The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCARIBOU APARTMENTS - PDP - 18-02A - CORRESPONDENCE - PUBLIC NOTICECurrent Developme-int Projects T4A*44 6"4 / k441e 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. LaOCP.e A" � a r ' � I I Or —V & I -- Hum Rwt�a Gty Li.n�e 1IG1, Ra.mq�y 1.4 W. T,r OwN., N S Re''. I _ _ i :rtcr cry :>f Gott C 1111m.. 4:1 rc.�r antl ,Sips GIS =.e . 1 C,dv of Frn4 CniL.'4s Publtc !Meeting #1 September 26. 2002 1 Tra*1ApM-rtAXiOT1 MMst-or 1-144;1 ilj'• i.ti 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 29 u .r ,:. 30 31 32 - .. a r � 6 37 -_- 38 39 40 Image did not print 41 Image did not print 42 Image did not print Appeal Photos.doc Page 3 of 4 e, 15 w 16 C 1 'Y 17 18,,,E 19 20 PM 4 23 24 L 25 26 h=« 27 � � F:a� � � 28 Appeal Photos.doc Page 2 of 4 � ■ ��j: .■ � .!»yam y� � � - ,r; ]1 <§ 12 . .. . . .- ��.�� 2 mac« \ y\ � \/...... m \. !a 14 . . : . Appeal Ro»sde • 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: Ja et Winters 4345 Gemstone Lane, Ft. Collins, Co 80525 970-266-0933 (H) 970-278-8767 (W) 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 proiects along 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'/4 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 into 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.... Mie 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 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 % 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- 0 "Coruoo-oPous", 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 ENvjRON=NTAIT • Conflicting information between the reports, meeting minutes and the discussion at the Neighborhood meeting regarding the wetland. There was much discussion around -2- - 1M ACTION BEING APPEALED: (AMENDED APPEAL) 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. 27W BOARD, CaAWSSION OR arHER DECISION MAr(R FAILED TO HOLD A FAIR REARING 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- City Clerk 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 staff s 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 Pianning.Department Planning and Zoning Board Chair Appellant/Applicant 300 LaPorte Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6515 • FAX (970) 221-6295