Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTHE GROVE AT FORT COLLINS - FDP - FDP110015 - CORRESPONDENCE - (18). 4 There is still time for Council to make a decision that is in compliance with our laws and is in the best interest of our citizens, our students, and our community. A decision to reverse Council's decisions of August 23 would do this. Conversely, approving the findings would approve a PDP that is not in conformance with its ODP. Sincerely, Sarah Burnett Fort Collins * The previous ODP (from 1999, and valid until 2003) indicated a total of 84 dwelling units on Parcel C. No mention of "student housing" was on any ODP/Master Plan until 2003. Then in 2003, as many have testified, CSURF proposed international and married student housing on Parcel C in meetings with the neighborhood. High density student housing has not "always" been planned for this parcel. All information above is in the record. ** Additional note: the 1999 ODP, in effect until 2003, showed 13.1 acres in the MMN portion of the current Parcel C, and 18.3 acres in the E District. In 2003, the MMN portion increased, without explanation, to its current 20.2 acres and the E District portion decreased, without explanation, to its current 12.9 acres. The zoning line shifted several hundred feet to the east in the 2003 Amended ODP There is no mention of this change in zoning during the review process documents submitted in the 2003 review process for the record (Neighborhood Meeting Minutes, P&Z Hearing Minutes, nor the letter from the Prospect Shields Neighborhood Association). There is also no evidence or record on Fort Collins City Does of a rezoning action for this change. A combination of several factors, including: • An increase of MMN area in 2003 from 13.1 to 20.2 acres with no rezoning action by City Council, • Further expansion of residential use into 9.1 acres of the adjacent E District with The Grove PDP (which the Appellants still maintain is a misinterpretation of our Land Use Code), • Non-compliance with the prohibition on building in the floodplain established in the approval motion for the 2011 ODP, and • Non-compliance with the FAR limit established in the approval motion for the 2011 ODP has resulted a much more intense and massively -scaled project over a larger acreage than allowed by its zoning, the Land Use Code, and the Centre for Advanced Technology 2011 Amended ODP. a b. The Applicant proposed removing the FAR limit, but P&Z stipulated that the FAR limit be retained as a condition of approval for the 2011 ODP. c. The Applicant opted not to appeal the P&Z's retention of the FAR limit, even though the PDP Site Plan clearly shows non-compliance with the FAR limit. d. The Applicant claimed that language "embedded" in the retained FAR note justifies a novel definition of FAR different from the definition in Chapter 5 of the Land Use Code. The FAR denominator in the Land Use Code is the lot or block, not the entire parcel as proposed by the Applicant. Furthermore, the Applicant contradicted its proposed redefinition when it published Floor Area Ratios using lots as the denominator for the FAR Table on Sheet 2 of the PDP Site Plan. e. City Staff asserted in the P&Z Hearing that since there is no FAR limit for E or MMN zones in the Land Use Code, the protections embodied in the ODP note are not applicable. If this assertion were true, ODP notes would never be allowed or enforceable. The Land Use Code, as noted above, specifies that ODPs can define "development control parameters". The FAR note is an important control parameter that was placed on the ODP in 2003 and retained in 2011. It must be enforced in subsequent PDPs, including The Grove. f. The AIS prepared for Council failed to mention that the note limiting FAR to .37 was retained by P&Z, and the AIS failed to mention that the P&Z motion to approve contained the following language: "in the event of a conflict between the 2011 Amended ODP notes and the provisions of the Land Use Code, as they pertain to MAN zoned land within the ODP, that the Land Use Code would govern ". g. The Applicant proposed an interpretation of the language in the retained ODP note regarding FAR as the basis for superseding the definition in the Land Use Code, despite the provision noted in (f) above. h. As I noted during the appeal, at the 1/18/11 Neighborhood Meeting, Linda Ripley talked about the FAR note, mentioning that it was there as a "self-imposed" restriction in the ODP. When asked if the PDP would have met the FAR limit that was in the 2003 ODP notes, she honestly responded, "No.". This is documented in notes submitted for the record (See Attachment 2, Part 5 - pdf pages 64-5 or 56-7 of hand numbered pages). If there is any question about the accuracy of the notes, an audio recording of the meeting can be provided. This is significant: before staff and applicant came up with the non-LUC definition of FAR, the Applicant acknowledged that the project did not meet the FAR limit of.37. i. The result is that the approved PDP is out of conformance with the approved ODP because, as indicated on the Applicant's own site plan, the FAR limit is exceeded. Multiple errors in the process and in the way information was presented to City Council have resulted in a questionable ODP approval and an invalid PDP approval. It is time to prevent a project that does not comply with its ODP, therefore approved in an invalid way, from negatively impacting our City for decades. I respectfully request that these problems be addressed prior to approval of findings. I sent a letter expressing similar concerns to senior City staff last Monday. Perhaps the concerns have already been brought to your attention, but I thought I should provide them to you directly as well. 3 P&Z's approval of the ODP included substantive differences from the Applicant's proposal. P&Z's approval included: • Retention of the 2003 `secondary use note' (Note 3) rather than the revisions proposed for 2011. • Retention of the 2003 FAR note (Note 5) rather than eliminating the FAR note. • The specific stipulation that if there is a conflict between an ODP note and the Land Use Code, the Land Use Code shall prevail. On June 16, after the Planning & Zoning Board approved the ODP with the changes noted above, the Board immediately began discussion of the PDP. Staff made its PDP presentation, which had been written before the unexpected changes made by P&Z. Staff s presentation stated that the PDP was in conformance with the ODP. However, at that point, the PDP was no longer in conformance with the ODP as modified by P&Z: 1. First, the ODP prohibits building housing in the floodplain; the PDP builds apartments in the floodplain. a. Note #3 that P&Z ordered to be carried forward from the 2003 ODP to the 2011 ODP prohibits secondary uses (such as housing) in the floodplain of the Employment District. This prohibition was presumably placed there to protect life safety and property of future tenants, first resp6nders, and neighboring property owners in a flood event. b. The City Staff development review determined that the ODP would need to be modified because the linked PDP proposes building apartment buildings in the floodplain. c. To resolve this issue, the Applicant proposed revisions to the `secondary use note' that removed the prohibition on secondary uses such as housing in the floodplain. d. P&Z rejected the revised note and stipulated that the language in Note 3 of the 2003 ODP containing the floodplain prohibition be retained. It is now part of the approved 2011 ODP. e. The Applicant opted not to appeal P&Z's retention Note 3 from 2003, even though the PDP Site Plan clearly shows apartments in the floodplain. f. The AIS prepared for Council failed to mention the retention of Note 3 of the 2003 ODP. The AIS also failed to explain that the text of the retained "secondary use note" prohibits building of secondary uses (including housing) in the Employment District of the approved 2011 Amended ODP. g. The result is that the approved PDP is out of conformance with the approved 2011 Amended ODP because two buildings in the northeast portion of the site are in the floodplain. 2. Second, the approved 2011 Amended ODP prohibits Floor Area Ratios (FARs) over .37, while page 2 of the Applicant's PDP Site Plan clearly indicates FARs of .53, .69, .90, and .49, all in excess of the limit in the 2011 ODP. a. The 2003 ODP contained a note (#5) limiting FARs to .37, presumably as a compatibility protection to the neighborhood to prevent construction of very large buildings on Parcel C.* City Council Regular Meeting Agenda for September 6, 2011: Agenda Item #32: Resolution 2011-078 making findings of fact regarding the appeal of the June 16, 2011, Planning and Zoning Board approval of the Amended CSURF Centre for Advanced Technology Overall Development Plan . Agenda Item #33: Resolution 2011-079 making findings of fact regarding the appeal' of the June 16, 2011, Planning and Zoning Board approval of The Grove at Fort Collins Project Development Plan September 5, 2011 Mayor Weitkunat and Councilmembers As always, I thank you all for your service. I am writing to express some complex concerns, and trust you will take time to explore them. I have heard no assurance or comment from anyone that the City can or will ensure that The Grove does not adversely affect the surrounding neighborhoods and our community as a whole. The "mega -party" at Ram's Pointe and the related negative national publicity for our City bring to light some of our fears for the future of our neighborhood. The diversion of all first responders to mega -problem areas creates public safety problems for the affected areas and the entire community. In actively supporting massively -scaled "purpose-built" complexes to house large numbers of young people, what is the City's strategy to address the foreseeable impacts that come along with them? With the events of the past two weeks, can each of you seriously and honestly look at The Grove, and its foreseeable and predictable impacts, and say that you would support it if it were in your district? Can each of you look at The Grove and seriously and honestly say it will be physically and operationally compatible with the surrounding quiet neighborhoods and wildlife corridors, as required by the compatibility provisions in the Land Use Code? I believe Council still has a chance to do the right thing for our entire community in this case. Council has not approved their findings, and should not do so because of several problems with its action on August 23, 2011. City staff, if they were being forthright with City Council, would point out that the PDP approved by Planning and Zoning and City Council is in conflict with the ODP that was narrowly approved. City staff, if they were being forthright with City Council, would explain that notes on ODPs are meaningful and applicable, and are not to be made light of. They are "development control parameters" that determine how a particular ODP will be developed. City staff, if they were being forthright with City Council, would not have asserted at the ODP appeal hearing that Larimer Canal #2 would be moved even if The Grove PDP were not approved. Whether that misstatement influenced any Councilmember decisions in the ODP vote is unknown. Our Land Use Code states: "The purpose of the 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 subsequent submittals." The decision of City Council is flawed because the approved PDP is not in conformance with two important "development control parameters" in the approved ODP: it builds housing in the floodplain and has Floor Area Ratios (FARs) in excess of .37, both of which are prohibited by the ODP. Again, I trust that the City will fulfill its obligation as required by LUC 2.5.2 to ensure compliance with Section 3.2.2 and all other standards in the Land Use Code are met before the Final Plan is approved. Thank you, Sarah Burnett Handicap Parking Space Dimensions Relevant Code Citation: 3.1.2(K)(5)(a): (5) Handicap Parking. Parking spaces for the physically handicapped shall have a stall width of thirteen (13) feet unless the space is parallel to a pedestrian walk. Other dimensions shall be the same as those for standard vehicles. (9' wide by 19' deep) The handicapped spaces on the plans are 8 feet wide, and when in pairs, have a 5-foot shared access aisle. The code requires 9-foot widths, which in the same space would only leave a 3-foot shared access aisle. If these are intended to be van -accessible spaces, the spaces could be 8 feet wide, but the access aisle would also need to be 8 feet wide, as required by 3.2.2(K)(2)(d). Guest Parking Relevant Code Citation: 3.2.2(C)(2)(b) Guest Parking. Off-street Quest 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. In your 10/18/11 email message, Development Review staff has now re -interpreted the guest parking code, and taken a different position than the either the City or the Applicant had at the time of the appeal. The new interpretation says that NO guest parking is required in this community of 600 plus leases (nor presumably in future multifamily developments). The developer is not providing any, and the City appears to be allowing it. By providing no guest parking, Development Review's new position is that Campus Crest doesn't have to meet the requirements of providing guest parking proportional to the units they are to serve, and providing off-street guest parking within 200 feet of the units they are to serve - they can meet it by simply not providing ANY guest spaces. This interpretation clearly contradicts the intent of the Land Use Code. Conclusion As stated in the Fort Collins Design Manual, "Initial investment in good design enhances people's everyday lives for decades". The Final Plan as submitted, instead of making an "initial investment in good design", still contains elements that do not even meet easily quantifiable and identifiable minimum standards of our Land Use Code. If these obvious points aren't being met in the Final Plan presented by the developer, what about all the Land Use Code standards (particularly those that could have life safety and property damage impacts) which cannot easily be observed by ordinary citizens? Number of Handicapped Parking Spaces: 3.2.2(K)(5)(d): Relevant Code Citation: 3.2.2(K)(2)(d) first sentence) Each parking lot shall contain at least the minimum specified number of handicap spaces as provided in the table below. Please note: these are also the minimum dimensions required by the Americans with Disabilities Act. NUMBER OF HANDICAP PARKING SPACES Total Parking Spaces in Lot Minimum Required Number of Accessible Spaces 1-25 1 26-50 2 51-75 3 76-100 4 101-150 1 5 ADA and the Fort Collins Land Use Code require a minimum number of handicapped parking spaces, by lot, according to the number of spaces in the lot. As shown below, the only lot meeting the standard is the large lot to the northeast of the central green. Final Plan Counts Lot Location Compact Standard Total C+S Handicap Handicap Provided Required NW of Bldg 1 32 37 69 2 3 NE of Central Green 32 69 101 6 5 SW of Central Green 24 37 61 2 3 SE near Centre 0 34 34 1 2 SW btw Bldg 2&3 16 45 61 2 3 N of Bldg 7 33 23 56 2 3 137 245 380 15 19 Van -Accessible Spaces Relevant Code Citation: 3.2.2(K)(2)(d) Each parking lot shall contain at least the minimum specified number of handicap spaces as provided in the table below Regardless of the number of handicap spaces required, at least one (1) such space shall be designated as a van -accessible space. and must be a minimum o eight (8) feet wide and ad ioln a minimum eight -foot -wide access aisle. There are no van -accessible spaces that meet this standard, as there are no eight -foot - wide access aisles in any of the six parking lots. One such space is required in each of the six parking lots. 2 October 25, 2011 Steve Olt Development Review City of Fort Collins Steve, I was able to meet last Friday morning with Karen Cumbo. During that conversation, we briefly discussed the problems with the two notes from the 2003 Amended ODP that were retained by P&Z in the 2011 Amended ODP. As.you know, in its motion to approve the ODP, P&Z retained two very important notes from 2003 — one that prohibits Floor Area Ratios in excess of .37, and one that prohibits building secondary uses (which includes residential housing) in the Employment District portion of the CSURF ODP. Since those provisions remain in the approved ODP, the PDP is obviously not in conformance with the ODP approved by P&Z. The site plan clearly shows parts of two apartment buildings in the Employment District floodplain, and clearly shows of .53, .69, .90, and .49. I wanted to point out the problem one last time, since Karen did not seem to be fully aware of the implications of the notes from 2003 that were retained. It is clear that the PDP is not in conformance with its ODP. Attached is a letter regarding this issue that was sent to City Council in early September for you to include in the permanent files for The Grove PDP and the CSURF CAT ODP. I also mentioned to her that there are compliance problems relating to Section 3.2.2 in the Final Plan, which no doubt will be addressed by staff in the upcoming review meeting on October 26. These include: Compact Parking Spaces Relevant Code Citations: 3.2.2(L) Parking Stall Dimensions. Table B shows minimum width for compact spaces of 8 feet and minimum depth of 15 feet. 3.2.2(L)(4) Vehicular Overhang. The stall dimensions indicated above may be modified with respect to vehicular overhang as indicated in Figure 5, except that compact vehicle spaces may not be reduced in depth to a dimension that is less than the required depth indicated above. There are 6 parking spaces near the volleyball court on the north side of Rolland Moore Drive that are only 13 feet deep. Compact spaces must be 15 deep by 8 wide. (Two -foot overhangs may be used to reduce standard parking stall depths, but not compact parking stall depths.) The spaces cannot be extended to the south because they abut the utility easement, nor to the north since aisles between parking areas are already at the minimums.