Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 08/15/2019 Jeff Hansen, Chair City Council Chambers Jeffrey Schneider, Vice Chair City Hall West Michael Hobbs 300 Laporte Avenue Per Hogestad Fort Collins, Colorado William Whitley Cablecast on FCTV Channel 14 & Channel 881 on Comcast The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224- 6001) for assistance. Regular Hearing August 15, 2019 Chair Hansen called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Roll Call: Hansen, Hobbs, Hogestad, Schneider, Whitley Absent: None Staff Present: Everette, Yatabe, Tatman-Burruss, Wray, Blochowiak, Betley, Wilkinson, Iverson, Frickey, Beane, Leeson, Virata and Manno Chair Hansen provided background on the board’s role and what the audience could expect as to the order of business. He described the following procedures: • While the City staff provides comprehensive information about each project under consideration, citizen input is valued and appreciated. • The Board is here to listen to citizen comments. Each citizen may address the Board once for each item. • Decisions on development projects are based on judgment of compliance or non-compliance with city Land Use Code. • Should a citizen wish to address the Board on items other than what is on the agenda, time will be allowed for that as well. • This is a legal hearing, and the Chair will moderate for the usual civility and fairness to ensure that everyone who wishes to speak can be heard. Agenda Review Development Review Manager Everette 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 August 15, 2019 Page 2 of 7 Public Input on Items Not on the Hearing Agenda: Mike Feldhousen, 5102 Norther Lights Dr., offered a few comments on the Harmony Gateway plan and the Land Use Code and overall planning of the development. Kara Lyons, 5100 Northern Lights Dr., - commented on the Harmony Gateway plan and the concerns she has with the plan. She would like a mechanism for citizen participation. Dr. Walter Lyons, 4022 Rock Creek Dr., - commented on the Harmony Gateway plan. He is glad that the City has a vision but feels there is much more work to be done. Peter Bohling, 4786 McMurry, Apt. 130, commented on the Oakridge Crossing development. He does not feel that the product had a good result. He handed out a site plan to the Board. Issues with parking and the shops moving in. Board Questions Vice Chair Schneider commented on the communication laps with the Harmony Gateway communications. Planning Manager Everette stated they would look at the site and make necessary updates. Vice Chair Schneider wanted clarification on who Mr. Bohling has spoken to. Planning Manager Everett confirmed that the Planning Dept. has had conversations with him and that they have also conducted onsite investigations and can provide more detailed information. Chair Hansen would like follow-up at the next work session and/or hearing. Planning Manager Everette will provide a memo for discussion. Vice Chair Schneider asked staff if they felt there was a need for a Citizen Advisory or if the outreach is sufficient. Planning Manager Everette would like to follow up with Mrs. Lyons for clarification but specific to the Harmony Gateway Plan, there have been several engagements with an additional meeting scheduled as well as public hearings with the P&Z Board and City Council. Member Hogestad requested information on other Cities that have a Citizen Advisory group. Planning Manager Everette responded that they could get information for comparable Cities. UConsent Agenda: 1. Draft Minutes from July 18, 2019, P&Z Hearing 2. Dutch Bros Drive-Thru, PDP190008 Public Input on Consent Agenda: None noted Chair Hansen 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. Vice Chair Schneider made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board approve the Consent agenda for the August 15, 2019, consisting of the minutes from the July 2018 Hearing along with the Dutch Bros Drive- Thru, PDP 190008. All these comply with the Land Use Code requirements that are stated in the staff report and prepared for this hearing. That the information, analysis, findings of facts and conclusions which are also contained in the staff report be included as agenda materials along with any additional items that we have heard tonight by this Board. Member Hobbs seconded the motion. Vote: 5:0. UDiscussion Agenda: 3. Montava Planned Unit Development (PUD) Overlay, ODP180002 Project Description: This is a request to approve a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Overlay to develop 850 acres in the northeast area of Fort Collins, roughly bound by Vine Dr. on the south, Turnberry Rd. on the west, the Budweiser brewery on the east and Richards Lake Rd. on the north (parcels # 8833000001, 8833000006, Planning & Zoning Board August 15, 2019 Page 3 of 7 8832000001, 8833000002, 8832000002, 8704000001, 8704000002, 8832000905). The land is currently undeveloped and in agricultural use. The Master Plan includes a mix of housing, schools, parks, commercial, employment, natural areas and agricultural uses. Approximately 5,000 dwelling units are projected. Project planning to date has included multiple neighborhood meetings, a weeklong design charrette and two pre-application hearings with City Council. The proposed project includes portions of the following zone districts: Low-Density Mixed-Use (LMN), Employment (E), and Industrial (I). The proposed project is going through the new PUD process, which will require a Planning and Zoning Board recommendation to City Council, who is the decision maker for PUD’s greater than 640 acres in size. Recommendation: Approval Secretary Gerber reported that numerous items were received as stated below: • Multiple letters and emails of opposition from Virginia Mohr-Callahan and Gerald N. Callahan citing traffic concerns and the items the Montava developer may have on the future November ballot. • Letter of opposition from Lindsay Morgan asking for more thought and planning regarding the future consequences of this development. • Letters of opposition from Marilyn Weddel and Peter Dundee, citing traffic concerns. • Letter of support from Casey Robinson who lives in the area and is looking forward to some commercial development nearby • Letter of opposition from Paul Beiser, stating the Montava developer is not in accordance with the Fort Collins Master Street Plan. • Email from Dave Hula. He would like approval withheld until his concerns are soundly addressed. • Email from Kris Clagett who has concerns regarding increased traffic, light pollution, surface ware and multiple general question. • Email from Nan Sollo. She has concerns regarding water resources and traffic. • Utilities Memo from Kevin R. Gertig • FTC Montava Phase II Report • Parks and Recreation Policy Plan Amendment – Staff Recommendation Staff and Applicant Presentations Planner Frickey gave a brief verbal/visual overview of this project. Max Moss, Lead Developer, Montava, along with Angie Milewski and Matt Lambert, DPZ Design, provided a verbal/visual presentation of this project. Public Input (3 minutes per person) Amanda Lima, 2613 Bar Harbor Dr., she is in support of this project for the amenities that are planned for the area, jobs that it will create, and traffic improvements. Dave Hula, 3540 Terry Lake Rd., Highlighted points of the information he previously provided. He is skeptical of the traffic that will change when the project is put in. He offered recommendations for improvements. Jeff Aguiar, 2238 Maple Hill Dr., he is in favor of the Montava project. Greg George, 1834 Rangeview Dr., he recommends approval of the project. He does have concerns regarding Nedra Acres and the four (4) exits onto County Club Road. The significant increase in traffic is a true concern. There is no traffic control and residents have a tough time existing the neighborhood. Planning & Zoning Board August 15, 2019 Page 4 of 7 Marily Smith, 1832 Gernoble Ct., continued with what Greg George was speaking of. She also suggested a three- way stop sign be placed to slow down traffic, discourage some traffic and allow residents better ease turning left onto the street. Clinton Wilson, 4015 N. Taft Hill, Executive Director of Poudre Valley Community Farms, he is working with Montava on their 40-acre farm. He supports the project. He is available to discuss the farm and the planning going into it Nic Koontz, 209 Columbine Ct., supports the project and is working with Montava on the farm. Nancy Hanck, 1224 Forest Hills Ln. is concerned with traffic and the infrastructure. Elizabeth Nance, 845 Juniper Lane, supports the project. Montava is a good option if someone wants something other than downtown. Melanie Reed, 1624 Miramont Dr., is concerned with the traffic and supports the project. Kevin Jablonski, 5909 Blue Spruce Dr., supports the project. Paul Beiser, 1301 Linden Lake Rd., he supports the project, but is opposed to modifying the Street Master Plan. He would like to see more citizen involvement. Kim Hoke, 619 W. St., is in support of the innovative ideas that the project has. She hopes the traffic issues can be address. Brandan Willits, 2445 Laporte Ave., Poudre School District has been working with Montava and a land agreement. He feels the agreements benefit both parties. Gail Spinden, 5016 NCR 3, she is concerned with the traffic the project will cause. Staff Response Planner Frickey provided an overview of the Planned Unit Development process, an overview of the requested plan amendments made by the Montava team, compliance and Land Use Code and staff findings and recommendations. Traffic Engineer Wilkinson responded to traffic concerns. The approach is that of a Master Plan. Traffic studies will be completed with each phase. Country Club Road is not an arterial roadway and it is intended and classified as a collector roadway. We do not want to create a roadway that functions as an arterial. If improvements are made it is possible to draw more traffic to the roadway. It is under Larimer County jurisdiction. Roundabouts are generally supported in Fort Collins. Aaron Iverson, reiterated Mrs. Wilkinson’s point on the intent of the requested Master Street Plan amendments. Vice Chair Schneider inquired about Giddings St. and the analysis completed. Why is this a two-lane as opposed to four-lane? The analysis does include response to this question. It is felt this is adequate for the project. Traffic Engineer Wilkinson added that there are times that roads are restricted by their intersections. Member Hobbs wanted to know the status of talks with Tom Moore. Planner Iverson responded that the City has been working closely with the individuals involved. Chair Hansen brought forward I-25 and Mountain Vista interchange impact concerns. Traffic Engineer Wilkinson responded that all will be evaluated and that the bridge over I-25 is adequate and the intersections would be signalized as the project progresses. Chair Hansen questioned the timing of the infrastructure expansion. Traffic Engineer Wilkinson commented that this continues to be worked on and will be over the next couple of years as the Montava project nears. Planning & Zoning Board August 15, 2019 Page 5 of 7 Chair Hansen brought forward questions on the extension of Turnberry and overall fit. Planner Iverson responded that the current Master Street Plan does not show Turnberry being extended. As for the change in number of lanes, Planner Iverson commented that the City Master Plan shows four lanes and that the number of lanes is not scheduled to change. Member Hobbs recalled a question of the possible need for a railroad overpass on Mountain Vista. Planner Iverson responded the overpass is in the Master Street Plan as a future overpass. No other additional work in developing an overpass is in the works as of this time. Member Hobbs questioned the current truck traffic on Country Club Road and what staff feels is the reason. Traffic Engineer Wilkinson responded that conversations have taken place with the County as the roadway is in unincorporated Larimer County as to what has changed. It is believed that it is construction on County Road 70 and some from the construction on 287. Staff is waiting until the construction projects are complete. The City will continue to work with the County. Board Questions / Deliberation Modification of density and development standards Member Hobbs asked multiple questions relating to the oil well buffer setbacks: What was the origin of the coordinates used for the soil and groundwater sampling. Planner Blochowiak’s understanding is that the origin comes from the Oil and Gas Conservation Commission maps and records. The coordinates were field verified prior to phase II environmental site assessment. The applicant team confirmed and commented that since there was no visible site of a well the developer hired GPRS Associates with the electromagnetic system to look at the underground anomalies. They did find two wells sites. Both sites have been flagged in the field. Chair Hansen has heard that the testing has been completed and wanted to know how the results relate to a normal background level, are there any indications of contamination? Planner Blochowiak responded that there is higher levels of nitrates and arsenic which is common in our geology in Colorado. The level did not exceed limits and is considered normal. Planning Manager Everette expanded on the background of levels. Member Hogestad had heard that one of the wells was a boring not capped or covered. Planning Blochowiak stated that is her understanding. Member Hobbs does not feel that this is accurate as he has reviewed the COGCC logs. Chandler well has little information available with no indication of whether it was capped or cased. Member Hogestad wondered if there was a requirement for capping or filling. Member Hobbs responded that there is. Planning Manager Everette responded that on the State level, in the case of an old abandoned well, plugged or unplugged, if the operator is no longer in existence, which is the case with the two wells, these are considered orphaned wells. The owner of the surface land is not obligated to do anything with the wells, unless they encounter the wells. Member Hobbs feels that the wells should be located as this is part of the PUD request that we guarantee that we give them the 150’ setbacks. Vice Chair Schneider asked staff if as part of the PUD is there subdivision or platting or dedication of rights-of-way happening? Planner Frickey responded no. The applicant feels that they have completed all tasks asked of them and want to know why and understand why they would be required to do more. Member Hobbs responded that until they have absolutely identified the location of the well, they do not know if there is contamination in the farm area. This should be the core concern and is a public safety issue. Max Moss questioned the type of technology needed and the timing to meet location requirements. Member Hobbs responded straight magnetics. Max Moss is comfortable at the PUD level deciding to or not to spend the money today to do this. Vice Chair Schneider has concerns with reduction or modification of parking. Matt responded to parking standards and short-term rental parking. They will be using a shared parking model. There will be plenty of on-street parking which will also cover short-term rentals. The anticipation is that not every house will be a short-term rental unit. Chair Hansen questioned transect zoning and its adjacency to other zoning. The perimeter of the Montava project is low density with exception of a larger portion of the T5 Zone. What is happing directly South, what will we have for buffering for future development? Planner Frickey responded in this instance there may not be a buffer or similar use would go in. Stormwater will add a green buffer. Discussions are ongoing. Planning & Zoning Board August 15, 2019 Page 6 of 7 Vice Chair Schneider questioned on the 25 years of vesting. Is there the ability to extend this? Is this set-in stone or after 25 years is it said and done? Mr. Moss responded that he does not believe they have asked for an extension and does not think they would need to and is comfortable where it is set. City Attorney Schmidt did comment that the code is different for the vesting of a PUD Masterplan of a PUD Overlay. It does permit extended vesting with no limit, there is no code language stating they are entitled to a renewal or an extension of that vesting. This will not stop a request to extend, but there is no expectation built into the code that would give someone the opportunity to argue that it is anything truly discretionary. Planner Frickey commented that in section 2.211 (C3) that there is an extension provision for the PUD Master Plan vesting term. It allows the developer to request two periods of one-year extensions. Vice Chair Schneider asked about PSD, there is a reference that there is not an elementary site, though it is shown on the Master Plan. Mr. Moss commented that it is a negotiation and they have not engaged in the conversation. It will be in the development. Plan Amendments – Sub-area Plan, Parks Plan and Street Master Plan Vice Chair Schneider questioned the park plan size reduction. From 100 to 80 acres. The applicant responded that it is contiguous acres. 80 acres sits on the Montava, 20 acres are located on another landowner’s property. It is not felt that there is a reduction and lesser ability to create a community park. Chair Hansen commented on additional amenities if the park is 80-acres as opposed to 100-acres. If the applicant did find the entirety of 100-acres the conditions are still imposed. There would have been no conditions added if the park were at 100-acres. Member Hogestad asked how it was that they could not 100-acres. Mr. Moss commented that the complexity of the project was the key factor in determining 80-acres. It is connected to the town center and 300-acres of open space. This is a better scenario. Traffic Engineer Wilkinson spoke of how the development may be phased regarding the Streets Master Plan and improvements and what the first improvements might be. Member Hogested questioned the offset on Timberline. Traffic Engineer Wilkinson commented that the offset on Timberline is intentional. There is a ditch that runs through the area. The intersection will be aligned. PUD Overlay No further discussion. Member Hobbs made a motion that Based on the analysis set forth in the staff report and the testimony and evidence received at this hearing, I move that the Planning and Zoning Board find and recommend that City Council approve the modifications of uses, densities and development Standards for the Montava Planned Unit Development Overlay (ODP 180002) described in the Montava PUD Master Plan, because taken as a whole these modifications meet the standards in LUC Section 4.29(G), subject to the following condition applicable to the modification of standards to permit a 150 buffer around abandoned wells: Prior to approval of a PDP for areas containing the two abandoned wells, reasonable efforts will be made by the developer to determine the location of the wells as verified by excavation and further mapping and that a repeat of soil and groundwater sampling and analysis program will be conducted if necessary. If after reasonable efforts are made by developer, one or both wells are not located, staff may eliminate the buffer requirement. Annual monitoring shall commence not later than PDP application. Member Whitley seconded. Member Hogestad is in support of the motion, though he is disappointed with the size of the park. Member Whitley acknowledged the complexities and feels the open space is adequate. Chair Hansen feels the changes to the Master Street Plan is great and a big improvement for the City in general. Vote: 5:0. Member Hobbs Made a motion that based on the analysis and findings of fact and conclusions set forth in the staff report and the testimony and evidence received at this hearing, I move that the Planning and