HomeMy WebLinkAboutCARRIAGE HOUSE APARTMENTS - PDP - PDP120035 - CORRESPONDENCE - CORRESPONDENCE-HEARINGr
2
4) City Council has established policies prohibiting discrimination in multifamily housing. Both the
traffic contractor and City staff used values based upon the characterization of "student housing". City Council
has established that multifamily housing in Fort Collins cannot be distinguished as "student housing" for the
purposes of planning and zoning evaluation. Both the planning and Zoning Board and Council have
specifically excluded definitions of "student housing" or a student demographic in the assessment of
multifamily housing proposals on the advice of the City attorney. To do so would establish a protected class for
such determinations. The use of special planning and zoning for student housing would also lock in a building
as "student housing" in perpetuity; Future repurposing of such facilities to house non -students would alter
outcomes based on student housing parameters, especially traffic projections. The traffic impact study for the
Carriage House project uses standards for student housing as identified in another municipality, where local
authorities recognize such distinctions. The use of student housing data distinguishes the project as "student
housing" and the residents as "students", a description excluded from multifamily housing in Fort Collins. Even
if Fort Collins allowed the designation of "student housing" for traffic projections, the numbers from the Spack
memorandum were from a much larger city with a more advanced public transportation system and a university
twice the size of Colorado State. They are likely to be lower than trip values for student housing in Fort Collins.
Also, the data were from student apartments adjacent to a university and they inherently and completely account
for alternative modes of transportation. No further reduction is appropriate.
5) The negative impacts of artificially reduced traffic projections extend beyond a single proposal. The
outcome of corrected trip generation values, based on Trip Generation, would be three times higher (code 220;
"Apartment", multifamily housing, average trip generation rate = 6.65) or 2.5 times higher if recognized as
"student housing" and a 25% reduction for alternative modes of transportation applied. Other "student housing"
projects have been approved with deflated trip generation values (new to this appeal). In cases where three and
four bedroom "units" predominate, the bedrooms were not considered "dwelling units" as defined in Trip
Generation. Instead, apartments defined the dwelling unit. In one case this definition, combined with an
alternative modes reduction of 35%, effectively reduced predicted trip generation from 4,376 to 839; a
reduction of 81% (The District). The reasoning for varied standards is unclear, but correlates with projects
located on constrained arterials, streets where traffic flow cannot be increased by physical changes in width or
access or signaling and have a finite tolerance for additional traffic, and the approval of projects adjacent to
these arterials may have been constrained by their true contribution to traffic load. The artificial deflation of
trip generation projections may have made project approval possible in these areas, or it may simply extend the
apparent "development life" of an area. Outcomes of deflated traffic generation predictions on constrained
arterials include: more traffic than expected, greater traffic congestion, increased emergency response times,
decreased citizen productivity, and more traffic accidents. More traffic accidents will inevitably lead to
increased morbidity and mortality among drivers and pedestrians. Effected citizens may have standing in
actions vs. City Planning and specific traffic engineering firms due to their inaccurate anticipation of traffic
load. In the long run there may be higher regional insurance rates and lower evaluations of the city in national
ratings of quality of life. The trip generation value also determines traffic -offset fees. These fees are applied to
transportation needs throughout the city. The artificial reduction of offset fees will cause a decreased capacity
to pursue transportation needs elsewhere in the city (new to this appeal). The 2008 Street Oversizing Capital
Expansion Fee Schedule lists multifamily housing, 6.59 average weekday vehicle trips, at $1,749 per dwelling
unit for the transportation impact fee. For the Carriage House Apartments the standard multifamily fee would be
$169,653. At the final rate of 2.1 and 204 trips in the city -approved traffic impact study, a prorated fee would
be 204/639 x $169,653=$54,161, a discount of $115,492 (68%). The fee based on the congregate care facility
rate of 2.15 would be $55,387, a discount of $114,266 (67%). The rate reported in table 2 of the traffic impact
study for the Carriage House Apartments is under the heading "AWDTE" (Average Week Day Trip
Equivalent?), and the actual rate is "Eq." (Equivalent?). Whoever finally determines the "equivalent" rate and
whatever it is finally determined to be, it will have a very large impact on the determination of the
transportation impact fees for the project. There are clear financial motivations to reduce the apparent trip
generation numbers for new multifamily housing.
Appeal to City Council of the decision of the Planning and Zoning Board to approve the development of the
Carriage House Apartments made on March 21, 2013. Grounds for Appeal: The Planning and Zoning Board
failed to conduct a fair hearing in that they relied on evidence that was substantially false and misleading.
1) Data from the Report is falsely attributed. Table 2 of the traffic impact study identifies the Code, 220, and
Use, Apartments. This is followed by Size, 97 Beds, and AWDTE (Average Week Day Trip Equivalent?), Eq.
(Equivalent?), and Trips, 272. 272 divided by 97 yields a coefficient of 2.8 trips per dwelling unit (beds). In
the Appendix, a hand written document entitled "Trip Generation" indicates the reference source of the
information in Table 2: "T.G., 9th Edition (Trip Generation. 9th Edition) Code Apartment; Persons (Beds) -
Variable; 100 Beds; Daily- T+3.47(x)-64.48 = 282, where x equals the number of dwelling units (100). The ITE
Trip Generation Manual, published by the Institute of Traffic Engineers, is an established reference work
containing extensive studies of dwelling units and the amount of trips they generate each day. It is the official
traffic reference source in the Fort Collins Municipal Code and Charter. The calculations that this reference
prescribes for Code 220, "Apartment", is T= 6.06(x) +123.56, where x equals number of dwelling units, 606 +
123.56 = 729.56, or an average rate of 6.65 trips per dwelling unit, not 2.8 trips per dwelling. Table 2 of the
traffic study indicates "Code 220", "Apartment', as the source of the data. The average rate used in table 2 of
the report was not from Trip Generation (see below). Its use resulted in significantly reduced traffic
projections. The attribution of these values to Trip Generation is misleading. That is, the use of the identifiers
in table 2 and in the trip generatiori appendix as "Code 220, Apartment' and "T.G., 91h Edition Code
Apartment', respectively, lends false legitimacy to the predicted trip generation.
2) The illegitimate traffic projections were further reduced for alternative modes of transportation. The
original value of 282 in the handwritten appendix was then amended with a "25% Reduction; Alternative
Modes". This brings the final, daily trip generation estimate to 212. The reduction for alternative modes of
transportation is based on a presumption that the facility will be housing students next to a university and that
they will use alternative modes of transportation. The result of the same calculation using values from the
reference, Trip Generation, is 729.56, a value that is 2.59 times greater than the 282 value derived in the
appendix of the impact study. When alternative modes are accounted for with a 25% reduction, the true value is
3.14 times greater than the value of 212 predicted trips per day. The data was corrected for the final quantity in
table 2, based on 97 dwelling units rather than 100, to yield 272 trips, minus 25% for a final 204 predicted trips.
This data was attributed to "Code 220, Apartments" from Trip Generation. The actual values from Trip
Generation would have been 711.38-25% (177.85)=533.53 or 2.6 times more trips than in Table 2 with a 25%
reduction for alternative modes of transportation.
3) Fort Collins Traffic Operations has established a policy that discriminates student housing. Traffic
Operations described the source of the 2.82 coefficient of trips per dwelling unit in a presentation to participants
of the Student Housing Action Plan (SNAP). Handouts included trip generation data used for predicting traffic
from "Student Housing Apartments". The source was described as a study of student housing in Minnesota. A
chart was projected and provided in a handout. This chart gave an average rate of trip generation per dwelling
unit of 2.82 or 282 per 100 dwelling units resulting from the equation of the best fit line (T=2.0656x=69.443).
The result for 100 dwelling units is identical to that in the appendix entitled "Trip Generation" in the Carriage
House traffic impact study. The representative informed those present that these numbers were used by City
staff in the evaluation of "student housing" projects in Fort Collins. These values serve as the base of student
housing evaluations. The trip generation data used by the City Traffic Operations originated from a document
found on the internet, a website called "Mike on Traffic" htt�//www.mikeontraffic.com/2012/04/index.html.
The full study is a Technical Memorandum by Spack Consulting regarding "Trip Generation Study -Private
Student Housing Apartments". The Spack memorandum presents data from counts of traffic for existing
student housing in Minneapolis (population 388,000), adjacent to the Univ. of Minnesota (enrollment 49,000).
The data inherently accounts for alternative modes of transportation by residents of student housing in the
Minneapolis urban environment. It is significantly lower than the rate prescribed by Trip Generation. Spack
data is identical to that presented by traffic operations at the SHAP meeting. Copies of these figures were
provided to the Planning and Zoning Board eight days prior to the hearing. Copies of table 2 and the Spack
Memorandum were provided to each member prior to the hearing.
Appellants:
Appellants:
Signature
4
Signature
Name
o� �t Y
Name
Address rwt
Address
Phone Ole)
7y[.—COYge
Phone
Date
) zi r 2C12,
Date
Signature
Signature
Name
Name
Address
Address
Phone
Phone
Date
Date
Signature
Signature
Name
Name
Address
Address
Phone
Phone
Date
Date
Signature
Signature
Name
Name
Address
Address
Phone
Phone
Date
Date
Signature
Signature
Name
Name
Address
Address
Phone
Phone
Date
Date
Signature
Signature
Name
Name
Address
Address
Phone
Phone
Date
Date
ATTACH ADDITIONAL SIGNATURE SHEETS AS NECESSARY
City of Fort Collins
March 2012
Please describe the nature of the relationship of each appellant to the subject of the action of the
Board, Commission or other Decision Maker:
I�e �l,�bor co totcf e0( b� C, FL CALvd �>Eu1'� � /-0 1-4'e
Lc a hEa<, -,•S
If appellant has alleged that the decision maker considered evidence relevant to its findings that
was substantially false or grossly misleading, describe any new evidence the appellant intends to
submit at the hearing on the appeal in support of this allegation. NO NEW EVIDENCE WILL
BE RECEIVED AT THE HEARING IN SUPPORT OF THIS ALLEGATION UNLESS IT IS
EITHER DESCRIBED BELOW OR OFFERED IN RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS PRESENTED
BY COUNCILMEMBERS AT THE HEARING.
avw �).weew racs-,vvzoI40
t"Jek �f l
�t1 Qrc;%)CU,-ji�.i`-v3 Cao' ,-al �kt:, .'1 CIO c- tCF fC6c lz(E
cct(/�: l'ou Stse
c kC. 5 0' I et 5 ccx tr, rte;41;cti
�. `�"•.�.. a .�. c�e� V ezr . t7 u 5 ce.2ek.` � 0 �j .
l�C?'e1�.t-'it�� uvl ��C ����✓lM vl.c��'�"°L c''�` 7�t�.Yll�(�,% 1�.5a''t��
A`,94 2013
Action Being`` Appealed:
-t �,roUa I 01- CuYricay, RoLx3e APav��a-,"-r ala,n.:
Board, Commission, or Other Decision Maker: 1��a vcvz �N y Gvc�,�r�vt , L c�ctrGl/
Date of Action: 312 t% 2 U i 3
Grounds for Appeal (✓ all that apply):
The board, commission or other decision maker committed one (1) or more of the
following errors:
❑ Failure to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the City Code, the
Land Use Code and Charter. List Code and/or Charter sections (by section
number only) below:
0 Failure to conduct a fair hearing in that:
❑ The board, commission or other decision maker exceeded its authority
or jurisdiction as contained in the Code or Charter;
❑ The board, commission or other decision maker substantially ignored its
previously established rules of procedure;
0� The board, commission or other decision maker considered evidence
relevant to its findings which was substantially false or grossly
misleading; or
❑ The board, commission or other decision maker improperly failed to
receive all relevant evidence offered by the appellant.
(For each allegation marked above, please attach a separate summary of the facts contained in the
record which support the allegation. Each summary is limited to two pages, Times New Roman 12
point font. Please restate allegation at top of first page of each summary.)
Appellant Representative (if more than one appellant):
Name, address, telephone number(s), and email address of an individual appellant authorized to receive, on behalf of all
appellants, any notice required to be mailed by the City to the appellants regarding the City Attorney's review of the notice
of appeal (City Code Section 2-50).
_roc-LRe V 4 RECEIVED
APR 0 4 2093
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
A
city ®8
City Clerk's Office
300 LaPorteAvenue
Fort
Collins
PO Box 580
Fort Collins,ins, COCO 80522
970.221.6515
970.221.6295 - fax
fcgov.com/cityc/erk
NOTICE OF SITE INSPECTION
An appeal of the Planning and Zoning Board decision of March 21, 2013, regarding the Carriage
House Apartments, Project Development Plan will be heard by the Fort Collins City Council on May
21, 2013.
Pursuant to Section 2-55 of the City Code, members of the City Council will be inspecting the site
of the proposed project on May 20, 2013 at 4:00 p.m.. Notice is hereby given that this site inspection
constitutes a meeting of the City Council that is open to the public, including the appellants and all
parties -in -interest. The site is located at 1305 and 1319 South Shields Street, Fort Collins, Colorado.
The purpose of the site inspection is for the City Council to view the site and to ask
related questions of City staff to assist Council in ascertaining site conditions. There
will be no opportunity during the site inspection for the applicant, appellants, or
members of the public to speak, ask questions, respond to questions, or otherwise
provide input or information, either orally or in writing. Other than a brief staff
overview and staff responses to questions, all discussion and follow up questions or
comments will be deferred to the hearing on the subject appeals to be held on May 21,
2013.
Any Councilmember who inspects the site, whether at the date and time above, or independently
shall, at the hearing on the appeal, state on the record any observations they made or conversations
they had at the site which they believe may be relevant to their determination of the appeal.
If you have any questions or require further information, please feel free to contact the City Clerk's
Office at (970) 221-6515.
Wanda Nelson, City Clerk
NOTE: See other side for Public Hearing Notice
Notice Mailed: May 8, 2013
cc: City Attorney
Planning Department
Planning and Zoning Board Chair
Appellant/Applicant
City of
City Clerk's Office
300 LaPorte Avenue
Collins
PO Box 580
ort
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.221.65
970.221.629295 -fax
fcgov.com/Cityc/erk
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
The City Council of the City of Fort Collins, Colorado, on May 21, 2013, at 6:00 p.m. or as soon
thereafter as the matter may come on for hearing in the Council Chambers in City Hall at 300
LaPorte Avenue, will hold a public hearing on the enclosed appeal of the decision of the Planning
and Zoning Board made on March 21, 2013, regarding Carriage House Apartments, Project
Development Plan. You may have received previous notice(s) on this item in connection with
hearing(s) held by the Planning and Zoning Board.
If you wish to comment on this matter, you are strongly encouraged to attend the hearing on this
appeal. If you have any questions or require further information please feel free to contact the City
Clerk's Office (970-221-6515) or the Planning Department (970-221-6750). Appeal Guidelines are
available online at http://www.fcgov.com/cityclerk/appeals.php.
Agenda materials provided to the City Council, including City staff s response to the Notice of
Appeal, will be available to the public on May 16, 2013, after 2:00 p.m. in the City Clerk's Office
and on the City's website at: http://fcgov.com/cityclerk/agendas.php.
The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services,
programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with
disabilities. Please call the City Clerk's Office at 970-221-6515 (TDD 970-224-6001) for assistance.
A /
Wanda Nelson, City Clerk
NOTE: See other side for Site Visit Notice
Notice Mailed: May 8, 2013
cc: City Attorney
Planning Department
Planning and Zoning Board Chair
Appellant/Applicant