The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About08/19/2021 - Planning and Zoning Commission - SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENTS - Regular MeetingLANDMARK PUD MINOR AMENDMENT ITEM 4, SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENT 1 Packet pg. 1 TECH SERVICES PLAT REDLINES - LANDMARK ITEM 4, SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENT 2 Packet pg. 2 TECH SERVICES PLAT REDLINES - LANDMARK ITEM 4, SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENT 2 Packet pg. 3 TECH SERVICES PLAT REDLINES - LANDMARK ITEM 4, SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENT 2 Packet pg. 4 TECH SERVICES PLAT REDLINES - LANDMARK ITEM 4, SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENT 2 Packet pg. 5 TECH SERVICES PLAT REDLINES - LANDMARK ITEM 4, SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENT 2 Packet pg. 6 TECH SERVICES PLAT REDLINES - LANDMARK ITEM 4, SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENT 2 Packet pg. 7 TECH SERVICES PLAT REDLINES - LANDMARK ITEM 4, SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENT 2 Packet pg. 8 TECH SERVICES PLAT REDLINES - LANDMARK ITEM 4, SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENT 2 Packet pg. 9 TECH SERVICES PLAT REDLINES - LANDMARK ITEM 4, SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENT 2 Packet pg. 10 TECH SERVICES PLAT REDLINES - LANDMARK ITEM 4, SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENT 2 Packet pg. 11 TECH SERVICES PLAT REDLINES - LANDMARK ITEM 4, SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENT 2 Packet pg. 12 TECH SERVICES PLAT REDLINES - LANDMARK ITEM 4, SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENT 2 Packet pg. 13 TECH SERVICES PLAT REDLINES - LANDMARK ITEM 4, SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENT 2 Packet pg. 14 TECH SERVICES PLAT REDLINES - LANDMARK ITEM 4, SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENT 2 Packet pg. 15 TECH SERVICES PLAT REDLINES - LANDMARK ITEM 4, SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENT 2 Packet pg. 16 TECH SERVICES PLAT REDLINES - LANDMARK ITEM 4, SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENT 2 Packet pg. 17 TECH SERVICES PLAT REDLINES - LANDMARK ITEM 4, SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENT 2 Packet pg. 18 TECH SERVICES PLAT REDLINES - LANDMARK ITEM 4, SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENT 2 Packet pg. 19 TECH SERVICES PLAT REDLINES - LANDMARK ITEM 4, SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENT 2 Packet pg. 20 TECH SERVICES PLAT REDLINES - LANDMARK ITEM 4, SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENT 2 Packet pg. 21 TECH SERVICES PLAT REDLINES - LANDMARK ITEM 4, SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENT 2 Packet pg. 22 TECH SERVICES PLAT REDLINES - LANDMARK ITEM 4, SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENT 2 Packet pg. 23 Exhibits for Appeal of MA190006 Submitted to the Planning and Zoning Commission by Appellants in regard to the August 19, 2021 Appeal Hearing ITEM 4, SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENT 3 Packet pg. 24 List of Exhibits Exhibit Letter Exhibit Description A Location and description of properties B Timeline of Events relating to PDP160013, FDP190002 and MA190006 C Land Use Code 2.2.10(A) Minor amendments and changes of use (italicized notes added are not part of the Code) D Minor Amendment Application form – MA190006 -- as filed E Minor Amendment 40-01 Application form – as filed and processed F Evidence of ownership of Property A – Landmark PUD (existing Landmark Apts.) G Minor Amendment MA190006 Approval letter H Legal Review of Application and Approval letter I Example of Planning and Zoning Board hearing where Minor amendment was referred to P&Z J Recreation Facility Use Agreement between seller, Landmark Housing, LLC, and buyer, RTA Hobbit, LLC described K Recreation Facility Use Agreement as recorded by Larimer County Reception number 20180059141 dated 9/25/2018 L Termination of Recreation Agreement and Easement and Cost Sharing Agreement as recorded by Larimer County Reception number 20200013249 dated 2/26/2020 M Legal opinions concerning the LUC requirements for Open Space: Letters dated 8/20/2019 and 12/12/2019 Attorney-Client communication 8/13/2019 – Background & Question Presented, Analysis, Recommendation N 8/9/2021 Email from Rebecca Everette re: Judy Schmidt’s role as legal support for Landmark PUD Minor Amendment and at Appeal Hearing O Staff Report for Appeal Hearing 8/19/2021 P Joint Access Agreement – Larimer County Clerk and Recorder reception number 20200013248 dated 2/26/2020 Q Nondisturbance and Attornment Agreement as recorded by Larimer County Reception number 20200013250 dated 2/26/2020 R Property B Open Space / Gathering Place S Cost Sharing Escrow Agreement dtd 2/29/2020 by Owner B and the City of Fort Collins; copy of check funding the escrow account; 8/3/2021 email from City Finance Dept staff; 6/7/2021 request for disbursement by Owner B ITEM 4, SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENT 3 Packet pg. 25 Exhibit A Location and description of properties These images show the locations of the properties we will discuss in this appeal. Through this presentation, we will use these letters when referring to the properties. Ownership noted is as recorded during the period 9/30/2018 through 3/4/2020: A = Landmark PUD, 1050 Hobbit Street, an existing apartment complex known as the Landmark Apartments (LMA), owned by Landmark Housing, LLC B = Landmark Apartments Expansion (LMA-E), a property holding development entitlements under PDP160013, owned by Landmark Housing, LLC, then sold to RTA Hobbit, LLC 9/30/2018, and now being leased as The Social C = site referenced in the Recreation Facility Use Agreement dtd 9/24/2018, 1121 West Prospect, owned by Stone Creek Plaza, LLC and leased by Summit Management Services, LLC; Summit Management Services, LLC operated the Landmark Apartments  C B A The green-shaded area is property of the City of Fort Collins. ITEM 4, SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENT 3 Packet pg. 26 Exhibit B Timeline of Events relating to PDP160013, FDP190002 and MA190006 Date Description of Events 11/10/2016 PDP for Landmark Apartment Expansion project approved Same owner of both properties -- A (LMA) and B (LMA-E) Dependencies acknowledged for LMA-E on LMA in discussion and approval 1/31/2017 PDP approval appealed to City Council Issue of dependencies raised by appellants and legal ramifications if LMA-E is sold creating unrelated owners for A and B; how will the LUC requirements be upheld 9/24/2018 Recreation Facilities Use Agreement (Rec Use Agreement) signed by seller and buyer and recorded in connection with the sale; Agreement did not satisfy the LUC requirement established by the PDP approval 9/30/2018 Property B sold to RTA Hobbit, LLC with entitlements for development 1/25/2019 Preliminary meeting with citizens, owner, owner representatives and City staff prior to FDP application. The attendees walked the site prior to discussions. Citizens, having discovered and read the Rec Use Agreement, identify its flaws as a means of meeting the LUC requirement and FDP approval. February 2019 – March 2020 Numerous meetings with Planner Mapes and Director Leeson to discuss various issues about the final plans and the legal agreements between unrelated owners; resolving the language necessary for agreement to share property A’s amenities involves many hours of staff time including the City Attorney staff, Judy Schmidt and others 3/4 – 3/6 2020 Approval of Easement for shared amenities and the FDP Development Agreement signed between RTA Hobbit, LLC and City of Fort Collins 3/18/2020 Appeal of Minor Amendment MA190006 filed with City 3/18/2020 City offices closed due to COVID 19 pandemic; Emergency Ordinance in effect limiting City meetings to remote participation; Appeals are exempted from remote hearings if requested by appellants May 3, 2021 Owner of A sells to new party, FC 1050, LLC, who becomes successor to Easement agreements for access and amenities July 2021 New owner of A proposes a Major Amendment to the Landmark PUD ITEM 4, SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENT 3 Packet pg. 27 Exhibit C Land Use Code 2.2.10(A) (italicized notes are not part of the 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, 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, 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. 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 so long as the amendments 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 the following criteria applicable to the particular request for change or change of use: (a) . . . NOTE: Subsection 2.2.10(A)(1) does not apply to this appeal and is omitted here. The approved development plan was not subject only to administrative review. The Landmark PUD was subject to a Type 2 hearing. (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; (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; ITEM 4, SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENT 3 Packet pg. 28 (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. NOTE: Subsection (3) does not apply and is omitted here. The minor amendment did not involve a waiver of development standards. (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 amended. 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 decision shall constitute a final decision, subject only to appeal as provided for development plans under Division 2.3, 2.4, 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) Notification. Written notice must be mailed to the owners of record of all real property abutting the property that is the subject of the minor amendment application at least fourteen (14) calendar days prior to the Director's decision. Note: Subsection (5) does not apply since MA190001 was applied for in March 2020 before this Code change in April 2021. (6) Appeals. Applicable pursuant to Section 2.2.12(C). ITEM 4, SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENT 3 Packet pg. 29 Exhibit D Minor Amendment Application form – MA190006 Document image retrieved 2:00 PM 8/2/2021 https://records.fcgov.com/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=13042541&dbid=0&repo=FortCollins&searchid=f8862f58-f182-490c-8be9- e511aa1a77b6 ITEM 4, SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENT 3 Packet pg. 30 Exhibit E Minor Amendment 40-01 application as filed and processed ITEM 4, SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENT 3 Packet pg. 31 ITEM 4, SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENT 3 Packet pg. 32 ITEM 4, SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENT 3 Packet pg. 33 Exhibit F Evidence of ownership of Property A – Landmark PUD (existing Landmark Apts.) On the left is a section of the revised Landmark PUD site plan showing Owner’s Certification of Approval, the notarized owners’ agreement to conditions and restrictions of the Note. Ownership is recorded as Landmark Housing, LLC Document image retrieved 2:00 PM 8/2/2021 https://records.fcgov.com/WebLink On the left is the result of a query for information about the Landmark PUD from the Larimer County Assessor’s GIS database. Note the property ownership – Landmark Housing LLC. Retrieved 3/16/2020 from Larimer County online GIS database https://maps1.larimer.org ITEM 4, SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENT 3 Packet pg. 34 Exhibit G Minor Amendment MA190006 Approval letter Document image retrieved 2:00 PM 8/2/2021 https://records.fcgov.com/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=13042541&dbid=0&repo=FortCollins&searchid=f8862f58-f182-490c-8be9- e511aa1a77b6 ITEM 4, SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENT 3 Packet pg. 35 Exhibit H Legal Review of Application and Approval letter From: Jared Haynie <jared@Cambridgelawcolorado.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2020 4:00 PM To: Kathryn Dubiel <k.i.dubiel@hotmail.com> Cc: Reid J. Allred <Reid@Cambridgelawcolorado.com> Subject: RE: Delegation of authority for approving Minor Amendment Kathryn, After reviewing the materials you sent us and the applicable law, I think there is a case to be made that the approval of the “Minor Amendment” was not properly done. Naturally, I can’t predict whether the City would agree with that assessment. The two primary questions are (1) whether the Director’s delegation of authority to Arlo Schumann was legally sound; and (2) whether the decision, on its face, is appealable. Both questions are addressed in turn, below. 1. Was the delegation of authority legally sound? The short answer is—Probably yes. Authority to delegate. As you correctly highlighted in your email, the City’s Land Use Code states that whenever a provision in the Code requires the Director “to do some act or perform some duty,” then “such provision shall be construed as authorizing the Director . . . to designate, delegate and authorize professional-level subordinates to perform the required act or duty unless the terms of the provision specify otherwise.” Code § 1.4.9(E). No requirement that delegation be in writing. There is nothing in the Code that requires the designation, delegation, or authorization to be in writing or to be made public. Professional-level subordinate. Arlo Schumann is a “Senior Zoning Inspector,” a position that on its face appears to qualify as a “professional-level subordinate.” Director’s authority to decide “Minor Amendments.” The Code provision governing “Minor Amendments” that meet the criteria in Section 2.2.10(A)(1) or 2.2.10(A)(2) clearly provides that such amendments “may be approved, approved with conditions, or denied administratively by the Director and may be authorized without additional public hearings.” Code § 2.2.10(A). Significantly, there is nothing in this provision that specifically prohibits the Director from delegating authority to subordinates. ITEM 4, SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENT 3 Packet pg. 36 Bottom line. If the underlying application did in fact present a qualifying “Minor Amendment,” the Director acted within his or her legal authority to delegate the decision to Mr. Schumann. 2. Are there legal flaws in the merits of the decision itself? The short answer is—Probably yes. Omissions in the application itself. The “Minor Amendment Application Form” states, on the form itself, that “[t]he requested information on this application is required.” Yet, as you point out, several items of requested information were omitted. Each of these omissions is potentially a legal deficiency in the application. The lack of any signature is particularly troubling, since the signature is used to certify the applicant’s affirmation that the statements made in the application are true and correct. I also think it’s significant that not all owners with a legal or equitable interest in the property have been identified. (I have not independently verified the ownership, legal or equitable.) The missing Transportation Development Review Fee application form is also noteworthy. No detail of proposed change. In my mind, another significant omission relates to the lack of detail that is provided in the application. The application form states that “[c]hanges on each sheet should be clouded,” but the drawing that I see does not highlight the changes. (Of course, it’s possible that the highlighting was lost in photocopying.) Even if the changes were highlighted on the sheet, however, there is almost no detail provided on the application itself regarding the scope of the proposed changes and reasons they are being requested. The form asks for a “[d]etailed description of the [proposed] change and the reasons” therefor. In my view, the two sentences provided in response to this request do not come close to constituting a “detailed description” of anything. Errors in the application. As you point out, the stated ownership of the property appears to be in error. I have not independently verified the ownership, but it is interesting to note that the drawing that is attached to the application identifies Landmark Housing, LLC as the owner of the property, whereas the application identifies Summit Management Services as the sole owner. Timing of the decision. There is nothing technically wrong with the quick turnaround. That said, highlighting the quick turnaround does help show that the application was not closely examined. The inference, of course, is that had someone taken the time to scrutinize the application, the decisionmaker would have rejected it for the flaws and omissions discussed above. The lack of explanation in the decision itself. The lack of any explanation is very troubling, since it does not allow us (or anyone else) to evaluate the merits of the decision. The Director (or his or her delegate) is authorized to decide “Minor Amendments” only insofar as they meet the detailed ITEM 4, SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENT 3 Packet pg. 37 criteria set forth in Section 2.2.10(A)(1) or Section 2.2.10(A)(2). The decision did not set forth any analysis of these criteria. You stated in your email: “The Project Development Plan which underlies the Final Development Plan for which the minor amendment has been created/approved was subject to the more stringent requirements of a Type 2 review which is a hearing of the Planning and Zoning Board.” If that is the case (and I assume that it is), then Section 2.2.10(A)(2) applies. That Code section provides: Minor amendments and changes of use shall only consist of any or all of the following: . . . . (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; (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 ITEM 4, SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENT 3 Packet pg. 38 (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. Here, the final decision did not go through these criteria, one by one (or at all), even though the proposed “Minor Amendment” was not legally permissible unless each of these criteria was met. If the Director found that all of these criteria were met, then the Director (or his or her delegate) had the legal authority to make a decision on the proposed “Minor Amendment.” Bottom line. Between the errors and omissions in the application and the lack of any explanation in the decision, there is a case to be made that the decision should be overturned. Of course, we don’t know how an appeal would turn out. It’s possible the City would consider these errors to be “harmless.” Of course, even if an appeal were successful, most (if not all) of these errors could ostensibly be cured relatively quickly (assuming the legal criteria in Section 2.2.10(A) can be met). My best guess is that if the appeal were successful and the decision were reversed, the applicant probably would respond by re-submitting a conforming application. There is a lot here. I’m happy to jump on a call if you think that would be helpful. Also, please let us know if you’d like Cambridge Law to prepare a formal letter discussing these points (i.e., that you could use to support your appeal). Regards, Jared Jared M. Haynie Attorney | Cambridge Law LLC 4610 S. Ulster Street | Suite 150 | Denver, CO 80237 p. 303.488.3338 | f. 303.488.3337 cambridgelawcolorado.com | Admitted in Colorado This email is confidential and may contain information protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege or the work- product doctrine. If it is not meant for you, please delete it. Do not use the advice contained in this email to avoid tax penalties. ITEM 4, SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENT 3 Packet pg. 39 Exhibit I Example of Planning and Zoning Board hearing where Minor amendment was referred to P&Z ITEM 4, SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENT 3 Packet pg. 40 ITEM 4, SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENT 3 Packet pg. 41 Exhibit J Recreation Facility Use Agreement between seller, Landmark Housing, LLC, and buyer, RTA Hobbit, LLC Background to the 2018 Recreation Facility Use Agreement and 2020 Joint Access Agreement “Amenities Easement” Shown in blue is the location and ownership of the property which is identified for recreational use by Owner B’s tenants in the September 24, 2018 Recreation Facility Use Agreement, Larimer County reception no. 20180059141. See Exhibit A and Exhibit B of that document. (Exhibit K) The Property is owned by Stone Creek Plaza, LLC and Summit Management Services, Inc. was a lessee according to that document. The 2018 Agreement is between Summit Management Services, Inc. and RTA Hobbit, LLC for use of the “Recreational Facilities” identified in Exhibit B on Page 10. Exhibit B reads: “Depiction of Recreational Facilities: Fitness Center located at 1121 West Prospect Road, Ft. Collins, Colorado. Said Fitness Center is approximately 2,300 square feet.” RTA Hobbit’s purchase of the land and its approved development plan is recorded by reception no. 20180059140 dated September 30, 2018. It is possible that the new owner of the Landmark Apartments Expansion Property meant to satisfy the terms of LUC §3.8.30 (C) by entering into the Recreation Facility Use Agreement. But the location violates the requirements of that Code section: “located within one thousand three hundred twenty (1,320) feet (one-quarter (¼) mile) of either a neighborhood park, a privately owned park or a central feature or gathering place that is located either within the project or ITEM 4, SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENT 3 Packet pg. 42 within adjacent development, which distance shall be measured along street frontage without crossing an arterial street.” The Recreation Facility Use Agreement also contained a Termination clause (Item C. on page 2) stating “either party shall have the right to terminate this Agreement upon sixty (60) days prior written notice to the other party.” Fortunately, the inapplicability of the “Recreational Facilities” to the LUC requirements was noted to the owner and the City’s planner, Clark Mapes, before the FDP application was made. (email 1/25/19 Colleen Hoffman) There was reason to be concerned that the reception number to a document named Recreation Facility Use Agreement would be accepted as meeting the PDP requirement without further scrutiny. The document reception number would get recorded on the FDP documents as if the requirement had been met. It was also noted to the owner and the City’s planner that if an agreement to share amenities was used to meet the LUC requirement for open space it must run with the land, which is to say it needed to remain in effect in perpetuity. The deficiency of this Recreation Facility as a means to satisfy Owner B’s PDP requirement for open space led to the year-long effort to reach agreement on the “Amenities Easement” portion of the Joint Access Agreement. The FDP could not be approved without meeting the PDP requirement for 10,000 sq ft of open space. Added note to identify an incorrect statement about the Recreation Facility Use Agreement in a later document: In the document Termination of Recreation Agreement and Easement and Cost Sharing Agreement, the third Whereas is in error. It reads: WHEREAS, The Landmark Owner and the Hobbit Street Owner entered into that certain Recreation Facility Use Agreement dated September 24, 2018 and recorded in Reception # 20180059141 of the Larimer County Records (“Recreation Agreement”) related to the Hobbit Street owner’s use of the swimming pool located on the Landmark Property.” The Recreation Facility Use Agreement did not include a swimming pool nor did it include any facilities located on the Landmark Property according to Exhibit B. ITEM 4, SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENT 3 Packet pg. 43 Exhibit K Recreation Facility Use Agreement as recorded by Larimer County Reception number 20180059141 dated 9/25/2018 ITEM 4, SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENT 3 Packet pg. 44 Exhibit L Termination of Recreation Agreement and Easement and Cost Sharing Agreement as recorded by Larimer County Reception number 20200013249 dated 2/26/2020 ITEM 4, SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENT 3 Packet pg. 45 Exhibit M Legal opinions concerning the LUC requirements for Open Space: Letters dated 8/20/2019 and 12/12/2019 Attorney-Client communication 8/13/2019 – Background & Question Presented, Analysis, Recommendation ITEM 4, SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENT 3 Packet pg. 46 Exhibit N 8/9/2021 Email from Rebecca Everette re: Judy Schmidt’s role as legal support for Landmark PUD Minor Amendment and at Appeal Hearing RE: Question on the Minor Amendment appeal 8/19/21 Rebecca Everette <reverette@fcgov.com> Mon 8/9/2021 3:34 PM Hi Colleen, Judy Schmidt will continue to provide legal support for the Landmark PUD Minor Amendment appeal, including at the P&Z hearing. Also, in case you haven’t seen it yet, the packet for the hearing has been posted online: https://citydocs.fcgov.com/?cmd=convert&vid=46&dt=AGENDA&docid=3524724&board=PLA NNING+AND+ZONING+BOARD&docdate=AUG-19-2021. Please let me know if you have any additional questions prior to the hearing. Thanks! Rebecca Rebecca Everette Development Review Manager | City of Fort Collins reverette@fcgov.com | 970.416.2625 direct 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. From: Colleen Hoffman <cohoff@comcast.net> Sent: Monday, August 9, 2021 3:20 PM To: Rebecca Everette <reverette@fcgov.com>; Paul S. Sizemore <psizemore@fcgov.com> Cc: 'Kathryn Dubiel' <k.i.dubiel@hotmail.com>; 'Rick Hoffman' <rick-hoffman@comcast.net>; 'Ann Hunt' <arh4@comcast.net> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Question on the Minor Amendment appeal 8/19/21 Hi Rebecca, Brad Yatabe, in the July 15, 2021 P&Z meeting, stated that he would recuse himself from the Landmark Apartments Minor Amendment appeal at P&Z on 8/19/21. Who will take his place from the City Attorney’s office? Thank you. Colleen Hoffman The Home Broker 970-484-8723 cohoff@comcast.net ITEM 4, SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENT 3 Packet pg. 47 Exhibit O Staff Report for Appeal Hearing 8/19/2021 ITEM 4, SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENT 3 Packet pg. 48 ITEM 4, SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENT 3 Packet pg. 49 ITEM 4, SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENT 3 Packet pg. 50 ITEM 4, SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENT 3 Packet pg. 51 Exhibit P Joint Access Agreement Larimer County Clerk and Recorder reception # 20200013248 dated 2/26/2020; Grantor = Owner A Grantee = Owner B ITEM 4, SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENT 3 Packet pg. 52 Exhibit Q Nondisturbance and Attornment Agreement Executed between Citibank, N.A. (Lender) as lender to Owner A and Owner B (Beneficiary) Larimer County reception # 20200013250 dtd 2/26/2020 ITEM 4, SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENT 3 Packet pg. 53 Exhibit R Property B Open Space / Gathering Place Without the amenities from Property A, here is the “open space” available on Property B. Again, it supports our case that two unrelated property owners agreeing to share amenities is not subject matter for a minor amendment. Major changes as to ownership, efforts to obtain the necessary 10,000 sf of open space (beginning with the original 2018 Recreation Facility Use Agreement found to be deficient, and leading to a year-long effort to produce a Joint Access Agreement sharing A’s clubhouse, pool, etc.) do not fall under “minor amendments.” The need to create a legally binding agreement between the unrelated owners in order for FDP190013 to be approved was a change of the original development project, Landmark PUD. Property B as photographed 8/10/2021 View from Hobbit Street cul-de-sac on southwest corner of Property B ITEM 4, SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENT 3 Packet pg. 54 Property B as photographed 8/10/2021 Views of central gathering location in relation to buildings ITEM 4, SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENT 3 Packet pg. 55 Exhibit S  Cost Sharing Escrow Agreement dated 2/29/2020 between Owner B and City of Fort Collins  Copy of check funding the escrow account  Email from City Finance Dept staff re: disbursement of funds June 2021  Email request for $35,000 disbursement from Owner B on 6/7/2021 ITEM 4, SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENT 3 Packet pg. 56 ITEM 4, SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENT 3 Packet pg. 57 ITEM 4, SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENT 3 Packet pg. 58 ITEM 4, SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENT 3 Packet pg. 59 ITEM 4, SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENT 3 Packet pg. 60 ITEM 4, SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENT 3 Packet pg. 61 ITEM 4, SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENT 3 Packet pg. 62 ITEM 4, SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENT 3 Packet pg. 63 ITEM 4, SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENT 3 Packet pg. 64 ITEM 4, SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENT 3 Packet pg. 65 ITEM 4, SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENT 3 Packet pg. 66 ITEM 4, SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENT 3 Packet pg. 67 ITEM 4, SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENT 3 Packet pg. 68 ITEM 4, SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENT 3 Packet pg. 69 ITEM 4, SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENT 3 Packet pg. 70 ITEM 4, SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENT 3 Packet pg. 71 ITEM 4, SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENT 3 Packet pg. 72 ITEM 4, SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENT 3 Packet pg. 73 ITEM 4, SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENT 3 Packet pg. 74 ITEM 4, SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENT 3 Packet pg. 75 ITEM 4, SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENT 3 Packet pg. 76 ITEM 4, SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENT 3 Packet pg. 77 ITEM 4, SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENT 3 Packet pg. 78 ITEM 4, SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENT 3 Packet pg. 79 4610 S. Ulster St., Ste. 150, Denver, CO 80237| 303.488.3338 | cambridgelawcolorado.com 1 To: Mr. Per Hogestad From: Zac Garthe, Cambridge Law Date: August 13, 2019 Re: Land Use Regulations of Fort Collins Attorney-Client Privileged Background & Question Presented Mr. Hogestad resides in the historic Sheely neighborhood of the City of Fort Collins (the “City” or “Fort Collins”). His property backs to an undeveloped plot of land itself adjacent to an apartment complex called the Landmark Apartments (“Landmark Apartments”). The owner of the Landmark Apartments, Summit Management Services (“Summit”), purchased the undeveloped property and has made plans to sell the property to and/or develop the property with a group of investors from California. Summit submitted a redevelopment plan to the Planning and Zoning Board (the “Board”) of Fort Collins. The Board approved this plan, but members of the Sheely neighborhood, including Mr. Hogestad, appealed the decision to the City Counsel. The Counsel ratified the decision, and now the City is conducting a final approval of the plan. This process is administrative only, without additional opportunity for input from the public. Mr. Hogestad wishes to stop the approved development plan. Earlier, conflict arose between Summit and the investors, because the Land Use Code of the City requires that the new development have access to the park space of the Landmark Apartments, including the pool. But expanding access to the pool increases Summit’s liability risks. (It is unclear if this issue has been resolved internally). Mr. Hogestad theorizes that if access to the pool facility can be further increased to include the public, or even just the Sheely neighborhood, then this may cause Summit to drop the development plan. The basis for Mr. Hogestad’s theory comes from Article 3, Division 3.8, Section 30 of the Fort Collin’s Land Use Code (Land Use, 3.8.30). This section requires multifamily unit dwellings to give access to a park, central feature, or gathering space, which must be either 1) public, 2) privately owned but open to the public, or 3) a community facility or neighborhood support / recreation facility. Mr Hogestad argues the pool is privately owned, but must still be open to the public, under subsection 2. (Land Use, 3.8.30(C)(2) “Subsection 2”). Mr. Hogestad believes Subsection 2 was the basis for the Board’s original approval. But when he raised the issue that the pool must be open to the public, the City Attorney of Fort Collins argued the pool is a neighborhood support / recreation facility, under subsection 3. (Land Use, 3.8.30(C)(3) (“Subsection 3”). The City further argues that approval under Subsection 3 does not require public access to the pool. Mr. Hogestad requests Cambridge Law determine the most likely legal meaning of the Land Use regulations to determine if the pool indeed must be made available to the public. ITEM 4, SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENT 3 Packet pg. 80 4610 S. Ulster St., Ste. 150, Denver, CO 80237| 303.488.3338 | cambridgelawcolorado.com 2 Analysis I. The Board’s rezoning decision does not address public access to the pool and may be appealable on this ground. Board decisions are only upheld if “there is competent evidence of a factual basis for the rezoning decision.” Corper v. Denver, 552 P.2d 13, 15 (Colo. 1976). This standard is very deferential. Typically, Colorado courts only reverse a zoning decision if there is “no competent evidence” to support the decision. See, e.g., Coleman v. Gormley, 748 P.2d 361, 364 (Colo. App. 1987) (citing Ross v. Fire & Police Pension Ass'n, 713 P.2d 1304 (Colo. 1986)). And “no competent evidence” means that “the ultimate decision of the administrative body is so devoid of evidentiary support that it can only be explained as an arbitrary and capricious exercise of authority.” Ross, 713 P.2d at 1309. Here, the Board only considered evidence of square-footage, which could satisfy either Subsection 2 or 3, but did not consider whether the other requirements of Subsection 2 or 3 were satisfied. According to the Board minutes (and the City Council minutes), the Board relied on the Staff Report of the city planner, as well as her opinion in response to questions, in rendering a determination. The Staff Report explicitly discusses the requirements of Land Use, 3.8.30, specifically referring to the park, central feature, or gathering space requirement of section (C): Code Section 3.8.30 contains a number of applicable requirements for multifamily development as follows. Access to a Park, Central Feature, or Gathering Place. The existing Landmark Apartments development has a pool and clubhouse building, volleyball court, lawn areas, grills and picnic tables, which total well over 10,000 square feet regardless of how the area is defined and measured. In addition, the proposed plan includes a large patio/plaza of about 2,000 square feet located in a sunny space framed by two buildings (Buildings C and D) and overlooking the channel. Staff finds that these features meet and exceed the standard. (Staff Report, 14-15 (Dated October 10, 2016)).1 Both Subsection 2 and 3 address the question of sufficient square-footage: For projects greater than ten (10) acres, the private park must be a minimum of ten thousand (10,000) square feet.”). (Land Use, 3.8.30(C)(2)(a)). If such [community facility or neighborhood support / recreation facility] is smaller than the required minimum size for privately owned parks as required in subparagraph (2)(a) above, then the facility shall be physically 1 This is the only discussion of the pool in the Staff Report and the only discussion of Land Use, 3.8.30(C). ITEM 4, SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENT 3 Packet pg. 81 4610 S. Ulster St., Ste. 150, Denver, CO 80237| 303.488.3338 | cambridgelawcolorado.com 3 integrated with such park space as needed to meet the required minimum size. (Land Use, 3.8.30(C)(3)). Thus, the square-footage evidence of the Staff Report could be directed toward either Subsection 2 or 3. But and Subsection 3 has several other requirements that were not considered by the Board. For example, Subsection 32 must be intended only for “residents and guests of the neighborhood.” (Land Use, 5.1.2). But the Board failed to consider the definition of “neighborhood” or who would have access to the pool facility. This is evidence that the Board was not actually addressing approval under Subsection 3. Moreover, the definition of “neighborhood” is hopelessly vague. In Colorado, [C]ourts refrain from issuing strict guidelines to define [a neighborhood]. 2 A. Rathkopf & D. Rathkopf, Law of Planning & Zoning, § 28A.02[2][a] (1987). The definition of the neighborhood in a given case … [is] primarily [a] matter[] for the rezoning board to determine. Coleman v. Gormley, 748 P.2d 361, 363 (Colo. App. 1987). Here, the Board abdicated its duty to define the neighborhood. By failing to consider any evidence on these additional requirements, the Board failed to consider “competent” evidence and the rezoning is likely arbitrary and capricious on this point. II. If the rezoning falls under Subsection 3, it is unclear who can access the pool. As discussed above, access to the pool under Subsection 3 depends on the definition of “neighborhood”, which cannot be defined accurately. See Coleman, 748 P.2d at 363. While the general public will not likely be deemed to have access to the pool under Subsection 3, it is possible any or all of the residents of (i) the Landmark Apartments, (ii) the Sheely neighborhood, or (iii) the larger Prospect / Shields neighborhood have access to the pool. Access will depend on how “neighborhood” is defined and by whom. III. Mr. Hogestad could either seek declaratory judgment or appeal the zoning decision. Mr. Hogestad has several legal options. First, he could seek declaratory judgment as to the public-access issue under Colo. Rev. Statutes § 13-51-101 et seq. In such a lawsuit, Mr. Hogestad would ask the district court to determine that the zoning was approved under Subsection 2, which requires public access to the pool facility. The primary argument would be that the evidence before the Board involved meeting the square-footage requirement, which is explicitly addressed under Subsection 2, while the Board considered 2 While Subsection 3 allows for either “community facilities” or “neighborhood support / recreation facilities”, the City Attorney argues the pool structure qualifies as a neighborhood support / recreation facility because a community facility must be “a publicly owned or publicly leased facility.” (Land Use, 5.1.2). ITEM 4, SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENT 3 Packet pg. 82 4610 S. Ulster St., Ste. 150, Denver, CO 80237| 303.488.3338 | cambridgelawcolorado.com 4 no evidence as to Subsection 3’s determination of a “neighborhood” for a neighborhood recreation / support facility. Alternatively, Mr. Hogestad’s could appeal the rezoning decision.3 Appeal of the rezoning decision is governed by Colorado Rule of Civil Procedure 106(a)(4), which allows for a district court to review the decision of the board or city council to determine if the decision is an “abuse of discretion.” Prevailing in such an appeal would require proving a lack of competent evidence. See Coleman 748 P.2d at 364. As discussed above, arguably the Board had no competent evidence to support the decision that the pool qualifies as a neighborhood support / recreation facility. To qualify as a neighborhood support / recreation facility, the structure must be made available to the “residents and guests of the neighborhood.” The Staff Report and meeting minutes are devoid of who qualifies under this definition of the “neighborhood.” Thus, a court may determine the decision was arbitrary and capricious. Recommendation We suggest a formal letter be sent to Summit and the City Attorney to notify them of Mr. Hogestad’s intent to file a lawsuit if development continues. The letter could set forth some or all of the foregoing legal analysis and could discuss both the legal options (i.e., bringing a claim for declaratory judgment and an appeal of the zoning determination). This course of action may intimidate Summit sufficiently to prevent development. 3 It may be possible to seek a preliminary injunction in this lawsuit in order to stay development, if irreparable harm can be shown (i.e., destruction of animal habitat). This question is beyond the scope of this memorandum, however. ITEM 4, SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENT 3 Packet pg. 83 Zachary C. Garthe, Esq. 303-488-3338 zac@cambridgelawcolorado.com August 20, 2019 VIA FIRST-CLASS MAIL Herb Newman, Manager Summit Management Services d/b/a Landmark Apartments and Landmark Housing LLC 730 West Market Street Akron OH 44303 Re: Public access to the gathering space at the Landmark Apartments Mr. Newman: This law firm has been retained to address the question of public access to the gathering space— including at least the pool, volleyball court, lawn areas, grills, and picnic tables—of the Landmark Apartments as a result of the Landmark Apartments Expansion Project. Having reviewed the publicly available information supporting the decision of the Planning and Zoning Board and the City Council of the City of Fort Collins, we have concluded that the gathering space designated to serve the expansion project must be available to the public. See Land Use, 3.8.30(C)(2)(c) (“All parts of such parks shall be safely and easily accessible by pedestrians and open to the public.”) (emphasis added). Please confirm that this is also the understanding of the Landmark Apartments and that the Landmark Apartments intends to make its gathering space safely and easily accessible by pedestrians and open to the public. We have spoken with the Office of the City Attorney of Fort Collins on this issue. It is our understanding that the City has taken the position that public access may not be required so long as residents and guests of the neighborhood have access to the gathering space. Cf. Land Use, 3.8.30(C)(3); 5.1.2 (“Neighborhood support/recreation facilities shall mean recreation/pool facilities and/ or meeting rooms intended for the use and enjoyment of residents and guests of the neighborhood.”) (emphasis added). But the City’s position is incorrect. There is no evidence in the public record to support a conclusion that the City approved the development plan on the basis of access being given only to residents and guests of the neighborhood. If this ex post position were adopted, it would nullify the Planning and Zoning Board’s approval, rendering it subject to judicial appeal for lack of “competent evidence to support the decision.” Coleman v. Gormley, 748 P.2d 361, 364 (Colo. App. 1987). ITEM 4, SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENT 3 Packet pg. 84 Herb Newman August 20, 2019 Page 2 Please confirm that Landmark Apartments is not seeking to change the status of the gathering space. Absent this confirmation, we will present this matter to the court for adjudication, by seeking declaratory judgment regarding public access, appealing the Planning and Zoning Board’s approval, or both. If you have questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to reach out. Sincerely, Zachary C. Garthe CC: Judith Yost Schmidt, Senior Assistant City Attorney , City of Fort Collins (via email to jschmidt@fcgov.com) Carrie Daggett, City Attorney, City of Fort Collins (via email to caoadmin@fcgov.com) ITEM 4, SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENT 3 Packet pg. 85 ITEM 4, SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENT 3 Packet pg. 86 ITEM 4, SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENT 3 Packet pg. 87 ITEM 4, SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENT 3 Packet pg. 88 ITEM 4, SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENT 3 Packet pg. 89 ITEM 4, SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENT 3 Packet pg. 90 ITEM 4, SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENT 3 Packet pg. 91 ITEM 4, SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENT 3 Packet pg. 92 ITEM 4, SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENT 3 Packet pg. 93 ITEM 4, SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENT 3 Packet pg. 94 ITEM 4, SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENT 3 Packet pg. 95 ITEM 4, SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENT 3 Packet pg. 96 ITEM 4, SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENT 3 Packet pg. 97 ITEM 4, SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENT 3 Packet pg. 98 ITEM 4, SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENT 3 Packet pg. 99 ITEM 4, SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENT 3 Packet pg. 100 ITEM 4, SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENT 3 Packet pg. 101 ITEM 4, SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENT 3 Packet pg. 102 ITEM 4, SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENT 3 Packet pg. 103 ITEM 4, SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENT 3 Packet pg. 104 ITEM 4, SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENT 3 Packet pg. 105 ITEM 4, SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENT 3 Packet pg. 106 ITEM 4, SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENT 3 Packet pg. 107 ITEM 4, SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENT 3 Packet pg. 108 ITEM 4, SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENT 3 Packet pg. 109 ITEM 4, SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENT 3 Packet pg. 110 ITEM 4, SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENT 3 Packet pg. 111 ITEM 4, SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENT 3 Packet pg. 112 ITEM 4, SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENT 3 Packet pg. 113 ITEM 4, SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENT 3 Packet pg. 114 ITEM 4, SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENT 3 Packet pg. 115 ITEM 4, SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENT 3 Packet pg. 116 ITEM 4, SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENT 3 Packet pg. 117 ITEM 4, SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENT 3 Packet pg. 118 ITEM 4, SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENT 3 Packet pg. 119 ITEM 4, SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENT 3 Packet pg. 120 ITEM 4, SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENT 3 Packet pg. 121 ITEM 4, SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENT 3 Packet pg. 122 ITEM 4, SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENT 3 Packet pg. 123 ITEM 4, SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENT 3 Packet pg. 124 ITEM 4, SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENT 3 Packet pg. 125 ITEM 4, SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENT 3 Packet pg. 126 ITEM 4, SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENT 3 Packet pg. 127 ITEM 4, SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENT 3 Packet pg. 128 From:Rebecca Everette To:Katharine Claypool Cc:Paul S. Sizemore; John Duval; Claire Havelda Subject:FW: [EXTERNAL] Request for recusal of Judy Schmidt, And City Attorney"s office Date:Wednesday, August 18, 2021 2:03:11 PM Hi Katie – can you add this email chain to the record for the Landmark MA appeal? Thanks, Rebecca . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rebecca Everette Development Review Manager | City of Fort Collins reverette@fcgov.com | 970.416.2625 direct she/her From: Colleen Hoffman <cohoff@comcast.net> Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2021 1:58 PM To: Paul S. Sizemore <psizemore@fcgov.com>; Rebecca Everette <reverette@fcgov.com> Cc: 'Kathryn Dubiel' <k.i.dubiel@hotmail.com>; 'Rick Hoffman' <rick-hoffman@comcast.net>; 'Ann Hunt' <arh4@comcast.net>; John Duval <jduval@fcgov.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Request for recusal of Judy Schmidt, And City Attorney's office HI Paul, Thanks for your reply below. We are very concerned that our request for impartial Counsel from another jurisdiction was overlooked. We ask that you submit our email threads for the record. We sincerely believe that it is in the best interests of the Appeal and the public to have P & Z advised by impartial Counsel from an outside source. Please confirm the concern just expressed and all the emails below are entered in The Record. Thank you. Colleen Hoffman The Home Broker 970-484-8723 cohoff@comcast.net From: Paul S. Sizemore <psizemore@fcgov.com> Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2021 8:13 AM To: Colleen Hoffman <cohoff@comcast.net>; Rebecca Everette <reverette@fcgov.com> Cc: 'Kathryn Dubiel' <k.i.dubiel@hotmail.com>; 'Rick Hoffman' <rick-hoffman@comcast.net>; 'Ann Hunt' <arh4@comcast.net>; John Duval <jduval@fcgov.com> Subject: RE: RE: Request for recusal of Judy Schmid, And City Attorney's office Good morning Colleen, The City Attorney’s Office has looked into the matter and has determined that Deputy City Attorney John Duval will now be advising the Planning and Zoning Commission for this item instead of Judy ITEM 4, SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENT 4 Packet pg. 129 Schmidt. Thanks for reaching out with your concerns, PS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Paul Sizemore, AICP 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. From: Colleen Hoffman <cohoff@comcast.net> Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2021 5:40 PM To: Paul S. Sizemore <psizemore@fcgov.com>; Rebecca Everette <reverette@fcgov.com> Cc: 'Kathryn Dubiel' <k.i.dubiel@hotmail.com>; 'Rick Hoffman' <rick-hoffman@comcast.net>; 'Ann Hunt' <arh4@comcast.net> Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Request for recusal of Judy Schmid, And City Attorney's office Hi Paul, Just checking back with you about our request for a recusal from Judy Schmid for our appeal this Thursday at P&Z – do you have any update on this? Colleen Hoffman The Home Broker 970-484-8723 cohoff@comcast.net From: Paul S. Sizemore <psizemore@fcgov.com> Sent: Friday, August 13, 2021 11:55 AM To: Colleen Hoffman <cohoff@comcast.net>; Rebecca Everette <reverette@fcgov.com> Cc: 'Kathryn Dubiel' <k.i.dubiel@hotmail.com>; 'Rick Hoffman' <rick-hoffman@comcast.net>; 'Ann Hunt' <arh4@comcast.net> Subject: RE: Request for recusal of Judy Schmid, And City Attorney's office Thank you for your email Colleen. We’ve made the City Attorney’s Office aware of the request and it is under consideration. A determination will be made prior to the scheduled hearing next Thursday and we’ll advise you of the outcome. Regards, PS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ITEM 4, SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENT 4 Packet pg. 130 Paul Sizemore, AICP 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. From: Colleen Hoffman <cohoff@comcast.net> Sent: Friday, August 13, 2021 8:03 AM To: Rebecca Everette <reverette@fcgov.com>; Paul S. Sizemore <psizemore@fcgov.com> Cc: 'Kathryn Dubiel' <k.i.dubiel@hotmail.com>; 'Rick Hoffman' <rick-hoffman@comcast.net>; 'Ann Hunt' <arh4@comcast.net> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Request for recusal of Judy Schmid, And City Attorney's office Good morning Rebecca and Paul, With all due respect, the Appellants request that Judy Schmid, nay anyone from the City Attorney’s office, recuse themselves as Counsel to represent and guide the Planning and Zoning Commission at our appeal scheduled for 8/19/21 at 6pm. The Appellants have treated the planning, preparation, and presentation of this appeal with a great deal of respect, time, energy and resources and we request an impartial Attorney to be present at the hearing for the benefit of all. In the bound exhibits presented to P&Z for the work session today, you will note especially exhibits M and N that Judy Schmid has been involved during the lengthy process of emails and meetings with citizens, letters from attorneys, and involvement – possibly advising the Applicant. Therefore, we as Appellants do not foresee an upcoming fair hearing for our appeal. We are aware that in previous situations, Attorneys from other jurisdictions can be obtained for this impartial guidance and that is what we are requesting. Please advise as soon as possible on this. The printed and bound exhibits will be delivered to you this morning by 11am for the P&Z work session today at noon. Colleen Hoffman The Home Broker 970-484-8723 cohoff@comcast.net ITEM 4, SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENT 4 Packet pg. 131 From:Rebecca Everette To:Katharine Claypool; Development Review Comments Subject:FW: Letter of Support - Northfield Commons (MJA210001) Date:Tuesday, August 17, 2021 3:00:43 PM Attachments:image001.png For the record for Northfield Commons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rebecca Everette Development Review Manager | City of Fort Collins reverette@fcgov.com | 970.416.2625 direct she/her From: Nick Haws <nick@northernengineering.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2021 2:10 PM To: Rebecca Everette <reverette@fcgov.com>; Sharlene Manno <smanno@fcgov.com> Cc: Kai Kleer <kkleer@fcgov.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Letter of Support - Northfield Commons (MJA210001) Planning & Zoning Commission Attn: Michelle Haefele, Chair I am writing in support of Mercy Housing’s Northfield Commons affordable housing project. I am an advocate for providing as much housing as possible in our community where consistent with applicable codes and policy documents. However, I am in extreme favor of development proposals that advance City Plan, our Housing Strategic Plan, and other identified community priorities and public benefit. I support the amendment to increase the minimum number of affordable units as well as the Modifications of Standard necessary to ensure the successful delivery of said units. Thank you for volunteering your time to this important commission. Please vote to approve the Northfield Commons Major Amendment, MJA210001. Nick Haws, PE, LEED AP President, CEO 301 N. Howes Street, Suite 100 | Fort Collins, CO 80521 820 8th Street | Greeley, CO 80631 D: 970.568.5414 O: 970.221.4158 M: 970.690.0927 www.northernengineering.com Improving the quality of life in our communities. ITEM 5, SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENT 1 Packet pg. 132 From:Rebecca Everette To:Katharine Claypool; Development Review Comments Subject:FW: Letter of Support - Fairway Apartments (PDP210005) Date:Tuesday, August 17, 2021 3:00:18 PM Attachments:image001.png For the record for Fairway Apartments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rebecca Everette Development Review Manager | City of Fort Collins reverette@fcgov.com | 970.416.2625 direct she/her From: Nick Haws <nick@northernengineering.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2021 2:55 PM To: Rebecca Everette <reverette@fcgov.com>; Sharlene Manno <smanno@fcgov.com> Cc: Kai Kleer <kkleer@fcgov.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Letter of Support - Fairway Apartments (PDP210005) Planning & Zoning Commission Attn: Michelle Haefele, Chair I am writing in support of the Fairway Apartments multifamily housing project. As you’ve heard me say before, I am a staunch advocate for providing as much housing as possible in our community. Obviously the housing needs to be consistent with applicable codes and policy documents, but we need to exhaust all options in pursuit of City Plan and our Housing Strategic Plan. Housing availability is major social and economic constraint. If not addressed, it could erode our quality of life and sense of community. It is for these reasons that I ask you to approve the Fairway Apartments Project Development Plan and associated Modification of Standard. Thank you for your time and service to our community. Nick Haws, PE, LEED AP President, CEO 301 N. Howes Street, Suite 100 | Fort Collins, CO 80521 820 8th Street | Greeley, CO 80631 D: 970.568.5414 O: 970.221.4158 M: 970.690.0927 www.northernengineering.com Improving the quality of life in our communities. ITEM 6, SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENT 1 Packet pg. 133