Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 04/01/2021 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 April 1, 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, Von Koepping, Virata, Hahn, Wray, Gloss, Bzdek, Saha, Zentz, Kleer, Haigh, Smith, and Manno Chair Haefele 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 April 1, 2021 Page 2 of 10 Public Input on Items Not on the Hearing Agenda: None noted. Consent Agenda: 1. Draft Minutes from March 11, 2021, P&Z Hearing – pulled from consent 2. Gil Boyer Annexation 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. Item 1 from the Consent Agenda was pulled and placed on the Discussion Agenda. Member Whitley made a motion that the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board approve the Consent agenda which consists only of the Gil Boyer Annexation ANX200002. This approval is based on the agenda materials and information presented during the work session, this hearing and discussion. It also includes information, analysis and finding of fact and conclusion contained in the staff report including the agenda materials and the hearing adopted by this Board. Member Schneider seconded the motion. Vote: 7:0. Discussion Agenda: 1. Draft Minutes from March 11, 2021, P&Z Hearing Vice Chair Shepard has changes that he would like made but did not want to initially have the item pulled. Member Hogestad also had some changes and stated he could forward them in an email. Attorney Yatabe commented that since the minutes are on adoption by the Board that he hesitates having corrections made after the Board has adopted them. The members should state what the corrections are. Chair Hafele asked if this item should be pulled. Vice Chair Shepard pulled the item from Consent. Vice Chair Shepard had the following revisions to the minutes; pg. 4 of 10 – correct spelling of pallet (of colors), pg. 5 – Fossil Creek Boulevard return lane should be Fossil Creek Boulevard turn lane, pg. 6 – correct spelling of floodplain, pg. 7 - need correct spelling for the word site. Member Hogestad had the following revisions to the minutes; pg. 7 of 10 – paragraph halfway down the page, Member Hogestad, the sentence that now reads this is enhanced architectural design. It should read this is not enhanced architectural and then it follows the definition of enhanced architecture is intended to set a standard for other buildings in the area. Chair Haefele commented that she will still rely on both individuals to send an email message with specific locations. Is this ok with staff? Public Input None noted Member Whitley made a motion that the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board approve t he Draft Minutes from the March 11, 2021 P&Z hearing as edited by Vice Chair Shepard and Member Hogestad. This approval is based on the agenda materials and information presented during the work session, this hearing and discussion. It also includes information, analysis, findings of fact, and conclusion contained in the staff Planning & Zoning Board April 1, 2021 Page 3 of 10 report, including the agenda materials and hearing that are adopted by this Board. Member Shepard seconded. 7:0 3. Apex-Haven Apartments PDP Project Description: This is a request for the 100% voluntary annexation of a 9,800 square foot property containing a single-family residence located at 241 N Taft Hill Road. The annexation site is located approximately 425 feet northwest of the intersection of Laporte Avenue and N Taf t Hill Road, catty-corner to 7-Eleven. Recommendation: Approval Secretary Manno reported that there was no additional citizen emails or letters received. Staff and Applicant Presentations Planner Wray gave a brief verbal/overview of this project. Shelley Lamastra, landscape architect and planner, Ian Shuff, project architect, Kevin Bra zelton, project civil engineer & Company and owners of the project CSurf and Maximo Development also provided a brief verbal/visual overview of this project. Member Hogestad disclosed that he lives within the notification area and this this will not have any influence on his person or financial wellbeing and will not cause any difficulty to make a fair decision. He also commented that he provided design work for the applicants will have no personal or financial influence on his ability to make a fair decision. Member Hansen disclosed that he has done some design work for the developer in the past and that there is no immediate project with this developer. Public Input (3 minutes per person) Sue White, 714 W. Prospect Rd., presented slides of trees on her property. She feels that the zone around the trees needs to be expanded to fully protect them. Trees were not watered during site prep. Please protect the trees. Jim Swanstrom , 638 W. Prospect Rd., he is glad to see the project has been moved. He is concerned as to how the 25’ is being measured. Are they allowed to have a roof overhang within the 25’? He feels the fence becomes the property line as it has not moved within the past 25 years. Measurement should be taken off the fence line. He questions the amount of space around the trees for their protection, it should be more. He requests that if the trees die, that the developer is responsible for the cost to remove and re place the trees. He prefers a masonry fence between. Denise, she feels there will be a trash issue. She agrees with Diane about the critical root zone, and we should be adding to the measurement. Construction workers urinating by fence, who do I call? Natasha Davila, 808 W. Prospect, the public really has no idea about this project. There is more trash than before, and the racoons are bad in the area. This is all concerning. Diane, 714 W. Prospect Rd., she spoke of the oak tree that is being saved. She is concerned for the critical root zone and appreciates anything anyone can do to save the tree. Staff Response Mrs. Lamastra responded to citizen comment. She spoke generally to what is expected for tree protection specs and what is required. There is a list that was created by forestry. There must be a construction fence erected 6 feet away or half of the drip line whichever is greater. They do not permit any cut or fill over a 4” fill within the drip line of any tree and do not permit any cleaning, storage or disposal of equipment. The off-site trees were looked at Planning & Zoning Board April 1, 2021 Page 4 of 10 and based on the information it is a 36” oak, 80 to 100 years old. There is nothing in the land use code that speaks to off-site trees. Forestry recommends that the applicant and developer be a good neighbor. On -site mitigation is based on the size and condition. Planner Wray commented that the land use code does not require off -site replacement or mitigation. However, the intent of the owner is to agree to show additional information on the plans to protect the roots that extend onto the site. But there is not a requirement to replace trees off-site. Chair Haefele commented that there were questions about how tenants will deal with trash. Mrs. Lamastra responded that there will be two trash locations with regular pickup scheduled along with a cleaning crew. Residents can contact the property management firm with any issues. Mrs. Lamastra addressed Natasha’s comments about not knowing about this project. Only the property owners are notified. The City does post on-site, which there has been a posting for the past year and a half. The amenities will be shared for the Apex tenants as well. Construction issues and violations, this is a local developer, and their information is available, they will continue to own and operate this site. If there are issues, this is someone right down the street, not another state. The masonry fence would be more detrimental to the trees than a cedar fence. We will continue to work on the mulch on the East side for the trees, this should be added as a n ote from this hearing. The existing fence is 6” over form the existing property line, it is fairly negotiable, they can certainly install on the correctly property line when it is installed 6” over. The overhang is in compliance. Vice Chair Shepard asked about the fence being off property line. Mrs. Lamastra responded that it is off to the west. Setbacks are measured from a property line, not a fence. Member Hansen spoke to the fence and how long it has been in place. He would like clarification from legal on how that all works. Attorney Yatabe responded that common law under principals of adverse position that a person would need to establish. In Colorado there is a statutory provision regarding this. It is understood that at this point the property owner who believes they are in a position of adverse possession of another owners’ property would have to establish that in court, for the title to be adjudicated in that manner. The person that is claiming adverse possession does not have a particular right to the property as against the actual owner of the property. Member Hogestad asked if there was a ramp down into the retention pond. Mr. Shuff responded that the retention pond is not deep. Kevin, Civil Engineer, responded that the pond has an access ramp down to on the west side and the pod is only 36” deep. It is not intended for gather and use. Kevin does not see the pond area as a gathering space, it is required for a means of getting maintenance personnel and equipment to the bottom. T he ramp is to be grass just as the other existing pond. Member Hogestad is concerned with the Juliet balconies. They look right down on the existing property and people can hang out of them . There is a lack of privacy. Applicant team member responded that the evergreen trees are the buffer with a 25’ distance. They can open the windows and hang out. Board Questions / Deliberation Clarifying questions Member Hogestad asked a question of legal counsel. Attorney Yatabe sent an email the previous day that instructed the Board that they could not consider any construction activities if there is a condition of approval. There was a project that was approved in June of 2019, as condition of approval it sets hours and days of operation. How is different? This is for Sunshine House, Bucking Horse major amendment. Attorney Yatabe responded that those are hours operation of the proposed use and he suggests th at if the Board has questions relating to the confidential memorandum that was distributed, he suggests the Board go into Executive Session to discuss the issue. Member Hogestad does not know if that would prove fruitful. He just wants to understand how in one project hours and days of operation can be considered and then in another project, it cannot. Attorney Yatabe stated that the Sunshine House was restrictions on the use, not the construction of the project, and that is the difference. Vice Chair Shepard commented that it was mentioned that bldg. 3, the house that is already designated, will become a duplex and that he did not see where the second entrance would be, or if there will be one or if the entrance will be through the existing front door. The applicant team responded that bldg. 3 has two existing doors, Planning & Zoning Board April 1, 2021 Page 5 of 10 a front porch facing front entry on the south side and in addition to that on the west elevation tucked around the corner there is a back door which will be retained. Vice Chair Shepard, on the east side fence, a reference was made that it will be 6’ south to the front line of bldg. 3 and from the front line of bldg. 3 that went down to 4’ and extended further south. Is this correct, will there be a 4’ fence located south of bldg. 3 and if so, how far will it go? Ms. Lamastra responded that there is some existing fence on the property line. The 6’ section will come down to the front of the home and tapper down to the utility easement on the front to replace the existing split rail. The new fence will be cedar with a height change. Will the fence create the site distance for vehicles exiting the driveway onto Prospect Rd.? Mrs. Lemastra could not confirm. Vice Chair Shepard asked if the new spruce trees that will be planted, will they continue to be sprayed for the Ips beetle? Ralph Zentz, Assistant City Forester, an evaluation would have to happen on an annual basis to determine if it is necessary or not. If after care is done correctly it should not be necessary. The two larger trees should be treated for the next several years due to their condition. Vice Chair Shepard wanted to know if the lofts were considered bedrooms. Applicant team responded yes that they took some units that were studios and converted them to one-bedrooms. Vice Chair Shepard asked Mrs. Lamastra if the replacement trees were on-site trees or if they were off-site mitigation trees. Mrs. Lamastra responded that they are mitigating on-site and reiterated that the trees that were taken down along Prospect are being replaced on-site. Vice Chair Shepard asked Planner Wray where the enclosed bicycle parking located. Mrs. Lamastra responded that they are in the basement and enclosed stairs of the Haven Building. Vice Chair Shepard asked if there will be chutes or hallway pickup or if each tenant hand carry materials to the trash location. Mrs. Lamastra said that this is being discussed and not completely flushed out on how they will be handling this. There are two trash and recycling locations on the site. Member Hansen commented that it looks as though there is no east bound access from Prospect, is this correct? Mrs. Lamastra responded that this is correct. They are all right-in, right-out and that the intent is that future build out of Prospect is that there will be a median that runs along this section. Vice Chair Shepard as about the oak tree on the abutting property. How close is the trunk of the tree to the property line? Mrs. Lamastra responded just shy of 36’ between the build ing and the tree, and about 10 ½ from their property line. The new trees will be drip irrigated. Deliberation Member Hogestad wanted to finish the conversation regarding the Juliet balconies. He is concerned about these balconies and the privacy of the people below. He would the applicant to change these to fixed window. Member Hansen commented that the top of the railing is a minimum of 42”, how is this different than a sliding window? Member Hansen does not see the balconies being any different than a window. Member Hansen wanted to know what materials Member Hogestad was looking at that is causing this concern. Member Hogestad responded asking if it took a description or if it was intuitive? 3-stories high looking down 25’ feet. Member Hansen mentioned that there will be Evergreen trees there as well. Member Hogestad said that those trees will be 8’ in height and take 40-years to achieve a height great enough to obscure the view. Chair Haefele feels it is styling and that if it were a true window instead of a door, the screen could be fixed and help to prevent people from leaning out. She also agrees that the Evergreens will take a long time to grow. Member Schneider commented that the screens can be popped out of the windows and he does not understand the argument. Member Hogestad commented that it is a perception of a lack of privacy. Chair Haefele commented that if it is a floor to ceiling, sliding glass door, the tendency might be to leave the space completely open and available to walk up to. If it is a window, the opening could be blocked by a chair or couch. These types of balcony treatments do end up activating. Member Schneider feels the Board is over analyzing this aspect. The second story has the same concern until the trees gro w. Member Hogestad commented that the vantage point is somewhat less, and he would like to be reasonable, he feels changing the third floor is a simple and easy concession. Member Katz appreciates Member Hogestad interpretation of the code, but he feels if you remove the wrought iron, then it is just a window design standard and would be very subjective. He also feels that this is being over analyzed and is wasting time. Member Hogestad Planning & Zoning Board April 1, 2021 Page 6 of 10 disagreed. Ian feels that this is semantics as it is a living room space. It is not a balcony; it is a guardrail. You could hang out of it about a foot or so, but this is not the intent of a balcony like this. Ian commented that there are 5-stories buildings just down the way. Everything that can be done to mitigate has been done. Member Hogestad asked what the floor elevation of the 3rd floor was. Ian responded just below 30’, and to keep in mind the house to the East is just over 100’ away from the property line. Member Hogestad commented that the enjoyment of the property is not restricted to the house, it is the entire property. Member Hansen feels they are getting into semantics. Vice Chair Shepard asked Pete or Shelly to respond to whether the foliage from the Burr Oak would help screen the yard from the balconies. Mrs. Lamastra responded that the images shared by citizens, there are several other large shrubs and smaller trees along the west property line, in addition to the oak. In leafed out condition, and on the west side of the property, when you get that high, the tree is significantly higher than the windows of this building. There will also be new evergreens planted. They are slow growing, but they are being planted at a larger height than code requires. Planner Wray added that staff found privacy was addressed in combination with the 25’ buffer. The new trees are at approximately two-thirds maturity and will grow taller than the building. On the east side, removal of the open stairways, staff found that really helped block any type of internal building activities and that also affected the lighting. In combination this helped with screening and privacy. Member Hogestad asked, for confirmation, that the east most, third-story balcony will be obscured by the oak. Mrs. Lamastra commented that they cannot definitively say yes. She had slides pulled up to help visualize. No assessment was completed on the elm tree as this is an off-site tree belonging to Jim. The canopy was n ot measured, but in all actuality, is larger than 25”. Vice Chair Shepard commented that the forestry believes the existing evergreen trees would benefit from annual spraying for the ips beetle. There may be a condition of approval that includes annual spraying for the ips beetle. Member Schneider asked, for clarification, if there should be monitoring as some may not need to be sprayed on an annual basis. Also, that this could be accomplished through a final development plan. Vice Chair Shepard state d that is acceptable and verified with Planner Wray. Chair Haefele asked if there were requirements that the opening be treated and clearly built in a way as to not be construed as doors or openings? Are there building codes that ensure that these are flush safety railings as opposed to a step out on balcony? In addition to privacy, there are safety issues and did not realize it was part of the proposal. She feels these structures have been problematic. Member Schneider responded that the building codes require a minimum of 42” tall and that the Board should be cautious of trying to put a condition based on the building code now with a land use code. The building code will take c are of those design standards and how that is implemented. Member Hansen commented that the building code will not prevent you from building a balcony there, that is part of this development plan. The development plan that the Board is approving does not have balconies. If they were to add balconies, it would require at least a minor amendment. Vice Chair Shepard has issues with heavy equipment and soil mounds being in close proximity to the trees. He requested that Rick Callan and Robin Bachelet provide all contact information so citizens can contact them with any issues in relation to the tree. Attorney Yatabe commented on Vice Chair Shepard’s comment that a note on the landscape plan be added. Attorney Yatabe hesitates to have one Board member unilaterally creating a condition. Forestry may be able to add additional detail as to staff’s responsibilities. He clarified that what Vice Chair Shepard is requesting is not a reiteration of the municipal code requirements, but an additional ask of this project. It would be improper for individual Board members to give direction to staff to be executed. If additional clarification is needed as to what the requirement is that may be more useful for the Board, but if there is a condition to be imposed, the Board would need to figure out the basis for the condition and pose it as part of the motion. Member Katz commented that he does not feel this condition belongs in the motion and wanted to know if watering and maintaining the buffers is addressed in the development agreement. These motions are more complicated than they need to be and difficult to enforce. Planner Wray commented that with the notes that are on the plans now, the intention is to finalize them in the final plan review and additional nota tions for clarification can be addressed after the hearing. This can be addressed at FDP. Planning & Zoning Board April 1, 2021 Page 7 of 10 Member Hansen agrees with Member Katz. Noting concerns in the general discussion suffices and he feels they do not be codified as part of the approval of the project. Vice Chair Shepard brings this all up because of the image brought forth by Sue White. Based on the loss of those evergreen trees over time through the ips beetle and deteriorating health and that the trees were not treated well during construction. This raised the concern that we have gone beyond the normal bounds of standard operating procedure. The plan has the existing trees, these trees are bound to be preserved. Given the track record of the owner, applicant, developer, possibly contractor, he is worried about the trees. There is nothing in the land use code that states you have to monitor your trees for the ips beetle and that you need to spray. Because the site benefits so much from the trees, this was the motivation for the conversation . Chair Haefele agrees. Member Whitley is concerned with the privacy issue, but he feels it is addressed largely by the trees. If the trees go away the privacy issues come back. It is appropriate in this case. Member Katz is concerned with the trees, if there was a way to do this cleanly, he would support it, but it is not in the land use code. How much can go outside of the lane? Attorney Yatabe commented that as a Board, you need to identify the basis for that actions as they extend to conditions a nd his understanding is that principally. Quite a few of the tree provisions are in the municipal code and there are a number in the land use code as well. Zero in on what you are looking at for this. Justify the condition that you are putting on it. C hair Haefele feels this is possible. She would encourage Vice Chair Shepard if possible, to craft a motion that puts a condition that says that “given that the existing trees, with tenuous health, are part of the landscape plan, which is part of the land use code, that there is a condition that extraordinary measures are taken to ensure that the trees survive”. Member Hogestad agrees with Chair Haefele that much of the conversation about privacy has been based upon trees and what they are going to do in terms of privacy and sound mitigation. This is not something that the Board should lightly consider or dismiss. It should be in the motion as a condition. Member Katz does not feel the argument is trying to find a way to protect the trees, it is trying to find a way to protect the trees. He just does not know what the appropriate way to do it might be. What if the project gets sold, where is it showing up for the new buyers? How is this enforced? Attorney Yatabe stated that as to enforcement, an approved project development plan by the Board serves as a template for the final plan. The final plan undergoes a review to ensure that it complies with the guardrails of the project development plan. The final approved plans include something about tree protection and if that is not followed through on, that is viewed as being out of compliance with the approved plan. This is where the enforceability comes in. The subsequent property owner would inherit the final plan. Vice Chair Shepard echoed what Attorney Yatabe stated. Also, integral to the project is the character of the trees to this project. Member Hansen agrees that the trees improve the privacy to the properties to the East. These trees are not on the property in question tonight. It would be reasonable to ask the owner and development team to protect the trees during construction, but after a certain period the responsibility should go back onto the owner of the trees and this should not go on indefinitely. Vice Chair Shepard is concerned with the existing evergreen trees. Chair Haefele commented that these are two separate items, and she agrees that there should be a request that the applicant and owner make their contact information available to the adjacent property owners, but this is not part of the motion. It is reasonable to put it in a condition of approval to ensure that the landscape plan is met, something specific is done to address the specific known threat to the trees. Mrs. Lamastra pointed out that the remaining spruce trees were treated on March 2 nd, by ArborX with systemic treatment to protect the from the ips beetle. This was part of the staff requirement and will be assessed on an annual basis. The trees are importa nt to the owners and assessment and treatment will continue moving forward. Chair Haefele commented that having a condition of approval that an annual inspection and treatment of the spruce trees will be of no impact on the anticipated plan. Attorney Yatabe commented that forestry staff prefer that the inspection be completed by a certified arborist. Vice Chair Shepard recommended that a condition of approval be added. “Prior to submittal of a final plan, a note be added to the tree mitigation plan that states generally that given the importance and the character of the existing spruce trees, and the importance that these tress to the visual character of the property, the sound attenuation from Prospect road, and privacy that it is of utmost importance that these trees be maintained given their life and that Planning & Zoning Board April 1, 2021 Page 8 of 10 they be annually inspected by a certified arborist and if necessary, be treated for the ips beetle upon inspection results. Member Katz would approve the above and Member Schneider asked if a timeframe should be added. Member Schneider made a motion that the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board approve the Apex Haven Apartments PDP210002 with the following condition. The existing trees have an annual inspection by a certified arborist to determine the health and any future needs for survival to help protect the privacy and conditions of those trees. This approval is based on the materials and information presented at the work session, during this hearing and Board discussion. All items comply with the land use code requirements, the finding of facts that have been listed in the staff report. Vice Chair Shepard seconded. Member Hogestad commented on the new design, he feels it is much better and more deliberate. It is refreshing to have a project that does not require any modifications, he will be support the motion. Member Hansen commented likes how the design has evolved. He has concerns about renters that are in the notification area that are not getting the notifications. In 7.5 years, he has not seen a good resolution to this issue. Member Schneider echoed what has been said previous and express gratitude to the applicant team for working with the neighbors. Member Whitley feels one of the challenges of the site is blending the two very different usages. The new design and trees help. Chair Haefele agrees and will be supporting. Vote: 7:0 4. Residential Metro District Evaluation Process Member Katz disclosed that he is a board member of a metro district that is not in the City of Fort Collins. Project Description: This is a request to amend the City of Fort Collins Metropolitan (Metro) District policy by adopting a Residential Metro District Evaluation system. Recommendation: Approval Secretary Manno reported that there was no additional citizen emails or letters received. Staff and Applicant Presentations Planner Gloss gave a brief verbal visual overview of this project. Public Input (3 minutes per person) Bill Swalling, thanked everyone for including innovation into this topic. This is a great start. Thanked Cameron for his work in this project. Gene Myers, builder in town. Has worked with Cameron and staff on the energy portion. He feels like voices have been heard. This is an aggressive plan and yet realistic to the point where a builder would sign on and support. Staff Response None noted Board Questions / Deliberation Member Hansen thanked Cameron for taking a second look at this and is a big improvement. There are many definitions that need clarification. Airtight homes, there is no such thing as “airtight”. What is the threshold? Planning Manager Gloss responded that true there is no such thing as airtight, that the amount of air exchange is used as a means of measurement for airtightness. Member Hansen asked to have more detail and clarification s added to the report. Member Schneider commented that the devil is in the details. Those in the industry can make all this happen if we know what the details are. He would like to know what the requirements are. Transparency and disclosures. How Planning & Zoning Board April 1, 2021 Page 9 of 10 are we going to control the building, property, or neighborhood to stay within the confines of what is approved within the Metro District. Planning Manager Gloss responded that it is the requirement of the Metro District and the authority to enforce the standard. Practically speaking, probably not. Someone could wheel in a new water heater, plumb it themselves and who would be the wiser? The system has been designed so that basically the improvements that go with the valuation system to satisfy the requirements with go with that metro district. Is there any way to put notes on those properties at the building department level “here is what you can and cannot do”? Planning Manager Gloss: we would have the capacity to identify those properties within a metro district and what those standards were with the building permit. The bigger challenge is the monitoring over a long period of time. Member Schneider agrees with Member Hansen in that as people put these together, trying to understand the thresholds, there are implications to multiple things. Knowing on the frontend for design is important. Member Hansen commented that by the time this gets finalized, making those thresholds very clear, so that there is no ambiguity, it is imperative. Vice Chair Shepard asked if Utilities would continue to be involved so the building permit is approved in accorda nce with metro district standards? Planning Manager Gloss responded that, that was the idea and added that the changes to the energy code are moving forward rapidly. This is one step, and the next step will accelerate. Many of the points that you see today will be modified within the next few years so that they will be mandatory for all developments. Member Shepard feels this is an impressive outcome. By raising the bar of the metro districts, you bring the balance of the community along. Member Shepard ask if the references to electric air source heat pump is for heating, cooling, and water heater. Planning Manger Gloss responded that it is for heating and cooling. Basically, you are taking the ground temperature and using a pump to even things, the water heater is on a separate outlet. The whole house fan is not listed but is still standard. Same with the swamp cooler. Chair Haefele feels that the evaporative cooler is a good way to cool and save energy. Member Hansen wanted to know if there were any extra points for innovation. Planning Manager Gloss responded that it would qualify for innovation points. Vice Chair Shepard commented that it is important for the group to stay together and reconvene quarterly or twice a year to keep monitoring, learning, and updating as we go. Maybe there is an annual report. Planning Manager Gloss commented that there is a commitment to evaluate success every two-years and looking at changes to the system. Planning Manager Gloss spoke to the standard that would be followed through the governance plan. The City Council has essentially adopted. Member Katz was curious if Planning Manager Gloss has had any conversations with any of the third -party companies that manage metro districts. Planning Manager Gloss c ommented that there have been conversations and have had several very meaningful comments during the course of creating the evaluation system. Member Shepard feels this is much improved. Chair Haefele spoke to the net benefits. Member Katz agrees that this has to be a living project. Member Hansen made a motion that the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board recommends City Council approval of an amendment to the Metro District Policy by adopting a Residential Metro District Evaluation System. This recommendation is based upon agenda material, the information and materials presented during the work session and this hearing and the Board discussion on this item. Member Whitley seconded. Member Hansen is excited to see this implemented. Member Hogestad is please to see the innovation in the plan and is looking forward to seeing what this looks like. Member Katz agrees with Member Hansen. How do small adjustments get made? Is there latitude without a big to do? Attorney Yatabe responded that the answer is not clear cut. This differs and is not to be an element of City Plan, which would require the Board or Commission to make recommendations. There could be a different process for making changes. Changes would be run pa st Council. Vice Chair Shepard asked if when Council adopts this will they be adopting by resolution or ordinance? Planning & Zoning Board April 1, 2021 Page 10 of 10 Attorney Yatabe did not know. Chair Haefele commented that if a change is needed it is reasonable to have it reviewed by Council. She is not concerned. Vote: 7:0. 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 Repeat (copy/paste) above format for each additional item. Other Business None noted Adjournment Chair Haefele moved to adjourn the P&Z Board hearing. The meeting was adjourned at 10:12 pm. Minutes respectfully submitted by Shar Manno. Minutes approved by a vote of the Board on: May 20, 2021. Paul Sizemore, Interim CDNS Director Michelle Haefele, Chair