3 acre in size and without significant use by waterfowl or shorebirds seems appropriate for this site. Current project design indicates a buffer distance of 100 feet but with a few encroachments by project features. Overall the average buffer distance would be maintained at 87 percent of the minimum buffer distance of 100 feet stipulated in Section 3.4.1 (E) (3). Therefore the project would be In compliance with this section of the Code since it exceeds the 80 percent requirement of the standard. Impacts associated with the 13 percent encroachment of the buffer zone will be mitigated by revegetation of the buffer zone area into native grassland with inclusions of native shrub and tree plantings. A detailed revegetation plan, developed by Cedar Creek Associates, will be included with the next development plan submittal to the City of Fort Collins 3.4.1 (E) (1)—Buffer Zone Standards (a) The project will preserve the existing wetland, and regrading disturbances in the buffer zone will be revegetated to native grassland mix with inclusions of native tree and shrub clump plantings. Native tree • and shrub plantings will be employed to enhance wildlife habitat as well as to provide visual screening of development features that intrude into the buffer zone. Existing habitat in the buffer zone consists almost C. Mathis 9/9/02 Page 2 entirely of mowed smooth brome (a non-native grass)with limited wildlife value in terms of cover and forage value. The proposed revegetation plan would replace this non-native community with native mid- height grasses and tree and shrub plantings. These plantings will enhance habitat diversity by increasing vegetation cover and forage values and structural diversity. Increased habitat diversity adjacent to the existing wetland will also serve to enhance the overall habitat value of the wetland. Therefore,the project Is in compliance with this performance standard. (b) This performance standard is not applicable to the Caribou Project since there are no wildlife movement corridors present. (c) The only significant trees or vegetation on the property are the landscape trees around the existing residence and the wetlands along the south property boundary. Existing trees will be transplanted to the. extent possible,and those that cannot be transplanted will be mitigated by plantings of replacement trees as required by the City. The existing wetland will be protected with the establishment of the buffer zone. Therefore,the project is In compliance with this performance standard. (d) Applicable portions of this performance standard include the protection of nesting,feeding, and wintering areas for waterfowl, wading birds, and shorebirds as well as protection of any wetland greater . than 0.25 acre in size. Establishment of the 100-foot buffer and revegetation of the buffer to native grasses, shrubs,and trees will protect the existing wetland and enhance habitat and vegetation cover for waterbird use of the wetland. Therefore,the project is In compliance with this performance standard. (a) Establishment of the 100-foot buffer and revegetation of the buffer to native grasses, shrubs,and trees will not only minimize degradation of the ecological character of the wetland but enhance adjacent habitat and existing habitat diversity. The placement of the backs of garages as well as visual screening by shrub and tree plantings in the buffer zone will minimize the visual and noise effects of the development on the wetland. Any external landscape or security lighting will be shielded to minimize nighttime light impacts on the buffer zone and wetland. Diversion of surface runoff from developed portions of the property into water quality detention basins prior to release into the wetlands will minimize the risk of water quality degradation in the wetlands from the Caribou Project. Therefore,the project is in compliance with this performance standard. (f) Minor slope changes will be required for construction of the detention basin, but the general character of existing slopes within the buffer zone will be maintained after regrading. Therefore,the project is in . compliance with this performance standard. (g) As indicated,the buffer zone will be revegetated to native grassland with inclusions of native shrub and tree plantings. Therefore,the project is In compliance with this performance standard. (h) A walking pathway and shielded viewing platform will be constructed within the buffer zone for passive recreation and wildlife viewing. Since Timberline Road and existing residences are currently located immediately adjacent to portions of the wetland, I believe the Caribou walking trail and viewing platform to be compatible with the ecological character and wildlife use of the wetland. Therefore,the project is in compliance with this performance standard. C. Mathis 9/9/02 Page 3 3.4.1 (E)(2)—Development Activities Within the Buffer Zone - The buffer zone will be regraded to create a stormwater detention basin and the buffer zone will be revegetated to native vegetation. The stonmwater detention basin,walking pathway, and viewing platform are all permitted developments within the buffer zone. Therefore,the project is in compliance with the requirements of Section 3.4.1 (E)(2). Cathy, this concludes my evaluation of the Caribou development. Please call if you have any questions. Sincerely. CEDAR CREEK AssocieREs,IINc. - - T. Michael Phelan Principal • January 10, 2003 R E C E 1 V E D • Peter Bames and Bob Barkeen Community Planning and Environmental Services CURRENT pLAT#41NG City of Fort Collins P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 Re: Caribou Apartments Project Development Plan, File#18-02A Dear Mr. Bames and Mr. Barkeen: In regards to the Caribou Apartments Project planned for the comer of Caribou and Timberline in Fort Collins, I have some concerns,particularly regarding the marsh located to the south of the proposed development. My husband and I live adjacent to this marsh on the south side and have lived here for over thirteen years, enjoying the environment of one of the few wetlands left in our area. This marsh houses foxes, raccoons, muskrats,blue herons,geese, ducks and countless birds. There are even coyotes who stop for a visit off and on. It would be a shame and a tragedy to compromise the integrity of these animals' home. Additionally, this marsh serves as a stormwater drain. My concerns and requests are as follows(some of these concerns were also discussed at a meeting of the Harmony Half Acres Home Owners Association held on January 9, 2003): 1. What measures are being taken to prevent significant runoff from the developed area after the moisture retaining sod is removed and covered with asphalt and concrete? Significant silt build-up has occurred in the marsh in recent years and dredging promised by the City has not occurred. Although we are currently . in a drought, in the future we may have rains leading to run off from the proposed project that would likely flood our backyards and basements. 2. Please allow at least a 100-foot buffer between the marsh and the development to protect the precious ecological environment and its occupants described above. This 100-foot buffer was surveyed from the railroad tracks to Timberline Road and agreed upon by the City at the time the storage units just west of the proposed development region were built. 3. A line of trees conducive to a marsh environment would help in buffering the marsh. 4. A fence sturdy enough to discourage wandering pets, vehicles, and people would also protect the marsh 5. Increased traffic is always a concern on Timberline and this development will only add to the problem particularly if there is another road/driveway built adjacent to the marsh. Please keep the traffic to and from the apartments away from the vicinity of the marsh and funnel it into Caribou. I hope the above concerns and suggestions will be considered by the City and the developer for the well-being of the marsh and our neighborhood. I would appreciate it if you would read this letter at the meeting on January 16, 2003. Thank you. Sincerely, Lynn Mattock 1924 Harmony Drive . Ft. Collins,CO 80525 (970) 226-1073 RECEIVED CURRENT PLANNING Deron G. Grothe 4221 Gemstone Lane Fort Collins, CO 80525 (970) 377-0196 January 9, 2003 Dear Planning and Zoning Board Committee, I am writing to express my displeasure regarding the Caribou Apartments Project Development Plan, File#18-02A. I am a resident living directly across the street from the proposed project. My major concern with this project is that the property is presently zoned E — Employment. I moved in to my property with the understanding that that parcel of property would be developed as an employment type of development similar to the development directly north of this parcel. I would not like the council to approve this plan for apartments. The traffic and population density in this area is already high. Please leave this parcel at its present zoning, and allow it to be developed for employment purposes. Regards, Deron Grothe • Caribou Apartments Neighborhood Meeting July 24, 2002 6:30 p.m. Kruse Elementary School 4400 McMurray Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80525 Staff present: Bob Barkeen, City of Fort Collins Current Planning Department Katie Moore, City of Fort Collins Engineering Department Doug Moore, City of Fort Collins Natural Resources Department Wes Lemarque, City of Fort Collins Stormwater Department There were approximately 7 neighbors in attendance at this meeting. After a brief presentation by staff and the project applicant, the meeting was opened for questions. Issues and concerns raised by the neighbors included the following: • A 100-foot setback is required from the adjacent wetland. This will need to be incorporated into the site plan. • Will bluegrass lawn be permitted within the project? Bluegrass should not be provided around the buffer of the wetland. • The maintenance of the adjacent detention pond should be increased. The pond is increasing in size. A draiange channel is needed within the pond to help it drain properly. • The project should be reviewed in context to the surrounding neighborhood. • How will the ownership of the project occur? Who will own the project upon completion? • Traffic patterns, concerned with the increase in Traffic onto Timberline, would like to see a left turn arrow at the intersection of Timberline and Summerstone Drive. • Concern with the intersection of Harmony Drive and Timberline Road. Medians and turn lanes should be provided for better safety. • Improvements to Timberline Road should occur with the project, concern • with the overall impacts this project will have in this area. • Concern with the loss of views to the west. The project should be redesigned to have the taller residential buildings further west on the site and have the lower garages adjacent to Timberline Road to help preserve views to the west and avoid loss of privacy by having upper level windows looking in on the existing residential east of the site. : NEIGBBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING Allfor , i- Project: Meeting Location: City of Fort Collins Date: Z a Attendees: PIease sign this sheet. The information will be used to update the project mailing list and confirm attendance at neighborhood meetings. Contact the Planning Departmerit (221-6750) if you ivish to Did You Receive orrecc receive minutes of this meeting. Written NotiIIntton ddrers. or this meeting? Name Address Zip: I Yes No Yes No Scvff�<<, o f izSTi �6c� /, o 5,-52 L-�/ z5'— T/, ¢Grc S`a3-1 X 5- sew t¢�� P�I rho- S31 puA c ,,; . ko l��rr� .�"� �; � 3oj72z•!oo 8 I 1 �' d�,�s ll�ss 3 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN d 3 3 z o 0 o rc ¢ w N O 1 a r� GEMSTONE TIMBERLINE ROAD LANE 10 - -- -_ t- 1- I 249 �SEOIION_ .�corm i I , tI � I I 1 i P 1 p L JI MARTIN \j 1 1 a h I n c .I Z f / CARIBOU APARTMENTS I i� W1Y� •' "11q: WE PLAN 7L�� 1 . 12 3 4 5 MEETING OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 6 Held January 16, 200':g 7 At City Council Chambers 300 West Laporte Street 8 Fort Collins, Colorado 9 In the matter of Caribou-Apartments Project Development Plan 10 18-02A 11 12 Commission members present: Mikal Torgerson, Chair • 13 Jerry Gavaldon Dan Bernth 14 Judy Meyer Jennifer Carpenter 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 • Meadors Court Reporting, LLC Phone: (970) 482-1506 140 W. Oak Street, Suite 266 Toll-free (800) 482-1506 Fort Collins, Colorado 80524 Fax: (970) 482-1230 e-mail: meadors@reporterworks.com 2 1 MR. TORGERSON: Welcome back to the January 16th 2 Planning and Zoning meeting. We have one item left on the 3 agenda and that' s the Caribou Apartments Project Development 4 Plan, 18-O2A. 5 Bob, take it away. 6 MR. BARKEEN: Thank you, Mikal. Again, the next 7 item on your agenda tonight is the Caribou Apartments 8 Project Development Plan. 9 This is a project development plan consisting of 10 193 multifamily residential units . The project is located 11 in the southwest corner -- southwest corner of South 12 Timberline Road and Caribou Road, generally in the southeast 13 quadrant of Fort Collins. 14 The property is currently zoned "E" employment 15 district . The use of multifamily residential in the E, 16 employment, district is considered a secondary use type 17 within the number of uses that are permitted within that 18 zone district. 19 You may recall that, and I believe it was April 20 of last -- last year already, that we presented to the 21 Planning and Zoning Board a modification against the 22 secondary use standards within that E employment zone 23 district. That modification request was to allow an entire 24 project development plan to consist of secondary uses versus 25 the 25 percent that is restricted to under the normal 3 • 1 employment zone requirement . 2 That modification was granted and then allowed 3 the applicant to submit the project that is before you 4 tonight. 5 Taking a look at the aerial photo of the site, 6 there is an existing single-family residence located 7 generally central on the site. The site is about a little 8 over ten acres; 10 . 8 acres to be exact. 9 The existing house is not part of the project 10 development plan. It would -- it would be removed upon 11 development of the site. Generally .around the site, it' s 12 fairly well undeveloped. The house is rather centrally . 13 located on the site. 14 One of the more prominent features of the area, 15 it ' s actually a storm water detention pond, and it ' s just 16 immediately south of the site, but it -- it ' s actually 17 considered a natural area because it has over the years 18 developed as a wetland area and quite a nice wetland area 19 actually on that. 20 I ' ll kind of discuss a little bit more how this 21 project relates to the wetland areas . Wetlands are all 22 off-site of this site but yet since it is adjacent to it, we 23 do need to take a look at that and make sure that we do 24 maintain enough buffer from those wetland areas to limit the 25 disturbance that this project may impose on the buffer area 4 1 itself. 2 This is a -- The Caribou Apartments is a 3 qualified affordable housing department -- or qualified 4 affordable housing project by the Advance Planning 5 Department. I think the -- it qualifies as having 40 6 percent of its units -- 45 percent of its units to be 7 considered as affordable housing. 8 This is the general site layout. It' s -- The 9 site is generally broken down. The units are broken down 10 into six individual units . One of those units will front 11 along Caribou Drive. This is Caribou Drive up here. One of 12 the units would actually front onto Caribou Drive . 13 Two additional units would front onto Timberline 14 Drive. And then there would be three units internal to the 15 site but yet they would front on this internal street, which 16 is being provided within the project. 17 This is a -- it 's a private street but it will be 18 developed and built to our local street standards on that. 19 And it will accommodate on-street parking just like the 20 normal local street will. 21 The parking is generally laid out within the 22 internal to the site. Again, the buildings generally shield 23 the parking from both Timberline Drive and from the internal 24 street. There is a clubhouse, recreational amenities 25 included within the project. 5 . 1 Probably one other -- the project -- part of the 2 parking is being provided in -- in detached accessory garage 3 units. Now as you all know, we did pass a ordinance about 4 the middle part of last June that required that these garage 5 units, if -- if they are included in the determination for 6 meeting the required numbers of off-street parking spaces, 7 that they be included within the base rental price of the 8 units themself. 9 The applicant is not proposing that, but they 10 are -- they don' t need to. This was submitted prior to that 11 ordinance becoming into effect, so they are not subject to 12 that ordinance. So that ' s one of the -- one of the . 13 requirements that they' re not meeting but they' re not 14 subject to that, so I just wanted to point that out to you. 15 Again, the wetland area is down to the south 16 here. And I ' ll forward to the slide to that . 17 These are some of the elevations of the units 18 themselves . There' s I believe three different building 19 types arranging in heights from three stories in the center 20 and tapering down to two stories . 21 This is the site as you see it. This is 22 Timberline Drive here, Caribou Drive. This intersection is 23 signalized already. You' ll see this is the existing house. • 24 Again, that ' s not part of the -- the actual development 25 plan. 6 1 You' ll notice there are a number of existing 2 trees on the property, several nice trees. The majority 3 of -- almost all of the evergreen trees will be saved. 4 They' ll be relocated elsewhere on the site. But the 5 deciduous trees that you see on here would not be saved and 6 several of those are considered significant, so they will be 7 mitigating for the loss of those trees. 8 This is again looking off Caribou Drive. 9 The project is against an existing mini storage 10 warehouse units, which is just immediately to the west of 11 the site. 12 Another view off of Timberline Drive. 13 Timberline Drive as well. 14 This is the storm water detention area 15 immediately to the south. You can see there ' s significant 16 wetland vegetation that ' s established itself within that 17 area. And this project is going to respect that -- that 18 vegetation and that wetland feature 'itself. 19 Another view from the south. This is from the 20 south from Harmony Drive looking north. And, again, this is 21 where the project would -- would be developed, this existing 22 single-family house out there now. 23 This map shows the buffer that' s being provided 24 with the project. Pursuant to the Land Use Code, there ' s a 25 hundred foot buffer from the perimeter of the existing 7 1 wetland inward to where development can take place. 2 Development, of course, being buildings, parking areas, 3 sidewalks of that nature. 4 You' ll notice -- on here you' ll see several 5 features that are shaded in a darker area. The buffer area 6 is the stippling marks. And again this is in Exhibit 13 of 7 16, and it ' s provided in your packet if you' re having 8 trouble seeing this from this distance. 9 Basically the encroachment here, our code allows 10 up to a 20 percent encroachment within that one hundred 11 foot buffer. Any greater encroachment to that and the 12 applicant would have to seek a modification from the . 13 Planning and Zoning Board as well . But they are -- they 14 are encroaching on that, but generally under 20 percent . 15 The encroachment generally consists of a couple 16 of garages and a small area of the parking area. These 17 garages have their -- this is the rear of those garages and 18 they have their backs to there. And the Natural Resource 19 Department thought that that was -- really would limit the 20 impacts on the garages since there' s no activity back there. 21 It actually acts more of a buffer from the 22 activity, which would occur more in this parking area and of 23 course around the buildings itself. So they were pretty -- 24 so they were fine with the encroachment as the applicants 25 proposed. 8 1 Also there is some of those evergreen trees that 2 were included in the -- around the single-family. Those are 3 being transplanted within this buffer area to help mitigate 4 the loss of the distance on that. And we're going to see a 5 number of those evergreen trees actually be transplanted 6 within the area. 7 This is a grading plan of the area. And some of 8 the detention will be actually provided -- water quality 9 ponds will be provided within that buffer area. Those will 10 be graded up to the adjacent edge of the wetland area 11 itself. 12 Another shot of that. 13 That' s generally going to conclude my 14 presentation of the project itself. I 'm going to turn it 15 over to the applicant, and I believe Linda Ripley is going 16 to start the presentation to the applicants . 17 Unless there' s any questions of me now, I ' ll turn 18 it over to Linda Ripley. 19 MR. TORGERSON: Jerry? 20 MR. GAVALDON: Bob, before you go, on these 21 320 -- Bob, before you go, on these parking spaces of 320, 22 265 will be surfaced and 55 in garages. 23 MR. BARKEEN: Yeah. 24 MR. GAVALDON: If the folks don' t pay extra for 25 the parking spaces or garages, where would you put the 55 at 9 • 1 or where would they go? 2 MR. BARKEEN: Well there is -- We 're fortunate 3 with this individual project where again that internal 4 street network that I pointed out to you, that will allow 5 on-street parking lot for that. 6 MR. GAVALDON: How many spaces? 7 MR. BARKEEN: I 'm not quite sure. I would 8 imagine it probably -- I 'm going to guess between 30 and 40 9 spaces . 10 There' s also parking available on Caribou Street. 11 Parking can -- there ' s on-street parking that ' s permitted on 12 Caribou Drive already, so there ' s an additional -- . 13 MR. GAVALDON: How many? 14 MR. BARKEEN: There' s along the frontage of this 15 project, I would guess maybe 15 spaces . Probably a little 16 bit more on that . There' s quite substantial frontage along 17 there. 18 MR. GAVALDON: Do we have other developments 19 using the street that probably would be competing for those 20 spaces on Caribou? 21 MR. BARKEEN: The land to the north of this site 22 is currently undeveloped. There is a business kind of more 23 north and west of the area that' s just immediately across • 24 the street from that . So there really isn' t any development 25 right now that is utilizing the street for any parking. 10 1 But there is -- you go out there, there are 2 vehicles out there. There' s some -- a couple of semis and 3 everything that just kind of seem to be continuously parked 4 out there. But generally the streets are pretty free of, 5 you know, of on-street vehicles. There are some -- there 6 are still some out there, though. 7 MR. GAVALDON: So if the developer goes to the 8 other property and they want to develop, and whatever they 9 can bring, and they have to use that parking, has the 10 applicant taken into account any mitigation? 11 MR. BARKEEN: You' ll have to repeat that, Jerry, 12 I had a hard time understanding. 13 MR. GAVALDON: Okay, if anybody wants to develop 14 north of them and wanted to come in and that created 15 problems and they had to compete for those spaces, is the 16 applicant prepared to discuss that with us tonight? 17 MR. BARKEEN: I think that' s certainly a 18 question we can answer them -- or ask them. 19 MR. GAVALDON: Okay, I ' ll save that for their 20 presentation. Thank you, sir. 21 MR. BARKEEN: Okay. Yes. 22 MR. TORGERSON: Okay, Linda. 23 MS. RIPLEY: Good evening, Chairman Torgerson and 24 members of the Board. 25 I 'm here tonight, Linda Ripley, with V. F. Ripley 11 1 Associates . I 'm here tonight representing MJT Properties, 2 Mark Hendricks, the owner of that company. And I 'd like to 3 introduce our design team. 4 We 've got V. F. Ripley in charge of planning. 5 Architecture and landscape architecture are by Martin 6 Design. And Tom Kline and Doug Wagner here tonight with us 7 to talk about those parts of the project. 8 Civil engineering, we have North Star Design. 9 Mike Overschmidt is here. He' ll be able to answer questions 10 regarding grading or storm water. 11 Traffic engineering, we have Matt Delich on 12 board. And we have Mike Phelan representing Cedar Creek 13 Associates who did some wildlife biology consulting for us 14 in regard to the wetland area. 15 So that ' s our team. We' re all here tonight. 16 Have been here for quite a while, actually, waiting to 17 present this project to you. 18 As Bob mentioned, we were here actually back in 19 May, last spring with this project because we had to seek a 20 modification because we represented more than 25 percent of 21 our development plan as a secondary use. 22 And that evening you approved our modification 23 and basically gave us the green light to pursue the design 24 of this project. So that was about nine months ago. 25 And so during that time we 've been working really 12 1 diligently, constantly, for that nine-month period trying to 2 resolve all of the site planning and design issues. 3 This hasn't been an easy site, but we're happy to 4 report that tonight we ' re presenting a project that not only 5 meets the city' s objectives in terms of site planning and 6 design but also achieves a primary city goal of providing 7 affordable housing. 8 Mark Hendricks of MJT Properties, also here 9 tonight, is not new to Fort Collins or to the affordable 10 housing industry. He developed Fox Meadows Apartments, 11 which is just on the other side of Timberline a little 12 farther north than this project. It sits right south of 13 Fort Collins High School and the McDonald' s on the corner 14 along Horsetooth and Timberline. 15 That project I believe was completed in 2000 . 16 It ' s fully leased now. There are 138 units there . 17 Sixty-three of those are affordable, meaning they' re leased 18 to families who have incomes that are 60 percent or less 19 than the median income in Fort Collins . 20 The nice thing about that project, I think you've 21 probably all seen it, it ' s a very attractive project, and it 22 allows low income families or individuals to live in a 23 housing project and not have the stigma of living in an 24 affordable project, because the income -- the low income 25 units are virtually indistinguishable from the market rate 13 • 1 units. They're the same units . So it gives people an 2 opportunity to get some help without -- without the stigma 3 that sometimes have been attached to that. 4 The project we' re representing tonight, Caribou 5 Apartments, is modeled in the same way. The architecture is 6 different. There ' s certainly diffefences in the project, 7 but in terms of affordability, the idea of mixing market 8 rate and income restricted units is the same. 9 The project we' re presenting tonight has 193 10 total units, 87 of them will be income restricted. The 11 project ' s already received private activity bond allocations 12 from the Affordable Housing Board. • 13 If the board has more questions about the 14 financial structure or income qualifications, Mark will be 15 happy to answer for those -- those for you later in the 16 presentation. 17 But, meanwhile, the site plan that we have before 18 you tonight meets the criteria in the E zone and complies 19 with all the applicable general criteria in Article 3 of the 20 Land Use Code. 21 Getting to this point was -- was not an easy 22 task. At last count we had over 20 alternative site plans 23 that we presented trying to staff, trying to satisfy all of • 24 their concerns . 25 I 'm just going to point out a couple of the major 14 1 issues that we face and then I 'm going to turn it over to 2 Martin Design to walk you through the project more 3 specifically. 4 First of all, access was quite a challenge in 5 this site because there really only -- when it was all said 6 and done, there were only two possible access points . One 7 on Timberline that had to be a certain distance from the 8 intersection of Horsetooth and also had to be offset a 9 certain distance from access point further to the south. 10 Similarly on Caribou, access point had to be a 11 certain distance from other -- other connecting points and 12 there was very little flexibility on where we could put 13 access points . 14 Then the next -- the next very, I guess, 15 constraint, the Land Use Code is pretty restrictive about 16 multifamily development in terms of build-to lines and 17 connectivity standards. You really have to get those 18 multifamily buildings on a public street. 19 In this case it' s a private street meeting public 20 street standards, but the important point is that we were 21 forced to create a street through the project that we 22 couldn't put perpendicular parking on. So it utilized some 23 land in a different way than we might have done if we didn't 24 have that Land Use Code restriction. But we were able to do 25 it we think quite successfully. In the end we were able to 15 1 work that out. 2 The existing house on the site with quite a few 3 mature trees was something that needed study and a lot of 4 evaluation to determine which trees could be transplanted 5 successfully, which ones needed to be mitigated. 6 The wetland to the south was always a primary 7 concern of staff as well as ours. That was one of the 8 reasons why this was an attractive site to the developer in 9 the first place, so we were certainly always trying to 10 protect it . 11 And in the end we think we 've done a great job 12 there, not only by meeting the setback requirements in the . 13 Land Use Code but also in terms of dramatic landscape 14 enhancements and also paying attention to storm water 15 quality. 16 So with that overview, I 'm going to turn it over 17 to Tom Kline of Martin Design who will walk you through the 18 site plan and landscape plan. Thank you. 19 MR. KLINE: As Linda mentioned, my name is Tom 20 Kline . I 'm a landscape architect with Martin Design, and 21 I 've had the pleasure of working on this project. 22 Although we did do 20 or 30 iterations, I think 23 they have all been in the interest in creating a great 24 neighborhood and a great community. And I think that ' s what 25 this plan represents up here. 16 1 I know it ' s late, and without belaboring the 2 points that have already been made, let me just reiterate a 3 few things about this site plan. 4 I think it truly -- it becomes a neighborhood in 5 itself because of some of the streets, the pedestrian 6 connections, the thing the City of Fort Collins is trying to 7 accomplish. 8 The site plan for -- in a great extent plans 9 itself. The buildings face the street along Caribou, 10 Timberline Road. Verbina and Shoreburg, which are the new 11 streets that are internal to this, really become an 12 important public thoroughfare and do more than just connect 13 Caribou with Timberline. They also further organize the 14 buildings internally. 15 The parking moves to the interior, so you' re 16 really accomplishing I think what ' s at the heart of what the 17 City is trying to do, which is make this less of an 18 automobile-oriented development and more of a 19 pedestrian-oriented development. 20 Further reinforcing that you' ll see -- my arm' s 21 not long enough, so how does this work? Yeah. You' ll 22 further see this large area of open space, which is placed 23 along the street and becomes a community focal point again 24 in public view. It' s not hidden. It ' s out for the public. 25 It ' s for everyone' s use in the community. And the community 17 . 1 center as well down here located on the visual access along 2 Timberline Road and Shoreburg and at the intersection here, 3 again in a very prominent point, with some of its amenities 4 backing up to the buffer area to the south. 5 In terms of developing the concept after -- after 6 the site plan, we really looked at this -- the buffer area 7 really as an opportunity, and a design opportunity to create 8 some visual interest within this development when it gets to 9 the landscape concept. 10 Urban along Caribou and Timberline as it moves 11 south and to the west . Towards this natural area you've got 12 the more native vegetation if you' ll remember from the • 13 slide. We 've pulled that up into the site, and you can see 14 probably not as clearly as we would have liked to on this 15 slide, I apologize for that, but you' re seeing some native 16 vegetation here. Some urban dryland mixes in concert with 17 some of the plant materials that we 've introduced here. 18 And, by the way, we 've worked with Steve Long in 19 developing this plant list both for slope stabilization as 20 well as the promotion of wildlife habitat along here in the 21 south and then used this as a design opportunity to try and 22 carry that out through the site even up to the corner of 23 Timberline Road and Caribou. • 24 The -- just a little bit more detail about this 25 buffer zone, and I think Bob did a good job of sort of 18 1 framing the issues here. Let me just clarify one thing. 2 We are slightly under 19 percent in that 3 encroachment zone. But half of that 19 percent, it ' s about 4 6200 square feet, just a little under half of that 5 encroachment is because of the spruce trees that we 've 6 introduced here. So 51 percent of that may be the backing, 7 and if you want to move back so that slide and maybe we 8 don' t need to, but if you' ll remember that. The 9 encroachment area is here. That ' s maybe over 51 percent of 10 it. The rest of it is a result of these Spruce trees, which 11 are not native species and, therefore, considered to be an 12 encroachment in that buffer zone. 13 And let me just mention one other thing. You 14 asked about the parking? And I apologize. We didn't have 15 that at my fingertips because we weren' t not using the 16 parking along the street to satisfy the parking 17 requirements, so I went back out there and got my scale out 18 and ran a number, which we can get a little bit more detail . 19 But that' s about 38 or 40 parking spaces, it looks like to 20 us, along these internal streets . 21 And, by the way, normally in a project that Mark 22 Hendricks would develop, you'd have a garage count roughly 23 around 50 percent. This is much lower than that. Closer to 24 20 or -- if my math is right, 25 percent, something like 25 that. 19 1 Again, I think those are the high points, and 2 it ' s getting late. I 'm going to have Doug talk a little bit 3 about the architecture and then I think we ' ll be ready to 4 answer some questions. 5 I don't know how to operate all of this high-tech 6 equipment to get it to the slide, I guess. 7 MR. WAGNER: Actually, could we go back to the 8 site plan? Sorry. 9 Good evening. My name is Doug Wagner. I 'm with 10 Martin Design, too. And I 'm with the architectural 11 department side of Martin Design, and we worked on the 12 buildings and they've changed quite a bit along with the 13 site plan. 14 That ' s one of the things that I wanted to talk 15 about the site plan. The shape and the orientation of the 16 buildings is a direct result of working with the site plan, 17 the internal street, the internal parking and all those 18 things that Tom talked about. 19 The site in large part created the buildings, the 20 shapes, the massings, the locations and all those issues 21 that are the beginning points of the design of the 22 buildings . 23 Now we can kind of go back to those elevations . 24 But just wanted to point out that the site really 25 pushed the building shapes and the locations that we had. 20 1 This is a typical building. It' s actually one 2 of our larger buildings . We have three different building 3 types. 4 This one shown here is shown to -- we have three 5 of these slides, and they demonstrate the different color 6 pallets that we' re using. We have three different color 7 pallets for the three different building types. 8 All of the buildings, whether they're the longer 9 buildings or the shorter buildings, have two-story elements 10 on all ends. And these two-story elements all have 11 individual front door entries. 12 This front door would access the lower residence 13 here. This front door leading into a stair would access the 14 upper residence. And that ' s a typical design that we 've 15 done in this project to have kind of ground floor front door 16 porches for a large percentage of the residential homes that 17 we have here. 18 We've introduced a lot of single-family 19 residential elements that you can see. The gabled roofs, 20 the siding, the mix of brick, typical roof shingle for 21 residential products, and we tried to reduce the scale at 22 the ground level to a pedestrian feel and something that' s 23 commensurate with the residential communities that we have, 24 neighborhoods we have around, not necessarily adjacent but 25 across Timberline and also to the south across the wetlands 21 • 1 area. 2 So we 've tried to break up -- this facade creates 3 single-family residential style elements, arched windows, 4 gabled roofs, individual entry points around the building. 5 So I 'm not going to speak a whole lot more about 6 that. I 'd be glad to answer any questions you have about 7 that. I think your packets have more elevations than this, 8 but these were provided in the slide show to talk about the 9 different color pallets we have on the buildings. 10 The single-family garages will demonstrate the 11 same mixture and materials that we have in the buildings . 12 They' re only one-story in height. And as Bob talked about . 13 earlier, the ones along the wetlands were kind of set up 14 there as a buffer from the internal to the wetland space to 15 the south. 16 That ' s about it for the architectural part. 17 Really a lot of it was driven by the land planning and site 18 planning. We think it' s going to be a really nice project. 19 I like the way the site plan has internalized the parking 20 and kind of given it that real neighborhood community feel 21 that Tom and Glen were talking about earlier. 22 We' re here to answer any questions . We 've got 23 civil engineering and traffic and architecture and land . 24 planning and landscape architecture, whatever you'd like to 25 talk about . 22 1 Do you want to say any final words, Linda or are 2 we set for questions? Thank you very much. 3 MR. TORGERSON: Okay, do we want to go directly 4 to public input or does anyone have any thoughts? 5 Okay. Is there anyone in the audience that ' s 6 waited this long? We 'll let you speak your mind. You've 7 waited long enough. 8 Again, please state your name and address for the 9 record and sign in. 10 MS. WINTERS: You bet. My name is Janet Winters . 11 I live at 4345 Gemstone Lane across the street from the 12 project. 13 And, pardon me, this is the first time I 've been 14 up here so I may miss a couple of things . 15 There ' s been -- this is the third meeting. The 16 first meeting was to change the -- or make the modification 17 to a hundred percent density. And the piece that was a 18 little bit confusing to me was after going through this 19 whole formalized process, one of the statements by someone 20 sitting on the Council was that this was just a formality. 21 So it felt like it wasn't even in question about the process 22 going forward. 23 The second meeting, they did a wonderful 24 presentation, same maps and everything. 25 My concern -- one of my concerns is living 23 . 1 directly across the street from it, and they didn' t take any 2 pictures across the street. 3 I 've got a map printed from your website, and I 4 don' t know if that might be helpful to take a look at . 5 MR. TORGERSON: If you can give it to the clerk. 6 MS. WINTERS: There ' s somewhere around 20 units 7 across the street that are all going to face this . So one 8 of my questions was from balcony to balcony, what ' s the 9 distance? Because living straight across the street, I 'm 10 now looking in people ' s living rooms and balconies . 11 So one of the questions that I asked at their 12 presentation was if there was a reason that the layout of 13 the buildings was -- was it required to be laid out a 14 certain way based on the strike of the land or anything 15 else? 16 What I asked was -- and they said no to that . 17 They said that they had tried to budget the iterations and 18 you guys talked about that again tonight. 19 My request was can you put the lower buildings, 20 the back of the garages and that sort of thing, parallel 21 with Timberline so that the people Who live in Sunstone are 22 looking up and the taller buildings are in the back? 23 Because behind it is nothing but storage units, so that' s 24 not going to impact anyone. 25 One of the other pieces that came out of the 24 1 neighborhood meeting was that we were supposed to get 2 meeting minutes and open communication as changes go on. 3 Tonight they mentioned they've had 40 meetings . 4 I 've had no communication. I 've had no meeting minutes . 5 I 've had no open ongoing communication about the process of 6 what' s going to be happening with this, so really no chance 7 to put input in. 8 Two meetings for something that ' s going to 9 impact -- or two chances really for me for something that ' s 10 going to impact a bunch of people that are homeowners versus 11 renters and transient tenants . 12 So that was another concern I brought up. And, 13 again, I apologize. I 'm a little bit nervous . I haven' t 14 done this before so . . . 15 Another issue that I had and asked in the 16 neighborhood meeting was around traffic. The Timberline 17 corridor has a lot of projects tapping into it. Harmony was 18 just widened. Caribou Apartments. There ' s another project 19 going in on just south of that, and I don't know what that 20 is at this point. King Soopers wants to put one on Drake. 21 And I asked about who's watching the bigger picture of this. 22 With the widening of Harmony, half of our access 23 into our road was cut off by turning left. Now it' s only 24 two streets. That is half. So there ' s a signal there, 25 traffic zooming down Timberline, but there' s no left-hand 25 • 1 turn lane. 2 And when I asked about that, I was told that that 3 was someone else ' s department. That the traffic folks would 4 worry about that in a bigger picture. 5 This project ' s going to bring in more traffic. I 6 can' t turn into my subdivision without fear of getting 7 clobbered. So I think those are things that need to be 8 considered as each of these projects, you know, tap in. 9 The speed and the volume of the traffic along the 10 whole corridor is an issue. And as these projects are 11 built, I think Drake and College are one of the safest 12 intersections because of the camera. People actually go the 13 speed limit through there. So are those things being 14 considered? 15 You know, we just spent a ton of money on the 16 Harmony corridor and there ' s no speed cameras there and that 17 just seems kind of crazy to me so . . . 18 So those sorts of things in the bigger picture of 19 things . This complex, I mean, it ' s lovely. They've done a 20 great job for it in and of itself, but how it impacts 21 everyone else, again, there ' s no pictures for how it impacts 22 across the street. 23 The other complex is just down the street, so now 24 we 've got two low income projects going on or affordable • 25 housing projects going on in a very small distance. So 26 1 the impact of that will impact the entire neighborhood. 2 So, again, who' s responsible for the big picture 3 of all of that? The traffic and flow and all of that? 4 So the items I 'd like to see addressed are the 5 signals and how they' re going to be synchronized through the 6 entire Timberline corridor, King Soopers and that whole 7 complex. 8 Drake, I 'm sure Drake' s going to be widened. 9 Semis use Drake to bypass the weigh station. The police set 10 up weigh stations quite often because they know they do 11 that. So are there going to be truck routes sorted out 12 so that we ' re not dealing with that so much? As, you know, 13 the roads get wider to accommodate the businesses, the 14 trucks are going to use them. 15 And it just seems like, again, in the big 16 picture, how do we address all of these? It ' s not just this 17 one project. 18 Left-hand turn signal into our subdivision I 19 think is going to need to be taken care of. 20 Also, clarification. On all of the different 21 maps it' s kind of difficult to determine where the wetlands 22 are truly and where -- where that correlates with the 23 project across the street with the Sunstone. 24 In some maps it looks like the wetlands are 25 beyond -- and I think the name of the street is Sunstone. 27 1 In other pictures, it looks like it ' s on the other side. 2 And, you know, not knowing where these buildings 3 sit in conjunction with our buildings makes it difficult to 4 say this might work out; it might not . We just -- there' s 5 nothing to tell . Forty meetings, two minutes, you know, 6 it ' s a little bit difficult. 7 So from the traffic I already mentioned what I 'd 8 like to see addressed. 9 And from the buildings, I would really like to 10 see that the lower ones are set in the front and the taller 11 ones in the back so that the people who live along Sunstone 12 can maintain their view. They' re the homeowners of -- along 13 that stretch. 14 The other -- the other piece that we talked 15 about, and I 've talked about the lower buildings, is if the 16 garages are put parallel with Timberline, then we ' re not 17 looking in each other' s homes . We' re not looking balcony to 18 balcony. It really helps to have some privacy, if you will, 19 to some degree. 20 I mean, I know that there ' s going to be a 21 building there. You know, I 'm not saying don' t build 22 anything there. But I 'm just saying, you know, can we 23 minimize the impact on the people that have been living 24 there? 25 So I know they've done a lot of work. I feel 28 1 like the homeowners haven't really been involved to the 2 level that we have. We haven't had meeting minutes . And I 3 think that there needs to be more involvement before a final 4 decision' s made and that' s what I 'd like to ask for. So I 5 thank you for your time. 6 MR. TORGERSON: Thank you. Is there anyone else 7 out in the audience that wanted to speak to the project or 8 consultants? 9 Okay, seeing none, we ' ll close public input. 10 MS. WINTERS: Yeah, I was going to ask one more 11 question. I 'm sorry. 12 MR. TORGERSON: Okay. 13 MS. WINTERS: The one meeting I attended before 14 this, all of you brought up excellent points after you 15 closed it to the public. And when do we get to interact 16 with those kinds of statements, based on your expertise of 17 what you've done for however many years? 18 MR. TORGERSON: A lot of it is just in the 19 interest of keeping the meeting moving along. We' re going 20 to run late as it is, but appreciate your thoughts. 21 Bringing it back to the Board, Ward, it looks 22 like there' s probably a lot of questions for you here. 23 MR. STAFFORD: Good evening. It is pretty late. 24 Out there on Timberline Road, a left turn will go 25 in when it becomes warranted and when we can' t find a better . 1 solution to avoid putting in another signal light. 29 2 It' s been I think over a year since that one ' s 3 been evaluated. We certainly can evaluate it again. It 4 didn't meet warrants a year ago for the left turn. That 5 certainly doesn't say it' s not changing as the southeast 6 corridor is growing considerably. So we can certainly take 7 a look at that. 8 Other issues as far as say truck route or truck 9 lanes and the growth of Drake and all up and down, the 10 bigger picture is overseen by the Traffic Department. 11 We do monitor streets on a routine basis for 12 their growth. We continually have studies done on the • 13 various roadways around the city as well as, you know, 14 reviewing these plans that come in that keep you abreast of 15 the changes. 16 Drake certainly probably will grow. It will go 17 to four lanes more than likely when the development on the 18 north side comes about. Its truck use at the moment is one 19 due to a rock plant down there off of Ziegler due partly 20 because of the construction activity that' s going on there. 21 And as long as that plant' s there, it probably will continue 22 to use that route. It is certainly a roadway rated for the 23 trucks. . 24 Signal timings and operations will be tuned -- 25 fine-tuned to accept them as well as possible. It' s not a 30 1 given that trucks dominate. Certainly the cars are the high 2 volume of traffic, and they are more on what we key on as 3 well as trying to avoid enough flexibility in it to deal 4 with the trucks' needs . 5 Overall picture of Timberline, it is a major 6 arterial, slated to be six lanes in time. The major 7 arterials are allowed to run from 35, 000 cars up. Not 8 really a cap on it per se. 9 And this street currently 24-hour operations is 10 running in the neighborhood of about 28, 000 cars a day. 11 That ' s within the capacity adequately of a of a four-lane 12 highway or four-lane roadway. In time, yes, it will grow to 13 a six-lane. 14 What have I missed? 15 MR. TORGERSON: There was a question about speed 16 cameras. 17 MR. STAFFORD: Speed cameras are not dictated by 18 us in the Traffic Department. They' re handled by the police 19 force, and I think Council actually, if I 'm not mistaken. 20 Paul, you may be able to address that better than I can. 21 We don' t have any involvement per se as far as 22 the operations and stuff of it. We may oversee some of the 23 installation characteristics, but that' s about as far as we 24 go. 25 Doubtful that we would be looking to put cameras 31 1 out there on Timberline. It has not been something we 've -- 2 we 've discussed and considered and there' s numerous pros and 3 cons to the uses of them. So at this point in time, there ' s 4 nothing planned. 5 MR. TORGERSON: Aren't the speed cameras 6 roving? Don' t they travel around in a -- I notice I get my 7 picture taken every once in a while different places. 8 MR. STAFFORD: As far as the police force, they 9 do have one in the vehicle that is dictated by themselves . 10 Where it is, we don' t even have notification of. 11 MR. TORGERSON: Okay. 12 MR. STAFFORD: And it certainly has, I used to 13 live on the southeast side of town, and I certainly saw it 14 out on Timberline. 15 If you would like to see *it more, certainly 16 contact the police department and make a request. They' re 17 quite obliging to that. 18 MR. TORGERSON: Okay. I think those were the 19 bulk of the traffic questions . 20 Bob, she also asked if garages could have been 21 placed along Timberline between the buildings and 22 Timberline. Is that allowed by the code? 23 MR. BARKEEN: It would be permissible, though, . 24 but I think the reason that you see -- 25 MR. TORGERSON: I think your mic' s off. 32 1 MR. BARKEEN: What 's that? 2 MR. TORGERSON: I think your mic's off. 3 MR. BARKEEN: The reason I think you see the site 4 plan, the arrangement that you see it, the way it ' s presented 5 tonight with the buildings accessing off the adjacent 6 streets, is that 's one of the requirements of the City Plan 7 within the Land Use Code. 8 We know that we've sort of heard that discussion 9 before as far as putting the garages around the perimeter of 10 that, and we really were not very excited at all about that 11 as far as having the garages blocking the streets, either 12 via Timberline or Caribou. 13 So we were actually quite excited when the site 14 plan was presented the way that it is now because it does 15 have that direct connection to the adjacent streets, very 16 much like what the Land Use Code and City Plan really asks 17 for. 18 MR. TORGERSON: Right . That ' s what I kind of 19 thought. Is there anyone -- Jerry. 20 MR. GAVALDON: Bob, Janet expressed a concern 21 about no meeting minutes being shared with her community. I 22 checked my packet, I don' t have any either. Do we have 23 minutes available? 24 MR. BARKEEN: Only what' s in your packet. 25 MR. GAVALDON: Did they get minutes? 33 • 1 MR. BARKEEN: No. 2 MR. GAVALDON: She said they were assured 3 minutes . What happened here? 4 MR. BARKEEN: Yeah, yeah. And that is the 5 responsibility that we need to take on ourselves . As a 6 policy, we do try to consolidate -- they' re not minutes, 7 they' re just -- they are notes of the meeting of what items 8 were discussed, and we do try and make those available soon 9 after the neighborhood meeting as soon as possible. And it 10 was just unfortunate that it wasn' t done for this particular 11 project. 12 MR. GAVALDON: Okay. I get concerned when • 13 minutes are not -- when notes are not available . I see us 14 as credibility and if the citizens are assured of them, they 15 got to have them. You know, because if they get questions, 16 they can follow up with the applicant . They can get things 17 resolved without having to wait at the last hour and late at 18 night to bring them to us . And here we don't have them and 19 they don' t have them. 20 I just want to make sure that -- that the 21 neighbors are given that, because I think this has happened 22 a couple of times this year that we just don' t get -- they 23 don't get communicated back on with these notes . So that ' s . 24 my concern. 25 I was looking at this project here, and I noticed 34 1 that we're getting pretty intense with apartment buildings 2 along Timberline. We 've got the, oh, what' s those? 3 Pinecone ones over by Fort Collins High School. Then we 've 4 got the ones on the southeast corner of Horsetooth and 5 Timberline. We have this new project. We have condominiums 6 across the street. And then we start going south, and we 7 get over here to these more upscale units on South 8 Timberline by the new theater. 9 So that makes one, two, three, four, five 10 multihousing units within from, what, about three -- two 11 miles? Three miles? 12 Are we starting to get intense -- are we starting 13 to overintensify this area here? Is that what City Plan 14 wants to do is intensify or are we supposed to disperse? 15 MR. BARKEEN: Well, I think the intent of city 16 plan was to, first of all, create that true mix of housing 17 types, multifamily, single-family and then, of course, the 18 range, you know, the range in between -- between those ends 19 of the use spectrums there. 20 I think when the City Plan was put together that 21 the location for the zoning, which was appropriate for 22 single -- I mean, for multifamily residential was looked at 23 in relation to activity centers, major transportation' 24 corridors such as Timberline and the Harmony corridor on that . 25 Areas where multifamily truly does make sense to have. 35 1 This is within a larger employment zone, which 2 does have a lot of the support of uses, you know, your -- 3 you know, your tech parks and your other similar -- other, 4 you know, similar types of uses on that where you do -- 5 where they are able to support, you know, multifamily such 6 as we ' re seeing here tonight. 7 You know, whether or not we ' re seeing an 8 overintensification of multifamily in this area, you know, I 9 don't think we 've seen anything to indicate that. 10 MR. GAVALDON: Well, if we ' re looking at 11 affordable housing projects for specifically, aren' t we 12 supposed to have them dispersed? Because you got two right . 13 back on top of each other within a small distance and this 14 one ' s four-X'd size of the other one that they were talking 15 about, the one by Fort Collins High School across from 16 McDonald' s on southeast corner Horsetooth and Timberline. 17 And if you look at just the square footage, you 18 know, just looking at the plot, that' s almost four times the 19 size. 20 So that ' s my worry. It was just a comment. 21 MR. BARKEEN: I think the one we ' re referring to 22 is the Fox Meadows at the corner of Horsetooth and 23 Timberline. I think it' s actually very similar in size of 24 this one . 25 MR. GAVALDON: It looks a lot smaller on this -- 36 1 on the maps here I 'm looking at . 2 Ward, I got something for you. Service level 3 deferred peak operation on traffic report. I 'm starting to 4 see a lot of D level surface at Timberline and Harmony. 5 Then if you're looking at 2005 projection by 6 Matt' s reports -- and, thank you, Matt; I appreciate that -- 7 I start seeing more Ds showing up at 2005 and some Es 8 starting to show up at 2020 . But it' s starting to concern 9 me a little bit that we haven't really done -- Janet brings 10 up a good point -- the big picture. 11 Okay, you know, I 'm not interested in traffic 12 signals . I 'm more interested in even flow and in and outs . 13 But whether you put traffic signals at Caribou, it' s a moot 14 point because your Harmony and your Timberline -- your 15 Horsetooth and -- your Horsetooth intersection and Harmony 16 intersection is starting to get tucky. I know you called 17 that acceptable, but when do we say we ' re getting tucky -- 18 too tight with this at service? 19 MR. STAFFORD: Well, they' re allowed to go to 20 level service E without levels of mitigation. Level of 21 service F is what ' s considered failure. On a 22 arterial/arterial intersection, unfortunately commonly they 23 run in that D and E range. I mean, that is the highest 24 volume locations on almost any street . 25 As far as trying to govern it, it comes down to 37 1 us being able to, one, hopefully have good city planning to 2 make good use of the land and -- and provide those elements 3 to try and help mitigate some of the roadway impacts . But 4 on top of that, it becomes our job to try and help it flow 5 better. 6 And the additional signals isn't necessarily an 7 answer to flow. I mean, we constantly fight putting in 8 signals . Putting in a signal is a downhill trend in the 9 operation. It helps certain functions, but overall it slows 10 down the flow. So we look for other methods to do it. 11 If we can ever get a traffic circle accepted 12 around here, that will -- people will find that will be a • 13 good thing. 14 As far as working it in on Timberline, yes, we 15 watch the overall picture, hoping to create enough 16 connectivity in neighborhoods, enough accesses . Not too 17 many, because accesses, as you see on College, has turned 18 that six-lane roadway into a four-lane, because the right 19 turn lanes are basically driveways into the businesses. 20 It hurts the flow, so we try to not allow those 21 to happen but it ' s a constant competing exercise to do so. 22 MR. GAVALDON: Okay, well, just hear my point. 23 I 'm concerned about it. At this stage we just finished . 24 Timberline and we' re at D already? We' re getting where we 25 use our money wisely and did we use it appropriately to keep 38 1 it from going to D. 2 I would have been happy with C and I wouldn' t 3 have a problem. But I have a problem -- I have a concern at 4 D right now. And then I start seeing some Es, then you're 5 not too far from an F on that one. 6 MR. STAFFORD: I can't say I disagree with that. 7 I 'd like to see them flow at a C, I mean, because that would 8 even make my job easier to maintain that ability. But that 9 is the hottest growing section in our town and has been for 10 quite a few years . It is -- it ' s a work in progress, that ' s 11 for sure. 12 MR. GAVALDON: Thank you very much, Ward. That ' s 13 all I got for you. 14 MR. TORGERSON: Bob, just a moment ago you talked 15 about the range of housing types from residential to 16 multifamily, and I 'm curious about what the range of housing 17 types is in this project. 18 I know it was mentioned in the staff report that 19 the caretaker' s unit is one type and the apartments were the 20 other. 21 MR. BARKEEN: Yeah, the Land Use Code within the E 22 zone district requires projects over -- greater than 10 23 acres in size to F2 . Separate land use types or two 24 separate types of residentials. Those residential uses are 25 defined elsewhere within the Land Use Code. 39 • 1 One of those is multifamily, which is the vast 2 majority of the units within this project. The other one is 3 called a mixed-use dwelling unit, which basically means 4 it ' s -- mixed-use dwelling unit means it' s kind of a work at 5 home dwelling units . You work out of your home. 6 The caretaker' s unit meets that definition. So 7 they do meet the definition of providing those two units . 8 There ' s not a criteria within the E zone district 9 that a certain percentage of the -- of that mix occur, just 10 says you have to have at least two. And they are providing 11 that. 12 MR. TORGERSON: But the purpose statement . 13 essentially says that -- that it' s intended to promote a 14 variety of housing types within development plans . And I 'm 15 having a hard time swallowing just the guy that manages the 16 property is one type and then the property manager as the 17 other. 18 Bob and I think had we taken a strong stance 19 on that, we really need to ask the question, well, do we 20 really want to see another residential unit type in here? 21 They could probably put a single-family dwelling in here, 22 but we didn't think that was really serving any purpose on 23 that, particularly when there is -- the project is providing 24 such a well needed type of residential . It ' s -- this type • 25 of affordable housing is hard to come by even in Fort 40 1 Collins. And so . . . 2 MR. TORGERSON: I certainly agree with that. It 3 just seems like the intent -- I agree with the intent of 4 this part of the code and that is I think to avoid 5 building -- I call it condo-opolis . You just drive by and 6 it' s an enormous condo-opolis . It' s so homogenous, I guess, 7 is what I 'm trying to get at. 8 Is the caretaker' s unit, is it unique 9 architecturally or is it -- maybe this is a question for the 10 architect. 11 MR. BARKEEN: It does follow the City Plan. 12 MR. TORGERSON: Is it recognizable? 13 MR. BARKEEN: We ' ll have to go back. We can 14 probably go back. I know -- I 'm pretty sure it ' s in the 15 presentation. Go back to the January 16th Planning and 16 Zoning meeting. I know it ' s in your packet . 17 It ' s on 11 of 16 in your attachment on the 18 drawings . 19 MR. TORGERSON: Isn't that the club building? 20 MR. BARKEEN: Yeah, it ' s located within the 21 clubhouse. 22 MR. TORGERSON: Okay. But it' s just another 23 apartment really? 24 MR. BARKEEN: It would be a for-rent rental unit. 25 MR. TORGERSON: But because they took it from an 41 1 apartment building and put it in the clubhouse, we' re 2 considering that a new housing type? 3 MR. BARKEEN: Yeah, and it is certainly a 4 different function where it 's overseeing the, you know, 5 basically the management of the complex itself. 6 MR. TORGERSON: Right. Okay. Any other 7 questions? 8 MR. GAVALDON: Ward, I was talking earlier about 9 the parking and on-street parking in the development to the 10 north of it. There ' s nothing on that property to the north of 11 this apartment complex. And so folks -- or maybe this is 12 a Bob one, too -- so we've got 15 some cars going to be . 13 parking on Caribou street, Caribou Road, I mean. And if you 14 get the development to the north going in and they want to 15 park on the street, how are we going to mitigate this so the 16 apartments won' t take all the spaces and they have none? 17 You know, it has to be available for everybody. Any 18 thoughts? 19 MR. STAFFORD: We believe that most of that is 20 certainly dealt with, with the policies of the park and 21 regulations in our city as far as the developments provide 22 their own needs . 23 The roadway certainly allows for additional • 24 capacity, especially for holidays or whatnot. But, yes, 25 they will compete under any scenario. 42 1 In a neighborhood residential, the people have 2 their driveways and their garages but they also can park on 3 both sides of the roadway. And, you know, for different 4 needs, uses and activities, they both compete for their 5 needs also in that scenario. It' s a -- it's a constant 6 competition if it' s so desired. 7 Does it happen every day on most streets? No. 8 But it certainly will happen on some days, yes . 9 MR. GAVALDON: The reason why I bring this up 10 because poor Mikal, we worked him over. We worked over 11 development on -- over by CSU with the same thing. Parking 12 on the streets, making them poor folks put all the parking 13 in. But these guys have garages. They' re going to charge 14 extra. They beat the code, getting it under the code 15 enforcement. And just, you know, it happens, you know. We 16 got it out of process . 17 But it concerns me that these garages are going 18 to sit empty because they don't want to pay extra and there 19 will be some vacancies . And I wish they would come forward 20 and say we want to make them available to everybody because 21 affordable housing, who' s going to pay for their garages 22 when there' s affordable housing? I don' t think too many 23 people will. 24 And those are just going to sit there and become 25 -- what do you call them? Boat anchors . And I think I 'd 43 1 rather put a boat anchor on a ship in the water but not a 2 garage. And that ' s my worry on it, guys. 3 Bob, any thoughts on that? 4 MR. BARKEEN: Well, they do meet the code. 5 MR. GAVALDON: I know they do. 6 MR. BARKEEN: I think you' re going under the 7 assumption that these garages are going to be a hundred 8 percent vacant, and I don't really think that' s going to be 9 the case. 10 I think that they certainly will be utilized. 11 Whether they' re a hundred percent utilized, we' ll obviously 12 have to -- you know, we' ll just have to see on that. • 13 MR. GAVALDON: And I do agree. They do meet the 14 code. I just wanted to put in my two cents and hopefully 15 we can do better next time. 16 MR. BARKEEN: Yeah. One nice thing about the 17 fact that this is a residential project is that it should 18 not compete with, you know, we ' re assuming that businesses 19 that are established across the street, your highest parking 20 demands for residential is at night. Whereas, your highest 21 parking demand for businesses is during the daytime . 22 So, you know, we think, you know, we really don't 23 see this becoming a parking issue, because there' s lots of 24 parking opportunities out here so . . . 25 MR. GAVALDON: Okay, thanks for the 44 1 clarification. We appreciate it. 2 MR. TORGERSON: Bob, this is within 3 three-quarters of a mile of a neighborhood center? 4 MR. BARKEEN: Yes, it is . The area up there 5 between Horsetooth and Timberline. There' s a number of uses 6 up there that qualifies for a neighborhood center and this 7 is within three quarters of a mile of it. 8 MR. TORGERSON: McDonald's? 9 MR. BARKEEN: There' s a -- there is a convenient 10 store. There. TheConoco gas station up there. There' s 11 some additional offices up there. There' s a dental clinic. 12 A few medical offices up there. 13 There' s additional -- when you go further south, 14 too, there ' s additional across from Harmony and Timberline 15 down there. 16 MR. TORGERSON: Actually; yeah, that is another 17 area. 18 MR. BARKEEN: Ironically, there' s one across the 19 street that' s been approved but our code won' t let us jump 20 the street so . . . 21 MR. TORGERSON: Okay, right. Any other 22 questions? Anyone feel like making motions? 23 MR. BERNTH: I ' ll make a motion. It ' s time to go 24 home. 25 I would recommend that the Caribou Apartment 45 . 1 Project Development Plan, Number 18=02A, would be approved 2 based upon the following facts and conclusions outlined on 3 page 8 of the staff report. 4 MS. CARPENTER: I ' ll second. 5 MR. TORGERSON: Okay, we have a motion on the 6 table. Does anyone have any comments? 7 MR. GAVALDON: If I 'm going to look at the 8 process, I 'm going to support the motion. But my gut says I 9 should not because I have some concerns about the traffic, 10 the layout . The resident brought out some good points about 11 the orientation of the buildings . The encroachment on the 12 buffer of the natural area there. Though it ' s okay, but I . 13 think mitigation could have been -- I think our natural 14 resources could ask for some mitigation to make it more 15 feasible . 16 I 'd eliminate some garages in a heartbeat, very 17 quick, and turn them into flat lots and try to make a better 18 buffer. And I feel that the prime streets and the layout 19 and all of that, it will work. 20 But that ' s my gut that says that, this thing has 21 some problems with it. And the bigger one I have is it ' s 22 too close to another affordable unit. I 'm in favor of 23 affordable housing, mind you. I think it ' s an important 24 value to our city, but they' re too close to each other. . 25 And if we' re going to turn the east side into 46 1 affordable housing and not on the north and not on the west, 2 I 'm worried about that. I believe in dispersion of this and 3 I think that it needs to be done. 4 I haven't even touched on architecture. I 'm 5 going to leave that to my -- my colleagues here are more 6 skilled in it and all that. But I just hope this thing is 7 not going to be in-your-face unit like this where you see it 8 in some of the other affordable housing projects. 9 And I hope that it turns out to be a quality, 10 and -- I hope it does do what it is intended to do. But if 11 it don' t, we' ll have some comments from citizens down the 12 road. But I 'm going to support it, but I just want you to 13 know where my concerns are. 14 (A comment was given from the audience, not 15 audible. ) 16 MR. GAVALDON: I can't -- but I appreciate the 17 comments by the citizen. I appreciate the efforts that 18 you' re trying to do, but I 'm going to support it. 19 MR. TORGERSON: Anyone else have any thoughts? 20 Let ' s take a vote. 21 THE CLERK: Bernth? 22 MR. BERNTH: Yes. 23 THE CLERK: Meyer? 24 MS. MEYER: Yes . 25 THE CLERK: Gavaldon? 47 1 MR. GAVALDON: Yes . 2 THE CLERK: Carpenter? 3 MS. CARPENTER: Yes. 4 THE CLERK: Torgerson? 5 MR. TORGERSON: Yes. 6 Okay, the project passes . 7 (Matter concluded. ) 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 0 48 1 STATE OF COLORADO ) 2 ) TRANSCRIBER' S CERTIFICATE 3 COUNTY OF LARIMER ) 4 I, Karen Voepel, a Registered Professional 5 Reporter and Notary Public for the State of Colorado, do 6 hereby certify that the foregoing proceedings, is an 7 accurate and complete transcription of said videotaped 8 Planning and Zoning meeting held in Fort Collins, Colorado 9 on January 16, 2003 . 10 I further certify that I am not related to, 11 employed by, nor of counsel to any of the parties or 12 attorneys herein nor otherwise interested in the outcome of 13 the case . 14 Attested to by me this 20th day of February, 15 2003 . 16 17 18 Karen V epel, RPR, CSR 19 February 20, 2003 20 ' r7iJ. : 21 `�4w I 22 23 My commission expires May 22, 2005 . 24 25 Written Materials Submitted by a Party-In-Interest (appellant Janet Winters) No Later Than 12 :00 p.m. on Wednesday, March 12, 2003 Pursuant to Section 2-54(b) of the City Code • 4� r. 1 , i" rl :1+' - i I '.Si® ` I _ -77 r ■■■■ � a .F+ ^nvs�{��}�, 4 g�j � r .» .::. �1,r . . .�.... ., �`� �� I - � ��_- e_� -�•,-e—� -m • _ IL t left, • • 1Image • • not print Image . • not print Imagedid • 43 Image did not print 44 Image did not print 45 Image did not print 46 Image did not print 47 Image did not print 48 Image did not print 49 Image did not print 50 Image did not print 51 Image did not print 52 Image did not print Appeal Photos.doc Page 4 of 4 T444444 C044o, 444o, The existing transit network is focused on providing increased frequency to productive corridors. This service plan focuses on the urban core and provides bus service connecting CSU with downtown and many residential communities. i t 71 r � l r �f11eC� / V L <'.i P._� n — ^' . •Kf-'ter t _s tegend �� 4 L•3me_'Ha _ Sn.me ^:r :ri Fonr ilvz ds:u!e antl TMYW Tr�BMbr N} -eupr.fl3 mvn:yr W Y G 3 SPCUy of Fmt CnU. u Public Meelin #0:September 26. 2002 7ra•n6porta.CfOn:Maate+ Plun i.1 t:i..air r Current Development Projects Es110•EC7 RD _— COOYt.TR a M DANO:RD CORNIER T A e 9 RJ I r AIN, CRDRYTCO'f Aj1O• r WA.; < •A N4RM7 7 ' CM*TTROM W..�.d.RI N.RN-C.�r.�slt�C�tfiTYM aa� � www.coloradoan.com.The Coloradoan Monday.February 17 2003 BUSINESS E3 Apartments roll out discounts in wake of vacancies 9y NAAE GORDON Brookview Apartments has full,"Greaten said. ing$30 ro$100 off monthly rent 1wieG«m�coi«abm.wn, not only discounted its rerun but C Park Bring the third month At Hrookview Apartments, lowered its deposits from E300 an,is waiving its$4040 application cation of rent free for all two-bcdroom 1717 Welch Ave, one-bedroom , to$200 and lowered the appBca- fee.$99 deposit and$100 admin- units,said president Ed Stoner. apartments typically rent for lion fee from S20 ro u. istrative fee.Grismoe said. He $600 a month,two bedrooms for C$700 ., m •, expects the deal to last other ...,i.„-;,_ 'This is just a response and a "We wouldn't waive a deposit two months. �� and three bedrooms for !� Q �� temporary measure while the unless other people were doing "It seems to be working pret- W ' ` state of the current economy it"site said. ty weV he said "We're less Now one-and two•bedrooms continues,"Carpenter said. Fox Meadows Apartments, than 2 percent vacant." are SM and three bedrooms we ( — ^5Z:1 Ra tes Crossing Rams Village City park 3644 S.Timberline Road,which Ra Village Apartments, $650 when a slit-month lease is F v Ave.,which is 7 percent vacant, is 14 percent vacant,is offering 900 Constitution Ave.which is signed. Z is offering two months free rent six weeks free rent on most 30 percent vacant,is not lower- Faced with growing vacancy on two bedroom units, said units, said mans er Ramona rates,many apartment complex- communitymanager Nicole Kadlick 8 inc its rent or offering any other es.such as Brookview,are dis- incentives, said Jean Robbins. Schuefrom V75 t ooms rangelud- Most people want to spread marketing nt which of owns the counting their rents and offering Price from$775 to$825.includ- the six weeps out over the term Management, which owm the other incentives to entice people � r;, mg utilities. of their leax,which t[anslates apartments. to move in It's the first time in several into a savings of between$100 �Incentives were [tied m the As of the third quarter 2002, years Rams Crossing has had to and$130 per month,depending past, but they didn't result In the apartment vacancy rate in offer incentives,Schuetz said. on the number of bedrooms in substantial decreaw in the va- Fort Collins was about 10 per- "Because of our location, the a cent,according to the most re- we've alwayshad waiting x Meadows also i Bud. caIns care,Robbins said. cent Multifamily Housing Va- Sehuetz sai "Now were n dire its$30 ap application ee for wuw le Ra�Bad of offering incentives, cancy & Rental Survey con- c0�0fdo0i"mfdry need to keep up with other who s' n the sane dayytthly tourer e,R Village is bSios said.rriving ducted by Gordon Von Stroh, APARTMW HOME Lay interest rates have encouraged many rmi- spar rent specials around town are looking a[an apartment and Rams Village tries ro respond professor of management 3l decals to buy a twine taller Oren rent an apmtrnermL AaoorNngly, Students would rather et a tLe B droPPmB deposit from$350 to tenant concerns within 24 the University of Denver's many apeMterrt complexes in Fat Coins are dkrig discounled four-bedroom (house) with [o $99 with approved credit, boots,she said Daniels College of Business. rents to cope w8h their vacartdes friends and pay$200 each(per Kadhck said. No only is more customer The average mat in the Fort month)rather than get m apart- "ICa bent cooking but it's service,training being Provided Collins-Loveland area was stock market and putting it into knocking down our doors to mcnt and have to pay$400 to very sbw going,"she said. to stab but Rams Villagehas $72931 investment properties.said Lan- move in because they didn't $800 per month. Miramont Apartxnb, 4900 launched an 800-cutomer serv- Apartment vacancies have in- ry Kendall, chairmen of The have anywhere else to go." Courtney Park Apartments, Boardwalk Ave., which hu 8 ice line that goes directly to creased because tenants are tak- Group Inc.real estate. Seaman said vacancies are the 4470 S.Lemay Ave.,which has a percent vacanry,ls offering one Top anga Management and a le6 advantage of historically low "It's a cascade effect almost worst he's sent m the 10 years 7 percent vacancy rate,is offer month free phis$I00 off monN- Web site on which residents can interest rates and buying homes and the ripples are finally reacb- he's been in the apartment w- tog the first month free on all ly rent on elect units on nine complete a satisfaction survey rather than renting. ing us."said Joe Seaman units,presi- dustry. its,said community manager month to 12 month leases,said and submit maintenance re- Also,parents are purchasing dent of the Fort Collins chapter Currently, Brookview Apart- Sarah Grismore. Rents range community director Tillie quests.The idea is to keep cur- homes for their Colorado State of the Colorado Apartment As- ments has a 15 percent vacancy from$649 to$739 for one bed- Archibald.Old Town Square not tenants happy so they will University students;people who soeiation. raw,its typically between 3 per- rooms and from$749 to$869 for Properties,5 Old Tow Square, tell their friends that it's a good have lost their jobs are leaving 'The market has done a 180 cent and 4 percent,community two bedrooms. which manages more than 200 place and get them to move i4 Fort Collins;there's excess sirp- wbere people can now pick and manager Debbie Carpenter said. "We're basically do doing apartments in Fort Collins.pri- Robbins said. ply of apartments; and people choose when they want to go ""Phis economy thing has hit what everybody else in the mar- manly in the southeast and "Our best marketing is our me taking money out of the whereas before we had people us hard"she said ket is doing so we can remain southwest part of the city,is tak- word of mouth."she said