Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Commission - Minutes - 09/16/2021 Michelle Haefele, Chair City Council Chambers Ted Shepard, Vice Chair City Hall West 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 September 16, 2021 Chair Hansen called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Roll Call: Haefele, Hansen, Hogestad, Katz, Schneider, Shepard Absent: None Staff Present: Yatabe, Stephens, Sizemore, Wray, Vonkoepping, Kleer, Lindsey, Ryan Mounce, Smith, Hahn, Smith, Virata, Axmacher, Claypool and Manno Chair Haefele provided background on the Commission’s role and what the audience could expect as to the order of business. She described the role of the commission, noted that members are volunteers appointed by city council. The commission members review the analysis by staff, the applicants’ presentations, and input from the public and make a determination regarding whether each proposal meets the land use code. She noted that this is a legal hearing, and that she will moderate for civility and fairness. Agenda Review CDNS Director Paul Sizemore reviewed the items on the Consent and Discussion agendas , stating that all items will be heard as originally advertised. Public Input on Items Not on the Hearing Agenda: None noted. Consent Agenda: 1. Draft Minutes from August 19, 2021, P&Z Hearing 2. Wireless Telecommunications Master Plan Recommendation Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes DocuSign Envelope ID: 8ED34AB6-AB53-4AD1-9BE2-CCE7C43DC336 Planning & Zoning Commission September 16, 2021 Page 2 of 7 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 Hogestad asked for clarification on the changes to the Wireless Telecom Master Plan and the items in red. Will they become part of the Master Telecom Plan, or should those be a separate motion? Attorney Yatabe commented that his understanding is that those recommended changes are going to be incorporated into the Plan going to Council. What you would be approving tonight on the Consent Agenda would be the plan with the additional changes prior to the plan going to Council. Planner Lindsey confirm ed. Member Hogestad made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Commission approve the Consent agenda of September 16, 2021, the agenda consisting of August 19, 2021, draft minutes, and the Wireless Telecomm Master Plan Recommendation to City Council. Member Katz seconded the motion. Vote: 6:0. Discussion Agenda: 3. Mars Landing Project Description: This is a request for a Project Development Plan (PDP) for the development of two, three- story multi-family buildings with 90 total dwelling units, with a total of 151 on-site parking spaces on 3.79 acres. Access will be taken from two points along Mars Drive. The property is within the General Commercial (CG) zone district and is subject to Planning and Zoning Commission (Type 2) Review. Vice Chair Shepard disclosed that he is on the Foundation Board to the abutting property, Foothills Gateway Rehabilitation Center. He does not feel there are any conflicts and will be participating in this item. He will remain fair and unbiased in this proceeding. Member Katz disclosed that his wife is on the Board of Foothills Gateway as well and he is not sure wha t she does. He will not be biased at all on this item. Recommendation: Approval Secretary Manno reported that no additional items were received after the agenda packet was published. Staff and Applicant Presentations Planner Pete Wray gave a brief verbal/visual overview of the project. Donald Cecil and Kara Scheetz, Galloway, Nicole Renner, Goodwin Knight, and Chris Walla, Godden Sudik also provided a brief verbal/visual presentation of this project. Public Input (3 minutes per person) Debbie Alman, owner of Deli Works, she is worried about safety, the road (Skyway) is sloped, traffic is 55 mph. Access to the restaurant, it is hard to get out. She questions the two access points and how people will get through the neighborhood. Melinda Cooper, resident of Skyway Dr., she is concerned with the prairie dogs and wants to know exactly where they will be going, the intersection and the increase in traffic, and how emergency vehicles will gain access to the complex. She does not want to see anything built until Mars goes through to Trilby Road. She would like this to be affordable housing. The sidewalk along Skyway is now narrower, and this is an issue for motorized wheelchairs. Sabrina Sanchez, homeowner on Galaxy Way, traffic is her largest concern. The hill is very dangerous in the DocuSign Envelope ID: 8ED34AB6-AB53-4AD1-9BE2-CCE7C43DC336 Planning & Zoning Commission September 16, 2021 Page 3 of 7 wintertime. She feels the trail needs to come first before and additional development. She is concerned for the prairie dogs and other wildlife in the area. She states there is a trash problem and feels it will get worse with this new development. She does not understand why a majority of the units are going to be single resident units. She is concerned with the environmental impact. Marcus Mim s, resident, there is a lot of traffic going through the neighborhood, what is acceptable and the maximum amount of traffic before development has to stop? Another concern is the prairie dogs. According to Colorado’s Parks and Wildlife it is illegal to remove them from the area at least without a permit. Has a permit been pulled? Another area of wonder is with the natural habitat. Should we be leaving the natural buffer as is for the remaining land, that could continue to be habitat for the prairie dogs? Staff Response Chair Haefele would like to know more about the slope on Skyway and more information on what is going to happen with the prairie dogs. Member Hogestad commented that if these are a special kind of prairie dog, it would be good to know. Chair Haefele responded that black tailed prairie dogs are what we have here. Mr. Cecil responded regarding the black tail prairies dogs. He read a note that has been added to the plan that was given by staff. “The black tailed prairie dogs located within the parcel will be trapped and donated to either a raptor rehabilitation program or black footed recovery program. All control will be done per City of Fort Collins, CPW and Colorado Department of Agriculture requirements. Control will be conducted via the introduction of carbon monoxide into the burrows, post control of the prairie dogs will be prepared which will identify the control method used and the number of prairie dogs trapped and donated.” Chair Haefele felt it would be best to clarify t hat when they say they are donating them to a raptor or black footed ferret program, that theses animals eat prairie dogs. They are not just going to go live with them. Planner Wray highlighted the main concerns about safety and traffic. Traffic Ops., Nicole Hahn responded to the traffic signal timing and the function of the intersection. The right turn lane and go around a car waiting to make a left turn and make a right turn using the bike lane. This is something, that once the development opens, we will watch the signal timing to see if modifications need to be made. A safety improvement timing change can be made at this intersection that allows for pedestrians to have a few seconds of head start. For neighborhood traffic safety, any of the neighborhoods that have an interest in following up with the traffic department about speed humps, the city is happy to come out and talk with neighbors and see if there are some speed mitigation improvements that could be made in the neighborhood. With access and the frontage road, that frontage road is a complex design. It does not function well when it is that close to the intersection. This development is not responsible for fixing, but it is complicated because of the proximity. The interse ction of US 287 and Trilby, there is funding for that improvement. It is scheduled to be built in 2023. In terms of snow and ice maintenance, that is the City of Fort Collins Streets Department they can be contacted for assistance. The slope of Skyway is 7% which meets the standard with the maximum being 8%. Chair Haefele asked if Skyway slopes down west of College. Planner Wary confirmed that Skyway does slop down to College from the west. Planner Smith responded the prairie dogs losing their habitat, the city does recognize the prairie dog as a contributing element to our ecosystem, we do require mitigation for any loss of resources. Prairie dog colonies of over 1 acre in size must be mitigated. The city also allows for prairie dogs to be re located. If there is no receiving site, then the developer is required to eradicate or donate the prairie dogs prior to construction. The applicant has decided to mitigate by trapping and donating to a wildlife center, following the CPW program to do this. The red tail hawk nest is located about 450’ from the property boundary of this development and there are provisions in the code that require that no land disturbance or construction activity take place within the 450’ buffer around an active nest during the first year of a multi-year construction project. This development will be required to follow this code. Nicole Renner, Goodwin Knight, responded that there will not be any true affordable housing units in this project, it will all be market rate housing. There will be an on-site management company present who maintains trash removal and coordinates with the trash company for any needs. DocuSign Envelope ID: 8ED34AB6-AB53-4AD1-9BE2-CCE7C43DC336 Planning & Zoning Commission September 16, 2021 Page 4 of 7 Vice Chair Shepard asked about the dead-end issue and the hawk nest. He pointed out a temporary turnaround, possibly gravel. The issue of two points of access for the Poudre Fire Authority can be revealed on an aerial as well as pointing out where exactly the nest is. Pg. 197 of the packet. Engineering Development Review, Spencer Smith responded to the two-points of access. He could not speak to Poudre Fire’s review; he does not recall discussion of this not meeting their standards. He believes when the site develops and there is the loop through, that they were ok with that serving as allowing them to turn around and not have the temporary turnaround any longer. Engineering has worked on what the improvements are going to look like in the end. Chair Haefele requested information from Poudre Fire Authority as well as more detail of how the temporary turnaround is going to be finished. Planner Wray responded that with staff’s review, the temporary turnaround will be removed. This has met Poudre Fire Authorities requirements for emergency access and as an interim condition, Skyway to College is one of those and as Skyway connects through to the existing neighborhood to Trilby, that is the other access to the south and eventually Mars Dr. in the future for a third point of access. Planner Smith responded that there is a cottonwood grove where the redtail hawk is located. On the development plan, the 450’ radius has been placed on the plans so that developers and contractors will know they cannot be developing. Member Hansen questioned the slope of the sidewalk along Skyway Dr. W ith the slope of Skyway Dr. being 7%, the accessible path has to be 5% or less. It cannot be steeper than that or it has to be classified as a ramp and you need handrails and landings every 2 ½ vertical feet. Does this apply to sidewalks Citywide as well? Chair Haef ele commented that she understood the comment to be referred to as a narrow sidewalk. Mr. Smith responded that they are based on the plans and the design of the overall south college storage project. When the road was improved with that, it does meet our standards for maximum slope. He does not know the answer as to how ADA compliance works with this. If the maximum slope of the roadway is 8% and the ADA max is 5%, he would have to look into this as far as right-of-way and public walks within the right-of-way. Vice Chair Shepard questioned Ms. Renner as to what her schedule is for building completion and occupancy and how close it comes to the capital improvement project on Trilby scheduled for 2023? Ms. Renner responded that it depends on when their final plans are going to be approved and when construction can start. Typically, these projects take 13 months per building to build. It should align well. Commission Questions Member Hansen asked about the walkway that goes from Mars Dr. across 2 parking drive isles and connects the habitat buffer zone. From the illustrations it looks striped, is there any other enhancements? Mr. Cecil responded that there will be differential in material and stripping as well. Member Hogestad asked for some enlarged plans of those gathering areas in the work session and has not seen them yet, are there none? Planner Wray responded that in his slides he enlarged the three areas, and the application also has an enlarged view of the three separate areas. Member Hogestad expected something larger than that. Member Katz asked for a description of CMU block as he is seeing cinder blocks. Mr. Cecil responded that they would have naturalistic feel, they are articulated blocks, they are modular and stacked, but they look like boulders and look natural. The trash enclosures will be decided on at a later date. The prairie dogs will be donated to a black footed ferret program or a raptor program. Vice Chair Shepard asked Ms. Scheetz if there will be any pine trees along Skyway at the sidewalk? Ms. Scheetz responded that along the North buffer there are some habitat areas that are appearing, and that they chose not to plant pine trees in that area. They are happy to look into adding some pine trees that are more water tolerant. Vice Chair Shepard asked about pg. 160 in the packet who they (Me. Cecil or Planner Wray) have talked to about the feasibility or the future practicality of the regional trail? It looks like it is going to take a capitol project to bui ld. Mr. Cecil responded that he could not speak to whomever would come in an develop after them. Immediately to the South is a larger property owner and included with that lot to the South is a flag lot. It would be their responsibility to extend that to where they need to be. Planner Wray responded that when that property is ready to DocuSign Envelope ID: 8ED34AB6-AB53-4AD1-9BE2-CCE7C43DC336 Planning & Zoning Commission September 16, 2021 Page 5 of 7 develop, they would coordinate with the alignment of the regional trai l in coordination with park planning. This project stubs out and connects to that future regional trail. Vice Chair Shepard asked; in the upper Northwest corner of the property and then just West of that, there is a triangle piece of ground that is fenced off with a chain link fence, what is going on there? Mr. Cecile responded that he has asked multiple parties and does not have an answer. Vice Chair Shepard asked about if they would be irrigating the street trees? Ms. Scheetz responded yes, and that irrigation will be part of the landscaping. Chair Haefele asked if anyone knew what was planned for the th ird lot that is adjacent to College. Planner Wray responded that there have been a few proposals, but non that has materialized. Chair Haefele asked about the Northwest gathering space, will the tenants have access into the natural habitat buffer zone. Mr. Cecil responded no, it will be well planted, however there will be a trail that will run from the am enity up through zone and connect to the sidewalk on Skyway. Chair Haefele asked if there was any expectation that there will be deterioration in the quality of the two amenity sites that are adjacent to Mars or plans to address that if that becomes an issue? Mr. Cecil responded that they are intended for resident use only, not public , and understands the concern. There will need to be signage. Chair Haefele recommended that evergreen trees might go well there. Ms. Scheetz responded that they will be planting densely in the area to keep these areas more private. Vice Chair Shepard asked if the natural area buffer zone will be irrigated? Ms. Scheetz responded that she believed so, anything listed in landscaping will be irrigated to get established. Vice Chair Shepard asked Mr. Walla, to elaborate on what the masonry material is on the buildings. Mr. Walla responded that it is an adhered stone. It is not going to be a structural stone but will have a dry stack look. Both buildings chare the same general style but in a different color pallet. Vice Chair Shepard asked Mr. Cecil if the garage spaces are counted toward the parking, and will they be prohibited from becoming storage units? Mr. Cecil responded that he would expect so. Vice Chair Shepard asked where their similar project in Fort Collins was located. Mr. Cecil responded that is is the Ridgewood Hills 5 th filing, located at Triangle Dr. It is under review for final development plan. Vice Chair Shepard asked about the 7’ sidewalk along South College, the staff report states something about an 8’ wide multi use path, which is it? Mr. Cecil stated that they have it as a 7’ sidewalk, detached, along College. Engineer Smith commented that the determination was that a 7’ walk is what it will be. Vice Chair Shepard asked if the plan was still to have bike parking under building eaves? Mr. Cecil responded that these are se parate structures. Member Hogestad asked about the gathering spaces. How many tables and seats are there in the largest space, what does it accommodate? Ms. Walla responded two tables under the larger gathering space and then two in each private area space. Member Hogestad feels that the illustration is an exaggeration when it is 16 x 20. These do not feel adequate in the sense of what the Land Use Code had anticipated happening here. Member Hogestad asked about the building articulation. What is the differential in the architectural wall planes? The balconies seem to be the major portion of articulation. Mr. Cecil responded that Member Hogestad is 100% accurate in that most of the projections would be the balconies. Then from one building type to the next, some are cantilevered balconies some of them are founded with the stone pillars or columns. Aside from that the there is perfectly flat wall plane, with the overlay it is anything but perfectly flat. The wall projects out and creates a good deep shadow line. The balcony is a 5’ projection and the corridor is a 7’ jog. There is also a 14” project at the end of the unit. Member Hogestad questioned the size of the window on the Ease elevation compared to the West elevation. Mr. Cecil responded that each unit type will have 5’ sliders and they are 5’ x 5’. Vice Chair Shepard questioned the two connecting sidewalks from the front of the buildings out to Mars Dr ., and traversing the slope due to the topo, he is assuming that they have to be at the handicap grade but wants to know if there will be railings. Mr. Cecil responded that they are designed the way they are, so they do not need railings. Vice Chair Shepard cautioned Goodwin Knight to be very cog nizant with snow removal. Chair Haefele asked if there will be a left turn arrow for East bound Skyway onto North bound College. Traffic Ops., Nicole Hahn responded that they can absolutely study this to determine if one is needed. At this time, an additional right turn is being added and should improve the function of this intersection. There is a chance we will not need the left turn arrow. Member Hansen spoke to additional enclosed bike parking locations and stairwells. Has this been coordinated with building safety as well a planning staff? Ms. Walla responded that there are code requirements in terms and this space is essentially unusable space. This space does not impede egress and is not combustible material. It will be located in the stairwells. DocuSign Envelope ID: 8ED34AB6-AB53-4AD1-9BE2-CCE7C43DC336 Planning & Zoning Commission September 16, 2021 Page 6 of 7 Vice Chair Shephard would like to suggest that as things move forward with plan review that you give staff the benefit of a contextual diagram so they can see how the flagpole lot relates to the Foothills Gateway driveway, and what’s across Skyway and a bigger picture view. Commission Deliberation Vice Chair Shepard commented that there is a condition of approval related to enclosed bicycle parking and is somewhat reassured from Mr. Cecil’s response to his willingness and cooperation to meet the conditi on with the next subsequent round of review. Vice Chair Shepard is hearing stairwells and wanted to read into the record of what this means. Bicycle parking enclosed shall mean bicycle storage in lockers, a room or other space within a parking structure or other building including a shed or a carport. All types of enclosed bicycle storage must easily be accessible to entrances and walkways, secure, lighted, and protected from the weather. Each storage space shall provide a minimum of 6’ s.f. in area. The storage of space shall not impede fire exits or be located so that parked bicycles interfere with public access. Chair Haefele commented on the picture stating that she would suggest this does not qualify as enclosed or sheltered bike storage. Vice Chair Shepard commented on the condition of approval for the trash enclosure. It is not just for trash, but also recyclables. When you label your stock plans or speak in a project narrative format, it is trash and recycle. There are requirements for container size. The Department of Natural Resources a guidebook on trash and recycling container sizes base on the number of dwelling units and bedrooms. Please refer to this resource. Chair Haefele asked if there was a picture of the enclosed trash containers. Planner Wray responded that there was a detail of the trash enclosure. Staff is recommending that the wall material type to be textured block to protect the containers inside. Vice Chair Shepard asked Member Hogestad if he had any strong feelings on amenity space and outdoor gathering space based on the number of units. Member Hogestad responded that yes, he had strong feelings in this area. The intent of the code is not to do terribly small spaces like this. The code talks about multiple-use turf and pavilions, this simply does not meet what the intent of the code is. He feels they are an afterthought. Member Katz asked Member Hogestad if there was a condition he would add. Member Hogestad commented that the site is full and to do something now would affect so much. A condition would not make sense. Vice Chair Shepard asked Ms. Scheetz if the topo of the site would allow for a looping dog walking path? Ms. Scheetz deferred to Mr. Cecil. Mr. Cecil responded that it does not, and that there is a significant amount of fall from west to east which makes things challenging. Vice Chair Shepard feels that an opportunity has been squandered. The am enity package leaves something to be desired. Not to the point of denial, but to the quality of life for those that will be living there. Member Katz asked if there was any way to get rid of some parking to allow for a larger amenity space. Mr. Cecil stated that they have 6 extra spaces which would be 1,000 s.f. Member Hogestad feels that it should have been part of the original design. Member Schneider asked Planner Wary if they meet the requirements set within the land use code for amenity space for the size of the project? Planner Wray responded yes. This site and project did start off with a larger central gather ing space. As reviewed continued there were trade-offs in providing additional natural habitats buffer in the northwest corner along with the storm drainage. The club house was removed. There is no size requirement for this size of project for the gathering space, the code speaks to providing sufficient amenities for the number of units. Losing the club house, it was recommended to the applicants to disburse the amenities in three different areas. Not all of the spaces take up parking. Member Hogestad does not feel it fits the code and he is disappointed. Member Hansen likes that they have aggregated the space. The only criticism is on the areas upfront, maybe change the shape of them, but they are appropriately sized. Chair Haefele would like there to be a different shape given as well. Member Hogestad feels there is a lack of articulation. Member Hansen and Member Schneider disagreed. Vice Chair Shepard commented that he feels there is going to be a lot of tenant parking on Mars Dr. Parking on Mars will be permitted. He encourages the applicant to further design the gathering areas. Member Katz will be supporting the project. Vice Chair Shepard will be supporting the project and thanked the citizens for their input. Member Katz made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Commission approve the Mars Landing Project Development Plan PDP190013 with the following conditions of approval. DocuSign Envelope ID: 8ED34AB6-AB53-4AD1-9BE2-CCE7C43DC336 Planning & Zoning Commission September 16, 2021 Page 7 of 7 1. To comply with the Land Use Code, Section 3.2.2(c)(4) regarding bicycle facilities; the applicant at final review shall provide 60% covered bicycle space for a total of 77 covered space, and 40% fixed rack spaces for a total 51 fixed rack spaces 2. To comply with the Land Use Code, Section 3.2.5 regarding trash and recycling enclosures. The applicant at final dev elopment plan review shall ensure that all trash and recycling enclosures are screened with a more durable material in place of the cedar such as textured block, concrete, CMU block or all metal fencing. This will include interior curbing for a metal strip to buffer dumpster bins from hitting the wall. The commission finds consideration in the conditions of approval imposed on the project development plan satisfies all applicable Land Use Code requirements. This decision is based upon the agenda materials, the information and materials presented in the work session and this hearing and the commission discussion on this item. Further this commission hereby adopts the information, analysis, findings of facts and conclusions regarding this project developmen t plan contained in the staff report, included in the agenda materials for this hearing. Member Hansen seconded. Member Hogestad will not be supporting the project or the motion due to the lack of articulation in the building and lack of real or meaningf ul gathering space. Vice Chair Shepard will be supporting this motion but understands and hears Member Hogestad’s concerns. Chair Haefele agrees that it appears to meet the Land Use Code, just not in an inspiring way. Vote: 5:1. Other Business CDNS Director Sizemore mentioned that the commission will receive a survey to complete individually. This information will go into a report with your feedback as to how the commission and its function and how well things are going. It will be due in one-week. Adjournment Chair Haefele moved to adjourn the P&Z Commission hearing. The meeting was adjourned at 8:25 pm. Minutes respectfully submitted by Shar Manno. Minutes approved by a vote of the Commission on: October 21, 2021 Paul Sizemore, CDNS Director Michelle Haefele, Chair DocuSign Envelope ID: 8ED34AB6-AB53-4AD1-9BE2-CCE7C43DC336