Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Commission - Minutes - 04/21/2022 David Katz, Chair Virtual Hearing Ted Shepard, Vice Chair City Council Chambers Michelle Haefele 300 Laporte Avenue Per Hogestad Fort Collins, Colorado Adam Sass Jeff Schneider Cablecast on FCTV, Channel 14 on Connexion & Julie Stackhouse Channels 14 & 881 on Comcast The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224- 6001) for assistance. Regular Hearing April 21, 2022 Chair Katz called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Roll Call: Haefele, Hogestad, Katz, Sass, Schneider, Shepard, Stackhouse Absent: None Staff Present: Everette, Sizemore, Claypool, Yatabe, Jones, Axmacher, Vonkoepping, Wray, Mapes, Buckingham, Betley, Smith, Hahn, Benton, Simpson, Lambrecht, Wagner, Smith, and Manno Chair Katz provided background on the Commission’s role and what the audience could expect as to the order of business. He described the role of the Commission, noting 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. He noted that this is a legal hearing, and that he will moderate for civility and fairness. Agenda Review CDNS Director 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 February 17, 2022, P&Z Hearing – Pulled and continued until the May 19th Hearing 2. Bucking Horse Park Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes DocuSign Envelope ID: D1007D16-C4D5-43E8-9756-0EEAEA9D1E79 Planning & Zoning Commission April 21, 2022 Page 2 of 10 Public Input on Consent Agenda: None noted. Chair Katz did a final review of the items on consent and reiterated that those items will not have a separate presentation unless pulled from the consent agenda. The February minutes were pulled and continued until the May 19, 2022, hearing. Vice Chair Shepard made a motion that the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Commission approve the Consent agenda for the April 21, 2022, Planning and Zoning Commission hearing. Member Haefele seconded the motion. Vote: 7:0 Member Stackhouse made a motion for continuance of the approval of the draft minutes of the February 11th, 2022, meeting until the next hearing, May 19th, 2022. Member Schneider seconded the motion. Vote: 7:0 Discussion Agenda: 3. Enclave at Redwood Project Description: This is a proposed Project Development Plan (PDP), #PDP210004, that includes a replat of the site into one parcel and development of 242 dwelling units with a mix of four, six, and eight-plex multi-family unit buildings. A one-acre park and clubhouse are planned for the center of the site, and a regional trail connection will be located along the Lake Canal. Primary access to this site will be from the west off of Redwood Street and from internal local streets from existing subdivisions to the west and east. The PDP includes two requests for Modification of Standards, one for the building orientation and connecting walkway, and the second for the size of project for determining number of housing types required. Recommendation: Approval Secretary Manno reported that 7 emails in total were received, all expressing concerns for traffic on Mullein Dr. and Lupine Dr. Staff and Applicant Presentations Planner Wray gave a brief verbal/ visual overview of this project. Nick Graham, DHI Communities, and Sam Coutts, Ripley Designs, Inc., also provided a brief verbal visual presentation. Public Input (3 minutes per person) Scott Metz, 1013 Mullein Dr: He read a statement that was submitted prior to the hearing. He is in opposition to the vehicular connection to Lupine Dr. to the new street, Collumer Dr. They would like to work with the city in the creation of an alternate connectivity plan. Tony Wagner, 631 Lupine Dr: He is in opposition to the current connectivity plan. Lupine will become more dangerous. Dennis Harmon, 642 Spurge Cir: He is concerned with the curb-to-curb width. He is in opposition to the connectivity plan. Joy Wintersteen, 1043 Mullein Dr: She is concerned with the increased traffic. Trinity Oberndorf, 1019 Mullein Dr., speaking on behalf of Amber Franzel, 625 Yarrow Dr: Trinity Oberndorf read a DocuSign Envelope ID: D1007D16-C4D5-43E8-9756-0EEAEA9D1E79 Planning & Zoning Commission April 21, 2022 Page 3 of 10 previously submitted letter from Amber Franzel. She also spoke for herself, commenting that she is glad that the city is looking at more housing. This city is not affordable to live in and the connectivity should be ped, bike and emergency, as this is what was previously approved under a former development plan that was not consummate. Aaron Oberndorf, 1019 Mullein Dr: He is concerned with the connectivity plan and compatibility with the neighborhood. Loren Maxey, 1101 Clark: He owns 624 Lupine St. and is concerned with the increase in traffic and headlights into the windows. The street is so narrow and cannot handle the increased traffic. Haley Ford, 631 Spurge Cir: She expressed concern about connectivity. Mark Laken, 642 Yarrow Cir: He had numerous questions for the applicant and staff. Staff Response Mr. Coutts responded to citizen input. The connection to Lupine has been studied with multiple revisions. Ripley Design was involved in the initial design in 2017. With the new developer and a neighborhood meeting, they took the feedback. They felt they had a good handle on what the concerns were and felt there was no need for another neighborhood meeting. The applicant now owns the land and they do not have the option to purchase land up to Conifer. This is why the connection has not been made. The bedroom count associated with the development, which is how the traffic is measured, is less than the previous proposal. They are open to pedestrian only if the Commission chooses. Mr. Coutts noted that the alleys next to the backyards will have a 25’ landscape buffer. This will simulate the traditional backyard to backyard. The intent with large buildings is to mitigate the appearance of towering buildings. Mr. Graham spoke to the maintenance of the community. The property manager will have a maintenance staff dedicated to the property. They do have some control over the noise, and this will be maintained. As for the senior community, this project has been well received in the past. Planner Wray provided context for why we are iterating to land use code requirements for street connectivity. There is a requirement that states public streets must be connected. In this case, the intent is to connect these public neighborhoods. The developer has not pursued the purchase of abutting land. Engineer, Sophie Buckingham responded by saying that Lupine Dr. is not a collector type street. It is a connector local section as it is a bit wider. Traffic Operations, Spencer Smith responded to total average daily traffic. It is anticipated that there will be 715 trips per day which is a more than double of current traffic count. Commission Questions / Deliberation Clarifying questions Member Sass requested further clarification on the tie-in to the west at Lupine Dr., how we connect, attached and detached sidewalks. Traffic Operations, Spencer Smith responded that the existing sidewalks are an attached older standard, and that the new street section that will connect to it will have a detached walk which is the current standard. The transition will be an angled transition. Staff will work with their engineer and consultants to play this out. Member Haefele asked for confirmation of the three housing types: 4-plex, 6-plex and 8-plex. Mr. Graham responded that she is correct, the two different stands of the housing types and then the building variation of the cottage, traditional and modern farmhouse. The cottage is always associated with the 4-plex, the traditional with the 6-plex and the modern farmhouse with the 8-plex. Vice Chair Shepard commented on the northwest sidewalk that will connect this project out to Conifer St. and whether it would terminate at Conifer St. and the definition of “coordinate”? Mr. Graham responded that they are building the connection to Conifer to Redwood St. DocuSign Envelope ID: D1007D16-C4D5-43E8-9756-0EEAEA9D1E79 Planning & Zoning Commission April 21, 2022 Page 4 of 10 Vice Chair Shepard asked if there was a fence along the north of the property. Mr. Graham and Planner Wray responded yes. Also, they indicated that there is a landscape strip and 6’ fence on the north side by the drive to the garages as well, On the west boundary of the project that abuts Road Meadows, there is a 25’ landscape buffer and a 6’ fence. Vice Chair Shepard asked where this sits in relation to the drainage channel. Mr. Graham responded there is an ally, a landscape buffer and that the fence is on the property line. Everything outside of the property line is where the slope begins. Vice Chair Shepard commented that there is a natural habitat buffer zone to the north of the fence. Mr. Graham commented that the fence is on the property line so the buffer zone would be south of the fence. The fence location can be played with. Vice Chair Shepard commented that he is trying to get a feel for how the project relates to the NHBZ along the north edge with the garages, ally and then the buffer. Mr. Graham responded that the shrub and tree area is the buffer. Currently the fence is on the property line, but it can be moved to the ally. There are variations before you get into the drainage area that is the native grass. Planner Benton responded that this fence is not a naturalized fence, but there are some sporadic wetlands along the bottom. This does not qualify to the level of primary corridor. This area is mowed and will continue to be. Further clarification will be provided. Vice Chair Shepard asked what the purpose of the fence was from a design standpoint. Mr. Graham responded it is to break up visual continuity and the natural area standard is to have a fence along the natural habitat buffer giving the delineation for maintenance. The applicant is ok if it is naturalized and providing that naturalization on the drainage channel to the north or not. Vice Chair Shepard asked if there will be a bus stop on Redwood. Traffic Operations representative, Spence Smith, responded that he does not believe that there would be one. There is not one required to be installed as part of the project. Vice Chair Shepard asked if private street AA would or would not be a public street. Mr. Graham responded that the street is private and the reason it is private is due to the corner geometry not meeting the public street requirement. There are special constraints. Vice Chair Shepard asked if it would be possible to consider a variance to the standard so the street could be public. Engineering representative, Sophie Buckingham responded that she is unaware of any discussion of a variance request, but that she believes there would be a request for a variance to the centerline radius going around the curves. The proposed radius shown is roughly 50’ whereas the requirement is 275’. A variance would not be supported. Vice Chair Shepard asked if the applicant was aware of the width difference in the travel lane and how it affects the parkway where the street trees go. Mr. Coutts responded that he is aware, and he is unsure of what drove that decision. Engineering representative, Sophie Buckingham, commented in terms of the parkway width, the project is using street design based on previous Larimer County urban area street standards in which there was a lower width required for the parkway. This is due to the review entered into our systems prior to the update in the standards. This is a private street and not technically held to a particular standard per Larimer County. Vice Chair Shepard asked about the 25’ setback and if it is also a drainage swale. Mr. Graham responded that there are two sections where there is some swalling. Vice Chair Shepheard asked if the NECO line preclude the placement of trees in certain locations. Will you be putting drainage onto your neighbors? Utilities representative, Matt Simpson, commented that on the western side, private ally D, this area drains easterly onto the site. They are providing some collection inlets at several locations on the western side to pick up offsite flows that come from the Meadows ad Redwood east onto the site. These will then collect into the NECO A2 line. The requirement is that the trees not be within 10’ to the storm line in the ally section. Member Stackhouse is not clear on the land that was previously owned by Neighbor to Neighbor as well as the safety concerns that were brought up. What are the concerns specifically? Mr. Graham responded that the concept was on the northwest corner had a local street connection previously that traveled northwest to the corner of Conifer as bent headed east. This was through a combination of city owned and purchased private land. We now have a different applicant, different developer, different plan. This option is not attainable for this application. They are open to a condition for Lupine. Vice Chair Shepard commented that Mr. Laken mentioned something about a right in/right out. Can someone provide a reference? Spencer Smith replied that he believes it is in reference to the city’s street connection to Redwood. DocuSign Envelope ID: D1007D16-C4D5-43E8-9756-0EEAEA9D1E79 Planning & Zoning Commission April 21, 2022 Page 5 of 10 Deliberation Member Hogestad asked how long the ridge was on the 8-plex. Mr. Heaton responded from 22’ wide times 8 feet which is 176’ feet of continuous ridge. Member Hogestad asked how much offset there was. Mr. Heaton responded that you would see some from the group level he supposes, roughly 1’ to 18”. Member Hogestad asked whether the articulation on the evaluation depends on the slight setback to the porch. Mr. Heaton responded that there is the shed roof at the porch, and it steps back further with the deck above. Member Schneider asked for clarification from Member Hogestad as to which product he was asking about. Member Hogestad responded that it was the 8-plex. Member Hogestad asked how far the porch set in from the exterior face of the building. Mr. Heaton responded that the entry wall is set back about 2’. The deck above goes back an additional 3-4’ and has a roof cover to protect it. Member Hogestad asked if the two schemes were predicated on paint. Mr. Heaton responded yes if one was speaking of only the 8-plex. Member Hogestad asked whether the general design, not colors or nuances, had been used elsewhere. Mr. Heaton noted that this is the first time these have been used. Vice Chair Shepard observed that there are three (3) housing types and two color schemes, the color schemes do not make this into 6 building designs, which does meet code, but does not give you 6 designs and the color schemes are at the minimum variety. Chair Katz started discussion on Modification 3.5.2(D)(1)(B). Vice Chair Shepard commented that it looked like the major walkway spine depended on connecting the building to the regional trail. Otherwise, building 7 has more than a 360-connection column. It is not the distance, but rather the off-site. He asked whether building 7depended on the off-site on the north field property in the form of the regional trail, or did it depend on a connection to Collumer. Mr. Graham responded that either one will work. Vice Chair Shepard is concerned with the qualitative aspect of this, and the definition of a walkway spine requires that it be tree lined, trees on both sides at least 5’ wide, landscaping on both sides within a 35’ space in the smallest dimension. Are all of these attributes provided for the buildings that are seeking this modification? Mr. Graham responded that they are. Vice Chair Shepard commented that at there are times that the design team will offer up some mitigation. Is there any mitigation? Me. Graham responded that there is no specific mitigation proposed. They are waiting to get to the FDP level to detail these spaces out. Planner Wray commented that staff feels it meets the major walkway spine definition. Chair Katz would not be surprised if this is addressed in the new land use code updates. Vice Chair Shepard is comfortable. Member Hogestad agrees it should be something more than a simple sidewalk. Member Haefele asked if the modification could be conditioned to require that the walkway spine that is proposed as alternative connecting to have general or specific enhancements. Member Schneider responded that they can but questioned whether the Commission needed to get at that level of design at this point. Attorney Yatabe responded that procedurally speaking, yes, the Land Use Code allows conditions on the modification; however, you need to look at the criteria for the granting of the modification. A condition would be nice if the condition is related to whether that criterion is met or not. If the Commission feels the condition needs to be imposed so that they can meet the standard for meeting the modification, that would be the basis. Member Stackhouse commented that in her assessment the standard complies with the modification as stated, but she does feel it Is appropriate to send a strong and loud message to the applicant that there is an expectation that appropriate amenities will be provided, and that city staff would follow up. Attorney Yatabe responded that the comments are considered when moving forward from PDP into final plan. Member Haefele feels that there is still an argument of equal to or better than. Vice Chair Shepard responded that the Commission could say that the modification request is not equal to or better than unless the Commission conditions it to include such amenities and then list them, or it could say in a public hearing that the applicant has committed verbally that they agree to look at this in the final proposal. He is comfortable with the dialogue and asked the design team, at the time of final plan, to provide pedestrian amenities to encourage gathering and pedestrian qualitative aspects such as but not limited to; seat walls, benches, closets, and the like in order to be equal to or better than a major walkway spine that did not exceed 350’. Chair Katz agrees. Member Hafele agrees. Member Stackhouse made a motion that the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Commission approve the requested modification of standard to land use code Section3.5.3(D)(1)(B) regarding orientation to a connecting walkway to allow the distance between 11 of the dwelling units entrances as described in the DocuSign Envelope ID: D1007D16-C4D5-43E8-9756-0EEAEA9D1E79 Planning & Zoning Commission April 21, 2022 Page 6 of 10 agenda materials to the street sidewalk to be greater than 350’. The Commission finds that the modification will not be detrimental to the public good and the plan as submitted will promote the general purpose of Section 3.52(D)(1)(B) equally well or better than would a plan which complies with such standard by providing safe pedestrian oriented environment that is equal to or better than the required distance to the street sidewalk in consideration of the major walkway spine and an exceptional physical condition unique to the property existing would be in regular shape of the site that was not by the applicant in the strict application of the standards would result in unusual and exceptional practical difficulties and undue hardship. Furthermore, the modification does not set aside the modification of standards of 2.8(H)(2 or4) and the decision is based upon the agenda materials, the information and materials presented during the work session and this hearing, and the Commission on this item. Further this Commission hereby adopts the information and analysis, findings of fact and conclusions regarding this modification of standard contained in the staff report included in the agenda materials for this hearing. Member Sass seconded. Vote: 7:0. Chair Katz started discussion on modification to the housing types Vice Chair Shepard recommended that the conversation, as he sees the issue, is linked to compliance of Section 3.8.30, particularly the clarifier terms. 4.5(D)(2)(A)(3) is the request for the modification to have 3 not 4 housing types, but it is linked in his perception of 3.8.30(F)(2-7), variation among repeated buildings which refers to three building designs. He feels overall there is a repetitive aspect to the project. There is a minimum of 3 building designs; however, the colors are not that different, and at this scale, the project has an attribute that speaks to being repetitive. Member Schneider asked how much of the 30.15 acres is in the LMN vs. the industrial zone, and should the Commission be looking at it as what is being built out vs. the overall property. Member Stackhouse commented that these are the questions she was trying to raise in the work session. She offered up that she has struggled with the different design types in developments, noting that even different design type can look the same from the roadway. She questioned how much the Commission can calibrate design types or whether this rest in the eye of the beholder. Chair Katz reverted to Member Schneider’s question as to how much is in the LMN. Because all the buildings are in LMN, but the entire project is 30.17, should the Commission be considering the entire site? This development is unique because there is a second zoning district. Planner Wray responded that in looking at the southern track, it is just under 3-acres, 2.7-acres, Staff and the applicants have confirmed that this is not intended to be a developable tract. The industrial zoning overlay is very small, less than an acre. The difference in the amount that is over 30- acres was less than an acre. The industrial piece was not factored in because it was so small. Chair Katz asked if he was correct in that his perception that we are interpreting the code as if the entire parcel was LMN? Planning Manager Everette responded with clarification: Compliance with that standard of the need for the modification for the housing type requirement was based on the acreage of the property that is in the LMN zone not the total acreage of the development site. Member Katz asked if the acreage of the LMN is till over 30-acres. Planning Manager Everette responded yes, it is over 30 acres and that is what triggers the housing type requirement. Planner Wray commented that the industrial overlap is less than 1-acre. Chair Katz commented that less than an acre, is important because we are talking about an absolute number. If we are looking at the LMN zoning only, then this modification is not needed. How is the code interpreted with overlaps? Planner Wray responded that as part of staff findings, they were looking at the area within the LMN, recognizing that the industrial piece was so small. It was less than an acre and the amount in the LMN that is over the 30-acres is also less than an acre. Planning Manager Everette responded with clarification: the gross acreage of the property is over 30 acres, but the LMN portion is under 30-acres. With that understanding, Chair Katz asked whether 3 or 4 housing types was needed. Planning Manager Everette responded that the staff assessed compliance because the portion of the site that is in industrial zoning is so negligible staff considered the overall gross area for the full development plan in assessing whether the requirement applied. Member Schneider asked if the LMN is under 30 acres, then why do we need the modification? Chair Katz responded that it is because of the gross acreage of the project. Member Schneider asked if this is something that should be looked at with the Land Use Code updates, because it is not fair to take the gross property coverage when it is different zone districts. He is not looking at this as a big issue because the LNM area is less than 30; however, he does not feel there is a need for the modification. Member Hafele commented that the need for the modification is because the entire property is just over and the justification for the modification is that the developable portion is less than 30. It technically requires the modification. Vice Chair DocuSign Envelope ID: D1007D16-C4D5-43E8-9756-0EEAEA9D1E79 Planning & Zoning Commission April 21, 2022 Page 7 of 10 Shepard commented that the purpose of the standard is to address repetitiveness and repetition. Vice Chair Shepard asked if the Commission was sure that the little triangle is zoned industrial? It used to be part of that same parcel until Sunega Road right-of-way was acquired. Planning Manager Everette confirmed the zoning. On the zoning map, that this parcel has two zone districts. Chair Katz is struggling with the compatibility of the different designs. Member Hogestad commented that the architecture at best is minimal. The modification calls for public good, in order for it not to be detrimental to public good, it must meet Section 1.2.2 paragraph J. Improve the design, quality and character of new development. Paragraph M states that the proposal must ensure that the development proposal is sensitive to the character of existing neighborhoods. He does not feel the modification meets the public good component. The designs do not meet the intent of public good. Member Stackhouse noted that there are three large developments in this area, and she feels there was an attempt to blend those developments into this proposal. She feels the plans did bring together the architecture of the other developments. Chair Katz stated that he did not fundamentally have an issue with supporting the three housing types. However, there needs to be more articulation and detail and up the quality of what the city deserves. Vice Chair Shepard commented that one of the ways to accomplish this is through a condition of the modification. He would be willing to approve the modification as being equal to or better than, it is not nominal and inconsequential. If conditioning the modification, he would like to see on the cottage 4-plex model with entrances that face the street. He cannot support the modification without addressing repetitiveness. Member Hogestad commented on the 6-plex and that is suffers from the same repetitiveness and lack of articulation. The floor plans are almost identical. He cannot support this modification. Member Sass asked Member Hogestad how the Commission could satisfy his concern, noting that this is a 31-acre site. Vice Chair Shepard offered up another option” to approve the modification but then discuss conditioning compliance with 3.8.30. Chair Katz asked if he felt there was a path to getting something satisfactory while the Commission deliberates the PDP. Member Sass commented that that was his point. Member Schneider commented that he is unsure if the architecture is part of this modification request. On the overall PDP, this is a very fair conversation to have, putting a condition on the PDP based on the architectural design and style. He questioned, however, whether it was relevant to this modification for three versus four designs. Member Hogestad feels that it is because of the detriment to the public good as stated in Section 1.2.2. Member Sass agrees; however, this is not the modification before the Commission. Member Schneider commented that he does not feel that the architectural design for this modification is relevant. It is about the number of design elements, not the style. Vice Chair Shepard commented that the minimum requirement for a fourth housing type is that it be no less than 5% or your total. 5% of 40 is 2. The Commission could ask the applicant to provide a fourth housing type, and the Commission could proceed with approving this proposal without conditions and then dive into 3.5.1 and 3.8.30 for the specific issues surrounding architecture. Member Schneider commented that the intent is to build for the missing middle and that the more that is added to the architectural features and everything else, the more the cost goes up. There is a happy balance between the two. Adding a fourth type is adding another layer of cost. Chair Katz would like to move forward with one of Vice Chair Shepard’s recommendations and then dive into 3.5.1 and 3.8.30 at the PDP. Member Sass made a motion that the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Commission approve the requested modification of standard to land use code Section 4.5(D)(2)(A)(3) regarding mix of housing to allow three (3) housing types instead of four (4). The Commission finds that the modification will not be detrimental to the public good and the plan as submitted will not diverge from the standards except in nominal and inconsequential ways when considered from the perspective of the entire development plan because of the size of the property being developed is just over the land use code acreage threshold of 30 acres, which requires four (4) instead of three (3) housing types, and allowing three (3) housing types in consideration of their proposed placement would not be discernable from a property that is just under 30-acres in that size that has three (3) housing types, and the plan will continue to advance the purpose of the land use code as contained in Section 1.2.2. Furthermore, the modification does not meet modification of standards 2.8.2(H)(1)(2) of (3). This decision is based upon the agenda materials, the information and materials presented during the work session and this hearing, and the Commission on this item. Further this Commission hereby adopts the information and analysis, findings of fact and conclusions regarding this modification of standard contained in the staff report included in the agenda materials for this hearing. Member Stackhouse seconded. Vote: 6:1. DocuSign Envelope ID: D1007D16-C4D5-43E8-9756-0EEAEA9D1E79 Planning & Zoning Commission April 21, 2022 Page 8 of 10 Vice Chair Shepard addressed an aspect of citizen input regarding section 3.6.3(F) and (H) and City Plan policies LIV 4.1 and 4.2 regarding the extension of Lupine. Clarification from staff is that the two streets are comparable in flow line to flow line width, and we know there is a difference between the attached walk and future detached walk and that will be done a s a transition. This is a tough site and oddly shaped, has stormwater issues, and when Sunega Road came through, it sliced off a triangle of the property. It there are a lot of challenges. He is persuaded by staff’s recommendation. Member Schneider commented that this is a completely different project from what the retreat was. He asked whether the Commission could get better clarification on why a road could not go out to Conifer as proposed 2018. Where is the disconnect on the conversation for that same ability to get out? Planning Manager Everette responded that it was an entirely developer-lead conversation at the Retreat involving negotiations with Neighbor to Neighbor. Staff was not supportive of not closing off the connection to Lupine in the case of that project and the developer in working with the neighborhood wanted to find a way to close that connection and pursue Conifer as an alternative. There are some physical challenges of that connection, and there are the property ownership challenges. Both of the City properties that cross the detention properties have not just stormwater channels but existing wetlands and would require bridges, wetland mitigation and other design challenges that would add to cost. Traffic Operations representative, Spencer Smith, commented that there are considerations that staff would need to assess, like the site distance evaluation of the connection location. It does not mean that a connection could not be made, but there would be considerations before anything could take place. Member Haefele agrees with Vice Chair Shepard in that budding off a street and then requiring a circulation pattern through the new neighborhood would ironically make it more of an enclave. It would also make an enclave out of the Redwood Meadows. This proposal now is a nice compromise, it is less dense, provides housing form families and keeps new neighborhoods from becoming enclaves. This will not be as devastating. Chair Katz agrees. Planner Wray commented that there is alternative compliance that needs to be decided on. Vice Chair Shepard offered to the Commission that with regard to the alternative compliance for not collecting Mulline, which does not have the cross section that Lupine does, it is rather close to Red Wood causing some navigation problems. The bike-ped connection appears to be well designed. He supports the alternative compliance to not collect Mulline as public street. Member Sass commented with his understanding that it would be too close, and they would need a modification. Traffic Operations representative, Spence Smith, responded that the offset from Red Wood is less than the City’s minimum standard for the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards. It would require an Engineering variance. Vice Chair Shepard started the discussion on housing types and architecture. He emphasized 3.8.30(F)(2) such variation among buildings shall not consist of different combinations of the same building features. Member Sass commented that he would go a bit further into (F)(2). They need to very significantly, input size and shape, as they are next to each other. The 8-plexes are not together east, west, but the are north, south, those are not significantly different, they are the same footprint and shape, 50’ from each and a private ally. He agrees with Ted. Chair Katz warned of not redesigning the project; this is not the Commissions’ role. The Commission can ask for a continuance. Member Stackhouse asked if staff’s analysis indicated compliance with the provisions. Planner Wray responded that staff found that though at a minimum level they meet the standards. Member Sass and Member Hafele feel that there is not enough variation between buildings. Vice Chair Shepard addressed 3.8.30. At the time of submittal of the final plan, the plan must demonstrate that all of the dwelling units in the cottage building that front on either a private or public street, feature entrances that face such street. Further, with regard to the 6-plex and the 8-plex units, the traditional and the modern farmhouse, at the time of final plan, sheets A0.3 and A0.1, these sheets must demonstrate that these buildings be further articulated, that they show more sufficient contrast between each other and that the new materials being considered, not be limited to cultured stone, masonry, brick, real stone, etc., and that the entrances be more differentiated, and the roof colors be more varied. Planning Manager Everett responded that there is a lot of subjectivity still, while staff could take the intent of the Commission and apply that at the time of final plan, it would be hard for staff to meet what you are visualizing. Member Schneider made a motion that the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Commission continue the Enclave at Redwood PDP210004 to the June 16, 2022, to allow for the design team to come back with enhanced architectural features that may be more appropriate to 3.8.30(F)(2). Vice Chair Shepard encourages the applicant to take a more creative approach to how you form the edge along the north. The answer he got to the fence in relation to the drainage channel in the natural area was unsatisfactory and a bit vague. He will be supporting the motion. Vice Chair Shepard seconded. Vote 7:0 DocuSign Envelope ID: D1007D16-C4D5-43E8-9756-0EEAEA9D1E79 Planning & Zoning Commission April 21, 2022 Page 9 of 10 4. NEWT 3 Pipeline SPAR Project Description: This is a request for a Site Plan Advisory Review (SPAR) of a proposed corridor alignment for a water pipeline project to be shared by two water districts. The NEWT 3 name of the project refers to North Weld County and East Larimer County Water Districts Transmission Pipeline Project, phase 3. Recommendation: Approval Secretary Manno reported that there were no citizen emails or letters received. Staff and Applicant Presentations Planner Mapes gave a brief verbal/visual overview of the project. Public Input (3 minutes per person) None noted. Staff Response None noted. Commission Questions / Deliberation Chair Katz commented that he is satisfied with the presentation. Member Sass asked when the application was received. Planner Mapes responded that the date was in the staff report. Member Katz asked if it was the inability to get the site development plan or when the application was due? If it gets denied, then it will just get approved by the water district, correct? The reality is making sure everyone is comfortable with the corridor. Member Schneider asked the applicant team for clarification; are you are going to stay within the confines of the corridor that you have presented? Mr. Rice responded affirmatively. Member Katz also asked whether the applicant would mitigate any disturbance to the property as it is today. Mr. Rice responded affirmatively. Mr. Rice offered that a survey is currently underway in areas of this corridor and so is coordination with private property owners as well as Montava. Member Schneider feels that if they stay within the corridor, it should be approved. Chair Katz is a supporter the project. This needs to happen. He is conflicted based on the staff report. Planning Manager Everett commented that her understanding of the SPAR section for the city is written for public buildings, not well suited to regulating pipeline development. This has been flagged. Member Stackhouse asked what other projects in the last few years had been approved whether they were expected to hold to the standard. Planning Manager Everett responded that there have been four (4) pipeline projects that have come through over the past couple of years. The Commission approved two and denied one, because the level of design was not sufficient to evaluate impacts. Vice Chair Shepard asked if this pipeline went through any natural areas. Planner Mapes responded no. Member Haefele commented that had the applicant submitted a more well-developed proposal, more well-developed analysis, staff might then recommend approval and that this recommendation of denial is based on insufficient analysis. Member Stackhouse will be supporting the staff recommendation. Member Katz is on the fence. Member Sass commented there is nothing that the Commission is involved with. Planning Manager Everette commented that this is not based on character, it is based on the extent criterion. Planner Kelly Smith commented that the level of detail was approximately 30 to 60% construction drawings and worked closely with staff and was a replacement. Int terms of NISP, this one 30% construction drawings and the applicant did not work with the city on the location. CSU was 60% construction drawings, and they did work with the city. DocuSign Envelope ID: D1007D16-C4D5-43E8-9756-0EEAEA9D1E79 Planning & Zoning Commission April 21, 2022 Page 10 of 10 Member Schneider made a motion that the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Commission approve the NEWT 3 Pipeline Site Plan Advisory Review SBA220001, finding that the submittal site development plan meets all applicable land use code requirements set forth in land use code Section2.16.2(H). This decision was based upon the agenda materials, the information and materials presented during the work session and this hearing, and the Commission decision on this item. Vice Chair Shepard seconded. Chair Katz expressed acknowledgement. Vote: 5:2. 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 Vice Chair Shepard commented that there is a loophole; 3.5.2(D)(3) requires townhomes and single family attached to have 150’ emergency access to the most interior unit, and 3.5.2(E)(3) 8’ back from alley setback. Because the Enclave came in as not single-family attached, they came in as some that had not been envisioned before in the land use code. Planning Manager Everette responded that this would be added to phase 2 of the land use code changes. Adjournment Chair Katz moved to adjourn the P&Z Commission hearing. The meeting was adjourned at 11:09 pm. Minutes respectfully submitted by Shar Manno. Minutes approved by a vote of the Commission on: June 16, 2022. Paul Sizemore, CDNS Director David Katz, Chair DocuSign Envelope ID: D1007D16-C4D5-43E8-9756-0EEAEA9D1E79