HomeMy WebLinkAboutTHE GROVE AT FORT COLLINS - PDP - 16-10B - CORRESPONDENCE - DRAINAGE REPORT (14)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.
2. Section 3.2.2(L) Parking Stall Dimensions
Parking areas for automobiles shall meet the following minimum standards for long- and short-term
parking of standard and compact vehicles:
* 8.0' width for parallel (0 degree) Standard Vehicle parking spaces
* 7.5' width for parallel (0 degree) Compact Vehicle parking spaces
3. 3.5.2(D)(2) Setback from Nonarterial Streets
Minimum setback of every residential building and of every detached accessory building that is incidental
to the residential building from any public street right-of-way other than an arterial street right-of-way shall
be fifteen (15) feet. Setbacks from garage doors to the nearest portion of any street sidewalk that
intersects with the driveway shall be at least twenty (20) feet.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Council should consider the appeal based upon the record and relevant provisions of the Code and Charter, and
after consideration, either:
Remand the decision if the Council finds that the Board failed to conduct a fair hearing; or
2. Uphold, overturn or modify the Board's decision; or
3. Remand the decision for further consideration of additional issues raised on appeal.
ATTACHMENTS
1. City Clerk's Notice of Appeal Hearing
2. Staff Report (with attachments) to the Planning and Zoning Board, dated October 21, 2010, for the
CSURF Centre for Advanced Technology, Amended Overall Development Plan - #16-10
4. Staff Report (with attachments) to the Planning and Zoning Board, dated October 21, 2010, for The
Grove, Project Development Plan - #16-10A
5. Statement of Planning Objectives
6. Applicant's Requests for Modifications of Standards
7. Verbatim Transcript of the Planning and Zoning Board Meeting, October 21, 2010
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 & RESPONSE:
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 & RESPONSE:
DETERMINATION TO BE MADE BY COUNCIL
Did the Planning & Zoning Board not properly interpret and apply relevant portions of the Code and Charter?
STAFF ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS
Staff finds that the Planning & Zoning Board did properly interpret and apply relevant portions of the Code and
Charter.
LIST OF RELEVANT CODE PROVISIONS
Section 2.3.2 Overall Development Plan Review Procedures
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.S(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 & RESPONSE:
A. LUC 3.S.2(C)(2) Street Facing Facades
The Board misinterpreted this provision requiring at least one building entry or doorway facing any
non -arterial street with on -street parking. The east side of the Clubhouse faces the Public
Commercial Street, but its elevation has no doorway. (Resident Report, page 111-4)
STAFF ANALYSIS & RESPONSE:
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 & RESPONSE:
STAFF ANALYSIS & RESPONSE:
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 & RESPONSE:
viii. LUC 3.2.2(C)(5)(a) Sidewalk directness and connectivity
The Board misinterpreted this provision that requires walkways to connect areas of pedestrian origin
and destination directly, rather than aligning them according to the shape of a parking lot, as
specifically prohibited in 3.2.2{C)(5)(a). The logical direct paths from the entrances of Buildings 8, 10
and 11 to the clubhouse, pool and central lawn are directly across the two largest parking lots in The
Grove PDP. There are no walkways through the parking lots and islands do not line up to provide
direct access. (Resident Report, page 111-2)
STAFF ANALYSIS & RESPONSE:
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 & RESPONSE:
iv. LUC 3.4.1 Natural habitats
The Board misinterpreted LUC 3.4.1(F)(2) which requires preservation of natural connections
between natural habitats and LUC 3.4.1(C) requiring integration of wildlife within the developed
landscape. At present, wildlife travel freely through the site between the Larimer Canal corridor and
the Wetlands corridor, and through the adjacent neighborhoods to and from the Spring Creek
corridor. As discussed on page 11-17 of the Resident Report, The Grove PDP includes a long iron
fence to protect the wetlands from impact by the development. This fence, in addition to a high
retaining wall below the Larimer Canal will disrupt these connections. No other residential
development in the vicinity requires a fence to protect natural areas from the impact of intense use by
residents.
The Board misinterpreted LUC 3.4.1(1)(1) and (2) requiring the design of projects in large natural
habitats such as the Spring Creek natural corridor to complement the visual context of the natural
habitat and minimize the degradation of the visual character of affected natural features within the site
and the obstruction of scenic views to and from the natural features within the site.
STAFF ANALYSIS & RESPONSE:
Municipal Code 7.5 — Fees
It is long-standing City policy that development should pay its own way. The Appellants believe the
Board misinterpreted Municipal Code Chapter 7.5 with regard to development fees. Fee values for
The Grove PDP that were provided by City Staff upon inquiry prior to the Planning and Zoning
hearing appear to be substantially underestimated compared to rates published by the City of Fort
Collins. The Appellants do not understand why this should be so and appeal to Council for
clarification.
STAFF ANALYSIS & RESPONSE:
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.
LUC 3.5.1 Compatibility. with regard to (A) Purpose. (B) Architectural Character. (e) Building Size.
Height. Bulk. Mass. Scale. (E) Building Materials. (F) Color. (H) Transitions and (1)
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 & RESPONSE:
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 & RESPONSE:
LUC 1.2.2(E) protecting life, safety and reducing flood damage, and LUC 3.3.3 regarding water
hazards
The Board misinterpreted the provisions of the LUC regarding protection of life and property by
avoiding inappropriate development and reducing flood damage. City goals for appropriate
development of flood -prone areas are noted pages 11-10 to 11-11 of the Resident report. The Grove
PDP fills in a portion of the floodplain for two buildings and a public street. The proposed fill narrows
the floodplain at a critical location and will cause a rise that threatens low-lying established
neighborhoods.
As discussed in the Resident Report, pages 11-15 and 16, The Grove PDP grading plan calls for
deep cuts near Larimer Canal #2, increasing the potential for breach of the canal during a storm/flood
event. The Board set as a Condition of Approval that the canal be relocated, but only by withholding
the Final Certificate of Occupancy after construction. By allowing excavation of the hillside before
relocation of the canal, the Board misinterpreted the purpose and intent of LUC 1.2.2(E) and LUC
3.3.3 to mitigate such hazards. Cutting the slope below the canal prior to relocation unnecessarily
increases risk to the life, health and safety of downhill residents and properties.
STAFF ANALYSIS & RESPONSE:
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 II-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 & RESPONSE:
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 & RESPONSE:
c. Improper interpretation of Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards (LCUASS) for a Minor
Collector.
The Board misinterpreted the LCUASS standards which would be applicable to Rolland Moore Drive as
designed in The Grove PDP. Multiple instances of noncompliance with LCUASS were cited during the
June 16, 2011 hearing from a letter from James R. Loonan, a qualified professional engineer, including
insufficient centerline curve radii; undersized arc lengths; lack of horizontal tangent and sight distance
easement at the intersection of Rolland Moore Drive and Centre Avenue; and insufficient corner sight
distance at the intersection of Rolland Moore Drive and the Local Public Street. The technical details can
be found in Mr. Loonan's letter which follows page 1-11 of the Resident Report. City Staff granted a
variance request to use a 30 mph Connector Local design criteria for the centerline radii, minimum
tangent between curves, and posted speed of 25 mph versus a 40 mph Collector design. The minimum
tangent length for a 30 mph Connector street is 100 feet, but there is zero tangent at the intersection of
Rolland Moore Drive and Centre Avenue. The design of Rolland Moore Drive does not meet LCUASS
Section 8.2.4.A for a 30 mph Connector street nor does it meet the approved variances.
STAFF ANALYSIS & RESPONSE:
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.
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
floodway and avoids negative impacts to natural habitats and features associated with the
designated wildlife corridor along the Larimer Canal No. 2.
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.
DATE: August 16, 2011
STAFF: Steve Olt
Consideration of the Appeal by Windtrail on Spring Creek HOA, Sundering Townhomes HOA, Hill Pond on Spring
Creek HOA, Hill Pond Condominium HOA and Windtrail Townhomes HOA of the June 16, 2011 Determination of
the Planning and Zoning Board to approve The Grove at Fort Collins, Project Development Plan.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On June 16, 2011, the Planning and Zoning Board conducted a public hearing considering the proposed The
Grove at Fort Collins, Project Development Plan (PDP). The Board considered testimony from the applicant, the
public and staff. The PDP was approved. Windtrail on Spring Creek HOA, Sundering Townhomes HOA, Hill
Pond on Spring Creek HOA, Hill Pond Condominium HOA and Windtrail Townhomes HOA have appealed the
Board's decision. The allegation is that the Planning and Zoning Board failed to properly interpret and apply
relevant portions of the Code and Charter.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
This is a request for a private multi -family residential project known as the The Grove at Fort Collins, Project
Development Plan. It is a proposed student housing project containing 216 dwelling units in 12 residential
buildings + 8 dwelling units and 1 manager's unit in a 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 No. 2 Canal.
There would be about 550 parking spaces on -site and 86 parking spaces on Rolland Moore Drive. The property
is 22.9 acres in size. It is located in the MMN, Medium Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood and E, Employment
Zoning Districts.
ACTION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
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.
Page 1 of 1
Steve Olt
From:
Glen Schlueter
Sent:
Friday, July 15, 2011 11:09 AM
To:
Steve Olt
Cc:
Marc Virata; Brian Varrella; Steve Dush; Roger Buffington
Subject: FW: The Grove at Fort Collins PDP appeal - staff response to appeal
Attachments: The Grove at Fort Collins PDP Appeal. 8-16-11 CC ais.doc
Steve,
The only allegation I can see that affects Stormwater is:
iii. LUC 1.2.2(E) Drotectina life. safetv and reducina flood damaae. and LUC 3.3.3 reaardino water hazards
The Board misinterpreted the provisions of the LUC regarding protection of life and property by avoiding
inappropriate development and reducing flood damage. City goals for appropriate development of flood -prone
areas are noted pages 11-10 to 11-11 of the Resident report. The Grove PDP fills in a portion of the floodplain
for two buildings and a public street. The proposed fill narrows the floodplain at a critical location and will
cause a rise that threatens low-lying established neighborhoods.
As discussed in the Resident Report, pages 11-15 and 16, The Grove PDP grading plan calls for deep cuts
near Larimer Canal #2, increasing the potential for breach of the canal during a storm/flood event. The Board
set as a Condition of Approval that the canal be relocated, but only by withholding the Final Certificate of
Occupancy after construction. By allowing excavation of the hillside before relocation of the canal, the Board
misinterpreted the purpose and intent of LUC 1.2.2(E) and LUC 3.3.3 to mitigate such hazards. Cutting the
slope below the canal prior to relocation unnecessarily increases risk to the life, health and safety of downhill
residents and properties.
STAFF ANALYSIS & RESPONSE:
I'm sure Brian can respond to the floodplain fill just as he did for the ODP. However I'm not sure who should address the
canal breach claim. I'm thinking is might be Marc since Engineering requires the ground water report. It may be as easy
as quoting or discussing what is in the report. I'm not even sure the report addresses their concern. Maybe Marc has
read that part of the report. I am not qualified to evaluate the report or make any statements about it. It really isn't Brian's
field either. Maybe you and Steve Dush can discuss this and decide who and what to respond since there really isn't a
department in the City for ground water issues.
Glen
From: Steve Olt
Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2011 4:48 PM
To: Marc Virata; Matthew Wempe; Lindsay Ex; Glen Schlueter; Brian Varrella; Ward Stanford
Cc: Ted Shepard
Subject: The Grove at Fort Collins PDP appeal - staff response to appeal
Attached is the draft "boilerplate" for the staff response AIS to the Notice of Appeal for The Grove at Fort Collins PDP
approved by the P&Z Board. Please review this and provide responses where applicable to any of the Allegations a — d (d
having various parts). We will have deadlines for this AIS coming up soon.
Thanks,
Steve
7/25/2011