The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About12/17/2020 - Planning And Zoning Board - Supplemental Documents - Regular Meeting1 Katharine Claypool From:Paul S. Sizemore Sent:Thursday, December 10, 2020 3:53 PM To:P&Z Board Subject:Hughes Redevelopment SPAR and Neighborhood Meeting Attachments:Hughes SPAR Process Letter 12.8.20.pdf Categories:P&Z Dear Planning and Zoning Board, Attached please find a copy of a letter provided to CSU on December 8th, 2020, in regards to their proposal for the Hughes Stadium property. The letter describes the CDNS department’s position on the status of their requests related to the proposal. Discussion about the applicability of SPAR is still actively underway, and we are assessing information as it becomes available. We will continue to provide the Board with information as the facts become clearer. We wanted to provide you with this information in advance of the Work Session tomorrow; Brad and I will be happy to answer questions to the extent we know answers during the “Board Updates” section of the agenda. I look forward to seeing you all tomorrow, PS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Paul Sizemore, AICP, PTP Interim Director of Community Development and Neighborhood Services City of Fort Collins psizemore@fcgov.com 970.224.6140 (O) 970.305.0212 (C) The City of Fort Collins is an organization that supports equity for all, leading with race. We acknowledge the role of local government in helping create systems of oppression and racism and are committed to dismantling those same systems in pursuit of racial justice. Learn more. COVID19 Resources For all residents: https://www.fcgov.com/eps/coronavirus For businesses: https://www.fcgov.com/business/ Want to help: https://www.fcgov.com/volunteer/ HUGHES SPAR PROCESS Materials updated 12.15.20 Packet pg. 1 Community Development & Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580 970.416.2740 970.224.6134- fax fcgov.com Planning, Development & Transportation Services December 8, 2020 Brett Anderson Special Assistant to the Chancellor Colorado State University Via email to Brett.Anderson@colostate.edu RE: Hughes Redevelopment SPAR and Neighborhood Meeting Dear Mr. Anderson I’m writing this letter in reference to your request to proceed with a neighborhood meeting in anticipation of an application for a Site Plan Advisory Review (SPAR) on the former Hughes Stadium property and for City staff to provide you with specifics regarding what will need to be submitted in order to move forward with a SPAR application and the next steps and timeline. For your reference, I have attached a list of questions related to the issue of whether the SPAR applies to the proposed project. These were also included with the Conceptual Review Comment Letters that Tenae Beane emailed to you on November 20th, 2020. As indicated during the November 19th Conceptual Review meeting, this additional information is needed to determine whether the SPAR process is appropriate for the proposal being entertained by CSU. Because it is critical to confirm the appropriate type of review under the Land Use Code in order to know what next procedural steps are appropriate and what needs to be submitted as part of an application, the Community Development and Neighborhood Services (CDNS) department will refrain from scheduling and noticing a neighborhood meeting until we have verified that SPAR is appropriate for the proposal. I understand that you are seeking a neighborhood meeting date in January and I appreciate your patience and continued collaboration as we work to establish the proper process for this proposal. As you are aware, conversations between CSU’s legal team and the City Attorney’s Office are actively proceeding, with an upcoming meeting scheduled for this Friday, December 11th. We hope that some information of the type requested will be available and will result in progress in working through the question of whether the SPAR process applies, as well as agreement about the form of documentation necessary to establish the appropriateness of the SPAR process. We welcome you to submit the requested information to Development Review staff so that we can work with you to schedule a neighborhood meeting. For your reference, Land Use Code Section 2.16.2 requires that a neighborhood meeting be held as part of the SPAR review, and pursuant to Land Use Code Section 2.2.2(A) at least ten HUGHES SPAR PROCESS LETTER Materials updated 12.15.20 Packet pg. 2 calendar days must pass between the neighborhood meeting and the submittal of an application for development such as a SPAR. Until a neighborhood meeting has been held, CSU is ineligible to submit an application for development of the former Hughes Stadium property and the City cannot accept any such application. If you have any questions, please feel free to reach out to me or to any of the Planning and Development Review staff you have been working with. Kindest Regards, Paul Sizemore, AICP, PTP Interim Director of Community Development and Neighborhood Services Attachment: List of Questions ATTACHMENT: HUGHES SPAR PROCESS LETTER Materials updated 12.15.20 Packet pg. 3 List of Questions · Please describe how each proposed aspect of the proposed development depicted on the conceptual site plan qualifies as a public building or structure. · The conceptual review application lists zoning for the property as UE, LMN, and MMN. Will a rezoning application be submitted to the City prior to a decision being made on the development proposed in the conceptual review application, concurrent with the proposal, or after? · Will an application to plat the property be submitted? Will a subdivision plat application be submitted to the City prior to a decision being made on the development proposed in the conceptual review application, concurrent with the proposal, or after? · Will the property be developed in phases? If yes, which portions of the property will be developed in which phase and what is the timing for the commencement of each phase? · Is any portion of the property going to be transferred in fee or otherwise to Lennar or any other entity or person not considered to be a part of Colorado State University? If yes, (1) which portion or portions of the property will be transferred and to which entities or persons, and (2) what is the timing for any such transfers. · Is any portion of the property going to be leased to Lennar or any other entity or person not considered to be a part of Colorado State University? If yes, (1) which portion or portions of the property will be leased and to which entities or persons, and (2) what is the timing for any such lease to occur. · Will CSU own the residential homes, the single-family detached, paired, and townhomes, shown on the conceptual site plan, and handle sales of such homes or will Lennar or any other entity or person not considered to be a part of Colorado State University be the owner and will handle sales. Will any of the residential homes be available for sale to members of the public other than persons affiliated with Colorado State University? If the residential homes are to be restricted for sale only to persons associated with Colorado State University, how will the restriction be enforced? · Who will own and operate the multi-family apartments? Will the apartments be available for lease to members of the public other than persons affiliated with Colorado State University? · The conceptual site plan has a “commercial” uses in the northeast portion of the property. Is the “commercial” label referencing only the proposed medical facility and daycare or are there other proposed uses? If there are other “commercial” uses, what are those uses? · Who will own and operate the medical facility and daycare? Will members of the public other than persons affiliated with Colorado State University be served by the medical facility and daycare? Will any space within the medical facility be leased to private medical providers? · Please describe the proposal for how building permitting, inspection, and issuance of certificates of occupancy will be addressed for the residential homes (single-family HUGHES SPAR PROCESS LETTER Materials updated 12.15.20 Packet pg. 4 detached, paired, and townhomes), the multi-family apartments, the medical facility, the daycare, and any other structure proposed to be built on the property. HUGHES SPAR PROCESS LETTER Materials updated 12.15.20 Packet pg. 5 1 Katharine Claypool From:PATHS FoCo <pathsfoco@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, December 1, 2020 6:12 PM To:P&Z Board; City Leaders; Ross Cunniff; Emily Gorgol; Susan Gutowsky; Julie Pignataro; Kristin Stephens; Ken Summers; Wade Troxell Cc:City Clerk Office; Cameron Gloss; Carrie Daggett; Paul S. Sizemore; Rebecca Everette; Tenae Beane; governorpolis@state.co.us; Jacy Marmaduke Subject:[EXTERNAL] SPAR Legality and Applicability to Hughes: Request for Land Use Code Interpretation Attachments:01_Request for Interpretation Hughes Stadium Property.pdf; Attachment C Board of Governors resolution.pdf; Attachment B Hughes_ConceptualReviewPacket_website.pdf; Attachment A CSU Lennar Purchase and Sale Agreement re Hughes (redacted copy).pdf Categories:P&Z Hello P&Z Board Members and City Council Members: The purpose of this email is to follow up on our email to City Council on November 24, 2020 regarding the legality of proceeding with a Site Plan Advisory Review (SPAR) process for Colorado State University System’s Board of Governors’ (BOG) proposed development of the Hughes property. Furthermore, we would like to inform the City Council and the Planning and Zoning Board Members that on Tuesday November 17, 2020, we submitted a formal Request for Interpretation of the Fort Collins Land Use Code regarding the applicability of the SPAR process for CSU’s latest proposed Hughes redevelopment project. Our Request for Interpretation of the Land Use Code was emailed to Paul Sizemore, Interim Director of Community Development and Neighborhood Services, with a request to interpret THREE crucial questions around SPAR. Please see the attached Request for Interpretation. On November 24, 2020 we sent a letter to the City Council that noted two important discussions that occurred on Thursday, November 19, 2020. The first discussion took place at the City's Conceptual Review hearing of the CSU BOG’s development proposal. During that hearing, City Planning Department staff member Cameron Gloss and City Attorney Brad Yatabe both questioned the legal basis for reviewing this project under SPAR. (Meeting Video: https://youtu.be/AZnDDAdJV4o ) The second discussion took place at the Planning and Zoning Board's regularly scheduled hearing on November 19, 2020. The Board responded to a citizen’s question about the application of SPAR, and its effect on local control over development. Several P&Z Board members spoke to their lack of sufficient background knowledge on their part regarding when SPAR applies and when it does not. (Meeting Video: https://youtu.be/XduB1iJyfTg) In light of the uncertainty and questions surrounding the applicability and legality of the SPAR process in this case, we again urgently request that Council direct the City Attorney to research the legality of the BOG’s position for the members of the P&Z Board, and the members of the public. Furthermore, we asked that this matter be discussed publicly once the Council receives the City Attorney’s advice. It is imperative that our City Council and P&Z Board members become informed about this controversial subject. City Council must also exercise its authority to take appropriate action through the City Manager, City Attorney, and City staff. This matter needs our elected officials and citizen representatives acting as fiduciaries of the public’s trust in the laws governing activities within our city. Please see attachments. Respectfully Submitted, PATHS ORGANIZING TEAM LETTER Materials updated 12.15.20 Packet pg. 6 2 Planning Action to Transform Hughes Sustainably (PATHS) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The Paths Organizing Team Website: https://HughesOpenSpacePetition.com Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/PATHSFoCo/ Donate: https://HughesOpenSpacePetition.com/donate Call/Text: (970) 658-0505 PATHS ORGANIZING TEAM LETTER Materials updated 12.15.20 Packet pg. 7 Paul Sizemore, Interim Director Community Development and Neighborhood Services City of Fort Collins 281 North College Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80524 VIA email to psizemore@fcgov.com November 17, 2020 Mr. Sizemore: On behalf of Planning Action to Transform Hughes Sustainably (PATHS) and its numerous members residing in Fort Collins, we are requesting an interpretation of the Fort Collins Land Use Code pursuant to Division 1.4 et seq. as it relates to the recently submitted conceptual review application for the project described as “Redevelopment of the Hughes Stadium Site under a mix of [UE . . . LMN . . . and MMN] Districts . . .” The application has an aerial site map attached by the City of Fort Collins which is labeled “Hughes Stadium Residential Development Site Plan Advisory Review (SPAR)”. The item is docket number CDR20087 and scheduled for a conceptual review hearing on November 19, 2020. The applicable provisions of Division 1.4 of the Fort Collins Land Use Code read as follows: 1.4.1 - Authority The Director shall have the authority to make all interpretations of the text of this land use code and the boundaries of zone districts on the zoning map. 1.4.2 - Initiation An interpretation may be requested by any person. 1.4.3 - Procedures (A)Submission of request for interpretation. Before an interpretation may be provided by the director, a request for interpretation must be submitted to the director in a form established by him or her. (B)Determination of Sufficiency. After receipt of a Request for Interpretation, the Director shall determine whether the request is complete, specific, clear and ready for review. If the Director determines that the request is not complete, he or she shall serve a written notice on the applicant specifying the deficiencies. The Director shall take no further action on the Request for Interpretation until the deficiencies are remedied. (C)Rendering of Interpretation. After the Request for Interpretation has been determined to be sufficient, the Director shall review and evaluate the request in light of the terms and provisions of this Land Use Code and/or the Zoning Map, PATHS ORGANIZING TEAM REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION Materials updated 12.15.20 Packet pg. 8 whichever is applicable, and render an interpretation. The Director may consult with the City Attorney and other City departments before rendering an interpretation. (D) Form. The interpretation shall be in writing and shall be delivered to the applicant. Interpretations that are not in writing shall have no force or effect. Interpretations shall have no precedential value and shall be limited in their application to the property, if any, identified in the interpretation. (E) Official Record. The Director shall maintain an official record of all interpretations in the Department. Such official record shall be available for public inspection during normal business hours. (F) Appeal. Appeals of any interpretation under this Section shall be made only in accordance with Division 2.11. Per our email exchange on November 13, 2020, there appears to be no particular form required for the submission of this request for interpretation, so please accept this letter as a formal request for interpretation regarding three questions related to the Hughes Stadium Redevelopment SPAR: Interpretation Request #1. Does the SPAR process apply to the Hughes Stadium property when Colorado State University (a public entity) does not intend to improve and/or construct public buildings or structures on the property in question, but rather will sell the undeveloped Hughes Stadium property to a private entity (Lennar Homes) for private ownership, improvement and/or development? If so, please describe why the Hughes Stadium property, no longer in the ownership by Colorado State University at the time of the improvements and/or construction of public buildings or structures, would be subject to SPAR. For the following reasons, we ask that the City reach an interpretation of the Land Use Code stating that the SPAR process is not applicable to the proposed Hughes Stadium property development. Division 2.1.3(E)(1) of the Fort Collins Land Use Code reads as follows: (E) Site Plan Advisory Review. (1) Purpose and Effect. The Site Plan Advisory Review process requires the submittal and approval of a site development plan that describes the location, character and extent of improvements to parcels owned or operated by public entities. In addition, with respect to public and charter schools, the review also has as its purpose, as far as is feasible, that the proposed school facility conforms to the City's Comprehensive Plan. Colorado State University is a public entity that currently owns the Hughes Stadium property but it has no known intention of improving the Hughes Stadium property or constructing public buildings or structures. Rather, Colorado State University has entered into an agreement to sell PATHS ORGANIZING TEAM REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION Materials updated 12.15.20 Packet pg. 9 the property, unimproved, to a private third party for subsequent development. The Hughes Stadium property will no longer be owned by a public entity at the time it will undergo improvements and there are no known plans for a public entity to participate in the operation of the property. See attachment A (Original Purchase and Sale Agreement between Colorado State University and Lennar Colorado LLC). In summary, Colorado State University will not own any of the buildings or structures that are contemplated by the project, will not construct any of the buildings or structures that are contemplated by the project, nor will any of the buildings or structures be used for public purposes. Interpretation Request #2. Does the SPAR process apply when no public building or structure will be improved as part of the conceptual plan? If so, please describe why the SPAR process applies to buildings that do not yet exist and will not exist until a private third party builds them. For the following reasons, we ask that you reach an interpretation of the Land Use Code stating that the SPAR process is not applicable to the proposed development. All facts asserted in Interpretation Request 1 above are incorporated herein by reference. Division 2.1.3(E)(2) of the Fort Collins land use code reads as follows: (E) Site Plan Advisory Review. (2) Applicability. A Site Plan Advisory Review shall be applied to any public building or structure. For a public or charter school, the Planning and Zoning Board shall review a complete Site Plan Advisory Review application within thirty (30) days (or such later time as may be agreed to in writing by the applicant) of receipt of such application under Section 22-32-124, C.R.S. For Site Plan Advisory Review applications under Section 31-23-209, C.R.S., such applications shall be reviewed and approved or disapproved by the Planning and Zoning Board within sixty (60) days following receipt of a complete application. The Hughes Stadium property is currently undeveloped land. The public entity owner, Colorado State University, does not own any buildings or structures on the premises. Colorado State University does not propose to build or improve any structures; rather, it proposes to sell the property to a private third-party developer. See attachment B (Hughes Stadium Redevelopment SPAR conceptual review packet). As written, the Land Use Code limits the applicability of SPAR to “any public building or structure.” Colorado State University will not own any of the buildings or structures that are contemplated by the project, will not construct any of the buildings or structures that are contemplated by the project, nor will any of the buildings or structures be used for public purposes. Interpretation Request #3. Does the City of Fort Collins agree with the following assertion made by the Board of Governors of Colorado State University: “Colorado law, specifically C.R.S. § PATHS ORGANIZING TEAM REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION Materials updated 12.15.20 Packet pg. 10 31-23-209, further contemplates that a state actor, such as the Board, has the authority to overrule a local governmental entity, such as the City of Fort Collins, and Section 2.16 of the City’s Land Use Code sets forth the City’s Site Plan Advisory Review (“SPAR”) process, which acknowledges the City’s review over the Board’s uses for the Property is merely advisory and the Board has the authority to overrule any denial of the Board’s application.” See Attachment C (Board of Governors resolution) ¶ 13. If so, please explain how C.R.S. § 31-23-209 applies to the Hughes Stadium Residential Development plan. For the following reasons, we ask that you reach an interpretation that the Board of Governors’ interpretation of C.R.S. § 31-23-209 is incorrect and that this provision of state law is not applicable to Colorado State University’s proposed project. All facts asserted in Interpretation Requests #1 and #2 above are incorporated herein by reference. The Board of Governors passed a resolution regarding the Hughes property on October 9, 2020 which claims C.R.S. § 31-23-209 applies to Division 2.16 of the Fort Collins Land Use Code. See attachment C. However, C.R.S. § 31-23-209 applies to planning commissions and municipalities, not state public entities. The statute reads as follows: When the commission has adopted the master plan of the municipality or of one or more major sections or districts thereof, no street, square, park or other public way, ground or open space, public building or structure, or publicly or privately owned public utility shall be constructed or authorized in the municipality or in such planned section and district until the location, character, and extent thereof has been submitted for approval by the commission. In case of disapproval, the commission shall communicate its reasons to the municipality's governing body, which has the power to overrule such disapproval by a recorded vote of not less than two-thirds of its entire membership. If the public way, ground space, building, structure, or utility is one the authorization or financing of which does not, under the law or charter provisions governing the same, fall within the province of the municipal governing body, the submission to the commission shall be by the governmental body having jurisdiction, and the planning commission's disapproval may be overruled by said governmental body by a vote of not less than two-thirds of its membership. The failure of the commission to act within sixty days from and after the date of official submission to it shall be deemed approval. The term “municipality” is defined in C.R.S. § 31-1-101 (6) as “a city or town…”. The term “governing body” is defined in C.R.S. § 31-1-101 (4) as “the city council of a city…or any other body, by whatever name known, given lawful authority to adopt ordinances for a specific municipality.” Neither Colorado State University nor the Board of Governors are a “city or town” as defined in C.R.S. § 31-1-101 (6). Further, neither Colorado State University nor the Board of Governors are a “governing body” as defined in C.R.S. § 31-1-101 (6) because neither has been “given lawful authority to adopt ordinances for” the City of Fort Collins. Additionally, to the extent that the City believes § 31-23-209 applies to property owned by Colorado State University, the statute explicitly limits applicability to “public” uses. As outlined in Interpretation Requests #1 and #2, supra, Colorado State University currently has no intention of developing the property for a public use. It intends to sell the property to a private third-party developer which may or may not build structures intended for public use. PATHS ORGANIZING TEAM REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION Materials updated 12.15.20 Packet pg. 11 We request an expedited response to the above three interpretation requests based on the impending conceptual review meeting requested by Brett Anderson representing the Chancellor and Colorado State University which is scheduled for November 19, 2020. An interpretation of the applicability of SPAR is needed for this project proposal once it is received as an application. The City should not proceed with a review of the application until a determination of the applicability of SPAR is determined. We also request that the City of Fort Collins immediately impose a stay on any further processing of Colorado State University’s land use application pursuant to Land Use Code §2.16.2. If an interpretation is not made in timely response to this request, and the City continues to process the application as if SPAR was applicable, the process could be completed within the 60-day statutory response time even if the City ultimately found that SPAR was not applicable to the project. Under any circumstances, a project needs to meet the requirements of SPAR before entering the Site Plan Advisory Review procedures. Sincerely, /s/ Elena Lopez PATHS (530) 435-5149 lopez.apclass@gmail.com /s/ Melissa Rosas PATHS (562) 888-0487 Rosasmelissa.colorado@gmail.com /s/ Michael Foote Foote Law Firm, LLC (303) 519-2183 mjbfoote@gmail.com /s/ John Barth Attorney at Law (303) 774-8868 barthlawoffice@gmail.com PATHS ORGANIZING TEAM REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION Materials updated 12.15.20 Packet pg. 12 PATHS ORGANIZING TEAM LETTER - ATTACHMENT A Materials updated 12.15.20 Packet pg. 13 PATHS ORGANIZING TEAM LETTER - ATTACHMENT A Materials updated 12.15.20 Packet pg. 14 PATHS ORGANIZING TEAM LETTER - ATTACHMENT A Materials updated 12.15.20 Packet pg. 15 PATHS ORGANIZING TEAM LETTER - ATTACHMENT A Materials updated 12.15.20 Packet pg. 16 PATHS ORGANIZING TEAM LETTER - ATTACHMENT A Materials updated 12.15.20 Packet pg. 17 PATHS ORGANIZING TEAM LETTER - ATTACHMENT A Materials updated 12.15.20 Packet pg. 18 PATHS ORGANIZING TEAM LETTER - ATTACHMENT A Materials updated 12.15.20 Packet pg. 19 PATHS ORGANIZING TEAM LETTER - ATTACHMENT A Materials updated 12.15.20 Packet pg. 20 PATHS ORGANIZING TEAM LETTER - ATTACHMENT A Materials updated 12.15.20 Packet pg. 21 PATHS ORGANIZING TEAM LETTER - ATTACHMENT A Materials updated 12.15.20 Packet pg. 22 PATHS ORGANIZING TEAM LETTER - ATTACHMENT A Materials updated 12.15.20 Packet pg. 23 PATHS ORGANIZING TEAM LETTER - ATTACHMENT A Materials updated 12.15.20 Packet pg. 24 PATHS ORGANIZING TEAM LETTER - ATTACHMENT A Materials updated 12.15.20 Packet pg. 25 PATHS ORGANIZING TEAM LETTER - ATTACHMENT A Materials updated 12.15.20 Packet pg. 26 PATHS ORGANIZING TEAM LETTER - ATTACHMENT A Materials updated 12.15.20 Packet pg. 27 PATHS ORGANIZING TEAM LETTER - ATTACHMENT A Materials updated 12.15.20 Packet pg. 28 PATHS ORGANIZING TEAM LETTER - ATTACHMENT A Materials updated 12.15.20 Packet pg. 29 PATHS ORGANIZING TEAM LETTER - ATTACHMENT A Materials updated 12.15.20 Packet pg. 30 PATHS ORGANIZING TEAM LETTER - ATTACHMENT A Materials updated 12.15.20 Packet pg. 31 PATHS ORGANIZING TEAM LETTER - ATTACHMENT A Materials updated 12.15.20 Packet pg. 32 PATHS ORGANIZING TEAM LETTER - ATTACHMENT A Materials updated 12.15.20 Packet pg. 33 PATHS ORGANIZING TEAM LETTER - ATTACHMENT A Materials updated 12.15.20 Packet pg. 34 PATHS ORGANIZING TEAM LETTER - ATTACHMENT A Materials updated 12.15.20 Packet pg. 35 PATHS ORGANIZING TEAM LETTER - ATTACHMENT A Materials updated 12.15.20 Packet pg. 36 PATHS ORGANIZING TEAM LETTER - ATTACHMENT A Materials updated 12.15.20 Packet pg. 37 PATHS ORGANIZING TEAM LETTER - ATTACHMENT A Materials updated 12.15.20 Packet pg. 38 PATHS ORGANIZING TEAM LETTER - ATTACHMENT A Materials updated 12.15.20 Packet pg. 39 PATHS ORGANIZING TEAM LETTER - ATTACHMENT A Materials updated 12.15.20 Packet pg. 40 PATHS ORGANIZING TEAM LETTER - ATTACHMENT A Materials updated 12.15.20 Packet pg. 41 PATHS ORGANIZING TEAM LETTER - ATTACHMENT A Materials updated 12.15.20 Packet pg. 42 PATHS ORGANIZING TEAM LETTER - ATTACHMENT A Materials updated 12.15.20 Packet pg. 43 PATHS ORGANIZING TEAM LETTER - ATTACHMENT A Materials updated 12.15.20 Packet pg. 44 PATHS ORGANIZING TEAM LETTER - ATTACHMENT A Materials updated 12.15.20 Packet pg. 45 PATHS ORGANIZING TEAM LETTER - ATTACHMENT A Materials updated 12.15.20 Packet pg. 46 PATHS ORGANIZING TEAM LETTER - ATTACHMENT A Materials updated 12.15.20 Packet pg. 47 PATHS ORGANIZING TEAM LETTER - ATTACHMENT A Materials updated 12.15.20 Packet pg. 48 PATHS ORGANIZING TEAM LETTER - ATTACHMENT A Materials updated 12.15.20 Packet pg. 49 PATHS ORGANIZING TEAM LETTER - ATTACHMENT A Materials updated 12.15.20 Packet pg. 50 PATHS ORGANIZING TEAM LETTER - ATTACHMENT A Materials updated 12.15.20 Packet pg. 51 PATHS ORGANIZING TEAM LETTER - ATTACHMENT A Materials updated 12.15.20 Packet pg. 52 PATHS ORGANIZING TEAM LETTER - ATTACHMENT A Materials updated 12.15.20 Packet pg. 53 PATHS ORGANIZING TEAM LETTER - ATTACHMENT A Materials updated 12.15.20 Packet pg. 54 PATHS ORGANIZING TEAM LETTER - ATTACHMENT A Materials updated 12.15.20 Packet pg. 55 PATHS ORGANIZING TEAM LETTER - ATTACHMENT A Materials updated 12.15.20 Packet pg. 56 PATHS ORGANIZING TEAM LETTER - ATTACHMENT A Materials updated 12.15.20 Packet pg. 57 PATHS ORGANIZING TEAM LETTER - ATTACHMENT A Materials updated 12.15.20 Packet pg. 58 PATHS ORGANIZING TEAM LETTER - ATTACHMENT A Materials updated 12.15.20 Packet pg. 59 PATHS ORGANIZING TEAM LETTER - ATTACHMENT A Materials updated 12.15.20 Packet pg. 60 PATHS ORGANIZING TEAM LETTER - ATTACHMENT A Materials updated 12.15.20 Packet pg. 61 PATHS ORGANIZING TEAM LETTER - ATTACHMENT A Materials updated 12.15.20 Packet pg. 62 &RQFHSWXDO5HYLHZ$JHQGD6FKHGXOHIRU11Meetings hosted via Zoom Web Conferencing$SSOLFDQW,QIR7KXUVGD\November 7LPH 3URMHFW1DPH3URMHFW'HVFULSWLRQThis is a request to amend the Prospect & I-25 Overall Development Plan (ODP) originally approved in 2004. The ODP includes the area directly northeast of the I-25 and Prospect Road interchange (parcel # 8715000021, 8715000022, 8715000009, 8715300003, 8715300002, and 8715300004). The intent of the proposed minor amendment is to reflect changes to parcel boundaries, the devolved CDOT frontage road, and the connections to Fox Grove that have occurred since the time of the original approval. The site is within the Industrial (I), General Commercial (CG), and Urban Estate (UE) zone districts and the process would be subject to a Minor Amendment (MA) process..Roger Sherman970-223-7577rsherman@bhadesign.comThis is a request to develop approximately 632 dwelling units (mixture of single-family detached, single-family attached, townhomes, and multi-family) as well as 34,000 square feet for commercial uses at the former Hughes Stadium site (parcel #9720100913). The proposed project includes a park facility, an 18-hole disc-golf course, and foothills trail access. The proposed site is approximate 161 acres with access from S Overland Trail to the east and Dixon Canyon Rd to the south. The property is within the Transition (T) zone district and is subject to Site Plan Advisory Review (SPAR).Brett Anderson303-246-3138brett.anderson@colostate.edu3URVSHFW ,2'30LQRU$PHQGPHQW&'5Planner: Kai Kleer Engineer: Dave Betley DRC: Brandy Bethurem HarrasPlanner: Cameron Gloss Engineer: Marc Virata DRC: Tenae Beane$=RRP:HELQDU/LQNIRUWKLV&RQFHSWXDO5HYLHZPHHWLQJZLOOEHSRVWHGDWIFJRYFRPGHYHORSPHQWUHYLHZSURSRVDOVKRXUVEHIRUHWKHPHHWLQJWLPHThis is a request to develop approximately 28 acres into a mixed residential use project located east of Redwood Street and north of Suniga Road (parcel # 9701400004, 9701411001, 9701400001). Future access will be taken via a new public street off Redwood Street to the west. The proposal includes approximately 200-220 dwelling units (mixture of single-family attached/detached and two-family attached townhomes). The proposal also includes 437 parking spaces (some on-street) to meet the minimum requirement of 344 spaces. The project is located in the Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (LMN) zone district and is subject to an Administrative (Type 1) review.1Stephanie Hansen970-498-2977stephanie@ripleydesigninc.com5HGZRRG 6XQLJD6LQJOH)DPLO\DQG7ZR)DPLO\'HYHORSPHQW&'51RWH$VLPLODUSURSRVDOIRUWKLVVLWHZDVUHYLHZHGRQVHH&'5Planner: Pete Wray Engineer: Spencer SmithDRC: Todd Sullivan+XJKHV6WDGLXP5HVLGHQWLDO'HYHORSPHQW63$5&'5PATHS ORGANIZING TEAM LETTER - ATTACHMENT BMaterials updated 12.15.20Packet pg. 63 Proposed (east Prospect Site) §¨¦25 §¨¦25 Se Frontage RdSw Frontage RdCanal Dr Smithfield Dr Quest Dr Sunchase DrVitala DrFox Grove Dr Mclaughlin LnEspirit Dr Vixen DrHunts m anDrStockton AvePleasure DrTod DrRollins Den DrNicks Tail Dr CarriagePkwyBoxelder DrInterstate 25E Prospect Rd Interstate 25© Prospect & I-25 Overall Development Plan (ODP) Minor Amendment These map products and all underlying data are developed for use by the City of Fort Collins for its internal purposes only, and were not designed or intended for general use by members of the public. The City makes no representation or warranty as to its accuracy, timeliness, or completeness, and in particular, its accuracy in labeling or displaying dimensions, contours, property boundaries, or placement of location of any map features thereon. THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS MAKES NO WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR WARRANTY FOR FITNESS OF USE FOR PARTICULAR PURPOSE, EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, WITH RESPECT TO THESE MAP PRODUCTS OR THE UNDERLYING DATA. Any users of these map products, map applications, or data, accepts same AS IS, WITH ALL FAULTS, and assumes all responsibility of the use thereof, and further covenants and agrees to hold the City harmless from and against all damage, loss, or liability arising from any use of this map product, in consideration of the City's having made this information available. Independent verification of all data contained herein should be obtained by any users of these products, or underlying data. The City disclaims, and shall not be held liable for any and all damage, loss, or liability, whether direct, indirect, or consequential, which arises or may arise from these map products or the use thereof by any person or entity. 1 inch = 667 feet^_^_£¤287 £¤287 £¤287 UV14 ¬«1 §¨¦25 §¨¦25 §¨¦25 Douglas Vine Mountain Vista Mulberry Trilby LemayShieldsHarmonyTaft HillProspect Horsetooth Drake TimberlineI CG E UE LMN E CGCC E Proposed (east Prospect Site) !"`$ !"`$SwFrontageRdSun c h a s e DrSmithfieldDrMclaughlin LnQuest Dr Vitala DrBrenton Dr F o x G r o ve D rStockton AveJutlandLnWithers Dr Espirit Dr Brumby Ln Noriker DrKitchell Way Denrose Ct Rollins Den DrInterstate 25E Prospect Rd Aerial Site MapVicinity Map Zoning Map 1 inch = 1,667 feet 1 inch = 19,081 feet PATHS ORGANIZING TEAM LETTER - ATTACHMENT B Materials updated 12.15.20 Packet pg. 64 General Information All proposed development projects begin with Conceptual Review. Anyone with a development idea can schedule a Conceptual Review meeting to get feedback on prospective development ideas. At this stage, the development idea does not need to be finalized or professionally presented. However, a sketch plan and this application must be submitted to City Staff prior to the Conceptual Review meeting. The more information you are able to provide, the better feedback you are likely to get from the meeting. Please be aware that any information submitted may be considered a public record, available for review by anyone who requests it, including the media. The applicant acknowledges that they are acting with the owner's consent. Conceptual Reviews are scheduled on three Thursday mornings per month on a “first come, first served” basis and are a free service. One 45 meeting is allocated per applicant and only three conceptual reviews are done each Thursday morning. A completed application must be submitted to reserve a Conceptual Review time slot. Complete applications and sketch plans must be submitted to City Staff on Thursday, no later than end of day, two weeks prior to the meeting date. Application materials must be e-mailed to currentplanning@fcgov.com. If you do not have access to e-mail, other accommodations can be made upon request. At Conceptual Review, you will meet with Staff from a number of City departments, such as Community Development and Neighborhood Services (Zoning, Current Planning, and Development Review Engineering), Light and Power, Stormwater, Water/Waste Water, Advance Planning (Long Range Planning and Transportation Planning) and Poudre Fire Authority. Comments are offered by staff to assist you in preparing the detailed components of the project application. There is no approval or denial of development proposals associated with Conceptual Review. At the meeting you will be presented with a letter from staff, summarizing comments on your proposal. *BOLDED ITEMS ARE REQUIRED* *The more info provided, the more detailed your comments from staff will be.* Contact Name(s) and Role(s)(Please identify whether Consultant or Owner, etc) _______________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________ Business Name (if applicable) ________________________________________________________________________ Your Mailing Address _______________________________________________________________________________ Phone Number ______________________Email Address _________________________________________________ Site Address or Description (parcel # if no address) _____________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________ Description of Proposal (attach additional sheets if necessary) _____________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________ Proposed Use ______________________________ Existing Use __________________________________________ Total Building Square Footage ___________ S.F. Number of Stories ______ Lot Dimensions ______________________ Age of any Existing Structures ______________________________________________________________________ Info available on Larimer County’s Website: http://www.co.larimer.co.us/assessor/query/search.cfm If any structures are 50+ years old, good quality, color photos of all sides of the structure are required for conceptual. Is your property in a Flood Plain? □ Yes □ No If yes, then at what risk is it? _____________________________ Info available on FC Maps: http://gisweb.fcgov.com/redirect/default.aspx?layerTheme=Floodplains. Increase in Impervious Area __________________________________________________________ S.F. (Approximate amount of additional building, pavement, or etc. that will cover existing bare ground to be added to the site) Suggested items for the Sketch Plan: Property location and boundaries, surrounding land uses, proposed use(s), existing and proposed improvements (buildings, landscaping, parking/drive areas, water treatment/detention, drainage), existing natural features (water bodies, wetlands, large trees, wildlife, canals, irrigation ditches), utility line locations (if known), photographs (helpful but not required). Things to consider when making a proposal: How does the site drain now? Will it change? If so, what will change? Consultant: Roger Sherman BHA Design 1603 Oakridge Drive, Fort Collins, CO 80525 970.223.7577 rsherman@bhadesign.com 8715000021, 8715000022, 8715000009, 8715300003, 8715300002, and 8715300004 This ODP Minor Amendment is generally a needed to reflect changes to the parcel boundaries, devolved CDOT frontage road, and connections to Fox Grove. No rezoning proposed Commercial, Industrial, Urban Estate Agriculture (zoned Commercial, Industrial, and UE zoning) TBD TBD TBD One building exists - uncertain of age based on review of public records. Remnant of other structure(s) exist Portion is High Floodway and High To be determined with future development applications PATHS ORGANIZING TEAM LETTER - ATTACHMENT B Materials updated 12.15.20 Packet pg. 65 PATHS ORGANIZING TEAM LETTER - ATTACHMENT BMaterials updated 12.15.20Packet pg. 66 Parcel 1 Industrial 68.25 Acres 1 PSD Property y Right of W a y PSD PropeCarri a g e P ar k w a y Parcel 4 Industrial Parcel 3 ctivity Center eral Commercial 26.42 Acres Timnath Inlet Canal 100-Year Floodplain PATHS ORGANIZING TEAM LETTER - ATTACHMENT B Materials updated 12.15.20 Packet pg. 67 Colorado State University - Foothills Horsetooth Reservoir Di xon Re se r vo i r B a n y anDrG o l d e n C u rra n tB lv d Azalea Dr Sumac St Real CtSpruce DrCa talpaCt Pal m DrRidge Top DrRoss DrCa t a l p aDrPecan St Reedgrass Ct Honey s u c k leC tPalm Ct Wheatgrass C t S Coun ty Road 23 County Road 4 2 c W ProspectRd W LakeSt W Stuar t S tS Overland Trl© Hughes Stadium Residential Development Site Plan Advisory Review (SPAR) These map products and all underlying data are developed for use by the City of Fort Collins for its internal purposes only, and were not designed or intended for general use by members of the public. The City makes no representation or warranty as to its accuracy, timeliness, or completeness, and in particular, its accuracy in labeling or displaying dimensions, contours, property boundaries, or placement of location of any map features thereon. THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS MAKES NO WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR WARRANTY FOR FITNESS OF USE FOR PARTICULAR PURPOSE, EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, WITH RESPECT TO THESE MAP PRODUCTS OR THE UNDERLYING DATA. Any users of these map products, map applications, or data, accepts same AS IS, WITH ALL FAULTS, and assumes all responsibility of the use thereof, and further covenants and agrees to hold the City harmless from and against all damage, loss, or liability arising from any use of this map product, in consideration of the City's having made this information available. Independent verification of all data contained herein should be obtained by any users of these products, or underlying data. The City disclaims, and shall not be held liable for any and all damage, loss, or liability, whether direct, indirect, or consequential, which arises or may arise from these map products or the use thereof by any person or entity. 1 inch = 833 feet^_^_^_ £¤287 £¤287 £¤287 UV14 ¬«1 §¨¦25 §¨¦25 §¨¦25 Douglas Vine Mountain Vista Mulberry Trilby LemayShieldsHarmonyTaft HillProspect Horsetooth Drake TimberlineT RLRF MMN POL POL LMN NC Overland Park Dixon Reservoir Aza le a DrBanyanDrSumac St Pe c a nStRoss D rLarchStGo l d e n C u rra n t Blvd Neil Dr Compass CtLa Reatta CtBelmar DrCounty Road 4 2 c W ProspectRd W S t u a r t S t S Overland TrlAerial Site MapVicinity Map Zoning Map 1 inch = 1,667 feet 1 inch = 19,081 feet PATHS ORGANIZING TEAM LETTER - ATTACHMENT B Materials updated 12.15.20 Packet pg. 68 PATHS ORGANIZING TEAM LETTER - ATTACHMENT B Materials updated 12.15.20 Packet pg. 69 EXISTING DETENTION AREA HOMES LE-FAMILY TACHED 127 HOMES SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED 11 2 PAI R SING AT PATHS ORGANIZING TEAM LETTER - ATTACHMENT B Materials updated 12.15.20 Packet pg. 70 5À·BLÑÁ6¬]ÕÕ"¢ÕPQÕÂÃÄËÅ¾}µ½³ÕjÕ!!! ! !!Æ»(fÕ& ^~ÕÇÕ7C89?@'Ò:;<È É#£u N$¡ÕÕ¦koÕGHÕ ! !§4|gW` XJYlÕÕZw Õ SXrjog67lYg3 Hs$*^mi(PZ-qt2yu';:/wv f"\#jyx ybEMy,yGpy>LN05Cy@=?01874IaO!y<c_yR&JABQyhn9yk]W[ye%+d`FKDy. Ty)yUyVyOH¥3¹ÊDMÕabÕM.ÕcÕAºzÕ nx¤°)E²ËÌ=>s,©ÕÕO%/_ piÕ% //!"#$%&/! /'/(// + / !%*//,/)/2ÕÍÕTh!e-®F¶¯*[ª±ÓÎÏÕ¸ÕIRSÕ¼vÕÕrÕÕdÕUm¨K1ÕÕ+qÕ Õ\¿0{Õt«VÕ #"$%%%% ´Õ !yÕÐÕÕ.-/ / ÔÕ PATHS ORGANIZING TEAM LETTER - ATTACHMENT B Materials updated 12.15.20 Packet pg. 71 PATHS ORGANIZING TEAM LETTER - ATTACHMENT B Materials updated 12.15.20 Packet pg. 72 352-(&7'$7$1 BED / 1 BA DUPLEX 2 BED / 2 BA DUPLEX 2 BED / 2 BA DETACHED CASITA 2 BED / 2 BA DETACHED WITH GARAGE CASITA 3 BED / 2BA DETACHED CASITA 1 727$/3$5.,1*5(48,5(' TWO FAMILY DWELLINGS 1 BED 92 DU X 1.5= 2 BED 46 DU X 1.75 = SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED 12 BED 69 DU X 2= 3 BED 23 DU X 2= 43 727$/3$5.,1*3529,'('UNCOVERED PRIVATE GARAGE 727$/335,9$7(675((735,9$7(675((735,9$7(675((7'(7(17,21$5($'(7(17,221$5($35,9$7(675((735,9$7(675((75(':22'675((7681,*$52$'3$5.$&5(6&/8%+286(/($6,1*6,1*/(6725<*$5$*(%/'*6,1*/(6725<%(''83/(;6,1*/(6725<%(''(7$&+('&$6,7$6,1*/(67725<'(7$&+(''%('&$6,7$%(''83/(;+$7&+6+2:61')/5 6(7%$&.PATHS ORGANIZING TEAM LETTER - ATTACHMENT BMaterials updated 12.15.20Packet pg. 73 +RVH/HQJWK +RVH/HQJWK 6LGHZDON/HQJWK35,9$7(675((752$':$<:$/.3.:<87,/ 5$',86 5$',86PATHS ORGANIZING TEAM LETTER - ATTACHMENT BMaterials updated 12.15.20Packet pg. 74 MINIMAL RISK. PAINLESS PROCESS. BEAUTIFUL SPACES. o: 970.224.5828 | w: ripleydesigninc.com RIPLEY DESIGN, INC. | 419 Canyon Avenue, Suite 200 | Fort Collins, CO 80521 October 30th, 2020 City of Fort Collins Community Development and Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80522 RE: Enclave at Redwood Background This project is very similar to the last site plan that City Staff has seen for this site called Redwood St. & Suniga Rd Single-Family & Townhome Development. Most of the conceptual review comments from CDR200049 still apply. However, • Instead of having townhomes we are proposing all single-family casitas • The three required housing types will be Single Family Detached (without garages), Single-family detached dwellings with front loaded garages, and two-family dwellings. All the units are on one lot acting as detached condominiums with the HOA taking care of all common areas • The vehicular access will come off Redwood instead of both Redwood and Suniga • Only one connection to Northfield is proposed • Parking stalls are located in off-street parking courts Proposed Use DR Horton is proposing a single family, for rent product, with the proposed density below the 9 DU/AC maximum density allowed in the zone district. The project will include a variety of building models with diverse façade treatments. The single-family detached units and the two-family units are a product type called a casita. The dwelling is smaller than typical houses and only includes a garage on some of the units. All dwelling units are intended to be rented as a whole unit and not per bedroom. A pocket park is located in the center of the parcel and a future regional trail will be accommodated for along the Lake Canal. The project will use the adjacent neighborhood center located in Northfield to fulfil those standards. Existing improvements and uses The site is currently vacant. Site circulation The site plan proposes all street-like private drives. Parking spaces are located off-street in parking courts which also serve as emergency access for perimeter access to the buildings. A bank of five garages terminates each parking court. Street connections are proposed to Redwood and Northfield. An emergency access, if needed, is provided at Lupine Drive. This is not intended to be a through-street. Site design and architecture The site design responds to the unique shape by placing units along a loop road which is then surrounded by open space. This open space creates a buffer to the ditch and surrounding neighborhoods. A central park provides usable recreation space as well as an area for detention. The units are turned 90 degrees so that the park is adjacent to side yards rather than rear yards on at least 50% of the park. The casitas are arranged in small pods to create intimate neighborhoods. Shared entry walks lead from parking and public streets to front doors. This allows front doors to open to each other creating a sense of community. The architecture utilizes a variety of styles common to Colorado, including Ranch, Farmhouse and Craftsman styles. PATHS ORGANIZING TEAM LETTER - ATTACHMENT B Materials updated 12.15.20 Packet pg. 75 MINIMAL RISK. PAINLESS PROCESS. BEAUTIFUL SPACES. o: 970.224.5828 | w: ripleydesigninc.com RIPLEY DESIGN, INC. | 419 Canyon Avenue, Suite 200 | Fort Collins, CO 80521 Requirements for approval in the City of Fort Collins such as masonry percentages etc. will be considered as needed for approvals (if applicable). Compatibility The land to the west is currently single-family homes, to the east is vacant, and to the north is multi-family homes. This project is proposing single family homes which fits in perfectly to its surrounding uses. Our goal is to minimize the impact on the existing residences by not using Lupine Drive as a through street. Stormwater detention, existing drainage patters and treating run-off The overall site drains in an easterly direction. The project is proposing two stormwater management facilities: one located in the middle of the project site, and the second located south of the planned location of Suniga Drive. While the location of the southern pond seems to lend itself to stormwater detention and open space, it is acknowledged that this location could be difficult with the existing utilities (3 water mains and the NECCO outfall) located within the ultimate right-of-way for Suniga Drive. Both stormwater management facilities will be designed with extended detention to provide standard water quality and will outfall into the existing NECCO outfall at a rate prescribed by the City. The project will also be designed to satisfy the City’s LID requirements. City to confirm that the previously approved drainage patterns from Redwood Village P.U.D., Phase I, can be maintained and that there is no detention encumbrance for off-site flows on the subject property. Impacts to natural features The irrigation ditch and wetland areas are required to have natural habitat buffer zones. These will be maintained or modified as suggested within the ecological characterization study (ECS). The ECS that was completed in 2018 stated that a few inactive prairie dog holes were existing but no wildlife was observed on site. Vegetation consisted of typical mixed-grass prairie, several Cottonwoods and the noxious weed Russian Olive. Additionally, no habitat for sensitive or specially valued species was found. Fire sprinklers The single family detached units are not required to have fire sprinklers. Unusual factors that may restrict the proposal Street connectivity is the most unusual factor. The alignment of Suniga has cut off a small section of this property to the south. Intersection spacing criteria leaves it almost undevelopable. There are not any street stubs to the north. The eastern edge of the site is an irrigation ditch and the residents who live to the west would prefer not to have any street connections. Previously submitted application The Retreat was previously submitted by a different interested party with the intent of student housing. This is the second application submitted by D.R. Horton. Questions for Staff 1. Streets that were platted as part of the Redwood Village Subdivision will need to be vacated. Can this process start sooner and run concurrently with this application? 2. Will the groundwater outfall be allowed to go into the NECCO as negotiated with staff previously? 3. What APF (adequate Public facilities) will need to be mitigated for with the Vine and Lemay intersection improvements moving ahead? 4. An ECS for this property was submitted in 2018, would this still be considered valid? 5. Will a jurisdictional determination need to be made on the wetlands? 6. Will staff require a modification for “single family detached homes without garages”? The land use code does not specify that this is a permitted housing type. 7. What process is required for terminating Site and Landscape Covenants for the Redwood Village Phase II PUD? 8. Will gang meters be permitted for water meters since this is a for rent product not on fee-simple lots? PATHS ORGANIZING TEAM LETTER - ATTACHMENT B Materials updated 12.15.20 Packet pg. 76 The Board of Governors of the Colorado State University System Meeting Date: October 9, 2020 _____________ Action Item Approved Board Approval of the Public Purposes, Uses, and Site Plan for the Hughes Property Page 1 of 5 MATTER FOR ACTION: The Board of Governors of the Colorado State University System (the “Board”) approval of the public purposes, goals, uses, and site plan for the Hughes Property and exercising the Board’s full legal authority to adopt Board law that establishes and implements those public purposes, goals, uses, and the site plan for the Hughes Property. RECOMMENDED ACTION: WHEREAS, the Board owns 161 acres of real property located at 2011 South Overland Trail in Fort Collins, Colorado (the “Property” or the “Hughes Property”). The Property was the former site of Hughes Stadium, and that structure has been demolished and removed in order to use the Property for different Board public purposes, objectives, and goals. WHERAS, the Board reaffirms its previously stated objectives with respect to the future use and development of the Property, including the following public purposes: •Serving the collective interests of CSU, Larimer County, and the City of Fort Collins; •Providing opportunities for open space and environmentally conscious development; •Including public access to adjacent trails and open spaces; •Maintaining strong connections to existing off-site trail systems; •Providing connections to bike trails and transit systems; •Offering opportunities for affordable, attainable, and workforce housing; •Meeting broader university and community needs, such as neighborhood retail, senior and childcare services, health care facilities, and community facilities; and •Satisfying the Board’s fiduciary duty to generate a financial return from the Property, with such revenues from the use of the Property supporting operations of the CSU System and Colorado State University, in order to the benefit CSU employees, faculty, and students, as well as the citizens of Fort Collins, Larimer County, and the State of Colorado. WHEREAS, the Board specifically desires to use the Property for the public purposes and benefits of creating attainable and affordable housing for lower income CSU employees, decreasing the carbon footprint for Colorado State University, as well as adding additional services that might benefit the community in the course of training CSU students. The Board recognizes that attainable and affordable housing opportunities are important elements in recruiting and retaining PATHS ORGANIZING TEAM LETTER - ATTACHMENT C Materials updated 12.15.20 Packet pg. 77 The Board of Governors of the Colorado State University System Meeting Date: October 8, 2020 Action Item Board Approval of the Public Purposes, Uses, and Site Plan for the Hughes Property Page 2 of 5 Colorado State University employees, and our valuable employees play a critical role in the university’s success and the success of our students. WHEREAS, the Board acknowledges the importance of environmental sustainability and responsibility, and the Property is favorably located such that it can integrate into the public transit system and reduce our carbon footprint. Also, the Property can integrate into the bike and pedestrian trail systems and add open space and buffers where appropriate. Accordingly, future uses of the Property will be consistent with the Board’s goal and the specific public purpose to add environmental value while balancing financial returns in accordance with the Board’s fiduciary duties. WHEREAS, the Property can be used to develop learning opportunitites for CSU students by providing locations for medical facilities, child care facilities, or other facilities that would benefit the surrounding community, and future uses of the Property will be consistent with these Board goals and these specific public purposes. WHEREAS, the City of Fort Collins approved its City Plan on April 16, 2019 (the “City Plan”). The City of Fort Collins describes the City Plan, as follows: “The City Plan is the comprehensive and transportation master plan for Fort Collins. It articulates our community’s vision and core values; guides how the community will grow and travel in the future; and provides high-level policy direction used by the City organization, local and regional partners, and the community at large to achieve our vision and priorities. The City Plan takes the long view, identifying goals and actions the community should take over the next ten to twenty years.” WHEREAS, the City Plan identifies the City’s “Core Values” and “Outcome Areas” including livability, sustainability, and community, and these Core Values and Outcome Areas align with the Board’s goals, public purposes, and uses for the Property. WHEREAS, the City Plan includes the Structure Plan map, which is used in conjunction with the principles and policies stated in the City Plan to guide where and how growth occurs. The April 2019 Structure Plan map was developed following the City’s “evaluation of issues and opportunities pertaining to five focus areas”: •Making the most of the land we have left; •Taking steps to support a healthy and resilient economy; PATHS ORGANIZING TEAM LETTER - ATTACHMENT C Materials updated 12.15.20 Packet pg. 78 The Board of Governors of the Colorado State University System Meeting Date: October 9, 2020 _____________ Action Item Approved •Encouraging more housing options; •Expanding transportation and mobility options; and •Maintaining our focus on climate action. The Structure Plan map references the Property and contemplates that the Property would be developed for “suburban neighborhood” and “mixed neighborhood” uses. WHEREAS, the conceptual site plan for the Property that is attached to this Action Item (the “Site Plan”) incorporates the Board’s goals, uses, and public purposes for the Property that are set forth in this Action Item. In addition, this Site Plan is consistent with the City Plan, including the Structure Plan map and its “five focus areas.” WHEREAS, the Board, the CSU System, and Colorado State University, have attempted to work with the City of Fort Collins for many years in order to achieve the Board’s goals, uses, and public purposes for the Property and to simultaneously achieve the City’s Core Values and Outcome Areas as identified in the City Plan and the Structure Plan map. Unfortunately, CSU’s collaborative efforts have not been successful, as the City has failed to support and follow its own City Plan and Structure Plan map in light of City Council’s failure to support its own staff recommendation regarding the Property. The City has essentially disregarded the April 2019 City Plan and Structure Plan map, thus frustrating the Board’s goals, public purposes, and uses for the Property. Accordingly, the Board is exercising its legal authority to implement its goals, public purposes, and uses for the Property as identified in this Action Item, which are consistent with the City Plan and Structure Plan map. WHEREAS, under the Colorado law, specifically Article VIII, Section 5 of the Colorado Constition and C.R.S. § 23-31-103, the Board has a significant measure of autonomy and the authority to determine how the Board uses its land, including the Property. Specifically, Colorado law provides that the Board “has the general control and supervision of the Colorado state university and lands and the use thereof” and the Board “has plenary power to adopt all such ordinances, bylaws, and regulations, not in conflict with the law, as they may deem necessary to secure the successful operation of the university and promote the designed objects.” WHEREAS, Colorado law, specifically C.R.S. § 31-23-209, further contemplates that a state actor, such as the Board, has the authority to overrule a local governmental entity, such as the City of Fort Collins, and Section 2.16 of the City’s Land Use Code sets forth the City’s Site Plan Advisory Review (“SPAR”) proc ess, which acknowledges the City’s review over the Board’s uses for the Property is merely advisory and the Board has the authority to overrule any denial of the Board’s application. Accordingly, the Colorado Constitution, Colorado statutory law, and the Board Approval of the Public Purposes, Uses, and Site Plan for the Hughes Property Page 3 of 5 PATHS ORGANIZING TEAM LETTER - ATTACHMENT C Materials updated 12.15.20 Packet pg. 79 The Board of Governors of the Colorado State University System Meeting Date: October 8, 2020 Action Item City of Fort Collins Land Use Code clearly evidence a legislative intent at all levels that the Board has plenary authority over its property, including the Hughes Property. It is MOVED that the Board exercises its legal authority under Colorado law to determine the present and future uses of the Property in accordance with the specific public purposes, goals, objectives, and benefits referenced in this Action Item, and this exercise of authority through this Action Item has the full force and effect of law. It is FURTHER MOVED that the Board approves the Site Plan for the Property and this approval represents the full force of the Board’s legal authority to adopt law, ordinance, and regulation for the Property. It is FURTHER MOVED that the Chancellor is authorized to move forward with any and all necessary actions to implement development and other activities to accomplish the uses illustrated in the Site Plan and those public purposes, goals, and uses identified in this Action Item. Is is FURTHER MOVED that the Chancellor is authorized to submit an application with the City of Fort Collins that is consistent with the Board’s goals, uses, and public purposes for the Property, as identified in this Action Item. This application may be submitted in accordance with Colorado law, specifically C.R.S. § 31-23-209, in order to give the City an opportunity to have an advisory review of that application. The City uses its SPAR process for such an advisory review, and the Chancellor is authorized to submit an application as part of the SPAR process. The Board expressly reserves any and all authority under state law to override the City’s disapproval of that application. Further, to the extent the SPAR process purports to require the Board to take steps or actions that are beyond the process set forth in C.R.S. § 31-23-209, the Chancellor is not required to follow any such extraneous process. It is FURTHER MOVED that the Chancellor is authorized to execute any agreement, lease agreement, or grant or retain any related easement or restriction in order to implement the Board’s public purposes, goals, and uses as described in this Action Item and in the Site Plan, in consultation with General Counsel. EXPLANATION PRESENTED BY: Dr. Tony Frank, Chancellor, Colorado State University System, and Jason L. Johnson, General Counsel, Colorado State University System Board Approval of the Public Purposes, Uses, and Site Plan for the Hughes Property Page 4 of 5 PATHS ORGANIZING TEAM LETTER - ATTACHMENT C Materials updated 12.15.20 Packet pg. 80 The Board of Governors of the Colorado State University System Meeting Date: October 9, 2020 _____________ Action Item Approved Board Approval of the Public Purposes, Uses, and Site Plan for the Hughes Property Page 5 of 5 In addition to the self-explanatory provisions of this Action Item, the Chancellor and General Counsel will provide any additional details. ____________ __________ ___________________________________ Approved Denied Dean Singleton, Board Secretary _______________________ Date PATHS ORGANIZING TEAM LETTER - ATTACHMENT C Materials updated 12.15.20 Packet pg. 81 1 Katharine Claypool From:Noah Beals Sent:Thursday, December 10, 2020 5:08 PM To:Katharine Claypool Cc:Development Review Comments Subject:FW: [EXTERNAL] P&Z Land Use Code question Categories:P&Z From: Noah Beals Sent: Monday, December 7, 2020 9:28 PM To: Lisa <notael02@gmail.com> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] P&Z Land Use Code question Hello Lisa, Thanks for the email. We continue to get request for second kitchens. These request come in for all different reasons with different conditions. The proposed changes will help direct answering these inquires. We hope these changes will help ensure when a second kitchen is added it does not create another dwelling unit and make it illegal to add a second kitchen if it does. Here is the proposed code language: (H)Second Kitchen. A maximum of one additional kitchen may be established inside a dwelling unit without creating an additional dwelling unit if the Director determines: (1)That both kitchens are accessible to all occupants of the dwelling unit; (2)That neither kitchen is located in an accessory building; and (3)That both kitchens have non‐separated, continuous, and open access with no locked doors separating the kitchens from the rest of the dwelling unit. The property owner of a dwelling unit in which a second kitchen is approved by the Director shall prior to issuance of a building permit sign and record with the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder a notarized affidavit stating that the second kitchen will not be used for a second dwelling unit and the property owner acknowledges and agrees that the dwelling shall only be used as a single‐family dwelling. This does not increase occupancy limits. Let us know if there are more comments or questions. Regards, Noah Beals Interim Development Review Manager | City of Fort Collins 970 416-2313 LUC CORRESPONDENCE 1 Materials updated 12.15.20 Packet pg. 82 2 From: Lisa <notael02@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, December 7, 2020 1:42 PM To: Noah Beals <nbeals@fcgov.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL] P&Z Land Use Code question Hi Noah, Can you please tell me more about this: The Planning and Zoning Board will review two proposed changes to the Land Use Code on December 17th: Regulations to allow a second kitchen in a dwelling unit without increasing the occupancy limits. Thanks, Lisa LUC CORRESPONDENCE 1 Materials updated 12.15.20 Packet pg. 83 1 Katharine Claypool From:Noah Beals Sent:Friday, December 11, 2020 9:47 AM To:Michelle Haefele Cc:Paul S. Sizemore; Katharine Claypool Subject:RE: [EXTERNAL] RE: RE: Re: Additional information for work session Attachments:ORD 091 2018.docx; ORD 59 2017.docx; Ord. No 155 2015.docx Categories:P&Z Hello Michelle, Attached are the Highlighted copies showing that changes that were presented at the Planning and Zoning Board of the three ordinances. Let me know if there more questions. Kind Regards, Noah Beals Interim Development Review Manager | City of Fort Collins 970 416-2313 From: michelle.a.haefele@gmail.com <michelle.a.haefele@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, December 11, 2020 8:00 AM To: Noah Beals <nbeals@fcgov.com> Cc: Paul S. Sizemore <psizemore@fcgov.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: RE: Re: Additional information for work session Noah, I wanted to see the marked up versions so I could see what changes were made. I found the agendas for the first reading of the 2015 and 2017 changes but I cannot find the agenda item for the changes made on 7/17/18. Can you please send me the marked up version (not final, the one with the added, removed, and changed language visible as strikethrough and highlighted text). Thank you. Michelle Haefele LUC CORRESPONDENCE 2 Materials updated 12.15.20 Packet pg. 84 2 From: Noah Beals <nbeals@fcgov.com> Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2020 4:38 PM To: Michelle Haefele <michelle.a.haefele@gmail.com> Cc: Paul S. Sizemore <psizemore@fcgov.com> Subject: RE: RE: Re: Additional information for work session Good Evening, Yes, there has been 3 changes to this section within the last five years. This section does include Major and Minor Amendments. The following links to the ordinances with those changes. Ord. No. 155, 2015 §3, 12/15/15 ; Ord. No. 059, 2017 , § 4, 5/2/17; Ord. No. 091, 2018 , §7, 7/17/18) Kind Regards, Noah Beals Interim Development Review Manager | City of Fort Collins 970 416-2313 From: michelle.a.haefele@gmail.com <michelle.a.haefele@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, December 9, 2020 4:59 PM To: Noah Beals <nbeals@fcgov.com> Cc: Paul S. Sizemore <psizemore@fcgov.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Re: Additional information for work session One more question – have there been any other changes to the minor amendment section in recent years (within the last 5 years or so)? Michelle Haefele From: Noah Beals <nbeals@fcgov.com> Sent: Wednesday, December 9, 2020 3:56 PM To: Michelle Haefele <michelle.a.haefele@gmail.com> Cc: Paul S. Sizemore <psizemore@fcgov.com> Subject: RE: Re: Additional information for work session Hello Michelle, The following is the language that was adopted in 1997. It appears this specific language was included in the initial adoption. 2.2.10 Step 10: Amendments LUC CORRESPONDENCE 2 Materials updated 12.15.20 Packet pg. 85 3 (A) Minor Amendments. Minor amendments to any approved development plan or any site specific development plan (except replats) may be approved, approved with conditions, or denied administratively by the Director and may be authorized without additional public hearings. Such minor amendments may be authorized by the Director as long as the development application, as so amended, continues to comply with the standards of this Land Use Code, at least to the extent of its original compliance (so as to preclude any greater deviation from the standards of this Land Use Code by reason of such amendments). Minor amendments shall only consist of any or all of the following: I hope that answers the question. Regards, Noah Beals Interim Development Review Manager | City of Fort Collins 970 416-2313 From: Michelle Haefele <michelle.a.haefele@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 8, 2020 6:45 PM To: Noah Beals <nbeals@fcgov.com> Cc: Paul S. Sizemore <psizemore@fcgov.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Additional information for work session Thanks, I’m really just looking for when the language allowing the director to decide minor amendments was adopted. On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 6:14 PM Noah Beals <nbeals@fcgov.com> wrote: Hello Michelle, Thanks for emailing this question. What I have found so far is this section was adopted in 1997 with adoption of current Land Use Code. I am looking through the minutes we have available online, but I am not seeing which meeting the LUC received recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Board in 1997. I will continue to look and see if I can find any hard copies. If I find the minutes I will send them. Kind Regards, Noah Beals LUC CORRESPONDENCE 2 Materials updated 12.15.20 Packet pg. 86 4 Interim Development Review Manager | City of Fort Collins 970 416-2313 From: michelle.a.haefele@gmail.com <michelle.a.haefele@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 8, 2020 3:38 PM To: Paul S. Sizemore <psizemore@fcgov.com>; Noah Beals <nbeals@fcgov.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Additional information for work session Noah and Paul, Can you send me some additional info, or have it ready for the work session. I’d like to know when was section 2.2.10 (A) added to the LUC and I’d like to see the P&Z minutes (and the hearing date). Thanks, Michelle Michelle Haefele “The price of apathy towards public affairs is to be ruled by evil men.” –Plato ‐‐ Michelle Haefele "The great enemy of freedom is the alignment of political power with wealth. This alignment destroys the commonwealth ‐ that is, the natural wealth of localities and the local economies of household, neighborhood, and community ‐ and so destroys democracy, of which the commonwealth is the foundation and practical means.” Wendell Berry LUC CORRESPONDENCE 2 Materials updated 12.15.20 Packet pg. 87 PENDING FURTHER LEGAL REVIEW 1 ORDINANCE NO. ___, 2015 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS MAKING VARIOUS AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS LAND USE CODE Section 3. That Section 2.2.10 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 2.2.10 Step 10: Amendments and Changes of Use (A)Minor Amendments and Changes of Use. Minor amendments and changes of use meeting the criteria of 2.2.10(A)(1) or 2.2.10(A)(2) to any approved development plan, including any Overall Development Plan or Project Development Plan, or any site specific development plan (except replats)or existing conditions of platted properties may be approved, approved with conditions, or denied administratively by the Director and may be authorized without additional public hearings. Such minor amendments and changes of use may be authorized by the Director as long as the development plan, as so amended, continues to comply with the standards of this Code to the extent reasonably feasible, at least to the extent of its original compliance (so as to preclude any greater deviation from the standards of this Code by reason of such amendments). Minor amendments and changes of use shall only consist of any or all of the following: (1)Any change to any approved development plan or any site specific development plan (except a minor subdivision [no longer authorized in this Code]) which was originally subject only to administrative review and was approved by the Director, or any change of use of any property that was developed pursuant to a basic development review or a use-by-right review under prior law; provided that such change would not have disqualified the original plan from administrative review had it been requested at that time; and provided that the change or change of use complies with all of the following criteria applicable to the particular request for change or change of use: (a)the minor amendment Rresults in an increase by one (1) percent or less in the approved number of dwelling units, except that in the case of a change of use of any property that was developed pursuant to a basic development review or use-by-right review under prior law, the number of dwelling units proposed to be added may be four (4) units or less; or (b)the minor amendment Rresults in an increase or decrease in the amount of square footage of a nonresidential land use or structure that does not change the character of the project; or LUC CORRESPONDENCE 2, ATTACHMENT 1 Materials updated 12.15.20 Packet pg. 88 PENDING FURTHER LEGAL REVIEW 2 (c)the minor amendment Rresults in a change in the housing mix or use mix ratio that complies with the requirements of the zone district and does not change the character of the project; or (d)the minor amendment Ddoes not result in a change in the character of the development; or (e)the minor amendment Ddoes not result in new buildings, building additions or site improvements, such as parking lots and landscaping, that are proposed to be located outside the boundaries of the approved Project Development Plan or approved site specific development plan; or (f)the minor amendment Rresults in a decrease in the number of approved dwelling units and does not change the character of the project, and that the plan as amended continues to comply with the requirements of this Code.; and/or (g)Iin the case of a change of use of any property that was developed pursuant to a basic development review or use-by-right review under prior law, the minor amendment change of use results in the building and parcel of ground upon which the building is located being brought into compliance, to the extent reasonably feasible, with the applicable general development standards contained in Article 3 and the applicable district standards contained in Article 4 of this Code. (2)Any change to any approved development plan or any site specific develop- ment plan which was originally subject to review by the Planning and Zoning Board (either as a Type 2 project or as a project reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Board under prior law), or any change of use of any property that and was approved by the Planning and Zoning Board; provided that the change or change of use complies with all of the following criteria applicable to the particular request for change or change of use: (a)the minor amendment Rresults in an increase or decrease by one (1) percent or less in the approved number of dwelling units; or (b)the minor amendment Rresults in an increase or decrease in the amount of square footage of a nonresidential land use or structure that does not change the character of the project; or (c)the minor amendment Rresults in a change in the housing mix or use mix ratio that complies with the requirements of the zone district and does not change the character of the project; or (d)the minor amendment Ddoes not result in a change in the character of the development; and/or (e)the minor amendment Ddoes not result in new buildings, building additions or site improvements, such as parking lots and landscaping, that are proposed LUC CORRESPONDENCE 2, ATTACHMENT 1 Materials updated 12.15.20 Packet pg. 89 PENDING FURTHER LEGAL REVIEW 3 to be located outside the boundaries of the approved Project Development Plan or approved site specific development plan. (3) Referral. In either (1) or (2) above, the Director may refer the amendment or change of use to the Administrative Hearing Officer or Planning and Zoning Board. The referral of minor amendments or changes of use to development plans approved under the laws of the City for the development of land prior to the adoption of this Code shall be processed as required for the land use or uses proposed for the amendment as set forth in Article 4 (i.e., Type 1 review or Type 2 review) for the zone district in which the land is located. The referral of minor amendments or changes of use to project development plans or final plans approved under this Code shall be reviewed and processed in the same manner as required for the original development plan for which the amendment or change of use is sought, and, if so referred, the decision of the Hearing Officer or Planning and Zoning Board shall constitute a final decision, subject only to appeal as provided for development plans under Division 2.3, 2.4 or 2.5, as applicable, for the minor amendment or change of use. (4) Appeals. Appeals of the decision of the Director regarding the approval, approval with conditions or denial of changes of use or minor amendments of any approved development plan, or site specific development plan, or existing conditions of platted properties shall be to the Planning and Zoning Board. Any such appeal shall be taken by filing a notice of appeal of the final decision with the Director within fourteen (14) days after the action that is the subject of the appeal. The decision of the Planning and Zoning Board on such appeals shall constitute a final decision appealable pursuant to Section 2.2.12 (Step 12). (B) Major Amendments and Changes of Use Not Meeting the Criteria of 2.2.10(A). (1) Procedure/Criteria. Amendments and changes of use to any approved development plan (including any Overall Development Plan or Project Development Plan) or site specific development plan that are not determined by the Director to be minor amendments or qualifying changes of use under the criteria set forth in subsection (A) above, shall be deemed major amendments. Major amendments to approved development plans or site specific development plans approved under the laws of the City for the development of land prior to the adoption of this Code shall be processed as required for the land use or uses proposed for the amendment as set forth in Article 4 (i.e., Type 1 review or Type 2 review) for the zone district in which the land is located, and, to the maximum extent feasible, shall comply with the applicable standards contained in Articles 3 and 4. Major amendments to development plans or site specific development plans approved under this Code shall be reviewed and processed in the same manner as required for the original development plan for which amendment is sought. Any major amendments to an approved project development plan or site specific development plan shall be recorded as amendments in accordance with the procedures established for the filing and recording of such initially approved plan. Any partial or total abandonment of a development plan or site specific LUC CORRESPONDENCE 2, ATTACHMENT 1 Materials updated 12.15.20 Packet pg. 90 PENDING FURTHER LEGAL REVIEW 4 development plan approved under this Code, or of any plan approved under the laws of the City for the development of land prior to the adoption of this Code, shall be deemed to be a major amendment, and shall be processed as a Type 2 review; provided, however, that if a new land use is proposed for the property subject to the abandonment, then the abandonment and new use shall be processed as required for the land use or uses proposed as set forth in Article 4 (i.e., Type 1 review or Type 2 review) for the zone district in which the land is located. . . . LUC CORRESPONDENCE 2, ATTACHMENT 1 Materials updated 12.15.20 Packet pg. 91 DRAFT – FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY 1 ORDINANCE NO. ___, 2017 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS MAKING VARIOUS AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS LAND USE CODE 2.2.10 - Step 10: Amendments and Changes of Use (A)Minor Amendments and Changes of Use. (1) Minor amendments to any approved development plan, including any Overall Development Plan or Project Development Plan, any site specific development plan, or the existing condition of a platted property ;, and (2) Cchanges of use, either of which meeting the applicable criteria of below subsections 2.2.10(A)(1) or 2.2.10(A)(2), may be approved, approved with conditions, or denied administratively by the Director and may be authorized without additional public hearings. Such minor amendments and changes of use may be authorized by the Director as long as the development pl an, as so amended, continues to comply with the standards of this Code to the extent reasonably feasible. Minor amendments and changes of use shall only consist of any or all of the following: (1)Any change to any approved development plan or any site specific development plan which was originally subject only to administrative review and was approved by the Director, or any change of use of any property that was developed pursuant to a basic development review or a use-by-right review under prior law; provided that such change would not have disqualified the original plan from administrative review had it been requested at that time; and provided that the change or change of use complies with all o f the following criteria applicable to the particular request for change or change of use: . . . (g)In the case of a change of use of any property that was developed pursuant to a basic development review or use -by-right review under prior law , the change of use results in the site building and parcel of ground upon which the building is located being brought into compliance, to the extent reasonably feasible as such extent may be modified pursuant to below subsection 2.2.10(A)(3), with the applicable general development standards contained in Article 3 and the applicable district standards contained in Article 4 of this Code . . . . (3)Waiver of Development Standards for Changes of Use . LUC CORRESPONDENCE 2, ATTACHMENT 2 Materials updated 12.15.20 Packet pg. 92 DRAFT – FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY 2 (a)Applicability. The procedure and standards contained in this Section shall apply only to changes of use reviewed pursuant to Section 2.2.10(A) of this Code. (b)Purpose. In order for a change of use to be granted pursuant to Section 2.2.10(A), the change of use must result in the site being brought into compliance with all applicable general development and zone district standards to the extent reasonably feasible. The purpose of this Section is to allow certain changes of use that do not comply with all general development standards to the extent reasonably feasible to be granted pursuant to Section 2.2.10(A) in order to: 1.Ensure the economic feasibility for the u se, maintenance and improvement of certain legally constructed buildings and sites which do not comply with certain Land Use Code General Development Standards provided that: a.Existing blight conditions have been ameliorated; and b.Public and private improvements are made that address essential health and life safety issues that are present on - site. 2.Encourage the eventual upgrading of nonconforming buildings, uses and sites. (c)Review by Director. As part of the review conducted pursuant to Section 2.2.10(A) for a proposed change of use, the Director may waive or waive with conditions any of the development standards set forth in subsection (d) below. In order for the Director to waive or waive w ith conditions any such development standard, the Director must find that such waiver or waiver with conditions would not be detrimental to the public good and that each of the following is satisfied: 1.The site for which the waiver or waiver with con ditions is granted satisfies the policies of the applicable Council adopted subarea, corridor or neighborhood plan within which the site is located; 2.The proposed use will function without adverse impact upon adjacent properties and the district within which it is located in consideration of the waiver or waiver with conditions; 3.Existing blight conditions on the site are addressed through site clean-up, maintenance, screening, landscaping or some combination thereof; and LUC CORRESPONDENCE 2, ATTACHMENT 2 Materials updated 12.15.20 Packet pg. 93 DRAFT – FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY 3 4.The site design addresses essential health and public safety concerns found on the site. (d)Eligible Development Standards. The Director may grant a waiver or waiver with conditions for the following general development standards: 1.Sections 3.2.1(4), (5) and (6) related to Parking Lot Perimeter and Interior Landscaping, and connecting walkways. 2.Section 3.2.2 (M) Landscaping Coverage. 3.Section 3.2.4 Site Lighting, except compliance with minimum footcandle levels described in 3.2.4(C). 4.Section 3.2.5 Trash and Recycling Enclosure design. 5.Section 3.3.5 Engineering Design standards related to water quality standard, including Low Impact Development. (34)Referral. In either subsection (1) or (2) above, the Director may refer the amendment or change of use to the Administrative Hearing Officer or Planning and Zoning Board. The referral of minor amendments to development plans or changes of use allowed or approved under the laws of the City for the development of land prior to the adoption of this Code shall be processed as required for the land use or uses proposed for the amendment or change of use as set forth in Article 4 (i.e., Type 1 review or Type 2 review) for the zone district in which the land is located. The referral of minor amendments or changes of use to project development plans or final plans approved under this Code shall be reviewed and processed in the same manner as required for the original development plan for which the amendment or change of use is sought, and, if so referred, the decision of the Hearing Officer or Planning and Zoning Board shall constitute a final decision, subject only to appeal as provided for development plans under Division 2.3, 2.4 or 2.5, as applicable, for the minor amendment or change of use. (45)Appeals. Appeals of the decision of the Director regarding the approval, approval with conditions or denial of, a change of use, or a minor amendment of any approved development plan, site specific development plan, or the existing condition of a platted property, shall be to the Planning and Zoning Board. Any such appeal shall be taken by filing a notice of appeal of the final decision with the Director within fourteen (14) days after the action that is the subject of the appeal. The decision of the Planning and Zoning Board on such appeals shall constitute a final decision appealable pursuant to Section 2.2.12 (Step 12). LUC CORRESPONDENCE 2, ATTACHMENT 2 Materials updated 12.15.20 Packet pg. 94 DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY PENDING FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION 2.2.10 - Step 10: Amendments and Changes of Use (A)Minor Amendments and Changes of Use. (1) Minor amendments to any approved development plan, including any Overall Development Plan, or Project Development Plan, or PUD Master Plan, any site specific development plan, or the existing condition of a platted property; and (2) Changes of use, either of which meet the applicable criteria of below subsections 2.2.10(A)(1) or 2.2.10(A)(2), may be approved, approved with conditions, or denied administratively by the Director and may be authorized without additional public hearings. With the exception of PUD Master Plans, sSuch minor amendments and changes of use may be authorized by the Director as long as the development plan, as so amended, continues to comply with the standards of this Code to the extent reasonably feasible. PUD Master Plan Minor amendments may be authorized by the Director as long as the PUD Master Plan, as so amended, continues to comply with the standards of this Code, as such standards may have been modified in the existing PUD Master Plan, and are consistent with the existing PUD Master Plan. Minor amendments and changes of use shall only consist of any or all of the following: (1)Any change to any approved development plan or any site specific development plan which was originally subject only to administrative review and was approved by the Director, or any change of use of any property that was developed pursuant to a basic development review or a use-by- right review under prior law; provided that such change would not have disqualified the original plan from administrative review had it been requested at that time; and provided that the change or change of use complies with all of the following criteria applicable to the particular request for change or change of use: (a)Results in an increase by one (1) percent or less in the approved number of dwelling units, except that in the case of a change of use of any property that was developed pursuant to a basic development review or use-by-right review under prior law, the number of dwelling units proposed to be added may be four (4) units or less; (b)Results in an increase or decrease in the amount of square footage of a nonresidential land use or structure that does not change the character of the project; (c)Results in a change in the housing mix or use mix ratio that complies with the requirements of the zone district and does not change the character of the project; (d)Does not result in a change in the character of the development; (e)Does not result in new buildings, building additions or site improvements, such as parking lots and landscaping, that are proposed to be located outside the boundaries of the approved Project Development Plan or approved site specific development plan; (f)Results in a decrease in the number of approved dwelling units and does not change the character of the project, and that the plan as amended continues to comply with the requirements of this Code; and (g)In the case of a change of use, the change of use results in the site being brought into compliance, to the extent reasonably feasible as such extent may be modified pursuant to below subsection 2.2.10(A)(3), with the applicable general development standards contained in Article 3 and the applicable district standards contained in Article 4 of this Code. (2)Any change to any approved development plan or any site specific development plan which was originally subject to review by the Planning and Zoning Board (either as a Type 2 project or as a project reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Board under prior law) or City Council review of a PUD Overlay, or any change of use of any property that was approved by the Planning and Zoning Board; provided that the change or change of use complies with all of the following criteria applicable to the particular request for change or change of use: (a)Results in an increase or decrease by one (1) percent or less in the approved number of dwelling units; LUC CORRESPONDENCE 2, ATTACHMENT 3 Materials updated 12.15.20 Packet pg. 95 DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY PENDING FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION (b)Results in an increase or decrease in the amount of square footage of a nonresidential land use or structure that does not change the character of the project; (c)Results in a change in the housing mix or use mix ratio that complies with the requirements of the zone district and does not change the character of the project; (d)Does not result in a change in the character of the development; and (e)Does not result in new buildings, building additions or site improvements, such as parking lots and landscaping, that are proposed to be located outside the boundaries of the approved Project Development Plan or approved site specific development plan. (3)Waiver of Development Standards for Changes of Use. (a)Applicability. The procedure and standards contained in this Section shall apply only to changes of use reviewed pursuant to Section 2.2.10(A) of this Code. (b)Purpose. In order for a change of use to be granted pursuant to Section 2.2.10(A), the change of use must result in the site being brought into compliance with all applicable general development and zone district standards to the extent reasonably feasible. The purpose of this Section is to allow certain changes of use that do not comply with all general development standards to the extent reasonably feasible to be granted pursuant to Section 2.2.10(A) in order to: 1.Foster the economic feasibility for the use, maintenance and improvement of certain legally constructed buildings and sites which do not comply with certain Land Use Code General Development Standards provided that: a.Existing blight conditions have been ameliorated; and b.Public and private improvements are made that address essential health and life safety issues that are present on-site. 2.Encourage the eventual upgrading of nonconforming buildings, uses and sites. (c)Review by Director. As part of the review conducted pursuant to Section 2.2.10(A) for a proposed change of use, the Director may waive, or waive with conditions, any of the development standards set forth in subsection (d) below. In order for the Director to waive, or waive with conditions, any such development standard, the Director must find that such waiver or waiver with conditions would not be detrimental to the public good and that each of the following is satisfied: 1.The site for which the waiver or waiver with conditions is granted satisfies the policies of the applicable Council adopted subarea, corridor or neighborhood plan within which the site is located; 2.The proposed use will function without significant adverse impact upon adjacent properties and the district within which it is located in consideration of the waiver or waiver with conditions; 3.Existing blight conditions on the site are addressed through site clean-up, maintenance, screening, landscaping or some combination thereof; and 4.The site design addresses essential health and public safety concerns found on the site. (d)Eligible Development Standards. The Director may grant a waiver or waiver with conditions for the following general development standards: 1.Sections 3.2.1(4), (5) and (6) related to Parking Lot Perimeter and Interior Landscaping, and connecting walkways. 2.Section 3.2.2(M) Landscaping Coverage. LUC CORRESPONDENCE 2, ATTACHMENT 3 Materials updated 12.15.20 Packet pg. 96 DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY PENDING FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION 3.Section 3.2.4 Site Lighting, except compliance with minimum footcandle levels described in 3.2.4(C). 4.Section 3.2.5 Trash and Recycling Enclosure design. 5.Section 3.3.5 Engineering Design standards related to water quality standard, including Low Impact Development. (4)Referral. In either subsection (1) or (2) above, the Director may refer the amendment or change of use to the decision maker who approved the development plan proposed to be amendedAdministrative Hearing Officer or Planning and Zoning Board. The referral of minor amendments to development plans or changes of use allowed or approved under the laws of the City for the development of land prior to the adoption of this Code shall be processed as required for the land use or uses proposed for the amendment or change of use as set forth in Article 4 (i.e., Type 1 review or Type 2 review) for the zone district in which the land is located. The referral of minor amendments or changes of use to project development plans or final plans approved under this Code shall be reviewed and processed in the same manner as required for the original development plan for which the amendment or change of use is sought, and, if so referred, the decision maker’s decisionof the Hearing Officer or Planning and Zoning Board shall constitute a final decision, subject only to appeal as provided for development plans under Division 2.3, 2.4, or 2.5, or 2.15 as applicable, for the minor amendment or change of use. City Council approval of a minor amendment to a PUD Master Plan shall be by resolution. (5)Appeals. Appeals of the decision of the Director regarding the approval, approval with conditions or denial of, a change of use, or a minor amendment of any approved development plan, site specific development plan, or the existing condition of a platted property, shall be to the Planning and Zoning Board. Any such appeal shall be taken by filing a notice of appeal of the final decision with the Director within fourteen (14) days after the action that is the subject of the appeal. The decision of the Planning and Zoning Board on such appeals shall constitute a final decision appealable pursuant to Section 2.2.12 (Step 12). (B)Major Amendments and Changes of Use Not Meeting the Criteria of 2.2.10(A). (1)Procedure/Criteria. Amendments to any approved development plan, including any Overall Development Plan, or Project Development Plan, or PUD Master Plan, or any site specific development plan, and changes of use that are not determined by the Director to be minor amendments or qualifying changes of use under the criteria set forth in subsection (A) above, shall be deemed major amendments. Major amendments to approved development plans or site specific development plans approved under the laws of the City for the development of land prior to the adoption of this Code shall be processed as required for the land use or uses proposed for the amendment as set forth in Article 4 (i.e., Type 1 review or Type 2 review) for the zone district in which the land is located, and, to the maximum extent feasible, shall comply with the applicable standards contained in Articles 3 and 4. Major amendments to development plans or site specific development plans approved under this Code shall be reviewed and processed in the same manner as required for the original development plan for which amendment is sought. Any major amendments to an approved project development plan or site specific development plan shall be recorded as amendments in accordance with the procedures established for the filing and recording of such initially approved plan. City Council approval of a major amendment to a PUD Master Plan shall be by resolution. Any partial or total abandonment of a development plan or site specific development plan approved under this Code, or of any plan approved under the laws of the City for the development of land prior to the adoption of this Code, shall be deemed to be a major amendment, and shall be processed as a Type 2 review; provided, however, that if a new land use is proposed for the property subject to the abandonment, then the abandonment and new use shall be processed as required for the land use or uses proposed as set forth in Article 4 (i.e., Type 1 review or Type 2 review) for the zone district in which the land is located. LUC CORRESPONDENCE 2, ATTACHMENT 3 Materials updated 12.15.20 Packet pg. 97 DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY PENDING FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION (2)Appeals. Appeals of decisions for approval, approval with conditions or denial of major amendments, or abandonment, of any approved development plan or site specific development plan shall be filed and processed in accordance with Section 2.2.12 (Step 12). (C)Additional Criteria. In addition to the criteria established in (A) and (B) above, the criteria established in subsection 2.1.4(C) shall guide the decision maker in determining whether to approve, approve with conditions, or deny the application for partial or total abandonment. (D)Parkway Landscaping Amendments. Amendments to parkway landscaping in any approved development plan may be approved, approved with conditions or denied administratively by the Director. No public hearing need be held on an application for a parkway landscaping amendment. Such amendments may be authorized by the Director as long as the development plan, as so amended, continues to comply with the Fort Collins Streetscape Standards, Appendix C, Section 6.1 in the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards. Appeals of the decision of the Director regarding the approval, approval with conditions or denial of parkway landscaping amendments of any approved development plan shall be made in accordance with paragraph (A)(4) of this Section. LUC CORRESPONDENCE 2, ATTACHMENT 3 Materials updated 12.15.20 Packet pg. 98 DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY PENDING FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION 2.2.11 - Step 11: Lapse (A)Application Submittals. An application submitted to the City for the review and approval of a development plan must be diligently pursued and processed by the applicant. Accordingly, the applicant, within one hundred eighty (180) days of receipt of written comments and notice to respond from the City on any submittal (or subsequent revision to a submittal) of an application for approval of a development plan, shall file such additional or revised submittal documents as are necessary to address such comments from the City. If the additional submittal information or revised submittal is not filed within said period of time, the development application shall automatically lapse and become null and void. The Director may grant one (1) extension of the foregoing one-hundred- eighty-day requirement, which extension may not exceed one hundred twenty (120) days in length, and one (1) additional extension which may not exceed sixty (60) days in length. This subsection (A) shall apply to applications which are, or have been, filed pursuant to this Code and to applications which are, or have been, filed pursuant to the laws of the City for the development of land prior to the adoption of this Code. On transfer of ownership of any real property that is the subject of a pending application, whether in whole or in part, such transfer shall bar a new owner or transferee from taking further action on such application unless, prior to taking any action, the new owner provides evidence satisfactory to the Director that the transferor of such property intended that all rights of the owner under the pending application be assigned to the transferee. (B)Overall Development Plan. There is no time limit for action on an overall development plan. Because an overall development plan is only conceptual in nature, no vested rights shall ever attach to an overall development plan. The approval of, or completion of work pursuant to, project development plans or final plans for portions of an overall development plan shall not create vested rights for those portions of the overall development plan which have not received such approvals and have not been completed. (C)PUD Master Plan. A PUD Master Plan shall be eligible for a vested property right solely with respect to uses, densities, development standards, and Engineering Standards for which variances have been granted pursuant to Section 4.29(L), as all are set forth in an approved PUD Master Plan, and an approved PUD Master Plan shall be considered a site specific development plan solely for the purpose of acquiring such vested property right. (1)Specification of Uses, Densities, Development Standards, and Engineering Standards. The application for a PUD Master Plan shall specify the uses, densities, development standards, and Engineering Standards granted variances pursuant to Section 4.29(L), for which the applicant is requesting a vested property right. Such uses, densities, and development standards may include those granted modifications pursuant to Section 4.29 and uses, densities, and development standards set forth in the Land Use Code which are applicable to the PUD Master Plan. (2)Term of Vested Right. The term of the vested property right shall not exceed three (3) years unless: (a) an extension is granted pursuant to paragraph (3) of this subsection, or (b) the City and the developer enter into a development agreement which vests the property right for a period exceeding three (3) years. Such agreement may be entered into by the City if the Director determines that it will likely take more than three (3) years to complete all phases of the development and the associated engineering improvements for the development, and only if warranted in light of all relevant circumstances, including, but not limited to, the overall size of the development and economic cycles and market conditions. Council shall adopt any such development agreement as a legislative act subject to referendum. (3)Extensions. Extensions for two (2) successive periods of one (1) year each may be granted by the Director, upon a finding that (a) the applicant has been diligently pursuing development LUC CORRESPONDENCE 2, ATTACHMENT 3 Materials updated 12.15.20 Packet pg. 99 DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY PENDING FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION pursuant to the PUD Master Plan, and (b) granting the extension would not be detrimental to the public good. Any additional one-year extensions shall be approved, if at all, only by the original PUD Master Plan decision maker, upon a finding that (a) the applicant has been diligently pursuing development pursuant to the PUD Master Plan, and (b) granting the extension would not be detrimental to the public good. A request for an extension of the term of vested right under this Section must be submitted to the Director in writing at least thirty (30) days prior to the date of expiration. Time is of the essence. The granting of extensions by the Director under this Section may, at the discretion of the Director, be referred to the original PUD Master Plan decision maker. (4)Publication. A "notice of approval" describing the PUD Master Plan and stating that a vested property right has been created or extended, shall be published by the City once in a newspaper of general circulation within the City, not later than fourteen (14) days after the approval of a PUD Master Plan, an extension of an existing vested right, or the legislative adoption of a development agreement as described in paragraph (2) of this subsection. The period of time permitted by law for the exercise of any applicable right of referendum or judicial review shall not begin to run until the date of such publication, whether timely made within said fourteen-day period, or thereafter. (5)Minor and Major Amendments. In the event that a minor or major amendment to a PUD Master Plan is approved under the provisions of Section 2.2.10, and such amendment alters or adds uses, densities, development standards, or Engineering Standards for which variances have been granted pursuant to Section 4.29(L), a new vested property right may be created upon the applicant’s request and pursuant to paragraph 2 of this subsection. If the applicant wants the term of the new vested property right to exceed three years, such extended term must be approved and legislatively adopted pursuant to paragraph 2 of this subsection. (DC)Project Development Plan and Plat. Following the approval of a project development plan and upon the expiration of any right of appeal, or upon the final decision of the City Council following appeal, if applicable, the applicant must submit a final plan for all or part of the project development plan within three (3) years unless the project development plan is for a large base industry to be constructed in phases, in which case the application for approval of a final plan must be submitted within twenty-five (25) years. If such approval is not timely obtained, the project development plan (or any portion thereof which has not received final approval) shall automatically lapse and become null and void. The Director may grant one (1) extension of the foregoing requirement, which extension may not exceed six (6) months in length. No vested rights shall ever attach to a project developme nt plan. The approval of, or completion of work pursuant to, a final plan for portions of a project development plan shall not create vested rights for those portions of the project development plan which have not received such final plan approval and have not been completed. (ED) Final Plan and Plat and Other Site Specific Development Plans. (1)Approval. A site specific development plan shall be deemed approved upon the recording by the City with the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder of both the Final Plat and the Development Agreement and upon such recording, a vested property right shall be created pursuant to the provisions of Article 68 Title 24, C.R.S., and this Section 2.2.11. (2)Publication. A "notice of approval" describing generally the type and intensity of use approved and the specific parcel or parcels affected, and stating that a vested property right has been created or extended, shall be published by the City once, not later than fourteen (14) days after the approval of any final plan or other site specific development plan in a newspaper of general circulation within the City. The period of time permitted by law for the exercise of any applicable right of referendum or judicial review shall not begin to run until the date of such publication, whether timely made within said fourteen-day period, or thereafter. LUC CORRESPONDENCE 2, ATTACHMENT 3 Materials updated 12.15.20 Packet pg. 100 DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY PENDING FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION (3)Term of Vested Right. Within a maximum of three (3) years following the approval of a final plan or other site specific development plan, the applicant must undertake, install and complete all engineering improvements (water, sewer, streets, curb, gutter, street lights, fire hydrants and storm drainage) in accordance with city codes, rules and regulations. The period of time shall constitute the "term of the vested property right." The foregoing term of the vested property right shall not exceed three (3) years unless: (a) an extension is granted pursuant to paragraph (4) of this subsection, or (b) the City and the developer enter into a development agreement which vests the property right for a period exceeding three (3) years. Such agreement may be entered into by the City only if the subject development constitutes a "large base industry" as defined in Article 5, or if the Director determines that it will likely take more than three (3) years to complete all engineering improvements for the development, and only if warranted in light of all relevant circumstances, including, but not limited to, the size and phasing of the development, economic cycles and market conditions. Any such development agreement shall be adopted as a legislative act subject to referendum. Failure to undertake and complete such engineering improvements within the term of the vested property right shall cause a forfeiture of the vested property right and shall require resubmission of all materials and reapproval of the same to be processed as required by this Code. All dedications as contained on the final plat shall remain valid unless vacated in accordance with law. (4)Extensions. Extensions for two (2) successive periods of one (1) year each may be granted by the Director, upon a finding that the plan complies with all general development standards as contained in Article 3 and Zone District Standards as contained in Article 4 at the time of the application for the extension. Any additional one-year extensions shall be approved, if at all, only by the Planning and Zoning Board, upon a finding that the plan complies with all applicable general development standards as contained in Article 3 and Zone District Standards as contained in Article 4 at the time of the application for the extension, and that (a) the applicant has been diligent in constructing the engineering improvements required pursuant to paragraph (3) above, though such improvements have not been fully constructed, or (b) due to other extraordinary and exceptional situations unique to the property, completing all engineering improvements would result in unusual and exceptional practical difficulties or undue hardship upon the applicant, and granting the extension would not be detrimental to the public good. A request for an extension of the term of vested right under this Section must be submitted to the Director in writing at least thirty (30) days prior to the date of expiration. Time is of the essence. The granting of extensions by the Director under this Section may, at the discretion of the Director, be referred to the Planning and Zoning Board. (5)Minor Amendments. In the event that minor amendments to a final plan or other site-specific development plan are approved under the provisions of Section 2.2.10 (or under prior law, if permissible), the effective date of such minor amendments, for purposes of duration of a vested property right, shall be the date of the approval of the original final plan or other site-specific development plan. (6)Major Amendments. The approval of major amendments to a final plan or other site-specific development plan under the provisions of Section 2.2.10 (or under prior law, if permissible), shall create a new vested property right with effective period and term as provided herein, unless expressly stated otherwise in the decision approving such major amendment. (7)Planning over old plans. In the event that a new final plan is approved for a parcel of property which includes all of a previously approved site-specific development plan, the approval of such new final plan shall cause the automatic expiration of such previously approved site-specific development plan. In the event that a new final plan is approved for a parcel of property which includes only a portion of a previously approved site-specific development plan, the approval of such new final plan shall be deemed to constitute the abandonment of such portion of the previously approved plan as is covered by such new plan, and shall be reviewed according to the abandonment criteria contained in subsection 2.1.4(C) and all other applicable criteria of this Code. LUC CORRESPONDENCE 2, ATTACHMENT 3 Materials updated 12.15.20 Packet pg. 101 DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY PENDING FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION (8)Other provisions unaffected. Approval of a final plan or other site-specific development plan shall not constitute an exemption from or waiver of any other provisions of this Code pertaining to the development and use of property. (9)Post denial re-submittal delay. Property that is the subject of an overall development plan or a project development plan that has been denied by the decision maker or denied by City Council upon appeal, or withdrawn by the applicant, shall be ineligible to serve, in whole or in part, as the subject of another overall development plan or project development plan application for a period of six (6) months from the date of the final decision of denial or the date of withdrawal (as applicable) of the plan unless the Director determines that the new plan includes substantial changes in land use, residential density and/or nonresidential intensity. (10)Automatic repeal; waiver. Nothing in this Section is intended to create any vested property right other than such right as is established pursuant to the provisions of Article 68, Title 24, C.R.S. In the event of the repeal of said article or a judicial determination that said article is invalid or unconstitutional, this Section shall be deemed to be repealed and the provisions hereof no longer effective. Nothing herein shall be construed to prohibit the waiver of a vested property right pursuant to mutual agreement between the City and the affected landowner. Upon the recording of any such agreement with the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder, any property right which might otherwise have been vested shall be deemed to be not vested. LUC CORRESPONDENCE 2, ATTACHMENT 3 Materials updated 12.15.20 Packet pg. 102 DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY PENDING FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION 2.4.2 - Project Development Plan Review Procedures A project development plan shall be processed according to, in compliance with and subject to the provisions contained in Division 2.1 and Steps 1 through 12 of the Common Development Review Procedures (Sections 2.2.1 through 2.2.12, inclusive) as follows: (A)Step 1 (Conceptual Review): Applicable, only if the project development plan is not subject to an overall development plan. (B)Step 2 (Neighborhood Meeting): Applicable. (C)Step 3 (Development Application Submittal): All items or documents required for project development plans as described in the development application submittal master list shall be submitted. The Director may waive or modify the foregoing submittal requirements if, given the facts and circumstances of the specific application, a particular requirement would either be irrelevant, immaterial, redundant or otherwise unnecessary for the full and complete review of the application. (D)Step 4 (Review of Applications): Applicable. (E)Step 5 (Staff Report): Applicable. (F)Step 6 (Notice): Applicable. (G)Step 7(A) (Decision Maker): Applicable as follows: (1)Administrative review (Type 1 review) applies to a project development plan that satisfies all of the following conditions: (a)it was submitted after the effective date of this Land Use Code and is subject to the provisions of this Land Use Code; and (b)it contains only permitted uses subject to administrative review as listed in the zone district (set forth in Article 4, District Standards) in which it is located. (2)Planning and Zoning Board review (Type 2 review) applies to a project development plan that does not satisfy all of the conditions in (1), above. Step 7(B)-(G) (Conduct of Public Hearing, Order of Proceedings at Public Hearing, Decision and Findings, Notification to Applicant, Record of Proceedings, Recording of Decisions and Plats): Applicable. (H)Step 8 (Standards): Applicable. A project development plan shall comply with all General Development Standards applicable to the development proposal (Article 3) and the applicable District Standards (Article 4); and, when a project development plan is within the boundaries of an approved overall development plan or PUD Overlay, the project development plan shall be consistent with the overall development plan or PUD Master Plan associated with such PUD Overlay. Only one (1) application for a project development plan for any specific parcel or portion thereof may be pending for approval at any given time. Such application shall also be subject to the provisions for delay set out in Section 2.2.11. (I)Step 9 (Conditions of Approval): Applicable. (J)Step 10 (Amendments): Applicable. (K)Step 11 (Lapse): Applicable. (L)Step 1 2 (Appeals): Applicable. LUC CORRESPONDENCE 2, ATTACHMENT 3 Materials updated 12.15.20 Packet pg. 103 DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY PENDING FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION Article 5 – Terms and Definitions Proposed Amendments Planned Unit Development (PUD) Overlay shall mean an area of land approved for development pursuant to a PUD Master Plan under Division 4.29 and Division 2.15. An approved PUD Overlay overlays the PUD Master Plan entitlements and restrictions upon the underlying zone district requirements. Planned Unit Development (PUD) Master Plan shall mean an approved plan for development of an area within an approved PUD Overlay, which identifies the general intent of the development and establishes vested uses, densities and certain modification of development standards. An approved PUD Master Plan substitutes for the requirement for an Overall Development Plan. A PUD Master Plan is considered a site specific development plan solely with respect to vested property rights regarding specific uses, densities, Land Use Code development standards, and variances from Engineering Design Standards granted pursuant to Section 4.29(L). LUC CORRESPONDENCE 2, ATTACHMENT 3 Materials updated 12.15.20 Packet pg. 104 DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY PENDING FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION Draft Proposed Repeal and Replacement of City of Fort Collins Land Use Code Divisions 2.15 and 4.29 Division 2.15 - Planned Unit Development Overlay Review Procedure (A)Purpose. To provide an avenue for property owners with larger and more complex development projects to achieve flexibility in site design in return for significant public benefits not available through traditional development procedures. (B)Applicability. Application for approval of a PUD Overlay is available to properties of 50 20 acres or greater in size. (C)Process. (1)Step 1 (Conceptual Review/Preliminary Design Review): Applicable. (2)Step 2 (Neighborhood Meeting): Applicable to any proposed PUD Overlay subject to Planning and Zoning Board or City Council review. If a neighborhood meeting is required at the conceptual planning stage pursuant to Section 2.2.2, a second neighborhood meeting shall be required after the PUD Overlay application has been submitted and the first round of staff review completed. (3)Step 3 (Development Application Submittal): All items or documents as described in the development application submittal master list for a PUD Overlay shall be submitted. Notwithstanding, the Director may waive or modify the foregoing submittal requirements if, given the facts and circumstances of the specific application, a particular requirement would either be irrelevant, immaterial, redundant or otherwise unnecessary for the full and complete review of the application. (4)Step 4 (Review of Application): Applicable. (5)Step 5 (Staff Report): Applicable. (6)Step 6 (Notice): Applicable. (7)Step 7(A) (Decision Maker): Applicable as follows: (1)Planning and Zoning Board review (Type 2 review) applies to PUD Overlay applications between 50 20 and 640 acres; (2)City Council is the decision maker for PUD Overlay applications greater than 640 acres after receiving a Planning and Zoning 1 LUC CORRESPONDENCE 2, ATTACHMENT 3 Materials updated 12.15.20 Packet pg. 105 DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY PENDING FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION Board recommendation. City Council approval of a PUD Overlay shall be by ordinance. Step 7(B) through (G) (Conduct of a Public Hearing, Order of Proceedings at Public Hearing, Decision and Findings, Notification to Applicant, Record of Proceeding, Recording of Decision): Applicable. (8)Step 8 (Standards): Applicable. Except as modified pursuant to Sections 4.29 (E) and (G), a PUD Master Plan shall be consistent with all applicable General Development Standards (Article 3) and District Standards (Article 4) including Division 4.29. (9)Step 9 (Conditions of Approval): Applicable. (10)Step 10 (Amendments): Applicable. (11)Step 11 (Lapse): Applicable. (12)Step 12 (Appeals): Applicable. A Planning and Zoning Board decision on a PUD Overlay between 50 20 and 640 acres is appealable to City Council pursuant to Section 2.2.12(A). Appeals of Project Development Plans within PUD Overlays are subject to the limitations of Section 4.29(J). 2 LUC CORRESPONDENCE 2, ATTACHMENT 3 Materials updated 12.15.20 Packet pg. 106 DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY PENDING FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION Division 4.29 - Planned Unit Development (PUD) Overlay (A) Purpose. (1)Directs and guides subsequent Project Development Plans and Final Plans for large or complex developments governed by an approved PUD Master Plan. (2)Substitutes a PUD Master Plan for an Overall Development Plan for real property within an approved PUD Overlay. (3)Positions large areas of property for phased development. (4)Encourages innovative community planning and site design to integrate natural systems, energy efficiency, aesthetics, higher design, engineering and construction standards and other community goals by enabling greater flexibility than permitted under the strict application of the Land Use Code, all in furtherance of adopted and applicable City plans, policies, and standards. (5)Allows greater flexibility in the mix and distribution of land uses, densities, and applicable development and zone district standards. (B)Objectives. (1)Encourage conceptual level review of development for large areas. (2)In return for flexibility in site design, development under a PUD Overlay must provide public benefits greater than those typically achieved through the application of a standard zone district, including one or more of the following as may be applicable to a particular PUD Master Plan: (a)Diversification in the use of land; (b)Innovation in development; (c)More efficient use of land and energy; (d)Public amenities commensurate with the scope of the development; (e)Furtherance of the City’s adopted plans and policies; and (f)Development patterns consistent with the principles and policies of the City’s Comprehensive Plan and adopted plans and policies. (3)Ensure high-quality urban design and environmentally-sensitive development that takes advantage of site characteristics. (4)Promote cooperative planning and development among real property owners within a large area. 3 LUC CORRESPONDENCE 2, ATTACHMENT 3 Materials updated 12.15.20 Packet pg. 107 DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY PENDING FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION (5)Protect land uses and neighborhoods adjacent to a PUD Overlay from negative impacts. (C)Applicability. (1)Any property or collection of contiguous properties of a minimum 50 20 acres in size is eligible for a PUD Overlay provided all owners authorize their respective property to be included. (2)An approved PUD Overlay will be shown upon the Zoning Map and will overlay existing zoning, which will continue to apply, except to the extent modified by or inconsistent with the PUD Master Plan. (3)An approved PUD Master Plan will substitute for the requirement for an Overall Development Plan. Development within the boundaries of an approved PUD Overlay may proceed directly to application for Project Development Plan(s) and Final Plan(s). (D)PUD Master Plan Review Procedure. (1)PUD Master Plans are approved as an overlay to the underlying zone district and are processed by the decision maker pursuant to the Section 2.15 of the common review procedures. (2)In order to approve a proposed PUD Master Plan, the decision maker must find that the PUD Master Plan satisfies the following criteria: (a)The PUD Master Plan achieves the purpose and objectives of Sections 4.29 (A) and (B); (b)The PUD Master Plan provides high quality urban design within the subject property or properties; (c)The PUD Master Plan will result in development generally in compliance with the principles and policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan and adopted plans and policies; (d)The PUD Master Plan will, within the PUD Overlay, result in compatible design and use as well as public infrastructure and services, including public streets, sidewalks, drainage, trails, and utilities; and (e)The PUD Master Plan is consistent with all applicable Land Use Code General Development Standards (Article 3) except to the extent such development standards have been modified pursuant 4 LUC CORRESPONDENCE 2, ATTACHMENT 3 Materials updated 12.15.20 Packet pg. 108 DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY PENDING FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION to below Subsection (G) or are inconsistent with the PUD Master Plan. (E)Permitted Uses. (1)Any uses permitted in the underlying zone district are permitted within an approved PUD Overlay. (2)Additional uses not permitted in the underlying zone district may be requested for inclusion in a PUD Master Plan along with the type of review for such use, whether Type I, Type II, or Basic Development Review. The application must enumerate the additional use being requested, the proposed type of review, and how the use satisfies below criteria (a) through (d). The decision maker shall approve an additional use if it satisfies criteria (a) through (d). For each approved additional use, the decision maker shall determine the applicable type of review and may grant a requested type of review if it would not be contrary to the public good. (a)The use advances the purpose and objectives of the PUD Overlay provisions set forth in Sections 4.29 (A) and (B) and the principles and policies of the City’s Comprehensive Plan and adopted plans and policies; and (b)The use complies with applicable Land Use Code provisions regarding the natural environment, including but not limited to water, air, noise, storm water management, wildlife, vegetation, wetlands and the natural functioning of the environment. (c)The use is compatible with the other proposed uses within the requested PUD Overlay and with the uses permitted in the zone district or districts adjacent to the proposed PUD Overlay. (d)The use is appropriate for the property or properties within the PUD Overlay. (F)Prohibited Uses. All uses that are not expressly allowed in an approved PUD Master Plan, in the underlying zone district, or determined to be permitted pursuant to Land Use Code Section 1.3.4 shall be prohibited. (G)Modification of Densities and Development Standards. 5 LUC CORRESPONDENCE 2, ATTACHMENT 3 Materials updated 12.15.20 Packet pg. 109 DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY PENDING FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION (1)Certain densities and development standards set forth in the Land Use Code and described in below Subsection (G)(2) may be modified as part of a PUD Master Plan. The modification procedure described in this Section (G) substitutes for the modification procedure set forth in Division 2.8. (2)The application must enumerate the densities and development standards proposed to be modified. (a)The application shall describe the minimum and maximum densities for permitted residential uses. (b)The application shall enumerate the specific Land Use Code Article 3 development standards and Article 4 land use and development standards that are proposed to be modified and the nature of each modification in terms sufficiently specific to enable application of the modified standards to Project Development Plans and Final Plans submitted subsequent to, in conformance with and intended to implement, the approved PUD Master Plan. Modifications under this Section may not be granted for Engineering Design Standards referenced in Section 3.3.5 and variances to such standards are addressed in below Subsection (L). (3)In order to approve requested density or development standard modifications, the decision maker must find that the density or development standard as modified satisfies the following criteria: (a)The modified density or development standard is consistent with the purposes, and advance the objectives of, the PUD Overlay as described in Sections 4.29 (A) and (B); (b)The modified density or development standard significantly advances the development objectives of the PUD Master Plan; (c)The modified density or development standard is necessary to achieve the development objectives of the PUD Master Plan; and (d)The modified density or development standard is consistent with the principles and policies of the City’s Comprehensive Plan and adopted plans and policies. 6 LUC CORRESPONDENCE 2, ATTACHMENT 3 Materials updated 12.15.20 Packet pg. 110 DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY PENDING FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION (H)PUD Master Plan Non-Expiration. PUD Master Plans do not expire but are subject to the amendment and termination provisions of Sections 4.29 (I) and (J). (I)PUD Master Plan Termination and Amendment. (1)Termination. An approved PUD Master Plan may be terminated in accordance with the following provisions: (a)Termination may be initiated by any of the following: (i)The written request of all of the real property owners within a PUD Overlay; or (ii)The City, provided no vested property right approved in connection with the PUD Master Plan would be in effect upon termination. (b)Upon receiving a valid request to terminate, the original decision maker of the PUD Master Plan shall terminate unless termination is determined to be detrimental to the public good after holding a public hearing to address the issue. (c)If the PUD Master Plan is terminated, the City may remove the overlay designation on the zoning map and the underlying zone district regulations in effect at the time of such removal shall control. (d)Any nonconforming uses resulting from expiration or termination of a PUD Master Plan are subject to Article 1, Division 1.6. (2)PUD Master Plan Amendment. An approved PUD Master Plan may be amended pursuant to the procedures set forth in Land Use Code Section 2.2.10 in accordance with the following provisions: (a)Amendments may be initiated by any of the following: (i)The written request of all real property owners within the PUD Overlay; or (ii)The written request of the original applicant for the approved PUD Master Plan provided the following conditions are met: (1)The applicant continues to own or otherwise have legal control of real property within the PUD Overlay; and (2)The right of the applicant to amend the PUD Master Plan without the consent of other owners of real property within 7 LUC CORRESPONDENCE 2, ATTACHMENT 3 Materials updated 12.15.20 Packet pg. 111 DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY PENDING FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION the PUD Overlay has been recorded as a binding covenant or deed restriction recorded on the respective real property; or (iii)The City, provided the amendment does not amend, modify, or terminate any existing vested right approved in connection with the PUD Master Plan without the permission of the beneficiary or beneficiaries of such vested right. (b)Except as to real property within the PUD Overlay owned or otherwise under the control of the applicant, any approved amendment requested by the applicant shall not apply to any real property within the PUD Overlay which: (i)Is already developed pursuant to the applicable PUD Master Plan; (ii)Has a valid and approved Project Development Plan or Final Plan; or (iii)Is the subject of ongoing development review at the time the applicant’s request for amendment is submitted to the City. (J)Appeals. (1)A Planning and Zoning Board final decision on a PUD Master Plan is appealable to Council pursuant to Section 2.2.12(A). (2)Any Project Development Plan wholly located within a PUD Overlay may be appealed pursuant to Section 2.2.12(A). However, the validity of the uses, densities, and development standards approved in a PUD Master Plan shall not be the subject of any such Project Development Plan appeal. (K)Vesting of PUD Master Plan. Subject to the provisions of Section 2.2.11(C), the only aspects of an approved PUD Master Plan eligible for vested property rights are the enumerated uses, densities, development standards, and variances from Engineering Design Standards granted pursuant to Section 4.29(L). Such uses, densities, and development standards may be those for which modifications have been granted or uses, densities, and development standards set forth in the Land Use Code. The applicant shall specify in the PUD Master Plan if it is requesting vested property rights for uses, densities, development standards, and variances 8 LUC CORRESPONDENCE 2, ATTACHMENT 3 Materials updated 12.15.20 Packet pg. 112 DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY PENDING FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION from Engineering Design Standards in excess of the three year period specified in Section 2.2.11(C)(2) and the justification therefor. (L)Variances. Variances from the Engineering Design Standards listed in Section 3.3.5, including variances from the Larimer County Area Urban Street Standards, may be processed in connection with a PUD Master Plan pursuant to the applicable variance procedures provided that such procedures allow for the processing of variances in connection with a PUD Master Plan. Variances approved in connection with a PUD Master Plan shall be applicable to Project Development Plans and Final Plans submitted subsequent to, in conformance with and intended to implement, the approved PUD Master Plan provided that such variances have been approved prior to the approval of the PUD Master Plan and are incorporated into the PUD Master Plan. The decision maker on the PUD Master Plan shall not have the authority to alter or condition any approved variance as part of the PUD Master Plan review. Variances may also be processed in connection with a Project Development Plan or Final Plan submitted subsequent to an approved PUD Master Plan. 9 LUC CORRESPONDENCE 2, ATTACHMENT 3 Materials updated 12.15.20 Packet pg. 113 1 Katharine Claypool From:Noah Beals Sent:Thursday, December 10, 2020 5:11 PM To:Jeff Goodell Cc:Katharine Claypool; Development Review Comments Subject:RE: [EXTERNAL] second kitchen - comment Categories:P&Z Hello Jeff, Thanks for taking the time to send a comment concerning the Land Use Code Changes. We will get this information to the Planning and Zoning Board for the public hearing of this item. Kind Regards, Noah Beals Interim Development Review Manager | City of Fort Collins 970 416-2313 Tell us about our service, we want to know! From: Jeff Goodell <jetgoodell@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 8, 2020 7:19 PM To: Noah Beals <nbeals@fcgov.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL] second kitchen ‐ comment As a long‐time resident of Fort Collins and a city licensed contractor (D800) and a board of realtors member, I vote a 2nd kitchen be allowed in home. Many homes are big enough to warrant a 2nd cooking appliance. Maybe I've been out of college for too long, but in my world a microwave is not a cooking appliance and doesn't constitute a kitchen. Please allow a 2nd kitchen! Jeff Goodell 970.231.1242 jetgoodell@gmail.com LUC CORRESPONDENCE 3 Materials updated 12.15.20 Packet pg. 114 2 LUC CORRESPONDENCE 3 Materials updated 12.15.20 Packet pg. 115 1 Katharine Claypool From:Development Review Comments Sent:Tuesday, December 15, 2020 11:34 AM To:Katharine Claypool Cc:Noah Beals Subject:FW: [EXTERNAL] Comments Categories:P&Z Hey Katie, See below for a comment for the P&Z hearing on Thursday. Thanks! Alyssa Stephens MA Neighborhood Development Liaison City of Fort Collins Neighborhood Services Submit a public comment| Track Development Proposals From: barefootmeg <barefootmeg@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, December 14, 2020 1:53 PM To: Development Review Comments <devreviewcomments@fcgov.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Comments Hi all, I have no problem with dwelling units having more than one kitchen, as long as every kitchen area can be safely used. I’d love to also see an increase in occupancy limits. U+2 is ridiculous. I looked around the Planning website and can’t find any description on any of these changes. So I have no idea what changes are being suggested for an appeal of a Minor Amendment. Maybe proposed changes could be reached through a link on the Codes page next time? https://www.fcgov.com/cityclerk/codes Thanks for all you do, P&Z folks. - Meg Dunn LUC CORRESPONDENCE 4 Materials updated 12.15.20 Packet pg. 116 1 Katharine Claypool From:Eric Sutherland <sutherix@yahoo.com> Sent:Friday, December 11, 2020 2:41 PM To:Will Lindsey; City Leaders; Cameron Gloss; P&Z Board; dateberry@fcgov.com; Rebecca Everette; Caryn M. Champine; Kevin Gertig; naturalareas Subject:[EXTERNAL] Planning is a joke in Fort Collins Attachments:mud bog.jpg Categories:P&Z On Wednesday, 12/9, Associate City Planner Will Lindsey returned my call to discuss a SPAR application. I had contacted Mr. Lindsey because his name and number appeared on the printed Notice that was mailed to my address. The project is a new pipeline to be constructed by FCLWD through the Maxwell Natural Area and HOA owned open space at the Ponds on Overland Trail. Of particular note, Mr. Lindsey had never visited the site. In other words, the planner responsible for sheparding a SPAR application through the process had never visited the site where the construction project was to take place. My interest in this project is pretty simple: The construction activity contemplated by FCLWD offers a unique opportunity to make several improvements as follows: - improvements to trail access to the city owned Natural Area including resurfacing a trail surface that is transformed into a long lasting mud bog with just a small amount of rain (see attached photo) - fix a crushed and clogged culvert under an HOA trail used by the general public. Said culvert is part of a drainage system employed whenever FCUtilities drains the foothills tanks. But how in the world can the synergy and efficiency that could be captured here even be considered when the planner assigned to the project has never visited the site? For Mr. Lindsey, it appears that sending me a copy of the P&Z Agenda Item Summary, which had already been completed by the time Notice was mailed out to surrounding property owners, is the full extent of the public engagement he will be conducting. This site, by the way, is visited by hundreds of citizens of Fort Collins every week because of the popularity of the Foothills Trail and surrounding area. That is to say, this is not simply an issue of interest for residents of the area. This sort of thing is par for the course. Planning is a joke in Fort Collins. Planning is nothing more than a concierge service for development interests. The interests of the people who live here and pay the taxes are simply not considered. Natural Areas is a joke. FCUtilities is a joke. But the municipal corporation is a winner of the Malcolm Baldridge award. We should all remember that. Eric Sutherland On Wednesday, December 9, 2020, 04:46:01 PM MST, Will Lindsey <wlindsey@fcgov.com> wrote: FCLWD GOLDEN CURRANT WATER LINE SPAR - CORRESPONDENCE 1 Materials updated 12.15.20 Packet pg. 117 2 Hello Mr. Sutherland, As you requested, attached is a copy of the materials for the upcoming Site Plan Advisory Review for the FCLWD Golden Currant Water Line. The materials can also be found at the link listed below as part of the larger agenda packet for the Hearing scheduled on December 17th (see pages 49-129). https://citydocs.fcgov.com/?cmd=convert&vid=46&dt=AGENDA&docid=3511945&board=PLANNING+AND+ZONING+BO ARD&docdate=DEC-17-2020 Thank you for your comments earlier. Have a good evening! All the best, Will Lindsey | Associate Planner City of Fort Collins 281 N. College Avenue 970-224-6164 WLindsey@fcgov.com FCLWD GOLDEN CURRANT WATER LINE SPAR - CORRESPONDENCE 1 Materials updated 12.15.20 Packet pg. 118 FCLWD GOLDEN CURRANT WATER LINE SPAR - CORRESPONDENCE 1 ATTACHMENT 1Materials updated 12.15.20Packet pg. 119