Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 11/21/2019 Jeff Hansen, Chair City Council Chambers Jeffrey Schneider, Vice Chair City Hall West Michelle Haefele 300 Laporte Avenue Michael Hobbs Fort Collins, Colorado Per Hogestad David Katz Cablecast on FCTV Channel 14 & William Whitley 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 November 21, 2019 Chair Hansen called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Roll Call: Haefele, Hansen, Hobbs, Hogestad, Katz, Schneider, Whitley Absent: None Staff Present: Leeson, Yatabe, Ward, Betley, Wilkinson, Mapes, Bertolini, Coldiron, Daggett 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 CDNS Director Leeson reviewed the items on the Consent and Discussion agendas, stating that all items will be heard as originally advertised. UPublic Input for items not on Consent Agenda: Planning and Zoning Board Minutes Planning & Zoning Board November 21, 2019 Page 2 of 7 Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Current, spoke to the SPAR process and how horribly antiquated the proceeding process is. Mike Feldhousen, 5102 Northern Lights Dr., spoke to the alternative solution regarding the Harmony Corridor Plan. Vice Chair Schneider asked legal staff if Mr. Sutherland is correct about the City’s ability to review development projects that are through schools, or if this is an incorrect statement. Mr. Yatabe commented that we would have to look into that statement and that he feels this evenings SPAR, that you have to make a distinction with the different types of review that come in under the City’s SPAR review. He does not have an answer at this time but would doubt that we have the ability to essentially cart blanch those. Most are Statewide interest and we are precluded from exclusively regulating. Vice Chair Schneider request that research be conducted on the statement and a memo be sent to the Board with the accuracy of the statement. Attorney Yatabe will speak with the City Attorney about doing this and feels there may not be the resources to get the completed. Vice Chair Schneider would like to know what could be done so that the Board could provide an answer to Mr. Sutherland. City Attorney Daggett responded that they could look at having staff provide additional information to the Board. She did comment that resources are slim, but that they could respond back to the Board soon. Mr. Sutherland is correct in that the City would have the authority to establish 1041 Regulations which we have not done, primarily due to our robust Land Use Code provision, but the possibility of establishing 1041 regulations is something that would be in addition to what we have right now. UConsent Agenda: 1. Draft Minutes from October 17, 2019, P&Z Hearing 2. Planning & Zoning Board 2020 Work Plan 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 November 21P st P Consent agenda with draft minutes from October 19, 2019 hear and the October 2020 Work Plan. This approval is based on the agenda materials and information that were presented during the work session, this hearing, and discussion. It also includes information analysis, finding of fact and conclusion contained in the staff report including the agenda materials and the hearing that are adopted by this Board. Member Katz seconded the motion. Vote: 7:0. UDiscussion Agenda: 3. City Council Appeals Code Amendments Project Description: City staff has drafted changes to the City Council appeals procedure contained in City Code in order to clarify aspects of the appeals procedure and to improve the appeals process. City staff is seeking a Planning and Zoning Board recommendation to City Council regarding the changes. Recommendation: Approval Secretary Manno reported that a letter was received from Paul Patterson with two suggestions regarding the code changes. Staff and Applicant Presentations City Clerk Coldiron gave a brief verbal/visual overview of this item. Planning & Zoning Board November 21, 2019 Page 3 of 7 Public Input (3 minutes per person) Eric Sutherland, thanks the City Clerk for the public outreach that was completed. However, he feels there are deficiencies and requests that the Board not approve what has been brought before them at this time. Staff Response Director Leeson presented the two suggestions received from Paul Patterson to City Attorney Daggett and City Clerk Coldiron, as they did not have the opportunity to review before the hearing. City Attorney Daggett responded to Mr. Patterson; starting with the second option, this is more of a substantive change than the type of change they have been aiming to make in this set of revisions, this is more of a policy questions for Council. With the deadline for new evidence, the challenge working back from the scheduling of the hearing is it is very hard to manage the sequence of events. The right to submit evidence is so limited, and presumably with the appellant is filing the appeal, they have some idea of what it is that is prompting them to file the appeal, they will have had 14 days and this change then gives them an additional 7 days to make sure they have whatever evidence they might need. The process must be fair for both sides, so this additional time that is given to the other side is also an important part of the overall process. City Clerk Coldiron responded to Mr. Sutherland. Similar comments have been received from public outreach and those are the things that one can recommend. That Council direct staff to take a look at whether it is a development review process or other areas. This can be done separate from the code changes being brought forward now. Work can still be done. Chair Hansen commented that the Board is always looking for ways to improve the process. They would be happy to hear specific details. Board Questions / Deliberation Vice Chair Schneider, regarding the 21-day deadline, was there a reason for the 21 or would it be ok to go to 28? City Attorney Daggett responded that they had spent time testing the different combinations of timeframes. The longer the timeframe for the appellant, to be fair, more time will then need to be given to the other side. This pushes the timeframe for having the hearing out as well. Vice Chair Schneider asked if conversation had taken place in regard to the ability for the appellant to extend the time for new evidence. He does not see the ability to request an extension. City Attorney Daggett responded that the draft language is being read correctly and that they have not provided for extensions of the timeframes. There are pros and cons to allowing extensions. Member Haefele questioned if there has eve been an appeal by a would-be developer whose project was denied? The response was pretty rare. Chair Hansen feels what is being requested for an approval is fair. Member Whitley asked if it could be suggested that anyone could request to City Council give an extension, other than just the City Manager, would this address the issue? Vice Chair Schneider asked who he was thinking of, the Director, or? It would suggest that the City Manager request of City Council. Chair Hansen asked if we really wanted this to go to Council? The driving factors for these changes is to make the whole process more predictable for both sides of the appeal and inserting opportunities to extend at various steps, it removes the predictability. Member Haefele does not feel extensions are necessary. Member Hobbs feels extensions are problematic. Member Whitley questioned the timeline presented from 10 day to 14 days. City Clerk Coldiron confirmed and thanked for correcting. The change will be made before first reading to City Council. Member Hogestad asked about the consolidation of multiple appeals, he wanted to know if that was a request from City Council? City Attorney Daggett responded that these were changes identified by staff as being beneficial. Consolidation has been the practice. An appellant would know if it were going to be separated out during time of hearing. Member Haefele questioned if there were two different appeals on the same project or issue, would those two appellants be brought together in order to work together? City Attorney Daggett explained the appeal process. Member Katz, regarding 4-46 definitions, party in interest, would a party or organization with contractual interest by considered possessory? City Attorney Daggett commented that there would be come questions as to who the applicant is. The intention is whomever the applicant is would naturally be a party in interest. This is intended to capture anyone who would happen to fall into a category. The applicant would have difficulty moving forward if the owner backed out. This applies more to a time when there just might be a multi-family building with current tenants. Planning & Zoning Board November 21, 2019 Page 4 of 7 Member Haefele asked for examples of something that someone could bring as evidence that there was a failure to conduct a fair hearing. City Attorney Daggett explained the three different categories for bringing new evidence. Member Hobbs feels that the Board needs to look at it as a two-way street. He does not necessarily like the 14-day timeframe as it is not enough time. The playing field needs to be leveled. 14 days after the appeal deadline and 28 days to make the case. Member Haefele asked when an appeal is filed is there a response from the City Clerk’s office saying your appeal has been accepted? City Clerk Coldiron responded that they do not determine merit, they just take in the information, let people know the information was received and then start the process of scheduling the appeal. Vice Chair Schneider if multiple appellants are consolidated, are their fees consolidated? City Attorney Daggett responded that each appellant would each have their own equal opportunity to speak. It allows Council to come to a decision in a coherent way. The hearing would begin, there would be discussion about the site visit, there would be a staff presentation, there would be a discussion on the procedural issues and how the appeals would be managed together and then the time is balanced out to allow each side to have an equal chance to speak about each of the appeals. Member Hogestad mentioned that it used to be that the appellant got 10 minutes and now the time is less with the changes. City Attorney Daggett responded that each side typically gets 20 minutes for presentation and 10 minutes for rebuttal, but this is not always the case. Member Hogestad feels not knowing how much time you would receive as an appellant is confusing. He feels there is a lack of due process. There needs to be a clear process. City Attorney Daggett commented that there have been a few changes that do help with predictability; the agenda item summary for the appeal now includes the expected timeframe and the submission requirements for materials that must be provided, both for evidence and presentations. This process is also designed to assure due process for both side and that there is assurance that the parties have an equal chance to submit evidence, an equal chance to see the information that has been submitted and an equal chance to speak at the hearing. These are fundamental aspects to what is being put together. Vice Chair Schneider asked if someone submitted evidence, do all parties get notified that new evidence has been submitted, do they know to go look for the evidence? City Clerk Coldiron responded that this is the reason there will be an individual appointed as contact for the appeals. Also, by changing the process and making it available on the website will help make the information more available to people. The hope is to have a subscription notification service to the website as things get added. City Attorney Daggett added that evidence received is added to the agenda packet that Council receives with a cover sheet notating that it is new evidence subject to Council determination. Member Haefele questioned the role of staff, their handling and interaction with the party in opposition of the appeal. City Clerk Coldiron responded that the Clerk’s office does not, they take the information in, prepare the timeline and make sure that the information is submitted. Planning staff does not continue to work with individual’s on appeals as it moves over to the Clerk’s office. Their involvement is limited to drafting an overview presentation; what the Planning and Zoning hearing or administration hearing resulted in. Member Hobbs commented that this staff overview is to inform and lay the basis of what happened at the hearing and the nature of the appeal, it is not a review of the project. Member Hogestad continues to have concerns with consolidating the appeals and the lack of time to make clear and meaningful presentation. Chair Hansen asked if Member Hogestad feels that by consolidating, this may degrade the second appeal or the validity of the first. Member Hogestad feels that it could. City Attorney Daggett commented that it is rare and not common that someone requests they be separated. Chair Hansen asked if there is a packet or guidelines that is given to the appellant, so they know what to expect, they have the timeline, etc. City Clerk Coldiron responded that typically this information is given when they call to find out how to file an appeal. There are appeal guidelines that are presented. More information/modifications can be put together to be given. Vice Chair Schneider would like to make sure that anything, including processes, be codified, if it should be or if it should not be codified, the Board needs to know this information. This is in relation to getting individuals to the hearing. This is the focus of this item. City Attorney Daggett spoke to 2-54 which lays out the procedure of the hearing. It lays out the procedure as though there is only one appeal and that is the reason why they have added Planning & Zoning Board November 21, 2019 Page 5 of 7 language to make clear that the Mayor can adjust the process where there might be a consolidation of multiple appeals. Vice Chair Schneider does not believe this needs to be codified. Member Hobbs feels the appellants should have the ability to disaggregate the appeals if they would like to have a separate appeal. The wording of the paragraph should be changed. Member Katz wants to make sure that everyone is heard. If consolidated, the public must have the opportunity of choice, to be heard separately. Chair Hansen wants to ensure that nothing gets diminished. Member Whitley feels that if you were to remove consolidation as the default, it would be fair. Member Haefele spoke to the process, Mrs. Daggett would give introduction, overview, then appellant one makes case, appellant two makes case. City Attorney Daggett confirmed that this is how it currently works. Member Hobbs made a motion that the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board recommend that City Council approve the changes to the appeals code amendments as presented and is the staff report with specific condition of approval being that the timeline for the site visit request deadline be moved to 14 days and that new evidence from the appellant be moved to 28 days from 21 and seven day also added to make 42 days, all others remain unchanged . Also, that the 2-52(b) paragraph pertaining to default consolidation of appeals be removed from the changes, and that this recommendation is based upon the agenda materials, the information and materials presented during the work session and this hearing. Member Hogestad seconded. Member Katz asked for clarification on the timeline. Vice Chair Schneider thanked the staff for the time they have put into these updates. Member Hogestad appreciates that it came to the Planning and Zoning Board. Member Haefele feels this is an improvement. Member Whitley agrees with Member Haefele. Member Hobbs appreciates that amount of interaction. Member Katz thanked staff for making it better. Chair Hansen feels these changes are a great stride forward. Vote: 6:1. 4. Harmony Gateway Plan Update and Standards and Guidelines - Postponed 5. Fort Collins Montessori School Project Description: This is a request for a Site Plan Advisory Review (SPAR) to build a charter school on a 4.3- acre property at the southwest corner of Shields Street and Harmony Road. The SPAR process allows the Planning and Zoning Board to provide comments on the plan to the Poudre School District Board of Education (PSD) per State statutes. Recommendation: Approval Secretary Manno reported that no citizen emails or letters were received, however; draft comments on the Montessori Charter School Development Plan had been received before the hearing. This item was added to the exhibits log. The Board commented that an updated staff report was received for item #5. Staff and Applicant Presentations City Attorney Yatabe gave a brief description of a SPAR and what the Board can do. Planner Mapes gave a brief verbal/visual overview of this project. David Kasprazak of PLA provided a brief verbal/visual presentation on the project. Public Input (3 minutes per person) Cynthia Ball, 1168 Belleview Dr., is opposed to this project because of the parking lot design and flow of traffic into nearby neighborhoods. Paltiel Kelsay, 4621 S. Shield, directly opposes this project. The access to the school will preclude him from turning North onto Shields. Planning & Zoning Board November 21, 2019 Page 6 of 7 Staff Response Planner Mapes responded to Mrs. Ball regarding the parking lot, commenting that it was determined to be enough for the project. Transportation improvements are acceptable as per Traffic Operations. Curtis Row, Traffic Engineer, Kimley Row and Associates clarified the intention is not to restrict the access for the gentleman to the South. It will still be possible for him to make a left turn out of his driveway. The change will be to the stripping and designating a left turn lane. There will be vehicles in that turn lane for roughly 15 minutes per day during the school year. David Kasprazak commented that they are working on solutions to stormwater retention (LID), they do need to get to 75% and are working with the City. Board Questions / Deliberation Vice Chair Schneider asked if the Board could get follow up on cueing. Traffic Engineer Wilkinson responded that the site plan has over 1000 feet of cueing and that school bell schedule times should be staggered. Vice Chair Schneider asked if the queuing was adequate at this time, or when school is at capacity. Traffic Engineer Wilkinson responded that if queuing at any point starts flooding onto arterial street, the City will require action. The Northbound left turn lane on Shields is not part of the queuing and the signal cycles create a gap. Member Hogestad asked how long the Northbound left-hand turn lane is. The left turn on Shields is stripped to allow a vehicle to move into the lane and slow. This goes to the signal cycle gaps. Special events can be anticipated for as onsite parking may not be adequate. There will not be a reduced speed school zone on either Harmony or Shields. The assumption is that most will be coming in via vehicle. Member Hobbs asked about the no left turn out barrier. Traffic Engineer Wilkinson responded that this would be accomplished by stripping and a sign and not a permanent barrier. Member Katz wanted to know if there was data that showed how many kids walked, rode, or took the bus. Because of school of choice, bussing service changes and other events roughly 100% are thought to come via car. Traffic Engineer Wilkinson responded that it varies tremendously amongst the different schools in Fort Collins. Due mostly to school of choice, the number of vehicles is more to the schools. There have also been changes to bus services. Member Hogestad asked for materials of the modulars at the work session. Planner Mapes does not know and commented that permits would not be pulled through the City. David Kasprazak responded that they are set on jacks with tie downs and are not permanent. The LMN zone allows mobile homes and will not be looked at with this project as this is a State project. This was addressed by the applicant. Member Katz requested that a slide be brought back up. The applicant brought up phase 2 and commented that there is no more room for parking and that they have done everything possible to pull every spot they could into the project. Vice Chair Schneider questioned the wall or safety barrier. Jeff Reid, Project Manager for the school commented that as long as there is money, the features will be built, if not, it may not be completed. Vice Chair Schneider requested clarification that as to if this project would come back to the Board for Phase 2. City Attorney Yatabe responded that the applicant requested to have Phase 1 and Phase 2 approved, and the site plan accomplishes both. Member Hogestad asked it if was believed that there was adequate contingency. The applicant believes that they do. The contingency is built into the financing. Vice Chair Schneider made a motion that the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board send a letter to the Fort Collins Montessori School Board of Directors in review of site plan advisory review 190003 based on the letter that has been prepared with the modification on the third request that we add the last sentence to say that if the design features cannot be accomplished for Phase One that it will be accomplished as far as