HomeMy WebLinkAboutCARIBOU APARTMENTS - PDP - 18-02A - REPORTS - APPEAL TO CITY COUNCILCONCLUSION:
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
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 Manages the Big 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.
11
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
concem(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
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 Meeting
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
W
• 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 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 Managing the Big Picture"
• This question was brought to the developer, planner and the P&Z Board.
For example:
The total sum of projects along a 1 '/z mile of Timberline:
Project providing a thoroughfare for large semi -trucks to the gravel yard
just a couple of blocks from this project,
8
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 oring 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
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(D)(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.
"Managing the Big 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
31
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
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
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."
"Manaeiniz the Bie 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 3/a 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 (D)(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
corner 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
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 appellant'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 '/z 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
Commu...ty Planning and Environmental cervices
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 • PO. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6750 • FAX (970) 416-2020