Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
PINNACLE TOWNHOMES - PDP - 34-00A - REPORTS - APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL
18 that we have collected. (Inaudible) right -bound or 19 left -bound lane for Mr. Stanford (inaudible) 20 MS. MICHOW: Mr. Smith, are you a traffic 21 engineer? 22 MR. SMITH: No, I'm not. 23 MS. MICHOW: Okay. And who conducted this -- 24 these traffic counts? 25 MR. SMITH: Well, several people in the room 0065 1 here -- in the room. Local -- 2 MS. MICHOW: Okay. 3 MR. SMITH: -- citizens. 4 MS. MICHOW: Were any of these people traffic 5 engineers? 6 SPEAKER: No, but we can count. 7 MR. SMITH: Paul, you have a PE. 8 MR. THOMASON: I have a (inaudible) now, I'm 9 retired, so I cannot submit any data on the strength of 10 my PE. And I've been asked. I can admit. I do have a 11 professional engineering (inaudible) on which I was 12 professionally educated. I cannot present it (inaudible) 13 MS. MICHOW: And your name is Paul -- 14 MR. THOMASON: Paul Thomason. 73 4.3.3 Study Area Right -of -Way. The Local Entity Engineer may elect to disallow use of the regional model when the data is deemed unreliable. 4.3.3 Study Area The limits of the transportation network study area shall be defined for all levels of TIS analysis. The limits of the transportation network to be studied shall be based on the size and extent of the application for development approval, the existing and future land uses, and traffic conditions on and near the site. In Fort Collins, the study area generally contains the major streets and intersections within one mile of the project. This may be increased, at the discretion of the Local Entity Engineer, for projects that generate more than 10,000 trips per day. The exact limits of the study area are to be based on good engineering judgment, and an understanding of existing and future land use and traffic conditions at and around the site. The limits of the study area shall be agreed upon at the Scoping Meeting. The concerns related to specific land use actions on specific studies var) greatly, at a minimum, the factors to be considered for the establishmen of the limits of the study area should include: A. Master TIS 1. All adjacent and internal collector and arterial streets; 2. Loveland Only. Offsite collector and arterial links within the stud) area that are impacted by 10% or more by the project, or provide the primary connections between the project and the urban service: in Loveland; 3. Continuity and adequacy of pedestrian and bike facilities to the nearest attraction (existing or imminent) within 1320 feet of the site. 4. Access to the most direct transit facility or transit route withir 1,320 feet of the site. 5. Loveland Only. Any pedestrian routes within 1-1/2 mile miles of school. B. Full TIS 1. All adjacent streets, intersections, and High -Volume Driveways; 2. Nearest offsite major intersection(s); 3. Loveland Only. Offsite collector and arterial links within the stud, area that have impacted intersections as defined in items 5 and f below or provide the primary connections between the project an( the urban services in Loveland. 4. Internal public roads, including establishing the road classification Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards Page 4-9 January 2, 2001 4.1.4 TIS Process Overview Notes acceleration and deceleration lanes, intersection through lanes, traffic signals, stop signs, design speed adjustments, and modifications to access points. B. Pedestrian Traffic Considerations and Improvements. Examples of safe, comfortable, and convenient pedestrian services are narrower roadways with fewer lanes, short blocks, low traffic speeds, tree -lined sidewalks, smaller corner radii, well-defined crosswalks, median refuges and channelized islands in large street crossings, on -street parking, and bicycle lanes. Walkway tunnels or overhead structures are examples of safety improvements where vehicular traffic causes extremely unsafe conditions for pedestrians, and where space is available for the needed ramps or steps. C. Bicycle Traffic Improvements. The addition of on -street bicycle lanes or off-street bicycle paths may be needed to achieve connectivity between the proposed project and the existing bikeway system. .4 TIS Process Overview A. Define TIS 1. Attend Scoping Meeting: Section 4.2.1. 2. Confirm the type of study, Master or Individual TIS: Section 4.2.2. 3. Identify Level of Analysis: Section 4.2.3. 4. Write an amendment letter if required: Section 4.2.4. B. Define Study Parameters 1. Develop the project description: Section 4.3.1 2. Determine which Analysis Horizons to use: Section 4.3.2. 3. Determine the limits of the study area: Section 4.3.3. 4. Determine the evaluation components for the applicable type of TIS: Section 4.3.4. C. Evaluate Traffic Volume 1. Vehicular Traffic a. Existing Traffic . 1) Perform roadway traffic turning movement counts: Section 4A.IA. 2) Determine intersection level of service: Section 4.4.113. 3) Analyze roadway link volumes: Section 4.4.1C. b. Background Traffic Pase 4-2 Larimer County Urban Area Street Standard January 2, 2001 4.5.3 Project Impact Assessment. e. Alternatives to signalization at potential signal locations will be discussed in the scoping meeting and the report. The alternatives to adding new intersections to be discussed should include no new intersection, limited movements, and roundabouts. f. If any signal timing and/or phasing changes are proposed, an appropriate signal progression analysis will be required. B. Pedestrian and Bicycle Impact Evaluations. All projects are expected to achieve the minimum acceptable LOS standard for on -site and off -site bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Refer to the City of Fort Collins Multimodal Level of Service Criteria Manual located in Appendix H and Table 4-4 (Loveland only) for detailed descriptions of the LOS standards. Pedestrian and bike facility demand shall be identified and. Related items for discussion should include: 1. School routing plans per VII A-1 of the MUTCD between the project and all schools within 1-1/2 miles of the project boundary; 2. The demand for pedestrian and bike facilities to serve high pedestrian activity areas within the land use; 3. The need for links of bicycle or pedestrian facilities to neighboring land uses or attractions (trails, etc.) within 1320' (or greater if applicable to unique pedestrian oriented destinations) of the project site; 4. Existing and proposed sidewalk width, separation from traffic, and space available for trees, transit stops (if any), or other related elements (if any). 5. Geometric improvements and recommended traffic control devices to accommodate pedestrians and bicyclists; 6. Existing and proposed pedestrian and bike facilities shall be evaluated for compliance with the following elements: a. Directness. Walking distance to destinations like transit stops, schools, parks, and commercial or activity areas should be direct. Measurement of directness is the ratio of the Actual distance to a destination via a sidewalk or pathway divided by the Minimum distance characterized by a grid street system. b. Continuity. The sidewalk/ walkway system should be complete, without gaps. The pedestrian corridor should be integrated with the activities along the corridor and should provide continuous access to destinations. c. Street Crossings. Safety and comfort is essential while crossing streets, intersections and mid -block crossings. Factors that affect the LOS include: number of lanes to cross, crossing delay for pedestrians, signal indication, cross -walks, lighting, Page 4-24 Larimer County Urban Area Street Standard January 2, 2001 1 Now, in this case, what we're saying is we counted the 2 data. And we saw a thousand forty-one vehicles per hour, 3 of traffic. That's 20 percent more than is reported in 4 the TIS. The TIS analysis suggests that the intersection 5 was already marginal. The 20 percent increase in traffic 6 actually makes that intersection fail the level of 7 service standard. And so we satisfied part of this 8 condition here. The other part refers to the analysis 9 and the TIS. It says that they expect this development 10 to generate 30 afternoon peak hour trips per day. You 11 know, that's about 3 percent of what we've measured. And 12 again, we can't do this analysis in our heads, but it 13 seems to me that the level of service is already below 14 standard. And the project contributes about 3 percent 15 additional traffic, yet we would satisfy this condition 16 of saying that the project is defined as significantly 17 impacting the study intersection. And so the TIS said 18 that there was no negative impact, and we dispute that. 19 Item Number 7. There is no accident data in the 20 (inaudible) in that earlier week went and collected some. 21 We see some significant problems at the Stover 22 intersection and there's -- Lemay is obviously a problem. 23 The City of Fort Collins refers to the Remington and t• • TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 4 - TRANSPORTATION IMPACT STUDY 4.1 Introduction.................................................................................................4-1 4.1.1 General ................................ :........................................................................... 4-1 4.1.2 Applicant Responsibility.................................................................................4-1 4.1.3 Capacity and Safety Issues.............................................................................. 4-1 4.1.4 TIS Process Overview.....................................................................................4-2 4.2 Requirements and Criteria........................................................................4-4 4.2.2 Types of Study................................................................................................ 4-5 4.2.4 Revisions and Updates.................................................................................... 4-7 4.3 Study Parameters.........................................................................................4-8 4.3.1 Project Description..........................................................................................4-8 4.3.2 Analysis Horizons........................................................................................... 4-8 4.4 Traffic Volumes........................................................................................4-14 4.4.1 Existing Traffic............................................................................................. 4-14 4.4.2 Background Traffic....................................................................................... 4-15 4.4.3 Project Traffic....................................................................................:.......... 4-16 4.4.4 Total Traffic.................................................................................................. 4-19 4.5 Project Impacts.........................................................................................4-19 4 5 1 Significant Negative Impacts (Loveland Only) 4 19 L0jitn Sign»fcant Nt acC Assessment. 4.6 Mitigation Measures.................................................................................4-28 4.6.1 Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Measures (Fort Collins only)4-28 4.6.2 Transit Capacity and Access Improvements ................................................. 4-29 4.6.3 Traffic Signal Operations Improvements...................................................... 4-29 4.6.4 Street Widening and Other Physical Improvements ..................................... 4-29 4.6.5 Street Restriping and Parking Regulations.................................................... 4-29 4.6.6 Geometric Improvements..............................................................................4-29 4.7 Report Conclusions...................................................................................4-30 4.7.1 Recommended Improvements ... .................................................................... 4-30 4.7.2 Adequacy Statement (Loveland only)........................................................... 4-31 Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards January 2,2001 Homes TIS meets City requirements and that the finding of no significant impact is valid and should be upheld. Sincerely, Tom Peterson, cc. City Attorney City Clerk Cameron Gloss — Current Planning Director Ward Stanford — Traffic Systems Engineer Lucia Liley, Esq. documented peak hours are from 7:30 to 8:30 A.M. and from 4:30 to 5:30 P.M. Area schools may contribute to morning peak hour conditions; however almost, all school traffic has dissipated prior to the afternoon peak hour. Given that the afternoon peak hour is typically some 25% higher than morning peak hour traffic, the afternoon time frame is considered critical for evaluation of service. Counts used in the study coincide directly with historical peak hours in Fort Collin. Copies of the count sheets have been provided to City staff. The appellants also question the validity of traffic counts used in the TIS contending that they were collected when school was not in session. Traffic engineers accept that fact that traffic will fluctuate based upon hour of day, day of week, month of year, weather, construction, accidents, and a myriad of other factors. Variations of 10 — 15% can occur on a daily basis. These fluctuations consider schools traffic. In fact, more recent traffic counts done by the City show that the original analysis was consistent with historical experience. In other words, the analysis takes into account school traffic. The intersection impact of the Pinnacle development is within the mandated levels of service. Finally, the 2% growth factor agreed to in the scoping session for the TIS is a higher percentage to use in analysis than the actual traffic growth shows. The numbers chosen by the City are higher than warranted. However, the impact result of the Pinnacle project remains minimal on levels of service. In other words, Pinnacle, with more aggressive growth numbers assumed a s background still remains within acceptable levels of service. In summary, the Appellants have either misinterpreted or misstated the requirements set forth in the LCUASS. They have used the misinformation as the basis for the appeal and therefore, the appeal is without merit. The findings of the administrative hearing officer and City staff are consistent with City documents and the LCUASS. The determination that the Pinnacle Town Traffic Engineer and entirely consistent with the requirements of LCUASS. The additional data more over, did not change any of the conclusions of the traffic study. The appellants raise questions about the interpretation of levels of service. We believe, they misstate, misread, and misunderstand the entire discussion of levels of service as required by LCUASS. The Traffic Study found the following: (a) The short-term (which is the evaluation time frame per the LCUASS), all intersections other than Prospect — Lemay will operate at level of service `A' with Pinnacle Town homes fully built. The Prospect — Lemay intersection will operate at level of service `C' and 'D' during the morning and afternoon peak hours, respectively. A comparison to LCUASS defined acceptability levels is presented below. SHORT-TERM OPERATIONS Intersection AM Pk Hr PM Pk Hr LCUASS Comply? Prospect— Stover A A D Yes Prospect — Robertson A A D Yes Prospect — Lemay C D E Yes Clearly, operating conditions are acceptable. (b) The appellants also question the validity of the traffic counts used in the TIS contending that the actual roadway peak hours are not identified and school traffic is considered. The LCUASS standards specifically addresses site peak hour traffic and traditional roadway peak hours as does the traffic study. In this instance, site peak hours are consistent with roadway peak hours. Application of other time of day counts would result in the use of less site traffic and therefore constantly, understate impact. The City has determined roadway peak hours based on experience, data collection, and traffic studies. In Fort Collins, traditional and Coppola. The hearing officers conclusion about the traffic studies is quite illuminating. She states that, "based on extensive testimony and evidence presented on the issue of traffic impacts affecting East Prospect Road, the Hearing Officer (Ms. Michow) is convinced that the traffic congestion on East Prospect Road is an existing problem which will not deteriorate in any significant manner by the traffic generated by this project..." Moreover "...the weight of the evidence presented by the applicant and corroborated by the City Staffs supports a finding of compliance with Section 3.6". In specific response to the allegations of the appellants that three violations of Section 3.6 occurred during the review of the traffic impact report the City of Fort Collins traffic engineers, planning staff, and Ms. Michow, Esq., offer the following discussion. First of all, the applicant was required to submit a traffic memorandum as part of the application. A memorandum is the lowest requirement for a study set forth in the Larimer County Urban Street Area Standards (LCUASS). The City Traffic Engineer, as part of the required scoping agreement, with the applicants traffic engineer, substantially expanded the normal requirements for a memorandum. These additions, included analysis and studies of five areas. • Pedestrian, bicycle, and transit levels of service • An examination of the East Prospect / Lemay Intersection and the East Prospect / Stover Intersection. • Analysis horizons, including the years 2005 and 2020 • An agreement on traffic growth numbers, to be used in calculations, based on comparable city experience and other traffic studies • A review of the need for additional lanes at the projects access point to East Prospect. The traffic impact of Pinnacle is as noted in our study, is minimal. The fact that the project falls under the most minimal requirement for LCUASS is an important point. Levels of service and intersections are barely impacted by the traffic generated by this project. The City Traffic Engineer, however, requested additional traffic engineering data for areas that were of concern to the City. These items, as noted, were provided and reviewed. The additional data requests were entirely within the discretion of the City The Pinnacle project was designed specifically to complement and enhance the existing mixture of single family, duplexes, town homes, businesses, and apartments along East Prospect. Considerable work was done on the design to ensure that the project fits the exhaustive City criteria for design and enhancement. Both the staff report of January 16, 2002 and the hearing officers findings and decision of February 27, 2002 review City policies in considerable detail and analysis. The staff report makes substantial findings of fact and conclusions: 1. The PDP complies with all applicable General Development Standards including landscape and tree protection, access, circulation, parking, and engineering standards. 2. The proposed land uses are permitted in the (LMN) Low Density Mixed - Use Neighborhood Zone. 3. The Project Development Plan complies with all applicable district standards of Section 4.4 of the Land Use Code, (LMN) Low Density Mixed Use Residential. The City's Hearing Officer, Ms. Linda Michow, Esq. found, after two public hearings and an exhaustive review of Code requirements and testimony that, the plan satisfies the development standards of the LMN Zone District. In addition, she further stated that her position, "consistent with Colorado judicial opinions and state law, that no single applicant should be responsible for mitigating the impacts of development beyond that caused by the particular project". She also found that the PDP meet all applicable standards of Section 4.4 of the Land Use Code as well as the General Development Standards contained in Article 3. She reviewed in her findings of fact and conclusions, in considerable detail. She found specifically that the Transportation and Circulation (Traffic) requirements of Section 3.6 provided by the applicants traffic engineer, Mr. Coppola, in his traffic study, as scoped reviewed and approved by the City's Traffic Engineering Department, fully meet the requirements and regulations of the City. She further noted that, the additional testimony of the City's traffic engineer, Mr. Stanford, supported, fully, the traffic data and studies furnished by the applicant's engineer Mr. The property as noted in the hearing in the hearing officer's finding and staff recommendation is quite consistent with City Plan Land Use Principles. In addition, the Pinnacle project provides for attendable housing opportunities with its blend of housing alternative types. This is entirely consistent with Policy HSG 1.4. which states "The City will permit residential development in all neighborhoods and districts in order to maximize the potential land available for development of housing thereby positively influence housing affordability." The location of the project, is location to shopping, transportation, and job opportunities. The property is bisected by the Spring Creek bike trail. In short, it is a wise use of the property with housing and infrastructure improvements, entirely consistent with the City's desires to provide well designed compatible housing opportunities to it's residents. As another example, Policy ENV-1.21 Land Use states that, "The City shall support proposals for higher density development and mixed land use development in appropriate neighborhoods and districts, if they are designed to enhance the use of alternatives to single -occupant motor vehicle transportation..." Again, Pinnacle is one of the best planned located infill sites remaining in the City. The Spring Creek Bike Path runs along it's southern border. The project will have pedestrian connection to Prospect. In addition, the project will also be responsible for direct constructing an off travel lane bus stop on Prospect, to enhance the Transfort System. The project will also provide a direct sidewalk connection between the Spring Creek Bike Path and Lesher Junior High School. Principle GM-8 calls for the promotion of compatible infill development within the Community Growth Management Area. Again the Pinnacle project is compatible with that principle. Finally, under the existing neighborhood section, Policy EXN-1.4 encourages infill development and redevelopment, if "designed to complement and extend the positive qualities of surrounding development and adjacent buildings in terms of general intensity and use, street pattern(s), and any identifiable style, proportions, shapes, and relationships to the street, etc. the City's Hearing Officer on January 16, 2002. Considerable testimony and evidence were presented and submitted as part of the record by the applicant, his engineering, traffic and planning consultants. An additional hearing was held on February 16, 2002, where additional studies and evidence were entered into the record. The PDP application is for fifty-three (53) dwelling units (town homes, attached units and single family homes) on 6.7 acres on the south side of East Prospect Avenue, a approximately a quarter of a mile east of the Prospect / Lemay Intersection. The project is a permitted use within the LMN Zone District and meets applicable density and design standards. Other uses on adjoining and nearby property include duplexes, condominiums, town homes, truck repair shops, fourplexes, apartments, churches, schools, and single family homes. The properties on which the PDP is proposed is one of the very few undeveloped properties along a significant stretch of Prospect Avenue from Timberline Road on the east to Overland Trail on the west. The project is on a classic infill parcel as contemplated in the City's adopted City Plan and Structure Plan. By way of example, the City's Structure Plan strongly recognizes that in -fill development is one of the major principles in allowing for a compact development pattern within a well defined boundary (Policy LU-1.1). In addition, one notes that in Principle HSG-1 requires a variety of housing types and densities to be available throughout the urban area for all income levels. Policy HSG-1.1. Land Use Patterns. The City will encourage a variety of housing types and densities... That are well served bypublic transportation close to employment centers services and amenities. In particular, the City will promote the siting of higher density housing near public transportation shopping and in designated neighborhoods and districts. The application contains a variety of units, including town homes, attached units, and single family homes. It is within a short walking distance of Lesher Junior High School, Poudre Valley Hospital, several shopping centers office complexes, churches and elementary schools. The property is served by a Transfort bus route. May 1, 2002 Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Fort Collins PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 Re: Appeal of Pinnacle Town Homes Project Development Plan # 34-00 A Hearing of May 7, 2002 Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council, This memorandum is the applicant's response, as required, to the appellants appeal of March 12, 2002, as revised April 1, 2002, of the City of Fort Collins hearing officer, Ms. Linda Michow, Esq's, findings, conclusions, and decisions of February 27, 2002 concerning the Pinnacle Town Homes Project Development Plan # 34-00 A. The appellant alleges that City's hearing officer, City traffic engineers and other staff members did not correctly interpret the guidelines and requirements for traffic impact studies, set forth in Section 3.6 of the Land Use Code. We disagree with their grounds for appeal believe that the applicant not only complied with, the rules and regulations of the City of Fort Collins as they relate toe the conduct of traffic studies, but indeed exceeded them with the information submitted. The submitted study and analysis we performed were in direct compliance with City Code. We believe that the appellants have misunderstood and misinterpreted the Code sections cited in their original and revised appeal(s). By way of background, the Preliminary Development Application (PDP) was submitted on July 12, 2001. After a neighborhood meeting on March 29, 2001, after submittal and review of the required elements, the PDP underwent several submittals and reviews as required by the development review process and was placed on the agenda for 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 M 20 1 thank you all for being here. It's 21 approximately 7:10. And if you have any follow-up 22 questions, you can always find Cameron in the planning 23 department. Otherwise, I appreciate your patience and 24 cooperation. 25 SPEAKER: And we all would get copies of this? 0072 1 MS. MICHOW: If you request it. 2 SPEAKER: Right. (Inaudible) in that last 3 comment. 4 SPEAKER: That's correct. 5 MS. MICHOW: Thank you. 6 SPEAKER: Main entrance. 7 SPEAKER: Yes. 8 SPEAKER: Okay. Great. 9 (Conclusion of Tape 2, Side A) 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 A 23 scientific methodology -- 24 MS. MICHOW: Uh-huh. 25 SPEAKER: -- it still is a scientific 0071 1 methodology applied that brings up a question of issue of 2 validity. What happens in that case? Is there any 3 chance for it to go back and be reviewed by any means? 4 Or what makes it better? What makes that decision 5 better? We have a very narrow sample in August done. We 6 have a sample done by citizens using a scientific 7 methodology. Where -- what makes that decision better? 8 How is that done or is it disregarded? 9 MS. MICHOW: No, it's not regarded. And it's 10 my difficult decision to weigh the evidence. Whatever 11 that is. And there are a lot of times where the evidence 12 is conflicting. And I, as the hearing officer, need to 13 make that decision, you know. What Traffic Impact Study 14 will I rely on? To what extent will I, you know, hear 15 and consider Mr. Smith's comments versus the applicant's 16 traffic engineer? And those are the determinations that 17 1 make based on the testimony and evidence presented in 18 conjunction with a review of the criteria and standards 19 in the Land Use Code. W 0070 1 always a development as a combination of partnership 2 between developer and community. And so when there's 3 issues that keep reverberating back and back without any 4 resolution, what happens to those? That's my question. 5 MS. MICHOW: Well, I believe that the 6 applicant and staff has responded to the best of their 7 abilities and with the responses that they feel is 8 appropriate and will satisfy the criteria in the Land Use 9 Code. My job at this point forward is to determine 10 whether this project complies with all the standards and 11 criteria set forth in the Land Use Code. And to the 12 extent that some issues are left unaddressed in your 13 opinion, they may or may not be criteria that I need to 14 review in making my decision, So I think in -- with any 15 development proposal, there may still be some questions 16 that are -- or -- or some issues that are unresolved 17 ultimately because, you know, compromise can't be reached 18 or the project as a whole does or doesn't meet the 19 criteria. And that's the decision that I need to make. 20 SPEAKER: (Inaudible) such as -- I just heard in 21 the traffic between the traffic engineer and their 22 database, and even though it was a citizen grassroot 79 3 and I'm not a traffic engineer -- but I've -- I've said 4 involved with these issues for many, many years. I 5 thought we covered the grounds quite well at the last 6 meeting. So with that, I will close my summary 7 comments -- 8 MS. MICHOW: Okay. 9 MR. PETERSON: -- into the record, really. 10 MS. MICHOW: Thank you. 11 SPEAKER: Staff has no any additional comments. 12 MS. MICHOW: Okay. This concludes the hearing 13 on Pinnacle Townhomes PDP. As the hearing officer, I 14 will have 10 business days from today's date in which to 15 issue a written decision. And you will be able to get 16 copies of that decision through planning staff, if you'd 17 like to. And that concludes the hearing unless anyone 18 has any finally -- final questions regarding procedure. 19 Yes. 20 SPEAKER: Really -- since I'm not knowledgeable, 21 perhaps, as some people in the procedure, but the 22 community has brought up many issues and what -- I guess 23 some of it's been responded to in prior meetings -- is 24 still seem to be recycling back, so obviously, they 25 haven't been resolved to the -- you know, it -- it's a -- m 6 record -- 7 MS. MICHOW: Sure. 8 MR. PETERSON: -- I thought that issue was very 9 well addressed at the last meeting by both our traffic 10 engineer and the city traffic engineer in terms of the 11 impact on Stover. 12 MS. MICHOW: I do recall that discussion -- 13 MR. PETERSON: Uh-huh. 14 MS. MICHOW: -- at the -- at the previous 15 hearing. With that, Mr. Peterson, would you like to 16 conclude -- and I will offer you, again, an opportunity 17 to request a continuance, if you so desire, to have your 18 traffic engineer respond to any these issues if -- if you 19 feel it necessary. 20 MR. PETERSON: Again, thank you, Madam Hearing 21 Officer. But I -- I will say for the record, after 22 having had the opportunity to listen to the testimony 23 tonight and review the letter that was entered into the 24 record by the previous speaker, that we feel comfortable 25 relying on the record that was established at the last EM 1 meeting for the hearing officer. To be able to act on 2 that, I think all the issues were, again, that I heard -- 77 9 understand it, the capacity -- the city -rated capacity of 10 Prospect is -- approximately 900 cars per hour per lane. 11 In peak hours, there are so many cars stacked up trying 12 to cross the oncoming traffic to continue on Stover that 13 Prospect appears to reduce effectively to two lanes 14 there, which greatly reduces the capacity. That's one of 15 the reason why an accident count is so high there. And 16 that is right at the intersection where there are two 17 schools with two more schools -- close proximity. I sat 18 out there and watched it, and it was very interesting. 19 In that school when the light is lit for a student to 20 cross Prospect, all the traffic in all the directions 21 there, it comes to a halt, except the traffic coming 22 south on Stover that does make a right turn and go on 23 Prospect. If the backup traffic blocks Stover, the other 24 entrance to Stover, it's -- it's a mess. So the idea 25 that this is a simple, straight -through traffic 0068 1 intersection, is totally invalid by any criteria I have 2 ever seen. (Inaudible) statement. Thank you. 3 MS. MICHOW: Thank you. Is there anyone else 4 who would like to address the traffic issues? 5 MR. PETERSON: Again, if I could add for the 76 12 with our knowledge, we notice a big difference." And to 13 encourage to have it done officially but to show that 14 difference between seasonal, so just to go on the record. 15 MS. MICHOW: Thank you. 16 SPEAKER: We're not posing as PEs. 17 MS. MICHOW: Thank you. 18 SPEAKER: Sure. 19 MR. THOMASON: My name is Paul Thomason. I live 20 705 Cherokee Drive. I would like to just address one 21 particular item with TIS which was not addressed. There 22 was a statement in the TIS that the Stover/Prospect 23 intersection, which jogs, oh, probably 50, 60 yards, 24 didn't particularly get their models, so they just 25 modeled it as a straight -through intersection. This is 0067 1 no way valid. Most from the traffic study looked at the 2 traffic flows the -- most of the traffic coming south go 3 to Stover to Prospect, jogs over, and then continues 4 south on Stover. Most of the traffic going north on 5 Stover jogs over and continues north on Stover. That 6 means that all of those cars have -to make a left turn 7 across oncoming traffic. Now, then, Prospect is four 8 lanes at that point, two lanes each direction. As I 75 15 SPEAKER: Just for the record -- am 16 interrupting your thought process or -- 17 MS. MICHOW: Yeah, I was just going to say, 18 Mr. Smith, do you want to enter this into the record as 19 well? I thought you were relying on your May -- 20 MR. SMITH: Yes. I would like to enter that 21 into the record. 22 MS. MICHOW: Okay. So entered. 23 SPEAKER: (Inaudible) 24 SPEAKER: (Inaudible) 25 MS. MICHOW: You're going to need to come up 1 to the podium if you need -- if you want to have -- if 2 you want to make a statement or have any questions. 3 SPEAKER: Just to enter to the record just the 4 objective behind the residents collecting data was to 5 just encourage city planning to ask for an update of the 6 counts through a recognized PE organization. I think 7 there was some discussion amongst some of us residents 8 with some of city staff. And we had said, "Maybe we 9 should do that," and it was kind of nodded that would be 10 reasonable. So it wasn't that we want this data to be 11 stamped valid because we are not PE; but to say, "Just 74 21 previous response. These issues were discussed in detail 22 by both our traffic engineer Mr. Capola and by the city 23 traffic engineer who's reviewed the traffic study at the 24 January 16th public hearing on this. And we believe the 25 evidence submitted into the record as shown don't have 0064 1 anything to add at this point. 2 MS. MICHOW: Thank you. Does staff have 3 anything to add or — 4 SPEAKER: I would have to just state for the 5 record that Mr. Stanford, one of the city traffic 6 engineers, did review Mr. Smith's comments made in a 7 letter dated May 15th, 2001, which has been entered into 8 the record. Those are -- outlines several issues that 9 Mr. Smith, again, raised this evening, although not all 10 of them. And, I think, very clearly in his testimony at 11 the last hearing, he did respond to some of the 12 systematic errors, specifically the time of year that the 13 studies were done; but I'd have to say that not all of 14 those issues that Mr. Smith raised this evening we were 15 aware of for this evening's testimony. Thank you. 16 SPEAKER: Just for the record, we would be glad 17 to supply the accident data as well as left -turn data 72 24 Prospect intersection as well as the Lemay and Prospect 25 intersection as being severe for accidents. And we 0063 1 simply point this out because we think the omission of 2 safety and accident data from the TIS is significant. 3 It's just not a technical issue, yet it's an important 4 issue (inaudible) 5 Finally, item 8. We disagree with the finding 6 (inaudible) that no left -turn lane is required on 7 Prospect into the proposed development. In the 8 Appendix C of the TIS, there's a chart that's labeled 9 (inaudible) for left -turn lanes and unsignalized 10 intersections. And the TIS used their count of 800 and 11 some -odd vehicles per hour in a --in about 10 trips. 12 And used that data to plot a point on the chart that 13 indicated that no left turns were -- no left -turn lane 14 would be warranted. Using our data of a thousand 15 vehicles per hour, the left -turn lane would be warranted. 16 And so we're trying to say that this is another 17 conclusion in the TIS that's erroneous. That's all I 18 have to say. Thank you. 19 MS. MICHOW: Thank you. Mr. Peterson? 20 MR. PETERSON: I -- I just -- I'll go with my 71 4 projected growth in traffic level of service due to 5 projected growth (inaudible) that quote says, as shown 6 above, "Acceptable operations are expected under both 7 short- and long-term conditions." Well, again, they were 8 referring to the level of standard -- level of service E. 9 And that's an incorrect level of service. And so those 10 statements were also incorrect. And our point here is 11 that because the author of the TIS used incorrectly 12 applied standards, that the TIS itself would be invalid. 13 (Inaudible) would not be warranted. 14 Item Number 6. Let me dispute the finding of no 15 negative impacts on the level of service at the 16 signalized intersection on Prospect (inaudible) the TIS 17 claims that there are no negative impacts. According to 18 our reading of the standard, Section 4.5.2.A.2, it says, 19 "A project such as this one is defined as significantly 20 impacting a studied intersection when the following 21 criteria are satisfied: The background traffic 22 conditions, without the project traffic, causes an 23 intersection to fail the minimum acceptable level of 24 service standards; and when the project traffic causes 25 more than 2 percent increase in the intersection delay." 0062 0 7 piece of information here is that our highest count of 8 1,041 vehicles per hour -- that's going to be significant 9 later when we talk about some of the conclusions that 10 were drawn in the impact study. (Inaudible) draw your 11 attention to that in particular, we could see that all 12 these numbers are significantly higher, which you might 13 expect with the seasonal variation. 14 Item Number 5. The TIS, in evidence, made the 15 inaccurate statement about the required level of service. 16 This is referring to the Prospect and Lemay intersection 17 in Section 4.5.3.A. -- A.3.13 and also in table 4.3 of the 18 standards. The -- the thresholds for acceptable service 19 at a low -density, mixed -use residential area at a 20 signalized intersection is defined as D. The -- and then 21 just parenthetically, that refers to a 35 to 55 second 22 average delay at a signalized intersection per standards 23 attachment page. And in the TIS on page 8, there's a 24 quote it says, "Per city standards, overall level of 25 service at E is defined as acceptable." So that's wrong. 0061 1 And the TIS used an improper standard. That same 2 standard was used later on page 21 where it said, as 3 shown above. And in this case, page 21 is referring to 13 1 think is the city traffic engineer, "they require the 14 use of seasonal adjustment package depending on 15 (inaudible) well, the data were collected in August. I 16 think we're all familiar with the fact that the traffic 17 channel, obviously, is systematically lower than it is at 18 other times. And so we're just asking the local entity, 19 in this case it's the traffic engineer, to do what they 20 are allowed to do in -- under the Code which is to adjust 21 accordingly for the fact that the traffic counts are 22 higher at other times. I am, too, in reviewing Section 23 4.3.4.13 of the standards that says that the "TIS shall 24 include the following evaluations," two of which are, 25 item 13, "Safety and accident analysis," and the 15th . 0059 1 item is "Neighborhood and public input issues." Those 2 issues were not addressed in the TIS. And I believe that 3 that's a significant oversight (inaudible) and 4 invalidates the study for those reasons. 5 Item 3. With data reported in this Traffic 6 Impact Study is not reported per standard, Section 7 4.4.1.A, in which it says, "Each peak hour count shall be 8 conducted over a 2-hour period and shall include 9 15-minute-count data," to my emphasis, "clearly identify 16 especially relevant to meeting such as this. And -- and 17 that's why I have rephrased everything. Cameron asked me 18 to address the issues in Code, and directed Us to -- 19 Ward Stanford at least gave us the same friendly advice 20 that we appreciated our concerns; but if we -- we didn't 21 talk to Code, then (inaudible) wouldn't have anything he 22 could do about it. So what he did -- Ward Stanford gave 23 me a copy of the Larimer County Urban Area Street 24 Standards -- I believe are the standards appropriate to 25 this case. And I've read them. And what I've done is Ma 1 list what I find are situations in the Traffic Impact 2 Study that are in conflict with the Larimer County area 3 street standards. And I'll just go through them very . 4 quickly. 5 One of.the issues that I had with, from a 6 scientific standpoint, was that I thought the sample was 7 systematically biased towards underreporting of traffic 8 counts. And, indeed, the Larimer County Urban Area 9 Street Standard says in Section 4.3.2.A "intent of 10 completing an analysis of the existing current study 11 horizon is to establish a baseline of traffic condition." 12 And then later on it says that the "local entity," which 65 19 review your comments, I found your comments to be very 20 similar to -- in effect, very, very, very similar to all 21 the questions that we heard at the last meeting that both 22 our traffic engineer, Mr. Capola, and the city traffic 23 engineer who is here, Mr. Stanford, I thought addressed 24 in considerable depth. Your -- from our perspective, 25 your letter was entered into the record. And I'm happy 0057 1 to stand on the testimony for the hearing officer that 2 Mr. Capola made and Mr. Stanford for the City made at 3 the -- at the last hearing. So I can't -- I'm not a 4 traffic engineer, so I'm not going to be able to respond 5 to your specific concerns, but again, I think the record 6 is -- we're fine with the record as presented. 7 MR. SMITH: Okay? 8 MS. MICHOW: Okay. 9 MR. SMITH: Thank you. And I appreciate you 10 being flexible. I just want to say that I sent at letter 11 to Cameron in May of last year, reviewing the traffic 12 effect study. And I might have to apologize to all of 13 _ you because I -- I'm a scientist and -- and I've reviewed 14 it as I would any sort of research report. And in -- in 15 my letter to Cameron, I used language probably wasn't 64 22 So I'll just ask for a 5- or 10-minute break, and we'll 23 reconvene after that. 24 (Recess taken.) 25 MS. MICHOW: Okay. We're back on the record. 0056 1 It's approximately 6:45. 1 did have an opportunity to 2 listen to the last portion of the tape of the 3 January 16th public hearing at which time I did say that 4 it would be continued without any limitation as to the 5 issues to be discussed. So I don't know, you know, that 6 if staff and the applicant had a different conversation, 7 but for purposes of advising the public, I did leave it 8 open. So with that, I will turn it over to -- Cap? 9 MR. SMITH: Cap Smith. Thank you. 10 MS. MICHOW: And I would just like to add, 11 . too, that if the applicant cannot address any 12 questions -- 13 MR. PETERSON: (Inaudible) let me just make a 14 statement. First of all, obviously, we object because 15 our conversation with staff is that we would not need our 16 traffic consultants nor the staff brought the city 17 traffic consultant here, but, however, having said that 18 and having had the opportunity in the last few minutes to 63 25 SPEAKER: I think we did conclude the hearing -- 0055 1 our last hearing stating that we were going to come back 2 and try to focus on only the issues -- the two issues 3 that were raised regarding storm water and groundwater. 4 And we did not talk specifically about readdressing those 5 related transportation. 6 SPEAKER: I don't think -- 7 MR. SMITH: Well, needless to say, I think these 8 are separate positions, and I think these should be 9 heard. And I haven't had an opportunity to raise them. 10 And so -- 11 MS. MICHOW: I understand that. 12 MR. SMITH: Yeah. 13 MS. MICHOW: What I need to do is take a 14 recess and listen to the end of the tape from the last 15 hearing to determine what was concluded and what was 16 stated on the record for purposes of this public hearing 17 and what -- what message was sent to the public. Because 18 1 --1 can't recall at this point. We're just trying to 19 keep the hearing going. And I don't mean to cut off any 20 testimony or limit that, but it's -- it's unfair to the 21 applicant who -- who won't be able to respond tonight. 62 2 this again. 3 MR. SMITH: That's the way it goes. I just 4 wouldn't mind, you know, I mean -- if -- if there are 5 legitimate issues, shouldn't we bring them out? Isn't 6 that called for into this meeting? 7 - MR. PETERSON: Well, I would object because the 8 traffic engineer's testimony -- the city's traffic 9 engineer's testimony was entered at the last meeting and 10 finished. 11 SPEAKER: It really wasn't finished. Ward only 12 had 10 minutes. There wasn't a discussion back and 13 forth. We had to leave. So that's why we thought Ward 14 would be back here or your traffic engineer, and then 15 there's three people who knew -- who information couldn't 16 have a -- 17 MR. PETERSON: We ask -- 18 SPEAKER: -- reasonable discussion back and 19 forth. 20 MR. PETERSON: We asked the City that question 21 at the last meeting -- at the end of last meeting whether 22 or not we would need our traffic engineer again. Answer 23 was no. So we did not bring him. 24 SPEAKER: Is that -- 61 5 MR. SMITH: My name is Cap Smith and I'm a 6 resident of Ukiah Lane. 7 MS. MICHOW: Are you going to speak about the 8 contents of your letter which we have already -- 9 MR. SMITH: Well, I understand there was some 10 discussion about it, and I was unable to respond to that 11 discussion because I was not here. And I would like to 12 enter some additional information into the record with 13 respect to the traffic survey. 14 MR. PETERSON: That's pretty well finished. And 15 we didn't bring our traffic engineer. Can we close that 16 piece on the -- 17 SPEAKER: It's -- it's up to you. This is the 18 letter that was attached to that in the staff report. 19 MR. SMITH: I should point out that, on the 20 announcement for this meeting, it did not say that the 21 agenda was limited only to remodeling so -- 22 SPEAKER: I was thinking -- it's up to you. 23 MS. MICHOW: Here's the problem. Mr. Peterson 24 doesn't have his traffic engineer here. And if there are 25 questions raised to which Mr. Peterson requires responses 0054 1 from his professionals, we're going to have to continue .E 8 then it grades back up. And then they'll be a few steps 9 up to the -- well, I think the entry's right there. So, 10 really, we have not affected the grade for all intents 11 and purpose along the -- either property line. So what 12 you'll see is the buildings sticking up a little bit. At 13 least that one's the closest one to the property line, so 14 it probably has the most visual effect. And I would 15 guess that really (inaudible) to the property to the 16 east. 17 MS. MICHOW: Thank you. Is there anyone else 18 who would like to make a comment or has a question? 19 MR. SMITH: (Inaudible) 20 MS. MICHOW: If you could -- 21 MR. SMITH: May I speak to some issues that were 22 raised at the last meeting and (inaudible) I believe a 23 letter that I entered into the record -- my name is 24 Cap Smith and I had sent a letter -- 25 MS. MICHOW: If you could come up to the 0053 1 podium. 2 SPEAKER: I had -- that letter is in the record. 3 It's in your packet. I think it was -- it was entered 4 into the record. 59 11 SPEAKER: So along this side you'll see exactly 12 the same grade. This side was a little tougher for us 13 just because you can see this unit's a little closer to 14 the property line, and we have to get drainage around 15 this unit. And I don't know if the owner who lives here 16 is here tonight or not, but you might have notice from 17 your picture window that they have a little retaining 18 wall down along in here. We were not in a position to be 19 putting a retaining wall all the way down along this 20 site. Our street here matches this grade because we have 21 an existing building here, and it just matches the 22 existing grade. Through here, what we've done is 23 actually -- I'm trying to help you visualize it, but 24 since the ground is going down but the building is at a 25 single -level floor, the ground will still go down 0052 1 adjacent to the building with the little mini swale in 2 here that we have draining down and in through here and 3 down into the water quality pond. And so what -- you 4 won't probably see it from your picture window, but what 5 this neighbor might see is a little bit of exposed 6 foundation as the grade's going down and the finished 7 floor stays the same up to the edge of the building, and m 14 project's going to look like. Currently the watershed is 15 from west to east and from north to south. When you get 16 down raising the grade of the project, I'm assuming that 17 that's going to be the same. But what happens to the 18 west property owners and to the east property owners? Is 19 the new grade going to be higher than the grades that 20 exist there now? That -- that's all. I want to know 21 when I look out my picture window what I'd see. 22 SPEAKER: Thank you. 23 MR. PASDERNICK: That's all I wanted to know. 24 MS. MICHOW: That's fair. Thank you. Can 25 someone respond to that? 0051 1 Speaker: Seven, eight, nine. 2 Speaker: (Inaudible) 3 SPEAKER: Kevin, again, I'll do my best to --,at 4 least from the grading standpoint since we didn't answer 5 that question. I'll start over here on this side right 6 here. Of course, we have a certain amount -- most of our 7 street design is actually from west to east and most of 8 our drainage — 9 (Beginning of Tape 2, Side A.) 10 MS. MICHOW: Go ahead. Excuse me. 57 17 MR. SHEAR: And that's true. We actually, to 18 make that drainage work, (inaudible) rebuilt the portion 19 of the path to raise it up although we know that we're 20 going to do a little adjustment to it because we're not 21 allowed to be doing work in the flood -way area. And so 22 we do have a couple call works that we can show you on 23 the plans that actually do go under that walk. So 24 actually, they are doing better after development than 25 they are currently. So at least in one area and that -- 0050 1 if you go due south of Robertson Street, the north -south 2 cul-de-sac where the bend is in the bike path, that area 3 will be somewhat protected or -- or in a better 4 condition. 5 SPEAKER: Thank you. 6 MS. MICHOW: Thank you. Is there anyone else 7 who would like to speak or has a question? 8 MR. PASDERNICK: I do. 9 MS. MICHOW: Would you like to come up to the 10 front? 11 MR. PASDERNICK: My name is Kevin Pasdernick, 12 and I live at 1004 East Prospect. That's right here. I 13 just -- I just want to understand visually what the 56 20 more difficult to keep it in -- in a condition that is -- 21 that quality condition, and the subdivision doesn't have 22 that. 23 SPEAKER: Can I address that real quick? 24 SPEAKER: Yeah, we do have an 25 MS. RICTOR: You do have an impact on that -- 0049 1 SPEAKER: Can I -- 2 MS. RICTOR: Even though it's not your -- your 3 responsibility as a citizen of the city that utilizes the 4 path, it has an impact on our community. 5 MR. DUGAN: And currently in the current 6 condition, the -- the water does flow down the site and 7 across the path and creates some of that silting in water 8 and mud -- 9 MS. RICTOR: Ice. Yeah. 10 MR. DUGAN: And one of the things that we have 11 done -- and I think Mr. Shear can correct me if I'm 12 wrong -- is we've created a swell on the north side here 13 that directs our drainage water over into this retention 14 area -- or, no. I'm sorry. Not retention, water -quality 15 area. And so that will keep a significant amount of 16 water from this site from going over the path. 55 23 trail. As long as I've been in town since 1986, they 24 have done a whole series of -- of improvements on that 25 trail, and some cases relocating it. And then some cases 0048 1 widening that to the 8-foot sidewalk. But it is not 2 the -- the developer's responsibility for the maintenance 3 at that trail. We do, through the homeowners 4 association, have the responsibility for maintaining our 5 on -site sidewalk that Mr. Dugan was talking about. But 6 that is a public sidewalk that is being required by the 7 City to -- to actually build it to the width that it is. 8 And the City is very interested in that, again, in terms 9 of meeting their connectivity requirements. I hate to 10 use those (inaudible) terms, but essentially, you go -- 11 you need to go from point A to point B. And it's gotta 12 give more people the opportunity to, A, to walk on 13 Prospect Road; and, B, to be able to use the Spring Creek 14 bike path for both recreation and for other uses. And 15 that's our response. 16 MS. RICTOR: I -- I can appreciate -- I can 17 appreciate that it's not the builder's responsibility and 18 it's the City's. However, looking at the data, it has an 19 impact on the quality of that path to the city, making it 54 0047 1 and ties into the new sidewalk we are going to build on 2 the south side of Prospect. And I believe this sidewalk. 3 is 8 feet wide along Prospect. And then the extension 4 will go over to Barton on the south side of the street as 5 we discussed earlier. So it -- it provides a direct 6 connection up to prospect. It also provides the 7 connection from Prospect down to the trail. And that 8 there's a -- a current bus stop right here. We're going 9 to construct what's called a "bus bay" where the bus can 10 pull off of Prospect, thereby allowing traffic to 11 continue to move when it stops in here. And then people 12 can get off the bus and walk straight down to the trail. 13 And then go any direction from there. 14 MR. PETERSON: I would -- I would just add, for 15 the record, the Spring Creek bike trail is the 16 responsibility of the City of Fort Collins. And it's 17 their responsibility, and they have accepted this 18 responsibility for many years to maintain that trail 19 during all weather events. I thought that I took from 20 the testimony that Mr. Shurder gave that the grizzly, if 21 you will, which is where the stream crossing here is on 22. their list of improvements that they want to do to the 53 3 in the basements (inaudible) 4 MR. PETERSON: (Inaudible) Mr. Shear is done, 5 Mr. Dugan to address the north -south bike path -- 6 MS. MICHOW: Okay. 7 MR. PETERSON: -- along the public street and 8 how that's designed, if you would. 9 MR. SHEAR: Am I okay? 10 MS. RICTOR: Thank you. 11 MR. SHEAR: You're welcome. 12 MR. DUGAN: Again, I'm Tom Dugan with Pinecrest 13 Planning and Design. And if you look at the site 14 planning, it's really hard to tell on -- on the drawing 15 here, but I'm going to come over here and point to it. 16 But currently Spring Creek travels right here. It jogs 17 up and then heads south over the grizzly here. And we 18 have made a -- a connection from the trail up to Prospect 19 that runs parallel to Robertson Street. And again, most 20 of this is designed based on criteria that the 21 transportation department has given. us. We've got an 22 8-foot-wide sidewalk that runs from here to the 23 cul-de-sac. And then we have the 6-foot-wide detached 24 sidewalk that runs along east side of the street 25 approximately 4 feet away from the curve up along here 52 6 basements immediately after a flood. I know that. But 7 that's because I'm in the field. So I'm -- I'm also a 8 structural, and I went out after the flood and saw a lot 9 of damage. And I just had to educate everybody and say, 10 "Sorry. But the only way to really fix this is by 11 excavating the entire perimeter of your house because you 12 pumped out the house, and the lateral pressures were so 13 intense from the saturated dirt adjacent to the basement, 14 that you didn't have a (inaudible) to pump the water 15 out." So what FEMA suggests is that you just let the 16 water stay there and then slowly pump it out. And then 17 do other improvements. And -- and it's documented. It's 18 in the FEMA documents. None of our units will have 19 basements that will be 6 feet below the 100 year or 20 anything like that where they'll be 6 feet full of water. 21 That's -- that's not going to happen. We had it designed 22 so that doesn't happen. Some of the lower units, we do 23 basements in and there is a possibility. I'd rant that 24 there is a possibility of flooding but not up to a point 25 where the walls will damage (inaudible) it happened a lot NE., 1 to commercial structures and to a lot of -- well, I -- I 2 saw (inaudible) Prospect Street, some of the damage in -- 51 9 MR. SHEAR: Well, I was kind of ready to talk 10 about Prospect 'cause, of course, we see it in Prospect 11 up to the west in front of the (inaudible) Mrs. Henry's 12 house where the hedges are up and all the ice just kind 13 of (inaudible) cut those down because their intentions 14 were good at the time she put them in but forgot about 15 that fact. Now, as far as the basement flooding and 16 would I buy out there and that kind of thing -- during 17 the '97 flood and the damage that you're talking about -- 18 you know, most of us are just everyday people that don't 19 know any better. After a flood, our basement fills up 20 with water. Well, our basements out here won't fill up 21 with water because we have them raised to a point where 22 they just won't. They're protected. There will be a . 23 certain amount of additional groundwater, of course, that 24 rises during the heavier flood, and there will be more 25 work and pumping and possibly some basement flooding in 0045 1 some of the units that are down lower with basements. 2 What none of us really know but once some of the people 3 down Prospect pumped out their buildings, boom, they had 4 damage. Everything collapsed in because what they didn't 5 recognize and what FEMA tells us not to do is pump our 50 12 called, of like its 20 percent. Point 2 is the runoff 13 coefficient, but development wise, I don't know if we 14 have it right here, yes. I see 100.7, so it's like 15 70 percent in (inaudible) percent concrete and driveway 16 compared to 20 percent. And that's just the way we do it 17 with our theoretical drainage. I guess we'll talk about 18 the sidewalk and flooding and other conditions and -- and 19 on Prospect, I think, is your concern? 20 MS. RICTOR: (Inaudible) and the bike path. 21 MR. SHEAR: And the bike path.. 22 MS. RICTOR: I don't want to miss the bike path. 23 MR. SHEAR: And I won't talk about the bike 24 path. I'm going to need somebody else to talk about the 25 bike path. And I guess our interpretation was we were 0044 1 concerned also with the sidewalk up here, but I guess 2 not. 3 MS. RICTOR: (Inaudible) the bike path has a lot 4 of transportation; and not just in rainy season, but also 5 in the winter conditions -- 6 MR. SHEAR: Understood. 7 MS. RICTOR: -- because the water has to get to 8 Spring Creek to (inaudible) 49 15 to school? Just a question to think about. So those are 16 my concerns. 17 MS. MICHOW: Thank you, Ms. Rictor. 18 MR. PETERSON: Again, we'll have Mr. Shear. 19 MS. MICHOW: Okay. Thank you. 20 MR. SHEAR: I'll be right there. I guess I'll 21 start out by answering the question of the increased 22 flows, and I think the question was, okay, you're 23 increasing flows. How much? Give me a real number. In 24 our plans and in our drainage report, we have a overall 25 master drainage and erosion control plan that has a -- a 0043 1 table summary of flows. And I'm noticing that we have a 2 100 -- now, this is just the site generation reports. So 3 it's only the flows -- is that a hundred -year historic, 4 right now, today undeveloped, including the house on the 5 site, we disregarded it. It was a 13.6 cfs.. If cfs 6 doesn't mean anything to you, I'll just give you another 7 number which is the hundred -year feet flow for the site 8 after development. So that was at -- looks like our peak 9 after development was 31 cfs. So that went from 6, 13, 10 14, to 31 a little more than two times. So I guess in 11 real terms, we use the runoff coefficients, what it's 18 developed, there's been farmland. It hasn't really had a 19 lot of water on it. And I know from other projects in 20 Fort Collins, we have a layer of shell underneath the 21 ground. Oftentimes, it increases the water, and then you 22 put water through lawns. Irrigation increases the water 23 level in the area, and some either major businesses have 24 had major cracks in their buildings up to 17 inches 25 with -- even after they put pilings in their dwellings, 0042 1 trying to stabilize their houses. So as a potential 2 buyer, would I buy here? Is this a good place for 3 buyers? And I know there's been a lot of work gone on 4 here. I could appreciate that so -- but that's another 5 thing, I think, that I would consider. And there is the 6 water, the runoff. Would I, if I had a child that came 7 down creek -- Spring Creek, would I also -- we talked 8 about sidewalks today -- would I want my child to go 9 through a housing subdivision to get to school? -And I 10 know Fort Collins tends to be a safe place to live, but 11 that is a major concern as well. You have small 12 children, you have athletes, on the weekends a lot of 13 exercisers, and you have increased traffic within that 14 subdivision. Would I want my child to walk through that 47 21 And so, that's another issue that I would like 22 to do some clarification because of the condition that 23 affects the path as well as -- we talked about the 24 grizzly. I don't know if we have more than one 25 grizzlies, but at least we have the one grizzly down 0041 1 across from Springmeadows. Because when I lived in 2 Springmeadows before, the housing area there had great 3 difficulty in the flooding in their basements in that 4 subdivision. So that's also another concern. And 1 5 guess I'll just express all of them. We talked about the 6 affect of the path, the creek, but also about the 7 potential buyers for the people in this area is a concern 8 for me. I was thinking while I was sitting here, what 9 would I, as a potential buyer, if I knew the information 10 that all of us know now, would I consider. And one of 11 the things as, yes, the window of my basement is above 12 water level. That means everything below my window is at 13 water level. And I have, as an owner, fought a lot of 14 water in many basements, even with sump pumps, and had 15 the unpleasantness of remodeling my dwelling several 16 times because of that. 17 Also, because this land has never been me 24 questions that I have probably were directed Mr. Shear 25 and Mr. Schlueter. One of the ones is the -- we talked 1 about water flow. Well, we haven't talked about how much 2 it will increase the water flow. Right now, we have 3 ground cover. We have ground that absorbs water. And 4 anytime you put in construction (inaudible) has already 5 mentioned you have concrete water flow. And so I would 6 be interested in some clarification between how much 7 concrete housing will increase that flow compared to the 8 present absorption of the ground that is presently there. 9 Also, we just talked about the flooding conditions during 10 rain season. I'm also concerned, since I'm also -- I'm 11 user of the path both of the walker and a bicyclist -- is 12 also other weather conditions because the water flow in 13 Colorado, as we know, it snows one day. It melts. Runs 14 off. To get the water flow from Prospect through this 15 addition to Spring Creek, crosses over the walking path. 16 And in most seasons that I have been using the path, it 17 becomes a very icy condition. And yet, the path is 18 utilized by a lot of commuters, not just for leisure, but 19 a lot of people go to work. They have schoolchildren 20 walking on the path to school. 45 1 MS. MICHOW: Thank you. 2 MR. STUART: They don't plan to really do any 3 detention on the stream itself. I mean on -stream 4 detention is really a problem 'cause it -- it (inaudible) 5 down here to cause us a lot more problem. What we're 6 talking -- what parks department is talking about doing 7 is putting a higher crossing there. But build it up on 8 the embankments and put a (inaudible) bridge over it so 9 that you don't just have that little culvert there. 10 MS. BERGES: That's up there by Springmeadows, 11 too, isn't it? 12 MR. STUART: (Inaudible) 13 MS. MICHOW: Thank you. Is there anyone else 14 who would like to direct a question or comment to the 15 applicants based on what we've heard tonight? 16 SPEAKER: (Inaudible) 17 MS. MICHOW: Yes, you do. 18 MS. RICTOR: I'm Linda Rictor. I live at 19 1806 Rollingwood Court, but I also own a property in 20 Springmeadows. First of all, I can certainly appreciate 21 the time and the effort goes into such planning. And so 22 addressing the hard questions, I think, is very essential 23 to the final decision of such a development. A couple of 44 4 they call it down there, what effect will that have on 5 the units to the south -- specifically Brookhaven, 6 otherwise known as Shadowbrooke? 7 MR. STUART: Uh-huh. 8 MS. BERGES: When the flood went through, the 9 people on the -- on the northernmost units had water 10 right up to their basement windows, and they were moving 11 furniture out. They tracked the way of the water. Came 12 up the hill. And I don't know how high above the path 13 is -- I mean where those units are. But I guess it's at 14 least 6 to 8 feet, and that water was spread out over 15 that whole area. And you know they found some bodies 16 down thereon the corner. And our tennis courts were 17 wiped out totally. And the City will take them over and 18 come down -- do that where they're going to make some 19 allegiance with the grizzly. 20 MS. MICHOW: I'm sorry. Just for the record, 21 could I get your name and address. 22 MS. BERGES: Dean Berges -- 23 MS. MICHOW: Okay. 24 MS. BERGES: -- and I live on Brookhaven -- in 25 Brookhaven. 01 • 43 7 you do get water dropping out the stream a little bit. 8 And it does raise it. And it does spread out more than 9 it did. It's -- so it's a combination of things. You 10 know, Spring Creek is meant to carry water and is 11 designed and we -- hopefully we're designing it so that 12 it's safe within what we then designed for. And that's 13 primarily the hundred -year storm. We do have them look 14 at the 500-year storm because if it's going to happen, we 15 kind of want to know where it's going to go. What else 16 were we talking about here? 17 1 think that's pretty much an update on there -- 18 there aren't really any massive improvements planned for. 19 Spring Creek. In this area we recently had just fixed 20 the flooding area down by Lemay. We finally got that 21 back. And we did remove a driveway access culvert that 22 used to be across Spring Creek. And that should help the 23 back water situation coming up this way as well. So we 24 actually purchased the land from them and cut them a 25 different way into their property. So that should help RM 1 (inaudible) future. Do you have any questions for me 2 (inaudible) 3 MS. BERGES: On that detention pond, or whatever 42 10 MS. SHUBART: That's right. 11 MR. STUART: And they put the windowsill at 12 18 inches above or -- at (inaudible) water surface level 13 we showed, and yet you still got the dirt from there up 14 to the top of the window -- window's opening so I mean -- 15 SPEAKER: Window well. 16 MR. STUART: Window well. I better go look at 17 window wells. I hate window wells. But they always 18 flood. But this -- in this case, they're way above it. 19 As far as -- I heard last time people talking about the 20 path being covered up more and more. And I have to say 21 that, yes, development adds to that. The other thing 22 that it really adds to a lot is the -- the natural 23 deposition of silt in the streams. And at that 24 particular crossing that -- the parks department refers 25 to it as -- the grizzly storm -water guys call it the 0037 1 "bear trap." And it's kind of a (inaudible) over the end 2 of the culvert. And that has always been a weak spot in 3 the parks department's trail system. And they are 4 looking at that. And they do want to do something 5 different, probably a pedestrian bridge or something in 6 the future. So as -- as you have a blockage like that, 41 13 criteria way before we had it mapped. And we have it 14 mapped now and we -- our numbers come in elevation wise 15 really close to what they have done. Just doing a piece 16 of it. We did the whole -- whole Spring Creek over 17 again. And this-- this idea of -- of the being the peak 18 theory is really reinforced in Spring Creek. Actually, 19 Spring Creek has two peaks. And it's controlled mainly 20 by the railroad embankment just west of College where all 21 the flooding happened, sort of went over the embankment 22 in '97. Of course '97 was a 500-year storm which we did 23 not design for. And I was there that evening and this 24 was the reach as soon as the sun came up that I had to go 25 down and see what -- assess the damages. And I -- I saw 0036 1 the debris line. I was stuck in the mud on a pavement. 2 And 1 mean it was -- it was a mess. And so we -- we were 3 really sensitive about this property. But there are 4 regulations that we have to enforce, and they've met all 5 those regulations. They've -- they've done every step 6 that we've asked. They've even put their windowsills to 7 their -- on their basement levels in this -- this 8 particular road here. These -- these don't have 9 basements; is that right? 16 in about May -- May or early part of June. 17 MR. SHEAR: Yes. What Terracon normally does is 18 goes out and monitors and takes record on -- on the 19 groundwater for us. So we'll have a pretty good 20 understanding of exactly what it's doing. But we already 21 are designing the -- the buildings and underdrains and 22 the pump systems and such, you know, with the worst -case 23 conditions. And -- and that is we know that some of the 24 foundations are going to be under the underwater level, 25 but let's face it, we know Spring Creek is the 0035 1 groundwater table at the water surface elevation. So, 2 you know, if that's where it's going to be and that's 3 what we know, and that's what we're going to design. 4 MS. MICHOW: Thank you, Mr. Shear. Do we have 5 someone from staff who can, okay, help -- help respond to 6 some of these questions? 7 MR. STUART: Yes. I'm Glen Stuart with the 8 storm -water utility. And we're -- we're awfully 9 sensitive about Spring Creek as you could imagine. So 10 when Brian said that we really scrutinized his -- his 11 plans, he was just being nice. We put him through hell. 12 And actually, we made him use the -- the new (inaudible) 39 19 Report. So to answer your question point blank, yes, we 20 know what's happening underground. Well, at least, we 21 trust our professionals that gave us the information that 22 what is happening underground that they gave us in the 23 report is what's happening. And actually, we did 24 recognize a semblance of that same underground stream you 25 mentioned. And one of the things that happens normally 0034 1 with -- and it probably happened to Prospect commons, 2 too, but the minute we dig a hole and tie into the sewer 3 line, of course, that's a series of trenches and gravel 4 and pipework and such that we start affecting that 5 groundwater just like Ukiah Lane did. And regardless of 6 where our perimeter drain goes, we all know including 7 sanitary sewer and water gas know that their trenches are 8 conveying water. So that's going to change that 9 underground system somewhat, plus the underdrain trenches 10 and the watering systems are going to change it somewhat. 11 And so our goal is to get more of a direct access down to 12 Spring Creek. So, yes, that is the flowing. 13 MS. SHUBART: Uh-huh. Will there continue to be 14 analysis through the spring and summer? Because as you 15 said, the flows definitely change dramatically starting RN 22 that Ukiah Lane and Prospect commons actually was a main 23 cause of increasing a spread downstream at Prospect -- 24 MS. SHUBART: -- Springs. 25 MR. SHEAR: -- Springs by a half a foot or -- 0033 1 foot or anything at least not to a relative storm. So 2 one other thing, too, is we might ask Mr. Chorter to talk 3 a little about -- bit about Spring Creek because there 4 are other studies going on on Spring Creek and I think 5 other improvements planned, although I never know what 6 timing and those kinds of things or so -- 7 MS. SHUBART: Uh-huh. 8 MR. SHEAR: And while you're up here with me -- 9 MS. SHUBART: Okay. 10 MR. SHEAR: -- I'll try to do my best about the 11 question on groundwater. The geotechnical investigation 12 boys go out and drill holes all over the site. 13 MS. SHUBART: Okay. 14 MR. SHEAR: Even though you see three, four, 15 five piezometer tubes coming up out of the ground, the 16 actual report literally identifies an underground 17 groundwater contour amount. So that is on record. It is 18 available. It is in the Geotechnical Investigation 37 25 it's increasing and causing that overflow of the creek to 0032 1 levels closer to their property than it was before we 2 were around. So, you know, it's just kind of logical. 3 Like I said, I am not a water engineer. I am not 4 hydrologist. 5 MR. SHEAR: Well, I can try to do my best. So 6 your question isn't: Do we protect our project? The 7 question is: We've identified that we know that we have 8 conveyance through the project, so what really happens 9 here based on our project? We do increase the flows. 10 MS. SHUBART: Uh-huh. 11 MR. SHEAR: We don't increase the hundred -year 12 peak flow which is not necessarily the main devastating 13 flow. The 500 was in '97. But during a regular storm, 14 we haven't increased the flow somewhat although the 15 2-year storm or the standard storm, you know, that we 16 experience throughout the summer, were not increasing it 17 that much. Most of our flow actually is conveyed out to 18 this point, so it's got a little bit longer travel time. 19 And then it is stuck up in the water quality pond for a 20 little while before it all drains out. But there will be 21 a certain increase in flow. But I mean, I don't think 36 2 flows because there's even the bigger flows from the 3 bigger 100-year storms that we also have, to accommodate. 4 So that's incorporated into our final grading plan. And 5 so the flows are directed around houses down private 6 drives, into streets around the corners, down to 7 Spring Creek. As far as the -- is that okay? 8 (Inaudible) talked about that subject. 9 MS. SHUBART: I guess it's just -- 10 MS. MICHOW: Joan, I'm sorry. You're going to 11 have to come up to the mike. We're in a very large room, 12 and I'm just not sure how far back you can stand and pick 13 up on the mike. 14 SPEAKER: Also turn the mike up, too. 15 MS. SHUBART: My question, I guess, was being 16 able to understand it in clear layman's terms. Because 17 having been around here when we had the flood and also 18 around here when we had large dumpings of water, in my, 19 mind it's still, There's an awful lot of payment, so it's 20 going to be angled down. And it's going to hit the 21 basement. The basement's going to move it down towards 22 Prospect Springs. And we have noticed -- well, the folks 23 of Prospect Springs have noticed that even since 24 Ukiah Lane was built, we put in a lot of pavement. And 35 5 It's done within 10, 12 minutes, 15 minutes. Half hour 6 later, the (inaudible) base and comes through, so 7 absolutely. We're increasing flows. No question about 8 it. One of the things we are doing, however, is even 9 though we're not using quantity tanks -- and we're using 10 this area here for water quality detention so there's a 11 minor amount of detention. Also, we also respect the 12 entire floodplain coming through the site. Of course, it 13 comes this way naturally. Uh-huh. Everything goes down 14 towards Spring Creek. 15 What we have done with the site is we recognize 16 that relative to the overall finish grade of the plan, 17 we're not just setting buildings and basements and crawl 18 spaces and slabs relative to the flood plain. That's just 19 one issue out of the overall design. The other issue is 20 these guys make us identify street capacity, swale 21 capacities, what's actually hitting the project. So when 22 1 originally said, you know, there's a rush of water 23 coming down the street, Prospect generally is picking up 24 most of that water. Anything that does sheet across or 25 overflow with that, that actually going through the site, 0031 1 our project is graded and designed to accommodate those 34 8 through. So in other words, have you IDed exactly where 9 those waters are very shallow? shallow? deep? Where 10 they're close (inaudible) ground. And I guess my 11 question is: Are you doing a very tight grid analysis of 12 that area or is it just one here and one here and one 13 there? Which means then are you actually catching 14 this -- this stream that I guess you would call it? Does 15 that make sense? 16 MR. SHEAR: Absolutely. 17 MS. SHUBART: Okay. 18 MR. SHEAR: Yeah. And I'll be glad to respond. 19 MS. SHUBART: Okay. I wouldn't (inaudible) 20 MR. SHEAR: Okay. First of all, my apology for 21 making it sound like we're not increasing flows. We are 22 increasing flows. Obviously, we pave and build houses 23 (inaudible) increasing flows. The point I meant to make 24 was that that increase in flow happens over a certain 25 period of time but doesn't increase the mammoth flow of 0030 1 the '97 flood if that were to hit after this was 2 developed. That same flow would occur at that point in 3 time because our peak (inaudible) ours is the only one 4 getting cluttered with plow over at any one time. Boom. 33 11 MS. SHUBART: Okay. 12 MS. MICHOW: -- than have you demonstrate 13 something. 14 SPEAKER: I just wanted to say -- 15 MS. MICHOW: I understand. 16 MS. SHUBART: Because there's a second question 17 dealt with the underground water. And I really 18 appreciate the fact that you heard us when we are saying 19 we have water issues. Now, because I live right there, 20 I've seen the -- the white pipings in there. And as of 21 looking at that, I'm thinking, The grid still does not 22 appear to be comprehensive. There's just three or four 23 of them, I think. So my concerns are still: How does 24 that geophysical map work? Will it actually do -- in my 25 mind it'd be great to have like this -- this camera that 0029 1 takes a picture of the underground area so you can see 2 where the flow is. Because what you were saying is it 3 ranges from 1 foot below the surface to 5. In my mind, 1 4 don't recall you saying that any of the home -- the 5 townhouses, like, in this area would be basementless. 6 That's a new word I just invented, basementless. And 7 that sort of appears to be where the flow may come 32 14 MR. SHEAR: Brian. 15 MS. SHUBART: Brian. 16 MR. SHEAR: Yeah. 17 MS. SHUBART: Could you help me out there? 18 MR. SHEAR: Do I need to get up? 19 MS. MICHOW: Yeah. Do you have additional 20 comments, Joan? 21 MS. SHUBART: 'I had another question relative -- 22 MS. MICHOW: Okay. If you want to relate your 23 questions, and then Brian can respond -- 24 MS. SHUBART: Okay. 25 MS. MICHOW: -- to all of them. 0028 1 MS. SHUBART: Okay. 2 MS. MICHOW: I think that will help the flow. 3 MS. SHUBART: Okay. No problem. 4 MS. MICHOW: And if you -- unless you need to 5 point to that -- 6 MS. SHUBART: Okay. 7 MS. MICHOW: -- if you could stand closer to 8 the microphone. 9 MS. SHUBART: Sure. 10 MS. MICHOW: I'd'rather have you on tape -- 31 17 additional pavement; so therefore, maybe you're not 18 adding water, but the fact that the ---that storm flow is 19 coming down, it's going to come down here and affect some 20 of these dwellings as well as then -- it would pick up 21 what's maybe residing sort of here in -- I am not a 22 hydrologist. I am not a water engineer. But just in 23 thinking about that and having seen the past, that it 24 does come down here. And because of the arch of the 25 road, it's actually going to come down here, so it 0027 1 affects these dwellings. And then because it comes down 2 to Spring Creek, then that water goes down here, it 3 affects like Prospect commons -- or pardon me. Yeah. 4 No. Prospect Springs down here because the -- the creek 5 is closer. Now, down here you can't tell, but their -- 6 their homes are here. So if this creek is going to 7 overflow, then it's going to affect that area. So those 8 are the two concerns that I have is that there's a 9 natural like funnel to pull it down here. It's going to 10 pick up momentum, pick up additional water. So maybe it 11 doesn't add to it, but it's a natural funnel -- put it 12 down the creek. So -- let's see. What was your first 13 name? 30 20 has anything to add at this point. 21 SPEAKER: Staff has no additional comments. 22 MS. MICHOW: Okay. Then let's take any 23 additional comments from people in the audience. I'd 24 like to limit your comments not to what we've discussed 25 at the previous hearing, but to what you've heard tonight M 1 so we don't have to repeat what was said on January 16th 2 because I have all those notes and I have the tapes. So 3 if there's anything additional that you would like to add 4 or have questions about, please feel free to come up to 5 the podium and identify yourself by name and address. 6 SPEAKER: It's so dark. 7 MS. MICHOW: It is dark, isn't it? 8 MS. SHUBART: Okay. Joan Shubart, Ukiah Lane. 9 And the first question I have related to the storm water 10 --what isn't depicted here is that there's much of a 11 slope of Prospect. It kind of leans towards the south. 12 So if we have storm water that's coming down either west 13 to east on Prospect or it's coming down Robertson or some 14 of these other streets, so it will come here. There 15 seems to have been in the past a natural inclination 16 through this area. Now, to me it is where you've added 29 23 to -- to extend that. And that's certainly going to take 24 the cooperation of at least three and maybe four property 25 owners there to make sure that that gets done correctly. 0025 1 What Brian did not say is we have concern over some of 2 the trees there. And we'd like to be able to incorporate 3 those in the sidewalk design. And that will be one of 4 the discussion items we will have with the -- with the 5 neighbors as well as the City because the City, in my 6 experience, doesn't want and they want to take trees down 7 either. So the sidewalk may not be in strict conformance 8 with impacted arterial standards. So by way of summary, 9 1 think we put in everything into the record that we 10 could. We believe it's a good project. It's a good 11 design. It's going to be an asset to the City and an 12 asset to the neighborhood. And we're available to answer 13 questions at this point. 14 MS. MICHOW: Thank you. Now, before we 15 continue, let me stop the tape now before it -- 16 (Beginning of Tape 1, Side B) 17 MS. MICHOW: Okay. We're back on the record. 18 I'd like to take public comments if we're done with the 19 Applicants' portion of their presentation unless staff 0024 1 so that we have connectivity with that and Lesher Junior 2 High School. The situation that does not presently exist 3 today -- as Mr. Shear's testified, we've met or exceeded 4 all the requirements that the city engineering people 5 have had, including soil erosion of floodplain and stuff. 6 The design as -- as Mr. Dugan has testified to has 7 been -- has been worked at for a very long period of 8 time, too, and I believe in the city staff opinion is 9 quite respectful of what is gone on in the neighborhood 10 historically and what is there today. 11 The building materials were very carefully 12 picked as -- as was the location of the buildings there. 13 Again, we're -- we're in conformance with city street -- 14 streetscaping requirements, neighborhood compatibility, 15 emergency access, and I believe, the adequate public 16 facilities requirements that the City has. The uses that 17 are shown on the plan are permitted. It is a mixed use. 18 And the project, in our opinion and in city staffs 19 opinion as they submitted into the record at the last 20 meeting, is in conformance with the general development 21 standards.of the City. It is a partnership between the 22 City and the applicant to work on the sidewalk program 27 3 the -- one of the -- the good things about city plan in 4 terms of providing for mixed use in this case, mixed 5 housing types, infield project along in our trail, along 6 the arterial system, and -- and is really completely 7 compatible with the goals and objectives that the City 8 adopted when they adopted city plan. Mr. Dugan has -- 9 has related the -- how we conform with the land use 10 standards in Section 4.4 and the development standards 11 putting density and building height -- there's other very 12 similar types of housing in the immediate neighborhood in 13 terms of height, style, colors, and that sort of thing. 14 We've done quite a bit of work on -- on trying 15 to preserve several of the large trees on site. We're 16 doing either a sidewalk extension or pedestrian crossing 17 to meet the connectivity requirements that the City has 18 for transportation. We're doing extensive landscaping, 19 both exterior and interior to the side much more so than 20 the -- than is there today. We're connecting with the 21 Spring Creek trail. It's one of the goals of the City is 22 to be able to have more, again, connectivity to use that 23 term with -- with Spring Creek trail as a transportation 24 device. We're doing that. We're building the sidewalk 25 back to Barton Elementary School and the discovery center 26 6 responsible for the neighbors in those areas, also. 7 And then the only other item that I -- I just 8 want to bring up was there was some slides shown of the 9 other townhome project that the developer had constructed 10 at Shields and Swallow called the "Swallow Townhomes." 11 And that project was actually a much denser project. The 12 homes there were 12 units per acre on a smaller site. 13 And this is actually just under 8 units so (inaudible) so 14 just a little bit discrepancies there from what we were 15 seeing in the last presentation. 16 With that, I turn over to Mr. Peterson again 17 unless you have other questions. 18 MS. MICHOW: I don't. 19 MR. PETERSON: If I could, Madam Hearing 20 Officer, I'll do a very quick summary here. 21 As you have observed, our traffic engineer, 22 Mr. Capola, has put a -- his studies into the record. 23 And the city traffic engineer, I think, has put his 24 information in the last hearing. Tonight Mr. Shear has 25 put his information into the record. Mr. Dugan has put 0023 1 his -- his information. But in summary, this particular 2 plan for Pinnacle is -- is, as I read city plan, one of 25 9 to meet the pedestrian access requirement. 10 The other option that, I think, Cameron talked 11 about in the beginning was in addition to that sidewalk 12 there -- there could be a pedestrian crossing on Prospect 13 that would also meet the requirement. So it's kind of an 14 either/or situation. The other thing that we did provide 15 is a direct. connection from Prospect to the Spring Creek 16 trail with sidewalk along the east side of a extension of 17 Robertson -- Robertson Street from Prospect down 18 through -- through the site to the Spring Creek trail 19 which would sure help pedestrian -- bicycle circulation 20 throughout the whole neighborhood. I just got a couple 21 final comments related to the neighborhood presentation 22 at the last hearing. One of the -- one of the concerns 23 the neighbors had was they felt that the developer -- 24 they told them that there would be no covenants in the 25 project. And -- and I think there was just a 0022 1 misunderstanding on -- on that part. There will be 2 covenants that will be recorded that -- that will be in 3 place before the first building is occupied out there. 4 And there will be a formal homeowners association which 5 will own all of the common open -space areas and be 24 12 is 8 units per acre. We're just under that with the 13 density of 7.86 units per acre. And we have followed all 14 of the development standards with Section 4.4 for the 15 Code including architecture building height, meets the 16 building heights required. We've also complied or met or 17 exceeded all of the requirements of the general 18 development standards of the Land Use Code, which is 19 Article III. And those include landscaping and tree 20 protection, access circulation of parking, engineering, 21 which Mr. Shear just discussed. The development 22 improvements that will be done, especially the project, 23 again, we'll meet the City's Land Use Code and 24 engineering standards. We've complied with the natural 25 habitats of creatures sections of the Code. Building 0021 1 standards and architecture, we've -- we've come back and 2 forth with the city staff revising the plans to make sure 3 that it's compatible with the existing neighborhood as 4 far as building material size, height, colors, scale, and 5 then transportation. We've also complied with the Codes 6 as far as the requirements of the transportation and -- 7 in the sidewalk connection that Mr. Shear discussed is 8 more of the outside improvements that would be required 23 15 on the plan and kind of reinstate that we did follow all 16 of -- all the Land Use Code guidelines that were -- that 17 the City requires in — in the site planning process. 18 One of the -- one of the big things that most of 19 the people here probably don't realize -- but this was 20 a -- a very long process getting to this point -- we have 21 been working with the city staff for over a year and a 22 half when revising and improving both site plan and the 23 architectural elevations for the -- for the development 24 to make sure that the plan does comply with the City's 25 Land Use Codes. The uses that we are -- are proposing 0020 1 are all permitted in the LMN zone district, which is what 2 the property is currently zoned. The PDP that you see on 3 the screen here complies and meets all of those 4 requirements of that zone district. And that's actually 5 section 4.4 of the land - Land Use Code. And some of 6 those items are the permitted uses within that zone 7 district. And we have single-family -- detached and 8 single-family attached units. Those -- those types of 9 units are permitted in the Code, so we comply in that 10 aspect. 11 The maximum density allowed in the LMN district 22 18 respond to your questions at the conclusion of the 19 applicant's portion of the hearing. I think that would 20 help things along a little. So I hope you're keeping 21 copious notes of all the questions that you have, and 22 we'll just move on. 23 MR. PETERSON: I will ask Mr. Dugan. 24 MS. MICHOW: Okay. 25 MR. PETERSON: Who is the planner and 0019 1 (inaudible) architect for the project to come up and talk 2 about the plans, the architecture a little, and some of 3 the compatibility issues that occur with this. 4 SPEAKER: You can advance at the left. There we 5 go. 6 Speaker: (Inaudible) 7 SPEAKER: Just keep going, yeah, it's said plan. 8 There you go. 9 MR. DUGAN: Okay. I'm Tom Dugan with Pinecrest 10 Planning and Design. I'm the -- the site planner and 11 landscape architect for the project and just -- I know 12 most of the concerns that were raised at the last hearing 13 were not related to this specific design, so I'm going to 14 try and keep this fairly brief and just go over the items 21 21 our peak, the time it takes the concentration of our 22 hundred -year storm is maybe 10, 12, 15 minutes. But it 23 may take 30 to 40 minutes to peak with the main storm 24 over the 20 acres; yet so what that mearfs to -- to in 25 theory to storm water is that we -- we peak, and we're 0018 1 not contributing and raising that peak from the main 2 flow. 3 MS. MICHOW: Okay. Okay. 4 MR. SHEAR: Did I say that right? 5 MS. MICHOW: Thank you. That -- that's all 6 the questions I have. 7 MR. SHEAR: You're very welcome. 8 MS. MICHOW: Mr. Peterson, do you want to 9 continue? 10 MR. PETERSON: It is up to you, Madam Hearing 11 Officer. If you want us to continue, we will continue to 12 present our information into the record if that's all 13 right. 14 MS. MICHOW: I think if that's okay with 15 everyone if -- if you have specific questions, if you 16 could keep track of those questions, and then we'll 17 respond to -- or have the applicant -- excuse me -- 20 24 MR. SHEAR: Most of the Prospect Road drainage 25 is coming from the west as the public identified last 0017 1 meeting. 2 MS. MICHOW: Okay. 3 MR. SHEAR: And there's not a lot of outfall to 4 the south to Spring Creek, so it just rushes down the 5 street until it hits the top curve or top sidewalk or 6 driveways, or something like that. And then -- then it's 7 got several overflow points, but we're not contributing 8 to that. This project is not contributing any flows. 9 MS. MICHOW: Okay. And the "time to peak" 10 terminology, could you explain that for me? 11 MR. SHEAR: I'll do my best. That's a tough 12 one. But if you can picture a large watershed which has 13 20 acres, I'll say, compared to our 5-acre project, it 14 takes longer for that 20 acres to all peak at one point, 15 which I'm considering our project or the southeast corner 16 of our project as that point. Our project is a 5-acre 17 point. It contributes to the overall 20-acre watershed. 18 And this isn't a 20-acre watershed -- 19 MS. MICHOW: Uh-huh. 20 MR. SHEAR: -- I'm just using the example. But 19 1 we are conforming and meeting all of the city standards 2 and the requirements that were required in order to get 3 this project approved. Thank you. 4 MS. MICHOW: Mr. Shear, do you want this 5 handout introduced -- 6 SPEAKER: Yes. 7 MR. SHEAR: Yes, please. 8 MS. MICHOW: -- into evidence as part of the 9 record? Okay. 10 MR. SHEAR: Yes, please. 11 MS. MICHOW: And I -- I just have a couple 12 brief questions before -- 13 MR. SHEAR: Yes, ma'am. 14 MS. MICHOW: -- we continue. You mention in 15 your report that there are no increased flows in 16 Prospect Road due to this development. And could you 17 clarify that for me 'cause I'm -- I meant -- 18 MR. SHEAR: Yes. 19 MS. MICHOW: -- I am confused. 20 MR. SHEAR: Yes. We're south of Prospect Road. 21 We don't contribute one drop of storm water to 22 Prospect Road. 23 MS. MICHOW: Okay. m 4 because they may be more interested in obtaining the 5 right-of-way now because, as you know, we dedicate 6 right-of-way so they can ultimately widen to Prospect. 7 And it's fully developed up there, so everybody's going, 8 "Yeah. When are they ever going to widen it?" But we 9 dedicate it anyway so that it's there and then the City 10 might want to get the right-of-way instead of easements. 11 For our purposes, it's just -- it's sidewalk and either 12 one is fine with us. But whether the cost of utility 13 relocation, some of the electric volts, things like that, 14 the sidewalk may meander. Many have more easement on 15 some people's property than others. And, so anyway, 16 we're in the process right now of giving that design. 17 And I think that pretty much concludes what I want to 18 say. I do have handouts over here on the pile if 19 anybody's interested. It's just a summary what I had to 20 go over, and there are some attachments to the packet. 1 21 only brought like 30 and it looks like that's probably 22 enough. I -- at the last meeting, I wouldn't have 23 thought appeared to be, but bottom line with us is since 24 we do the design on water, sewer, floodplain, drainage, 25 everything like that, I just want to go on record saying 0016 17 7 Cameron mentioned that the City has offered to help us 8 out, talk to the folks along the south side of 9 Prospect Street where we're being asked to put in 10 sidewalk. And, of course, I'm sure a lot of you folks 11 here have already walked that section and know that you 12 run into things or step over electric volts, walk around 13 fire hydrants, run into mailboxes. Every once in a while 14 we have a clear path. What we know is that a lot of the 15 properties still have the 30 feet of right-of-way that 16 was originally dedicated when it was a county road. Then 17 Prospect widened out to its width right now. So the 18 south flow line actually is pushing that right-of-way. 19 If we were to put a 6-foot attached lock in right now 20 adjacent to that curb and gutter, we would be on private 21 property. Hedges, utilities, drives -- people are 22 parking along there. We just have our hands full 23 designing the sidewalk. 24 And so what we've been doing is coaching 25 property owners to participate with us in either 0015 1 right-of-way dedication or at minimum easement dedication 2 to allow us to build that sidewalk. The only reason I 3 think we're going to probably need help from the City is 16 10 folks actually gave us their designer recommendations, 11 not only for the structures, but also for the subdivision 12 infrastructure that tried to keep that groundwater level 13 somewhat down. So I guess, really, all I want to say is 14 that we did consider it. And we've looked at it a lot 15 more strongly since the last meeting, at least from the 16 individual unit standpoint:- see how it can better make 17 -for an eightplex's function together so that single -unit 18 owners don't get stuck with many pumping costs or flow of 19 a lot of groundwater that's going to get pumped around 20 the foundations of the homes. And then, of course, we 21 have to find a daylight point for that into Spring Creek. 22 So that's our challenge right now. And so we're in the 23 process of finishing that up now. And after this 24 hearing, we'd hope to resubmit to the City. I think 25 that's all I have to say about that. I'll talk a little 0014 1 bit about the Prospect Street sidewalk. 2 After the last meeting, we were advised to go 3 out and get it going and moving. And we went with the 4 surveyors, walked it. I took some pictures. I have them 5 here today if anybody's interested in seeing and where 6 the conflict's all about, to talk about. But earlier 15 13 because when I hear about people that are on Ukiah Lane 14 and actually have their houses and are pumping every day 15 and dealing with groundwater on a daily basis, we knew 16 that was coming. Pinnacle, the site was previously 17 designed as a Pinnacle PUD back in 1985. 1 believe there 18 was a sole support back then. And we saw groundwater 19 levels in there before of -- somewhere between one and a 20 half feet below the surface and five feet below the -- 21 below the surface. So we knew we had a groundwater 22 situation before we even got into the site. 23 We now have a geotechnical investigation 24 follow-up report by Terracon consultants here in town. 25 And it's called "Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed 0013 1 Pinnacle Townhomes." South of Prospect Road, north of 2 Spring Creek, less Lemay Avenue. And it was Terracon in 3 our town who did it. If anybody might notice some white 4 PVC sticking up out of the ground, those are monitoring. 5 devices that we can monitor the groundwater levels 'cause 6 1 think our report was done in something like September 7 or October. And at the time they found groundwater 8 levels somewhere between 5 and 7 feet. So we know it 9 fluctuates up and down. And in that report the Terracon 14 16 floodplain anyway. But regardless, our project actually 17 does not increase any flows because of the consideration 18 of the time and the amount of the watershed that comes 19 down to that point. And in our terms, that's called "the 20 time to peak." And -- and so ours is much less than the 21 main Spring Creek time to peak to that point past the 22 project. And I guess to put it in simple terms, our 23 drainage peaks faster and is already downstream before 24 the main peak of the -- of the flood came through. So it 25 wouldn't have had impact early in 1997. 1 know it sounds 0012 1 simplistic 'cause if you had (inaudible) everything up 2 and down, of course, there would be some sort of an 3 increase. But our study shows that (inaudible) and the 4 flood has not increased at that point. 5 Okay. I don't ask any questions right now; 6 right? And I don't take any questions -- 7 MS. MICHOW: No. You can just finish your 8 presentation. 9 MR. SHEAR: The next thing I'd talk about is the 10 groundwater system. And there's a lot of concern and -- 11 and first up, I'd like to say that I personally 12 listened -- listened very strongly at the last hearing 13 19 side of the site. Okay. 20 Based on everything that we've done, our feeling 21 is that we've met all of the floodplain and drainage and 22 City of Fort Collins' standards in general as it relates 23 to drainage, floodplain, water quality and erosion 24 control. Those are side things, but we have to meet 25 those, and so forth. One of the things that we have not 0011 1 done -- and I know it was a concern last meeting -- is we 2 know that there's a rush of water that goes down 3 Prospect Road. We have not increased that. We have not 4 changed that. We have designed our site such that there 5 is still overflow that does convey through our site via 6 our street system. And so we're not increasing any flows 7 downstream. We have not altered the flows to the east. 8 Also -- let's see here. Oh, actually, the other thing, 9 based on the hundred year or the floodplain modification 10 or because of the size of the site and because of all of 11 our concern about the Spring Creek flood and the 12 Spring Creek flooding that occurs down Spring Creek, 13 actually, our project fully developed -- we do have a 14 water quality pond, but we don't have a water quantity 15 detention pond. It would just fill up in the -- in the 12 22 we've provided our final grading, our final elevations, 23 those kind of things. Or above that, with the other 24 floodplain requirements here in the city, we talked to 25 Marsha Hilmes in the floodplain administration section of 0010 1 storm water, and we have actually prepared some exhibits 2 so that construction occurs accurately relative to actual 3 protection elevations and how we set our floors, slab on 4 grade, for example, a half -- one and a half feet above 5 the 100-year water surface elevation if we were going to 6 do crawl spaces. Then we have to pretend that the 7 crawl -space floor is the actual finished floor. So we 8 actually have to protect that crawl -space elevation of 9 one and a half foot above the floodplain. And then we 10 also have an exhibit for a full basement where we have a 11 basement with a window. We cannot allow our basement 12 windowsill height to exceed the 100-year water surface 13 elevation. And our finished grade actually -- I think 14 it's by Code (inaudible) told us to protect it by 15 42 inches. So our finished grade of our house, it's 16 actually 42 inches above the 100-year floodplain in the 17 basement situation minimum -- minimum. Some of our 18 houses have been as far as or up higher on the higher 11 25 standards are a little more strict, of course. So we Ae 1 have to stick to those. Okay. 2 Also, we utilize the Spring Creek floodplain 3 Flood Insurance Study map by Greenhorn and Lomara sheet 4 4 of 25. And I'm just going to hold up a plan here that 5 I'll -- I'll leave on the table for anybody to review. 6 But this is the start of our floodplain management 7 update. We started out with this map, and it shows 8 floodway, floodplain, all those things, up to the 9 100-year storm. And I don't think it -- this particular 10 map doesn't show the 500-year floodplain, but some -- 11 some maps do. So this was our start. We have 12 amended not the map itself, but the floodplain with the 13 new rainfall stats. And then we've hired a consultant to 14 perform the updated Spring Creek floodplain model, and 15 that's Northern Engineering here in town. The name of 16 the report they have prepared and the City's currently 17 reviewing -- and I think they've approved it, but I won't 18 say that for sure. I see not -- Floodplain Model and 19 Report for Pinnacle PUD prepared by Northern Engineering 20 Services in Fort Collins. 21 So based on that information and those studies, 10 2 all our building elevations relative to, first of all, 3 starting with FEMA mapping, which of course is on file 4 with the Federal Emergency Management Agency. That's on 5 a floodplain tool that we use, and of course, after the 6 '97 flood, a lot of things have happened since then; 7 i.e., the storm -drainage utility in the city of 8 Fort Collins by Code has actually increased the rain -- 9 rainfall runoff amounts. So actually, that's a lot 10 stricter now than it was back in 1997. Also, the 11 Spring Creek flood studies that are on file and adopted 12 by the City right now, we're not only utilizing those; 13 but we're also amending those for the new rainfall. And 14 then, also, we're considering anything that the City 15 asked us to consider relative to future studies along 16 Spring Creek. I guess the three main documents that 17 we've been referencing throughout the project from a 18 floodplain standpoint is the flood insurance rate map 19 which, of course, is still adopted and hasn't been 20 revised yet. So ultimately, we will have to do 21 floodplain elevation certificates and, Glen, do we still 22 use those for current elevation certificates? -- but our 23 design will have higher elevations for the new rainfall 24 stat -- standards because the City of Fort Collins' E 5 guess I'll start by saying that as a civil engineering 6 firm, everything we do from a design standpoint here in 7 Fort Collins goes through pretty immense scrutiny by the 8 City of Fort Collins staff. You have approval blocks on 9 our plans that won't be signed by staff until they feel 10 that we've met all the standards of the City and other 11 standards, too, in this case: floodplain management, 12 FEMA requirements, flood protection elevations on 13 housing, that kind of thing. Of course, in the 14 storm -drainage realm there is the storm -drainage design 15 criteria and construction -- construction standards 16 (inaudible) with the City of Fort Collins, and so we use 17 that as our manual or Bible for our storm -drainage 18 criteria. And then of course, we work with Glen in the 19 storm water, and all his staff where storm water actually 20 has several subdepartments -- floodplain development 21 review, master planning, water quality, and erosion 22 control. So we deal with all those subjects through 23 their part. Also, in engineering, we deal with streets 24 and transportation and then, of course, water (inaudible) 25 utilities. 0008 1 Basically, we've designed the project and set f3 A 8 summary in terms of the issues. So with that, I would 9 like to ask Mr. Shear -- and probably get up and go to 10 the microphone and go through his presentation. 11 MS. MICHOW: Okay. 12 MR. PETERSON: And I also -- while we're 13 talking, I noticed that Mr. Springer from the city's 14 engineering department has arrived, also Mr. Schlueter from 15 the city storm -drainage utility. 16 MS. MICHOW: Great. 17 SPEAKER: I may have some side shots. 18 SPEAKER: Excuse me? 19 SPEAKER: We have some side shots and you're 20 welcome to advance that if you need some help. 21 MR. SHEAR: I'm Brian Shear, Shear Engineering, 22 the civil consultant on this project. I was asked to 23 provide information based on our last meeting and your 24 concerns on storm water and underground water conveyance, 25 and so, I'll talk about those first. Secondarily, I'll 0007 1 talk about the Prospect Street sidewalk extension which 2 we've started pursuing, and we've done our survey on it. 3 And we will talk a little bit more about the right-of-way 4 and the easement acquisition requirements possible. I 7 A 11 wanted to bring up. And with that, that concludes my 12 presentation. 13 MS. MICHOW: Thank you, Cameron. 14 MR. PETERSON: If I could, Madam Hearing 15 Officer, for the record, I'm Tom Peterson. I'm city 16 planner by profession or planner by profession and a 17 member of the American Institute of Certified Planners 18 and also assisting the applicant with this project. With 19 me tonight, we would like to put in three parts of 20 testimony, if you will. The first, to address the 21 storm -water issues that were brought up at the last 22 meeting, and essentially, the -- what I heard to be 23 engineering design issues. We have Brian Shear, the 24 engineer of record, from Shear Engineering here in 25 Fort Collins. Secondly, I believe we need to put in 0006 1 testimony about some of the compatibility issues and 2 highlight those in terms of how we if conformed with city 3 requirements, and with me tonight is Tom Dugan, who's 4 been the side planner and landscape architect on this 5 from Pinecrest and -- Pinecrest Design and Engineering. 6 And he will be putting testimony and then -- then, 7 finally, at the end of those items, I will do a quick 2 w 14 signal which would allow movements across East Prospect 15 immediately adjacent to the subject property, and the 16 other option's actually to fill the sidewalk, contribute 17 to -- to the construction of the sidewalk financially in 18 the design of that from --along the frontage of this 19 property to the west down to the next intersection where 20 there is a crossing towards the school. That would 21 require acquisition of right-of-way if the City does not 22 have at the present time or public access easements for 23 the sidewalk. . 24 And I did receive two telephone calls from 25 residents within that stretch of East Prospect. Those 0005 1 properties would be impacted and they were concerned 2 about the process. And they wanted to be notified of any 3 discussions that the City has with them, and I've -- and 4 I've told them what the process would be and that is -- 5 in order for the City to build within that area to put in 6 a public sidewalk, they have to either, one, obtain 7 public right-of-way, or two, retain a public access 8 easement. And that there's a process that we would go to 9 do that. So those are the issues that -- that we have, 10 not discussed and at length and at the last meeting I .01 17 if you read more into this letter, you get into 18 subsequent paragraphs where they talk about additional 19 land primarily to the --well, to the east and to the 20 west of this property that could be developed at some 21 future date and that the recommendation of that -- this 22 particular group is to have the City do some kind of a 23 master planing exercise until -- before any additional 24 development is approved, so I'm going to submit that to 25 the hearings officer. I did also receive phone calls 0004 1 about potential right-of-way acquisition by the City to 2 extend a sidewalk, and this was an issue that was raised 3 through the review process and brought up at the last 4 hearing. 5 The City is asking for the applicant to make 6 certain that children and elders that -- that use this 7 corridor along East Prospect, particularly those that are 8 coming from the public trail, Spring Creek to the -- to 9 the school and the church to the north and the west, that 10 they have adequate public pedestrian facility sidewalks 11 and walkways to get there. And there's a couple of 12 different approaches the City has asked the applicant to 13 look at. Two options: One is a pedestrian activated 4 20 Spring Creek as well as subsurface or groundwater types 21 of impact. The city storm -water utility has spent a 22 considerable amount of time looking at the submitted 23 reports from the applicant, and we are satisfied, as a 24 city staff, that the city standards for storm water and 25 groundwater are satisfied with -- with materials that 0003 1 have been submitted by the applicant. I also wanted to 2 submit, for the record, a letter with a date of 3 February 6, 2002, from David and Reggie Lauer. And they 4 reside at 1404 Robertson. They are unable to attended 5 the hearings this evening, and they wanted to relay this 6 information to the group and hearings officer about some 7 specific issues they have. I think they were all covered 8 quite thoroughly in the neighbors' presentation, the last 9 hearing, as well as the staffs presentation, except for 10 one item which I think is worthwhile to note. 11 They are specifically asking that all 12 development proposals for the stretch of East Prospect 13 between Stover and Lemay be put on hold until more 14 in-depth studies are completed on -- on the issues that 15 we talked about this last time -- traffic congestion, 16 safety, and storm-water/groundwater concerns. And you -- 3 23 and had to continue the matter. I believe we did have to 24 renotice this hearing because we had not continued it to 25 a time and date certain. And I'd like to confirm, for 0002 1 the record, that we have renoticed; is that correct? 2 SPEAKER: That's correct, yes. 3 MS. MICHOW: Okay. And we'd also ask that if 4 you do have questions and comments, to identify 5 yourselves by your name and address and relationship to 6 the project. And if you could, I think it'd be easier if 7 we all use the microphone up here, as opposed to just 8 speaking out at your seats. And I think that will help 9 the flow of this hearing, and it will help for purposes 10 of tape recording. With that, I'll turn it over to 11 Cameron. 12 MR. GLOSS: Thank you very much. I'm 13 Cameron Gloss and current planning director, the city of 14 Fort Collins. And this is a continued item. The 15 specific issues that were raised -- purpose for which we 16 are hearing this today and tonight is to review some 17 issues that were outstanding that came through the review 18 process and is specifically related to storm -water 19 impacts, both the surface flows of water from 2 0001 1 FORT COLLINS - PINNACLE TOWNHOMES PDP 2 (Beginning of Tape 1, Side A.) 3 MS. MICHOW: If we could get started here 4 tonight. Hello? My name is Linda MICHOW. I'm the 5 hearing officer for purposes of this Type-1 6 Administrative Hearing. Today is February 13, 2002. It 7 is approximately 5:00 o'clock. We are in the City of 8 Fort Collins administrative offices at 281 North College. 9 And, as some of you know, the project we're considering 10 tonight is Pinnacle Townhomes PDP. This hearing was 11 continued from January 13 -- 16th -- excuse me -- 2002, 12 at the request of city staff, as well as the applicants, 13 based on some storm -water utility issues and concerns 14 they -- or questions they had about the project. I won't 15 repeat myself in terms of opening remarks. This is a 16 formal hearing in that we're taking testimony for 17 purposes of having a record in the event there is an 18 appeal of this decision. 19 1 believe at the last hearing we had heard from 20 all members of the public. The applicant was in the 21 process of responding to some of those comments when we 22 simply ran .out of time, had to give up our meeting room, 1 E PITKIN ST D EP'�KiNsr LOW -DENSITY ° MIXED -USE ESIDENTIALCn co 0 s� ro o o � e 0 J LAKE PL E ' Yrt d ! pay r� tip` i fY { Rn . n k �i'`nvRp / r N� Oj VA EL EsT MEIUIV1'° DENSITY;: IXED IUSE<RESID;ENTI s-66 E PROSPECT RD A LOW-DENSITYtk MIXED -USE RESIDENTIAL �] ii IT t i f5 rj/i `3 iHS I YY"rtS�Yfp i "% 3 Y V i d•3` k •ry 0bi re [� k Ur �i A It t .. 4�� I� ` a i Y' "h F L q. Gi � r '2_ a .ryP+;aa. �M '%� > rb }Wvgt� + P � Y � � $! p� a ` 4.. 3''y M�. f $ �` �3h Tid- Y a C9J Kri ay Y `•" s R,URAL/OPENLANDS nAie# p.. tl�$i, A 3 i ^ai RESIco DENTIAL Structure Plan DesignationsIN �_� East Pros ect/Lema Intersection E S Zoning Designations N East Pros ect/Lema Intersection Wc�� t p Y � s 4.5.3 Project Impact Assessment. raised medians, visibility, curb ramps, pedestrian buttons, -- convenience, . F convenience, comfort, and security. Notes: d. Visual Interest and Amenity. Pedestrians enjoy visually appealing environments that are compatible with local architecture and include street lighting, fountains, and benches. e. Security. Pedestrians should be visible to motorists, separated from motor vehicles and bicycles, and under adequate street lighting. f. Surface Condition. Pedestrian facilities should be free from obstructions, cracks, and interruptions. (space below intentionally left blank) Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards Page 4-25 January 2, 2001 4.5.3 Project Impact Assessment. require the issuance of an Access Permit from CDOT. The number --- of access points must be kept to a minimum and be designed to be! Notes: consistent with the type of roadway facility. Access points will be! reviewed and approved by the Local Entity based on the following information: a. Access location(s) as shown on the site plan. b. Proposed traffic turning movements. c. - Analysis of on site (driveway) stacking/queuing and impacts to adjacent streets. d. Signalization requirements and design in accordance with these guidelines. e. Geometric design of the access and proposed improvements to the Local Entity facilities in accordance with ITE, AASHTO, CDOT, NCHRP or other nationally accepted design standards. f. Compliance with the CDOT State Highway Access Code if access is requested to a State Highway. 5. Traffic Signals. a. Proposed and existing access points, proposed intersections, and existing intersections effected by the land use actions being analyzed in the report that have any potential for signalization will be reviewed and discussed during the Scoping meeting. Discussion will include review of existing signals/potential modifications, proposed signals, school signals for school crossings, school flashers, pedestrian signals/crossings, and any other potential for signal devices and signal interconnect issues. b. During the Scoping Meeting an outline of locations for signal warrant analysis will be agreed upon. Generally, most traffic signal locations have been predetermined by each Local Entity Engineer and policies have been set in the comprehensive Transportation Plan of the Local Entity for its planning area including the Growth Management Area. c. Signal Warrant Analysis for potential signal locations shall consist of a review of each one the signal warrants contained in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. d. If any location proposed for signalization is not spaced according to the appropriate Comprehensive Transportation Plan or Local Entity's signal spacing policy, then a traffic signal progression analysis will be required. The analysis limits, parameters (including allowable phasing, split times, walk timing, clearances and methods) to be used for the study will be discussed at the Scoping Meeting. Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards Page 4-23 January 2, 2001 4.5.3 Project Impact Assessment. forms for reporting the results of the intersection level of Notes: service evaluations. 0 unaceeptable-Jevel rdE service! For definition purposes, the thresholds for acceptable level=of seruice.are-as shown in Table 4-2 and Table 4=3 . All intersection components shall meet the following requirements Table 4-2 Lovelana motor venicle LUS standards (Intersections) Intersection Major' Minor Driveway Coponent Intersection' Intersection2 m I Overall I LOS C I LOS C I No Limit Any Leg Any Movement I LOSE I LOS F I No Limit Includes all signalized and unsignalized arterial/arterial and arterial/ major collector intersections. 2Includes all unsignalized intersections (except major intersections) and high volume driveways able4 33 Fort Collins Motor Vehicle LOS Standards (Intersections) Land Use (from.strtcture plan) y -Commercial; Other corridors within corridors Intersection type 1. Mixed use° > `Low density mixed . ; All other. " ' districts .use residential ` "= ' areas . Signalized D E* r„ D D intersections 4 V overall Stop sign control N/A F** F** E (arterial/local—any approach leg) Stop sign control N/A C C C (collector/local— any approach leg) mitigating measures required " considered normal in an urban environment 4. Driveway Access. The design, number, and location of access points to collector and arterial roadways must be submitted for approval by the Local Entity Engineer. State Highway accesses page 4.22 Larimer County Urban Area Street Standard January 2, 2001 4.5.3 Project Impact Assessment. specific classes of roadways, a general evaluation should be made __ _._ of the street system for the specified analysis horizons. The base' Notes. - peak hour volumes to be used for determination of the acceptable: maximum traffic volumes allowed for the specific class of roadway are shown in Table 4-1. Arterial and Non -arterial'; worksheets are provided in Attachments "E" and "F" for the' applicant's use in establishing the acceptable threshold value for; each roadway within the study area. These worksheets must bet included in the TIS for review and approval by the Local Entity Engineer. A summary report of the level of service evaluations fort roadway links shall be presented in the TIS. See Attachment "G" for a format example. Within one block (approximately 500 to 1000 feet) of an intersection with a street of higher functional classification, additional through and turning lanes may be required on a street to meet the level of service requirements in Table 4-1 and/or for the intersection. The additional lanes shall not be considered a reclassification of the street. Table 4-1 Loveland Motor Vehicle LOS Standards (Roadway Links) Facility Classification Guideline Average Daily Traffic Unadjusted Base Peak Hour Volume (per lane Level of Service Alley 200 20 vph (2-way) A Lane 200 20 vphpl A Local Residential 1000 60 vphpl A Local Commercial/Industrial 1600 160 vphpl A Minor Collector 3000 300 vphpl B Major Collector 5500 550 vphpl B 2 Lane Arterial 15000 800 vphpl C 4 Lane Arterial 35000 800vphpl C 6 Lane Arterial 55000 800 vphpl C State Highways, except US-34 between Madison & Wilson and US-287 between 501" & 81h SE) 65000 800 vphpl C 3. Intersection Delay a. An A.M. and P.M. peak hour intersection level of service analysis shall be conducted for each intersection analyzed in the TIS, based on procedures specified in the most recent release of the Highway Capacity Manual. In Loveland only, specific level of service summary work sheets shall be included in the TIS. See Attachments "H", "I", and "J" for sample Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards Page 4-21 January 2, 2001 4.5.2 Significant Negative Impacts (Fort Collins Only). Notes. A. For Signalized Intersections. 1. When the added project traffic causes an intersection to fail the minimum acceptable level of service standard; or B. For Unsignalized Intersections. 1. When backstacking to adjacent intersections would create impeded traffic flows and/or excessive congestion; or 2. When added project traffic is determined to create potential safety problems. 3. For Local Residential Streets: Projected Average Daily. Project Related Increase In ADT Traffic With Project (Total ADT) Up to 2,000 12 percent or more of Total ADT 2,000 10 percent or more of Total ADT Project Impact Assessment. The key elements of the project impact assessment include evaluations of issues outlined for a specific Analysis Level. Refer to Section 4.3.4 for a listing of the Evaluation Elements. A. Motor Vehicle Impact Evaluations Existing Condition Diagrams (Loveland Only Drawings shall be prepared and included in the report to document traffic counts, lane geometrics (including striping, signing and other pavement markings), traffic control, existing access locations, lane lengths, widths, tapers, and any other notable features. When arterial roadways are impacted by the proposed project, the report shall include a tabulation or diagram which identifies the number of existing and proposed accesses contained within, and up to one - quarter mile of, the evaluated arterial link and/or intersection 2. Link Congestion (Loveland Only). Using the peak hour traffic volumes forecast and the maximum traffic volumes allowed for the Page 4-20 'Larimer County Urban Area Street Standard January 2, 2001 4.4.4 Total Traffic 4.4.4 Total Traffic The total traffic projections will be determined for each of the analysis! Notes: horizons identified earlier in the base assumptions. The total traffic } projections will include the existing traffic, plus the future background; traffic, plus the project generated traffic. The future total traffic; projections will be depicted on figures for each study year. Based upon l the total traffic projections and the Local Entity's street standards and! Transportation Master Plan, the Applicant shall provide roadway functional classification recommendations. For example, in Fort, Collins, a roadway projected to carry between 3,500 and 5,0001 vehicles per day would be recommended as a Major Collector Street, where as if the projected traffic was between 1,000 and 2,500 vehicles per day, it would be recommended as a Connector Local Street. 4.5 `PROJECT IMPACTS 4.5.1 Significant Negative Impacts (Loveland Only). Significant Negative Impacts are defined as: A. When the project's (land use action) traffic causes the estimated traffic to exceed the established maximum traffic volumes allowed for the specific classes of roadways; or B. When the added project traffic causes any portion of an intersection to exceed the LOS standard; or C. When the project traffic, when added to all other traffic in the design year, will cause the total estimated traffic on any roadway link for the design year to exceed the ACF maximum traffic volume allowed for that roadway link; unless the project traffic is less than or equal to two percent of the ACF maximum traffic volume on each non -compliant link; or D. When the project traffic when added to all other traffic in the design year, will cause any movement or leg of an intersection to fail the ACF delay standard; unless the increased delay caused by the project is less than or equal to two percent of the ACF delay standard for that movement or leg of the intersection. E. The project traffic analysis shall be calculated based upon the cumulative increase in traffic and/or the cumulative increase in intersection delay of all phases, lots, tracts or other subsections of a GDP or any subsection not contained within a GDP. Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards Page 4-19 January 2, 2001 4.4.3 Project Traffic trips. In all cases, the underlying, assumptions of the ITE trip Notes: generation rates must be recognized and considered before any reductions are used in the TIS. Two specific situations will be closely reviewed. The first is when the traffic study assumes rates where the collection of mixed uses, such as at a shopping center, result in lower peak hour trips than when applying individual rates to each land use. The second is when reductions in the trip generation rates are assumed based on reductions due to travel demand management Pass -by Trigs. This first category may be considered when trips to the proposed development currently exist as part of the background traffic stream, referred to as a pass -by trip. Pass -by percentages identified in the ITE Trip Generation report or other industry publications will be considered with appropriate explanation and documentation. Pass -by traffic must remain assigned to driveways and access points. They are not additive to the background traffic stream. A technical appendix, table or map that illustrates the re - diversion of pass -by trips is required which may be submitted as a legible, hand-written work sheet(s). 2. Internal Site Trips/TDM' Analytic support documentation of internal site trips, transit use, and TDM (Transportation Demand Management) actions shall be provided to show how trip, adjustments are derived. Optimistic assumptions regarding transit use and TDM actions will not be accepted unless accompanied by specific implementation proposals that will become a condition of approval. Such implementation proposals must have a high expectation of realization within a 5-year period after project initiation. F. Trip Distribution. Trip distribution must be documented in the TIS. It may be based on the professional engineer's judgment applied to one or more of the following: regional MPO traffic volume projections, gravity model, market analysis, existing traffic flows, or applied census data. Regardless of the basis of the estimates, the procedures and rationale used in determining the trip distributions must be fully explained and documented. G. Trip Assignment. The project traffic will be assigned to the roadway system according to the trip distribution established above. The resulting project site generated traffic -and total site traffic will be depicted on figures for each analysis horizon. These figures will include daily (in Fort Collins only) and peak hour traffic volume information. Separate maps or values are required when the trip distribution differs by more than 10% between the short and long range analysis horizons. i Page 4-18 Larimer County Urban Area Street Standard January 2, 2001 4.4.3 Project Traffic dwelling units permitted for the approved land uses, and/or the maximum trip generation rates for the non-resident development! Notes: proposed land use action. When a TIS is being developed for a projecti with an established site -specific development plan, trip generation shall be based on actual dwelling unit counts and square footage(s) proposed on the final plan. C. Trip Generation Table. The Applicant shall prepare a Trip';, Generation Table, listing each type of land use within the site at build - out, the size and unit of measure for each land use, trip generation'', rates (total daily traffic, A.M. and P.M. peaks), directional splits for', each in/out driveway, the resultant total trips generated. The data'', source shall be stated (state ITE land use code, if used). Build -out land uses and trip generation shall be used for both the short range and long range planning horizons. Land use action proposed that is of a type that build -out in the short-range is not feasible due to the size of development (as agreed upon by the Local Entity at the Scoping Meeting), may propose phases (such as 2-year increments) for the development. D. Committed Trips/Capacity (Loveland Only). To assure the public and the Local Entity that the traffic impact analysis adequately addresses the full impact of the development, the trip generation stated in the TIS will establish the maximum number of trips permitted entering and exiting the development. If the amount of committed trips is reached prior to full occupancy, the Local Entity reserves the right to request from the owner, at the owners expense, supplemental traffic analyses prior to the issuance of additional building permits. This information shall demonstrate that uncommitted capacity is available on the transportation network to serve the excessive trips, or that additional transportation mitigation improvements can be reasonable installed to maintain compliant operation with the excessive trips. If no additional capacity is available, or no reasonable mitigation conforming to the requirements of these street standards can be implemented, the Applicant shall obtain a exception from the City Council for the non -conformity with the ACF requirements or scale back the intensity of the proposed land uses as needed to achieve compliance. If the project is fully occupied and it is determined that the approved land use action's traffic exceeds that which was included in the approved TIS, the Local Entity Engineer is authorized to require the property to conduct additional traffic analysis and provide additional mitigation measures. E. Adjustments to Trip Generation. Trip -making reduction factors may be used after first generating trips at full ITE rates or pre -approved rates from other professional sources. These factors fall into two categories: those that reassign some portion of generated trips to the background stream of traffic, and those that remove or move generated Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards Page 4-17 January 2,2001 4.4.3 Project Traffic Notes 4.4.3 B. Long Range Volume Projections (Loveland Only). Long range A.M. and P.M. peak hour planning horizon traffic volume projections shall be based on the traffic modeling volumes contained in the most recent update to the Transportation Master Plan. Special requests for projections not contained in the accepted and published model results will require special approval by af}d the Local Entity Engineer. Note that the modeled projections are based on future year population and employment projections that reflect a regional perspective on growth and development. The Applicant will need to investigate the land use assumptions as they apply to the transportation network to be studied to document in the TIS any projection adjustments if necessary. For the long range planning horizon network analysis, all planned and funded surface transportation facilities as per the Local Entity's Transportation Master Plan within the study area may be included for the baseline assumptions C. Long Range Volume Projection (Ft. Collins). 1. Straight line projection for the build out year between the existing traffic volumes and the twenty year North Front Range Transportation and Air Quality Planning Council's (MPO) regional model forecast, CDOT rates or 2. Historical traffic counts projected to the build -out year (at least three years of traffic data should be used for this), or 3. Area -wide traffic count analysis which considers traffic volume trends in the study area's circulation system and uses proportion/extrapolation methods. Project Traffic A. Trip Generation Rate. Trip generation should be calculated from the latest data contained within the Institute of Transportation Engineers' Trip Generation Manual. Other industry publications (such as the ITE Journal or other sources) may be approved by the Local Entity. Data limitations, data age, choice of peak hours (for the land use or adjacent street traffic), choice of independent variables, and choice of average rate versus statistically significant modification should be discussed in the study when appropriate. When data is not available for a proposed land use or a modification is proposed, the Applicant must conduct a local trip generation study following procedures prescribed in the ITE Trip Generation Manual and provide sufficient justification for the proposed generation rate. This rate must be approved by the Local Entity prior to its use in the written study. B. Preliminary Land Use Assumptions. The trip generation values contained in studies submitted prior to the establishment of a site - specific development plan shall be based on the maximum number of Paae 4-16 Larimer County Urban Area Street Standard January 2, 2001 4.4.2 Background Traffic 1. Existing and Short Range Horizon. Peak hour factors that are, ---- higher than a minimum of 0.85 shall be calculated (Loveland Notes: only). 2. Long Range Horizon. A peak hour factor of 0.90 may be used for the Long Range Horizon. Greater values may be used if approved by the Local Entity Engineer. C. Roadway Links (Loveland Only). Roadway links shall be analyzed. Acceptable maximum traffic volumes allowed for the specific class of roadway are shown in Table 4-1. 4.4.2 Background Traffic A. Short Range Volume Projections. The traffic forecast for the short range planning horizon shall be the sum of existing traffic volumes plus cumulative development traffic from approved land use actions, plus background growth (as adjusted to avoid duplicative consideration of the identified development traffic from the approved land uses already considered). The cumulative development traffic shall be based, in part, on the A.M. and P.M. peak hour and ADT data established and accepted from planned and approved land use actions within and near the study area. In Loveland, 100% of the committed trips from the build out of the planned (i.e. documented in a complete land use application accepted by the City) and approved projects in the study area must be included in the short range volume projection. The assumed baseline surface transportation network should reflect existing facilities (without the proposed project improvements) plus any committed improvements by the Local Entity, other public agencies, and/or other approved land uses within the study area as described in Title 16.41.080.0 of the Loveland Municipal Code. In Fort Collins, only the percentage of trips from the approved projects that are expected to be generated in the short range year (5 years into the future) must be included. In both communities, the short range planning horizon background traffic growth rate shall be based on a growth rate from the Scoping Meeting based on one of the following methodologies: 1. Straight line projection for the build out year between the existing traffic volumes and the twenty year North Front Range Transportation and Air Quality Planning Council's (MPO) regional model forecast, CDOT rates or 2. Historical traffic counts projected to the build -out year (at least three years of traffic data should be used for this), or 3. Area -wide traffic count analysis which considers traffic volume trends in the study area's circulation system and uses proportion/extrapolation methods. Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards Page 4-15 January 2, 2001 4.4.1 Existing Traffic 6 Si h dts nceevaluattons andrecornmendattons (intersection, stopping,=passing); _ m.. 7. Contihuitu�Eand�adeauacus:of 4nedestnanxa`rid.�bike;.facilities` within 8. 9. 10. TRAFFIC VOLUMES 1 Existing Traffic A. Roadway Traffic Volumes/Traffic Counts. Current A.M. and P.M. peak hour traffic counts as specified by the Local Entity Engineer shall be obtained for the roadways within the study area for one, non - holiday Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday. 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. Weekend counts and/or average daily counts on local streets may also be required where appropriate when requested by the Local Entity Engineer. Local Entity or CDOT AWT counts may be used when available. Pedestrian counts and bike usage should be obtained. Vehicle classification counts may be required. In any case, these volumes shall be no more than one year old (from the date of application submittal). The source(s) of each of the existing traffic volumes shall be explicitly stated (CDOT counts, new counts by Applicant, Local Entity counts, etc.) Summaries of current traffic counts shall be provided. The Local Entity may require the use of seasonal adjustment factors depending on when data was collected and if the project is considered to be in an affected area. (i.e. Tourism) B. Intersection Level of Service. A.M. and P.M. peak hour intersection levels of service shall be determined for the existing signalized and unsignalized intersections with collectors and arterials within the transportation network to be studied. Locations to be analyzed will normally be set in the "Scoping Meeting." The analysis shall use procedures described in the latest edition of the Highway Capacity Manual and use calculated peak hour factors. Factors for intersections will be by approach and those used for roadways will be by facility unless otherwise directed by the Local Entity. Page 4-14 Larimer County Urban Area Street Standard January 2, 2001 4.3.4 Evaluation Elements 1. No Long Range Horizon is required as part of this study. _ 2. Conformity with the adopted Transportation Master Plan. j Notes: i 3. Peak hour link volume and level of service (see Table 4-1); 4. Peak hour intersection and driveway level of service (see Table= 4-2 and Table 4-3); 5. Appropriateness of access locations; 3 6. Location and, requirements for turn lanes ors acceleration/deceleration lanes at accesses or intersections, including recommendations for taper lengths, storage length, E acceleration/deceleration lengths, and other geometric design', requirements per Local Entity or CDOT requirements; 7. Sight distance evaluations and recommendations (intersection,! stopping, passing); 8. Continuity and adequacy of pedestrian and bike facilities to the; nearest attraction (existing or imminent) within the study area; 9. Recommended traffic control devices for intersections which may F include two way stop control, four way stop control or yield signs,; school flashers, school crossing guards, crosswalks, traffic signals„ or roundabouts. 10. Traffic signal and stop sign warrants. 11. Progression analysis for signalized intersections. 12. Appropriateness of the existing roadway signing and striping (Loveland only). 13. Safety and accident analysis. 14. Other items as requested by the Local Entity Engineer and agreed to in the Scoping Meeting. 15. Neighborhood and public input issues. 1. Noon Lg RangeHonzon i`s required as part of this study. — 7 2. 'Peak I our hnk�Vo1ume-and l6vel.6f service_;.Xsee Table 4-1); 3. 'Peak hour drr, a&dy, slevel of'servtce (see Table 4-2 and Table 4-3); 4. p ropcia[eness of acce s`locations- 5. Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards Page 4-13 January 2, 2001 4.3.4 Evaluation Elements 5. Pedestrian/bike requirements and/or improvements; Notes: 6. Safety and accident analysis. 7. Other items as requested by the Local Entity Engineer and agreed to in the Scoping Meeting. 8. Neighborhood and public input issues. B. Full TIS. The key elements of the project impact assessment for a Full TIS shall include the following evaluations: 1. Conformity with the adopted Transportation Master Plan. 2. Peak hour link volume and level of service (Loveland only) (see Table 4-1 and Table 4-2); 3. Peak hour intersection and driveway level of service (see Table 4-2 and Table 4-3); 4. Appropriateness of access locations; 5. Location and requirements for turn lanes or acceleration/deceleration lanes at accesses or intersections, including recommendations for taper lengths, storage length, acceleration/deceleration lengths, and other geometric design requirements per Local Entity or CDOT requirements; 6. Sight distance evaluations and recommendations (intersection, stopping, passing); 7. Multi -modal and TDM opportunities; 8. Continuity and adequacy of pedestrian and bike facilities to the nearest attraction (existing or imminent) within the study area; 9. Recommended traffic control devices for intersections which may include two way stop control, four way stop control or yield signs, school flashers, school crossing guards, crosswalks, traffic signals or roundabouts. 10. Traffic signal and stop sign warrants. 11. Progression analysis for signalized intersections. 12. Appropriateness of the existing roadway signing and striping (Loveland only). 13. Safety and accident analysis. 14. Other items as requested by the Local Entity Engineer and agreed to in the Scoping Meeting. 15. Neighborhood and public input issues. C. Intermediate TIS. At a minimum, the following issues should be considered for submittal of an Intermediate TIS: Page 4-12 Larimer County Urban Area Street Standard January 2, 2001 4.3.4 Evaluation Elements Notes: 4.3.4 Evaluation Elements A. Master TIS. The purpose of the Master Transportation Impact Study is to provide a general sense of the overall impacts to the transportation system and to identify the larger scale improvement needs necessitated by the proposed zoning (i.e. widening of arterials, connecting key gaps in the street system, etc.). The Master Transportation Impact Study does not need to include intersection analyses, although it may, at the Applicant's option, if the Applicant intends to proceed with a specific phase of the project immediately following approval of the General Development Plan (Loveland) or Overall Development Plan (Fort Collins). Also, in cases where a developer seeks vesting with a General Development Plan or Overall Development Plan, the Master Transportation Impact Study is required to present all the detailed information required in an Individual Site Transportation Impact Study. For example, for a large General Development Plan or Overall Development Plan with a multi -phase build -out, the Master TIS would not only address the overall project, but also identify key measurable criteria that would trigger, the construction of some incremental portion of the overall infrastructure improvement plan. Typically at the Preliminary Development Plan (PDP) or Preliminary Plat stage, with each phase of the project a new individual site TIS specific to that phase_ would be prepared. This new study would verify the accuracy of the original traffic projections, both on -site and background, and check the criteria identified for infrastructure improvements, and other pertinent information. The key elements of the project impact assessment for a Master TIS shall include the following minimum evaluations: 1. Conformity with the adopted Transportation Master Plan. 2. Peak hour link volume and level of service (Loveland only) (see Table 4-1 and Table 4-2); 3. Appropriateness of access locations; 4. Multi -modal and TDM opportunities; Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards Page 4-11 January 2, 2001 4.3.3 Study Area _^ 5. Loveland Only. Additional offsite major intersections where: Notes: a. The project contributes a 10 percent impact (during either the A.M. or P.M. peak hour) to any approach leg of the intersection where the intersection is operating at a level of service of C or better in the Short Range Horizon, or b. The project contributes a 5 percent impact (during either the A.M. or P.M. peak hour) to any approach leg of the intersection where the intersection is operating at a level of service of D or worse in the Short Range Horizon, 6. Loveland Only. Additional offsite minor intersections where the project contributes a 30 percent increase in volume (during either the A.M. or P.M. peak hour) to any approach leg of the intersection where any existing leg of the intersection is currently operating at a level of service of E or worse; 7. Pedestrian and bicyclist destinations (existing or imminent) within 1320 feet of the site. 8. Access to the most direct transit facility or transit route (existing or imminent) within 1,320 feet of the site. 9. Loveland Only. Any pedestrian routes within 1-1/2 mile miles of a school (residential land uses only). C. Intermediate TIS 1. All adjacent streets, intersections, and High -Volume Driveways; 2. Loveland Only. The nearest offsite major intersection(s) only if: a. The project contributes a 10 percent impact (during either the A.M. or P.M. peak hour) to any approach leg of the intersection where the intersection is operating at a level of service of C or better in the Short Range Horizon, or b. The project contributes a 5 percent impact (during either the A.M. or P.M. peak hour) to any approach leg of the intersection where the intersection is operating at a level of service of D or worse in the Short Range Horizon, 3. Loveland Only. Offsite collector and arterial links within the study area that have impacted intersections as defined in item 2 above. 4. Internal public roads, including establishing the road classification; 5. Pedestrian and bicyclist destinations (existing or imminent) within 1320 feet of the site. 6. Access to the most direct transit facility or transit route (existing or imminent) within 1,320 feet of the site. 7. Loveland Only. Any pedestrian routes within 1-1/2 mile miles of a school (residential land uses only). Paoe 4-10 Larimer County Urban Area Street Standard January 2, 2001 4.3.1 Project Description STUDY PARAMETERS 1 Project Description A description of the proposed project will be prepared and include the type of land use and size of the proposed project (number of dwelling units or building square footage). Any proposed phasing will be discussed and the anticipated completion date established. A figure depicting the proposed site plan will also be included and the proposed vehicular access locations will be described. This section will also include a description of how pedestrian and bicycle travel will be accommodated within the proposed site plan. This will include a discussion of types of sidewalks (attached/detached), pathways, and connections to local and perimeter destinations. Analysis Horizons. Three study horizons are required for a Master or Full TIS analysis: the existing (current), the short range (short range build -out) and the long range (20 year). It may be acceptable for the short range and long range horizons to be identical for some large projects. A. Existing Horizon. The intent of completing an analysis of the existing (current) study horizon is to establish a baseline of traffic conditions. B. Short Range Horizon. The intent of the short range planning horizon is to investigate the immediate impacts of the completed, proposed project on the existing and Committed roadway network. In Loveland, the short range planning horizon year is defined as one year after the full occupancy of the project. In Fort Collins, the short range analysis horizon is 5 years from the date of preparation of the TIS. If the project is proposed to occur over multiple phases, each phase shall be evaluated for impacts one year after the occupancy of that phase for the short range analysis. C. Long Range Horizon. The third planning horizon is the long range planning horizon. It shall be based onthe current Regional Transportation Plan 20-year planning horizon and related modeling, except where the existing counts identify errors in the regional model. In such situations, the current counts shall be increased by application of a growth rate established by the Local Entity or as approved by the Local Entity Engineer. The intent of the long range planning horizon is to evaluate the implications of the fully developed proposed project on the long-range traffic condition. Data from the current official North Front Range Transportation & Air Quality Planning Council (MPO) regional computer model is available by contacting the Local Entity. This study horizon is for the Local Entity's use as an indicator of traffic for planning purposes and the determination of the necessary Paue 4-8 Larimer County Urban Area Street Standard C January 2, 2001 4.2.4 Revisions and Updates Paved bike lanes or paths exist or will be constructed on, adjacent to, the site; or, the proposed use will not generate any new Notes: bicycle traffic. B. Traffic=Memorandumj A Traffic Memorandum, in lieu of a more: detailed study, will be considered if all the following requirements are; } met: 1. Vehicular Traffic a. liatty= yenicte tnp-enn generanonw..is. oerweenv/-vi,ranuE2uvr and/or the peak hour trip generation is between 21 and 50 (Loveland only) and b. Any new access requests are for local streets or minor collector streets only. C. Intermediate TIS. An Intermediate TIS may be considered if all the following requirements are met: 1. Vehicular Traffic a. Daily vehicle trip -end generation is between 501 and 1000, or'. the peak hour trip generation is between 51 and 100, and b. No access(es) are high volume driveways onto Arterials or'', State Highways are being requested, and c. The Level of Service (LOS) of the adjacent facility when the development is completed equals or exceeds the minimum' allowable LOS standard established for that facility. D. Full TIS. A Full TIS may be required if one or more of the following conditions occur: 1. Vehicular Traffic a. The site generated traffic exceeds 1,000 trips/day and/or 100 peak hour trips, or b. New high volume accesses are requested for a 4-lane or 6-lane arterial or State Highway. 4.2.4 Revisions and Updates A revision or update to an approved TIS may be required when a previously approved land use action proposes an expansion, a change to access, or a change in use where new trip generation estimates exceed the original trip -end generation estimates. If the currently approved study was prepared within the last three years, an amendment letter addressing the changes may be accepted and satisfy the requirements of this guideline. The letter must address: a) an estimate of site trip generation, b) existing site trip generation and c) the differences between anticipated estimates and existing trip generation. If the original study is older than three years, an entirely new study will be required by the Local Entity Engineer. Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards Page 4-7 January 2, 2001 4.2.3 Levels of Analysis. �. multi-user), construction of multiple buildings, or the construction of Notes: new residential development. For an Individual Site of analysis apply(TI the followins levels A. No TIS Required. Upon submittal of a Transportation Worksheet (Attachment "C") by the Applicant and written acceptance by the Local Entity Engineer, the TIS requirement may be waived (and in Loveland, the proposed land use will be exempt from demonstrating compliance with the transportation Adequate Community Facilities requirements) if all of the following are satisfied: 1. Vehicular Traffic a. Daily vehicle trip -end generation is less than 200 and/or the peak hour trip generation is less than 20 (Loveland only —in Fort Collins the trip generation must be less than 50 vph); b. There are no additional access requirements on major collectors, arterials, or State Highways; c. The increase in the number of vehicular trips for the proposed use does not exceed the trip generation from the existing use by more than 20 peak hour trips (unless the existing use generates more than 100 peak hour trips, then the proposed increase shall not be more than 20% of the existing or approved peak hour volume); d. Any change in the .type of traffic to be generated (i.e. the addition of new truck traffic) does not adversely affect the traffic currently planned for and accommodated within, and adjacent to, the property; e. The scale or use of the proposed development or redevelopment is not likely to cause less than acceptable levels of service on the adjacent public streets, accesses, and intersections; and f. The proposed development or redevelopment is not in the vicinity of a street or. intersection. with a history of safety and/or accident problems. 2. Pedestrian Traffic Paved pedestrian facilities exist or will be constructed on, or adjacent to, the site; or, the proposed use will not generate any new pedestrian traffic. 3. Bicycle Traffic Page 4-6 Larimer County Urban Area Street Standard January 2,2001 4.2.2 Types of Study 5. Identification of proposed year of build -out; 6. Trip adjustment factors proposed, if any; 7. Approved and proposed developments in the study area, and the associated committed roadway improvements; 8. Anticipated roadway improvements to be provided by the Applicant; 9. Phasing plan proposed; 10. Potential bicycle and pedestrian connections to the nearest attraction (existing or imminent) within 1320' of the site. This distance may be increased up to 1.5 miles for residential projects near existing or proposed school sites. 11. Special analysis needs. C. The Scoping Meeting shall conclude with the Local Entity and Applicant in mutual agreement with regard to determining the level of detail and extent to which the TIS will need to address each of the following: 1. Study area for the impact analysis; 2. Other developments within the study area; 3. Existing intersection counts; 4. Intersections to be studied in detail; 5. Background traffic volume forecasts; 6. Location of the nearest bicycle and pedestrian facilities and 7. Special analysis needs. (Non traditional peak hour volumes for some uses, neighborhood impacts, access management plans, etc.) 4.2.2 Types of Study A. Master TIS. Where large complex projects are planned or a project is phased over a multi -year build -out, it may be.appropriate to prepare a Master TIS for the initial land use action followed by periodic updates for specific phases. The Master TIS must include overall phasing of improvements to coincide with project phasing. Updates to the Master TIS shall be submitted with the land use applications for the specific phases, and shall meet the requirements for the Individual Site Transportation Impact Study. B. Individual Site Transportation Impact Study. An individual site TIS is prepared for a project that stands alone or is a phase of a master development. It can be for a new use in an existing or remodeled building, the construction of a new building (either single occupant or Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards Pale 4-5 January 2, 2001 4.2.1 Scoping Meeting 2. Pedestrian Traffic Notes: 3. Bicycle Traffic F. Determine Study Recommendations. Identify the improvements that are needed to achieve the required LOS for the proposed land use action and background traffic in each design year. 1. Vehicular Traffic 2. Pedestrian Traffic 3. Bicycle Traffic G. Present the Completed TIS 1. Submit the specified number of copies of the completed study to the Local Entity as an attachment to the land use application. 2. Revise and resubmit the TIS as necessary to address review comments provided to the applicant by the Local Entity Engineer. REQUIREMENTS AND CRITERIA Scoping Meeting A. Purpose. The purpose of the scoping meeting is to determine the parameters for the study of traffic impacts for a specific development project, and to document those parameters. The parameters determined in the scoping meeting represent general agreement between the local entity and the consulting engineer, gbut �they may not be all-inclusiveTtie local, entityq='retains �f�he �nghC� to< require.,any e. �-i. i B. The Applicant is required to contact the Local Entity to arrange for a Scoping Meeting to discuss the TIS requirements and determine the base assumptions. It is incumbent upon the Applicant to bring a completed Transportation Impact Study Base Assumptions Form and a complete Pedestrian Analysis Worksheet (included at the end of this chapter as Attachments "A" and `B") to the meeting and be prepared to discuss the following: 1. Previous TIS prepared for the site, if any; 2. Location of the site; 3. Proposed access and its relationship to adjacent properties and their existing/proposed access; 4. Preliminary estimates of the site's trip generation and trip distribution at build -out; Paoe 4-4 Larimer County Urban Area Street Standard January 2, 2001 4.1.4 T1S Process Overview 1) Determine short-range turning movement projections: Section 4.4.2A. 2) Determine long-range volume projection: Section 4.4.2E or Section 4.4.2C. c. Project Generated Traffic 1) Determine trip generation rate: Section 4.4.3A. 2) Determine project generated traffic volume (i.e. the committed capacity in Loveland): Section 4.4.3D. 3) Determine the trip distribution and assignment: Section 4.4.3F and Section 4.4.3G. 4) Determine the trip distribution and assignment: Section 4.4.3 2. Pedestrian and Bicycle Traffic a. Existing Traffic. b. Background Traffic. c. Project Traffic. d. Total Traffic. D. Conduct Project Impact Analysis 1. Vehicular Traffic a. Identify the project impact on the evaluation elements for the selected type of TIS: Section 4.5.1 in Loveland and Section 4.5.2 in Fort Collins. b. Evaluate each element under the following traffic conditions: 1) Existing traffic conditions. 2) Future traffic conditions without the proposed development (Loveland only). ` 3) Future traffic conditions with proposed development. c. Identify all significant negative impacts: Section 4.5.1. 2. Pedestrian Traffic Conduct the same procedure as for vehicular traffic in above Section 4.5.313 3. Bicycle Traffic Conduct the same procedure as for vehicular traffic in above Section 4.5.313 E. Determine Mitigation Measures 1. Vehicular Traffic Refer to Section 4.6. Also refer to Section 4.6.1 if transportation demand management is used for mitigation. Notes: Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards Page 4-3 January 2, 2001 4.1.1 General CHAPTER 4 - TRANSPORTATION IMPACT STUDY Notes: 4.1 INTRODUCTION 4.1.1 General This chapter contains the policies and guidelines necessary for the preparation of Transportation Impact Studies (TIS) for development proposals for the Local Entity. The policies exist to ensure consistent and proper traffic planning and engineering practices when land use actions are being considered within the Local Entity. The guidelines provide for a standard process, set of assumptions, set of analytic techniques, and presentation format to be used in the preparation of the TIS. For the City of Loveland it also provides the technical requirements that must be satisfied in order for a land use application to comply with the Adequate Community Facilities ordinance found in Title 16.41 of the Loveland Municipal Code. 4.1.2 Applicant Responsibility The responsibility for assessing the traffic impacts associated with an application for development approval rests with the Applicant. The Local Entity serves in a review capacity. The assessment of these impacts shall be contained within a TIS report as specified herein. It shall be prepared under the supervision of, and sealed by, a Licensed Professional Engineer in the State of Colorado, with experience in traffic engineering and transportation planning/engineering. For all State Highways within the study area, the Applicant is required to meet the.requirements of the Colorado Department of Transportation. 4.1.3 Capacity and Safety Issues Development of property has a direct impact on transportation, including vehicular, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian traffic. In order to meet capacity and safety needs as they relate to the traffic generated from a particular land use, specific improvements can be made. The goal of the TIS is to address the traffic related issues that result from the new development and to determine the improvements required such that appropriate levels of service are safely maintained.. The competing objectives of vehicular movement, pedestrians, bicyclists, and others must be balanced in the development review process. A balanced combination of elements is needed to provide streets that serve all transportation modes. The TIS will provide information and guidance as plans are developed and decisions made for the approved plan. A. Vehicular Traffic Improvements. Examples of capacity and safety improvements for vehicular traffic include: road widening, turn lanes, Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards Page 4-1 January 2, 2001 Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards Adopted January 2, 2001 LARIM"I COUNTY Larimer County Engineering Dept 212 W Mountain Av/PO Box 1190 Fort Collins, CO 80522-1 190 Tel: 970-49.8-5700 Email: mabrys@co.larimer.co.us Web: www.larimer.org/engineering Citv of Fort Collins City of Fort Collins Engineering Dept 281 N College Av/PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 Tel: 970-221-6605 Email: mherzig@fcgov.co.us Web: www.fcgov.com/engineering CITY OF LOVELFWO City of Loveland Community Services Dept Engineering Division 500 East 3rd Street For additional copies, please Loveland, CO 80537 download from our websites, or you Tel: 970-962-2346 may email or call us using the contact Email: muhong@ci.loveland.co.us information on the right. Web: www.ci.loveland.co.us Attachments: Chapter 4- Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards Zoning Map Designations for the E. Prospect/Lemay intersection Structure Plan Designations for the E. Prospect/Lemay intersecion 13 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 preformed 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 has 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. Staff Response: The conclusion portion of the Notice of Appeal summarizes the Appellants' position and alleges that the perceived discrepancies between the TIS and the LCUASS are grounds for the denial of the Pinnacle Townhomes PDP. Staff disagrees with this position, finding that the submitted TIS substantially complies with standards found in the LCUASS. The Appellants' comment that the City requires the development to have a minimum residential density of 5 dwelling units per acre is incorrect. The subject property lies within the "Infill Area", defined in Section 5.1.2 and cited in Section 4.4(D)(1)(a) of the Land Use Code, and is therefore not subject to the minimum residential density standard of the LMN zoning district. In terms of future land development, staff concurs with the Appellants that a unified planning effort to examine the broader land use and transportation issues facing the E. Prospect Corridor is warranted. There are several underdeveloped parcels located within this section of E. Prospect Road that would benefit from such a planning effort rather than review of individual development plans on a case -by -case basis. Future study would have no direct impact to the Pinnacle Townhomes PDP application, as this project has been under review for a relatively lengthy period; however, more detailed planning could provide great benefit in the future. 12 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 ignored. The appellants have identified a large number of discrepancies between the Larimer County Urban Street Standards and the methods used in the Pinnacle TIS. Together these defects misrepresent 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 R1 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 Street 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 11 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. Staff Response: The Appellants devote several paragraphs to discussing the timing of traffic counts used in the TIS, essentially alleging that counts collected during the month of August, when Colorado State University is not in session, were invalid. Staff agrees that there may be greater impacts to the roadways near the CSU campus when the school is in session. However, staff questions whether the difference in traffic counts is truly significant. Traffic counts vary tremendously when reviewed on a day-to- day, week -to -week, and month -to -month basis. College students have varied class schedules and are not at school all'at once or leave school all at once, like the AM and PM rush hours. Summer months, on average, tend to generate more traffic than winter months. There are countless variables, i.e.- road closures, construction, and traffic accidents, which contribute to traffic fluctuations. Counts can generally vary as much as 10% within any of these given intervals. Assuming a "worst -case" scenario, such additional traffic load would not cause the E. Prospect/Lemay intersection to violate the LOS standards. In order for the E. Prospect and Lemay intersection to degrade to LOS E from LOS D, using the City's traffic counts available during the review of this project, each lane of the intersection would have had to experience a 7% growth rate for a minimum of 3 years. Data from 1996 to 2000 only shows a growth rate of 1.7% for east and westbound traffic and just under 1 % for north and southbound traffic. The University does generate traffic, but not enough to cause the necessary change in volumes on E. Prospect to effect a LOS change, let alone a failing condition. In public testimony, the City Traffic Systems Engineer, Ward Stanford, acknowledged that the traffic signal at E. Prospect and Lemay has historically had operational difficulties; however, he further acknowledged that the City is remedying this problem through upcoming traffic signal improvements. Signal operation problems at this intersection are linked to the larger City-wide traffic operations issues. The Prospect and Lemay corridors will be part of the new signal system and communications network in the near future. C Section 4.4.1.A 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 4.4.1.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 forecast 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 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 and 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." 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 n. such sheets will be provided for the public record to substantiate that such work has been completed. The applicant's consulting traffic engineer must have those counts in the 15-minute format in order to create the supporting analysis work in Appendix D, the primary analysis of the TIS. The 15-minute breakdown in the TIS will only show what 15-minute period was the peak for the analyzed peak hour, not for the day. The City completes 24-hour counts so that it can be confirmed when the peak hours of the day are on a given roadway. From that information, staff instructs the Applicant's traffic engineer as to when the peaks occur. The Traffic Data was Improperlv Counted and Improperly Proiected 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 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 Standard says, "The intent of completing an analysis of the existing (current) study horizon is to establish a baseline of traffic conditions." 7 • In addition to the E. Prospect Street-Lemay Avenue intersection, the E. Prospect Rd. -Stover Street intersection was investigated during weekday morning and afternoon peak hours. • The analysis horizons were identified as the years 2005 and 2020. • Traffic growth on nearby arterial streets of 2% was determined as a reasonable estimate of future background traffic. • The need for auxiliary lanes on E. Prospect Road at the site access at project buildout. Staff agrees with the Appellants that input from the neighborhood, and the public at large, is an element that must be considered as part of the traffic analysis. In this instance, one of the appellants, Charles A. P. Smith, PhD, submitted a letter dated May 15, 2001 to Cameron Gloss, Current Planning Director, identifying perceived systematic errors, random errors and other flaws in the submitted TIS. Shortly after receipt of the letter, copies were forwarded to the applicant's traffic engineer and the City's Traffic Systems Engineer, Ward Stanford for their review and consideration. In response to their expressed concerns, Ward Stanford met with the Appellants to review the perceived code compliance issues. 2. The Appellants assert that the TIS makes inaccurate statements about the required Level of Service (LOS) and that the E. Prospect and Lemay Intersection fails to meet the City's adopted LOS standard. Staff contends that the E. Prospect and Lemay intersection continues to operate within the accepted Motor Vehicle LOS intersection standard of "E" for a Mixed use district as identified under LCUASS Table 4-3 (see page 4-22 attached) when both short and long-term traffic impacts are assessed. The Appellants statement that the E. Prospect and Lemay Intersection is a low -density mixed - use residential district is incorrect. Both the zoning pattern and City Plan land use designations clearly support definition of this area as a "mixed use" district as opposed to the "low density mixed use (residential area)" designation cited by the Appellants. Zoning on all four corners of the E. Prospect /Lemay intersection is NC -Neighborhood Commercial, with the southeast corner designated as a Neighborhood Center on the Structure Plan. (see attached zoning map/Structure Plan designations). 3. Traffic counts shown in the applicant's TIS are based on the adopted peak hour. The City of Fort Collins has adopted 7:30 to 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 to 5:30 p.m. as "peak hours". These time periods are consistently applied to all traffic analyses. The applicant's consultant completed work sheets as part of his traffic counts; Ci Staff Response: The Appellants correctly state that the Pinnacle Townhomes PDP is subject to all requirements found in the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards (LCUASS). Submittal of the development application on July 12, 2001 was approximately six months after the adoption date of the LCUASS on January 2, 2001. Section 4.3.3 of the LCUASS defines four different levels of traffic analyses, dependant upon the traffic volumes generated by the proposed development (listed in ascending order of magnitude and complexity): • Traffic Memorandum • Intermediate TIS • Full TIS • Master TIS The Appellants contend that item 13 of Section 4.3.4(B) of the LCUASS, requiring the TIS to include an analysis of accident and safety issues, must be included within the scope of the applicant's TIS. Staff contends that daily and peak hour traffic volumes generated by the development would trigger a Traffic Memorandum level of analysis (see attached page 4-7, Section 4.2.3(B) LCUASS). A Traffic Memorandum must be completed when daily vehicle trip -end generation is between 201-501 trips. While there is no applicable peak hour criterion for Fort Collins, the 25 and 30 peak hour trips per week projected for the project would indicate that the Memorandum level of analysis is appropriate. If the project had fewer than 20 peak hour trips, the traffic memorandum could have been waived entirely. The applicant's analysis showed 326 daily trips and 30 or fewer peak hour trips. This is substantially below the trip threshold for the next higher level of analysis, the Intermediate TIS. Required evaluation elements of a Traffic Memorandum are found in LCUASS Section 4.3.4(D) (see Attached page 4-13). An analysis of accident and safety issues is not a required element within the Traffic Memorandum. In this case, the Traffic Engineer exercised his discretion, authorized under Sections 4.2.1(A) and 4.2.3 of the LCUASS (see attached pages 4-4 and 4-6), to expand the scope of analysis beyond that required for a Traffic Memorandum. At the required Scoping Meeting between the applicant's Traffic Engineer and the City Traffic Engineer, Eric Bracke, held on July 27, 2000, the analysis was expanded to include the following (this information is also listed on page 3 of the applicant's TIS): • A full assessment of pedestrian, bicycle, and transit levels of service. 5 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 4.4.1.A of the Standard 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 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 4.4.1.A of the Standards, we will never know if Mr. Coppolas' 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 the 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. 9 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 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 30% 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. Later in the TIS, when referring to the forecast conditions at the same intersection, it stated on page 21, "As shown above, acceptable operations are expected under both the short -and long- term conditions." This statement is also an error because it once again refers to a level of service of "E" as being acceptable. 3 C. The board, commission or other decision maker considered evidence relevant to its findings which was substantially false or grossly misleading; or d. The board, commission or other decision maker improperly failed to receive all relevant evidence offered by the appellant." The Appeal: Appellants Charles A. P. Smith Ph.D Joan Schubart 1627 Ukiah Lane 1645 Ukiah Lane Fort Collins, CO. 80525 Fort Collins, CO 80525 A list of twelve Co -Appellants is attached to the Notice of Appeal. Grounds for Appeal: In the Appellant's written notice of appeal of the Planning and Zoning Board's decision to approve the Pinnacle Townhomes Project Development Plan, the following allegations were cited: 1. Relevant laws were not properly interpreted and applied. 2. Traffic data was improperly counted and improperly projected. 3. There was an incorrect calculation of traffic impact. Additional details of the Grounds for Appeal were offered (below). Note: Courier Bold Text represents excerpts from the appeal document. Direct Violations of Relevant Laws 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 Street Standards. The citizens were given a copy of the Standards by City Engineer Ward Stanford. Section 4.3.4 B of the Larimer County Urban Area Street(s)standards states that a TIS"... shall include the following evaluations:- 1 ... 2... 13. Safety and .accident analysis 14... 15. Neighborhood and public input issues 2 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and Members of City Council FROM: Cameron Gloss, Current Planning Directok-c- ,' Eric Bracke, Traffic Engineer Ward Stanford, Traffic Systems Engineer THRU: Greg Byrne, Director C.P.E.S. Ron Phillips, Director Transportation Services DATE: April 15, 2002 RE: Pinnacle Townhomes Project Development Plan — Appeal to City Council The purpose of this memorandum is to respond to an appeal regarding the February 27, 2002 decision of the Administrative Hearing Officer to approve the Pinnacle Townhomes Project Development Plan (PDP) located south of East Prospect Road, '/4 mile west of Lemay Avenue. Section 2-48 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, commission or other decision maker exceeded its authority or jurisdiction as contained in the Code and Charter; b. The board, commission or other decision maker substantially ignored its previously established rules of procedure; 11 List of Co-Appeflants - Pinnacle Townhomes Project Development Plan #34-OOA The following co -appellants attended the public hearings for the aforementioned development plan andlor received written notice of the hearings, and/or wrote letters to the Current Planning Director. 2- 1,6 0;"C (2�� y (. / 41,S) C7 <J 1-4 0 Y 2� L: > (-J i1 i is k A) 6". 7©a /* T�V the magnitude of the problems along the E. Prospect corridor. This view is misleading and further, jeopardizes the safety of school children and residents. 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. 0 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 C J 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. LA? 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 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 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 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 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 30% 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 IT). 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 Amended Notice of Appeal REP iE o 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 01/16/02. 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. 2- (signature) (date) (' 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 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 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 The procedures for deciding the appeals are described in Chapter 2, Article Il, Division 3 of the City Code. 10 the peak hours." I've been through the data in some 11 detail. They apparently did use 15-minute periods, but 12 the data are not recorded in a way that we can determine 13 which set of 15-minute counts were used to determine the 14 peak hours. What we would like, of course, is to see 15 something similar to what we have on the second page. We 16 want a count ourselves and report the data as per the 17 standard. And that's, essentially, pointing at the 18 floor.. We did our own counts. Those data are recorded 19 in Figures 1 and 2 and also to some extent in Figures 3 20 and 4. We — the count starting 6:45 in the morning 21 going through 9:00. We counted the data every 15 minutes 22 as per the standard. We counted in two of the same 23 locations that were used in -- in the -- where it's 24 called TIS. And I think the important thing here is that 25 if we look at Figures 3 and 4, we can see that our data 1 1 which was collected, again, per standard on a Tuesday in 2 15-minute intervals. We show that what you might expect 3 to see which is that the -- when you're -- when you are 4 not summertime, they -- they are quite a bit higher. And 5 (inaudible) increased 56 percent higher from Robertson 6 measuring point in the morning. One of the other key 67 Cameron Gloss - Agenda Item Summary for the Pinnacle Townhomes — Project Development Plan Appeal to City Council - May 7, 2002 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) remand the matter to the Administrative Hearing Officer or (2) uphold, overturn, or modify the Hearing Officer's decision. 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 thirty-four (34), two -bedroom townhouses, sixteen (16) attached dwellings housed within tow buildings and three (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. 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. Incorrect Calculation of Impact In Section 4.5.2.A2 of the Larimer County Urban Area Street(s) 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..3 0 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. Staff Response: The Appellants incorrectly interpret LCUASS Section 4.5.2 regarding when a project is considered to be "significantly impacting a study intersection". Under 4.5.2(A)(2)(attached page 4-20) a signalized intersection is significantly impacted when the background traffic causes an intersection to fail the minimum LOS standard and if it causes it to fail, the proiect's traffic impact must cause more than a 2 percent increase in the intersection delay. The E. Prospect/Lemay intersection is not considered "significantly impacted" because the background traffic does not cause the intersection to fail the minimum LOS standard of "E". In this case, the applicant's are also confusing the word "delay" with "volume". As a side note, the Appellants incorrectly state that there will be a 3.45% increase in traffic volume for the E. Prospect/Lemay intersection when all trips are considered. This is false because this 3.45 % volume allocates 100% of the trips attributed to the development to be funneled through the E. Prospect/Lemay intersection, when trips will likely be more evenly split between eastbound and westbound traffic to and from the project. 10