HomeMy WebLinkAboutAMENDED CSURF CENTRE FOR ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY - ODP - MJA110001 - CORRESPONDENCE - CORRESPONDENCE-HEARING (11)noncompliance including administrative charges, limitation or revocation of privileges or
eviction.
2. Campus Crest and CSU have indicated a willingness to partner in providing a
graduate student practicum/internship and/or training for Campus Crest staff regarding
student relations and management practices.
Attachment A
Manaaement Team
The Grove is not just an apartment, but an entire lifestyle and community experience
anchored by a General Manager and Leasing Manager (who live on the Property) and
assisted by RockStars, or Community Assistants, a program which employs
upperclassmen who demonstrate leadership skills on campus (e.g, student council
members, athletes, club officers, etc.)
This on -site management team provides hands-on service to the student customers,
manages the robust student lifestyle programs/calendar and works hard to build a
sense of community. The management team members go through Campus Crest
training programs and are educated on how to manage and respond to various
situations that may occur in a student housing community. On average, a Campus
Crest community will have nine Community Assistants which equates to roughly one
Community Assistant per 65 residents.
Courtesy Officer: Typically, Campus Crest arranges to have Courtesy Officers patrol
the community parking lots every night. Since this project is located on CSURF land,
there is a high probability that a University officer will perform this duty.
Quiet Hours: All Campus Crest communities have quiet hours starting at 10:00 pm,
Monday through Friday. Community Assistants are on -call and available to respond to
any loud or disruptive event. If the event appears to be beyond the control of the CA,
they are trained to contact the on -site General Manager and/or the proper authorities;
Registered Visitors:
1. Resident Pool wrist bands are given to all Grove residents for pool use. Any visitor
must register at the Clubhouse and receive a guest pool wristband. This controls pool
activity and ensures that the community pool does not get overwhelmed with non-
resident students;
2. Parking Passes are attached to all resident vehicles. Any visitor must register at the
Clubhouse and receive a Visitor Parking Pass.
Code of Conduct:
1. Campus Crest has developed a set of rules and regulations designed to manage
student customer behavior which are similar to CSU's housing policies for the
management of non -dormitory CSU student housing (and in some cases even stricter).
The rules and regulations are presented to each resident in a user-friendly handbook
and, further, are legally enforceable pursuant to the Lease Agreement with penalties for
• Proposed Amended ODP
o Aft. 3: Staff report, pp. 15, 57 (staff presentation slide)
o Aft. 4: Additional documentation, pg. 117 (Ripley presentation slide)
• Steve Olt email, dated 10103109 re calculations
o Part 5, pgs. 11-12
• Neighborhood meeting minutes, June 10, 2002
o Part 5, pgs. 126-137
• PDP site plan
o Aft. 4: Additional documentation, pgs.88 — 94
• Clarification of secondary land use note (Ripley presentation slide)
o Note 3
• Aft. 4: Additional documentation, pg. 99
o Deletion of FAR note
■ Aft. 4: Additional documentation, pg. 100
o Explanation of ODP Note Changes
■ Aft. 3: Staff report, pgs. 28-31
• Aft. 4: Additional documentation, pgs. 115 — 117
• Hearing testimony: Ripley re acreage of secondary uses in E portion of
parcel C is between 7 and 9 acres (Linda clarifies seven acres)
o Ripley presentation/comments
■ Aft. 6: Verbatim transcript, pgs. 21-23; 101-103
o Staff comments/Board Questions
■ Aft. 6: Verbatim transcript, pp. 34-37; 115 -123; 117
• 1994 Amended ODP
o Aft. 4: Additional documentation, pg. 112
• 1999 Amended ODP
o Aft. 4: Additional documentation, pg. 113
• Staff Report to P&Z
o Aft. 3: Staff report, pgs. 2-13
• LUC Sec. 4.27(A)
• LUC Sec. 2.3.2(H)(7)
• Proposed Amended ODP (existing development is overlaid)
o Aft. 4: Additional documentation, pg. 134
• Appellant's testimony at P&Z hearing that mix of uses is applied over the entire
ODP, and not individual PDPs
o ODP Aft.6: Verbatim transcript, pg. 44
o ODP Agenda Item Summary, pg. 2
• Resident Report
o Aft. 2: Resident Report, pg. 95
• Testimony of Linda Ripley
• Aft. 6: Verbatim transcript, pgs. 101-102 (transcript page #s:255-256)
o Part 5, pgs. 126-137
• Approved 2003 (Amended) ODP
o Att. 3: Staff report, pg. 16 (staff presentation)
o Att. 4: Additional documentation., pg. 113 (Ripley presentation)
• Hearing testimony: Linda re calculations of FAR per note
o Att. 6: Verbatim transcript, pgs. 21 -23; 119-120
• Hearing testimony: staff re non-existence of LUC standard for FAR
o Att. 6: Verbatim transcript, pgs. 114; 118; 140
Claim #4: The secondary use note on the ODP is invalid, therefore, using 9.1 acres of
E zoned land for secondary uses invalidates the PDP.
Responses:
1. The secondary use note on the ODP was approved in 2003 and never appealed; the
Planning and Zoning Board did not change this note.
2. Any way the note is applied, the 7.73 acres of secondary uses in the PDP does not
cause the ODP to exceed the 25% limitation on secondary uses in the Land Use Code
(either counting all the secondary uses in the ODP or by taking out floodway Parcels D
and E from ODP secondary use calculations); Applicant offered a condition to address
this.
3. Land Use Code Sec. 2.3.2(H)(7) states that any mix of use standards apply to the
entire overall development plan, and not to the individual preliminary development plan.
4. Although not alleged in either the ODP appeal or the, PDP appeal, the Appellants
argued at the City Council hearing and Ms. Burnett repeats in her letter to the City
Manager, that there is a conflict between Land Use Code Sec. 2.3.2(H)(7) and Sec.
4.27(D)(2). It is then argued that the 'stricter" or "more stringent" of the two provisions
[Sec. 4.27(D)(2)] should apply, resulting in the invalidation of the other provision [Sec.
2.3.2(H)(7)].
5. It is a rule of statutory construction that regulations should be read as a whole and
interpreted in a manner which gives meaning to all provisions. The intent of Land Use
Code Sec. 4.27(D)(2) is to insure that development in a larger employment district
development plan is primarily employment uses, with no more than 25% secondary
uses throughout that larger development plan. At the PDP level, the "larger"
development plan can only be the overall development plan. There is no conflict.
6. This has been the consistent staff interpretation of the secondary use Land Use
Code provisions.
Conclusions:
1. There is no conflict between Land Use Code Sec. 2.3.2(H)(7) and Sec. 4.27(D)(2).
2. The secondary use note on the Amended ODP is valid.
3. The Applicant's use of 7.73 acres of E-zoned property (not 9.1 acres as alleged by
Ms. Burnett) for secondary uses is in compliance with the Amended ODP note and Land
Use Code Sec. 2.3.2(H)(7) and Sec. 4.27(D)(2).
Evidence:
• Approved 2003 (Amended) ODP
o Att. 3: Staff report, pg. 16 (staff presentation slide)
o Att.4: Additional documentation, pg. 113 (Ripley presentation slide)
3. Appellants' PDP appeal contained no allegation whatsoever related to FAR. Ms.
Burnett now brings new claims regarding the PDP (i.e. that the PDP does not conform
to the Amended ODP and that the stricter Land Use Code method of calculation should
apply because it conflicts with ODP note method of calculation).
4. Even if it were not barred for failure to raise it in the PDP appeal, Ms. Burnett's claim
must be disallowed for the following reasons:
• All evidence indicates it was voluntarily put on the ODP by CSURF: It was not a
condition of approval in 2003, and there is no Land Use Code requirement for FAR —
in 2003 or today — so the Board could not legally make it a condition.
• The FAR note was approved in, 2003 with its own embedded definition of how to
calculate (by parcel, not by lots and blocks).
• Appellants argued that the Land Use Code definition should be used instead
although there is no Land Use Code requirement for FAR, so the only legal basis for
applying FAR at all is per the FAR note — with its own definition.
• It is very clear from the transcript that the Board's condition of ODP approval
regarding the FAR note was for the sole purpose of ensuring that the Land Use
Code minimum density requirement prevailed over the FAR note and that the
condition had nothing to do with using the Land Use Code definition of how to
calculate FAR vs. the method in the note itself. (See, e.g. Planning and Zoning
Board member Campana's comment: "If we're going to hold the project to the
standard of the note that's on the plan, we should calculate it based on the language
of the note on the plans."
• There are FAR calculations on the PDP, but only to satisfy compliance with a PDP
submittal requirement to show FAR calculated per Land Use Code — but there is no
minimum or maximum FAR requirement at all. The technical submittal requirement
in no way trumps the approved, voluntary ODP note with its own definition of how it
is calculated.
Conclusions:
1. The PDP is subject to the FAR Note, which is applied consistent with its own
language, and not in accordance with the Land Use Code definition.
2. There is no conflict between the FAR Note on the ODP and the Land Use Code: A
floor area ratio requirement is imposed on the ODP pursuant to the FAR note and the
floor area ratio of the ODP is calculated in accordance with the note's embedded
definition; there are no Land Use Code provisions that impose a floor area ratio upon
either the ODP or the PDP.
3. The Planning and Zoning Board's condition related only to the note and the Land
Use Code density requirements; it had nothing to do with the Land Use Code definition
for FAR.
4. Paramount, however, is the fact that Ms. Burnett's new claim was not the subject of
a timely filed appeal, nor was it raised prior to the decision pf the City Council and
closing of the appeal hearing. It is, therefore, not properly Pefore the City Council for
consideration and cannot serve as the basis for reopening the appeal hearing.
Evidence:
• Neighborhood meeting minutes, June 10, 2002
o Part 5, pgs. 116 —125
• P&Z board minutes, February 20, 2003
o Note 3
■ Att. 4: Additional documentation, pg. 99 (Ripley presentation slide)
o Explanation of ODP Note Changes
■ Att. 4: Additional documentation, pgs. 115 — 117
• Board discussion on Note changes, decision to leave Note as is
o Ripley Presentation
■ Aft. 6: Verbatim transcript, pgs. 21-23; 100 — 102; 119 — 1w26
o Board Questions/Discussion
■ Att. 6: Verbatim transcript, pgs. 33-40; 98 — 103; 117 — 123; 131 —
132; 138-146; 148 — 150; 155 — 157.
o Vote
Att. 6: Verbatim transcript, pgs. 156-157.
• Hearing testimony (transcript pg. #s):
o Glen Schlueter
■ Att.6: Verbatim transcript, pgs. 119-124 (273-278)
o John Haukaas
■ Att.6: Verbatim transcript, pgs. 39-40 (193-194)
o Board discussion
■ Att.6: Verbatim transcript, pgs. 122-123; 151-157 (276-277, 305-
311)
• Preliminary Drainage and Erosion Control Report, Section 6.0 and Appendix D
o Section 6
■ Att. 7: Misc. documents, pgs. 90-91
o Appendix D
■ Att. 7: Misc. documents, pgs. 176-210
• Preliminary Utility Plans dated June 1, 2011
o Aft. 7: Misc. documents, pgs 398; 408-413
• Neighborhood Meeting minutes, January 18, 2011
o Aft. 2: Part 5, pgs. 64-72
• Testimony of Glen Schlueter at P&Z
o Att. 6: Verbatim transcript, pgs. 119-123
• Email response of Brian Varrella, City Floodplain Administrator dated January 24,
2011
o Att. 2: Resident Report, pg. 90
Claim #3: The Amended ODP prohibits FAR over .37, and the PDP has a FAR in
excess of .37, therefore the PDP is not in conformance with the ODP and the City
Council approval of the PDP is invalid.
Responses:
1. This claim is related to the subject matter of ODP appeal allegation "b." The ODP
appeal allegation was limited, however, to an objection to the removal of FAR Note
(which was not done) and an objection to the interpretation of the FAR Note.
2. Appellants did not prevail on the ODP appeal allegation.
• Note 2 of the 2003 ODP did not prohibit building in the floodplain; Replacement
Note 1 does not prohibit building in the floodplain; Both notes state that development
in the floodplain is permitted subject to Chapter 10 of the Municipal Code.
• This is reinforced by the Planning and Zoning Board Chair's comment during the
2003 ODP hearing.
• It is Note 3, not Note 2, of the 2003 ODP that was retained by the Planning and
Zoning Board and the City Council. Applicant did not appeal retention of the note
because it was in agreement with the Board's decision and, in fact, the Applicant
had offered to retain the note.
• It is Note 3, not Note 2, that contains the statement that Ms. Burnett purports to
prohibit construction in the floodplain: "Land uses proposed within the Spring Creek
100-year floodplain shall not be considered secondary uses."
■ Note 3 of the 2003 ODP (retained on the Amended ODP by the Board and City
Council) does not prohibit building in the floodplain. Note 3 is about the ratio of
primary uses to secondary uses, and what counts against the secondary use
allotment.
Conclusions:
1. The Amended ODP (per Note 3 of the 2003 ODP which was retained) does not
prohibit building in the floodplain.
2. The Amended ODP (per Note 1 which replaced Note 2 of the 2003 ODP) makes it
clear that development in the floodplain is allowed subject to Chapter 10 of the
Municipal Code.
3. The PDP proposes development in the floodplain and such development is allowed
pursuant to Chapter 10 of the Municipal Code.
4. The PDP is in conformance with the Amended ODP as both allow development in
the floodplain in accordance with Chapter 10 of the Municipal Code.
5. Paramount, however, is the fact that Ms. Burnett's new claim was not the subject of
a timely filed appeal, nor was it raised prior to the decision of the City Council and
closing of the appeal hearing. It is, therefore, not properly before the City Council for
consideration and cannot serve as the basis for reopening the appeal hearing.
Evidence:
• P&Z board minutes, February 20, 2003
o Part 5, pgs. 126 — 137
• Original Note 3 from 2003 ODP
o Att. 3: Staff report, pg. 16 (Staff presentation)
o Att.4: Additional documentation, pg. 113 (Ripley presentation)
• Original & Amended Note 1
o Original
■ . Att. 3: Staff report, pg. 16 (Staff presentation)
■ Att.4: Additional documentation, pg. 113 (Ripley presentation)
o Amended
■ Att.4:. Additional documentation., pg. 114-115 (Ripley presentation —
explanation of note changes)
• Clarification of Secondary Land Use Note 3 (written form)
MEMORANDUM
TO: Paul Eckman, Carrie Daggett
CC: Karen Cumbo, Ted Shepard, Steve Olt, Darin Atteberry
FROM: Lucia A. Liley
RE: Response to Sarah Burnett letter of August 29, 2011
DATE: September 5, 2011
In her letter to the City Manager, Sarah Burnett makes a number of claims in support of
her request to have the City Council's decisions on the appeals of the CSURF Amended
ODP and The Grove PDP reversed. As attorney for the applicant, Campus Crest, I
appreciate the opportunity to provide a response to Ms. Burnett's claims.
Claim #1: The Grove will be a "mega -problem" area that is bad for the community.
Responses:
1. The Grove will be operated and managed in a manner very similar to CSU's
management of its non -dormitory housing which minimizes the risks of an event like the
mega -party at Rams Village. See specific management/operations/code of conduct
information for The Grove, Attachment A.
2. Ms. Burnett's focus on the Grove at Columbia is totally unrelated to the review
process and standards for approval in Fort Collins.
3. Providing this kind of managed, controlled student housing option in close proximity
to CSU is in the best interest of the community and the adjacent neighborhoods.
Claim #2: Note 2 of the 2003 ODP, which was retained on the Amended ODP,
prohibits building in the floodplain, but the PDP allows building in the floodplain,
therefore, the PDP is not in conformance with the ODP and the City Council's approval
of the PDP is invalid.
Responses:
1. This claim is related to the subject matter of ODP appeal allegation "c" and PDP
appeal allegation "d.iii." The ODP appeal allegation was limited, however, to an
objection to the removal of Note 3 (which was not done); the PDP allegation was also
limited, in that it claimed that allowing development in the floodplain would violate the
safety provisions of Land Use Code Sec. 1.2.2(E). Appellants did not prevail on either
the ODP or PDP appeal allegation.
2. Ms. Burnett now brings a new claim (i.e. that the PDP does not conform to the
Amended ODP); this claim must be disallowed because it was not alleged in a timely -
filed appeal nor was it raised prior to the City Council's decision and the closing of the
appeal hearings.
3. In addition, this new claim is based on a number of errors addressed below:
• City staff, not the applicant, requested that Note 2 of the 2003 ODP (together with
Note 1 of the 2003 ODP) be replaced with new, updated Note 1to bring it into
alignment with current FEMA and City floodplain regulations.
Page 1 of 1
Steve Olt
From: Janelle P. Kechter Okechter@lileyrogersmartell.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2011 8:03 AM
To: Paul Eckman; Carrie Daggett
Cc: Karen Cumbo; Ted Shepard; Steve Olt; Darin Atteberry; Lucia A. Liley
Subject: Amended CSURF ODP and The Grove PDP
Attachments: Memo to City 9-6-11.docx
Good morning, Paul and Carrie.
Attached is a memorandum from Lucia Liley. Please review prior to the City Council meeting
this evening.
Thank you.
Janelle Kechter, CLA
Paralegal for Lucia A. Liley
Liley, Rogers & Martell, LLC
(970)449-8717
9/6/2011