Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 05/07/2002 - CONSIDERATION OF THE APPEAL OF THE FEBRUARY 27, 20 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ITEM NUMBER: 30 FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL DATE: May 7, 2002FROM Cameron Gloss SUBJECT: Consideration of the Appeal of the February 27, 2002, Determination of the Administrative Hearing Officer to Approve the Pinnacle Townhomes Project Development Plan. RECOMMENDATION: Council should consider the appeal based upon the record and relevant provisions of the Code and Charter, and after consideration, either: (1) uphold, overturn, or modify the Hearing Officer's decision or(1) remand the matter to the Administrative Hearing Officer. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: On February 27, 2002, the Administrative Hearing Officer approved the Pinnacle Townhomes Project Development Plan for 53 residential units on 6.739 acres, including 34, two-bedroom townhouses, 16 attached dwellings housed within two buildings and 3 detached single family houses. The site is located south of East Prospect Road, one-quarter mile west of Lemay Avenue. The property is zoned LMN—Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhood. On April 2, 2002, an Amended Notice of Appeal was received by the City Clerk's office regarding the decision of the Administrative Hearing Officer. In the Amended Notice of Appeal, from the Appellants Charles A. P. Smith, Ph.D and Joan Schubart, et al, it is alleged that: The Administrative Hearing Officer and City staff failed to properly interpret the relevant laws. The Administrative Hearing Officer concluded that the Pinnacle Townhomes Project Development Plan complied with the General Development Standards, and specifically Article 3 of the Land Use Code. This conclusion was an error. The City staff and the Administrative Hearing Officer failed to properly interpret and apply Division 3.6 of the Land Use Code related to the Transportation Impact Study (TIS) performed on the behalf of the applicant by Mr. Coppola. The code violations are grouped into three separate categories: Direct Violations of Relevant Laws, Improperly Counted and Projected Traffic, and Incorrect Calculation of Impact. The citizens documented several violations of Division 3.6 of the Land Use Code relating to an improperly performed Transportation Impact Study. These violations were presented in writing to City staff and subsequently at both of the public hearings. The hearing officer ignored three of these documented may 2002 2 DATE: ITEM NUMBER: Ju violations, in spite of the fact that she accepted notification of these violations in writing as part of the formal record of the hearing. The attached documents include: • Amended Notice of Appeal, received April 2, 2002, which supercedes the original Notice of Appeal • Staff Report, with recommendation and attached plans, to the Administrative Hearing Officer for the public hearing • City of Fort Collins Administrative Hearing Officer Type I Administrative Hearing Findings, Conclusions and Decision • City Staff response to the Appeal • Minutes of the Meeting before the Administrative Hearing Officer, held January 16 and February 13, 2002 • Written materials submitted by Tom Peterson on behalf of Tom Dugan of Pinecrest Planning and Design pursuant to Section 2-54(b)of the City Code. The procedure for conducting the appeal is described in Chapter 2, Article II, Division 3 of the City Code D . V E Amended Notice of Appeal APR o 2 zooz CITY CLERK Action: Approval of Pinnacle Townhomes Project Development Plan#34-OOA Date of Action: 02/27/02 Appellants: (additional appellants listed at the end of the document) Charles A. P. Smith, Ph.D. Joan Schubart 1627 Ukiah Lane 1645 Ukiah Lane Fort Collins, CO 80525 Fort Collins, CO 80525 (970) 495-0970 (970) 221-9437 Ms. Schubart presented a petition to City Current Planning Director Cameron Gloss containing the names of 263 local residents who expressed opposition to the Pinnacle Townhomes development plan in its current form. Ms. Schubart also presented the citizens' concerns at the administrative hearing on O1/16/02. Dr. Smith represented this group of 263 citizens by authoring a letter to City Current Planning Director Cameron Gloss in response to the Pinnacle Townhomes Traffic Impact Study. Dr. Smith also presented the citizens' concerns at the administrative hearing on 2/13/02. Please direct all correspondence to appellant Joan Schubart. �,a C� �Gz yI1OL i (signature) (date) a ( ' ature) (date) Grounds for Appeal: It is alleged that the administrative hearing officer and City staff failed to properly interpret and apply the relevant laws. The hearing officer concluded that the Pinnacle Townhomes development plan complied with Fort Collins' General Development Standards, and specifically Article 3 of the Land Use Code(LUC). This conclusion was an error. In this appeal, we will show that the City staff and the hearing officer failed to properly interpret and apply Article 3.6 of the LUC related to the Traffic Impact Study (TIS) performed on behalf of the Applicant by Mr. Coppola. We have grouped these code violations into three separate categories: Direct Violations of Relevant Laws, Improperly Counted and Projected Traffic, and Incorrect Calculation of Impact. Each group of errors is documented in a separate section below. The citizens documented several violations of Article 3.6 of the LUC relating to an improperly performed Traffic Impact Study. These violations were presented in writing to City staff and • subsequently at both of the public hearings. The hearing officer ignored three of these documented violations, in spite of the fact that she accepted notification of these violations in writing as part of (1 "y the formal record of the hearing. The three documented violations of Article 3.6 that were ignored by the hearing officer are as follows: Direct Violations of Relevant Laws 1. The TIS for Pinnacle Townhomes failed to include some required "key elements." The City of Fort Collins requires that a TIS must be performed according to the Larimer County Urban Area Streets Standards. The citizens were given a copy of the Standards by City Traffic Engineer Ward Stanford. Section 4.3.4.13 of the Larimer County Urban Area Streets Standards states that a TIS, "...shall include the following evaluations:" 1... 2... 13. Safety and accident analysis 14... 15. Neighborhood and public input issues The TIS does not contain an analysis of accident and safety issues. The author of the TIS did not solicit input from citizens of the neighborhood, nor from the public at large. According to traffic data obtained from the City, the signalized intersection at Prospect and Lemay is one of the 10 busiest such intersections in Fort Collins, and has a significant accident rate. City statistics also show a high accident rate within one-fourth of a mile of the intersection at Prospect and Stover. Under these conditions, which are certainly known to the City staff, the omission of a required accident analysis from the TIS is a clear violation of the relevant laws. This is especially problematic when one considers that there are approximately 1400 children, ranging in age from 4 to 13, attending school within the same quarter-mile of the Prospect and Stover intersection. According to school officials, 15%of these youngsters walk along this busy corridor each day. About 301/o of the students are delivered to school by a vehicle that must negotiate a left turn across E. Prospect Road. Why would the City staff approve a TIS without the required accident analysis, especially when there are so many children involved? The City staff failed to properly interpret and apply the relevant laws when they accepted a TIS that failed to provide a safety and accident analysis. The hearing officer failed to properly interpret and apply the relevant laws after this violation was brought to her attention. 2. The TIS makes inaccurate statements about the required level of service. In Section 4.5.3.A.3.b and Table 4-3 of the Standards, the threshold for acceptable service in a low density mixed use residential area at a signalized intersection is defined as"D" A threshold of D refers to a 35 to 55 second average delay at the signalized intersection(Standards Attachment H). This level of service applies to the intersection at Prospect and Lemay. The TIS states on page 8, "Per City standards, overall level of service `E' is defined as acceptable for arterial street intersections." This statement is an error. The conclusions in the TIS were based in part on this erroneous reading of the Standard. 2 Later in the TIS, when referring to the forecast conditions at the same intersection, it states on page 21, "As shown above, acceptable operations are expected under both the short-and 40 long-term conditions." This statement is also an error because it once again refers to a level of service of`E' as being acceptable. Why would the City staff approve a TIS that forms conclusions based on erroneous applications of the Standards? The City staff failed to properly interpret and apply the relevant laws by approving the TIS when its conclusions were based on incorrect standards. The hearing officer failed to properly interpret and apply the relevant laws by ignoring this error after it was brought to her attention. 3. The TIS does not report the measured traffic data in the required format. Section 4.4.LA of the Standards says, "Each peak hour count shall be conducted over a two hour period and shall include fifteen(15) minute count data to clearly identify the peak hours." The TIS contains appendices in which a variety of data are reported. However, nowhere in these appendices are the 15 minute counts reported in the way specified by the Standards. Because the data are not reported per the Standards, it is not possible to"clearly identify the peak hours" used in the analysis. Although this point may seem trivial at first glance, it is actually very important. In the hearing officer's conclusions she states, "In response to complaints that the traffic analysis being(sic) performed during the summer when the neighboring schools are not in session, Mr. Coppola explained that the school is not a factor analyzing afternoon peak hours..." The notion behind this statement is that the school day ends before the afternoon peak traffic hour; thus the traffic associated with local schools does not contribute to the peak hour traffic counts. However, since the data in the TIS were not reported according to Section 4.4.LA of the Standards, we will never know if Mr. Coppola's assertion is correct. Mr. Coppola's TIS does not report the times during which the traffic peaked on August 10, 2000, the day on which the data were collected. The hearing officer based her reasoning for the approval of the Pinnacle development plan, in part, on an assertion that a traffic sample obtained during the summer is valid because school traffic does not contribute to peak hour traffic. However, there is no evidence supporting this assertion in the TIS. Why would the City staff approve a TIS in which the data are not clearly reported? Further, why would City staff accept Mr. Coppola's assertion of the timing of the "peak hours" on E. Prospect Road, when that assertion was not clearly supported by data? The City staff failed to properly interpret and apply the relevant laws when they permitted the author of the TIS to report the traffic data in violation of the Standard. The hearing officer failed to properly interpret and apply the relevant laws when she ignored this violation. The Traffic Data were Improperly Counted and Improperly Projected In May of 2001, the appellants sent a letter to City Current Planning Director Cameron Gloss describing a series of systematic errors in the TIS that combine to significantly underestimate the traffic volume on Prospect Road. This letter is part of the formal record. The hearing officer quotes City Traffic Engineer Ward Stanford in her conclusions that, "steady fluctuations in traffic on any 3 given day and on any given afternoon on any given day would result in fluctuations in the numbers found in the analysis." While this statement by the City Traffic Engineer is true, it is also deliberately misleading. The data in the TIS were collected on August 10, 2000. Colorado State University was not in session when the data were collected. There are more than 22,000 students, faculty, and staff at CSU. All these people are of driving age, and they represent a large proportion of the current population of Fort Collins. CSU is less than one mile away from the proposed development; E. Prospect Road is a main artery used to access the campus. While there are random fluctuations in traffic volume on any given day, there is also a marked increase in traffic volume when CSU is in session. Traffic from CSU contributes significantly to traffic on E. Prospect Road. Residents of the area testified in public hearings that when CSU starts the Fall semester, it becomes substantially more difficult to make a left turn from a side street onto E. Prospect Road because of the increased traffic volume. Accident data collected by the City of Fort Collins show that there is an increase in accidents when traffic from CSU returns from summer break. Furthermore, traffic from CSU cannot be dismissed using the argument that it peaks at the same time as the local elementary schools. Section 4.3.2.A of the Larimer County Urban Area Streets Standards says, "The intent of completing an analysis of the existing (current) study horizon is to establish a baseline of traffic conditions." Section 4.4.LA states, "The Local Entity may require the use of seasonal adjustment factors depending on when data was collected..." The conclusions of the TIS are inaccurate because the data were collected during a season in which the traffic was consistently less than average. This non-representative sample of traffic data defeats the purpose of the study outlined in section 4.3.2.A. As a consequence of the biased sample, no valid baseline traffic volume has been established for E. Prospect Road. Why did the City staff allow this TIS to proceed using inaccurate data, and why did they not impose a seasonal adjustment factor as suggested in the Section 4.4.I.A? The City staff failed to properly interpret and apply the relevant laws when they permitted a biased traffic sample. The hearing officer failed to properly interpret and apply the relevant laws after this violation was brought to her attention. The City staff also failed to properly apply the law with respect to the forecasts of background traffic volumes. Section 4.2.1.C.5 of the Standards requires that the City Traffic Engineer and the Applicant's traffic engineer will have a Scoping Meeting during which they will agree on a projected rate of traffic growth to be used in the TIS forecasts of future traffic volumes. As the City's representative to the Scoping Meeting, City Traffic Engineer Eric Bracke agreed on a growth value of 2% per year. In our letter of May 2001, we pointed out how this value was much lower than the typical 3%growth in population over the past 20 years. In point of fact, Eric Bracke himself has stated that City Traffic Operations has used a 5% growth projection for the past 5 years. Why did the City staff allow the Applicant to use an erroneously low growth rate for their analysis? The City staff failed to properly interpret and apply the relevant laws when they permitted use of an 4 . incorrect growth rate. The hearing officer failed to properly interpret and apply the relevant laws after this violation was brought to her attention. The hearing officer acknowledges in her findings that"the traffic congestion on E. Prospect Road is an existing problem..." The City Traffic Engineer, Ward Stanford, is quoted as saying that E. Prospect is a"tough roadway" that"needs work" and that"a host of problems contribute to the road's traffic problems." Mr. Stanford also testified that the signal at Prospect and Lemay is"down regularly." Clearly these quotes are admission that the level of service on E. Prospect Road is below acceptable standards. Moreover, in a meeting with the appellants during the summer of 2001, City Traffic Engineer Ward Stanford acknowledged that the level of service at the Prospect and Lemay intersection is currently"below acceptable standards." Why did the City staff approve a TIS that claims that the level of service is acceptable, when the staff themselves admit it is not? The City staff failed to properly interpret and apply the relevant laws when they approved a TIS that made inaccurate conclusions. The hearing officer failed to properly interpret and apply the relevant laws after this error was brought to her attention. Incorrect Calculation of Impact In Section 4.5.2.A.2 of the Larimer County Urban Area Streets Standards it says, A project is defined as significantly impacting a study intersection when ... the • following criteria are satisfied: ... When the background traffic conditions (without project traffic) causes an intersection to fail the minimum acceptable level of service standards; and when the project traffic causes more than a 2 percent increase in the intersection delay. The TIS reports a maximum peak hour traffic of 870 vehicles per hour. Furthermore, on page 9 of the TIS it states, "As shown above, Pinnacle Townhomes is expected to generate... 30 afternoon peak hour trips... per day." The projected impact of 30 afternoon peak hour trips is 3.45% of the measured afternoon peak hour traffic. Thus the project meets the definition of"significantly impacting a study intersection" as defined in the Standards. Under these conditions, the development plan should not have been approved. Why did the City staff recommend approval of a plan that should be denied according to the existing Standards? The City staff failed to properly interpret and apply the relevant laws when they recommended the approval of the Pinnacle Townhomes development plan. The hearing officer failed to properly interpret and apply the relevant laws when she approved the plan. Conclusions The appellants are curious why detailed codes and standards (such as a Traffic Impact Study) are put in place to guide City staff in carrying out their specific responsibilities, and are then ignored. The appellants have identified a large number of discrepancies between the Larimer County Urban Streets Standards and the methods used in the Pinnacle TIS. Together these defects misrepresent 5 the magnitude of the problems along the E. Prospect corridor. This view is misleading and further, jeopardizes the safety of school children and residents. 1. The appellants request that City Council deny approval of the Pinnacle Townhomes Project Development Plan#34-OOA until a valid TIS is completed and resubmitted. A TIS which contains; - analysis of historical accident data between Lemay and College Avenues, - input from residents documenting existing conditions, - traffic counts collected while CSU and Poudre RI schools are in session, - analysis of traffic impact at both Remington and Lemay intersections, based upon new traffic counts, and - application of 5% growth rate in the analysis of long-term traffic projections. 2. The appellants also request a more thorough analysis of the resubmitted TIS focusing upon protection of the safety of school children and residents. This may mean considering alternate traffic controls, such as left turn lanes in various locations along E. Prospect Road. 3. Finally, the appellants believe that any development plan must meet the requirements of the Larimer County Urban Area Streets Standards Section 4.5.2.A.2. These standards specify that, when the background traffic conditions are below acceptable levels of service, the impact of any new development to peak hour traffic must be less than 2%, or approval of development must be denied. The appellants would like to offer the following observation: The City requires that any development in this area shall have a density between 5 and 8 units per acre. The Pinnacle Townhomes plan calls for a density of almost 8 units per acre. If the Pinnacle plan had been designed around a density of 5 units per acre, then the projected peak hour trips per day would have been almost exactly 2% of the maximum peak hour traffic. Thus, the development plan would meet the Larimer County Urban Area Streets Standards if it were limited to a density of 5 units per acre. The appellants have repeatedly offered their enthusiastic approval for a development of 5 units per acre, with the provision that a new accident and safety analysis be performed using revised traffic volume measurements. Requests for a development plan of 5 units per acre were rebuffed several times by the Pinnacle ownership group. Finally, it should be noted that there are a number of other large undeveloped parcels in this same traffic corridor. City staff have repeatedly stated that this section of E. Prospect Road is "below acceptable standards". Given this fact, we recommend that the Planning Department analyze this corridor as part of a master plan, rather than as individual development projects submitted by independent developers at varied times. The Larimer County Urban Area Streets provides for a Master Traffic Impact Study for precisely this type of situation. A Master TIS would equate to sound planning—a reasonable effort given the roadway limitations. 6 List of Co-Appellants - Pinnacle Townhomes Project Development Plan #34-OOA The following co-appellants attended the public hearings for the aforementioned development plan and/or received written notice of the hearings, and/or wrote letters to the Current Planning Director. c 3 List o€Co-Appellants - Pimmde Tmmhomes Project Development Phan #34-MA The following co-appellants attended the public hearings for the aforementioned development plan and/or received written notice of the hearings, andlor wrote letters to Ow Clment Pknning Director. SS "ee�-�A GCCL/,USA GO S'L�.��� -lqY%-3'�'''-���ll�L� COlII�.S, <SO57 q76 - ZZy - -27Z3 a©c.�— C," lam -. (I 1,yO I Co gz zs- y°f3 City Clerk A City of Fort Collins NOTICE The City Council of the City of Fort Collins, Colorado, on Tuesday, May 7,2002 at 6:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter may come on for hearing in the Council Chambers in the City Hall at 300 LaPorte Avenue, will hold a public hearing on the attached appeal from the decision of the Hearing Officer,made on January 16,2002 regarding the Pinnacle Townhomes Project Development Plan #34-OOA, filed by Charles A. P. Smith and Joan Schubart. 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 Current 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 April 30, 2002. Agenda materials provided to the City Council, including City staff s response to the Notice of Appeal, and any additional issues identified by City Councilmembers, will be available to the public on Thursday, • May 2, 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: April 26, 2002 cc: City Attorney Current Planning Department Appellant/Applicant • 300 LaPorte Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins,CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6515 • FAX(970) 221-6295