Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 11/19/2020 Jeff Hansen, Chair Virtual Hearing Michelle Haefele, Vice Chair Zoom Webinar Per Hogestad David Katz Jeff Schneider Ted Shepard Cablecast on FCTV Channel 14 & William Whitley Channel 881 on Comcast The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224- 6001) for assistance. Regular Hearing November 19, 2020 Chair Hansen called the meeting to order at 6:05 p.m. Roll Call: Haefele, Hansen, Hogestad, Katz, Schneider, Shepard, Whitley Absent: None Staff Present: Sizemore, Yatabe, Lindsay, Smith, Wray, Overton, Stephens, Claypool, Holland, Mounce, Gloss, Smith, Evans, Beals and Manno Chair Hansen provided background on the board’s role and what the audience could expect as to the order of business. He described the following procedures: • While the City staff provides comprehensive information about each project under consideration, citizen input is valued and appreciated. • The Board is here to listen to citizen comments. Each citizen may address the Board once for each item. • Decisions on development projects are based on judgment of compliance or non-compliance with city Land Use Code. • Should a citizen wish to address the Board on items other than what is on the agenda, time will be allowed for that as well. • This is a legal hearing, and the Chair will moderate for the usual civility and fairness to ensure that everyone who wishes to speak can be heard. Agenda Review Interim PTD Director Sizemore reviewed the items on the Consent and Discussion Agendas stating all items will be heard as originally advertised. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes DocuSign Envelope ID: 15CE2612-D594-4D1E-9E11-45A9718CDEC1 Planning & Zoning Board November 19, 2020 Page 2 of 12 Public Input on Items Not on the Hearing Agenda: Eric Sutherland stated the planning function in the City is functioning poorly and commented on the Site Plan Advisory Review (SPAR) process being inconsistent with the requirements of the City Charter. He stated CSU made an erroneous legal interpretation of the use of the process for the Hughes Stadium property and the City failed to correct it. Chair Hansen acknowledged Mr. Sutherland's concerns and noted the Site Plan Advisory Review process has been on the Board's radar for quite some time. Member Whitley requested staff input on the legal limitation of the SPAR process. Assistant City Attorney Yatabe replied SPAR is limited in scope and a denial of a SPAR can be overruled by the Board of Governors of Colorado State University. Vice Chair Haefele stated she would not be averse to having some time to review the Land Use Code to determine when the SPAR process is applicable then allowing the Boardmembers to make a statement on its appropriateness. Member Hogestad noted there has been a great deal of citizen comment on the SPAR review process and asked Mr. Yatabe if he has any opinion on its appropriateness in this case. Mr. Yatabe replied it is very early in the process and the conceptual review meeting was just this morning. He stated the information submitted thus far has had little detail. He stated he could not share a legal opinion in open session. Chair Hansen noted any broad changes to the SPAR review process must happen at a state level. Member Hogestad stated the Board needs to discuss the appropriateness of the use of the process in this case at some point. Vice Chair Haefele suggested the Board could receive some legal guidance at its next worksession. Chair Hansen noted the first time the Board would be able to provide input on a project and comment on the appropriateness of a process would be when a project comes before the Board. Member Shepard stated this conversation is premature and noted a great deal of the SPAR process is determined by state statute. Member Hogestad suggested the Board could discuss the process and what makes a project eligible for a SPAR review at a worksession. Sizemore stated staff has heard the conversation and will determine a strategy for the best way to try to provide the right information to the Board at the right time. Consent Agenda: 1. Draft Minutes from September 17, 2020, P&Z Hearing 2. Draft Minutes from October 15, 2020, P&Z Hearing 3. P&Z Annual Work Plan 4. Precision Technology 5. Three-Mile Plan 2020 Update Public Input on Consent Agenda: Member Whitley made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board approve the Consent agenda for the November 19, 2020 Planning and Zoning Board hearing as originally advertised. Member Katz seconded the motion. Vote: 7:0. DocuSign Envelope ID: 15CE2612-D594-4D1E-9E11-45A9718CDEC1 Planning & Zoning Board November 19, 2020 Page 3 of 12 Member Shepard complimented the applicant, consulting team and staff on the Precision project. Discussion Agenda: 6. Maverik Project Description: This is a request for a Project Development Plan (PDP) to build a 6,132 square foot convenience store with fuel sales at the northwest corner of I-25 and Highway 392. Recommendation: Approval Secretary Manno reported on the submission of an updated architectural plan set that includes a rendering of the proposed project as viewed from the I-25 off-ramp and details of the rooftop equipment in addition to the previously included architectural elevations, building floorplan, and materials with color palette. In addition, a proposed landscape plan for the project was submitted. Member Shepard disclosed he is familiar with this site as well as with the existing Maverik on Mulberry. Staff and Applicant Presentations Will Lindsay, Associate City Planner, noted this presentation has been updated to address questions raised at last Friday's worksession. He discussed the 2.8-acre property and showed images of the site, which was annexed in 2017, and is in the General Commercial (CG) zone district. The proposed project is a 6,132 square foot convenience store with fuel sales and two modifications of standard are being requested. Lindsay outlined the proposed modifications: one to the 80-foot landscape buffer standard for properties abutting the I-25 right-of-way and one to the interior parking lot landscaping standard. He also noted the provision of an attached sidewalk in lieu of a detached public sidewalk, which would have required an engineering variance, was also a significant component of the plan. Cassie Younger, Maverik, discussed the company's response to COVID-19 in terms of it providing paid leave for any employee who gets sick from COVID or who must take leave to care for a COVID individual. Additionally, hourly pay has been increased for employees who cannot work from home, pre-work health checks have been instituted, and sanitation efforts have been increased. Ms. Younger discussed the proposed site plan noting the site is 20-30 feet lower than the highway and a bioswale surrounds the property which necessitated the attached sidewalk. She discussed the proposed modifications of standard and stated no additional evergreen trees can be added to the landscape plan due to the number of required trees and shrubs that must be located in the smaller area around the building. She stated they would be willing to change out some deciduous trees for evergreen trees if necessary; however, her teams feels the slope and landscaping provided is adequate. Ms. Younger discussed the rooftop equipment and noted it would be difficult to see unless viewed from directly above the store. She showed a photo of the existing Maverik store on the Mulberry frontage road and stated architecture and design standards have changed since then. She showed illustrations of standard elevations noting the proposed Fort Collins store is quite different and includes additional fenestration and cultured stone and fiberboard has been substituted with brick. The color palette has also been modified to be more muted and earth- toned. Staff Analysis Lindsay discussed staff's analysis of the modification requests. The first relates to the standard for site perimeter landscaping abutting the I-25 right-of-way which requires an 80-foot landscaped buffer between the parking lot edge and the I-25 right-of-way. The applicant is proposing an alternate 16.5-foot landscaped buffer yard with fewer trees and shrubs than what is required. Lindsay discussed the visibility of the site from the I-25 right-of-way, which is important to understand when considering this modification. He noted there is limited visibility of the site from the interstate itself. DocuSign Envelope ID: 15CE2612-D594-4D1E-9E11-45A9718CDEC1 Planning & Zoning Board November 19, 2020 Page 4 of 12 Lindsay noted the applicant team has stated it feels the proposed modification is as good or better than a complying plan stating the reduced buffer makes the required number of shrubs infeasible and the reliance on trees over shrubs provides for superior longer-term screening and appearance at this activity center. The applicant has also stated the modification is adequate given unusual and practical difficulties in developing the site. The second modification request relates to a parking lot interior landscaping standard that requires that parking bays extend no more than 15 parking spaces without intervening tree, landscaped island, or peninsula. Lindsay stated the applicant is proposing a tree location 5 feet and 7 inches directly behind the edge of the proposed flush curb line and directly behind where the area would be required by Code in lieu of a landscaped island or peninsula. The applicant states this option is still provides adequate shade and is functionally better due to the tree grate being on the walkway and it removes a potential vertical curb conflict next to the handicap parking provided at the front of the building. Lindsay stated staff found this modification was nominal and inconsequential when considered from the perspective of the entire plan and does not detract from the intent of the Land Use Code section. Lindsay reviewed other applicable standards and stated staff finds the proposal meets the landscaping, access, circulation and parking, trash and recycling enclosure, building standards, and contextual requirements outlined in the Land Use Code. Lindsay noted the question was brought up regarding how this project compares to other Maverik locations and he discussed the differences between the existing Maverik in Fort Collins, other standard Maverik's in Colorado, and the proposed plan in terms of building materials, color palette, and fuel canopy. Lindsay discussed the traffic impact study submitted with the plan and stated staff found the plan complies with level of service requirements in the city. He went on to discuss building design standards which are met by the proposed plan. He concluded by stating staff finds the PDP is consistent with the policies and guidance of the adopted plans, the Northern Colorado I-25 Corridor Plan, and the I-25 Subarea Plan. Additionally, staff finds the modifications of standard meet the application requirements and would not be detrimental to the public good. Staff recommends approval of the PDP with the modifications of standard. Member Shepard asked about cross-hatching on one of Lindsay's slides. Lindsay replied that is designated as a loading zone. Member Katz requested clarification regarding the need for the modification related to the internal parking landscaped peninsula. Ms. Younger replied there is no curb between the parking area and the store entrance; therefore, adding a landscaped island in the middle of a row of parking creates a trip hazard, particularly when it is near an ADA parking stall. She stated there is adequate landscaping on the edges of the parking lot. Public Input (3 minutes per person) None. Board Questions / Deliberation Member Shepard asked if the brick is located between the cultured stone and the roof line on all four sides of the building. Lindsay replied in the affirmative. Member Hogestad asked when the existing trees were planted. Lindsay replied they were planted in 2017 and they are currently irrigated and cared for by the City. There are three trees which straddle the property line and care for those will be handed over to the applicant. Member Hogestad asked if the new trees will be irrigated. Lindsay replied in the affirmative. Member Hogestad asked what the minimum required caliper of the new trees will be. Lindsay replied a 1.5-inch caliper is required for ornamental trees and a 2-inch caliper is required for other deciduous trees. Member Hogestad asked about the prairie dogs on the site. Ms. Younger replied they will be ethically euthanized and a payment in lieu will be made. DocuSign Envelope ID: 15CE2612-D594-4D1E-9E11-45A9718CDEC1 Planning & Zoning Board November 19, 2020 Page 5 of 12 Member Hogestad asked about the horizontal distance from I-25 to the existing trees. Ms. Younger replied it is between 108 and 137 feet. Member Hogestad asked if the applicant has researched moving the prairie dogs. Ms. Younger replied in the affirmative but noted it is cost prohibitive. Member Katz stated there is a local prairie dog coalition that has worked on relocation projects. He asked if the applicant explored getting permission from CDOT to plant ornamental shrubs in the sloping buffer from an aesthetic standpoint. Ms. Younger replied that was not explored. Member Katz stated it could help with the overall feel of the site and encouraged the applicant to research that with CDOT. Ms. Younger stated they could look into that and noted the drainage would need to be considered. Member Shepard asked about the effective width of the attached sidewalk given the tree grates. Manny Nuno, DCI Engineers, replied the sidewalk is seven feet wide including the tree grates and there is at least 36 inches between the tree grates and the back of the sidewalk for ADA compliance. Member Sheparad asked about the dimensions of the tree grates. Shelly LaMastra, landscape architect, replied the are four feet by four feet and were designed with input from Forestry. Member Shepard asked about the dimensions of the mansards that will be screening the rooftop equipment. Ms. Younger replied they are five feet long and five feet tall. Member Shepard asked if the roof deck is sunken. Ms. Younger replied in the affirmative and showed renderings to illustrate the roof and its design. Member Shepard asked about the driveway width. Spencer Smith, Engineering, replied there was no discussion about varying the driveway width, but noted the Final Development Plan review will ensure its compliance with standards. Member Shepard asked if fuel tankers have enough turning radius on the site. Ms. Younger replied in the affirmative. Member Shepard asked if the rear fueling area is viewable from the clerk and, if not, how it will be managed. Ms. Younger replied she would need to check with operations, but noted most transactions are done by credit card and there are multiple security cameras around the building roof. Member Shepard asked if the rear fueling area is meant to be only for truckers. Ms. Younger replied the fueling area is designed for trucks as it is high-flow diesel. Member Shepard encouraged the applicant team to disperse the evergreen trees a bit more around the site to help mitigate the hard surfaces. Ms. Younger stated some planned deciduous trees could be swapped out for evergreen trees. Smith clarified the tree grates are actually four feet by six feet and the drive width is 36 feet, which would meet the engineering standard. Chair Hansen stated this is an expected and appropriate use for the site and the applicant team has done a good job of mitigating negative impacts. Member Katz noted this site is not an easy one for development and he commended the applicant team and planning staff on their work. Member Katz made a motion, seconded by Vice Chair Haefele, that the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board approve the modification of standard to Land Use Code Section 3.9.4(B)(1) regarding the reduction of the buffer yard from 80 feet to 16.5 feet between the eastern parking lot edge and the I-25 right-of-way, based upon the agenda materials, the information and materials presented during the worksession and this hearing, and the Board discussion on this item. DocuSign Envelope ID: 15CE2612-D594-4D1E-9E11-45A9718CDEC1 Planning & Zoning Board November 19, 2020 Page 6 of 12 Member Shepard stated he would support the motion and noted the modification is appropriate due to the exceptional physical conditions of the site and is not detrimental to the public good. Member Katz and Vice Chair Haefele accepted that information as a friendly amendment to the motion. Vote: 7:0. Member Schneider made a motion, seconded by Member Katz, that the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board approve the modification of standard to Land Use Code Section 3.21(E)(5)(e) based on the proposed project development plan, it meets the applicable requirements for Section 2.8.2(H)(1)(4), and granting the modification of standard will not be detrimental to the public good, based upon the agenda materials, the information and materials presented during the worksession and this hearing, and on the conclusion of the staff report. Member Shepard suggested it would be more accurate to suggest the modification complies with Section 2.8.2(H)(1) and (H)(4). Members Schneider and Katz accepted the language as a friendly amendment. Vote: 7:0. Member Katz made a motion, seconded by Vice Chair Haefele, that the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board approve the Maverik PDP 20001, based on the agenda materials, the information and materials presented during the worksession and this hearing, and the Board discussion on this item. Member Schneider noted the motion should be based on the findings of fact and the conclusions made the staff report. Member Katz and Vice Chair Haefele accepted the amendment as friendly. Member Whitley requested a friendly amendment to encourage the applicant to make a good faith effort to rehome the prairie dog population before euthanizing it. Member Katz agreed from an ethical standpoint but did not accept the amendment as friendly. Member Whitley stated he could not support the motion without that amendment. Member Shepard stated the prairie dog plan is in compliance with Section 3.4.1 of the Land Use Code as described in the staff report. Member Hogestad stated he would not support the motion without some mention of the team making some effort to rehome the prairie dogs as it is not only ethically correct, it is a matter of good will. Assistant City Attorney Yatabe noted a formal motion to amend could be put forth and voted upon rather than a friendly amendment being put forth. Member Whitley made a motion to amend the motion to request a good faith effort to rehome the prairie dogs before the development moves forward. He stated he believes a condition of approval is appropriate; however, he is struggling with a way to word the motion, so it is indicative of a good faith effort rather than a requirement. Member Katz agreed from an ethical standpoint but stated he would prefer the motion to stand as is. Member Shepard suggested the possibility of going through with the existing motion and then addressing the applicant about a good faith effort. Member Hogestad noted there is an existing prairie dog mitigation plan and suggested Member Whitley is requesting the applicant make a good faith effort to relocate the prairie dogs before enacting that plan, which could be a motion. Member Whitley agreed that is his request. Member Whitley withdrew his motion. DocuSign Envelope ID: 15CE2612-D594-4D1E-9E11-45A9718CDEC1 Planning & Zoning Board November 19, 2020 Page 7 of 12 Member Hogestad made a motion, seconded by Member Whitley, to amend the existing motion to include a requirement that a good faith effort be made to relocate the prairie dogs as an addition to the mitigation plan. Vice Chair Haefele expressed support for the amendment. Member Katz suggested adding a condition that the applicant contact the local prairie dog coalition to explore options and the contact could be documented through email. Member Whitley accepted that language and Member Hogestad accepted the language as long as the communication seeks alternative solutions. Members Hogestad and Whitley withdrew the motion to amend and supported the language as proposed by Member Katz. Member Katz suggested a friendly amendment to the original motion to add a condition of approval that the applicant contact the local prairie dog coalition to explore alternatives to euthanizing the prairie dogs on the site. The communication must be documented and presented to Planning staff at or before the Final Development Plan review. Vice Chair Haefele accepted the language as a friendly amendment. Member Schneider stated he does not see that the amendment improves anything. Member Shepard stated Fort Collins has struggled with the prairie dog issue for decades and there is no elegant solution. He noted there is no place to rehome prairie dogs and they frequently end up at the raptor center. He stated this issue is why Section 3.4.1 is written the way it is. Member Whitley reiterated his original intent that a good faith effort be made. Member Shepard reiterated his former point that a better way to communicate this desire would be in a post-vote conversation as there is no Code requirement for such a condition. Vote: 7:0. Member Whitley requested the applicant find a way to at least attempt to rehome the prairie dogs before euthanizing them, not based on Land Use Code standards, but based on being good neighbors and ethical stewards. Ms. Younger stated she is happy to put forth an effort to rehome the prairie dogs and requested anyone with information about an organization contact her. (**Secretary's Note: The Board took a brief recess at this point in the meeting.) Secretary Manno took roll call to ensure all Members were present given the hybrid meeting format. 7. H-25 Multi-Family Project Description: This is a request for consideration of a Project Development Plan (PDP) for the construction of 304 apartments and an amenity center across 12 buildings on a 15.7-acre site. The site is at the southeast corner of the intersection of Harmony Road and Strauss Cabin Road in the Harmony Corridor (HC) zone district. Recommendation: Approval Secretary Manno reported staff has received an inquiry regarding escrow funds from Boardmember Katz, a traffic memo response from Delich Associates and the Traffic Department regarding that inquiry, and a letter from Carolynne White, legal counsel for the applicant, since the worksession. Member Shepard stated he was contacted by a member of the ownership group who explained the architectural team will be making a presentation that will reveal the difference between the proposed project and the Wyatt DocuSign Envelope ID: 15CE2612-D594-4D1E-9E11-45A9718CDEC1 Planning & Zoning Board November 19, 2020 Page 8 of 12 project. He stated he responded that he would not discuss the project over the phone and the conversation quickly ended. He stated he would be able to remain unbiased and fair in reviewing the project. Member Katz disclosed he has a piece of development land listed for sale near this project and its development will also be required to contribute to intersection improvements at Kechter Road and Strauss Cabin Road. He stated he would be able to remain unbiased in review in the project. Chair Hansen disclosed the architectural design firm that worked on the project is his employer and he recused himself from the discussion of the item. Staff and Applicant Presentations Megan Overton, Senior City Planner, reviewed the proposed project and its location on 15.7 acres zoned Harmony Corridor (HC). She noted the project is part of an Overall Development Plan (ODP) and stated the proposal is for 304 multi-family apartments across eleven three-story buildings and one two-story building, a one-story clubhouse and pool amenity, and two one-story garage buildings. She stated the net density of the project would be 27.9 dwelling units per acre. Overton noted the site includes a 104,000 square foot natural habitat buffer zone and the applicants are requesting one modification of standard to Land Use Code Section 3.5.2(D)(1)(b), which relates to orientation to a connecting walkway. This modification would allow one of the buildings to be located more than 350 feet away from a street sidewalk. Jacob Steele, Terra Development Group, introduced his presenting team: Ryan McBreen, Norris Design, Chris Aronson, VFLA, and Carolynne White, land use counsel. He commented on the need for additional housing in Fort Collins and on the design of the project. Ms. White noted the standards in the 2006 version of the Harmony Corridor Plan will apply to this project as this application predates the effective date of the recently adopted amendment to that Plan. She noted the property has relatively low habitat value in terms of the types of existing vegetation and its ability to be used by wildlife. Additionally, there are significant floodplain issues in this vicinity and floodplain remapping will be required. Mr. McBreen discussed the overall layout of the plan and detailed the proposed network of street-like private drives. Mr. Aronson discussed the variety of building types proposed and further detailed the proposed site plan. He discussed the integration of the architectural elevations into the landscape and detailed proposed materials and color palettes. He thanked staff for their availability and responsiveness. Mr. McBreen noted this development is in accordance with all applicable standards and plans and noted the landscaping plan meets and exceeds applicable standards. He stated the one modification request meets three of the four necessary requirements for the granting of a modification. He went on to detail the proposed modification and stated the mitigation proposed more than adequately meets the intent of the Code. Staff Analysis Overton discussed the alignment of the proposal with relevant adopted City plans and policies and stated, overall, staff finds the proposal aligns with the direction contained in City Plan and the Harmony Corridor Plan. She noted the ODP does meet the overall 25% maximum residential requirement that is part of the Plan. Overton discussed the development history of the site. Overton stated staff finds the site plan complies and meets applicable standards related to traffic, parking, and landscaping. She discussed the plans for revegetating and restoring the natural habitat buffer zone and noted those mitigation efforts exceed Land Use Code requirements. She discussed other ways in which the proposal meets design and site requirements. Regarding the requested modification to the standard for orientation to a connected walkway, Overton stated staff found the request meets the standards in Section 2.8.2(H) in multiple ways and would not be detrimental to the public good. Additionally, the modification was found to be justified in that it would address a community need, DocuSign Envelope ID: 15CE2612-D594-4D1E-9E11-45A9718CDEC1 Planning & Zoning Board November 19, 2020 Page 9 of 12 which is the reconstruction of the Harmony Road frontage in accordance with the Harmony Corridor standards and guidelines. She discussed necessary easements on the property which preclude development activity in those areas. Overton concluded by stating staff recommends approval of the PDP for H-25 Multi-Family. Member Shepard asked about the width of the major walkway spine. Overton replied the requirement is for a 35- foot landscaped area with a minimum 5-foot walkway; however, a 6-foot walkway has been proposed. Member Shepard asked if the CLOMR/LOMR (conditional letter of map revision/letter of map revision) process will be an exercise that brings the project out of the floodplain or if physical dirt will be moved. Vice Chair Haefele also requested input regarding what is meant by an area being grandfathered out of a floodplain. Dan Evans, Utilities, replied this is a complicated area as it was previously in the County and their standards allow LOMR fills in the flood fringe, which is not allowed by the City. The City is requiring the applicant to go through an actual LOMR process for the entire site. Member Shepard asked if there will be any other physical disturbance of the land as a result of this project. Evans replied the site is now elevated out of the flood fringe and is completely out of the floodplain, which allows for the construction of a residential project. Member Shepard asked if the developer would be prohibited from planting any new trees in a floodway. Evans replied he did not believe the developer requested an addition of trees in that area. Member Shepard asked if this project will be marketed to college students. Mr. Steele replied this project will not necessarily be marketed to students. Member Shepard asked if a tot lot will be an included amenity. Mr. Steele replied there is not one on the current plans. Member Shepard asked if there will be a connection out to Strauss Cabin at the emergency access lane. Overton replied in the affirmative. Public Input (3 minutes per person) None. Board Questions / Deliberation Member Hogestad asked about the parking on the street-like private drives. Overton replied the Code allows for either angled or parallel parking. Member Hogestad asked about the width of the drive aisle and its comparison to a regular city street. Mr. McBreen replied the two-way drive aisle is 26-feet wide. Spencer Smith, Engineering, replied a typical residential street cross-section would be 30 feet which includes parallel parking. Member Shepard suggested it would be 36 feet; however, he noted it is difficult to make comparisons with diagonal parking. Mr. McBreen noted the drive aisle widths have been approved by both Engineering and Poudre Fire Authority. Member Schneider expressed concern about the lack of variation in architecture between the building types. Mr. Aronson replied the goal was to create a cohesive design through the community and he detailed the articulation of the various buildings. Member Schneider stated the materials seem to change; however, the architectural features seem repetitive. Mr. Aronson disagreed and showed renderings providing additional details. DocuSign Envelope ID: 15CE2612-D594-4D1E-9E11-45A9718CDEC1 Planning & Zoning Board November 19, 2020 Page 10 of 12 Member Hogestad agreed with Member Schneider's concerns stating the pilaster element keeps repeating itself. Mr. Aronson commented on the balance between creating a cohesive community and providing a variety of architecture. Member Katz agreed with Member Schneider's comments but also acknowledged there is a balance to be had between consistency and variety. Member Shepard asked about the different between a portal and an entry and asked how they contribute to the project's variety. Mr. Aronson replied portals are larger elements whereas entry elements are more at a pedestrian scale. Member Hogestad noted there are many ways that would make a project cohesive other than repetition of elements. He commented on the need for clear pathways from buildings to amenities. Member Shepard echoed the need for appropriate pedestrian navigation throughout the site and suggested the use of a raised or enhanced sidewalk at the intersection of the two street-like private drives may assist with that. Mr. McBreen replied his team would be happy to look at that possibility. Member Shepard complimented the team on the design of the street-like private drives. Member Schneider expressed concern the massing and scaling is very repetitious. Mr. Aronson replied his team collaborated with staff and the fire department on providing sufficient fire access to the building roofs and the majority of eave heights are at less than 30 feet for that reason. He commented on the architectural differences between the buildings that front Harmony and those that do not. He stated the repetition provides proper shade and shadow and commented on the façade articulation. Member Hogestad stated there seems to be an overuse of vertical pilasters and commented on the use of materials as being a strong, powerful way to tie buildings together. Mr. Aronson discussed the possibility of creating deeper roof overhangs. Member Shepard agreed with Members Schneider and Hogestad and asked if the roof pitch could be steepened to create variation. Mr. Aronson replied in the affirmative. Member Shepard stated the project would benefit from each building having a unique entry feature. Mr. Aronson replied those options could be considered to add variety. Member Hogestad complemented the design of the clubhouse. Mr. McBreen concurred with Member Shepard's comments about creating social gathering areas and other elements to differentiate entries. Member Shepard expressed support for the requested modification of standard noting the easement language does not allow for walkways. Member Shepard made a motion, seconded by Member Schneider, that the Planning and Zoning Board approve the request for the modification to Standard 3.5.2(D)(1)(b) stating the request is not detrimental to the public good and is warranted by reason of exceptional physical conditions or other extraordinary exceptional situations as supported by the staff report and attachments and based on the findings of fact, the evidence in the staff report, and public testimony provided to the Board. Vote: 7:0. Member Shepard suggested the Board may want to consider a condition of approval related to Section 3.8.30(F)(2) which speaks to variation, entry features, and roof lines. DocuSign Envelope ID: 15CE2612-D594-4D1E-9E11-45A9718CDEC1 Planning & Zoning Board November 19, 2020 Page 11 of 12 Assistant City Attorney Yatabe noted the Board must consider whether the project meets that standard or not; however, it does have the ability to continue the matter to provide the opportunity for the applicant to make some modifications to the application in terms of building variation. Member Shepard stated it might be less vague for the Board to consider the standard as not having been met. Member Schneider agreed and stated the application meets some, but not all of the requirements of the standard. Member Hogestad also agreed. Yatabe outlined the Board's options. Member Shepard stated his inclination would be to approve the project with a condition that includes language related to roof pitch, entrances, and materials. Member Katz stated he is inclined to continue the item. Member Schneider requested staff input regarding the options. Overton replied she would be able to work with the applicant team to develop a reasonable solution that does meet the standard if the Board were to condition the approval. Mr. Steele stated his team is happy to work with staff and is confident it can make alterations to the architecture to better meet the standard. Vice Chair Haefele stated she would prefer to continue the item to allow the Board the opportunity to see the changes. Member Hogestad agreed. The Board and staff discussed options for a hearing date to which the item could be considered. Member Schneider asked if the January hearing would be amenable for the applicant team. Mr. Steele replied in the affirmative. Member Schneider made a motion, seconded by Member Shepard, that the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board continue the H-25 Multi-Family Project Development Plan PDP200004 to January 21st, 2021 to consider the ways in which the applicant made modifications for the project to be more in compliance with Section 3.8.3(F)(2). Vote: 7:0. Other Business Member Shepard discussed a newspaper article indicating Loaf n' Jug will be purchasing all Schrader Country Stores in the community and noted that will likely result in a number of reimaging amendments. He requested a future staff memo or discussion around the plan for those requests. Vice Chair Haefele asked if these amendments would come before the Board. Member Shepard replied they are typically minor amendments as they do not result in a change of character; however, he suggested the Board may be able to provide some informal direction in a conversation with staff. He noted there are procedures that would allow staff to refer minor amendments to the Board. Chair Hansen noted CSU has opted to move back its spring break this year and the new date happens to coincide with the Board's regularly scheduled April hearing. Sizemore stated the only April Thursday that would work to reschedule the meeting is April 1st; however, he noted the March meeting date has also been moved up to March 11th. Members discussed various considerations around moving the meeting dates and generally agreed April 1st will work. DocuSign Envelope ID: 15CE2612-D594-4D1E-9E11-45A9718CDEC1 Planning & Zoning Board November 19, 2020 Page 12 of 12 Adjournment Chair Hansen moved to adjourn the P&Z Board hearing. The meeting was adjourned at 11:08 p.m. For more complete details on this hearing, please view our video recording located here: https://www.fcgov.com/fctv/video-archive.php?search=PLANNING%20ZONING Minutes respectfully submitted by Shar Manno. Minutes approved by a vote of the Board on: December 17, 2020. Paul Sizemore, Interim CDNS Director Jeff Hansen, Chair DocuSign Envelope ID: 15CE2612-D594-4D1E-9E11-45A9718CDEC1