HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 09/20/2011 - CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE ADATE: September 20, 2011
STAFF: Wanda Krajicek
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 6
SUBJECT
Consideration and Approval of the Minutes of the August 23, 2011 Adjourned Meeting and the August 31, 2011 Special
Meeting.
August 23, 2011
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
Council-Manager Form of Government
Adjourned Meeting - 5:00 p.m.
An adjourned meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins was held on Tuesday, August 23,
2011, at 5:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll call was
answered by the following Councilmembers: Weitkunat, Kottwitz, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak,
and Troxell.
Staff Members Present: Atteberry, Krajicek, Roy.
City Attorney Roy explained that objections to statements made during the appeal hearings should
be made at the time an issue arises; however, each party will have the opportunity to address its
opinion with regard to objections during the 10 minute period discussing procedural issues. The
types of objections allowed will have to do with whether or not the speaker is introducing new
evidence.
Councilmember Troxell stated he has explored the potential for his having a conflict of interest
given his employment at CSU and his relationship with petition circulators and the appellants. He
stated his decisions on this matter will be impartial.
Mayor Weitkunat stated the first 10 minutes for each party will be devoted to discussing procedural
issues.
Rick Zier, 322 East Oak Street, attorney representing the appellants, stated the appellants support
objections occurring as issues arise. He asked if the balance of any leftover time from the initial
presentation could be applied to one’s rebuttal time. He asked if the PDP hearing will proceed
should the ODP approval be overturned.
Lucia Liley, 300 South Howes Street, attorney representing the applicant, stated the Planning and
Zoning Board, City staff, and the applicant, were deprived from any meaningful opportunity to
review and consider the large number of documents, totaling nearly 1,000 pages, submitted at the
Planning and Zoning Board hearing by the appellants. Because of the timing of the submittal of the
documents, the applicant had no opportunity to formally respond until this appeal hearing. She
stated her specific objections to the process are that the written materials came in without any
opportunity for Board or applicant review, no written response to the documents was permitted, and
that the only opportunity for the applicant to respond will come this evening in verbal form. Ms.
Liley asked that objections be discussed following presentations rather than halting presentations.
Mayor Weitkunat suggested objections should be discussed briefly as they arise.
Councilmember Kottwitz disagreed, stating the interruptions could be disruptive.
464
August 23, 2011
Councilmember Manvel agreed with Mayor Weitkunat.
Councilmember Horak asked if the objectors will be limited to one per side rather than involve the
entire audience. Mr. Zier and Ms. Liley agreed to be the sole objectors for each side.
Mayor Weitkunat suggested the initially proposed timeframes will remain in place with no
additional time allotted for rebuttal should the entire presentation time not be used.
City Attorney Roy suggested the PDP appeal hearing be considered, or at least introduced, following
the decision on the ODP hearing.
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, Planning and Zoning Board Decision Upheld
The following is staff’s memorandum for this item.
“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).
465
August 23, 2011
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.
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.
466
August 23, 2011
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.
(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.)
467
August 23, 2011
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
468
August 23, 2011
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.
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
469
August 23, 2011
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.
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
470
August 23, 2011
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
471
August 23, 2011
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?
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.
472
August 23, 2011
(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.
(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.
473
August 23, 2011
(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
474
August 23, 2011
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.
(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
475
August 23, 2011
2. Uphold, overturn or modify the Board’s decision; or
3. Remand the decision for further consideration of additional issues raised on appeal.”
Steve Olt, City Planner, gave a brief overview of the project. The amended CSURF Center for
Advanced Technology Overall Development Plan was predicated in 2009 based on a development
proposal to realign Rolland Moore Drive. Additionally, a ditch realignment and allocation of
secondary uses in the E-Employment zone district for the 96 acres of land in that zone district will
need to occur.
Mayor Weitkunat asked Councilmembers Horak and Troxell and Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson to discuss
pertinent findings relating to a site visit. Councilmember Horak replied the site visit revealed
various locations and relationships of features on the property.
Overall Development Plan Appeal Presentation – Appellants
Mr. Zier stated he did not draft the appeal but has been asked to represent the appellants at this
hearing. He stated the Overall Development Plan (ODP) establishes the maximum parameters of
what can occur on the property. Changing the allowable uses in the E – Employment zone will
result in the loss of the 75% minimum primary employment use. The appellants believe the
applicant and staff are interpreting the ODP incorrectly. If the approved amendment to the ODP is
not overturned on this basis, the appellants requests that it not be approved without a modification
making clear the secondary use allotment will be with every Project Development Plan (PDP) that
develops out of this ODP. The Land Use Code directs that all secondary uses shall be integrated
both in function and appearance into a larger Employment district development plan that emphasizes
primary uses. The Land Use Code provision that 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, conflicts with the more specific requirement in the E zone. Where two
Code provisions conflict, the appellant argues the more specific one should control. If one standard
is found not to be more specific, then the more stringent one should control; a fact which is also
supported in the Land Use Code. With regard to the Planning and Zoning Board motion and its
reference to retaining the floor area ratio note, it appears staff and the applicant are going to interpret
the floor area ratio as being something that is applied within the confines of the PDP. That makes
a critical difference in massing, intensity, and scale of use as floor area ratio is typically used to limit
number of stories or number of buildings that can have multiple stories. The Land Use Code defines
floor area ratio as the amount of gross floor area of all principal buildings on a lot or block, not a
parcel or PDP, divided by the total area of such lot or block on which such buildings are located.
Should this ODP be approved, the appellants ask that the interpretation of floor area ratio be in
accordance with the Land Use Code. The appellants argue that the proposed realignment of Rolland
Moore Drive has certain safety issues relating to design standard changes. The appellants are also
arguing that the Board improperly assumed that since residential uses are permitted in the MMN –
Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood zone district, residential levels of traffic could also be
used to calculate the number of trips for the classification 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. The amended ODP must be able to stand on its own merit for the maximum allowable
development and Rolland Moore Drive should meet the standards for a collector street capable of
476
August 23, 2011
handling the number of daily trips identified for the complete compliment of permitted uses.
Downgrading a street designation typically requires Council approval, but that did not occur in this
case. The appellants would like to make clear that the interpretation of the note regarding the
floodplain is that there is a limitation on residential development in the floodplain of the E zone.
The ODP should be overturned because of these zoning and safety issues. If it is not overturned,
the appellants would like Council to modify or clarify that secondary uses in the E zone will not be
fluidly abused over the entire ODP, that the primary uses will not be lessened over time, that any
PDP will be subject to the E zone limitation and not the general administrative provision, that no
residential dwelling in the E zone be permitted in the floodplain, and that the alignment of Rolland
Moore Drive be modified so that it complies with all of the Codes.
Overall Development Plan Appeal Presentation - Applicant
Stu MacMillan, Colorado State University Research Foundation (CSURF), stated this site has been
planned for multi-family development for over 25 years. Any adopted ODP will require the
realignment of Rolland Moore Drive.
Linda Ripley, Ripley Design Inc., representing Campus Crest Development, stated CSURF began
planning development of this property in the mid-1980s. The site where The Grove project is
proposed has always been designated as a transitional area between the neighborhood to the north
and west and the commercial areas located to the south and east. Ms. Ripley discussed the history
of the site and reasoning for the current situation. The Land Use Code makes no distinction between
multi-family housing for students or any other population group. This site does work well to
provide much needed student housing as it is near campus and separated from the neighborhood by
wide drainage. The applicant proposed to amend the ODP primarily due to the alignment of Rolland
Moore Drive as the former alignment no longer works because the current alignment would go
through existing wetlands and would impact the FEMA floodway and further constrict an already
problematic drainageway. The new proposed alignment avoids the wetlands and allows for an
average 100 foot buffer between the wetlands and proposed development, and is separated from the
wildlife corridor associated with the Larimer Canal. The new alignment would also keep higher
traffic volumes further away from the neighborhood. This project proposed to plant 55 new trees
along the canal to mitigate the loss of mature trees over time and to enhance the wildlife habitat
value. Ms. Ripley replied to a Council question about the difference between the ODP presented
to Council last December and the one being presented this evening. The amended ODP addressed
the alignment of Rolland Moore Drive and the elimination of Northerland Drive. Changing the
alignment of Rolland Moore Drive would be necessary for the future of Parcel C regardless of the
future of The Grove project. The only note changes that occurred were specifically requested by
City staff to update the notes to reflect current City regulations.
Josie Plout, CSU Institute for the Built Environment, stated the site is located within the existing
urban fabric, thus reducing the need for additional infrastructure, decreasing potential vehicle miles
traveled, and helping to minimize urban sprawl. High density urban infill is a key component of
sustainable site selection and smart urban growth. Its proximity to the Spring Creek Trail gives this
site excellent bicycle and pedestrian access to campus. Campus Crest has agreed to provide bicycle
parking in significant excess of the requirement as well as a bicycle kiosk. Additionally, this site
has access to public transportation.
477
August 23, 2011
Ms. Liley discussed the appeal allegations. She stated approval of The Grove project does not
exceed the secondary use standard as it does not exceed 25% of the total gross area being devoted
to secondary uses. The employment potential has been realized on the site. The appellants have
alleged that the Board erred in removing the floor area ratio note and in its interpretation of the note.
However, the Board never removed the note and it remains in its 2003 form. The Board did not
make an interpretation of the note with its ODP approval. Rather, it attached a condition to be
applied with the PDP so there would not be a conflict when the Board ultimately made its
interpretation of that note. There is no legal floor area ratio requirement for this project. The note
regarding secondary uses relates to what counts as a secondary use, not whether secondary uses are
permitted in the floodplain. Rolland Moore Drive remains a collector on the Master Street Plan and
on the ODP. The Board could not accept engineering variances at the ODP level because they are
only granted with PDP engineering information and are not subject to Board review. There are no
ODP submittal or review requirements for engineering at all. The final three appeal allegations
share the assertion that the realigned Rolland Moore Drive would cause deep cuts in the hillside
below the canal. The applicant and staff analyzed many alternative routes and the indicated route
completely avoids the floodway and the wetlands and respects the wetland buffer. It has approval
from every City reviewing department as safe and appropriate. Grading plans are not required as
part of an ODP therefore cut and fill requirements cannot be determined until the PDP level. The
topography shows a separation between the Rolland Moore alignment and the very steep slopes of
the canal. The existing steep slopes of the canal would require the cut and fill, not the Rolland
Moore alignment. Staff would not support street or trail crossings of the canal because of the
potential impact to the significant wildlife corridor. The south access of Rolland Moore provides
minimal benefit and is not needed for safe, efficient and convenient access. Should Council decide
it is not an issue to cross the canal, a bicycle/pedestrian crossing can easily be added.
Greg McMaster, 1409 Skyline Drive, stated the Air Quality Advisory Board members were initially
concerned about the potential environmental energy impacts of the project. However, the project
not only provides much-needed student housing in an appropriate housing, but it does so in an
environmentally-positive manner by working toward LEED certification and sustainable practices,
reducing the need for car travel and promoting bicycle use, and reducing the impact on wetlands.
Paul Anderson, Fort Collins resident and Housing Committee member for the University-City
Connections project, stated CSU housing is at capacity. The committee’s recommended action plan
is critical in that much of it has become a model for what happened with the joint CSU – Grove
project to help preserve traditional neighborhoods through a collaborative effort by CSU, the City,
and private sector development to fill the need for student housing. The Grove project makes sense
economically, environmentally, and for the greater good of the entire City.
Donna Fairbank, Fort Collins resident and Avery Park Neighborhood Association and Neighbors
and Students United member, stated Avery Park neighbors adjusted to the change of Ram Village
being built and it is now time for another neighborhood to do the same.
Chase Eckert, ASCSU Director of Governmental Affairs, stated this project meets many common
goals for all represented in Neighbors and Students United.
478
August 23, 2011
Doug Brobst, 1625 Independence, Neighbors and Students United member, stated he and Lloyd
Walker, 1756 Concord Drive, are in support of the project. He questioned whether the appellants
understand the implications of The Grove project not becoming a reality.
Overall Development Plan Rebuttal - Appellants
Mr. Zier stated the history of the E zoned portion of Parcel C has steadily decreased in size from 24
acres to the current 12.9 acres. Should this ODP be approved, the primary use portion of E-
Employment zoning in all of Parcel C will be down to about 3.8 acres. Each PDP should be required
to respect the 75%-25% Employment zoning requirement. The appellants also request that the Land
Use Code definition of floor area ratio be respected and observed.
Overall Development Plan Rebuttal - Applicant
Ms. Liley suggested a Land Use Code change would be needed in order to require each PDP to
adhere to the 75%-25% Employment zoning requirement. The “larger Employment district
development plan” referenced in the Land Use Code is the Overall Development Plan. Additionally,
any standard related to mix of uses applies to the entire ODP, not to any individual PDP. There is
no justification for imposing a Land Use Code definition relating to floor area ratio when floor area
ratio is not a Land Use Code requirement. Not approving this ODP would result in an alignment
of Rolland Moore drive which is not as safe, economical, or efficient.
Mayor Weitkunat noted Council must decide whether or not the Planning and Zoning Board
properly interpreted and applied relevant portions of the Land Use Code and City Charter to the
allegations of the appeal. The purpose of an Overall Development Plan is to establish general
planning and development control parameters for projects that will be developed in phases with
multiple submittals, while allowing sufficient flexibility to permit detailed planning in later
submittals. She asked that concerns be discussed per allegation, the first of which deals with the
Board improperly interpreting the allocation of allowable secondary uses in the E- Employment
district as it relates to the mix of land uses in the Overall Development Plan.
Councilmember Manvel noted at least 75 acres of the parcel should be Employment uses, based on
the 75%-25% rule. He asked about the fact that there are many floodplain and other uses on the site
which will never be primary use acres. Olt replied there are limitations to permitted primary uses
in the floodway.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson and Councilmember Poppaw agreed with the concern regarding the lack of
primary uses in floodway acreage. Ted Shepard, Chief Planner, replied zoning does not recognize
floodways, streams, buffers, or topography.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson asked if the 75% - 25% primary use rule should be discussed at the ODP
level. Olt replied staff has historically interpreted the rule at the ODP level.
Councilmember Kottwitz asked if it would still be appropriate to add a note if the Planning and
Zoning Board decision is upheld. City Attorney Roy replied Council has the ability to modify the
Planning and Zoning Board decision.
479
August 23, 2011
Councilmember Manvel expressed concern the employment area is being depleted. He asked why
a rezoning was not considered. Shepard replied it was considered; however, the Land Use Code
provides the flexibility to look at ODPs on an individual basis.
Mayor Weitkunat stated the next allegation relates to floor area ratio.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson noted that if floor area ratio is a lot and block issue, it will be appropriate
for discussion at the PDP level. Olt replied the discussion does not apply to the ODP, and perhaps
not with the PDP as there is no reference to floor area ratio in either the E or MMN zone district.
Mayor Weitkunat stated the next allegation is regarding the basis for classification and granting of
administrative variances for the design of Rolland Moore Drive as a minor collector.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson asked if Council should be reviewing street classification changes. Matt
Wempe, Transportation Planning, replied Rolland Moore Drive is still viewed as a collector as
indicated on the Master Street Plan. The variances that were granted were more technical in nature.
Should the street be downgraded, various boards would be consulted and Council would have the
final decision.
Mayor Weitkunat stated the next allegation is regarding safety and reducing flood damage
associated with water hazards with concern to the alignment of Rolland Moore Drive requiring deep
cuts into the hillside below Larimer Canal No. 2 which decreases the potential for breach of the
canal during flood events.
Councilmember Manvel asked if there is a commitment to relocate the ditch. Olt replied the ditch
company is proposing ditch realignment regardless of the project.
(**Secretary’s note: The Council took a brief recess at this point in the meeting.)
Councilmember Troxell made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kottwitz, to uphold the
decision of the Planning and Zoning Board approving the amended CSURF Overall Development
Plan No. MJA 110001 because the Board properly interpreted and applied the provisions of the Land
Use Code.
Councilmember Kottwitz stated some issues may need to be addressed procedurally; however, most
questions have been answered relating to the Board properly interpreting the Land Use Code.
Councilmember Manvel stated the floor area ratio issue presents a bit of a concern and the 75% -
25% rule is also a concern. Secondary uses are supposed to be integrated in function and appearance
with primary uses; as there is no proposal for a primary use, that integration is difficult to picture.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson stated most issues were addressed adequately by staff and project
proponents; however, he will not support the motion due to the 75% - 25% primary and secondary
use issue.
480
August 23, 2011
Mayor Weitkunat noted the keys for an ODP are generalization and flexibility. Judgment regarding
the employment issue is not part of the ODP discussion.
Councilmember Troxell stated he would support the motion.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Weitkunat, Horak, Kottwitz and Troxell. Nays:
Manvel, Ohlson, and Poppaw.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
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,
Planning and Zoning Board Decision Upheld with two Conditions Added
The following is staff’s memorandum for this item.
“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.
481
August 23, 2011
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.
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
482
August 23, 2011
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:
483
August 23, 2011
“All secondary uses shall be integrated both in function and appearance into a
larger employment district development plan that emphasizes primary uses”.
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
484
August 23, 2011
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
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.
485
August 23, 2011
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.
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
486
August 23, 2011
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
487
August 23, 2011
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.
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
488
August 23, 2011
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.
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.
489
August 23, 2011
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)
490
August 23, 2011
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.
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
491
August 23, 2011
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.
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
492
August 23, 2011
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?
493
August 23, 2011
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.
494
August 23, 2011
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 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
495
August 23, 2011
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.
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:
496
August 23, 2011
(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
497
August 23, 2011
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.
(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.
498
August 23, 2011
(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
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
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.
499
August 23, 2011
(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.
500
August 23, 2011
(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 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:
501
August 23, 2011
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.
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.”
Steve Olt, City Planner, gave a brief overview of the Project Development Plan and stated the
development proposes 218 dwelling units in 12 buildings, eleven of which are residential and one
of which is a multi-use building including the clubhouse and residential uses. Access to the site
would be from Centre Avenue. The appeal lists concerns with primary and secondary uses within
502
August 23, 2011
the development plan, housing types within the development plan, and the proposed increased
occupancy in 18 of the dwelling units.
Project Development Plan Appeal Presentation - Appellants
Heather Stickler, 633 Gilgalad Way, stated residents in the appellants’ neighborhoods have been
supportive of other development in the area; however, appellants are not supportive of this project
as it is too large, presents safety issues, and is not supported by the Land Use Code.
Rick Zier, attorney representing the appellants, discussed the project’s non-compliance instances
including compatibility, scale, and pet issues. The appellants requested a modification of the PDP,
should it be approved, that the floor area ratio will be interpreted per the Land Use Code.
Valerie Assetto, 615 Gilgalad Way, stated the neighbors are not opposed to student housing, but are
opposed to the proposed scale of the project.
Sarah Burnett, 714 Gilgalad Way, stated there is no statement in the record from any CSU
representative. She also noted the Land Use Code states that all secondary uses shall be integrated
in function and appearance to a larger Employment district development plan that emphasizes
primary uses.
Dale Grenfeld, Sunderland Townhomes resident, discouraged Council from choosing greed and
profit over quality of life.
Project Development Plan Appeal Presentation – Applicant
Linda Ripley, planning consultant for the applicant, discussed the changes made by the applicant
from its original plan. The Planning and Zoning Board approved the project by a vote of 6-0. The
distance between the proposed multi-family buildings and existing homes varies from 231 to 357
feet. The proposed project represents a transition of land use between the single-family
neighborhood and the commercial buildings to the south and east.
Josie Plout, CSU Institute for the Built Environment, discussed the efforts Campus Crest has made
to design its project more appropriately for Fort Collins.
Lucia Liley, attorney representing the applicants, discussed the appeal allegations. She noted the
Land Use Code states that any standards relating to mix of uses will be applied over the entire
Overall Development Plan, not on each individual Project Development Plan review.
Doug Brobst, 1625 Independence, Neighbors and Students United Member, discussed distances of
similar projects from adjacent neighborhoods and noted the on-site management will maintain a
code of conduct similar to that of CSU.
Chase Eckert, ASCSU Director of Governmental Affairs, stated this project has been opposed
because it is student housing.
503
August 23, 2011
Project Development Plan Rebuttal – Appellants
Mr. Zier stated the appellants do not oppose student housing but do expect compatibility standards
to be met. The floor area ratio standard is to apply to all parcels; those parcels are lots at the PDP
level.
Project Development Plan Rebuttal - Applicant
Ms. Liley stated the applicant does not object to keeping the floor area ratio note. The Planning and
Zoning Board gave its unanimous approval to the project.
(**Secretary’s note: The Council took a brief recess at this point in the meeting.)
Mayor Weitkunat stated the first appeal allegation to be addressed relates to the integration of
secondary uses into a larger Employment district development plan that emphasizes primary uses.
Councilmember Manvel asked about the Land Use Code section which states “all secondary uses
shall be integrated both in function and appearance into a larger Employment district development
plan that emphasizes primary uses.” Shepard replied this parcel has been part of a master plan since
1985. Integration of the area is ongoing and the area is building out according to evolving plans.
Mayor Weitkunat asked about Section 4.27(d)(2) and its statement that secondary uses in the
Employment zone shall occupy no more than 25% of the total gross area of the development plan.
Olt replied Parcel C is split between MMN and E zoning and the clubhouse structure, which is
considered to be a mixed-use dwelling and is not a secondary use, will be part of that area. Portions
of two of the residential buildings in that area are secondary uses.
Mayor Weitkunat asked what the “development plan” references. Olt replied it is historically the
ODP. The 25% is in reference to the 96 acres of Employment zoned land.
Mayor Weitkunat stated the next appeal allegation deals with a mix of housing types in the MMN
district.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson asked if Council had adopted a requirement regarding varying the look of
housing types. Shepard replied First Reading of the ordinance amending the Land Use Code and
adding that requirement will be September 6th. The Planning and Zoning Board heard the item on
July 21st. The LMN standards for multi-family buildings would be applied to MMN zones, with
an adjustment for scale.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson asked if this standard would have affected the design of these buildings.
Shepard replied the standard, if it were in place, would have resulted in some minor changes to the
buildings.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson asked about the decision to consider the clubhouse building as a second
building type. Olt replied there are 11 true residential buildings in the proposal; however, the
clubhouse building is defined as a multi-use dwelling which is a second housing type, thereby
504
August 23, 2011
allowing the Project Development Plan to satisfy the Land Use Code requirement of two housing
types.
Councilmember Poppaw asked if all buildings will be LEED certified. Ms. Plout replied LEED
certification will be sought for one building only, primarily due to the expense incurred in applying
for the certification. However, all buildings will be built to the same standards and with the same
specifications.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson asked what level of LEED certification would be sought. Ms. Plout replied
the project will meet at least the base, or certified, level. There is a possibility of achieving silver
certification. The applicant has also voluntarily agreed to meet the new Green Building Code that
has been set forth by the City.
Mayor Weitkunat stated the next appeal allegation deals with the improper interpretation of
compatibility with regard to various building characteristics.
Councilmember Horak asked what types of buffering make this compatible with the area. Olt
replied the overall building heights have been decreased in planning and relief variation has aided
in breaking up building mass. The land use transition merges from Low-Density Residential and
Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood to this project and to Commercial.
Councilmember Horak asked why two-story buildings were not considered. Ms. Ripley replied the
project cannot be changed by dropping bedrooms as the project would no longer be feasible.
Councilmember Horak asked how the three northernmost buildings are being buffered from the
neighborhood. Ms. Ripley replied much foliage currently exists; additionally, a public street with
street trees and native plantings around the wetland area will be part of the project as a buffer.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson asked what assurance exists regarding building material types. Olt replied
building elevations have been reviewed with the Project Development Plan. Once recorded, those
plans have to be consistent with plans submitted for building department review.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson asked if the number of trees shown in the site plan are the number of trees
required. Olt replied the detailed landscape plan will be required to be fulfilled at build-out.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson asked if the City Forester is involved in determining the appropriateness of
tree types for various developments. Tim Buchanan, City Forester, replies he receives and approves
all landscape plans.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson asked approximately how many years it will take for the trees to provide
significant coverage. Buchanan replied the two to three inch caliper trees will be 14 to 16 feet tall.
It will likely take 10 to 15 years before a significant amount of coverage occurs.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson asked whether wildlife considerations are considered when looking at tree
retention. Buchanan replied several considerations are examined, including wildlife.
505
August 23, 2011
Councilmember Poppaw asked about the possibility of changing the architectural character of the
buildings to make them visually less bold. Olt replied in the negative. Ms. Ripley replied only one
story is being added from the adjacent two-story homes. Ms. Plout replied the community workshop
resulted in significant changes being made to the architecture.
Mayor Weitkunat stated the next appeal allegation relates to protecting life, safety, and reducing
flood hazards.
Councilmember Manvel asked about the use of fill dirt to increase the elevation of a property.
Bryan Varella, Floodplain Administrator, replied Chapter 10 of the Municipal Code is written
allowing any development to fill in the flood fringe without realizing the impact of that fill on
adjacent neighbors. The rise cannot exceed 6 inches as determined by the edge of the floodway.
Mayor Weitkunat stated the next appeal allegation deals with the misinterpretation of a Land Use
Code section requiring preservation of natural connections between natural habitats and integration
of wildlife into the developed landscape.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson stated cats and dogs are not compatible with wildlife. Mike Hartnett,
Campus Crest co-founder, replied pets are allowed at Campus Crest’s other communities. Each pet
has to be approved and pet owners pay a non-refundable fee as well as a monthly pet rent.
Approximately 10% of the residents have pets.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson asked if Campus Crest would self-enforce the ban on free-roaming outdoor
cats. Mr. Hartnett replied all of the communities have enforced leash laws.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson asked if Campus Crest would consider not allowing pets in the Fort Collins
project. Mr. Hartnett replied it could be considered. Additionally, Campus Crest would consider
including a pet park in the development.
Mayor Weitkunat stated the next appeal allegation relates to vinyl siding.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson asked about the longevity of vinyl siding and whether or not most multi-
family units are being built with vinyl siding. Shepard replied two recent multi-family projects have
used a masonry product from grade to the top of the first floor window. Siding, usually clapboard,
or a stucco product, would be above that. Vinyl has not been a predominant material recently.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson noted the staff report indicates vinyl siding is not found in the adjacent
neighborhoods. Ms. Plout replied vinyl siding does have a bad reputation when it comes to
sustainability. The life cycle assessment of vinyl siding was found by an independent source to be
comparable to a fiber cement siding.
Councilmember Poppaw asked if Poudre Fire Authority had commented on any safety issues
relating to the siding. Shepard replied PFA has commented that the installation of the mandatory
automatic fire sprinkler system is critical. Siding is not a consideration once the sprinkler system
is installed.
506
August 23, 2011
Mayor Weitkunat stated the next appeal allegation deals with the reduction of energy consumption
and demand. Ms. Liley replied the applicant will guarantee there will be a source of heat other than
electric heat.
Mayor Weitkunat stated the next appeal allegation relates to sidewalk directness and connectivity.
Councilmember Manvel asked for a staff perspective. Shepard replied the standards require that
buildings front on streets. The parking lots behind the buildings do make for a somewhat
complicated walking scenario getting to the clubhouse. The issue can be addressed further with the
applicant.
Mayor Weitkunat stated the next appeal allegation deals with adequate capacity, number, and
distribution of trash collection devices.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson asked about recycling standards for multi-family units. Olt replied the trash
enclosure/recycling section of the Land Use Code clearly defines the function and operational
aspects of the enclosures and receptacles. Each enclosure must include both trash and recycling
receptacles and there are six enclosures within this development. Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson requested
follow-up information regarding the single-stream and labeling nature of the recycling receptacles.
Councilmember Troxell made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kottwitz, to uphold the
decision of the Planning and Zoning Board approving The Grove at Fort Collins PDP No. 16-10B
because the Board properly interpreted and applied the provisions of the Land Use Code.
Councilmember Troxell stated this project meets and exceeds many of the Land Use Code
requirements. The buffering and transition aspects of the project represent the standards and density
appropriate for an infill project.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson stated the note issue and bicycle parking standards need to be examined for
future projects. The floor area ratio issue also needs to be examined or better explained in the future.
He commended Ms. Plout and the Institute for the Built Environment for work on the project. Mass
and scale issues remain a bit of a concern. He expressed concern about the lack of all buildings
meeting LEED certification standards and the lack of a resolution to the pet issue.
Councilmember Kottwitz stated she would not support Council placing a pet prohibition condition
on the project. Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson replied he was seeking a voluntary pet prohibition from the
developer.
Councilmember Kottwtiz stated she would not support Council dictating additional LEED
certification requirements. Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson clarified that his condition would be what has
already been proposed by the developer, that one building be at least LEED certified with all
buildings being built to the same standards. Ms. Liley stated the applicant will accept that condition.
Councilmember Horak made a friendly amendment, seconded by Councilmember Manvel, to place
a condition on the approval requiring one building attain LEED certification and all other buildings
be built with the same standards. Councilmembers Troxell and Kottwitz accepted the amendment.
507
August 23, 2011
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson asked Councilmember Manvel if his concerns regarding employment and
secondary uses have been resolved. Councilmember Manvel replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Poppaw asked how many new trees will be planted to reconcile the two large
cottonwood trees that will be lost. Ms. Ripley replied 55 new trees will be planted along the canal
as well as the trees on-site meeting Land Use Code standards.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson stated he would not support the motion unless pets are prohibited. Ms.
Liley stated the applicant will accept the pet prohibition condition.
Councilmember Horak made a friendly amendment, seconded by Councilmember Manvel, to place
a condition on the approval prohibiting pets.
Councilmember Kottwitz expressed concern regarding the appropriateness of raising the pet issue
at an appeal hearing.
Councilmember Horak stated one of the appeal allegations dealt with wildlife and habitat impacts.
Therefore, this amendment is an appropriate modification.
City Attorney Roy stated the condition is appropriate and it is within Council’s purview to modify
the Planning and Zoning Board decision rather than uphold it. A Resolution making formal findings
will be brought forth at the next Council meeting.
Councilmembers Horak and Manvel withdrew their motion to amend.
Councilmembers Troxell and Kottwitz withdrew their motion to uphold the Planning and Zoning
Board decision.
Councilmember Troxell made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kottwitz, to modify the
decision of the Planning and Zoning Board approving The Grove at Fort Collins PDP No. 16-10B
with the condition that at least one building on the project meets attains LEED certification and pets
are prohibited.
Councilmember Horak stated his preference would have been for the three northernmost buildings
to have been sized differently; however, adequate natural buffers and the distance between the
project and neighborhood will result in his support of the motion.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson expressed appreciation for Council incorporating resolutions to his concerns
and stated he would support the motion.
Councilmember Poppaw stated she would support the motion and commended the attention to the
Green Building Codes and work with the Institute for the Built Environment. She encouraged the
applicants to be good neighbors to the adjoining neighborhoods.
Mayor Weitkunat stated she would support the motion and referred to the project as a good example
for the future direction of the community and Land Use Code.
508
August 23, 2011
Councilmember Horak thanked the audience for its respect.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Wetikunat, Kottwitz, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak
and Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 12:05 a.m.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
509
August 31, 2011
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
Council-Manager Form of Government
Special Meeting – 6:00 p.m.
A special meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins was held on Wednesday, August 31,
2011, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll call was
answered by the following Councilmembers: Weitkunat, Manvel, Kottwitz, Poppaw, Ohlson,
Poppaw and Horak.
Staff Members Present: Atteberry, Krajicek, Roy.
Resolution 2011-071
Amending Resolution 2011-070 Submitting a Citizen-Initiated Ordinance to Prohibit the
Operation of Medical Marijuana Centers, Optional Premises Cultivation Operations, and
Medical Marijuana-Infused Product Manufacturing Within the City of Fort Collins
Corporate Limits at a Special Municipal Election to Be Held on November 1, 2011, In
Conjunction with the Larimer County Coordinated Election, Adopted
The following is staff’s memorandum for this item.
“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Resolution amends Section 2 of Resolution 2011-070, which was adopted by the City Council
on August 16, 2011, and which submitted a citizen-initiated ordinance to the registered electors of
the City concerning a prohibition of the operation of medical marijuana centers, optional premises
cultivation operations, and medical marijuana-infused product manufacturing within City limits.
The initiated ordinance is to be considered by the City electors at a special municipal election on
November 1, 2011. The proposed amendment clarifies that the reference to a regular election in
Section 2 of the resolution is mistaken, and it corrects that error.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
On August 16, 2011, the City Council adopted Resolution 2011-070 submitting a citizen-initiated
ordinance to the registered electors of the City at a special municipal election to be held in
conjunction with the Larimer County Coordinated Election on Tuesday, November 1, 2011 (the
“Special Election”). The Special Election had previously been called by the City Council by
adoption of Ordinance No. 82, 2011, expressly for such purpose. Section 2 of Resolution 2011-070
mistakenly refers to the Special Election as “said regular election”. The proposed resolution
corrects this error by changing the reference to “said special election”.
510
August 31, 2011
City Attorney Roy stated this resolution makes a correction to Resolution 2011-070 to clarify that
the citizen-initiated ordinance will be considered at a special election held in conjunction with the
Larimer County Coordinated Election on November 1, 2011.
Councilmember Kottwitz asked why this correction needed to be made at a special meeting instead
of waiting until the next regular meeting. City Attorney Roy stated the correction could not be
delayed because the ballot language must be certified to Larimer County by September 2.
Councilmember Troxell made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Manvel, to adopt Resolution
2011-071. Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Kottwitz, Poppaw, Ohlson, Poppaw and Horak. Nays: none.
Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 6:05 p.m.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
511