Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Commission - Minutes - 05/20/2021 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 & 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 May 20, 2021 Chair Haefele called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Roll Call: Haefele, Hansen, Hogestad, Katz, Schneider, Shepard Absent: None Staff Present: Everette, Yatabe, Claypool, Stephens, Sizemore, Mapes, Mchaffey, Kleer, Wray, Hahn, Virata, Betley, Bzdek , 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 Commission is here to listen to citizen comments. Each citizen may address the Commission 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 Commission 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 Commission Minutes DocuSign Envelope ID: 70EE75B3-3F80-4746-94F4-DD85E7DF7862 Planning & Zoning Commission May 20, 2021 Page 2 of 12 Public Input on Items Not on the Hearing Agenda: Kathleen Schmidtke received a letter and spoke with Planner Kleer regarding the Whites. The ODP Amendment MA200016. She is concerned with the traffic. Chair Haefele explained when to speak and that an item on the consent agenda could be pulled from consent and placed on the discussion agenda. Interim Director Sizemore requested clarification as to what item Mrs. Schmidtke is speaking of and if it is one of the items on the consent agenda or if it is another project. Planner Kleer verified that he spoke to Mrs. Schmidtke and recommended that she could speak to the ODP during the general comment portion of the hearing. Attorney Yatabe ok’d further comments at this time. Kathleen Schmidtke commented that most were no surprise, but that the carriage house was being moved and she is concerned with the traffic this area may see. Chair Haefele commented that staff needs to reach out to Mrs. Schmidtke to give her all options as to how she can voice her concerns. Consent Agenda: 1. Draft Minutes from April 1, 2021 P&Z Hearing 2. NE Prospect & I-25 Annexation and Zoning – Pulled from Consent 3. NE Prospect & I-25 Rezone – Pulled from Consent Public Input on Consent Agenda: Scott McDonald is concerned with the potential traffic. Planner Kleer commented that there is no development with these items at this time, there is no entitlement. This precedes and addresses the annexation only. Mr. McDonald did not want to pull any items from the consent agenda. Josh R., resident, he would like to have further discussion of Item 3 and wished to pull the item from the consent agenda. Jennifer Levy would like Item 2 pulled. Joan Sayer would like an explanation as to why the frontage road is going away. Chair Haefele explained the item and that the frontage road access is not going away. Item 2 was pulled to help her understanding of the item. Chair Haefele recommended that both items, 2 and 3, be pulled from the consent agenda. Chair Haefele did a final review of the items that are on the consent agenda and reiterated that the one item remaining will not have a separate presentation unless pulled from the consent agenda. Commissioner Shepard made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Commission approve Item 1, Draft Minutes from April 1, 2021 Planning and Zoning Hearing of the Consent agenda for the May 20, 2021, Planning and Zoning Commission hearing as originally advertised. Commissioner Katz seconded the motion. Vote: 7:0. Discussion Agenda: 2. NE Prospect & I-25 Annexation and Zoning Project Description: This is a request for a 100% voluntary annexation of a former frontage road that was recently vacated by Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). The vacated 4-acre tract of land was dedicated to the adjacent property owner, who is now petitioning for annexation and zoning of the property. The adjacent properties have already been incorporated into the city. The requested zoning for this annexation is General Commercial (C -G). Recommendation: Approval DocuSign Envelope ID: 70EE75B3-3F80-4746-94F4-DD85E7DF7862 Planning & Zoning Commission May 20, 2021 Page 3 of 12 Secretary Manno reported that there were no citizen emails or letter received. Staff and Applicant Presentations Planner Kleer gave a brief verbal/visual overview of this item. Rick White, property owner, commented that he did have two consultants present to answer any questions including traffic engineers, civil engineers, etc. A brief verbal/visual presentation was given at this time. During this presentation Rick, Roger Sherman and Ruth Rollins addressed the traffic frontage ro ad concerns and traffic questions. Public Input (3 minutes per person) James Sayre liked Planner Kleer’s explanation of what will be happening with the frontage road. He likes the options for the frontage road. He will wait for the meetings once develo pment is in process. Attorney Yatabe commented that he believed that this item is being initiated by the property owner and wanted to know if the property owner would like to make a presentation. Josh Chapel, questions if he misunderstood the plan for the new frontage road to be Carriage Parkway, from Prospect through to 14. Is this the plan? Staff Response Planner Kleer responded to Josh Chapel that this is not necessarily the case. Carriage Parkway was always anticipated to be a collector street that would connect between Mulberry and Prospect. By coincidence, the frontage road being devolved just puts some additional pressure on Carriage Parkway as a street to provide that former connectivity that frontage road did. As a result of the frontage road being devolved and no longer being used as a connection, it then does become that connection between Prospect. Commission Questions / Deliberation Commissioner Hogestad asked if there was a neighborhood meeting. Planner Kleer respond that there was not a neighborhood meeting as it was a house keeping item and not controversial. Vice Chair Shepard asked Planner Kleer to explain that there will be an alternative road network to serve future development in the area. Planner Kleer explained the Master Street Plan and what the connections will be in the future for this area. Commissioner Katz is thankful for the concerned citizens and that the Commission did not do a good job of explaining to the citizens that this is a rezone and an annexation a nd that there is going to be a development plan. He encourages citizens to come to the meetings then and that is when the details will be thoroughly gone over. Commissioner Haefele commented that the procedure went off the rails because of the moving par ts involved with the intersection. She is glad to hear the concerns from the citizens. Vice Chair Shepard thanked Planner Kleer for his presentation and information on this item and asked for an explanation of what the memo involves and how this property became a remnant piece of property that was not included in the 2004 annexation. Planner Kleer responded as part of the 1991 annexation, an adjacent right -of-way to an annexed property would typically be required, During the 1991 annexation this 40 -acres was inadvertently excluded from the annexation. Prospect road was included as it should have been, but this portion was not. Vice Chair Shepard commented that this is a cleanup item, a survey glitch. He is confident that this is moving in the right direction. It is in the public interest that this survey glitch be remedied. Commissioner Schneider commented that this is a recommendation to Council. Commissioner Haefele thanked Commissioner Schneider for pointing that out. DocuSign Envelope ID: 70EE75B3-3F80-4746-94F4-DD85E7DF7862 Planning & Zoning Commission May 20, 2021 Page 4 of 12 Chair Haefele commented that she agrees and that this is a tough thing as it is a step among many with an intersection of concern. She apologized for the discombobulation and confusion. Commissioner Hansen made a motion that the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Commission recommend approval to City Council of the North East Frontage Road Annexation and Zoning ANX210001. This recommendation is based upon the agenda and materials, the information and materials presented during the work session and this hearing and the Commission discussion on this item. This complies with all applicable land use code procedures and requirements and the information, analysis, findings of fact and conclusions contained in the staff report included with the agenda materials for this hearing are adopte d by this commission. Commissioner Schneider seconded with a friendly amendment that it is zoned general commercial to also include LC2 lighting and context area. Commissioner Hansen accepted the amendment. Vote 6:0 3. NE Prospect & I-25 Rezone Project Description: This is a request to rezone 4.625-acres in the northeast quadrant of the I-25 and East Prospect Road interchange (parcel #8715000009). The site is currently zoned Urban Estate (UE), and the request is for placement into the Industrial (I) zone district. Recommendation: Approval Secretary Manno reported that there were no citizen emails or letter received. Staff and Applicant Presentations Planner Kleer gave a brief verbal/visual overview of this item. Roger Sherman, BHA Design, Inc. gave a brief verbal/visual overview of this item. Public Input (3 minutes per person) Josh R, resident, he is concerned that is does increase industrial access to Carriage Parkway and close to homes on the street. He prefers that it stay in its current condition or zoning. Joan Sayer, resident, asked why anyone would want to put more commercial and industrial next to a subdivision like Fox Grove. She does not know what industrial and commercial entails. Does it mean manufacturing plants, oil wells, etc.? How about making the 4-acres open space, has this been considered? Kathleen Schmidtke, she mentioned that they are ok and that it makes sense for this rezoning to happen. The Whites have been exceptional neighbors. Scott McDonald, resident, he is concerned with the traffic going north from Fox Grove and the light industrial traffic. How much more traffic does the light industrial create compared to residential? He understands that the Whites would like to start developing, and he would like for them to start from the south so that the traffic they create from their development would go out southward more than through the residential area. He appreciates that this is being considered. Staff Response Planner Kleer responded to Josh R. Based on the roadway standards under 3.6, typically access is required at no greater than 660’ along a collector street. The 74-acers would still have that similar access to Carriage Parkway as if it were rezoned or left urban estate. It is intended to be a place where manufacturing, warehousing, indoor/outdoor storage, and secondary uses are permitted in the zone district. This may be unlikely with this development. Ruth Rollings responded to Scott McDonald. The urban estate will generate roughly 80 daily trips and the industrial will generate roughly 120 daily trips. These volumes from an engineering standpoint are low. The AM peak hour trips from the urban estates would be roughly 6 and the AM peak hour trips for industrial will be 14. The PM peak hour trips for urban estate would be 8 and industrial would be 14. DocuSign Envelope ID: 70EE75B3-3F80-4746-94F4-DD85E7DF7862 Planning & Zoning Commission May 20, 2021 Page 5 of 12 Commission Questions / Deliberation Vice Chair Shepard asked Planner Kleer if by using streets and property lines to demarcate different zone districts. Planner Kleer responded that is the typical practice. Vice Chair Shepard commented that he appreciated the public comment and that they should attend the neighborhood meetings when they start. Commissioner Hansen commented that there was a question from the public about this space being kept or made open space. Rick White responded that the land uses are interesting. It is too premature at this point to answer this question. Commissioner Katz made a motion that the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Commission recommend to City Council the approval of NE Prospect & I-25 Rezone REZ210001 and place it into the LC2 lighting context area and removal from the residential sign district. This recommendation is based on the agenda material, the work session, the staff presentation, and discussion of the Commission. Commissioner Hansen seconded. Vote 6:0 4. Sam’s Club Fuel Station Major Amendment and APU Project Description: This is a proposed Major Amendment, MJA200002, of the Harmony Market 1st Filing PUD. The proposed development would add a Sam’s Club fuel station in a bay of the existing Sam’s Club parking lot. This request requires an Addition of a Permitted Use (APU) for the gasoline station because tha t use is not listed as a permitted use in the Harmony Corridor Standards and Guidelines for Regional Shopping Centers. Sam’s Club is part of a designated Regional Shopping Center per the Standards and Guidelines. Recommendation: Approval Secretary Manno reported that there were citizen emails/letters received as follows: - Correspondence between Planner Clark and Justin Morrison with Mountain N Plains, Inc. regarding some concerns Harmony Market Owners Association Board and Commissioners have with the project.  Planner Clark included a copy of the mailing that was sent detailing a notice of virtual public hearing. - Email from Jodi Morse regarding some included Harmony Market documents; cover page, covenant provisions and plat information. Staff and Applicant Presentations Planner Mapes gave a brief verbal/visual overview of this project. John Degunya gave a brief verbal/visual overview of this project. Public Input (3 minutes per person) Randy Morgan, owner of Outpost, Board Member of Harmony Market Association, they are concerned about the traffic, but is glad that Sam’s has reached out. Sam’s Club is not part of the Association and they do not choose to participate in any of the maintenance including the road. This is a real pro blem. Stacking and lack of communication with Sam’s are also a concern. Brad March, member of Association. The Association owns the roads, this issue is that the roads are paid for by all the other owners, this has a negative impact on the properties. Traffic is impact, it creates adverse environmental circumstances and has adverse effects on the owners. Sam’s does not pay to maintain the roads. Jack B, he wanted to hear more about the queuing. DocuSign Envelope ID: 70EE75B3-3F80-4746-94F4-DD85E7DF7862 Planning & Zoning Commission May 20, 2021 Page 6 of 12 Staff Response John Degunya responded that they do show the truck route going in front of the Kohl’s, however, they can work that out during design with the client. Regarding the queuing, they currently have enough to stack five vehicles. This allows a 25’ driveway behind the vehicles within the fueling area. With the six stations that is 30 vehicles. Chelsea Penn thanked Brad and Randy and stated that Sam’s would come to the Board once completed with the P&Z hearing. They want to be good neighbors and work in collaboration. Planner Mapes asked John if the trucks would end up exiting onto Boardwalk? John responded yes, they would enter and exit onto Boardwalk. Planner Mapes commented that the strongest comments had to do with Boardwalk. Planner Mapes does not want to have anyone think that this is an improvement for the proposal. This would need to be vetted. John commented that the fuel delivery times are during off -peak hours, early morning or in the evening. Commissioner Hogestad requested clarification. Are the trucks exiting directly onto Harmony? John responded no, currently it is showing Oak Ridge Dr. The fire truck route exits onto Harmony. Commission Questions / Deliberation Commissioner Hansen commented that Planner Mapes mentioned that fuel station is not an allowable use, is this a prohibited use? Planner Mapes responded no. Planner Mapes responded that there are four kinds of shopping centers allowed in the Harmony Corridor. They start at the smaller scale, the neighborhood service center and the convenience shopping center, these smaller centers list gasoline station. The next center up, community shopping center, lists the uses in the neighborhood service center plus department s tores. And then you come to this one and there is no mention of gasoline stations. Commissioner Katz asked for the APU eight criteria, how Planner Mapes got comfortable with D. Planner Mapes responded it is already a parking lot for a large retail establishment and does not have as much traffic. It is a vehicle use area, the impact study found that this does not create any new impacts and that it can be accommodated in the existing circulation system. No environmental impacts and no effect on health safety or morals. Vice Chair Shepard asked the applicant about the upgrades, will any of this work involve removal of any existing trees and shrubs? John responded no. Vice Chair Shepard asked if the 350’ sq. ft. of additional landscaping was going to be mostly on the south side of the canopy. John responded yes. Commissioner Hogestad asked about the hours of operation. John responded that the pole lights offer security for the site and that there will be a couple other lights at the location. No new lights will be added except for the canopy lighting. These lights will be turned off 10 minutes after closing which is 9 PM. Vice Chair Shepard ask ed who owned the landscaping on Harmony road the edge of the shoulder and the beginning of the parking lot? John responded the Association. Commissioner Hogestad is confused as to how you would not be able to see a 4-story canopy over the trees. John responded that the architect team prepared the line of sight study and they used the building block for the height of the canopy. Commissioner Hogestad asked if this is where you would see 87’ of height in the canopy? John responded no, the 87’ is the length of the canopy. The height of the canopy is 17’1”. Commissioner Hogestad now understands. Commissioner Hansen commented that in the information submitted to the Commission for the hearing that there were comments that the Harmony Market Owners Association and the protective covenants and conditions do not fall under the purview of the Planning and Zoning Commission at all and that if there is any review, it is a whole other layer that the Commission should not be considering. Planner Mapes commented that there were comments and concerns received about traffic impacts, stacking out and adding to congestion in the shopping center generally. Staff did find that it is internal and private. The traffic and queuing appear to be accommodated, understanding that there may be peak times or if it is successful, that there is room for stacking. Attorney Yatabe commented that this is generally true, that matters of private contracting, covenants, restrictions between private DocuSign Envelope ID: 70EE75B3-3F80-4746-94F4-DD85E7DF7862 Planning & Zoning Commission May 20, 2021 Page 7 of 12 parties we are generally not involved with. The Commissions does have the ability to assess impact on surrounding properties. Chelsea Penn, Sam’s Club, commented that they will be working with the District. Commissioner Katz is still having a hard time with the APU criteria and checking the boxes. There is traffic for D and E and fuel tanks underground is an environmental issue. C, D, and E for the APU criteria, he is not comfortable with. Commissioner Hogestad agrees with Commissioner Katz. This is not what was envisioned when the guidelines were put together and really does not meet criteria B either. Vice Chair Shepard is sympathetic to Commissioners Hogestad and Katz on 1.3.4. He would like to offer that should the project get further down the road, he will be thinking of asking the Commission for a condition that adds landscaping to block the viewpoint as described as perspective E, based on 3.5.1(J)(1 and 5) of the land use code. This is a much smaller issue than what has just been raised. Commissioner Hansen commented that if this conforms to the basic characteristics of the zone, there is a fueling station on the east side of the area. Saying that it does not fit in is certainly not a valid argument. Vice Chair Shepard asked Attorney Yatabe if the Commission is expected to vote on the APU separately and prior to the major amendment? And if the APU fails, then we do not move on to the major amendment? Attorney Yatabe responded that since both items are before the Commission, you could combine them, but based on the tenor of the conversation, the major amendment is contingent upon the approval of the APU. Since the item is before you essentially you would also want to adopt a motion denying the major amendment on the basis that the APU is then not an allowed use. Commissioner Hogestad asked when the existing fuel station was built. Planner Mapes responded it was 1994, but earlier in 1994 than the application of the designation to the center. Commissioner Hogestad commented that if the standards had been in place that fuel station would not have happened there. The intent for the area was retail and entertainment. Commissioner Katz thanked Commissioner Hansen for point out the existing fuel station, it helped him through thoughts he had about the criteria. He feels since it is off the mail arterial it does not affect the entire development. Vice Chair Shepard commented that he recalls conversation about the Harmony corridor being an urban design element. He appreciates the conversation about upholding the vision of what is in place for the Harmony corridor. He is evaluating 1.3.4(D) and (E) and the original purpose of a shopping center. This is to have a conglomeration of a variety of uses that all support one another. What is the purpose of t he shopping center, and what does this facility do to that purpose? Does it compliment, is it neutral? Commissioner Hogestad made a motion that the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Commission deny the request for the addition of the permitted use for the Sam’s Club fueling station. The commission finds that the request does not conform to the eight criteria for addition of permitted use. T he following criteria are not met: A) The use is not appropriate in the zone district as defined in the Harmony Corridor Standards and Guidelines. B) The proposed does not conform to the basic retail characteristics defined in the Harmony Corridor Standards. D) The proposed use creates odor, noise, and additional traffic. E) The new use will change the predominant retail entertainment character of the area. This denial is based on the agenda material, the information and materials presented durin g the work session, this hearing and Commission discussion on the item. Commissioner Katz seconded. Commissioner Hansen will not be supporting this motion as it stands. The applicant has met all the criterial for the APU. Commissioner Schneider agrees and disagrees, he agrees that it is not meeting all the requirements, but some of the requirements are met. This has not been developed the right way and they need to work through the process with their neighboring property owners. He reluctantly agrees. Commissioner Hogestad commented that the requirement for the APU is that it meets all eight of the criteria and it does not. Vice Chair Shepard is leaning DocuSign Envelope ID: 70EE75B3-3F80-4746-94F4-DD85E7DF7862 Planning & Zoning Commission May 20, 2021 Page 8 of 12 toward supporting the motion as made. Chair Haefele will be supporting the motion as she agrees that it should meet all the criteria. Vote: 5:1. Vice Chair Shepard made a motion that the Fort Collins planning and Zoning Commission deny the Major Amendment MJA200002, primarily based on the fact that the associated request for an Addition of a Permitted Use has been denied. Commissioner Hogestad seconded. Commissioner Hansen commented that his only concerns he had about the project is that it seems that there have not been a lot of collabor ation between Sam’s Club and the other business owners and Owners Association. This is not under our p urview to get in the middle of. Vice Chair Shepard commented that he appreciates the fact that the applicant and the design team worked closely with staff transforming the project. There is a use issue. Vote 5:1 5. Magnolia Dwellings Project Description: This is a request to construct a 3,795 square foot 4-plex located at 335 E Magnolia Street. The proposal includes two modifications of standards to allow for a reduced parking lot landscape setback and to exceed the compact parking stall maximum from 40% to 42%. Recommendation: Approval Secretary Manno reported that there were no citizen emails or letters received after the agenda packet was published. Staff and Applicant Presentations Planner Kleer gave a brief verbal/ visual overview of this project. Shelley LaMastra, Russell + Mills Studios, also provided a a brief verbal/visual presentation. Public Input (3 minutes per person) Charles Clark, manager of multi-family to the west. He did not realize how tall the buildings will be and is concerned with individuals standing on the balcony and blockage of the site line. In the past Staff Response Chair Haefele noted that it appears there are no windows on the east side of the multi-family to the west. Ian responded that there are existing windows on both facades. They are matching up against another building with similar scale. They feel that it is a like for like. As for the balcony, you can walk out and look down, however, there is distance from the property line, along with landscaping in addition. The trees provide a visual barrier. Commissioner Hansen requested a slide be pulled up. He feels this is an attractive design, the roof over hangs that overlap one form to the next helps break up the massing. The roof overhangs that cross the fire barrier between the units, this can cause headaches for plan review. Is this something that has been resolved or is there a danger of some of the overhangs being diminished or removed? Ian responded that the distinction is that this is an R-2 apartment building not a townhome. Commission Questions / Deliberation Vice Chair Shepard asked Planner Kleer to elaborate on Shelley’s view toward equal to or better than and his view toward nominal and inconsequential. Planner Kleer replied that staff’s findings were based on the parking lot setback being equal to or better than. By the plan providing the 3’ setback and the landscaping to t he fence, it was equal to or better than than a 5’ setback. Relating to the compact stalls, staff was finding that it was nominal and inconsequential with respect to the entire project. Mrs. LaMastra replied that they had the same information. For the parking lot, it is equal to or better than and nominal and inconsequential for the additional 2.8% over the allowable 40%. DocuSign Envelope ID: 70EE75B3-3F80-4746-94F4-DD85E7DF7862 Planning & Zoning Commission May 20, 2021 Page 9 of 12 Vice Chair Shepard thanked Ian for the information about how the two mid-century modern houses influenced the design, based on massing, which Planner Kleer mentioned. His understanding that the remainder was to find compliance with the Laurel School District or more with the old town neighborhoods plan #2. How did all three of these work together to influence the outcome? Ian responded that this was debated with LPC for a bit, and he felt that the Queen Ann most replicated that scale. Chair Haefele asked how the railing perspective would change if someone were standing? Ian responded that these are not large decks and probably would not be right up against the edge. There is roughly 3’ from the back wall. Mrs. Lamastra commented that the code is giving options for how to address the design options. Commissioner Hogestad commented that this is a skillful design and well done. It shows how a design can respond to historic context without cop ying a historic building. Vice Chair Shepard will be supporting the two modifications. Commissioner Hansen asked if the buffer will be only on the east, or if it is required on both sides, and what would keep the whole parking lot layout from being flopped so that you could allow for a larger buffer? The bicycle parking would allow a larger buffer. Mrs. LaMastra responded that they have looked at a landscape buffer that is required there and with the sheds, there is not landscaping. Chair Haefele likes the front view as it looks like a house and not a multi-family. Are these going to be affordable housing? Mrs. LaMastra responded that it currently is not. Ian responded that these are smaller units and helps the price point. Commissioner Hansen made a motion that the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Commission approve the request for modification of standard to Section 3.2.2(J) regarding setbacks fo r the proposed parking lot perimeter landscaping. This approval is based upon the agenda materials, the information and materials presented during the work session and this hear and Commission discussion on this item, that it will not be detrimental to the public good and that it is equal to or better than meeting the standard. This information, analysis, find of fact, conclusions contained in the staff report included with the agenda materials for this hearing are adopted by this Board. Commissioner Schneider seconded. Commissioner Hansen commented that there is a lot to mitigate the impacts from lights, the fence and landscaping will do a lot to help this. Vote: 6:0. Commission Hansen made a motion that the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Commission approve the request for modification of standard to Section 3.2.2(L)2 regarding the compact vehicle spaces to allow the proposed compact parking distribution to exceed the total by 2.8%. This approval is based that the modification is not detrimental to the public good and because this deviation from the standard is nominal and inconsequential. The information and analysis, finding of facts and conclusio n contained in the staff report included in the agenda materials for this hearing are adapted by this Commission. Commissioner Hansen commented that this is exactly what nominal and inconsequential is supposed to be. Chair Haefele agrees and feels this m ight be a land use code update that allows for rounding. Vice Chair Shepard echoed Chair Haefele. Commissioner Katz seconded. Vote 6:0 Commission Katz made a motion that the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Commission approve the Magnolia Dwellings PDP200018. This approval is based on the materials agenda materials, work session, staff presentation and discussion of the Commission. Commissioner Hansen commented that this is exactly what nominal and inconsequential is supposed to be. Chair Haefele agrees and feels this might be a land use code update that allows for rounding. Vice Chair Shepard echoed Chair Haefele. Commissioner Schneider thanked the team. Vice Chair Shepard applauded the design team, this project has a lot of complexity. Commissio ner Katz agreed. Commissioner Hanses complemented the design team. Vice Chair Shepard seconded. Vote 6:0 6. Mosaic Neighborhood Center Project Description: This is a Project Development Plan (P.D.P.) to develop a neighborhood center for the Mosaic Community. The proposal includes approximately 4,000 square feet of commercial space as well as a community pool with an affiliated 1,000 square foot building, a neighborhood open space area, and 19 off -street DocuSign Envelope ID: 70EE75B3-3F80-4746-94F4-DD85E7DF7862 Planning & Zoning Commission May 20, 2021 Page 10 of 12 parking spaces. Future access will be taken f rom Conquest Way to the east. The request includes a Modification of Standard and is located within the Low-Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (LMN) zone district, which requires Planning & Zoning Commission (Type 2) review. Recommendation: Approval Secretar y Manno reported that an email from Beth Ayasse Churchman regarding her concern about the types of business that might affect the purchase/lease of the area. She proposed a cafe with food and/or alcohol, a brewery or winery or boutique. Staff and Applicant Presentations Planner Wray gave a brief verbal/visual overview of this project. John Beggs, Russell + Mills Studios, also provided a brief verbal/visual presentation. Public Input (3 minutes per person) Jack Bensel, he feels it is a great design and it is anticipated by many residents. The pool enclosing fence includes a double-sided fireplace feature, this should be one sided and only for the residents of Mosaic. He would like to know if there are any conditions for restrictions on retail uses, limiting liquor stores, pot shops and gun stores? Staff Response Planner Wray responded to the uses question. The list of permitted uses is clearly defined, and retail stores are a permitted use. A liquor store is a permitted retail store. The applicant has some ideas as to what they would like to see go in. John could not speak to the specific uses; this pertains to Hartford and what they are planning. They do want to make sure that what goes in is compatible with the neighborhood and will not be a detriment to any adjacent use or adjacent residents. For the community gathering space, Fencing can be looked at, this goes against the idea of creating a gathering space for the community. Chair Haefele assumes future uses will come before the Commission or at least have some staff review. Planner Wray responded no. John commented that based on the neighborhood meetings, Hartford is taking their time and speaking with those who want to be in the building. Vice Chair Shepard is concerned with the timing of the future Timberline overpass. He is looking at the final plan and the street trees. He would like to see them on private property and not in the way of the alignment. Commissioner Hansen thought he saw something about an Elco easement on the west side, is this going to interfere with what Vice Chair Shepard is proposing? John responded that the Elco easement is directly adjacent, right up against the west property line. The right-of-way being dedicated is within this zone. There is another easement on the west side. Vice Chair Shepard asked if the limit to development is a property line? Would a Timberline capital project realignment effect the property line? Would the Timberline have to acquire land from Hartford to realign? Mark responded that he did not believe additional right-of-way is needed and then they do not have a vertical or horizontal design for Timberline to have any confidence at this time that placing trees may not be in the correct vertical position. Planner Wray added that near the property line you can see the future regional trail approximate location. When Park Planning coordinates on the project that specific alignment might shift as well. Vice Chair Shepard commented that just as the City water department has a tree separation specification, perhaps Elco could as well. He encourages the design team to find out what that separation is in order to provide some trees in the area. John responded that there is opportunity to work with Parks Planning to get a better idea of where the regional trail will fall. Commission Questions / Deliberation Vice Chair Shepard asked if there will be street trees along Timberline in the parkway? Planner Wray responded that this was looked at and it was determined that the ali gnment is not determined yet, and that placing interim trees was not the best decision. Chair Shepard asked about the Timberline realignment. Mr. Virata, Engineering DocuSign Envelope ID: 70EE75B3-3F80-4746-94F4-DD85E7DF7862 Planning & Zoning Commission May 20, 2021 Page 11 of 12 Dept. responded that there is not yet a design in place yet and it was decided not to plant trees at this moment. The width will be to arterial standards, but to the North, similar to Vine and Lemay that it would be a grade separated crossing. Commissioner Hogestad is curious about deliveries. Will this all be through the front door? John responded yes on the east side. This will be a dedicated emergency access easement and the turning radius has been looked into. Where will pool maintenance be parking, on the street? John responded that they would park in the street or parking lot and probably during off hours. Vice Chair Shepard questioned the condensing unit location. He would like to make sure that they are properly screened. Chair Haefele asked that in cases where there are specific code requirements, how are they handled as pro jects are built? Planner Wray responded that staff finalizes this during final plan. At this level of PDP, it is not 100% designed yet in compliance with final plan approval. Vice Chair Shepard made a motion that the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Commission approve the request for modification to Section 3.2.2. This is based upon the agenda materials, the information presented during the work session, this hearing, the Commission discussion, and that the modification would not be detrimental to the public good per 2.8.2(H)1 equal to or better than a plan that would otherwise comply with the standard in support of this project development plan. Commissioner Schneider seconded. Commissioner Hansen commented that he did look to see what other uses m ight be competing with the parking spots, he is not seeing a lot. He will be supporting the modification. Vote: 6:0. Vice Chair Shepard would like the applicant and staff to look creatively at complying with the standard in a way that would be considered alternative compliance. Commissioner Schneider mad a motion that the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Commission approve Mosaic Neighborhood Center PDP210003 based on the agenda materials, the information provided to us during the work session, this hearing, the Commission discussion and with the findings of fact that the information and analysis and findings of fact and conclusion contained within the staff report are meeting the approval of the adopted code. Member Katz seconded. Vice Chair Shepard complemented the design team and staff. This is a real example of a neighborhood center. Vote 6:0 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 Other Business Commissioner Schneider asked if anyone knew the status of filling the vacant commission seat. Interim Director Sizemore responded that originally the previous Council was looking to fill the spot, but due to the elect, they chose to wait until the new Council was seated. A new liaison was appointed, and she and City Council members are going to begin the process of figuring out how they would like to go about filling the seat. Commissioner Schneider asked if Emily would be doing a meet and greet? Interim Director Sizemore responded that he has had a chance to speak with Council Member Gorgol, and her intention is to try to get into a work session to visit, potentially next month. Commissioner Schneider asked if the commission could look at going back into a hybrid meeting setting? Interim Director Sizemore responded that from a staff perspective we have not received a clear plan for bo ards and commissions yet, but it is being worked on. He agrees that everything has changed, and we will work to get things in motion for hybrid meetings soon. Commissioner Hogestad mentioned that this morning he attended the Civic Center planning meeting . He feels the final design is a bit to conservative and not anything special. The big take away was that there was no public input DocuSign Envelope ID: 70EE75B3-3F80-4746-94F4-DD85E7DF7862 Planning & Zoning Commission May 20, 2021 Page 12 of 12 in the process. There were several master plan meetings all with City departments and staff, and none with the public and he is disappointed with that. Vice Chair Shepard also attended and has nothing to add. Chair Haefele announced to the public that there will be another meeting on Wednesday to hear the additional items for this month’s agenda. This hearing will be remote. There will also be two June hearings, June 17th, and June 30th. Do we want to have an additional work session for the June 30th meeting, or do we want to cover everything in the one work session? Commissioner Hansen would like to cover everything in the one work session. Commissioner Schneider commented that if the commission is in-person it will be more expeditious. Interim Director Sizemore commented that the reason to consider a seconded work session is that it is a different layout with the second hearing being six days after the first. In June, the work session is on the 11 th and the second hearing will not be until the 30th. Commissioner Schneider asked how many items are anticipated? Interim Director Sizemore responded four items lined up on discussion. Commissioner Schneider prefers one meeting as opposed to multiple. Commissioner Hogestad agrees that one session would be best. Commissioner Hanses suggested that the Commission try to get through all items and if needed, then a provisionary hearing could be held. Interim Director Sizemore asked that if in a hybrid format, does this influence the number of items that they would like to see on the agenda? Chair Haefele feels that the ideal would be in-person, then zoom and that hybrid might be potentially longer due to technology. Interim Director Sizemore responded that staff would monitor and that the Commission would like to have just the one work session regardless of how the items get divvied up over the hearings. Chair Haefele asked if there was a re ason that things have to be shoved into the first available hearing just because they are ready, or can we require some schedules and slot and say that this hearing is full? She has not received an answer. Interim Director Sizemore responded that there was a higher number of submittals and this results in the potential for backlog. The plan that has been laid out seems manageable. Adjournment Chair Haefele moved to adjourn the P&Z Commission hearing. The meeting was adjourned at 11:56 pm. Minutes respectfully submitted by Shar Manno. Minutes approved by a vote of the Commission on: June 17, 2021. Paul Sizemore, Interim CDNS Director Michelle Haefele, Chair DocuSign Envelope ID: 70EE75B3-3F80-4746-94F4-DD85E7DF7862