HomeMy WebLinkAboutTHE GROVE AT FORT COLLINS - PDP - 16-10B - CORRESPONDENCE - (54)Page 5 of 5
the plans based on the staff comments contained in this letter and resubmit the number of copies of each
document requested per the attached Revisions Routing Sheet. Once submitted there will be a 2-week round of
review by staff, with a staff/applicant review meeting held on a Wednesday morning at the end of the 2 weeks.
> A copy of the August 6th staff comment letter is also attached to this e-mail.
> The applicant and developer have scheduled an appointment with the Development Review Center for
Wednesday, September 8th to re -submit their development plans. If they do re -submit on September 8th then
staff will meet with them on Wednesday morning, September 22nd to discuss their revisions. At that meeting it
will be determined if the development plans are ready to be scheduled for the required Planning & Zoning Board
public hearing or if another round of development review is necessary. The earliest possible Board hearing date
that the developer could be scheduled for is October 21, 2010. Again, this depends on a re -submittal of the
development plans being made and staff then, after a 2-week round of review, determining if the plans are ready
for a public hearing.
> Steve Olt
> City's Project Planner
> 970-221-6341
> solt@fcgov.com
1/13/2011
Page 4 of 5
does not meet city occupancy rules, and (2) skews the density calculation of the development
to appear lower than it actually is.
I respectfully request that the draft be corrected to reflect my comment at the neighborhood
meeting. Only the second sentence of in the draft statement accurately reflects my question.
The first and third sentences state exactly the opposite of my comment at the meeting.
Thank you again for forwarding the notes in draft form.
Sarah Burnett
> Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2010 13:08:51 -0600
> From: SOLT@fcgov.com
> To: sheilaknop2@aol.com; christine.susemihl@colostate.edu; armstickle@comcast.net;
bbacon14@comcast.net; bjw614@comcast.net; bpeyronnin@comcast.net; brucewunder@comcast.net;
cmfix@comcast.net; cohoff@comcast.net; dienerdey@comcast.net; elounance@comcast.net;
garyozzello@comcast.net; janabrandes@comcast.net; kalbertl@comcast.net; kkbarrier@comcast.net;
Ist101850@comcast.net; margaret.wild@comcast.net; mcmurphy33@comcast.net; olelauren@comcast.net;
onotaros@comcast.net; pattiluenash@comcast.net; peggyreevesl@comcast.net; pottedrp@comcast.net;
sponcelow@comcast.net; Itrout@comcast.net; wcarley@comcast.net; craig@craigspooner.com;
jfeiman@ecentral.com; bswitzer@fcgov.com; ESWITZER@fcgov.com; agboersch@gmail.com;
cchickybaby@gmail.com; jcf2005@gmail.com; rlmueller@gmail.com; velma.steele@gmail.com;
wb5mjm@gmail.com; wvboulton@gmail.com; bstratman@gwe.net; paris_nan@hotmail.com;
pbfowler07@hotmail.com; ritalane@hotmail.com; sarahmburnett@hotmail.com; basmith@lamar.colostate.edu;
dcrews2@lamar.colostate.edu; peggy@lifeandlibertyforwomen.org; blewis52@msn.com; cramsey37@msn.com;
deinest@msn.com; ewmsdoc@msn.com; gilgaladbeth@msn.com; mountainspring47@msn.com;
ssheppa@msn.com; gerry@ntuf.org; brobst@peakpeak.com; nschaffam@plains.net; dvsilvas@prodigy.net;
jen@sajbel.com; eminor@thegroupinc.com; kalbertz@thegroupinc.com; krowan@thegroupinc.com;
sfisher@vaildaily.com; andyreese@yahoo.com; birnfelds@yahoo.com; hollysternfc@yahoo.com;
jkkoski@yahoo.com; mfpierson@yahoo.com; norajones@yahoo.com; sstudt_50595@yahoo.com
> Subject: The Grove, Project Development Plan
> Re: The Grove, Project Development Plan
> To all interested parties:
> Attached is a copy of the "draft" notes from The Grove neighborhood meeting held on July 20, 2010. I would
appreciate any input you may have regarding the questions, comments and responses recorded in the notes as
staff works to finalize the notes.
> The applicant and developer have been through 1 round of development review with the City and met with City
staff the morning of Wednesday, August 4, 2010. They were issued a staff comment letter dated August 6, 2010
that stated, in part that:
> Another round of development review is necessary for this project. The applicant has up to 90 days to revise
1/13/2011
Page 3 of 5
the occupants of the development and to protect the adjacent neighborhood.
Again, City staff has expressed a concern about insufficient information currently provided to enable a
recommendation and decision about the proposed 4-bedroom dwelling units. This concern was stated in
comment #93, page 1 of the comment letter and it reads, as follows:
Based on the information on Sheet 2 of 16 of the Site Plan, the 12 4-bedroom units will be in Buildings 2 and 5.
In The Grove Project Development Plan - Planning Objectives as submitted, in the 2nd paragraph, there is a short
discussion about the request for the number of unrelated persons who may reside in individual dwelling units. The
discussion as written does not limit the number of 4-bedroom units that could be provided, which is inconsistent
with the information on the Site Plan, and the City cannot make a determination about the potential
effects/impacts of the 4-bedroom units without knowing the total number. Also, the Planning Objectives must be
revised to further discuss the proposed additional open space, recreational areas, parking areas and public
facilities to support the 4-bedroom units.
The applicant/developer must adequately respond to and address this concern with a re -submittal of their
development plans.
Steve Olt
City's Project Planner
970-221-6341
soltCcbfcgov.com
>>> Sarah Burnett <sarahmburnett@hotmail.com> 9/3/2010 2:10:11 PM >>>
Steve,
Thank you for forwarding the information to all of the individuals who requested it at the
meeting back in July.
In the draft notes from the neighborhood meeting, there is a question that I asked that is not
accurately reflected in the notes. It appears on page 3:
"Q: I am a proponent of 4 bedroom apartments. As far as calculating density, the
number of units, not the number of bedrooms are a factor. Please look at
increasing density yet decreasing units."
In fact, I made the opposite statement. I am absolutely opposed to the city allowing a variance
to accommodate 4 bedroom apartments in The Grove. There is a city ordinance limiting
occupancy to 3 unrelated people.) do not see any reason to allow new construction that is in
violation of city code that was passed by our City Council after much community input and
Council deliberation. Further, I assume this would set a precedent for future developers.
Further, my comment on density was also misstated in the notes. I was trying to make the
point that by including 4 bedroom units, the density calculation is (appears) lower than if the
same number of "beds" were in smaller apartments that met city occupancy requirements
(because the density calculation is based on "units"). If the 48 beds contained in the proposed
twelve 4-bedroom units were instead distributed among 24 2-bedroom units, the density would
increase from 16.7 units/acre to 17.6 units/acre.
I believe inclusion of 4 bedroom units (1) should not be approved as a variance because it
1/13/2011
Page 2 of 5
Sarah,
Thank you for your input and helping correct that concern as written the night of the neighborhood meeting. I
have revised it to read:
I am an opponent of the proposed 4-bedroom apartments in The Grove development and the City possibly
allowing a variance to accommodate them. There is a City ordinance limiting occupancy to 3 unrelated people. I
do not see any reason to allow new construction that is in violation of City code that was passed by our City
Council after much community input and Council deliberation. Further, I assume this would set a precedent for
future developers.
As far as calculating density the number of units, not the number of bedrooms, are the factor. By including 4-
bedroom units the density calculation (it appears) is lower than if the same number of "beds" were in smaller
apartments that met City occupancy requirements (because the density calculation is based on "units"). If the 48
beds contained in the proposed 12 4-bedroom units were instead distributed among 24 2-bedroom units, the
density would increase from 16.7 units/acre to 17.6 units/acre.
I believe inclusion of 4-bedroom units (1) should not be approved as a variance because it does not meet City
occupancy rules; and, (2) skews the density calculation of the development to appear lower than it actually is.
I would like to note that if the developer were to change the 12 4-bedroom units to 3-bedroom units and
distribute the 12 bedrooms to convert 12 of the 2-bedroom units into 3-bedroom units, then the resulting number
of dwelling units would be 48 2-bedroom units and 176 3-bedroom units, for a total of 224 dwelling units on 13.4
acres resulting in 16.7 units/acre, the same as currently proposed.
Also, as stated in comment #93 beginning on page 1 of the staff comment letter:
Number: 93 Created: 8/5/2010
(8/5/10] The Grove, PDP is indicating that there will be 12 4-bedroom units in the project, potentially resulting in 4
unrelated persons in each unit. Section 3.8.16(E) Increasing the Occupancy Limit, Subsection 3.8.16(E)(2) of the
LUC states:
"With respect to multiple -family dwellings, the decision maker (depending on the type of review, Type 1 or Type 2)
may, upon receipt of a written request from the applicant and upon a finding that all applicable criteria of this Land
Use Code have been satisfied, increase the number of unrelated persons who may reside in individual dwelling
units. The decision maker shall not increase said number unless satisfied that the applicant has provided such
additional open space, recreational areas, parking areas and public facilities as are necessary to adequately serve
the occupants of the development and to protect the adjacent neighborhood."
Based on the information on Sheet 2 of 16 of the Site Plan, the 12 4-bedroom units will be in Buildings 2 and 5. In
The Grove Project Development Plan - Planning Objectives as submitted, in the 2nd paragraph, there is a short
discussion about the request for the number of unrelated persons who may reside in individual dwelling units. The
discussion as written does not limit the number of 4-bedroom units that could be provided, which is inconsistent
with the information on the Site Plan, and the City cannot make a determination about the potential
effects/impacts of the 4-bedroom units without knowing the total number. Also, the Planning Objectives must be
revised to further discuss the proposed additional open space, recreational areas, parking areas and public
facilities to support the 4-bedroom units.
As you can see, there is a section of the Land Use Code [Subsection 3.8.16(E)(2)] that does allow a developer to
propose increasing the number of unrelated persons who may reside in an individual dwelling unit. The developer
has certain criteria that must be satisfied before the decision maker (Planning & Zoning Board) could grant an
increased number of unrelated persons residing in a dwelling unit, as follows:
The decision maker shall not increase said number unless satisfied that the applicant has provided such
additional open space, recreational areas, parking areas and public facilities as are necessary to adequately serve
1/13/2011
Page 1 of 5
Steve Olt
From:
Steve Olt
Sent:
Thursday, January 13, 2011 11:26 AM
To:
'Sarah Burnett'
Cc:
Marc Virata; Peter Barnes; Steve Dush; Ted Shepard
Subject:
RE: The Grove, Project Development Plan
Attachments: The Grove Student Housing @ C.A.T.,07-20-10.Meeting 2 Notes 2.doc
Sarah,
I did, in fact, make your requested changes to the July 20, 2010 Neighborhood Meeting Notes shortly after I
received your message in September, 2010. Please see page 3 of the attached document. The revised meeting
notes apparently were not substituted for the "draft" notes that were originally prepared. There is now only the one
set of July 20, 2010 neighborhood meeting notes and they will be included in the Planning & Zoning Board packet
at the appropriate time.
Steve Olt
From: Sarah Burnett [mailto:sarahmburnett@hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2011 10:31 AM
To: Steve Olt
Cc: Marc Virata; Peter Barnes; Steve Dush
Subject: RE: The Grove, Project Development Plan
Steve,
I noticed that the version of the July 2010 Neighborhood Meeting Minutes that were given to P&Z and, therefore
City Council, did not have the correction to my comments regarding the 4 bedroom apartments that we had
communicated about last September. As you may recall, the draft minutes reflected my support for the 4
bedroom units, when actually, I said I strongly opposed them.
I've attached the email string between us from last fall so that you can correct the minutes (or include the email
string, as you see fit) before the July 2010 minutes are given to P&Z again.
By the way, I do apprecriate the way that you shared the draft minutes with the community; my assumption is
that the correction was not made simply because of an oversight due to the large amount of materials you are
dealing with.
Thanks for your attention to this matter.
Sarah
Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2010 15:18:44 -0600
From: SOLT@fcgov.com
CC: MVIRATA@fcgov.com; PBARNES@fcgov.com; SDush@fcgov.com
Subject: RE: The Grove, Project Development Plan
To: sarahmburnett@hotmail.com
1/13/2011