Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 03/11/2021 Michelle Haefele, Chair Virtual Hearing Ted Shepard, Vice Chair City Council Chambers Jeff Hansen 300 Laporte Avenue Per Hogestad Fort Collins, Colorado David Katz Jeff Schneider Cablecast on FCTV Channel 14 on Connexion & William Whitley Channels 14 & 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 March 11, 2021 Chair Haefele called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Roll Call: Haefele, Hansen, Hogestad, Katz, Schneider, Shepard, Whitley Absent: None Staff Present: Everette, Sizemore, Yatabe, Stephens, Claypool, Vonkoepping, Betley, Smith, Hahn, Wray, Smith, Mapes, Saha, Virata and Manno Chair Hefele provided background on the board’s role and what the audience could expect as to the order of business. She 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 CDNS Interim Director Sizemore reviewed the items on the Consent and Discussion agendas, stating that all items will be heard as originally advertised. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes Planning & Zoning Board March 11, 2021 Page 2 of 10 Public Input on Items Not on the Hearing Agenda: None noted. Consent Agenda: 1. Draft Minutes from January 21, 2021, P&Z Hearing 2. Draft Minutes from February 18, 2021, P&Z Hearing 3. East Parks District Maintenance Facility MJA and APU Public Input on Consent Agenda: None noted Chair Haefele did a final review of the items that are on consent and reiterated that those items will not have a separate presentation unless pulled from the consent agenda. Member Whitley made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board approve the Consent agenda which consists of the Draft Minutes of the P&Z January 21st hearing, the Draft Minutes from the February 18th hearing, and the East Parks District Maintenance Facility MJA and APU 200003. This approval is based on the agenda materials and information presented during the work session, this hearing and discussion. It also includes information, analysis, finding of fact and conclusion found in the staff report, including the agenda materials of the hearing that are adopted by this board. Member Katz seconded the motion. Vote: 7:0. Discussion Agenda: 4. Guardian Self-Storage Project Description: This is a request for a Project Development Plan (PDP) to develop a four-story 119,300 sq. ft. enclosed mini-storage facility of 2.2 acres. The project is located within the General Commercial (C-G) zone district and requires a Type 2 review. Recommendation: Approval Secretary Manno reported that the following citizen emails, letters, and voicemails were received: o Email from Ben Thurston on behalf of Bruce Odette, Owner of Carpet Exchange, voicing opposition to the project due to several impacts on the property at 5000 S College Ave. o Email from Jamie Alexander voicing some concerns about the height and color of the buildings for the project. o Letter from John Dubler at Good Shepard Chapel expressing concern about the project as it will be casting shadow on their parking lot and the ice issues this will create in the winter. o Email from Karen Rose voicing opposition to the project on behalf of Fossil Creek Meadows neighborhood with six listed points of reason. o Voicemail from Jamie Alexander reiterating her concerns of the height and color of the buildings for the project. o Voicemail from Sandra Holt expressing opposition to the project because of the large size of the building and issues with drainage. Board Disclosures: Member Schneider disclosed that he knows the owner of Carpet Exchange and that he did a project for Karen Rose in that neighborhood. He does not feel that there is an issue and that he can be unbiased in decision making. Planning & Zoning Board March 11, 2021 Page 3 of 10 Member Hogestad disclosed that he has a casual acquaintance that lives in the neighborhood. He does not feel this will cause any reason to vote one way or the other. Vice Chair Shepard disclosed that he has a casual acquaintance that lives in the area and he does not feel it will cause any bias on his part in evaluating the project. Chair Haefele disclosed that she has acquaintances in the neighborhood and believes she can be unbiased. Staff and Applicant Presentations Planner Wray gave a brief verbal/visual overview of this project. Ken Merritt with JR Planners and Engineers, Kevin Cohen, development partner with Guardian Storage and Jeff Michelson of Desmone Architects also provided a presentation to the board. Public Input (3 minutes per person) Ben Thurston, AICP, Planning Director of Baseline Engineering in Golden. He is representing Bruce Odette, owner of Carpet Exchange. On Mr. Odette’s behalf, Ben is speaking in opposition of the proposed PDP. He feels there are flaws and it goes against the South College Corridor Plan and the Land Use Code. Karen, resident of Fossil Creek. The Board signed off on the easement for the pipeline and it was against comments made by the HOA’s attorney. She does not feel the covenants were followed. She is also concerned with the seepage from flooding and access to homes. She objects to the large swaths of blue. Jesse Solomon, resident of Fossil Creek. He is concerned with the water issues. He feels there is ground water that will need to be addressed. Martin Scott, resident of Fossil Creek. He is concerned with the blue banding of the building and is asking that it not go around the East side of the building. He is also concerned with the security lighting at night and increased commercial traffic. Bruce Odette, President of Carpet Exchange, and owner of the commercial shopping center. He opposes this PDP because it does not conform to the South College Corridor Plan or the Fort Collins Land Use Code. He feels it will result in negative impacts to his property and business. Rich Stave, resident of Fossil Creek. Planning commentary and the word Eclectic. This word should be used for the entire College corridor. He feels this is a denigration overall to define certain locations within the corridor. Issues he has with the project are, what exactly does landscape planning mean regarding the trees? Is the bule on the building doors or panels associated with the building and branding? And where is the starting elevation of the building? Another issue he has is the setbacks, it cuts back to the closest so far. Shannon, resident of Fossil Creek. He has issues with the easement and will be contacting an attorney. With the stormwater, many businesses have left due to mismanagement of the stormwater by the City. He feels that no one wants to help the residents with the water issues. Another issue is the 100-year floodplain. Staff Response Civil Engineer Simpson responded specifically in relation to the site. This site has been designed to meet the City of Fort Collins standards for onsite water quality and conveyance of the water to Fossil Creek. The easement: this property drains to the South East corner and has an existing 45” elliptical culvert that conveys stormwater from this property to Fossil Creek Parkway. This culvert was designed 30 years ago. The current applicant has updated the hydraulidations flow rates and the capacity of the culvert to show that is now appears to be undersized. They are proposing in combination with their approach on this development to upsize this culvert to include a second complete barrel all of the way across and underneath Fossil Creek Parkway to Fossil Creek. This will effectively double the capacity of stormwater that can be conveyed from this site to Fossil Creek. The culvert when, it crosses under Fossil Creek Parkway, then proceeds to Fossil Creek, this piece of property is owned by the Fossil Creek Planning & Zoning Board March 11, 2021 Page 4 of 10 Meadows HOA. They have obtained a permanent drainage easement and temporary construction easement from the Fossil Creek HOA Board which was recorded on December 1, 2020 with Larimer County. This is for the construction of an additional stormwater pipe. City Attorney Yatabe responded that he has seen the recorded document, because something is recorded, does not necessarily mean that it has been executed with the proper authorization. He does not know the background on the covenants, or the process the HOA Board went through. At the PDP level, what is required is a letter of intent showing that an easement is in the works or something that at final plan would need to be executed at that time. This is an issue at final plan for staff to deal with. The Fossil Ridge Drive bridge over Fossil Creek. Fossil Creek is a regulated floodplain, and the regulated floodplain overtops this road. The current crossing is a 5-year or a 10-year crossing that is on the City’s CIP plan for improvements to become a much larger crossing. This development is proposing to do a beat-the-peak. This is where they do not provide an on-site stormwater detention from major stormwater flows, by doing a watershed analysis, insert the development and show that there are no adverse impacts downstream, and do a 100-year flow rate. By doing this they do not have to do retention. The City does not see that this site creates any additional issues to the existing crossing at Fossil Ridge Drive. Planner Wray commented that staff’s recommendation is to remove the blue banding and have a more compatible palette of colors. This responds to citizen concerns. It is up to the Board if they agree or want to change the condition of approval. Member Schneider, there is not a percentage, surface area or anything else in the Land Use Code that says you can or cannot do xx colors or bright colors, this is where the gray areas come in. What is the appropriate balance? Planner Wray stated that this comment is correct, it does not give a perimeter and is subjective. Member Schneider; is there a standard or normalcy of a percentage? Planner Wray responded that staff reviews each project individually given the context. In this context, while the blue color might not be as much of a concern for existing commercial development, it is more that we have heard from the neighborhood concerns of what they will be looking at and having it more blend in. This is the reason for the condition. Member Schneider, I am trying to understand if you are trying to tie into the blue banding on the North? Can the blue band not go to the East? This condition would remove the blue banding on all facades of the building except for the two sign areas and the doors. Member Schneider asked if there was a way to modify the security lighting plan? Planner Wray responded that shifting of the streetlight will be looked at. Staff will also look at the lighting levels attached to the building and parking lot area. Member Schneider asked if the applicants are willing to comply with the newly adopted lighting code standards even though this project would not have to because of when it was applied for? Mr. Cohen is familiar with the lighting section for the current Land Use Code and that is what it was designed to. He feels it is difficult to say whether they would approve the new lighting code. Mr. Merritt responded that if they could work with the department to move the streetlight to a new location this would not be an issue. He has not had an opportunity to analyze how the new standards would change the lighting levels on this site. What is important to recognize is one of things that the company sells is safety for their clients, the ability to come to a site and feel safe and secure. Site lighting is part of that requirement for providing safety both for the clients and their possessions kept within the building. Mr. Merritt commented that they worked very closely with the HOA and with the designated stormwater individuals. They met onsite two separate occasions and worked with them closely with the development of the easements. Whether or not the HOA went through the proper procedures, this is something where legal determination has to be made. The easements were acquired, signed, and recorded with the County. The recording was completed in advance as we felt that this project hinged entirely on the ability to acquire these easements so that the pipe size could be increased to the creek. Member Katz asked, under what criteria are you asking for the condition on the blue strip? And based on a comment by Ben Thurston, his opinion about storage along College Ave. not complying with the South College Sub Area Plan, please provide clarification. Planner Wray responded that the blue banding is not considered an earth tone palette and felt that it is also was not an accent color for the doors. There are not any set criteria for this, and we were responding to continued public input on compatibility of the building colors overall. As for the South Corridor College Ave. Plan, staff is aware of all of the policies in the plan and that staff is consistent with the direction of the plan. That policy speaks to limiting less intense uses along the corridor and staff looks at how the plan is implemented. The plan relies on the general commercial zone district standards and TOD, the overlay to implement the South College Plan. This building in use satisfies the requirements of the code with the modification Planning & Zoning Board March 11, 2021 Page 5 of 10 and the findings determined that this location is not conducive to more intense mixed -use buildings brought to the street, ground level to support a high level of pedestrian activity and an active street front. This is why staff is supporting this modification to the code requirement. It has been identified that there is a need to fix the code. Planning Manager Everette responded to the color and the banding. The code section being referenced is section 3.10.5 Transit Oriented Development Overlay Zones Standards. In this section there is a subsection that deals with materials and colors that states “predominate or field colors for facade shall be low reflectants, subtle, neutral or earth tone colors. The use of high-intensity colors, black or fluorescent colors shall be prohibited”. Member Katz asked Planner Wray if the use strictly violates the Sub-Area Plan. Planner Wray responded that he did not believe so. There is no storage access on the College frontage. Staff feels it is consistent with the policy direction and the code provisions for what happens at the ground level on the College frontage. Member Hansen asked if the landscape trees were included in the shading study, specifically on the east side of the building, limiting solar access to those lots? Is this considered in the code at all? Planner Wray responded that shading of trees is part of that. The applicant does have an updated shading analysis and diagram. A couple of different things were looked at on the east side such as, tree mitigation and screening. This can be looked at during final plan review. Another concern is how this project is going to affect the surface water and not being able to regulate. Mr. Simpson responded that the City touches the ground water, underneath stormwater facilities, within right-of-way and basement foundations. Mr. Merritt responded that the plan in place will offer benefit over time. The underdrain system will also lower the ground water and provide protection for the utilities and roadway. Mr. Merritt responded to the tree shading. He commented that tree shade does not factor into the shade and shadow analysis. Properties within the TOD district is not subject to the shade and shadow requirements. Chair Hafele aske how does the code address a case where the property is in the TOD, therefore not required to perform a shade study, where the property will likely have an impact on adjacent properties that are not in the TOD? Planner Wray responded that the intent of the shading exemption is that City Plan encourages taller buildings within the TOD overlay in closer proximity to each other and the impacts of shading as not considered with the encouragement of taller buildings. Impacts of adjacent buildings is exempt. Member Hansen asked if the stormwater was a regional entry point for Fossil Creek and how much area is contributing to this? Mr. Cohen responded that there are 57 acres that drain to this site. This area has not been well studied over the last 30 years. The analysis completed is a thorough analysis. Member Hansen asked how close this building is to College Ave.? Planner Wray responded that the building and tree placement satisfies the site distance. Vice Chair Shepard asked for process clarification when building a street regarding the settling of groundwater. Mr. Merritt responded that a geotechnical survey was completed for the site. They are confident that everything meets standards. Vice Chair Shepard commented on the future turn lane for westbound Fossil Creek Parkway, would it not be a good idea to plant shrubs in the interim? This would not be that severe to remove shrubs when the right turn lane is put in. Mr. Merritt responded that the trees have been placed so that they are in their ultimate condition when the new turn lane is put in. A preliminary design has been submitted representing this. Vice Chair Shepard commented on the term “eclectic”. This may be an accurate description but should not be used as a justification for compatibility or for judging an architectural standard. Member Hogestad asked how old the South Corridor Plan is? Has there been any projects built in that length of time? Planner Wray responded that it was adopted in 2009 and yes. Member Hogestad questioned whether the buildings that are there now do not meet or is viable according to the corridor plan. Planner Wray commented that there are several things that come into play with the existing development. Much of this development was done through the County and there is a large mix, however; there are no mixed-use buildings supporting an active street front on the College frontage. There is retail that was created after the South College Corridor Plan was adopted. Member Hogestad feels that it is odd to make modifications to the plan that go against what the intent of the plan is. Planner Wray responded that staff’s findings are that there is significant hardship for locating ground floor and other uses for this site. Member Hogestad would like to know a bit about the parking, how is the parking need being accommodated? Mr. Cohen responded that the conference room is to be used by tenants of the property and staff only and does not change the overall traffic patterns of the property. Vice Chair Hogestad does not agree that is the case. Mr. Merritt responded that there is no standard in the City for maximum or minimum parking for a self- storage facility. The first analysis was based on use type. The amount of parking was established using a 900 sq. ft. office space. Then looked at the number of employees, 1 full-time and 1 -part-time. Then an analysis was Planning & Zoning Board March 11, 2021 Page 6 of 10 completed of other self-storage facilities in Ft. Collins and surrounding area. They each had between 5 to 8 parking spaces. The number of spaces for this project are felt to be adequate. Tenants, when they come, do not use the parking spaces, they are driving to the overhead doors or they are going to the service drive area, unloading, or loading. The parking spaces are primarily for those individuals that are not yet tenants or trying to buy packing and moving supplies. Member Hogestad questioned 3.10.5 articulation of the building, and how this is done. Planner Wray responded that in looking at the site plan, the building is articulated. The wall planes are stepped back or indented on the east side. On the east, south and west sides, the wall planes are fairly articulated. On the north facade, it is articulated on the east side and the building materials are wrapped around from College Ave. approximately 20 ft. on the north west corner. The rest of the facade is long and on the back side of the building facing a private alley. The wall planes are articulated by change materials and building color related to the entrance and storage door areas. There is not horizontal wall plane articulation other than the materials in between the wall plane color variation and colors. Mr. Merrett commented that the architect went through great effort to articulate the building where the building was visible from the public right-of-way. The articulation that occurs along the entire south facade is plainly visible from Fossil Creek Blvd. The articulation that occurs on the east is visible from Steed as you approach from the north and from the south. The north wall uses articulation from the standpoint of material is completely blocked by southbound traffic heading down College Ave. It is blocked by the building to the north. Member Hogestad commented on the south side, having big expanses of material that only changes in material and not in articulation. He also wanted to know about what the height of the base of the building on the west elevation. Mr. Merritt responded that 34’ and a few inches. The base is 11’ from the ground plane to the finished floor of what would be the 3rd level of the building. The windows occur on the 3rd and 4th level of the building. The windows are floor to 9’ up. Floor to floor height is 10’8”. Board Questions / Deliberation Member Hansen asked what the building height was going to be and is there a difference between how the Land Use Code is interpreting and how the building code is interpreting and what is allowable? Planner Wray responded that the building department concluded that the building did not meet the definition for a basement. This is a four- story on the south elevation with transition to three-story on the west and north. Member Hansen asked if condition number two was still necessary. Engineer Virata responded that he has had conversations with Xcel Energy and reached out to them to understand their position on the retaining wall. They are comfortable with the project proceeding, however, there has not been any finalization with respect to where the utility line would be relocated. It was felt that the best approach was to put a condition of approval on the project given it had not been worked out prior to. Ken Merritt responded that they intend on relocating the gas line to get it further away from the proposed retaining wall. He believes that it will still end up in the easement which currently exists. This will be determined at time of final. Vice Chair Shepard asked whether the large deciduous tree along College Ave. will be preserved or removed. Planner Wray responded that the existing cottonwood tree will be removed. This is based on the condition of the tree and for dividing new storm drainage and sidewalk. Vice Chair Shepard requested verification that there will be no trash enclosure. Planner Wray responded that is correct. The storage customers are not allowed to leave anything onsite. Two small contains will be there for the offices. These are recessed loading and unloading areas that penetrate the building and there are no doors. There are sliding doors for pedestrians. Member Katz asked about the condition with the gas line easement. What happens if this is improved with condition but then they do not have to vacate, or Xcel does not play nice? How is the development left for FDP with this condition looming? Engineer Virata commented that typically you can not pull a building permit for a structure if it is in an easement. There is a little bit of a concern in a scenario where there would not be a vacation of an easement necessary. This is why the thought is there must be a vacation of at lest a partial easement based upon the fact that the wall is currently in an existing easement. Member Katz asked who solely regulates the discharged into Fossil Creek both from a capacity standard and from an environmental standard. Mr. Smith responded that stormwater reviews and approves of all drainage discharge into the creek, Utilities and Flood Plain Master Planning Departments oversee the flow rates of Fossil Creek. From an environmental standpoint it is probably between water quality standards with Utilities, and we do hold the MS 4 Planning & Zoning Board March 11, 2021 Page 7 of 10 permit as a City. Member Katz commented that the MS 4 authorizes the City to make the decision. Mr. Smith responded, yes. Vice Chair Shepard thanked the City Attorney for his response. We as a Board cannot comment on the legalities. Member Schneider mentioned the blue color and other citizen comments had not been responded to and wanted to make sure that all was covered before the Board went into questions and deliberation. Member Hansen’s main concern is allowing the self-storage as primary use on the main level. He feels this is not the intent of the South Corridor Plan. He likes the building, but this is not doing anything to mitigate the loss of activity that this use is providing at the site. A more appropriate modification might be storage on the main floor and then retail on the floor above it. Member Katz’s main concern was the modification. This is a challenging site, and the applicant was solving many of the issues. He feels they are doing the town a favor with this project. Member Hogestad agrees that the whole modification betrays the whole plan. He feels that we are a bit premature to pull the covers over this plan. It is a betrayal to the planners that worked hard to start to look at this and hope for a result better than a huge storage building that is out of context. It does not have the architectural features that the other neighboring properties have. Member Schneider commented that the lot is atrocious, and he is shocked that someone is willing to come forward and do something on this property. All that has been developed in the area, there has not been a lot of new projects that have come into play in this area. The signal has been in place for over 11 years. He does agree that the architectural style and colors are not his preference, his preference is that they do not have the blue banding to the east and minimize any lighting that they can to avoid impact to the neighbors. 4-stories are allowed. He agrees with the modification, especially for this site. Member Hansen is not opposed to approving a modification because we are just starting to see development happen here. He would hate to set a precedent for future development to happen. Regarding the comments about architecture, the plan was written looking into the future decades. Matching architecture there is not a concern. He likes the blue color as it has been done tastefully and the appropriate amount, especially with the diagonal component. Without this accent feature, the interest of the building would be diminished. He is happy with the articulation in the wall plane, but this is not reflected at the roof level at all. This is the one thing he would like to see. Member Hogestad addressed the blue band. If the blue band is part of branding or corporate identity, the entirety of it should be considered a sign. If this is the case than it should respond to the sign code, the allotment, etc. As for the architecture, we do need to be visionary. Better buildings may come along, this is not one of them. This is not enhanced architectural design; the definition of enhanced architecture is intended to set a standard for other buildings in this area. This certainly is not setting a standard to match. The architecture is a storage building, nothing more. He does not see this as enhanced architecture by any means. Vice Chair Shepard commented on the size of the building, it is big. He feels the market got ahead of us, we should have seen this coming, and we did not. There is a disconnect between the South Corridor Plan and what is being proposed and this is on us, this is our problem. The code and the plan need to be brought together. This is a struggle. Member Hansen echoed what Vice Chair Shepard stated. It is in Section 4 and could be leaned on. The modification is in Article 3, the overall Land Use Enclosed Mini-Storage is a permitted use in Article 4. What in Article 4 is not being complied with or needs a modification, he thought it was Article 3? Member Hansen responded that he was just echoing. Vice Chair Shepard is prepared to add some conditions to make sure the modification is mitigated. Chair Haefele is concerned that there is a plan that is aspirational for this part of the City and that thus far we are not seeing those uses show up in this place. She does not feel that a storage place is an enhancement, but at the same time, this passive use may be less impact on the neighborhood. Vice Chair Shepard responded that he is sympathetic. His thought on the modifications, it might be good to combine 3.10.2(A) and 3.10.4 and then in light of the conversation of the blue doors and banding and the standard 3.5.3(E), eliminate all the bule doors. All the blue comes off the building, lighting should be reduced, and add more or as much landscaping. Chair Haefele agrees. Planning & Zoning Board March 11, 2021 Page 8 of 10 Chair Haefele wanted to know that when there is a streetlight on a public street, who places the lights? Planner Wray responded that it is a public street and that the lighting is at certain spacing, the applicants proposed the lighting plan to meet City standards. The other streetlights can be looked at and potentially shifted to reduce lighting on the east side. This might help with some of the trees in the parkway due to underground utilities. Member Hansen commented that it would be a mistake to remove all of the blue from the building, it is not an offensive color and the elements add to the facade. Member Schneider asked about the blue and if it would impact the sign area or would the blue be part of the sign code. He is concerned with “no blue, period”. Would this affect the sign aspect? Vice Chair Shepard responded that part of the definition of a sign means that anything that conveys a recognizable meaning, identity or distinction or color that attracts or is designed to attract attention to the facility or in any way is used as a means of identification, advertisement, or announcement. There is evidence and testimony from Mr. Cohen that it is branding. All of the banding may be permitted by sign allowance. The issue is that it is a prototype and if it is not going to be a prototype and there is going to be blue on the building, then it needs to be designed and banded and rearranged in the pattern in such a way that does not look like any other facility in the chain. Otherwise, it does not meet 3.5.3(E). Member Schneider asked if the Board should be dictating colors, doors, and fenestrations of that nature? Attorney Yatabe commented that his understanding that Zoning has regulated color in some situations as signage, he is not involved in this area. A better way to address this is to allow under the signage allowance. Member Schneider asked how this was handled regarding the color of fenestrations, door, windows, etc.? Attorney Yatabe was unable to answer. Member Whitley does not feel the color of the blue fits and it is certainly not an earth tone. Accents are acceptable, but not the huge amount on this structure. Member Katz echoed Member Hansen. Without some accent this will look like a giant massing. He has no issues with the blue at its scale at this moment. He does not support the condition as it currently stands, and he does not support the suggestion to remove all the blue especially from the doors. Chair Hafele does agree that the bule should be minimized. Member Katz does not feel the Board should be dictating what color they paint. Chair Haefele asked if the Land Use Code restricted the use of a prototype as a branded building? Vice Chair Shepard responded yes, in 3.5.3(E). Member Hansen has an issue with making a decision about the blue based on section 3.5.1(F). He does not feel the Board has grounds to limit the blue and stay in compliance with the code section. Vice Chair Shepard added a new aspect to the modifications. He would like to add in that there should be as much landscaping, in a dense fashion, where possible. Member Schneider would like to have added “to the maximum extent feasible”. Member Hansen made a motion that the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board approve Modification of Standard to Section 3.10.4(C) regarding the alignment of the parking and the street frontage. This approval is based on the agenda materials, the information presented in the work session and this hearing and the Board discussion on this item with the finding that it is not detrimental to the public good and that it is compliant with the standard would reduce physical hard ship, based on the irregular shape of the site, slopping, topography, existing wetlands, and utility easements. Member Katz seconded. Member Hansen commented that this building has street frontage on three sides, so it would be hard to locate the parking so that it was not between the building and the street and it is a minimum amount of parking. Vice Chair Shepard supports the motion and asked the best time to talk about the prototype design and dense landscaping. Vote: 7:0. Vice Chair Shepard asked Attorney Yatabe to talk through 3.5.3(E) because failure to comply would cause the project to be denied. The way forward could be to propose a condition of approval before getting to the modification of 3.10.2(A). This way it will not be complicated. The suggestion is to add a condition of approval that Planning & Zoning Board March 11, 2021 Page 9 of 10 if it is not met then the plan fails to comply. The condition would be that at the time of submittal for final plan, the final plan demonstrates compliance with 3.5.3(E) by eliminating the blue accent banding except for the blue background behind the letters, but all accent banding would be prototypical and not in compliance with 3.5.3(E), therefore, in order to be in compliance, needs to be deleted from all elevations. Attorney Yatabe asked if in terms of the signage which is generally dealt with after the approval, there is a review of sign permitting. Generally speaking, to the extent that they want signage, this would fall under a sign allowance. This may not be within the Boards purview. Vice Chair Shepard commented that although it may be allowed as signage through the allowance, by placing that signage allowance in such a manner, causes the building to become a prototype, and causes the building to fail to comply with 3.5.3(E). They would be taking signage allowance and massaging it and manipulating it in such a way as to be such a detriment to the architecture, it would be such a detriment to building and project compatibility that it fails other standards in Article 3. Signage should not be a license to make a building unattractive in such a way to have our community lose its distinctiveness. Attorney Yatabe commented that he would need to take a recess to talk with staff about this issue. He feels that the sign review after the fact is more outside the Boards purview. Vice Chair Shepard commented he is trying to expand on Planner Wray’s condition. Attorney Yatabe understands this and asks Planner Wray to chime in as to if he considered the issue of the sign allowance and how it was analyzed. Planner Wray responded that he did not. He was responding to his determination that the blue banding was not neutral or subtle and infringed on compatibility over the overall project appearance. Chair Haefele agrees with Ted in that there should be site specific design rather than prototype design and does fall within the purview of this Board. Member Schneider commented that he has no issues with eliminating the blue banding but respectfully disagrees in that this should be part of the sign code. He would be upset if the City were to tell him how to brand or not brand. What supersedes? Vice Chair Shepard made a distinction. If you are at the intersection of three public streets and you get a generous amount of sign code, that should not be carte blanch permission to dominate your building elevations with colors that reflect the brand. For instance, the McDonalds at Horsetooth and Timberline; it has a lot of street frontage, it probably does not use all of its signage allowance, but if it did, we would not allow the street facing elevations to be painted red and yellow. This crosses a line into architecture. Member Hansen commented that the prototyping regarding the architecture, this site has required this building to be a specific shape. This has deviated from their typical prototype. He likes the fact that that there is a blue band and agrees with Member Schneider in that eliminating the blue banding would be appropriate, but, unless you want to change the sign code that limits how much signage you can have because you are fortunate enough to have fronting on three streets, the Board should not be limiting how much of the blue they put on the building. Member Hafele supports the suggested condition of approval perhaps replacing or underpinning the elimination of the blue banding. Member Hansen agrees with changing the wording of the condition to change the reference. Member Hogestad commented that much of the banding traces portion of the building becoming architecture and not signage. Much of it is architecture and a little bit of it is signage. Vice Chair Shepard made a motion that the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board approve the Modification of Standard, Section 3.10.2(A) regarding first floor storage. This is based on the staff report, the agenda materials, the information presented during the work session, this hearing, the Board discussion on this modification, and the relevant findings of fact as it relates to the modification for this standard. This is based on the modification being found to being not detrimental and that this is also due to 2.8.2(H)(3) due to the exceptional physical conditions of the site typography. Member Katz seconded. Member Hogestad commented that he will not be supporting the motion as it does not further the intent of the South College Corridor Plan and does not support the public good. Member Hansen would like to see the South Corridor Plan built out to its intent; this site has a lot of constraints especially with three different street frontages being so close. The topography would make it difficult for basements for a higher occupancy use. Reluctantly he is in support of the motion. Vote: 4:3. Vice Chair Shepard made a motion that the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board approve the Guardian Self-Storage PDP190020 based on the findings of fact, the staff report, the work session discussion, the discussion here tonight amongst the Board, the applicant, staff, and the public input. This is subject to the following condition, and that at the time of submittal for final plan, the color of the bule banding that is showing on the PDP be changed to neutral or earth tone, not blue and a color that does not convey for recognizable meaning, identity, distinction, or color that attracts or is designed to attract attention to the facility or in any way is used as a means of identification, advertisement, or announcement. The purpose of adding this condition is to achieve compliance with Section 3.5.3(E) and the second condition of approval would be as staff recommends regarding obtaining the proper easement from Xcel Energy regarding the gas line easement prior to recording final plan. Member Whitley seconded. Vice Chair Planning & Zoning Board March 11, 2021 Page 10 of 10 Shepard agrees that work needs to be done to get the South Corridor Plan to get it into alignment with Article 4. Member Hogestad will not be supporting this motion since it does not meet the intent of the South College Corridor Plan. Member Katz acknowledged that this is a very challenging site and does not agree with the conditions and wants to see the project move forward. Member Schneider has reservations with the first condition, he feels the sign code is appropriate for this. This may impact the sign code. He cannot support the condition. Member Hansen agrees with both Schneider and Katz in that he is in favor of the project as a whole and does not like the condition about eliminating the building colors. He does want it to be in compliance. He will be supporting the motion, but hope he sees the much of the blue come back as part of the sign permit. Chair Hafele commented that the first condition makes the project less unpalatable, she is disinclined to approve the PDP because of the complete disregard for a plan to activate South College. The first condition of approval has been improved with the inclusion of a specific code that more clearly justifies the condition. Member Katz acknowledged that this does not activate the South College Plan, it actually supports other active development. This project supports really active development. Member Hansen stated that he does not want this to be setting a precedence for future development that disregards the intent of the South College Corridor Plan. He feels this is an exception due to the site. Member Hogestad appreciates Member Katz’s comments. He does not see how this absolutely sterile and dead project could possibly promote further development that would be conducive to a more active street. Vote: 4:3. 5. Apex-Haven Apartments PDP – This item has been continued to the April 1, 2021 hearing. The owner wanted to move forward with this item, on this evening. Member Schneider made a motion that the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning continue this meeting after a 10-minute break, for item The Apex-Haven Apartments PDP210002. Member Hansen seconded. Discussion was had regarding this motion and if it was appropriate. Vice Chair Shepard supported the motion. Member Hogestad wondered how rational the discussion would be at this hour. Vote: 3:4. Member Katz made a motion that the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board continue the Apex-Haven Apartments PDP210002 to date certain of April 1, 2021. Member Whitley seconded. Member Schneider feels this is bad public policy to have. This item should be heard. Member Katz does not feel good about this but knows that his decision making, and attention span is wanning. The best outcome for the City and citizens is to do this fresh. Member Whitley agrees with Member Katz. Member Hansen disagrees with the precedent it sets for setting expectations and not meeting them for applicants and citizens, this is not the right way to run City business. Member Hogestad supports the motion. He feels this decision should be made earlier in the evening. Chair Haefele agrees with Member Hogestad. The Board needs to figure out a way to avoid this from happening, it is unreasonable for the Board as volunteers to stay up until the next day. She will be supporting the motion. Vote: 4:3. 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 Other Business None noted Adjournment Chair Haefele moved to adjourn the P&Z Board hearing. The meeting was adjourned at 11:28 pm. Minutes respectfully submitted by Shar Manno. Minutes approved by a vote of the Board on: March 11, 2021. Paul Sizemore, Interim CDNS Director Michelle Haefele, Chair