HomeMy WebLinkAboutTHE GROVE AT FORT COLLINS - FDP - FDP110015 - CORRESPONDENCE - (21)5. If you receive a ticket, you will have a meeting with a City Attorney downtown. Based on the police
notes on your ticket with regard to the time of day of your party, the number of people at the
party, and your cooperativeness with officers, the City Attorney will recommend a fine. If you do
not find this fine to be fair, you can have a trial in front of the municipal judge.
6. While downtown, you will be informed you need to pay $10 to either CSU RamRide or the CSU Drugs,
Alcohol, and You (DAY IV) program. This amount is due when you attend the CSU Party Partners
class.
CSU PROCESS
1. All noise tickets received by CSU students off -campus are forwarded to the Conflict Resolution and
Student Conduct Services Office (CRSCS).
2. You will receive a letter from CRSCS noting you've violated the student "code of conduct" at CSU.
Violation of any local ordinance is a violation of the student "code of conduct" that you signed
upon being enrolled at CSU.
3. If this is your first noise ticket, you have the choice of attending Party Partners or disputing the charge
resulting in a discipline hearing.
4. Party Partners is an educational referral class in which students review local ordinances with Fort
Collins Police Officers, consider the impact that their party may have had on others, and discuss
ways to host more responsible parties.
5. If this is your 2nd (or more) noise offense, you will have a hearing with a CSU hearing officer. In the
hearing you will have an opportunity to tell your side. Following the hearing, you will receive a
letter from CRSCS describing the outcome of the hearing and what (if any) sanctions you need to
complete.
Other violations that could be copied to CSU include: disorderly conduct, disturbing the peace,
trespassing, interference with public officers, carrying or drinking alcohol in public, bodily waste, littering,
providing alcohol to a minor, selling alcohol without a license, false reporting, DUI, and inciting, arming,
or engaging in a riot.
13
Intersection of Spring Creek Trail and Current Rolland Moore Spur/Connection: Again, this is a
CURRENT safety concern that would be made exponentially worse with the proposed development. If you
biking north on the spur west of the Gardens on Spring Creek, you CANNOT see traffic approaching from
the west on the Spring Creek Trail. To safely continue, you need to come to nearly a complete stop, or
you could collide with a biker or walker from the west. Unless biking traffic from the proposed
development is routed along Centre, it seems the number of collisions at this intersection of trails will
skyrocket.
Centre Drive Vehicular Traffic: I work on Research Drive, and it is already difficult at certain times of
the day to turn left (west) on Centre Drive from northbound Research. I would be interested to
leam about the projections of added vehicle traffic both directions on Centre Drive, and if a light will be
needed there.
Dogs: I am very concerned about Campus Crest's pet policy, especially given the wetlands that drain into
our waterways. As I understand their pet policy, each resident is allowed one pet. If dogs are not leashed
at all times, they will find their way to the wetlands and leave their excrement there, and there will be
little chance that the owner could or would pick it up. I am also concerned about the sheer number and
density of pets being added adjacent to a neighborhood of single family homes with many small children.
Noise: Finally, has Campus Crest been informed of the City's and CSU's noise nuisance policy? The text
from the City's web page addressing noise issues appears below. The intemet link is:
http:l/www.fcgov.rom/neicihborhoodservices/cl-noise-ticleet.ohi). I've highlighted two items that Campus
Crest should understand. I am concerned that their "quiet hours" begin at 10 pm on weekdays and 12
midnight on weekends. Note below: "If noise can be heard from the property line, it is too loud.
The noise ordinance is in effect 24 hours a day."
Several years ago, my family had to leave a home that we loved and that we had improved
considerably due to noise and quality of life problems related to (illegally) large numbers of occupants of
single family homes. I don't want to be forced out of my home again due to an ill-conceived, high density
project.
I appreciate the staffs work on this project. I look forward to learning more about these and other
concems of the community members.
Thank You,
Sarah Bumett
714 Gilgalad Way
What happens when I get a noise ticket off -campus?
CITY OF FORT COLLINS PROCESS
1. A neighbor calls the non -emergency police number (221-6540) to complain about noise.
2. A Fort Collins Police Officer is dispatched to your neighborhood.
3. The police officer has the discretion to determine if noise from your property is unreasonable. If noise
can be heard from the property line, it is too loud. The noise ordinance Is in effect 24 hours a
day.
4. Tickets issued by police officers can be given to one or all roommates, with a maximum fine of $1,000
per roommate.
12
Re: FW: Concerns Regarding Campus Crest Proposall
8/04/10
❑OMatthew Wempeo❑ Limwempe@fcgov.comr!
To Sarah Burnett
Thanks Sarah!
>>> Sarah Burnett <sarahmbumett@hotmail.com> 8/3/2010 2:48 PM >>>
Matt - had to re -send - had your email address wrong the first time.
From: sarahmbumett@hotmaii.com
To: soit@fcgov.com
CC: mwenpe@fcgov.com
Subject: Concerns Regarding Campus Crest Proposal
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2010 14:46:07 -0600
Steve,
I wanted to express a few of my many concerns about the Campus Crest proposal. I've copied this email
to Matt as several of them relate to traffic/bike issues.
Foot and Bike Traffic to King Soopers/Office Max shopping center: I have concern related to foot
and bike traffic to the shopping area with King Soopers, Whole Foods, and other stores. As we all know,
people will find the shortest routes - walkers and bikers will not be likely to go north to the underpass
and then back south to King Soopers and the other shops. From the proposed development, the most
direct routes would either be through the Natural Resources office buildings (I don't know the precise
title of these), or through the Veterinary Teaching Hospital campus (along the east/west dirt roads near
the animal pens).
• Have the administrators of the Natural Resources complex and of the Veterinary Teaching Hospital
have been notified of the proposed project? I do know that sometimes my husband used to
walk through the Natural Resources campus early in the morning on his way to the gym, but had
been stopped by security. Will the campus of office buildings feel forced to fence their perimeter
if the project goes in? Have they been made aware of probable increase in foot and bike traffic?
• Also, has the city notified Burlington Northern about the development, and the potential for additional
foot/bike traffic crossing behind Whole Foods and King Soopers?
Bike Traffic on Centre: I expressed this concern to Matt at the Neighborhood Meeting, but wanted to
note it in writing. This is a concern regardless of the proposed development. I have biked east on the
path to Centre Drive (I do use the underpass to get to the east side of Centre), and the north through
the CSU campus on its bike route hundreds of times over the past 6 years. I mentioned to Matt at the
neighborhood meeting my concern about merging with car traffic as you approach Prospect. There are 3
lanes, one to turn left, one to go staight, and one to turn right. Northbound bike traffic is forced to cross
over the right turn lane, and take a position in the center vehicle lane. The bike lane
disappears approaching the intersection. The volume of bike traffic is already quite high (I assume the
City has quantifed this), and will be greatly increased with the proposed development. This is a major
safety issue, especially as Centre bears more car traffic and many bikers will not use the underpass.
11
understand they are very serious statements. My experience throughout this process has
been deeply disturbing; I have lost faith in the integrity of my local government
Sarah Burnett
October 20, 2011
10
PDP approval would require or even indicate any intention to use gas. The Final
Development Proposal application shows electric utilities, but no gas lines.
27. Ms. Liley's Conduct at the September 5, 2011 City Council Meeting
At the September 5, 2011 regular meeting of the City Council, during public comment, I
read from an article about a balcony collapse, and urged our City leaders to not rush
into creating problems by rushing to build too quickly. Ms. Liley "objected". Later, when
I was commenting on the Employment District zoning problem with the ODP during the
appropriate agenda item, Ms. Liley again "objected", this time interrupting me in the
middle of my comments. I would wager that if an average citizen "objected" not once,
but twice, to another citizen's comments, they would have been rebuked and asked to
return to their seat.
An important question: Why was Ms. Liley so concerned about the Council hearing
comments regarding the zoning? Perhaps she knew the position of the appellants and
that of City Zoning staff were correct, and was aware that the Council vote on the ODP
was so close?
In conclusion, I believe that if City staff wants a project to go through, they will manipulate
and even circumvent the Land Use Code (and ignore the vision of City Plan) in questionable
ways to make it happen.
I firmly believe that our community will pay the price for inadequate planning for traffic,
connectivity, safe street design, safe pedestrian and bike access, and impacts on
surrounding neighborhoods. It will be interesting (not in a good way) to see the
intersection of Centre and Prospect once the Campus Crest and Capstone projects go in.
I sincerely hope that the groundwater and floodwater concerns of the neighborhood
residents and many others do not prove to be valid. Allowing construction of student
housing in a floodplain, and displacing water onto existing homes already in the same
floodplain, is simply beyond my comprehension.
I fear the community and Colorado State University will pay a steep price for not allowing
all citizens to provide what they considered to be relevant information about Campus Crest
to the decisionmakers. Proponents and opponents alike should be able to present their
evidence. Decisionmakers can determine what is relevant and what is not. I feel that
throughout this process that unsubstantiated favorable input was accepted without
comment, even if it didn't have to do with the Land Use Code, or if it was related to the
developer's performance elsewhere. Substantiated unfavorable input, however, was
deemed "superfluous" and "beyond the purview of the board", and board members were
instructed to disregard it.
I do not believe that staff was neutral in this process. I do not believe that staff even
required compliance with our Land Use Code. I do not make these statements lightly; and I
The applicant managed to change the August 2011 City Council Appeal into something
resembling a de novo hearing by requesting an extended presentation time (one hour
was requested instead of the usual 20 minutes). The applicant's attorney, Ms. Liley,
asked for more time at the appeal at least partially to allow supporters of the project to
speak. Ms. Liley knew very well that the time for such comments was at the P&Z
meeting. This was in violation of our appeals process. The supporters' comments were
largely non -relevant to the appeal points and a re -run of their presentations from P&Z.
At the appeal, neither the Mayor nor the City Attorney took steps to keep testimony on
the substantive points of the appeal.
24. Council Asked NO Questions of Appellants; Many of Applicant
Though the burden of proof was on the appellants in an appeal process, the appellants
were asked precisely 0% of the questions from City Council in the August appeal. Many
of these questions were not related to the substantive points of the appeal. The
appellants could not respond to the applicant's responses, even if erroneous, misleading
or irrelevant to the appeal issues. As in the P&Z Hearing, the overwhelming amount of
presentation and discussion time went to proponents of the project.
25. City Manager. Asked (possibly planned?) Question During Appeal, in Violation of
City Code's Appeal Procedures
At one point during the Council appeal, Mike Hartnett of Campus Crest brought a folio of
vinyl siding samples to Josie Plaut, a consultant representing Campus Crest. Then for
several minutes, Ms. Plaut was holding a photo of a Campus Crest building in Greeley
(which was a part of the record). Then, as if on cue, the City Manager asked a question
of Ms. Plaut regarding the vinyl siding. The appeals procedure does not allow staff to
ask questions; only Councilmembers may ask questions.
This question and response was in violation of the appeals procedure, and appeared to
be orchestrated. The question and response had nothing to do with the appeal — it
focused on the "green" attributes of vinyl siding. (The appeal focused on life safety
issues related to vinyl siding.) When I raised my hand and asked to be recognized to
respond to the non -Land Use Code nature of the question and the response, and to point
out the articles in the record about catastrophic fires in sprinklered vinyl -sided
buildings, no one acknowledged me. I would have had to "object", risking appearing
petty. It was the mayor's responsibility (aided by the expertise of the City Attorney), to
make sure the proceeding follows the procedures.
26. New Information Accepted During Appeal
New information was accepted from the applicant during the appeal hearing, again, in
violation of City Code. The Applicant's consultant (josie Plaut) claimed that gas heat
would be used. No one will know about the veracity of this statement until the project is
built, but no utility plans or other official submittals support this claim. Nothing in the
N.
At that December 7 Neighborhood Meeting (for the second PDP), the appeal for the first
PDP was pending, leading to considerable confusion. I believe the LUC has now been
amended to prevent two similar applications to be pending at the same time on the
same parcel - a direct response to this abuse of the process.
20. Opponents of Project Granted Presentation Time Only After Petitioning and
Attending P&Z Work Session
Opponents of the proposal petitioned (with 73 signatures) to get a dedicated
presentation time for the June 2011 P&Z hearing. This was done over a month in
advance. To be granted a dedicated presentation time, we were required to attend the
P&Z work session to explain our request. We were granted 50% of the time allotted to
the applicant
21. Proponents of Project Granted Equal Time Two Days Before Hearing; Presented
Non -Land Use Code Information AND Presentation Prepared by Applicant
The very few proponents of the project were granted equal presentation time two days
in advance of the P&Z Hearing. Their presentation spent little, if any, time on relevant
information, with one key exception: a slide presentation of distances from
apartment/condo complexes to neighboring homes. Interestingly, the Powerpoint
presentation was not prepared by the "citizen group", but instead by the applicant's
local consultants. (Of course, this was not disclosed to anyone, but the Powerpoint
presentation provided by City staff upon request shows the author of the presentation
was the Applicant's landscape architecture firm.) It is my belief that the applicant
simply wanted more time to make its case and submit its evidence, and recruited a very
willing "citizen group" to do its bidding, and thus lengthen the hearing, divert the
Board's attention from Land Use Code issues, and expand the amount of time for the
Applicant to make its case.
22. P&Z Hearing June 2011: Net Result of Time Allotments
The Applicant requested one hour each for presentations for the ODP and for the PDP.
They were granted 40 minutes for the ODP and 60 minutes for the PDP. The opponents
requested 30 minutes for each, and were granted 20 for the ODP and 30 for the PDP.
The "citizen group" that was formed apparently 2 days prior to the appeal was granted
20 minutes for the ODP and 30 minutes for the PDP, and used at least part of that time
to present the Applicant's Powerpoint. Net result for presentations:150 minutes in
favor of the ODP and PDP applications; 50 minutes for those opposed. Add to that the
City staffs presentation time in support of the application, and to responses to the
questions that were asked (only) of the Applicant. The overwhelming amount of
(i1 ` presentation and discussion time went to proponents of the project.
23. Council Appeal August 2011: Applicant Request for More Time (and Citizen
Comments) Led to Extended Time Discussing Issues Unrelated to Substantive
Points of the Appeal
7
assertions about the applicant's good management practices. The P&Z chair allowed
proponents of the applicant speak for extended periods of time on these topics (e.g.,
how well -managed the Grove in Greeley is). This ended up lengthening the proceeding
until 2:45 am. As in the October 2010 hearing, neither the P&Z Chair nor the city
attorney advised the board to disregard this testimony as "beyond the purview of the
board" or "superfluous".
18. Impact Fee Reductions Coordinated by Economic Development Staff /
Substantially Underestimated to Developer
This issue merits thorough exploration.
Economic development staff worked on facilitating PSD and library fee reductions of
50-51% for Campus Crest. When a citizen inquired about this at a City Council Meeting
(though she couldn't name the development because of limitations on speech imposed
in January 2011), the City Manager stated that, to his knowledge, no such reductions
had been explored during his tenure. The inquiry triggered a SAR, which revealed that,
in fact, reductions had previously been granted to Flats at the Oval. Was the City
Manager unaware of the previous Flats reductions and the proposed Grove reductions,
or did he misspeak at the Council Meeting? I have much more specific information
regarding this topic that I can share upon request
The fee estimates provided by the City to Campus Crest substantially underestimated
the electrical fees, which Power and Light said would be approximately $550,000, but
was quoted by staff to the developer at less than $250,000. (At that time, and at all
official meetings until the August appeal, the developer said they were using electric air
source heat pumps.) All fees were quoted for 123 units, instead of the 213 that was
planned at that time. This resulted in an underestimate of hundreds of thousands of
dollars. The net estimate for the amount to PSD was closer to one -quarter than one-half
of should be due to PSD according to its IGA with the City. Most other fee amounts
quoted (for community parks, neighborhood parks, police, general government, etc)
were less than 60% of what was due. One might expect they would have been exactly
123 units multiplied by each CIE fee, but that was not the case.
Why is economic development staff/CFO's office involved in facilitating fee reductions
for residential building projects? How could such gross errors be made? Were they
really errors, or were the reduced amounts quoted purposely? If so, why and under
whose direction?
19. Two Active PDPs at the Same Time - Triggered an Amendment of the Land Use
Code
Also during the second Campus Crest review process, City staff accepted a second PDP
while the first (rejected) one was still under appeal. Perhaps this was allowed by code,
though that is not clear.
13. Unfavorable Photos and Data by Citizens Regarding Developments in Other
Communities - Deemed "Superfluous" and "Beyond the Purview"
In the October 2010 P&Z hearing, citizens tried to present negative but well -
documented information about an applicant in other cities, the P&Z chair and city
attorney immediately noted that the information - which citizens deemed very relevant
- was "beyond the purview of the board" and "superfluous". The P&Z Board was
instructed to disregard these comments.
14. Unfavorable Photos and Data Missing from Record of October 2010 P&Z Meeting
In the October 2010 P&Z hearing, I handed in photos of the Greeley site, Better Business
Bureau ratings from other Campus Crest locations (over half were F's), and ratings from
apartmentratings.com (including comparisons with existing Fort Collins student
housing complexes) that were not in the record when the appeal was being prepared. I
was contacted by staff to re -supply the photos, but not the other items (so I assumed
the other items were still in the evidence submitted at P&Z). The other items were not
included in the Council appeal packet. Apparently the photos, BBB, and
apartmentratings.com information disappeared from the evidence submitted at the
hearing.
15. Neighborhood Meeting on December 7, 2010 - Perfunctory at Best
During the second Campus Crest review process, the applicant held a perfunctory
neighborhood meeting the evening before they resubmitted their new PDP. (The
Neighborhood Meeting was held on 12/7/10; the PDP submittal was 12/8/10.) Another
developer who attended the December 7 meeting has expressed amazement at the
developer's obvious disregard of the neighborhood's input that night - it was obvious to
the other developer (and others in attendance) that the Neighborhood Meeting was
meaningless. The new PDP application was obviously not going to change overnight
based on any information heard at the meeting.
16. Negative Comments Not Submitted by Opponents after October 2010 Hearing
In the November 2010 and June 2011 P&Z Hearings, most opponents of the project did
not raise relevant information about the experience of other cities with the developer in
order to comply with the ruling of the P&Z chair and Assistant City Attorney articulated
in the October 2010 P&Z meeting. (If we had presented the information which we saw
as very relevant, it would have been deemed "superfluous" and "beyond the purview of
the board".) In retrospect, I believe we should have submitted the information
regardless of the P&Z Board Chair and City Attorney's comments.
17. Extensive Lyon-LUC Comments Allowed at June 2011 Planning and Zoning Hearing
and at August 2011 Appeal
In June 2011, proponents of the project made positive but completely undocumented
5
never mentioned again - until after the canal company wrote a letter to staff (in mid -
January 2011) reiterating the breech concern. Only then (in early February 2011) was
moving canal was finally proposed.
The developer and City staff insisted that the canal move was a separate project from
the PDP. (This was the subject of at least one SAR in early 2011.) The Applicant
portrayed the canal move as wildlife issue instead of a life safety issue, which it clearly
is. Citizens asked staff to make relocation of the canal a condition of approval for the
PDP, but staff refused to require it. The Chair of P&Z raised concerns about this, and
P&Z did make canal relocation a condition of approval, as they apparently felt the
information we provided required it. Several very relevant letters from the ditch
company were not in P&Z's packet; we had to submit them into evidence. Why didn't
City staff include these very important communications from the ditch company in
P&Z's packet? Why wasn't City staff more concerned about protecting life safety and
property in considering the canal?
Finally, why did the project planner tell City Council during the Appeal Hearing in
August 2011 that canal would be relocated even if the PDP were denied This makes
absolutely no sense. If the canal would be relocated without the PDP approval, as the
planner stated, who would pay for the relocation, as the City maintains that the
developer is paying for the move?
11. Differing Treatments of Positive vs. Negative Information Regarding the
Developer's Record
Early in the first review process, I expressed concerns to the project planner about the
developer's track record in other communities. I was advised that City staff does not
consider that information, but that Planning and Zoning and City Council does. That
seemed reasonable.
But, by the time the project got to Planning and Zoning, testimony regarding the
developer's track record and photos taken of their Greeley project were deemed
"beyond the purview of the board", and the board was asked to disregard such
testimony. The project planner is a long-time employee. Did he provide erroneous
information by implying that citizens could raise their concerns at P&Z, or was there a
change in practice for this applicant? If there was a change in practice, why?
12, Favorable Photos and Statements by Applicant Regarding Developments in Other
Communities - Accepted
In the October 2010 P&Z hearing, the applicant presented marketing photos of their
other locations and spoke of their successful management practices in other locations.
There was no comment from the Assistant City Attorney nor the P&Z Board Chair; these
comments were accepted into evidence.
4
7. Questionable Staff Interpretation of Code: Use of Employment Zone Without a
Primary Employment Use
Early in the first review process, the developer asked if the 9 acres of the project zoned
for Employment could be used without a rezoning. City zoning staff responded with a
clear "NO" (capitalization was that of City staff). Soon thereafter, the project planner
asserted that no rezoning would be necessary because the "secondary use" acreage
could be borrowed from other E-zoned portions of the ODP. Why was the input of
zoning staff disregarded for the Planners unusual interpretation of our Land Use Code?
8. Disregard of Compatibility Provisions of Land Use Code
It is my belief that if compatibility provisions in the Land Use Code are not politically
expedient, they will be ignored. I believe that the compatibility provisions are
meaningless if they conflict with the agenda of the City organization. Compatibility is
much more than distance (which was emphasized by the developer). It has to do with
the character of the neighborhood, operational compatibility (including noise), traffic
impacts, bulk, height, mass, scale, and much more.
The developer claimed they couldn't reduce the scale of their buildings because of
financial considerations. Staff and decisionmakers simply accepted that, rather than
requiring compliance with our Land Use Code standards regarding transitions and
compatibility. CARE Housing, Sundering, and Windtrail Townhomes will be dwarfed by
The Grove, and will be adversely affected by traffic. CARE Housing's request for
crosswalks across Rolland Moore so the elderly residents could reach the clubhouse
was denied. As with so many potential impacts of The Grove, staffs position is that
problems will be addressed when they arise.
9. Disregard of City Plan and West Central Neighborhoods Plan
It is my belief that if the City Plan or its Sub -Area Plans are not politically expedient,
they will be ignored. The West Central Neighborhoods Plan (a) cautions against
building large three-story apartment buildings in the WCN area, (b) against building in
the floodplain, (c) against building student housing complexes without consideration of
the increased intensity of use, and (d) specifically against compromising the
neighborhoods adjacent to the Grove. It was so eviscerated by the approval of The
Grove PDP that it should be thrown into the trash. It is completely meaningless.
10. Life Safety Concerns Regarding Larimer Canal #2 Downplayed by Staff
Life safety concerns communicated to Applicant and staff by the Canal company and by
citizens were ignored during the 2010 review process. A canal representative told
neighbors that he had expressed concerns to the developer and city staff throughout
2010 that canal could breech if the project was built as planned. He said developer's
attitude was that they would deal with it if it happened. This concern was mentioned by
staff in an August 2010 review meeting, but never appeared in any minutes, and was
family project, and the Code applied only to single family housing (which is untrue), and
then that the Code didn't apply because this project was a rent -by -the -room project
(also untrue). The Assistant City Attorney corrected this misinformation, but there was
not a complete discussion of the fact that the Code requires the decisionmakers to make
a finding, and that the 4-bedroom units would be allowed if certain conditions were
met.
4. Example of Staff Response to Citizen Concerns
At the end of this document, I copied and pasted from an email I sent to City staff with
concerns and questions. I had written about concerns with foot and bike routes to the
grocery store, bike safety at Centre and Prospect, traffic on Centre in general, bike
safety at the intersection of the Spring Creek trails and the "spur" trail on the west side
of the Gardens on Spring Creek, dogs, and the impact of the developer's "quiet hours" on
our currently very quiet neighborhood. Perhaps it is not the role of City staff to answer
citizen questions during a review process. Nonetheless, the fact that the only response
to my email that I ever received from staff consisted of two words ("thank you") was
surprising (and disappointing) to me.
S. Another Example of Staff Responsiveness - Immediately Forwarding Mistakenly
Email to the Developer (but not including it the P&Z packet)
On another occasion, I included the project planner's email address on a message
intended for my neighbors. (It included a list of communities that had rejected Campus
Crest proposals, as well as the opinion of a community member that the opposition of
our neighborhood was futile because the City wanted this project to go through.)
I phoned the project planner immediately and explained that I had sent it to him in
error, which he apparently realized. He commented that he would not be sending the
letter to P&Z. I said I understood, and reiterated that I sent it to him in error. I hung up
and within a minute or so called back to say that I certainly expected the message
would not be forwarded to the Applicant if it was not being shared with P&Z. The
planner was silent for a moment, then said that it was too late - he had already
forwarded it. The project file shows the forwarded email - it was forwarded within five
minutes of my sending it to the planner by mistake.
6. Possible }x Parte Communication?
On the way into the October 2010 Planning and Zoning meeting, a P&Z Board member
commented to a resident that it was great that there was finally a developer for this
parcel that had financing. I do not believe that there was any information to this effect
in the P&Z packet for that meeting. Was ex parte information provided to this Board
member (or the entire Board)? If so, by whom, when, and what other ex parte
information had been communicated prior to the hearing?
October 20, 2011
Ms. Karen Cumbo
Planning, Development, and Transportation Executive Director
City of Fort Collins
Ms. Cumbo,
This document outlines some of my many concerns about review process for the CSURF
Centre for Advanced Technology ODP and The Grove at Fort Collins PDP.
If needed, I would be able to provide more documentation on almost all of the assertions
made below. I realize the seriousness of many of the statements contained in the document,
and do not make these statements lightly.
1. First ODP/PDP Application Submitted and Accepted before Neighborhood
Meeting in Violation of Land Use Code
In the first Campus Crest review process, the ODP and PDP were submitted on 7/13/10.
The Neighborhood Meeting was not held until 7/20/10, in clear violation of the Land
Use Code. At that point, the citizens did not know that the applicant had violated the
LUC, though undoubtedly City staff did, and should not have accepted the application.
Why was the application accepted? Why was the Neighborhood Meeting process clearly
seen and treated as a step to be checked off, rather than a meaningful meeting as
defined in the Land Use Code.
2. Signage for First Review Process Was in Violation of Land Use Code
According to our Land Use Code, signs do not have to be placed on the affected parcel
until AFTER a PDP has been submitted. In the first Campus Crest review process, these
signs were not of the required size, and appeared and disappeared for no apparent
reason.
The larger (required) signs were concealed in tall grass in the middle of the parcel. For
the bulk of the time during the first PDP review and appeal process, signs not visible
from any public street. A smaller -than -required sign was placed along Centre part of
the time, but was missing for about a month in the time leading up to the October P&Z
hearing. The first time that a correctly sized sign appeared along Centre was two days
before the City Council site visit in December.
3. Erroneous Information Regarding Code to Allow Increased Occupancy (4-
bedroom units) Given by Staff to Planning & Zoning Board
At the P&Z work session prior to the October 2010 P&Z Hearing on The Grove, one of
the board members asked if the 4-bedroom units were allowed by Code. One of the
planners responded first that more than 3 persons were allowed because it was a multi-