HomeMy WebLinkAboutAMENDED CSURF CENTRE FOR ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY - ODP - MJA110001 - CORRESPONDENCE - (29)conflicting or if they conflict with any other statute, code, local ordinance, resolution, regulation
or other applicable Federal, State or local law, the more specific standard, limitation or
requirement shall govern or prevail to the extent of the conflict. If neither standard is more
specific, then the more stringent standard, limitation or requirement shall govern or prevail to the
extent of the conflict.
As we asserted during the appeal hearing, 1.7.2 applies here:
There is a conflict.
4.27(D)(2) is both more specific AND more stringent
2.3.2(H)(7) may allow allocating secondary uses across an CDP (if that is what "mix of
uses" means).
However, 4.27(D)(2) is more specific. It is part of Article 4 (Districts), which governs the
specific requirements for each zoning district (here, the Employment District), while
2.3.2(H)(7) is part of Article 2 Administration, which is less specific.
d. For reference only, as it is mentioned in 1.7.2 (does not apply here, though it does demonstrate the
importance of zoning to the LUC because the Zone District standards in Article 4 trump the
General Development Standards in Article 3.)
3.1.2 Relation to Zone District Standards (Article 4)
In the event of a conflict between a standard or requirement contained in Article 3 and Article 4,
the standard in Article 4 shall prevail.
Though it does not apply here, this provision does emphasize the importance of zoning standards
in the Land Use Code. The Zone District standards in Article 4 trump the General Development
Standards in Article 3. And 1.7.2 says that more specific, then more stringent, codes must be
applied.
Staff has previously indicated that this practice has been used before in the CSURF CAT C DP and
in the Oakridge Business Park ODP. In both cases, I believe the same planner has been in charge.
Has this been does in other ODPs or just those two? Shifting secondary use acres from one parcel
to another may have been done before, but it is not allowed by our Land Use Code.
Multiple errors in the review process have resulted in an invalid PDP approval. Now is the time to prevent
an ill-conceived project, 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. As City Manager, I
assume it is your responsibility to point these issues out to Council. I am willing and able to discuss further
information to support the assertions in this letter at your convenience.
There is still time for Council to make a decision that complies 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.
Sincerely,
Sarah Burnett
219-6679
2. The ODP prohibits FARs over .37; Page 2 of the PDP Site Plan indicates FARs far in excess of .37.
a. . The applicant had proposed removing the FAR limit, but P&Z (and Council) retained it.
b. Again, the applicant opted not to appeal the retention of the FAR limit. The PDP is not in
conformance with the FAR limit on the ODP.
c. Ms. Liley suggested a definition of FAR contrary to the Land Use Code definition. She claims that
the language in the retained note regarding the FAR justifies a novel, non -Land Use Code
definition of FAR.
d. Not mentioned in the AIS was a provision that in the approved P&Z motion that if there is a
conflict between and ODP note and the Land Use Code, that the Land Use Code shall prevail.
e. Ms. Liley's definition is based on a (faulty) interpretation of the language in the ODP note on
FAR, when the motion from P&Z clearly stated that if there are conflicts between an ODP note
and the LUC, that the LUC will prevail.
f. Note also: at the 1/18/11 Neighborhood Meeting, Linda Ripley talked about the FAR note,
mentioning that it was there as a "self imposed" restriction. When asked if the PDP would have
met the FAR limit that was on there previously, she responded "no". This is documented in notes
submitted for the record (see pdf pages 64-5 or 56-7 of hand numbered pages of Attachment 2,
Part 5). If there is any question about the accuracy of the notes, I have an audio recording that was
used to prepare the notes submitted to P&Z (available upon request). 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.
g. The result is that the approved PDP is out of conformance with the approved ODP because, as
indicate on the applicant's own site plan, the FAR limit is exceeded.
3. In addition, there are problems with the zoning were not fully discussed by Council. The following
Land Use Code citations show that the Secondary Use ODP Note is invalid (and therefore the PDP
using 9.1 acres of Employment District Land is invalid.)
a. City staff and the applicant cite this code as the reason that the shifting of secondary use acres is
allowed (and that the secondary use note is permissible):
1.3.2(H)(7) Any standards relating to housing density and mix of uses will be applied over the
entire overall development plan, not on each individual project development plan review.
Note: This is part of Article 2, Administration, Section 3 Overall Development Plan Review
Procedures, which governs the general process for ODP review in all zone districts.
b. We have asserted that this code prohibits the practice of shifting secondary use acres:
4.27(D) Land Use Standards. (2) Secondary Uses. All secondary uses shall be integrated both in
function and appearance into a larger employment district development plan that emphasizes
primary uses. A secondary use shall be subject to administrative review or Planning and Zoning
Board review as required for such use in Section 4.27(B). The following permitted uses shall be
considered secondary uses in this zone district and together shall occupy no more than twenty-five
(25) percent of the total gross area of the development plan.
Note: This is part of Article 4, Districts, which governs the specific land use requirements in each
zone district. It is part of the Employment District (E) Section; and specifically the Land Use
Standards for secondary uses in Employment Districts.
c. These two codes conflict. Which takes precedence? The LUC has a provision to determine this.
1.7.2 Conflict with Other Laws (From Article 1, General Provisions, Section 7, Legal)
Except as is provided in Section 3.1.2, if the provisions of this Land Use Code are internally
August 29, 2011
City Manager Atteberry:
I am appealing to you for help, as I believe you love this community, and do not wish to do lasting harm to
it.
I have heard no assurances or even any comments from anyone that the City will ensure that The Grove
does not adversely affect our neighborhood and our community as a whole. Yesterday's Coloradoan
headline about the "mega -party" at Campus Pointe brings to light some of our worst fears. First responders
being diverted to mega -problem areas raise public safety problems for the rest of our community.
Add to it the continuing news stories about Campus Crest, which we were prohibited from discussing
during the review process. These are CURRENT stories:
• Fights this weekend at the opened but not yet completed Grove at Columbia:
http://www.komu.com/news/fights-erupt-at-student-apartment-complex/
• Late openings at The Grove at Columbia:
http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/2011 /aug/23/delays-affect-grove-apartment-residents/
hhtt ://www.columbiamissourian.com/stories/2011/08/24/residents-unable-move-apartments-new-
complex/
http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/2011 /aug/26/construction-issues-continue-at-grove-
anartments/
Where is the City's concern about the permanent residents of the community? Where is the City's concern
about the residents of CARE Housing? Where is the City's foresight in allowing the construction of a new
community (as large as my hometown) with not a SINGLE infrastructure improvement outside of the
building site to an already congested area? Finally, and very importantly, where is the concern about the
future tenants of The Grove?
I believe Council still has a chance to do the right thing in this case. Council has not approved their
findings, and should not do so because of several problems with its action last week. Further,
according to our Land Use Code, approval of a PDP does not constitute a "vested right".
City staff, if they are being honest with City Council, will point out that the PDP approved on Tuesday
night is in conflict with the ODP that was also narrowly approved. City staff, if they are being honest with
City Council, will explain that notes on ODP's are meaningful, and are not to be made light of. They are
additional requirements that determine how a particular ODP will be developed. The decision of City
Council is invalid because the approved PDP is not in conformance with the approved ODP in two
important ways.
1. First, the ODP prohibits building in the floodplain; the PDP builds in the floodplain
a. The applicant had proposed removing this provision, but P&Z (and Council) retained it. (It is in
Note 2 of the 2003 ODP, which was retained in the 2011 ODP.)
b. The applicant opted not to appeal the retention of the prohibition, perhaps hoping Council would
overlook it in the Appeal. I can provide further evidence (in the record) that indicates the language
in Note 2 of the 2003 ODP (which was retained as a part of the 2011 ODP) meant no building of
secondary uses was allowed in the floodplain.
Not mentioned in the AIS was the text of the "secondary use" note that was retained by P&Z,
which prohibits building of secondary uses in the CSURF Centre for Advanced Technology ODP.
This would prohibit residential building in floodplain for The Grove PDP.
c. The result is that the approved PDP is out of conformance with the approved ODP because two
buildings in the northeast portion of the site are in the floodplain.
Page 1 of 1
Steve Oft
From: Sarah Burnett [sarahmburnett@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, August 29, 2011 8:39 AM
To: Darin Atteberry
Cc: Karen Cumbo; Steve Roy
Subject: FW: Concerns Regarding Council Appeal Decision
Attachments: Letter re Validity of Approvals.pdf
I'm sorry we weren't able to connect on Friday. Attached is a letter outlining the concerns. I hope you are able to
share the contents with the Council's leadership team.
From: sarahmburnett@hotmail.com
To: datteberry@fcgov.com; kcumbo@fcgov.com
Subject: Concerns Regarding Council Appeal Decision
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2011 11:33:10 -0600
Darin and Karen,
I would like to meet as soon as possible with either or both of you regarding the City Council's ruling on the ODP
and PDP appeal last Tuesday. I would be available to explain those concerns at your convenience.
I would also be interested to learn of the process from this point onward (e.g., what are the steps and how long
do they take?).
Sarah Burnett
219-6679
8/29/20111