HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - COMPLETE AGENDA - 08/23/2011 - COMPLETE AGENDACITY COUNCIL AGENDA
Karen Weitkunat, Mayor Council Chambers
Kelly Ohlson, District 5, Mayor Pro Tem City Hall West
Ben Manvel, District 1 300 LaPorte Avenue
Lisa Poppaw, District 2 Fort Collins, Colorado
Aislinn Kottwitz, District 3
Wade Troxell, District 4 Cablecast on City Cable Channel 14
Gerry Horak, District 6 on the Comcast cable system
Darin Atteberry, City Manager
Steve Roy, City Attorney
Wanda Krajicek, City Clerk
The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities
and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224-
6001) for assistance.
ADJOURNED MEETING
August 23, 2011
5 p.m.
1. Call Meeting to Order.
2. Roll Call.
3. Consideration of the Appeal by Windtrail on Spring Creek HOA, Sundering Townhomes HOA, Hill
Pond on Spring Creek HOA, Hill Pond Condominium HOA and Windtrail Townhomes HOA of the
June 16, 2011 Determination of the Planning and Zoning Board to approve the Amended CSURF
Center for Advanced Technology, Overall Development Plan. (staff: Steve Old; 10 minute staff
presentation; 3.5 hour discussion)
On June 16, 2011, the Planning and Zoning Board conducted a public hearing considering the
proposed Amended CSURF Center for Advanced Technology, Overall Development Plan (ODP).
The Board considered testimony from the applicant, the public and staff. The Amended ODP was
approved. Windtrail on Spring Creek HOA and Hillpond on Spring Creek have appealed the
Board’s decisions. The allegations are that the Planning and Zoning Board did not properly
interpret and apply relevant portions of the Code and Charter.
4. Consideration of the Appeal by Windtrail on Spring Creek HOA, Sundering Townhomes HOA, Hill
Pond on Spring Creek HOA, Hill Pond Condominium HOA and Windtrail Townhomes HOA of the
June 16, 2011 Determination of the Planning and Zoning Board to approve The Grove at Fort
Collins, Project Development Plan. (staff: Steve Olt; 10 minute staff presentation; 3.5 hour
discussion)
On June 16, 2011, the Planning and Zoning Board conducted a public hearing considering the
proposed The Grove at Fort Collins, Project Development Plan (PDP). The Board considered
testimony from the applicant, the public and staff. The PDP was approved. Windtrail on Spring
Creek HOA, Sundering Townhomes HOA, Hill Pond on Spring Creek HOA, Hill Pond
Condominium HOA and Windtrail Townhomes HOA have appealed the Board’s decision. The
allegation is that the Planning and Zoning Board failed to properly interpret and apply relevant
portions of the Code and Charter.
5. Other Business.
6. Adjournment.
DATE: August 23, 2011
STAFF: Steve Olt
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 3
SUBJECT
Consideration of the Appeal by Windtrail on Spring Creek HOA, Sundering Townhomes HOA, Hill Pond on Spring
Creek HOA, Hill Pond Condominium HOA and Windtrail Townhomes HOA of the June 16, 2011 Determination of the
Planning and Zoning Board to approve the Amended CSURF Center for Advanced Technology, Overall Development
Plan.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On June 16, 2011, the Planning and Zoning Board conducted a public hearing considering the proposed Amended
CSURF Center for Advanced Technology, Overall Development Plan (ODP). The Board considered testimony from
the applicant, the public and staff. The Amended ODP was approved. Windtrail on Spring Creek HOA and Hillpond
on Spring Creek have appealed the Board’s decisions. The allegations are that the Planning and Zoning Board did
not properly interpret and apply relevant portions of the Code and Charter.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
This is an appeal of the decision for a request for an Amended CSURF Centre for Advanced Technology, Overall
Development Plan. The purpose of the Amended ODP is to realign the proposed future Rolland Moore Drive street
connection through Parcel C between Centre Avenue and South Shields Street; and, to eliminate the proposed future
Northerland Drive street connection from Parcel C to Gilgalad Way in the Windtrail on Spring Creek PUD to the north.
The properties contained on the ODP are, cumulatively, 116.7 acres in size. They are located in the MMN - Medium
Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood and E - Employment Zoning Districts.
ACTION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
1. At its June 16, 2011 regular meeting, the Planning and Zoning Board made the following findings of fact and
conclusions as stated on page 6 of the Staff Report for the Amended CSURF Centre for Advanced
Technology, Overall Development Plan:
A. The ODP complies with the applicable standards as stated in Section 2.3.2(D)(1 - 8).
B. The re-alignment of Rolland Moore Drive is in compliance with the intent of the Master Street Plan and
preserves existing wetlands.
C. The elimination of the connection between Northerland Drive and Rolland Moore Drive will not impact
this neighborhood in a detrimental way because ample existing pedestrian, bicycle and vehicular
connections are provided via the local street network and trails in the area; and wetlands are preserved
by the elimination of this connection.
The Board considered the testimony of the applicant, affected property owners and staff and voted to approve
the Amended CSURF Centre for Advanced Technology, Overall Development Plan.
ALLEGATIONS ON APPEAL
On June 30, 2011, a Notice of Appeal was received by the City Clerk’s Office from the Windtrail on Spring Creek HOA
(c/o Kevin Barrier, President of the HOA, 1999 Northerland Drive, Fort Collins, Colorado, 80526); and, Hillpond on
Spring Creek (c/o Gail Dethloff, Board President of the HOA, 1937 Wallenberg Drive, Fort Collins, Colorado, 80526).
The Appellants allege that the Planning and Zoning Board's approval of the Amended ODP failed to properly interpret
and apply relevant provisions of the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code.
August 23, 2011 -2- ITEM 3
Allegations:
a. Improper interpretation of LUC Sections 2.3.2(H)(7), 4.27(D)(2) and 5.1.2 in relation to allocation of
allowable secondary use in the Employment District.
Part I-A of the Resident Report discusses how the Amended ODP provides the means for increasing the proportion
of Employment District in the Centre for Advanced Technology developed for non-employment, secondary uses
beyond the limits set by the Land Use Code. Section 2.3.2(H)(7) requires mix of uses to be applied to the entire overall
development plan, which allows any future PDP to exceed the 25% limit on secondary use in the Employment District
by borrowing secondary use acreage from other parcels. The Board misinterpreted Section 2.3.2(H)(7) in that it did
not require an accounting of previous secondary uses within the Centre for Advanced Technology be included in the
Amended ODP to indicate how much secondary use has been used in this manner since establishment of the
Employment District zone. The 18.1 acre Horticulture Center and the 1.5 acre CSU Ropes Course used approximately
14.6 more acres of Employment District for secondary uses than would have been allowed by Section 4.27(D)(2).
There may be several other instances of secondary use in the Employment District of the Centre for Advanced
Technology since the establishment of zoning after the 1999 ODP.
The Board misinterpreted LUC 5.1.2 with regard to the status of the Ropes Course as a community facility; it is publicly
owned and intended to serve recreational, educational, cultural and entertainment needs of the community as a whole.
It is a secured, fee-for-use public facility. It is not open recreational space. It is an Employment District secondary use
in Parcel D of the Amended ODP.
The Board misinterpreted Section 4.27(D)(2) as it applies to an overall development plan by allowing Note 2 of the
Amended ODP to set a condition whereby any development in Parcels D and E, which are in the Employment Zone
and the FEMA floodway, will not be counted against the 25% secondary use allowance provided by their 52.3 acres
(a total of 13.07 acres). Future secondary uses in Parcels D and E would never be debited against that allowance,
which could result in 13.07 acres more than 25% of the Amended ODP Employment District being developed for
secondary, non-employment uses. Note 2 should be struck from the Amended ODP and language from Note 2 of the
2003 ODP should not be carried forward.
The Board misinterpreted LUC 5.1.2 with regard to the meaning of "development plan" in Section 4.27(D)(2) by
deciding that issues related to the 25% limit on secondary use in the Employment District are not applicable to an
overall development plan. Section 4.27(D)(2) applies to a "development plan", which Section 5.1.2 defines as an
overall development plan, a project development plan and/or a final development plan. When considering an ODP in
relation to 4.27.(D)(2), the "development plan" is the ODP.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The total amount of area on both the CSURFCentre for Advanced Technology ODP (approved by the Planning &
Zoning Board on 2/20/2003 and recorded) and the Amended CSURF Centre for Advanced Technology ODP (approved
by the P&Z Board on 6/16/2011) is 116.7 acres. The amount of area within the E, Employment District on both ODP’s
is 96.5 acres. The amount of area within the MMN, Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood District on both ODP’s,
completely within Parcel C, is 20.2 acres. The Gardens on Spring Creek facility is not included within the boundaries
of either ODP containing Parcels A thru F. Therefore, it is not counted against the allowable land uses on the ODP’s.
During its development review process in 2003 the CSU Ropes Course (Parcel D) was, in fact, determined to be a
Community Facility in the E District. Community facilities are Secondary Uses in that district. The total amount of
secondary uses in the E District currently existing or proposed is 18.5 acres (9.1 acres in Parcel C and 9.4 acres in
Parcel D), which is 19.2% of the total of 96.5 acres in the E District.
b. Improper interpretation of LUC Section 5.1.2 regarding Floor Area Ratio.
The Amended ODP deletes Note 5 from the 2003 ODP which states, "Maximum Floor Area Ratio (building square
footage divided by land area square footage) for all parcels not to exceed .37." LUC Section 5.1.2 defines Floor Area
Ratio as the gross floor area of all principal buildings on a lot or block by the total area of such lot, or the block size.
This definition does not mention parcels and is clearly intended to be applied to lots and blocks at the detailed level
of a PDP. The FAR note in the 2003 ODP was intended to apply a maximum Floor Area Ratio to the lots and blocks
of any future PDP that might have been proposed for any parcel within the ODP. The Board misinterpreted both Note
5 and Section 5.1.2 when it accepted the Applicant's FAR calculation using the total area of buildings in the PDP
divided by the total parcel square footage.
August 23, 2011 -3- ITEM 3
(The Resident Report contains a typographical error on page 1-7, where the LUC citation is written as Section 5.2.
Definitions are in Section 5.1.2.)
The Board misinterpreted the general purpose and intent of the LUC when it decided that since FAR is not used as
a planning tool in the LUC, it was not part of the LUC and therefore could simply be removed during amendment of
the Centre of Advanced Technology ODP. The FAR note was attached to and approved with the 2003 ODP. This
made it the standard for the development of the Centre for Advanced Technology in accordance with the LUC. FAR
is defined in the LUC 5.1.2. and therefore is indeed part of the LUC. FAR is not regulated by LUC, but that is irrelevant
to upholding this limitation that was instituted by the 2003 ODP. There should be a very compelling reason to remove
prior protections that presumably were placed as an approved condition and promise to the community for how future
development would take place.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
Staff’s response to Planning & Zoning Board’s questions at the public hearing was that Floor Area Ratio is not a
criterion that must be applied or complied with for evaluation of an Overall Development Plan, per Section 2.3.2(H)
of the Land Use Code. However, at the Board Public Hearing on June 16, 2011 the Applicant agreed not to remove
the FAR-related note as shown on the February 20, 2003 ODP.
c. Improper interpretation of LUC 1.2.2(E) regarding land uses in the Spring Creek lOO-year floodplain.
The 2003 Centre for Advanced Technology ODP did not allow secondary uses in an Employment District in the
floodplain, but the Amended ODP does allow such development. Note 3 of the 2003 ODP states: "Land uses proposed
within the Spring Creek 100-year floodplain shall not be considered secondary uses." As noted on page 1-8 of the
Resident Report, City Staff determined in 2009 that this note does not allow residential construction in the floodplain.
The Amended ODP allows such development by the simple expedient of deleting this note. Prohibition of residential
construction as a secondary use in the Employment District in the Spring Creek floodplain reduces risk to the lives and
property of neighboring landowners, potential tenants and first responders. When approving the Amended ODP, the
Board misinterpreted LUC 1.2.2(E) regarding the protection of life and property in the matter of floodwaters by allowing
removal of the protection afforded by Note 3 of the 2003 ODP.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
At the Planning & Zoning Board Public Hearing on June 16, 2011 the Applicant agreed to retain General Notes 2 &
3 as shown on the February 20, 2003 ODP, this in lieu of the proposed new General Note 2 on the Amended ODP.
This note relates to allowance or prohibition of potential Secondary Uses in the floodway or floodplain, primarily in
Parcels D and E of the ODP.
d. Improper interpretation of LUC 2.3.2(H)(1) regarding the basis for classification and granting of
administrative variances for the design of Rolland Moore Drive as a Minor Collector.
When approving the ODP, the Board accepted administrative variances that downgraded the street design of Rolland
Moore Drive relative to its classification. In doing so, the Board misinterpreted LUC 2.3.2(H)(1) regarding the permitted
uses and standards for zoned districts in overall development plans. Commercial offices and shops are permitted use
in the MMN District according to LUC 4.6(B)(3)(c)(2). The June 2002 Transportation Impact Study for Parcel C of the
Centre for Advanced Technology found that commercial office use of the MMN area of Parcel C, along with similar
permitted uses in the Employment District would generate 5,735 daily trips, thereby causing Rolland Moore Drive to
be classified as a Collector. The Board improperly assumed that since residential uses are permitted in the MMN
District, residential levels of traffic could be used to calculate daily trips for the classification and design of Rolland
Moore Drive. However, the Amended ODP does not rezone or limit development of any permitted use in the MMN
District in Parcel C. As noted on page 1-11 of the Resident Report, the Amended ODP must be able to stand on its
own merit for the maximum allowable development. Rolland Moore Drive should meet the standards for a Collector
street capable of handling the number of daily trips identified for the complete complement of permitted uses.
August 23, 2011 -4- ITEM 3
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The basis for a street classification is determined from how the street may function, what volume of traffic is expected
to use the roadway, safety considerations and context-sensitive design to support the surrounding neighborhoods.
Rolland Moore Drive continues to be designated as a collector street on the Master Street Plan and staff expects it
to function as a Collector street as the surrounding land is developed. The Larimer County Urban Area Street
Standards (LCUASS) does allow the City Engineer to approve variances to the street design standards. Several
variances have been approved related to the street geometry (i.e., centerline radii and minimum tangent between
curves) and reducing the travel lane width from 11 feet to 10 feet. The variances are viewed as acceptable with the
planned posted speed limit of 25 mph which is also viewed as commensurate with the developing residential land use
in the area. City staff from Engineering, Traffic Operations, Transportation Planning, and Community Development
and Neighborhood Services reviewed and support the variances.
The approved variances do not change the collector-level classification or street cross-section of Rolland Moore Drive.
City staff has determined that the variances ensure that the design of Rolland Moore Drive will match the context of
the surrounding land uses. Rolland Moore Drive as planned and designed is expected to accommodate existing and
projected traffic volumes based on adjacent zoning, as well as provide needed connectivity for vehicles, pedestrians,
and cyclists.
e. Improper interpretation of LUC 2.3.2{H)(1) by approval of a conceptual alignment for Rolland Moore
Drive that does not comply in general with LCUASS standards for its classification.
The Board misinterpreted LUC 2.3.2{H}{1} regarding the general development standards that can be applied at the
level of detail required for an overall development plan. The conceptual alignment in the 2003 ODP was selected as
the most compliant option consistent with LCUASS standards for a Collector Street. The conceptual alignment in the
Amended ODP appears to be generally out of compliance with LCUASS. The alignment shows curve radii and arc
lengths that would be substandard for the street classification according LCUASS for a Minor Collector Street, let alone
for a Collector Street. The intersection with Centre Avenue would not comply with LCUASS even for less stringent
Connector Local criteria. Previous City considerations for Rolland Moore Drive placed safety first, as quoted on page
1-10 of the Resident Report. Conceptual roadway alignments should be generally in compliance with LCUASS
standards so that any future PDP roadways can be developed within the detailed traffic safety standards.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
City staff interpretation of LUC 2.3.2{H}{1} is that it would not apply to a street alignment shown on an ODP. However,
LUC 2.3.2{H}{3} states that an ODP must conform to the Master Street Plan (MSP), not the Larimer County Urban
Area Street Standards. Rolland Moore Drive was added to the Master Street Plan in 2000 to serve as a vehicle,
bicycle, and pedestrian connection from Shields Street to Center Avenue. The goal is to provide connectivity to and
from surrounding neighborhoods and employment centers. The MSP is a planning-level document and does not
include engineering design.
In 2006, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) updated the flood maps for this area. The 2000
alignment would now be located in a FEMA floodplain and flood fringe, as well as impact wetlands. City staff
supported the request to relocate Rolland Moore Drive to the location shown on the amended ODP to remove the
environmental impacts. This included removing a planned connection to Northerland Drive.
City staff considered possible alternative alignments, including removing the connection from the MSP. The preferred
alternative will maintain Rolland Moore Drive as a collector street and utilize the existing Natural Resources Research
Council (NRRC) driveway intersection with Center Avenue to avoid multiple off-set intersections along this corridor
that could impact safety. Additionally, this intersection will become an important entrance to the Colorado State
University Veterinary Medicine Campus in the future. The amended alignment will still conform to the MSP as it meets
the original intent to provide a collector-level connection between Shields Street and Center Avenue.
f. Improper interpretation of LUC 3.6.2{A} regarding relationship of streets to topography
The general alignment of Rolland Moore Drive in the Amended ODP is shown crossing topography with a very steep
cross slope. This will force any future PDP to implement unwarranted engineered cuts into the hillside below the
Larimer Canal No. 2 that would otherwise not be necessary if the roadway bore a logical relationship to the existing
topography.
August 23, 2011 -5- ITEM 3
STAFF ANALYSIS:
LUC 3.6.2{A} requires streets on a project development plan or subdivision plat to conform to the Master Street Plan,
to be aligned to join with planned or existing streets, and be designed to bear a logical relationship to the topography
of the land. This standard would not apply to an ODP.
The amended Rolland Moore Drive alignment complies with the Master Street Plan and provides connections to
adjacent streets, with the exception of Northerland Drive. City staff has not supported street or trail crossings of the
Larimer Canal No. 2 or the extension of Northerland Drive due to the potential impacts to wildlife and natural corridors,
existing drainage ways, wetlands, and the availability of alternative routes. City staff from Community Development
and Neighborhood Services, Environmental Planning, Engineering, Traffic Operations, and Transportation Planning
reviewed the Alternative Development Plan and found that it accomplishes the purposes of LUC 3.6.3{F} equally well
or better than a plan that would meet the standard. The Alternative Development Plan submitted provides enhanced
bicycle and pedestrian connectivity to adjacent trails, sidewalks and on-street bicycle routes, distributes vehicle traffic
without exceeding level of service standards, and eliminates impacts to the designated wildlife corridor along the
Larimer Canal No. 2.
g. LUC 1.2.2{E) protecting life, safety and reducing flood damage, and LUC 3.3.3 regarding water hazards
The Amended ODP shows Rolland Moore Drive in an alignment that requires deep cuts into the hillside below Larimer
Canal #2, increasing the potential for breach of the canal during a storm/flood event. The Board set as a Condition of
Approval that the canal be relocated, but only by withholding the Final Certificate of Occupancy after construction. By
allowing excavation of the hillside before relocation of the canal, the Board misinterpreted the purpose and intent of
LUC 1.2.2{E} and LUC 3.3.3 to mitigate such hazards. Cutting the slope below the canal prior to relocation
unnecessarily increases risk to the life, health and safety of downhill residents and properties.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The developer for The Grove at Fort Collins will not be doing any cut and fill to the north-facing slope of the existing
Larimer Canal No. 2 while there is water running through that ditch, which occurs 2 months of the year. This mitigates
the potential for risk to life, health and safety of properties and residents downhill from the ditch.
h. Improper interpretation of LUC Section 3.6.3{F) regarding connectivity
As a practical matter, the alignment of Rolland Moore Drive in the Amended ODP precludes development of
connectivity to existing services south of Parcel C. It is set so close to Larimer Canal No.2 that any street or alternative
transportation way would need extensive grading and construction to cross the Canal easement, which would have
a substantial impact on its function as a wildlife corridor. Other feasible alignments not presented in the Amended ODP,
but sketched in the illustrations following page 1-10 of the Resident Report, could reduce the disruption needed to build
connections to the south. Examples of streets, bikeways and trails coexist with canals and wildlife corridors throughout
the City. The Board misinterpreted LUC Section 3.6.3{F} which requires Alternative Compliance for connectivity to be
equal or better than compliance.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
City staff has not supported street or trail crossings of the Larimer Canal No. 2 or the extension of Northerland Drive
due to the potential impacts to wildlife and natural corridors, existing drainage ways, wetlands, and the availability of
alternative routes. City staff from Community Development and Neighborhood Services, Environmental Planning,
Engineering, Traffic Operations, and Transportation Planning reviewed the Alternative Development Plan and found
that it accomplishes the purposes of LUC 3.6.3{F} equally well or better than a plan that would meet the standard. The
Alternative Development Plan submitted provides enhanced bicycle and pedestrian connectivity to adjacent trails,
sidewalks and on-street bicycle routes, distributes vehicle traffic without exceeding level of service standards, and
eliminates impacts to the designated wildlife corridor along the Larimer Canal No. 2.
DETERMINATION TO BE MADE BY COUNCIL
Did the Planning & Zoning Board properly interpret and apply relevant portions of the Code and Charter?
August 23, 2011 -6- ITEM 3
LIST OF RELEVANT CODE PROVISIONS
1. Section 1.2.2 Purpose of the Land Use Code
The purpose of this Land Use Code is to improve and protect the public health, safety and welfare by:
(A) ensuring that all growth and development which occurs is consistent with this Land Use Code, City Plan
and its adopted components, including but not limited to the Structure Plan, Principles and Policies and
associated sub-area plans.
(B) encouraging innovations in land development and renewal.
(C) fostering the safe, efficient and economic use of the land, the city’s transportation infrastructure, and
other public facilities and services.
(D) facilitating and ensuring the provision of adequate public facilities and services such as transportation
(streets, bicycle routes, sidewalks and mass transit), water, wastewater, storm drainage, fire and
emergency services, police, electricity, open space, recreation, and public parks.
(E) avoiding the inappropriate development of lands and providing for adequate drainage and reduction of
flood damage.
(F) encouraging patterns of land use which decrease trip length of automobile travel and encourage trip
consolidation.
(G) increasing public access to mass transit, sidewalks, trails, bicycle routes and other alternative modes
of transportation.
(H) reducing energy consumption and demand.
(I) minimizing the adverse environmental impacts of development.
(J) improving the design, quality and character of new development.
(K) fostering a more rational pattern of relationship among residential, business and industrial uses for the
mutual benefit of all.
(L) encouraging the development of vacant properties within established areas.
(M) ensuring that development proposals are sensitive to the character of existing neighborhoods.
(N) ensuring that development proposals are sensitive to natural areas and features.
2. Section 2.3.2(H)(1) & (7) Overall Development Plan Review Procedures
An overall 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:
(H) Step 8 (Standards): Applicable. An overall development plan shall comply with the following criteria:
(1) The overall development plan shall be consistent with the permitted uses and applicable zone
district standards (Article 4) of all zone districts contained within the boundaries of the overall
development plan. The plan shall also be consistent with any zone district standards (Article 4) and
general development standards (Article 3) that can be applied at the level of detail required for an
overall development plan submittal. If the overall development plan contains any land within the
M-M-N, C-C and/or N-C Districts, the plan shall be consistent with the block size requirements for
those districts.
August 23, 2011 -7- ITEM 3
(7) Any standards relating to housing density and mix of uses will be applied over the entire overall
development plan, not on each individual project development plan review.
3. Section 3.3.3 Water Hazards
(A) Lands which are subject to flooding or are located in a natural drainageway shall not be approved for
development or redevelopment unless the following conditions are met:
(1) the project development plan complies with the Basin Master Drainageway Plan as applicable.
(2) the project development plan complies with City Stormwater Design Criteria and Construction
Standards.
(3) the project development plan complies with the floodplain regulations as established in Chapter
10 of the City Code.
(4) all measures proposed to eliminate, mitigate or control water hazards related to flooding or
drainageways have been approved by the Water Utilities General Manager.
(B) If a project includes a water hazard such as an irrigation canal, water body or other water channel,
necessary design precautions shall be taken to minimize any hazard to life or property, and additional
measures such as fencing, water depth indicators and erection of warning signs shall be taken, to the
extent reasonably feasible.
(C) Any lands that are subject to high groundwater (meaning groundwater at an elevation such that
basement flooding is reasonably anticipated by the City Engineer to occur) shall not be platted for
building lots with basements unless adequate provisions to prevent groundwater from entering
basements have been designed and approved by the City Engineer.
4. Section 3.6.2(A) Streets, Streetscapes, Alleys and Easements
(A) Streets on a project development plan or subdivision plat shall conform to the Master Street Plan where
applicable. All streets shall be aligned to join with planned or existing streets. All streets shall be
designed to bear a logical relationship to the topography of the land. Intersections of streets shall be
at right angles unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer.
5. Section 3.6.3(F) Street Pattern and Connectivity Standards
(F) Utilization and Provision of Sub-Arterial Street Connections to and From Adjacent Developments
and Developable Parcels. All development plans shall incorporate and continue all sub-arterial streets
stubbed to the boundary of the development plan by previously approved development plans or existing
development. All development plans shall provide for future public street connections to adjacent
developable parcels by providing a local street connection spaced at intervals not to exceed six hundred
sixty (660) feet along each development plan boundary that abuts potentially developable or
redevelopable land.
6. Section 4.27(D)(2) Secondary Uses
(D) Land Use Standards.
(2) Secondary Uses. All secondary uses shall be integrated both in function and appearance into a
larger employment district development plan that emphasizes primary uses. A secondary use shall
be subject to administrative review or Planning and Zoning Board review as required for such use
in Section 4.27(B). The following permitted uses shall be considered secondary uses in this zone
district and together shall occupy no more than twenty-five (25) percent of the total gross area of
the development plan.
(a) Veterinary facilities and small animal clinics.
(b) Clubs and lodges.
August 23, 2011 -8- ITEM 3
(c) Child care centers.
(d) Residential uses (except mixed-use dwellings when the residential units are stacked above
a primary use which occupies the ground floor).
(e) Standard and fast food restaurants.
(f) Lodging establishments.
(g) Bed and breakfast establishments.
(h) Funeral homes.
(i) Health and membership clubs.
(j) Convenience shopping centers.
(k) Convention and conference center.
(l) Food catering.
(m) Public facilities.
(n) Community facilities.
(o) Bars and taverns.
(p) Plant nurseries and greenhouses.
(q) Dog day-care facilities.
(r) Print shops.
(s) Workshops and custom small industry uses.
(t) Artisan and photography studios and galleries.
(u) Limited indoor recreation establishments.
(v) Enclosed mini-storage facilities.
(w) Places of worship or assembly.
(x) Personal and business service shops.
7. Section 5.1.2 Definitions
Development plan shall mean an application submitted to the city for approval of a permitted use which depicts
the details of a proposed development. Development plan includes an overall development plan, a project
development plan and/or a final plan.
Floor Area Ratio (FAR) shall mean the amount of gross floor area of all principal buildings on a lot or block,
as the case may be, divided by the total area of such lot, or the block size, respectively, on which such
buildings are located. For mixed-use blocks, the residential square footage shall be added to the commercial
development for a total block FAR.
COUNCIL OPTIONS
Council should consider the appeal based upon the record and relevant provisions of the Code and Charter, and after
consideration, either:
1. Remand the decision if the Council finds that the Board failed to conduct a fair hearing; or
2. Uphold, overturn or modify the Board’s decision; or
3. Remand the decision for further consideration of additional issues raised on appeal.
ATTACHMENTS
NOTE: Attachments 1 through 7 are available at www.fcgov.com/cityclerk
1. City Clerk’s Notice of Appeal Hearing and Notice of Site Visit
2. Notice of Appeal, dated June 29, 2011
- Resident Report
- Documents submitted at the Planning and Zoning Hearing by Citizens, June 16, 2011
3. Staff Report (with attachments) to Planning and Zoning Board, dated June 16, 2011, for the Amended CSURF
Centre for Advanced Technology Overall Development Plan (#MJA11001)
4. Additional documentation for Staff Report submitted by the applicant to the Planning and Zoning Board at the
June 16, 2011 Hearing
5. Documents submitted by various speakers to the Planning and Zoning Board at the June 16, 2011 Hearing.
August 23, 2011 -9- ITEM 3
6. Verbatim Transcript of the Planning and Zoning Board Hearing, June 16, 2011
7. Miscellaneous Documents Submitted by Applicant at the Planning and Zoning Board June 16, 2011 Hearing
The staff powerpoint presentation to Council for the August 23, 2011 Hearing is attached (hard copy only)
All Attachments are available
at
www.fcgov.com/cityclerk
1
1
Overall Development Plan (ODP)
2
Amended Overall Development Plan
with Project Development Plan
2
3
Rolland Moore Drive and Larimer
Canal No. 2
4
2003 Overall Development Plan with
Rolland Moore Drive Alignments
3
5
Amended ODP with PDP
Superimposed
6
PDP Overlay on ODP
4
7
Rolland Moore Drive –– Existing and
Proposed Alignments
8
Amended ODP without PDP
Superimposed
5
9
Street Network in Parcel C
10
254,755 sf buffer area associated with ditch realignment
Proposed Ditch Realignment
DATE: August 23, 2011
STAFF: Steve Olt
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 4
SUBJECT
Consideration of the Appeal by Windtrail on Spring Creek HOA, Sundering Townhomes HOA, Hill Pond on Spring
Creek HOA, Hill Pond Condominium HOA and Windtrail Townhomes HOA of the June 16, 2011 Determination of the
Planning and Zoning Board to approve The Grove at Fort Collins, Project Development Plan.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On June 16, 2011, the Planning and Zoning Board conducted a public hearing considering the proposed The Grove
at Fort Collins, Project Development Plan (PDP). The Board considered testimony from the applicant, the public and
staff. The PDP was approved. Windtrail on Spring Creek HOA, Sundering Townhomes HOA, Hill Pond on Spring
Creek HOA, Hill Pond Condominium HOA and Windtrail Townhomes HOA have appealed the Board’s decision. The
allegation is that the Planning and Zoning Board failed to properly interpret and apply relevant portions of the Code
and Charter.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
This is an appeal of the decision for a request for a private multi-family residential project known as The Grove at Fort
Collins, Project Development Plan. It is a proposed student housing project containing 210 dwelling units in 11
residential buildings plus 8 dwelling units in a mixed-use dwelling (clubhouse) building. The site is located at the
southwest corner of Centre Avenue and existing Rolland Moore Drive, directly south of the Gardens on Spring Creek,
in the Centre for Advanced Technology. Rolland Moore Drive would be realigned onto the southerly portion of the
subject property and extended east, from the existing terminus approximately 800 feet east of South Shields Street,
to connect with Centre Avenue just to the north of the Larimer Canal No. 2.
There would be 403 parking spaces on-site and 96 parallel parking spaces on the proposed Public Local Street.
Additionally, there would be 128 parallel parking spaces on Rolland Moore Drive and the proposed Public Commercial
Street within the property. The property is 27.5 gross acres in size. It is located in the MMN, Medium Density Mixed-
Use Neighborhood and E, Employment Zoning Districts.
ACTION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
1. At its June 16, 2011, regular meeting, the Planning and Zoning Board made the following findings of fact and
conclusions as stated on pages 21, 22 and 23 of the Staff Report for The Grove at Fort Collins, Project
Development Plan:
A. The PDP is in conformance with the Amended CSURF Centre for Advanced Technology, ODP.
B. The proposed land use is permitted in the MMN, Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood District.
C. The proposed land use is permitted in the E, Employment District as a Secondary use.
D. The proposal complies with the requirement set forth in Section 3.3.3(A)(4) in that all measures proposed
to eliminate, mitigate or control water hazards related to flooding or drainageways have been reviewed
and approved by the Water Utilities General Manager.
E. The Project Development Plan complies with applicable General Development Standards, with the
following exception:
- Section 3.6.3(F) Utilization and Provision of Sub-Arterial Street Connections to and From Adjacent
Developments and Developable Parcels. This section requires that development plans provide for
future public street connections to adjacent developable or redevelopable lands at intervals not to
exceed 660 feet.
August 23, 2011 -2- ITEM 4
The applicant submitted an Alternative Compliance Plan request that does not include street connections
to adjacent properties to the north or the south due to existing wetlands and the Larimer Canal No. 2
posing obstacles to possible connections. The request is to be considered by the Planning & Zoning
Board based on criteria set forth in Section 3.6.3(H) Alternative Compliance. Staff finds that the
Alternative Development Plan accomplishes the purposes of Section 3.6.3(F) equally well or better than
a plan that would meet the standard and that any reduction in access and circulation for vehicles
maintains facilities for bicycle, pedestrian and transit, to the maximum extent feasible for the following
reasons:
• The Alternative Development Plan will provide enhanced bicycle and pedestrian connectivity within
the Amended ODP. The pedestrian and bicyclist will be able to access parks, recreational
opportunities, schools, commercial uses, and employment uses within the mile section.
• The streets that are being proposed in the Alternative Development Plan will distribute traffic without
exceeding Level of Service (LOS) standards.
• Lastly, the Alternative Development Plan eliminates negative impacts to high quality wetlands, avoids
constricting an important drainage way, eliminates impacts to the FEMA floodway and avoids negative
impacts to natural habitats and features associated with the designated wildlife corridor along the
Larimer Canal No. 2.
F. The Project Development Plan satisfies Section 3.8.16(E)(2) in that the applicable criteria of the Land Use
Code have been satisfied and that the project provides adequate open space and recreational
opportunities with a large clubhouse facility, pool complex, basketball court, volleyball court, parking areas
and public facilities as necessary to support the proposed 18 4-bedroom units and protect the occupants
of the development and the adjacent neighborhoods.
G. The Project Development Plan complies with applicable district standards of Article 4, Division 4.6 MMN,
Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood District of the Land Use Code.
• It is infeasible for the structure of potential Blocks 1 and 3 to be defined by features set forth in
Section 4.6(E)(1)(a) of the LUC because of existing development.
H. The Project Development Plan complies with applicable district standards of Article 4, Division 4.27 E,
Employment District of the Land Use Code.
ALLEGATIONS ON APPEAL
On June 30, 2011, a Notice of Appeal was received by the City Clerk’s Office from the Windtrail on Spring Creek HOA,
Sundering Townhomes HOA, Hill Pond on Spring Creek HOA, Hill Pond Condominium HOA and Windtrail Townhomes
HOA: c/o Kevin Barrier, President of the Windtrail on Spring Creek HOA, 1999 Northerland Drive, Fort Collins,
Colorado, 80526.
Allegations:
a. Improper interpretation of LUC Sections 4.27(D)(2) and 5.1.2 with regard to integration of secondary
uses into a larger employment district development plan that emphasizes primary uses.
The Grove PDP includes no primary uses in the Employment District, a violation of the first sentence of LUC
4.27(D)(2). When considering whether or not The Grove PDP integrated secondary uses into a larger employment
district development plan (Resident Report, page ll-12), the Board misinterpreted "development plan" in Section
4.27(D)(2) as applicable only to the Amended ODP, and not to The Grove PDP. A "development plan" as defined in
LUC Section 5.1.2 includes an overall development plan, a project development plan and/or a final plan. When a PDP
is under consideration, the "development plan" referenced in 4.27(D)(2) is the PDP.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The first sentence in Section 4.27(D)(2) Secondary Uses of the E, Employment District reads as such:
“All secondary uses shall be integrated both in function and appearance into a larger employment
district development plan that emphasizes primary uses”.
August 23, 2011 -3- ITEM 4
Approximately 9 acres of the total of 27.5 gross acres on The Grove at Fort Collins PDP are in the E District. The
development is almost entirely multi-family residential, with 20 – 25 of the total of 218 dwelling units being in the E
District. There remains about 4 acres in Parcel C within the E District that may still be developed for primary, non-
residential uses.
b. Improper interpretation of LUC Section 4.6.(D)(2)(a) with regard to mix of housing types in the MMN
District.
The Grove PDP provides only one housing type in the MMN District. The Board misinterpreted Section 4.6.(D)(2)(a)
by considering the swimming pool pavilion a second housing type. The pavilion is a small accessory building
associated with the outdoor recreational facilities near the Clubhouse, which, as described on page 11-13 of the
Resident Report, is a mixed-use residence located in the Employment District at a considerable distance (beyond 50
feet) across the boundary of the MMN District.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
As stated in the Staff Report to the Planning & Zoning Board on June 16, 2011:
“The development plan satisfies Section 4.6(D)(2)(a) Mix of Housing Types in that there are to be 2
housing types (multi-family dwellings and mixed-use dwellings) in The Grove at Fort Collins, PDP.”
Staff considers the clubhouse building to be a mixed-use dwelling unit, which is identified as a housing type as set forth
in Section 4.6(D)(2)(c). There is no mention of the swimming pool pavilion being considered a second housing type.
Common practice for City staff is to consider the entirety of a development plan in determining the mix of housing
types.
c. Improper interpretation of Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards (LCUASS) for a Minor
Collector.
The Board misinterpreted the LCUASS standards which would be applicable to Rolland Moore Drive as designed in
The Grove PDP. Multiple instances of noncompliance with LCUASS were cited during the June 16, 2011 hearing from
a letter from James R. Loonan, a qualified professional engineer, including insufficient centerline curve radii;
undersized arc lengths; lack of horizontal tangent and sight distance easement at the intersection of Rolland Moore
Drive and Centre Avenue; and insufficient corner sight distance at the intersection of Rolland Moore Drive and the
Local Public Street. The technical details can be found in Mr. Loonan's letter which follows page 1-11 of the Resident
Report. City Staff granted a variance request to use a 30 mph Connector Local design criteria for the centerline radii,
minimum tangent between curves, and posted speed of 25 mph versus a 40 mph Collector design. The minimum
tangent length for a 30 mph Connector street is 100 feet, but there is zero tangent at the intersection of Rolland Moore
Drive and Centre Avenue. The design of Rolland Moore Drive does not meet LCUASS Section 8.2.4.A for a 30 mph
Connector street nor does it meet the approved variances.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The appellants cited a letter from James R. Loonan which was presented at the Planning and Zoning Board Hearing.
The majority of Mr. Loonan’s letter focuses on the design for Rolland Moore Drive and how aspects of the design
Rolland Moore Drive do not meet collector standards. Variances to several Collector Street design parameters have
been granted to bring the geometry of the design of Rolland Moore Drive closer to a connector than a collector.
City staff (which included staff from Traffic Operations, Transportation Planning, Engineering, and Community
Development and Neighborhood Services) discussed the proposed variance requests and viewed that the roadway
geometry design for Rolland Moore Drive proposed by Northern Engineering would be acceptable. This was
documented in the variance request response letter from Sheri Langenberger dated January 28, 2011 to Nick Haws
with Northern Engineering Services.
Beyond Mr. Loonan’s letter, the appellants more specifically cite both a sight distance easement requirement and the
lack of a tangent at the intersection of Rolland Moore Drive and Centre Avenue. With regards to a requirement for a
sight distance easement, this reflects an evaluation at to whether a view corridor needs to be preserved when stopped
on eastbound Rolland Moore Drive at the Centre Avenue intersection looking south along Centre Avenue. There is
a potential that a sight distance easement would be required to preserve a view corridor, though final determination
August 23, 2011 -4- ITEM 4
of the amount of impact (if any) cannot be assessed until additional vertical design information is provided
commensurate with a final plan submittal. As CSURF is the underlying owner of both The Grove at Fort Collins and
the offsite property that would be impacted by a sight distance easement, CSURF has indicated that they would not
object to a sight distance easement on the offsite property should it be determined that it is required during the course
of a final plan review. CSURF’s indication of no objection to the granting of a sight distance easement satisfies the
“Letters of Intent” requirement as part of the City’s “Submittal Requirements: Project Development Plan (PDP)”, step
3 of 8 in the Development Review Guide.
The lack of a tangent at a public street intersection is not necessarily viewed as being non-compliant with LCUASS.
A curve rather than a tangent can be brought to an intersection provided that the resultant angle that the curve
intersects that intersection is still within 80 to 100 degrees (intersections do not necessarily need to intersect at 90
degrees or with a straight line, per 8.2.3 of LCUASS). An existing example of where a curve meets an intersection with
the resultant angle still falls within the criteria of 8.2.3 of LCUASS is northbound Lady Moon Drive as it intersects with
Harmony Road.
d. Further improper interpretations of Land Use Code with regard to multiple issues, as listed below.
Some issues that are of lesser scope than others are easily overlooked, but when considered as a
whole, the preponderance of evidence reveals a general pattern of noncompliance with the purpose
and intent of the Land Use Code.
I. LUC 3.5.1 Compatibility. with regard to (A) Purpose. (B) Architectural Character. (C) Building Size. Height.
Bulk. Mass. Scale. (E) Building Materials. (F) Color. (H) Transitions and (J) Operational/Physical
Compatibility)
The Board misinterpreted multiple provisions of LUC 3.5.1 with regard to compatibility of The Grove PDP with existing
neighboring development. The architectural character, size, bulk and scale of the buildings bear little contextual
relationship to existing adjacent neighborhoods. Structural transitions are not provided, and although they are at a
modest distance across a natural area, very large three-story buildings nearly 200 feet long are situated on a hillside
that rises above the neighboring one- and two-story townhouses and homes. Incompatibility of The Grove PDP with
existing development is discussed pages 11-1 through 11-6 of the Resident Report and illustrated by contrasting views
of the Applicant's computer model and recent photographs of the neighborhood context.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
As stated in the Staff Report to the Planning & Zoning Board on June 16, 2011, the development plan satisfies the
criteria set forth in Section 3.5.1 by ensuring that the architectural character of the surrounding area is maintained by
using a site and building design that is compatible with the multi-family residential developments to the west (Windtrail
Park and Care Housing at Windtrail Park) and the Natural Resources Research Center to the east. The Grove at Fort
Collins, PDP contains buildings of no more than 3 stories in height clustered around a common, amenity area. The
proposed building materials consist of brick masonry and horizontal and vertical vinyl siding. With the exception of vinyl
siding the materials can be found on existing buildings in the area.
ii. LUC 3.8.16(E)(2) Increasing the Occupancy Limit
The Board misinterpreted the provisions that allow the occupancy limit to be increased above three unrelated
occupants. As explained on page 11-7 of the Resident Report, The Grove PDP includes 18 four-bedroom apartments.
The Grove PDP provides limited open space, some recreational areas, parking and public facilities for its tenants. The
quantity, quality and distribution do not meet the requirement that such facilities be additional and adequate to serve
the occupants and protect the adjacent neighborhoods from the impact of increased occupancy.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The Land Use Code permits exceeding the occupancy limit if the applicant has provided additional open space,
recreational areas, parking areas and public facilities as are necessary to adequately serve the occupants of the
development and to protect the adjacent neighborhood.
August 23, 2011 -5- ITEM 4
iii. LUC 1.2.2(E) protecting life, safety and reducing flood damage, and LUC 3.3.3 regarding water hazards
The Board misinterpreted the provisions of the LUC regarding protection of life and property by avoiding inappropriate
development and reducing flood damage. City goals for appropriate development of flood-prone areas are noted pages
11-10 to 11-11 of the Resident report. The Grove PDP fills in a portion of the floodplain for two buildings and a public
street. The proposed fill narrows the floodplain at a critical location and will cause a rise that threatens low-lying
established neighborhoods.
As discussed in the Resident Report, pages 11-15 and 16, The Grove PDP grading plan calls for deep cuts near
Larimer Canal #2, increasing the potential for breach of the canal during a storm/flood event. The Board set as a
Condition of Approval that the canal be relocated, but only by withholding the Final Certificate of Occupancy after
construction. By allowing excavation of the hillside before relocation of the canal, the Board misinterpreted the purpose
and intent of LUC 1.2.2(E) and LUC 3.3.3 to mitigate such hazards. Cutting the slope below the canal prior to
relocation unnecessarily increases risk to the life, health and safety of downhill residents and properties.
STAFF ANALYSIS
Some of The Grove property is in a FEMA 100-year floodway and flood fringe. The applicant does not plan to modify
the floodway. The applicant has the legal right through Chapter 10 of the Municipal Code to fill the flood fringe without
analyzing how it might impact neighbors. This may push water onto existing neighbors, but is legally permissible by
City Code and Federal Code as an "allowable rise." As stated by Brian Varrella, Floodplain Administrator for the City:
"Chapter 10 of City Code allows any party to develop in the Spring Creek flood fringe and create up
to 6 inches of rise in the base flood elevation. The net result of this allowable rise by development is
to force flood water onto adjacent and upstream properties. City Code does not require any party
developing in the Spring Creek flood fringe to quantify their impact on others. "
The Spring Creek FEMA map will be revised late in the Spring of 2012. Much of the neighborhood to the south and
west of The Grove will be removed from the map of the 100-year floodway and flood fringe after that time. All affected
neighbors will be notified directly of changes to flood mapping on their property when FEMA gives the green light. The
green light should be given 6 months before the effective date and mailers will go out to everyone. Neighbors will have
4 to 5 months to plan for new maps and benefits anticipated from the process. Fort Collins has administered a 0.5-ft
rise floodway since 1979. This is a wider floodway than the current Federal minimum standard, but is the same
floodway required by the State of Colorado. Fort Collins is no more restrictive than the rest of the state in how
floodplain boundaries are drawn.
The developer for The Grove at Fort Collins will not be doing any cut and fill to the north-facing slope of the existing
Larimer Canal No. 2 while there is water running through that ditch, which occurs 2 months of the year. This mitigates
the potential for risk to life, health and safety of properties and residents downhill from the ditch.
iv. LUC 3.4.1 Natural habitats
The Board misinterpreted LUC 3.4.1(F)(2) which requires preservation of natural connections between natural habitats
and LUC 3.4.1(C) requiring integration of wildlife within the developed landscape. At present, wildlife travel freely
through the site between the Larimer Canal corridor and the Wetlands corridor, and through the adjacent
neighborhoods to and from the Spring Creek corridor. As discussed on page 11-17 of the Resident Report, The Grove
PDP includes a long iron fence to protect the wetlands from impact by the development. This fence, in addition to a
high retaining wall below the Larimer Canal will disrupt these connections. No other residential development in the
vicinity requires a fence to protect natural areas from the impact of intense use by residents.
The Board misinterpreted LUC 3.4.1(1)(1) and (2) requiring the design of projects in large natural habitats such as the
Spring Creek natural corridor to complement the visual context of the natural habitat and minimize the degradation
of the visual character of affected natural features within the site and the obstruction of scenic views to and from the
natural features within the site.
August 23, 2011 -6- ITEM 4
STAFF ANALYSIS:
Site Context.
The Grove project site contains an array of natural habitats and features, including the Larimer Canal No. 2 and
significant trees on the south side of the parcel, 4.97 acres of wetlands on the north side of the parcel, and 14 fox dens,
as of the most recent ecological survey of the parcel. According to the project’s Ecological Characterization Study
and staff observations, the species utilizing this corridor are predominately urbanized species (accustomed to human
disturbances and including, but not limited to, fox, deer, raccoons, songbirds, etc.).
Wildlife Movement and the Fence.
In a site with abundant natural features, tradeoffs are often required to ensure sensitive habitats are protected while
still allowing for urban-adapted species to move across a site. In this project, a fence has been required to protect the
wetlands from human encroachment, trash blowing into the site, and from pets trampling in the wetlands. Examples
of similar-scale projects where fences have been installed include North College Marketplace and Caribou Apartments;
in these sites, no evidence of human traffic, e.g., social trails, can be seen in the wetland area. However, in other areas
where fencing has not been required, e.g., Huntington Hills, social trails are evident adjacent to and even within
wetlands in some areas. In this project, given the allowance of pets within the apartments and varying buffer distances
around the wetlands, staff believes that a fence at the site will protect the wetlands from social trails, trash blowing into
the site, and domesticated animal use that otherwise might occur.
However, in May, discussions among staff, the applicant, and the neighbors brought to light concerns about how the
fence, while it would serve to protect the wetlands from encroachment, might also prohibit wildlife movement from the
northern ends of the parcel to the southern ends (and vice versa). Thus, staff met with wildlife biologists, including
representatives from the Division of Wildlife, the Natural Areas Department, and private consultants, to assess how
the fence could be modified to still allow for wildlife movement across the site. While several experts believed wildlife
will simply adapt to the development, e.g., go around it, others felt that some modifications to the project design would
increase wildlife movement across the site. Thus, the following design modifications were requested of the applicant
(and subsequently applied in the design):
• Modify the metal-picket fencing style proposed through the project by varying the height from 3’ to 6’ along
several key locations;
• Leave a 1’ gap in the pickets below the lower, horizontal cross brace approximately every 100’ to allow for fox
to move under the fence in compliance with Section 3.4.1(E)(1)(b) and Section 3.4.1(E)(1)(I) of the Land Use
Code;
• Roughen the surface of the retaining wall on the south side of the project to allow fox to more easily scramble
up the retaining wall.
Each of these adjustments is intended to balance the need for internal and external site connections for wildlife and
humans, while limiting human and domesticated animal access into the Natural Habitat Buffer Zones and providing
increased, functional protection for wildlife species.
Visual Character.
A total of 7.16 acres of the project site is proposed to be dedicated as a Natural Habitat Buffer Zone, including
approximately 1,450 native trees, shrub, grass, and perennial species proposed. During the Planning and Zoning
Board hearing, Board Members commented on the improvements in architectural styles and green standards made
in the current submittal. The several design iterations that the applicant has worked with staff on has removed the need
for any wetland mitigation on the project and is protecting all but three significant trees (two which are in the roadway
design for Rolland Moore Drive and one of which has been deemed hazardous by the City Forester).
In regards to views, exterior, scenic views into the Spring Creek corridor are currently blocked by the site’s natural
topography and vegetation and the three subdivisions to the north of the project. Visibility into the Spring Creek corridor
is best provided on the northeast portion of the site through the Gardens on Spring Creek. In addition, all buildings
on the project are, at a minimum, over 600’ from Spring Creek.
From an internal viewing perspective, the site’s natural features, including the wetlands, Larimer Canal No. 2, and
significant trees, will be viewable from the project’s pedestrian paths and dwelling units. To protect the surrounding
neighbors from headlights, the parking lots in the project are surrounded by a solid wood fence, which would be one
area where the project obstructs internal views into the site’s natural features. However, from concerns expressed by
the neighbors and good site design principles, staff finds this is an acceptable tradeoff.
August 23, 2011 -7- ITEM 4
v. Municipal Code 7.5 – Fees
It is long-standing City policy that development should pay its own way. The Appellants believe the Board
misinterpreted Municipal Code Chapter 7.5 with regard to development fees. Fee values for The Grove PDP that were
provided by City staff upon inquiry prior to the Planning and Zoning hearing appear to be substantially underestimated
compared to rates published by the City of Fort Collins. The Appellants do not understand why this should be so and
appeal to Council for clarification.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The developer / applicant has paid the required, full amount of development review fees with each submittal to the City
of Fort Collins, both for ODP’s and PDP’s. There were no Planning or Transportation Development Review Fee
reductions given for the project.
vi. LUC 1.2.2 protection of life safety (use of vinyl siding)
The Board misinterpreted the life safety provisions of the LUC with regard to vinyl siding, which can contribute to
combustion and produces extremely toxic smoke in a fire event. Page 11-18 of the Resident Report notes this problem
has led at least one town to ban the use of vinyl siding in multifamily housing. Fires may not be common in student-
oriented housing, but they are not unlikely. The fire sprinklers in the buildings of The Grove PDP do not offer protection
from this external fire hazard. Other sustainable siding products are available that do not contribute to combustion or
produce smoke of such extreme toxicity.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The Land Use Code does not expressly address or prohibit the use of vinyl siding on buildings.
vii. LUC 1.2.2(H) energy conservation
The Board misinterpreted Section 1.2.2(H) requiring reduction of energy consumption and demand. The Applicant
originally intended to use air-source electric heat pumps to heat the 218 dwelling units of The Grove PDP. Air-source
electric heat pumps do not perform well in Colorado and require supplemental resistance heat when temperatures drop
below 32 degrees Fahrenheit. As noted on page 11-20 of the Resident Report, use of electricity for space heating in
this PDP has been of long-standing concern. Although the insulation performance of its model building has apparently
been improved, the Applicant did not commit to any other specific, more efficient heating system, and The Grove PDP
utility plan has no gas lines.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The Land Use Code does not expressly prohibit the use of electric heat in a project. Also, at the Planning & Zoning
Board public hearing on June 16, 2011 the developers and their consultants indicated that they were still considering
alternative sources of heating for the project.
viii. LUC 3.2.2(C)(5)(a) Sidewalk directness and connectivity
The Board misinterpreted this provision that requires walkways to connect areas of pedestrian origin and destination
directly, rather than aligning them according to the shape of a parking lot, as specifically prohibited in 3.2.2(C)(5)(a).
The logical direct paths from the entrances of Buildings 8, 10 and 11 to the clubhouse, pool and central lawn are
directly across the two largest parking lots in The Grove PDP. There are no walkways through the parking lots and
islands do not line up to provide direct access. (Resident Report, page 111-2)
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The Grove at Fort Collins development plan provides good pedestrian connectivity to the front and rear entries to the
clubhouse, amenity area and central green on the west side of the clubhouse from Buildings 8, 10 and 11. From
Buildings 8 and 11 there are direct sidewalk connections to the east side (main entry) of the clubhouse, having only
to cross one driveway entry into a parking lot in each case.
August 23, 2011 -8- ITEM 4
ix. LUC 3.2.2(D)(3)(b) Guest parking
The Board misinterpreted this provision requiring proportional distribution of guest parking off-street and located within
200 feet of the dwelling unit. There are no off-street parking spaces, let alone guest parking spaces, within 200 feet
of Buildings 4, 5 and much of Building 6. (Resident Report, page 111-2)
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The Grove at Fort Collins Project Development Plan contains 69 more parking spaces than required by the Land Use
Code, not counting the 128 parallel parking spaces along Rolland Moore Drive and the Public Commercial Street. The
code does not specify a maximum distance from dwelling units for off-street parking spaces intended for residents of
the development. There are 4 – 6 parking spaces in the parking lot directly east of Building 6 that are within 200 feet
of the 2 entries to that building. Regarding Buildings 4 and 5, there are 14 parallel parking spaces in a recessed
parking area along Rolland Moore Drive, directly in front of the buildings, that could be identified and signed as guest
parking.
x. LUC 3.2.5 Trash and Recycling, distance from buildings and proximity to sidewalks.
The Board misinterpreted LUC 3.2.5{B) requiring adequate capacity, number and distribution of trash collection. Some
residents of The Grove will have to carry trash 300 feet to reach the nearest enclosure. The Board also misinterpreted
LUC 3.2.5(I)(1) requiring trash collection areas to be no closer than twenty (20) feet from any public street or sidewalk.
Two locations near Buildings 8 and 3 are closer than 20' to the sidewalk. Correction by providing additional collection
sites may reduce the number of parking spaces. (Resident Report, page 111-2 through 4)
STAFF ANALYSIS:
As stated in the Staff Report to the Planning & Zoning Board on June 16, 2011, there are 6 trash collection / recycling
enclosures that will be distributed throughout the development site. The proposed locations satisfy the intent of Section
3.2.5 by providing the enclosures near Buildings 1, 3, 6, 7, 8 and 10. The trash enclosures nearest Buildings 3 and
8 are set back 10 feet to 13 feet from the street right-of-way; however, they can be moved to a 20 foot setback distance
with the Final Plan, prior to approval and recording, by eliminating one parking space in each case.
xi. LUC 3.S.2(C)(2) Street Facing Facades
The Board misinterpreted this provision requiring at least one building entry or doorway facing any non-arterial street
with on-street parking. The east side of the Clubhouse faces the Public Commercial Street, but its elevation has no
doorway. (Resident Report, page 111-4)
STAFF ANALYSIS:
Sheet 5 of the Site Plan set (dated 06.01.11) shows the main entry for the Clubhouse (w/Residential Above) building
to be on the east side, facing the proposed Public Commercial Street. The entry door would be 32 feet from the public
sidewalk along the street. The Front Elevation for the clubhouse, shown on Sheet 18 of the Clubhouse Elevations
(dated 06.01.11), contains an Aluminum Storefront Entry System (containing doors).
xii. LUC 3.2.2(K)(S)(b) Location of parking for disabled tenants
The Board misinterpreted this provision requiring handicap parking spaces to be located as close as possible to the
nearest accessible building entrance, using the shortest possible accessible route of travel. As noted in James R.
Loonan's letter following page 11-23 of the Resident Report, the accessible routes to Buildings 4 and 5 from the closest
dedicated parking for disabled tenants are 310 feet and 400 feet respectively.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
There are 15 identified and designed handicap parking spaces in The Grove at Fort Collins PDP. They are distributed
throughout the development. Only 9 handicap spaces are required in the lots containing a total of 403 spaces. There
are identified handicap parking spaces in lots that are a distance of 200 feet from Building 4 and 350 feet from Building
5.
August 23, 2011 -9- ITEM 4
xiii. LUC Section 3.6.3(F) Connectivity
As a practical matter, the alignment of Rolland Moore Drive in the Amended ODP precludes development of
connectivity to existing services south of Parcel C. It is set so close to Larimer Canal No.2 that any street or alternative
transportation way would need extensive grading and construction to cross the Canal easement, which would have
a substantial impact on its function as a wildlife corridor. Other, better alignments are feasible that could reduce the
disruption needed to build connections to the south. Streets, bikeways and trails coexist with canals and wildlife
corridors throughout the City. The Board misinterpreted LUC Section 3.6.3(F) which requires Alternative Compliance
for connectivity to be equal or better than compliance.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The Land Use Code includes provisions for Alternative Compliance to provide connectivity to the south across Larimer
Canal No. 2 due to the potential impacts to wildlife and natural corridors, existing drainage ways, wetlands, and the
availability of alternative routes. City staff from Community Development and Neighborhood Services, Environmental
Planning, Engineering, Traffic Operations, and Transportation Planning reviewed the Alternative Development Plan
and found that it accomplishes the purposes of LUC 3.6.3{F} equally well or better than a plan that would meet the
standard. The Alternative Development Plan submitted provides enhanced bicycle and pedestrian connectivity to
adjacent trails, sidewalks and on-street bicycle routes, distributes vehicle traffic without exceeding level of service
standards, and eliminates impacts to the designated wildlife corridor along the Larimer Canal No. 2. The Planning &
Zoning Board approved this Alternative Compliance.
xiv. Deficiencies in the Traffic Impact Study (TIS)
The Board misinterpreted the LCUASS guidelines for traffic studies in accepting conclusions drawn from deficient
assumptions in the TIS. Although the problematic intersection of Centre and Prospect will be the most heavily used
intersection by students bicycling to and from campus, only Shields and Rolland Moore Drive was studied for bicycle
level of service. The TIS also failed to examine major arterial intersections that occupants of The Grove PDP will need
to use for commuting and routine errands such as grocery shopping.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The development is proposed to be housing primarily for college students. As such, most of the trips expected to be
generated during the rush hours will be to and from the CSU campus. The expectation is also that those trips will
mostly be made by means other than motorized vehicles. Even with that expectation the Traffic Impact Study evaluated
the project with most of the peak hour trips being performed by motor vehicles (75% motor vehicle, 25% alternative
modes).
The intersection that is expected to experience the most consistent, reoccurring and measurable traffic (motor vehicle,
pedestrian or bicycling) from the development is the Centre Avenue and West Prospect Road intersection. All other
surrounding major arterial intersections are not expected to receive significant enough volumes of traffic from the
development during the peak traffic hours to discern from the daily background traffic. That is due to being low in
volume and as traffic moves further from its origin it becomes more dispersed.
The trips outside the rush hours, when more of the random travel for personal needs and services (groceries,
entertainment, etc.) is conducted, are typically random and sporadic in nature and the surrounding street system and
intersections have the capacity to handle those trips without measureable impact.
The City’s bicycle level of service standards do not specifically require the analysis of intersections similar to the
vehicular traffic study. Instead, the bicycle LOS standards require a development to directly connect to the greater
Fort Collins bicycle grid and all priority locations within a quarter mile of a site. City staff reviewed the submitted bicycle
LOS analysis and found that it complies with LCUASS standards.
DETERMINATION TO BE MADE BY COUNCIL
Did the Planning & Zoning Board properly interpret and apply relevant portions of the Code and Charter?
August 23, 2011 -10- ITEM 4
LIST OF RELEVANT CODE PROVISIONS
1. Section 1.2.2 Purpose of the Land Use Code
The purpose of this Land Use Code is to improve and protect the public health, safety and welfare by:
(A) ensuring that all growth and development which occurs is consistent with this Land Use Code, City Plan
and its adopted components, including but not limited to the Structure Plan, Principles and Policies and
associated sub-area plans.
(B) encouraging innovations in land development and renewal.
(C) fostering the safe, efficient and economic use of the land, the city’s transportation infrastructure, and
other public facilities and services.
(D) facilitating and ensuring the provision of adequate public facilities and services such as transportation
(streets, bicycle routes, sidewalks and mass transit), water, wastewater, storm drainage, fire and
emergency services, police, electricity, open space, recreation, and public parks.
(E) avoiding the inappropriate development of lands and providing for adequate drainage and reduction of
flood damage.
(F) encouraging patterns of land use which decrease trip length of automobile travel and encourage trip
consolidation.
(G) increasing public access to mass transit, sidewalks, trails, bicycle routes and other alternative modes
of transportation.
(H) reducing energy consumption and demand.
(I) minimizing the adverse environmental impacts of development.
(J) improving the design, quality and character of new development.
(K) fostering a more rational pattern of relationship among residential, business and industrial uses for the
mutual benefit of all.
(L) encouraging the development of vacant properties within established areas.
(M) ensuring that development proposals are sensitive to the character of existing neighborhoods.
(N) ensuring that development proposals are sensitive to natural areas and features.
2. Section 3.2.2 Access, Circulation and Parking
(C) Development Standards. All developments shall meet the following standards:
(5) Walkways.
(a) Directness and continuity. Walkways within the site shall be located and aligned to directly
and continuously connect areas or points of pedestrian origin and destination, and shall not
be located and aligned solely based on the outline of a parking lot configuration that does not
provide such direct pedestrian access. Walkways shall link street sidewalks with building
entries through parking lots. Such walkways shall be raised or enhanced with a paved
surface not less than six (6) feet in width. Drive aisles leading to main entrances shall have
walkways on both sides of the drive aisle.
(D) Access and Parking Lot Requirements. All vehicular use areas in any proposed development shall
be designed to be safe, efficient, convenient and attractive, considering use by all modes of
August 23, 2011 -11- ITEM 4
transportation that will use the system, (including, without limitation, cars, trucks, buses, bicycles and
emergency vehicles).
(3) Location. Only off-street parking areas provided to serve uses permitted in a zone district
predominated by residential uses will be allowed in such district.
(b) Guest Parking. Off-street guest parking spaces in multi-family developments shall be
distributed proportionally to the dwelling unit locations that they are intended to serve. Such
parking shall not be located more than two hundred (200) feet from any dwelling unit that is
intended to be served.
(K) Parking Lots - Required Number of Off-Street Spaces for Type of Use.
(5) Handicap Parking.
(b) Location. Handicap parking spaces shall be located as close as possible to the nearest
accessible building entrance, using the shortest possible accessible route of travel. When
practical, the accessible route of travel shall not cross lanes for vehicular traffic. When
crossing vehicle traffic lanes is necessary, the route of travel shall be designated and marked
as a crosswalk.
3. Section 3.2.5 Trash and Recycling Enclosures
(A) Purpose. The purpose of this Section is to ensure the provision of areas, compatible with surrounding
land uses, for the collection, separation, storage, loading and pickup of recyclable materials by requiring
that adequate, convenient space is functionally located at multi-family residential, commercial and
industrial land use sites.
(B) Regulations. The following regulations shall be applied to the extent reasonably feasible:
(1) All new commercial or multi-family structures and all existing commercial or multi-family structures
proposed to be enlarged by more than twenty-five (25) percent, or where a change of use is
proposed, shall provide adequate space for the collection and storage of refuse and recyclable
materials.
(2) The amount of space provided for the collection and storage of recyclable materials shall be
designed to accommodate collection and storage containers that are appropriate for the recyclable
materials generated. Areas for storage of trash and recyclable materials shall be adequate in
capacity, number and distribution to serve the development project.*
(3) Recyclable materials storage areas shall be located abutting refuse collection and storage areas.
(4) Each trash and recycling enclosure shall be designed to allow walk-in access without having to
open the main enclosure service gates.
(5) Trash and recycling areas must be enclosed so that they are screened from public view. The
enclosure shall be constructed of durable materials such as masonry and shall be compatible with
the structure to which it is associated. Gates on the enclosures shall be constructed of metal or
some other comparable durable material, shall be painted to match the enclosure and shall be
properly maintained.
(6) Enclosure areas shall be designed to provide adequate, safe and efficient accessibility for service
vehicles.
(7) Enclosure areas shall be constructed on a cement concrete pad.
(8) The property owner shall supply and maintain adequate containers for recycling and waste
disposal. Containers must be clearly marked for recycling.
August 23, 2011 -12- ITEM 4
4. Section 3.3.3 Water Hazards
(A) Lands which are subject to flooding or are located in a natural drainageway shall not be approved for
development or redevelopment unless the following conditions are met:
(1) the project development plan complies with the Basin Master Drainageway Plan as applicable.
(2) the project development plan complies with City Stormwater Design Criteria and Construction
Standards.
(3) the project development plan complies with the floodplain regulations as established in Chapter
10 of the City Code.
(4) all measures proposed to eliminate, mitigate or control water hazards related to flooding or
drainageways have been approved by the Water Utilities General Manager.
(B) If a project includes a water hazard such as an irrigation canal, water body or other water channel,
necessary design precautions shall be taken to minimize any hazard to life or property, and additional
measures such as fencing, water depth indicators and erection of warning signs shall be taken, to the
extent reasonably feasible.
(C) Any lands that are subject to high groundwater (meaning groundwater at an elevation such that
basement flooding is reasonably anticipated by the City Engineer to occur) shall not be platted for
building lots with basements unless adequate provisions to prevent groundwater from entering
basements have been designed and approved by the City Engineer.
5. Section 3.4.1 Natural Habitats and Features
(C) General Standard. To the maximum extent feasible, the development plan shall be designed and
arranged to be compatible with and to protect natural habitats and features and the plants and animals
that inhabit them and integrate them within the developed landscape of the community by: (1) directing
development away from sensitive resources, (2) minimizing impacts and disturbance through the use
of buffer zones, (3) enhancing existing conditions, or (4) restoring or replacing the resource value lost
to the community (either on-site or off-site) when a development proposal will result in the disturbance
of natural habitats or features.
(F) Protection of Wildlife Habitat and Ecological Character.
(2) Connections. If the development site contains existing natural habitats or features that connect to
other off-site natural habitats or features, to the maximum extent feasible the development plan
shall preserve such natural connections. If natural habitats or features lie adjacent to (meaning in
the region immediately round about) the development site, but such natural habitats or features
are not presently connected across the development site, then the development plan shall, to the
extent reasonably feasible, provide such connection. Such connections shall be designed and
constructed to allow for the continuance of existing wildlife movement between natural habitats or
features and to enhance the opportunity for the establishment of new connections between areas
for the movement of wildlife.
(I) Design and Aesthetics.
(1) Project design. Projects in the vicinity of large natural habitats and/or natural habitat corridors,
including, but not limited to, the Poudre River Corridor and the Spring Creek Corridor, shall be
designed to complement the visual context of the natural habitat. Techniques such as architectural
design, site design, the use of native landscaping and choice of colors and building materials shall
be utilized in such manner that scenic views across or through the site are protected, and
manmade facilities are screened from off-site observers and blend with the natural visual character
of the area. These requirements shall apply to all elements of a project, including any aboveground
utility installations.
August 23, 2011 -13- ITEM 4
(2) Visual Character of Natural Features. Projects shall be designed to minimize the degradation of
the visual character of affected natural features within the site and to minimize the obstruction of
scenic views to and from the natural features within the site.
6. Section 3.5.1 Building and Project Compatibility
(A) Purpose. The purpose of this Section is to ensure that the physical and operational characteristics of
proposed buildings and uses are compatible when considered within the context of the surrounding
area. They should be read in conjunction with the more specific building standards contained in this
Division 3.5 and the zone district standards contained in Article 4. All criteria and regulations contained
in this Section that pertain to "developments," "the development plan," "buildings" and other similar
terms shall be read to include the application of said criteria and regulations to any determination made
by the Planning and Zoning Board under paragraphs 1.3.4(A)(5) and (6) for the purpose of evaluating
the authorization of an additional use.
(B) Architectural Character. New developments in or adjacent to existing developed areas shall be
compatible with the established architectural character of such areas by using a design that is
complementary. In areas where the existing architectural character is not definitively established, or is
not consistent with the purposes of this Land Use Code, the architecture of new development shall set
an enhanced standard of quality for future projects or redevelopment in the area. Compatibility shall be
achieved through techniques such as the repetition of roof lines, the use of similar proportions in
building mass and outdoor spaces, similar relationships to the street, similar window and door patterns,
and/or the use of building materials that have color shades and textures similar to those existing in the
immediate area of the proposed infill development. Brick and stone masonry shall be considered
compatible with wood framing and other materials.
(C) Building Size, Height, Bulk, Mass, Scale. . Buildings shall either be similar in size and height, or, if
larger, be articulated and subdivided into massing that is proportional to the mass and scale of other
structures, if any, on the same block face, opposing block face or cater-corner block face at the nearest
intersection. (See Figure 7.)
Figure 7
Infill Buildings
New buildings in historic districts should reflect the historic character of the neighborhood through repetition of roof
lines, patterns of door and window placement, and the use of characteristic entry features.
(E) Building Materials.
(1) General. Building materials shall either be similar to the materials already being used in the
neighborhood or, if dissimilar materials are being proposed, other characteristics such as scale and
proportions, form, architectural detailing, color and texture, shall be utilized to ensure that enough
similarity exists for the building to be compatible, despite the differences in materials.
(2) Glare. Building materials shall not create excessive glare. If highly reflective building materials are
proposed, such as aluminum, unpainted metal and reflective glass, the potential for glare from such
materials will be evaluated to determine whether or not the glare would create a significant adverse
August 23, 2011 -14- ITEM 4
impact on the adjacent property owners, neighborhood or community in terms of vehicular safety,
outdoor activities and enjoyment of views. If so, such materials shall not be permitted.
(3) Windows.
(a) Mirror glass with a reflectivity or opacity of greater than sixty (60) percent is prohibited.
(b) Clear glass shall be used for commercial storefront display windows and doors.
(c) Windows shall be individually defined with detail elements such as frames, sills and lintels,
and placed to visually establish and define the building stories and establish human scale
and proportion.
(F) Building Color. Color shades shall be used to facilitate blending into the neighborhood and unifying
the development. The color shades of building materials shall draw from the range of color shades that
already exist on the block or in the adjacent neighborhood.
(H) Land Use Transition. When land uses with significantly different visual character are proposed
adjacent to each other and where gradual transitions are not possible or not in the best interest of the
community, the development plan shall, to the maximum extent feasible, achieve compatibility through
compliance with the standards set forth in this Division regarding scale, form, materials and colors and
adoption of operational standards including limits on hours of operation, lighting, placement of noise-
generating activities and similar restrictions.
(J) Operational/Physical Compatibility Standards. Conditions may be imposed upon the approval of
development applications to ensure that new development will be compatible with existing
neighborhoods and uses. Such conditions may include, but need not be limited to, restrictions on:
(1) hours of operation and deliveries;
(2) location on a site of activities that generate potential adverse impacts on adjacent uses such as
noise and glare;
(3) placement of trash receptacles;
(4) location of loading and delivery zones;
(5) light intensity and hours of full illumination;
(6) placement and illumination of outdoor vending machines;
(7) location and number of off-street parking spaces.
7. Section 3.5.2 Residential Building Standards
(C) Relationship of Dwellings to Streets and Parking.
(2) Street-Facing Facades. Every building containing four (4) or more dwelling units shall have at least
one (1) building entry or doorway facing any adjacent street that is smaller than a full arterial or has
on-street parking.
8. Section 3.6.3 Street Pattern and Connectivity Standards
(F) Utilization and Provision of Sub-Arterial Street Connections to and From Adjacent Developments
and Developable Parcels. All development plans shall incorporate and continue all sub-arterial streets
stubbed to the boundary of the development plan by previously approved development plans or existing
development. All development plans shall provide for future public street connections to adjacent
developable parcels by providing a local street connection spaced at intervals not to exceed six hundred
August 23, 2011 -15- ITEM 4
sixty (660) feet along each development plan boundary that abuts potentially developable or
redevelopable land.
9. Section 3.8.16 Occupancy Limits; Increasing the Number of Persons Allowed
(E) Increasing the Occupancy Limit.
(2) With respect to multiple-family dwellings, the decision maker (depending on the type of review, Type
1 or Type 2) may, upon receipt of a written request from the applicant and upon a finding that all
applicable criteria of this Land Use Code have been satisfied, increase the number of unrelated persons
who may reside in individual dwelling units. The decision maker shall not increase said number unless
satisfied that the applicant has provided such additional open space, recreational areas, parking areas
and public facilities as are necessary to adequately serve the occupants of the development and to
protect the adjacent neighborhood.
10. Section 4.6(D)(2) Mix of Housing Types
(D) Land Use Standards.
(2) Mix of Housing Types. A complete range of the permitted housing types is encouraged in a
neighborhood and within any individual development plan, to the extent reasonably feasible,
depending on the size of the parcel. The following minimum standards are intended to promote
such variety:
(a) A minimum of two (2) housing types shall be required on any development parcel sixteen (16)
acres or larger, including parcels part of a phased development. A minimum of three (3)
housing types shall be required on any development parcels thirty (30) acres or larger.
(c) The following list of housing types shall be used to satisfy this requirement:
1. Small lot single-family detached dwellings on lots containing less than six thousand
(6,000) square feet.
2. Two-family dwellings.
3. Single-family attached dwellings.
4. Mixed-use dwelling units.
5. Group homes.
6. Multifamily dwellings.
11. Section 4.27(D)(2) Secondary Uses
(D) Land Use Standards.
(2) Secondary Uses. All secondary uses shall be integrated both in function and appearance into a
larger employment district development plan that emphasizes primary uses. A secondary use shall
be subject to administrative review or Planning and Zoning Board review as required for such use
in Section 4.27(B). The following permitted uses shall be considered secondary uses in this zone
district and together shall occupy no more than twenty-five (25) percent of the total gross area of
the development plan.
12. Section 5.1.2 Definitions
Development plan shall mean an application submitted to the city for approval of a permitted use which depicts
the details of a proposed development. Development plan includes an overall development plan, a project
development plan and/or a final plan.
August 23, 2011 -16- ITEM 4
COUNCIL OPTIONS
Council should consider the appeal based upon the record and relevant provisions of the Code and Charter, and after
consideration, either:
1. Remand the decision if the Council finds that the Board failed to conduct a fair hearing; or
2. Uphold, overturn or modify the Board’s decision; or
3. Remand the decision for further consideration of additional issues raised on appeal.
ATTACHMENT
NOTE: Attachments 1 through 7 are available at www.fcgov.com/cityclerk
1. City Clerk’s Notice of Appeal Hearing and Notice of Site Visit
2. Notice of Appeal, Dated June 29, 2011
- Resident Report
- Documents submitted at Planning and Zoning Board Hearing by Citizens, June 16, 2011
3. Staff Report (with attachments) to Planning and Zoning Board, dated June 16, 2011, for The Grove at Fort
Collins Project Development Plan (#16-10B)
4. Additional documentation for Staff Report, submitted by applicant to the Planning and Zoning Board at the
June 16, 2011 Hearing.
5. Documents submitted by various speakers to the Planning and Zoning Board at the June 16, 2011 Hearing.
6. Verbatim transcript of June 16, 2011 Hearing
7. Miscellaneous Documents Submitted by Applicant at the Planning and Zoning Board June 16, 2011 Hearing
The staff powerpoint presentation to Council for the August 23, 2011 Hearing is attached (hard copy only)
All Attachments are available
at
www.fcgov.com/cityclerk
1
1
Project Development Plan (PDP)
2
Current Site Plan
2
3
November 18, 2010 Site Plan
4
Wetlands
3
5
Birdseye
6
Relationship to WWiinnddttrraaiill on Spring Creek
and Larimer Canal No. 2
4
7
Relationship to Sundering Townhomes
and Centre Avenue
8
Relationship to Sundering Townhomes
and Larimer Canal No. 2
5
9
Distance Between Buildings, Trash
Enclosures and Handicapped Parking
10
6
11
12
Fence Locations
Solid Fence
Metal Picket Fence
7
13
Fencing
SECTIONS WHERE FENCE
IS LOWERED TO 3’