Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/15/2023 - Planning and Zoning Commission - AGENDA - Regular MeetingPlanning and Zoning Commission Page 1 June 15, 2023 Upon request, the City of Fort Collins will provide language access services for individuals who have limited English proficiency, or auxiliary aids and services for individuals with disabilities, to access City services, programs and activities. Contact 970.221.6515 (V/TDD: Dial 711 for Relay Colorado) for assistance. Please provide 48 hours advance notice when possible. A solicitud, la Ciudad de Fort Collins proporcionará servicios de acceso a idiomas para personas que no dominan el idioma inglés, o ayudas y servicios auxiliares para personas con discapacidad, para que puedan acceder a los servicios, programas y actividades de la Ciudad. Para asistencia, llame al 970.221.6515 (V/TDD: Marque 711 para Relay Colorado). Por favor proporcione 48 horas de aviso previo cuando sea posible. Regular Hearing June 15, 2023 6:00 PM David Katz, Chair City Council Chambers - City Hall West Julie Stackhouse, Vice Chair 300 Laporte Avenue Michelle Haefele Fort Collins, Colorado Adam Sass Ted Shepard Virtual (Zoom or Telephone) Samantha Stegner Cablecast on FCTV Channel 14 on Connexion & York Channels 14 & 881 on Comcast Planning and Zoning Commission Hearing Agenda Participation for this hybrid Planning and Zoning Commission meeting will be available online, by phone, or in person. Public Participation (In Person): Individuals who wish to address the Planning & Zoning Commission in person may attend the meeting located in City Council Chambers at City Hall, 300 Laporte Ave. Public Participation (Online): Individuals who wish to address the Planning & Zoning Commission via remote public participation can do so through Zoom at https://fcgov.zoom.us/j/94193435762. Individuals participating in the Zoom session should also watch the meeting through that site. The meeting will be available to join beginning at 5:45 p.m. on June 15, 2023. Participants should try to sign in prior to 6:00 p.m. if possible. For public comments, the Chair will ask participants to click the “Raise Hand” button to indicate you would like to speak at that time. Staff will moderate the Zoom session to ensure all participants have an opportunity to address the Commission. (Continued on next page) Packet pg. 1 Planning and Zoning Commission Page 2 June 15, 2023 • ROLL CALL • AGENDA REVIEW • PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Individuals may comment on items not specifically scheduled on the hearing agenda, as follows: • Those who wish to speak are asked to sign in at the podium if they are in person • The presiding officer will determine and announce the length of time allowed for each speaker. • Each speaker should state their name and address and keep their comments to the allotted time. • Any written materials should be provided to the Secretary for record-keeping purposes. • In person participates will hear a timer beep once and the time light will turn to yellow to indicate that 30 seconds of speaking time remains and will beep again and turn red when a speaker’s time to speak has ended. • CONSENT AGENDA The Consent Agenda is intended to allow the Planning and Zoning Commission to quickly resolve items that are non-controversial. Staff recommends approval of the Consent Agenda. Anyone may request that an item on this agenda be “pulled” for consideration within the Discussion Agenda, which will provide a full presentation of the item being considered. Items remaining on the Consent Agenda will be approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission with one vote. The Consent Agenda generally consists of Commission Minutes for approval, items with no perceived controversy, and routine administrative actions. Public Participation (Phone): If you do not have access to the internet, you can call into the hearing via phone. Please dial: 253-215-8782 or 346-248-7799, with Webinar ID: 941 9343 5762. The meeting will be available beginning at 5:45 p.m. Please call in to the meeting prior to 6:00 p.m., if possible. For public comments, the Chair will ask participants to click the “Raise Hand” button to indicate you would like to speak at that time – phone participants will need to hit *9 to do this. Staff will be moderating the Zoom session to ensure all participants have an opportunity to address the Committee. Once you join the meeting: keep yourself on muted status. If you have any technical difficulties during the hearing, please email smanno@fcgov.com. Documents to Share: If residents wish to share a document or presentation, City Staff needs to receive those materials via email by 24 hours before the meeting. Please email any documents to smanno@fcgov.com. Individuals uncomfortable or unable to access the Zoom platform or unable to participate by phone are encouraged to participate by emailing general public comments you may have to smanno@fcgov.com . Staff will ensure the Commission receives your comments. If you have specific comments on any of the discussion items scheduled, please make that clear in the subject line of the email and send 24 hours prior to the meeting. As adopted by City Council Ordinance 143, 2022, a determination has been made by the chair after consultation with the City staff liaison that conducting the hearing using remote technology would be prudent. Packet pg. 2 Planning and Zoning Commission Page 3 June 15, 2023 1. Draft Minutes for the P&Z April Regular Hearing The purpose of this item is to approve the draft minutes of the April 20, 2023, Planning and Zoning Commission hearing. 2. Draft Minutes for the P&Z April Extra Hearing The purpose of this item is to approve the draft minutes of the April 26, 2023, Planning and Zoning Commission extra hearing. 3. Public Rules of Procedure The purpose of this item is to approve language regarding Public Rules of Procedure at Planning and Zoning Commission hearings. • DISCUSSION AGENDA No items listed. • OTHER BUSINESS • ADJOURNMENT Packet pg. 3 Agenda Item 1 Item 1, Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY June 15, 2023 Planning and Zoning Commission STAFF Shar Manno, Customer and Administrative Manager SUBJECT MINUTES OF THE APRIL 20, 2023 P&Z HEARING EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is the consideration and approval of the draft minutes of the April 20, 2023 Planning & Zoning Commission hearing. ATTACHMENTS 1. Draft April 20, 2023 P&Z Minutes Packet pg. 4 David Katz, Chair Virtual Hearing Julie Stackhouse, Vice Chair City Council Chambers Michelle Haefele 300 Laporte Avenue Adam Sass Fort Collins, Colorado Ted Shepard Samantha Stegner Cablecast on FCTV, Channel 14 on Connexion & York 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 20, 2023 Vice Chair Stackhouse called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Roll Call: Haefele, Sass, Shepard, Stackhouse, Stegner, York Absent: Katz Staff Present: Frickey, Sizemore, Mapes, Yatabe, Gilchrest, and Manno Vice Chair Stackhouse 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 and that they are not staff and do not get paid. 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 City’s Land Use Code. She noted that this is a legal hearing, and that she 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. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes DRAFTPacket pg. 5 Planning & Zoning Commission April 20, 2023 Page 2 of 8 Consent Agenda: 1. Draft Minutes from February 16, 2023, P&Z Hearing 2. Northside Atzlan Center Childcare Facility Remodel MA Public Input on Consent Agenda None noted. Vice Chair Stackhouse provided 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 Shepard made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Commission approve the Consent agenda for the April 20, 2023, Planning and Zoning Commission hearing as originally advertised. Member York seconded the motion. Vote: 6:0. Discussion Agenda: 3. Prospect Sports Stand-Alone Modification Requests (3) Project Description: The first request is a request for a stand-alone modification of a standard that states a limit on the height of a story in a commercial building. The applicants intend to submit a development plan for a gym facility, but they want to resolve the question of whether the building can be approved with its necessary height for indoor volleyball before investing in a full project development plan submittal. The second request is a request for a stand-alone modification of a standard that requires a new commercial building to be placed within 25 feet of an abutting arterial street and 15 feet from other streets. The third request is for a stand-alone modification of a standard that requires parking based on land use. The applicants intend to submit a development plan for a gym facility, but they want to resolve the question of whether the development can be approved with the proposed parking number before investing in a full project development plan submittal. CDNS Director Sizemore stated the applicant has requested the Commission continue this item to a date certain for next month’s meeting. Member Sass made a motion to continue the Prospect Sports Stand-Alone Modification Requests to the May 18, 2023, Planning and Zoning Commission Hearing. Member Haefele seconded the motion. Vote: 6:0. 5. Enclave at Redwood MJA Project Description: This is a proposed major amendment (MJA) of the Enclave at Redwood development plan #PDP210004 that was approved in June of 2022. The amendment would eliminate the vehicular street extension of Lupine Street from existing development into the enclave development in favor of a pedestrian, bicycle, and emergency access only connection. Recommendation: Denial Member York reported he knows two people who live on Lupine Drive, though he has not discussed this project with them and has no reason to believe he has a conflict of interest. Secretary Manno reported seven emails have been received and are listed in the hearing packet. DRAFTPacket pg. 6 Planning & Zoning Commission April 20, 2023 Page 3 of 8 Staff and Applicant Presentations Planner Clark Mapes stated he will forego an initial presentation but noted the citizen comments that were added to the packet following the work session were from the 2022 project development plan process. Vice Chair Stackhouse clarified one new comment was received and one comment was resubmitted. Sam Coutts, Ripley Design, provided site location information and detailed the June 2022 Project Development Plan (PDP) process noting there was a significant amount of neighborhood comment surrounding the connection to Lupine Drive at that hearing. He stated the PDP was ultimately approved with Lupine Drive having a full roadway connection; however, the Commission encouraged work with the neighborhood to return with an alternative compliance for a bicycle, pedestrian, and emergency access only connection, which is the subject of this major amendment. Mr. Coutts discussed the approved PDP and the street and pedestrian network in the area. He noted the intersection of Redwood and Bergen is a full movement intersection. He detailed the proposed alternative compliance connection design and discussed the traffic impacts from a traffic engineering standpoint, noting all level of service standards are met despite volumes increasing without the Lupine connection. Mr. Coutts outlined the criteria which must be met for this major amendment to be approved, including that the plan must accomplish the purpose of the standard equally well or better than a complying plan and that the plan maintains facilities for bicycles, pedestrians, and transit. He noted transit is not applicable in this case as there are no transit stops nearby. Staff Analysis Planner Mapes showed photos of Lupine and an example of a pedestrian/bicycle/emergency access only connection. He stated staff’s analysis ultimately resulted in a recommendation of denial of the major amendment finding that the proposed plan is not equal to or better than the approved plan because the standards emphasize direct, multiple street access for vehicles as well as pedestrians and bicycles. He noted staff finds the request is consistent with alternative compliance criteria to a great degree because of the emphasis on pedestrian and bicycle access, and the alternative plan would link development projects together with an attractive connection; however, staff found the balance tipped in favor of the approved plan, which is more consistent with more of the standards to a greater degree. He stated the roadway will be narrowed down to the minimum allowable size of 20 feet leaving more room for landscape along the sidewalks should the amendment be denied by the Commission. Commission Questions Member Shepard asked if the existing 36-foot width of Lupine is flowline to flowline. Planner Mapes replied in the affirmative. Member Shepard asked if irrigation would be provided for landscaping in the event the narrower street connection prevails. Planner Mapes replied in the affirmative. Member Haefele asked if Lupine was originally built with the intention of it being a collector. Planner Mapes replied it was built prior to the existing standards; a narrower local street section was incorporated into the street standards in 1997. He stated there are no collectors in the Meadows at Redwood nor in the Enclave. Member Sass asked if vehicles can turn east and west when heading south onto Suniga from Steely Drive. Steve Gilchrest, Traffic Operations, replied both Steely Drive and Collamer are both full movement intersections at Suniga. Planner Mapes noted the Redwood connection is full movement in both directions. Public Input (3 minutes per person) Scott Metz thanked the developer for working with the HOA. He quoted from the staff report noting staff found there would be slightly lower efficiency and convenience for automobile traffic with the alternative compliance; however, staff also found the plan can function at an acceptable level of service from a traffic standpoint with either DRAFTPacket pg. 7 Planning & Zoning Commission April 20, 2023 Page 4 of 8 the street connection as approved or with the alternative compliance. He noted a nearly identical alternative compliance request at the same location was found to meet the applicable Land Use Code requirements and was unanimously approved by the Planning and Zoning Board in 2018. Luis Echenique commented on the importance of the quality of life for neighbors and stated the opening of Redwood and Suniga as well as new dwelling units in the area have impacted the quality of life. He supported the alternative compliance proposal. Tony Wagner commented on changes to the neighborhood since the roadways opened and new dwelling units have been constructed. He supported the alternative compliance proposal. Amber Franzel supported the alternative compliance proposal and commented on the collaborative efforts between the developers and the neighborhood. She stated many options exist for vehicular traffic. Robert Lamar commented on the tight-knit neighborhood and supported the alternative compliance proposal. Trinity Oberndorf thanked the Commissioners for their volunteer work and thanked Ripley Design and the developers for working with the neighborhood. She noted this same proposal has been previously approved and she expressed support for the alternative compliance proposal. She commented on the adoption of the Vision Zero Action Plan and noted this alternative compliance would support mode shift to reduce motor vehicle trips and would promote a culture of traffic safety. Aaron Oberndorf stated accounting for the Vision Zero Action Plan makes the alternative compliance proposal better than a complying plan. Joy Wintersteen stated there are a lot of children in the neighborhood and questioned for whom the approved connection is better. She stated this decision should not be made solely based on vehicles and stated the alternative compliance proposal would improve the quality of life for the neighborhood. Mark Lagen stated the neighborhood is small and he concurred with the support of the alternative compliance proposal. Applicant Response Mr. Coutts concurred with the neighbors and commended the neighborhood for being collaborative and solution- oriented. Staff Response None. Commission Questions / Deliberation Member Haefele asked about the 2018 approval mentioned. Planner Mapes replied he was not involved in that decision, but it was also a close decision. He stated that plan was abandoned because the property was sold to a new developer. Member Shepard stated the previous proposal that involved the pedestrian/bicycle connection was radically different in that it was exclusively student-oriented, rent by the bedroom, and included over 730 bedrooms. Mr. Coutts noted this site plan is laid out differently than the previous plan. Member Stegner asked if the crossway for pedestrian traffic will still exist at the south end where Mullein goes toward Bergen. Planner Mapes replied a new bike/pedestrian connection will be in that location. DRAFTPacket pg. 8 Planning & Zoning Commission April 20, 2023 Page 5 of 8 Member York asked if the Climate Action Plan and mode shift goals were taken into consideration during the staff analysis. Planner Mapes replied the difference in emissions was not considered and noted the staff report notes that there would be some out-of-directional travel required by vehicles. Member Shepard asked about the 36-foot street cross-section, noting it should provide plenty of room for two-way traffic with parked vehicles on both sides of the street. Gilchrest replied a typical 36-foot cross-section allows for two eight-foot cars to park and two ten-foot travel lanes and is a common local street width in Fort Collins. He stated there is a 30-foot cross-section, but it is only used in certain instances and would not be used in this case. Member Shepard asked if there is a significant difference between a per-unit trip generation rate for single-family versus townhome like multi-family development. Gilchrest replied the typical single-family is roughly ten trips per unit and he would research the townhome number. Member Shepard commented on the Commission’s familiarity with Vision Zero. Vice Chair Stackhouse asked about similarities or differences between this proposal and other bike/pedestrian/emergency access only connections in the city. Clay Frickey, Redevelopment Program Manager, commented on an example at the Village on Horsetooth and noted it was approved as an alternative compliance by the Planning and Zoning Board at the time. Planner Mapes commented on a similar example at the Kechter Farm townhomes. Gilchrest stated the trip generation for single-family homes is 9.43 daily trips per unit and 7.2 daily trips per unit for townhome developments. Assistant City Attorney Yatabe encouraged the Commission to focus on the specific aspects on which staff is basing denial. Member Shepard acknowledged the speakers and commented on changes and connectivity in the area. He complimented Planner Mapes on his staff report. Member Haefele stated the connection as approved in 2022 makes sense for vehicles; however, the out-of- direction travel that would be necessary with the alternative compliance proposal would only be one block. She stated this proposal, while it does not enhance bike travel, does provide for vehicles to not be the dominant mode on which every decision is based. She stated the proposal accommodates plenty of travel through and in and out of the Enclave development without creating a large connection through a longstanding neighborhood. She stated she is inclined to suggest the alternative compliance performs equally well or better than a complying plan particularly given the collaborative work between the neighborhood and the developer. Member Stegner asked if approving this alternative compliance request would inhibit a future full access connection. Planner Mapes stated no negative effects on level of service are foreseen and asked Gilchrest if there are any potential unforeseen consequences of having Bergen be the only access to Redwood so close to Suniga. Gilchrest replied in the negative and noted the traffic memo showed appropriate levels of service with either type of connection. He stated there is a possibility of a future signal at Redwood and Suniga; however, it is not warranted at this point. Member Haefele asked if there is anything in this proposal that would preclude the emergency access from being used in the case of an emergency evacuation for civilian vehicles. Planner Mapes replied in the negative. Member Sass noted the Commission has previously found any deviation from the Code to be a detriment to the public good and an alternative compliance must provide public good. Member York commented on the City’s efforts to foster non-vehicle use and access and he stated this alternative compliance helps meet that goal and helps make people feel safe and comfortable; therefore, it would provide public good. DRAFTPacket pg. 9 Planning & Zoning Commission April 20, 2023 Page 6 of 8 Member Shepard noted Lupine was intended to continue and connect the neighborhoods. He noted the roadway meets the standard and the neighborhood to which it would be connecting has multiple points of access to go the other way. He stated City Plan envisioned connecting neighborhoods. Vice Chair Stackhouse stated this is a relatively small neighborhood abutting a large neighborhood. Additionally, she noted this type of alternative compliance has been approved in the past. She stated there is a way to justify the function of the alternative compliance to be equally as well as a complying plan, specifically noting it fosters non-vehicle access and does not create issues with level of service standards for other streets. She stated different circumstances may result in a different outcome. Member Sass questioned how making this a full roadway connection would improve the existing neighborhood. Member Shepard replied the Planning and Zoning Commission represents the entire city and should step above from the neighborhood perspective. He stated the beauty of a city is that it is connected and neighborly. He stated the impediments and visual barriers that would be in place are awkward and harsh. He also stated he does not believe the impact of a full connection will be that severe given the fact that most neighborhoods connect in Fort Collins. Member York disagreed that connectivity only comes with motor vehicle access. He stated the importance of connecting neighborhoods lies in connecting people, not motor vehicles. Member Shepard stated he does not believe the barriers are appropriate and reiterated his statement that the impact of a full roadway connection will be that severe. Member York stated bollards are viewed as a safety feature, not as a do-not-connect feature. He also stated he has never heard a complaint about a lack of connectivity where this type of situation already exists. Member Haefele made a motion that the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Commission approve the Enclave and Redwood Major Amendment, MJA220003, finding that the major amendment satisfies all applicable Land Use Code standards. This decision is based upon the agenda materials, the information and materials presented during the work session and this hearing, and the Commission’s discussion on this item. Member York seconded. Member Shepard stated he would not support the motion though he respects the input from the neighbors and fellow Commission members. He stated he finds the barrier would violate City Plan policy LIV 4.2 related to compatibility of adjacent development, LIV 4.1 related to new neighborhoods, LIV 2.3 related to a layered network, the definition of neighborhoods in the Structure Plan, and does not meet the alternative compliance criteria in a better form. Member Sass stated City Plan provides principles for establishing an interconnected network of neighborhood streets and sidewalks, including automobile, bicycle, and pedestrian routes within a neighborhood and between neighborhoods, knitting neighborhoods together and not forming barriers between them. He stated that neighborhoods that are not necessarily the same should not be disconnected from one another and this alternative compliance does not function equally well better than a complying plan. Member Stegner stated she understands the concerns of the neighbors and appreciates the work with the developer; however, the City Plan policies call for connectivity. Vice Chair Stackhouse requested input regarding the thinking around how this aligns with previous decisions that have been made by Planning and Zoning Commissions to permit this type of connection. Member Shepard stated this issue came up more frequently prior to the adoption of City Plan, and one of the main issues that was considered was connecting neighborhoods. Planner Mapes noted projects are examined on a case-by-case basis; however, it was the guidance of City Plan that ultimately resulted in the staff recommendation of denial. Vice Chair Stackhouse asked if any of these types of bicycle and pedestrian connections have been approved since the adoption of City Plan. Planner Mapes replied in the affirmative. DRAFTPacket pg. 10 Planning & Zoning Commission April 20, 2023 Page 7 of 8 Member York noted this specific connection has been reviewed previously and the bicycle and pedestrian connection was approved. Vice Chair Stackhouse noted that review was for a different plan. Member Haefele stated the notion that connectivity is only provided if there is vehicular access goes against other principles adopted by the City, including reducing the amount of car-centric development. She stated the barriers can be designed in an attractive manner. Additionally, she noted the Commission is frequently asked to approve modifications for the benefit of the developer and against the wishes or interests of an existing neighborhood, and this proposal for a modification benefits all involved. Member Shepard asked if the developer has expressed a willingness to open the clubhouse and other amenities to residents of the existing neighborhood. Aaron Posma, DHI Communities, replied there are legal issues with clubhouse access that may not make that a possibility; however, from a pedestrian and bicycling perspective, this provides a good opportunity for connectivity. Member Shepard asked if the developer would be willing to entertain the idea of opening up pool memberships to other community members. Mr. Posma replied there would need to be further conversations with the City and the internal management group regarding how that might function. Vice Chair Stackhouse summarized the Commission’s discussion. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: York, Haefele, and Stackhouse. Nays: Stegner, Sass, and Shepard. THE MOTION FAILED. Assistant City Attorney Yatabe stated a substantially different motion could be put forth for approval; however, barring that, the major amendment is denied. Member Shepard asked if Commission members would be amenable to asking the applicant to be a bit more firm on opening up the amenity package to the existing neighborhood. Assistant City Attorney Yatabe stated he does not believe that type of condition is related to what is being considered in terms of connectivity and is outside the scope of the Commission’s purview. Vice Chair Stackhouse concurred. Member Haefele suggested the possibility of a condition that the physical barrier be designed in a way that minimizes the appearance of a gate or lack of connection. Member Shepard suggested having no barrier but instead having two ribbons of concrete, irrigated landscaping, and perhaps some signage indicating the purpose of the connection. Mr. Coutts stated he believes that type of design could be possible and there is an opportunity for a neighborhood gathering feature in the space that would still allow for emergency access. Member Sass suggested language could include ‘enhancing neighborhood gathering spaces and neighborhood connectivity without automobile access.’ Vice Chair Stackhouse summarized the condition to include the removal of the physical barriers from the design and a redesign in a way that improves neighborhood gathering and connectivity. Member Sass made a motion that the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Commission approve the Enclave at Redwood Major Amendment, MJA 220003, with the following condition: removal of physical barriers and redesign in a way that improves neighborhood gathering and connectivity. The Commission finds that the major amendment, in consideration of the condition imposed, satisfies all applicable Land Use Code standards. This decision is based upon the agenda materials, the information and materials presented during the work session and this hearing, and the Commission’s discussion on this item. Member Haefele seconded. Yeas: Stegner, York, Sass, Shepard, Haefele, and Stackhouse. Nays: None. DRAFTPacket pg. 11 Planning & Zoning Commission April 20, 2023 Page 8 of 8 THE MOTION CARRIED. Vice Chair Stackhouse thanked the neighbors and developers for their collaborative work. 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 None. Adjournment Chair Katz moved to adjourn the P&Z Commission hearing. The meeting was adjourned at 8:16pm. Minutes respectfully submitted by Shar Manno. Minutes approved by a vote of the Commission on: June 15, 2023. Paul Sizemore, CDNS Director David Katz, Chair DRAFTPacket pg. 12 Agenda Item 2 Item 2, Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY June 15, 2023 Planning and Zoning Commission STAFF Shar Manno, Customer and Administrative Manager SUBJECT MINUTES OF THE APRIL 26, 2023 P&Z EXTRA HEARING EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is the consideration and approval of the draft minutes of the April 26, 2023 Planning & Zoning Commission extra hearing. ATTACHMENTS 1. Draft April 26, 2023 P&Z Minutes Packet pg. 13 David Katz, Chair Virtual Hearing Julie Stackhouse, Vice Chair City Council Chambers Michelle Haefele 300 Laporte Avenue Adam Sass Fort Collins, Colorado Ted Shepard Samantha Stegner Cablecast on FCTV, Channel 14 on Connexion & York 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 26, 2023 Chair Katz called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Roll Call: Haefele, Sass, Shepard, Stackhouse, Stegner, York Absent: Katz Staff Present: Frickey, Sizemore, Claypool, Yatabe, Axmacher, Dial, Daly, Potyondy, and Manno Vice Chair Stackhouse 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, noting that members are volunteers appointed by City Council and that they are not staff and do not get paid. She noted that this meeting was for the purpose of making a recommendation to the City Council. In that regard, the Commission members would review the analysis by staff, the applicants’ presentations, and hear input from the public. The Commission would then determine its recommendation to Council. She noted that this is not a quasi-judicial hearing. Agenda Review None noted. Public Input on Items Not on the Hearing Agenda: None noted. Consent Agenda: None noted. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes DRAFTPacket pg. 14 Planning & Zoning Commission April 26, 2023 Page 2 of 9 Public Input on Consent Agenda: None noted. Vice Chair Stackhouse did an overview of the process for the discussion item on the agenda. Discussion Agenda: 3. Water Adequacy Determination Code Project Description: This is a request for a recommendation to City Council regarding proposed Land Use Code changes to add specific regulations outlining how the City will make a water adequacy determination for new development. The regulations are divided into three different categories: one for Established Water Providers, one for new providers and one for non-potable providers. The goal is to comply with Colorado state statute (Section 29-20-301, et seq., C.R.S.) and to make sure development has the necessary water supply. Recommendation: Approval of the proposed Land Use Code changes Secretary Manno reported that communications from stakeholders at Bloom, East Larimer County Water District (ELCO), Fort Collins-Loveland Water District (FCLWD) and Montava had been received and were included in the packet starting on page 54. She also noted that a third correspondence from ELCO has been submitted and provided to Commission members. However, it is not in the current published packet and will be included in a later version as well as a presentation from Montava. Staff and Applicant Presentations Planner Axmacher gave a brief verbal/visual overview of this project. Public Input (3 minutes per person, unless modified by the Chair) The first comment was from Steve Bushong, Law Firm of Bushong and Halleman, representative of Montava, along with Dick Wolf of Leonard Rice Engineers. They were granted 15 minutes of speaking time as representatives for a group of commenters concerned with the Water Adequacy Plan. They feel an augmentation plan would be efficient and that over appropriation of systems has happened over time. For that reason, it is important to keep finding new ways to develop water. For Montava, they landed upon an augmentation plan. The system planned for Montava is not a unique system. Montava supports the staff and the Commission’s effort to get this code in place, but they want to make sure it is right and not rushed. They are committed to being a partner in this process. The primary concern is that the Code is giving the established potable water supply entities greater control and authority than they believe appropriate, and these entities may not have the same incentives to approve new water supplies, even when the new supplies may be more reliable or economical. They noted that affordable housing requires affordable water. Mike Scheid, General Manager for the ELCO Water District, supports the requirements stated 3.13.5(C)(5) of the City’s proposed water adequacy rules. Chris Pletcher, General Manager for the FCLWD, strongly supports 3.13.5(C)(5). Max Moss, Montava, spoke generally about the Montava plan. Staff Response Assistant City Attorney Potyondy spoke to provision 3.13.5(C)(5), the requirement to exclude from the established service providers or gain consent. With the Water Adequacy Determination discussions, it was determined that this needed to be decided upon by City leadership. The staff recommendation is based in part on what could be discerned from previous City policies, respecting the boundaries of the neighboring water providers, and in part based on Section 26-4 in City Code that Mr. Bushong referenced, under which the City agrees to not extend water or wastewater service into the service areas of duly established areas of districts. The City can waive and not follow DRAFTPacket pg. 15 Planning & Zoning Commission April 26, 2023 Page 3 of 9 this provision if the districts are providing an unreasonable level of service to the property. Historically, however, this has not been used. This language could be incorporated into the Code. Overall, language in this proposed Code provision needs a decision, now that there are being proposed alternative water supplies that could potentially disrupt well-established service area boundaries amongst the water providers. With respect to the pace of the effort to update the Code language, Planner Axmacher commented that with the timing issue it is in the City’s best interest to meet the proposed deadlines so as to be able to demonstrate progress to the water court judge. Attorney Yatabe asked when the proposed trial date is set. Attorney Potyondy responded that the trial date that will be set at the June 1st status conference will be set in late 2025. Detailed reports will need to start circulating 8-9 months beforehand. The risk is that the City and the roughly twenty-five others working on the case could be working on one version of the Montava augmentation plan only to have it change significantly based on what results from the water accuracy determination. Commission Questions / Deliberation Clarifications on Questions Noted by City Staff 1. Autonomy of special districts with the State mandate from the municipality to make the adequacy determination. Member Shepard asked whether we are preempted from home rule status. Attorney Yatabe responded that the water adequacy determination is really a matter of State interest. He believes we are required to do the process up to this point. Also, much of the water coverage in the area is provided for by Fort Collins Water Utilities. He noted some latitude within the statute. This includes the point at which the water adequacy determination is made and some of the details of how water adequacy is determined. 2. To require exclusion or consent from the established potable water entities or other potable water entities to operate within their service area. No questions. 3. Establish potable water and reviewing of resource information. No questions. 4. Evaluation of water supplies to ensure that they will be adequate for our community members for the lifetime. Is there any additional information the city could require? No questions. General Clarifying Questions from Commission Members. Member York noted sections 3.13 and 3.12 and asked what would be included in those sections. Planner Axmacher responded that the sections are being held for oil and gas. Member York asked if there were other types of utilities that must provide a letter of adequacy or “will serve” letter in the City’s growth management area. Planner Axmacher responded that she is not aware of any. Member Shepard asked whether the Public Commissions come into play on the matter under discussion. Planner Axmacher was not aware of anything. Attorney Yatabe agreed. Water Engineer Daly responded that he agreed with Mr. Yatabe and that he does not think that Public Commissions plays a role with water providers here. Member Shepard noted that he is under the impression that there are two water providers in the City that do not have water treatment plants. If a new subdivision were to come into those service areas, would they be able to meet the requirements of proposed section 3.13, by not having their own water treatment plant? Planner Axmacher DRAFTPacket pg. 16 Planning & Zoning Commission April 26, 2023 Page 4 of 9 responded that having a water treatment plant is not a requirement, but that we would want to make sure that the water was of an acceptable quality. Member Sass requested clarification on documentation requirements. Planner Axmacher responded that applicants have two options: they can either provide a water supply plan that meets the requirements that are outlined in the proposed Code language, or they can submit a letter from a professional engineer or supply expert that outlines the resources that they are using for their water. The second letter is the normal “will serve” letter. One reason for the alternative is that smaller districts may not have a water supply plan. Member Shepard asked if it was anticipated that satisfying the requirements of the proposed 3.13 inside the Fort Collins Utilities Service territory would require the developer to rely on a consultant. Planner Axmacher responded that it would not within an established service provider area because they are already providing “will serve” letters now and the proposed process keeps this similar requirement. Member Shepard asked if it was anticipated that the providers would establish a standard “will serve” letter, or is it on a case-by-case application by application basis? Planner Axmacher responded that she believed the districts provide consistent letters within their own district, but not consistent across districts. This Code language is looking to create consistency, and staff would be happy to work with the districts if a template is sought after and that would try to meet everyone’s needs. Section 3.13.(C)5(C) Clarifying Comments. Vice Chair Stackhouse stated that she understands the basis for proposed section 3.13.5(C)(5). It is her understanding there are other situations in the state similar to what is being proposed by Montava. As part of the development of the proposed Code language, she asked whether City staff considered language used by those other municipalities. Planner Axmacher responded that they could not find any other municipalities that have similar code language. The only place where they could find language to reference was La Plata County. Attorney Potyondy responded that the proposed water supply and augmentation plan proposed by Montava was fairly common. What was less common was a proposal for a large-scale private water company within the boundaries of an existing water provider. Member Shepard requested the slide with the picture of the boxelder watershed and the aquifer that would be tapped. He asked for additional detail. Mr. Wolf responded that his previous comments referred to the historic irrigation on that property pumping from the wells that will serve the Montava development. This was the 40% reduction compared to what it was historically to what the future pumping demand will be for Montava. This supports the long-term sustainability of the aquifer; in other words, Montava’s plan is not going to increase the draw on the aquifer. Member Shepard asked how many acres the development owns. Mr. Bushong responded roughly 1,000 acres. The aquifer has historically been used for agriculture. Roughly 20,000 to 25,000-acre feet of pumping occurs. Member Shepard noted that Mr. Moss made a comment “that the city took the water off the land.” He requested clarification. Mr. Moss responded that Anheuser Busch has an agreement with the City in the form of a dedication to the City and that the City had an obligation to serve them that amount of water for 30 years, with 2,000 acre-feet available for this property. When they did the renewal of the agreement, they removed the right to use water on the property by allocating it all to the plant. Member Shepard asked where the pumped ground water will be treated. Mr. Bushong responded that the Montava plan has two different well fields, one on Boxelder Creek and one on the west side of I-25. There will be a water treatment plant on the Montava property. The same ground water that has historically been used to irrigate the property that will then be used, treated, and delivered through in-house use only, and then 95% of the water for in- house use will come back through the Boxelder Sanitation District, the existing wastewater treatment plant for Boxelder. Member Sass asked if there had been changes made to the draft Code language previously made available to the Commission. Planner Axmacher responded that she emailed a redlined version of the Code language at the same time the packet was released. Vice Chair Stackhouse clarified with Planner Axmacher that the Commission received two comment letters after the redlined language. DRAFTPacket pg. 17 Planning & Zoning Commission April 26, 2023 Page 5 of 9 Planner Axmacher circled back to the conversation on codes of other municipalities, commenting that she did pull up La Plate County’s code and that they do have a provision stating, “All proposed development within 400’ of a watermain of a public water system or designated regional public water system shall connect to such system unless the applicable provider certifies in writing that the system lacks sufficient capacity to serve the proposed development or the connection would technically impracticable or the provider otherwise refuses to serve the proposed development.” Member York questioned the speed at which this proposal is moving. Planner Axmacher responded that she did not know if she could answer the question other than that staff is doing the outreach that would have been completed if more time had been taken. Member Shepard asked Mr. Pletcher about exclusion processes currently available in his water district. Mr. Pletcher responded that under Title 32, there is an exclusion process. The applicant must give a 30-day notice and attend a public hearing. The Board then evaluates and decides. Member Shepard asked if the decision of the Board appealable. Mr. Pletcher responded that it was not. Member Shepard asked if a decision could be appealed to the court. Mr. Pletcher responded that he would have to consult the attorneys. Vice Chair Stackhouse asked Mr. Pletcher now the water district considers the cost of services of the existing provider versus an alternative provider, when considering requests for exclusion. Mr. Pletcher responded that many of the costs of the existing district have been invested over the past 60 years to develop the infrastructure to make sure there are water tanks that are regional in nature to be able to serve that development. Costs are not just isolated to the parcel under consideration. Vice Chair Stackhouse noted concern about water costs and the need for more cost effectiveness. Mr. Pletcher responded that existing providers take a long-term view and make investments in projects by anticipating where growth will happen. Member Shepard asked Mr. Pletcher at what point pipe is put into the ground. Mr. Pletcher responded that the philosophy is that growth pays its own way. The grided infrastructure to get water to the boundaries of the parcel is something that is planned decades in advance, and pipes are sized to make sure they can accommodate the planned use in that area. If the water company is later not able to serve that land due to an exclusion, then they have invested in pipe size that is unnecessary. Member Shepard asked if a cost could be assigned to recover the sunk costs for anticipated service. Mr. Pletcher responded that costs could be determined. Member Shepard asked if his water district had previously considered an exclusion request. Mr. Pletcher responded that they have internally evaluated one. Mr. Scheid of ELCO responded that ELCO has not excluded much property and it is usually at the request of the property owner. ELCO is currently working with the City to try to establish a service area boundary along Lemay due to the new overpass. Member York asked about adding to areas as opposed to de-annexing. Vice Chair Stackhouse reframed the question, asking if there is any land in Fort Collins or the growth management area not covered currently by a water district. Mr. Pletcher responded there is no unallocated inside the City or GMA. However, some districts that cover the City or the GMA that may adjoin unallocated land outside of those areas. Member York requested further clarification on the infrastructure costs. Mr. Pletcher responded that it is a geographic question. For ELCO, abutting GMAs are pretty well defined, such as Timnath and Wellington and are included in other water districts. Member Shepard asked about ELCO’s portfolio, and specifically, how ELCO knew it could serve its entire territory if it relied on the developers to bring water rights. Mr. Pletcher responded that ELCO’s policy has been that if you are going to add demand to the system, then you are going to add the supply required to meet that demand. Unlike the City of Fort Collins and Greeley, ELCO does not have the rich water right portfolios. It is subject to availability. Member Haefele asked if a new development proposing an augmentation scheme as their water supply could be used as a way of bringing a supply of water. Mr. Pletcher responded that it might be feasible. However, there is a lot to consider regarding water quality, comingling, and interconnects with sister districts in the sharing of transmission capacity. Member Haefele commented that it would be fair to say that approving the Land Use Code changes before Montava in a general sense would then just be down to the specifics and this could be worked out case by case. Mr. Pletcher responded that there are a lot of questions that must be answered. Planner Axmacher responded that she did not believe it would preclude that. DRAFTPacket pg. 18 Planning & Zoning Commission April 26, 2023 Page 6 of 9 Deliberation Vice Chair Stackhouse started with the two clear areas where a recommendation to Council is needed. 1. The speed at which the proposal is moving. 2. Provision 3.13.5(C)(5). Member Sass asked about the language “at the director’s discretion,” and if the appeal process was still the same. Planner Axmacher clarified that language was added to remove these decisions from the normal appeal process. The reason is that these are very technical decisions in nature and that there is still an appeal process through the court. Staff feels this is a more appropriate decision-making body than City Council. Member Shepard found that Attorney Potyondy’s observation was persuasive in that there are multiple parties and strict rules with sharing information among the parties and that this can be time consuming. He agrees with Mr. Potyondy’s response and the staff’s position on the timing of this item. Member Sass respectfully disagreed. Member York is concerned with how fast this item has come through. However, Land Use Code revisions are forthcoming and this provides the opportunity to make corrections if needed. In looking at the redlines, they are not substantially different than they were before. Vice Chair Stackhouse confirmed with Member York that he is not concerned with the speed at which this item is proceeding. Member York confirmed. Member Hafele feels that she can go either way on the speed. She commented that on the one hand, if the first version is given a soft release, it would get some expected testing and some revision. On the other hand, if you know that it is not quite right or are concerned that it is not quite right then, then the speed seems too fast. Member Stegner agreed with Member Hafele. Vice Chair Stackhouse understands the pressure that City staff is under, but personally prefers more deliberation before implementing an item into Code. It needs to be substantially ok. She is particularly concerned about provision 3.13.5(C)(5). Hearing that there is similar language in code in another city, the more information is helpful. With this provision, how do you ensure cost effectiveness in the provisioning of water? What process is there when someone wants to opt out? She feels a little more time might be appropriate. Member Sass expressed concern about the timing of when the adequacy determination is made, and he feels there should be more time spent understanding. Pulling these at the construction permit level seems late to him because developers will have spent millions of dollars on building developments and then may not receive a favorable adequacy determination. It could take months or years to get to the permit point. Member York understands Member Sass’s point. However, he believes that the City wants to be far enough along in the process. Member Hafele agrees that this is the logical order in which someone would propose a development. She asked whether water adequacy is something that would be reviewed in a conceptual review stage. Member Sass noted that the proposed Code language calls for it to occur at the permitting level. Vice Chair Stackhouse commented that the commission would always encourage people to work with their water district starting at the conceptual review stage to understand the water resources they need for the proposed development. Member Shepard asked if the DCP is a deadline, can an applicant precede this at anytime in the process? Planner Axmacher clarified that the redlined Code language moved the review to the final development plan or basic development review stage, with the ability to request to defer later in the process. There is also an option for large scale development that has an approved ODP or PUD overlay to do the entire water adequacy review with the first phase of development. Member Shepard asked if there was a stand-alone water adequacy process. Planner Axmacher responded that it would need to go concurrently with final development or basic development plan, through the development review process. Member Shepard questioned why this is such a concern; he agrees with Member Sass that no one is going to spend civil engineering and utilities plans if they do not have the water supply figured out. Member Axmacher commented that she believes it is helpful in making the decision to have the development review documents as part of the package as well as what has been approved. Member Haefele assumes that someone proposing a development, whether they are doing a formal determination with the City, has already completed their own internal determination and feels confident in what they bring. Planner Axmacher responded that she cannot DRAFTPacket pg. 19 Planning & Zoning Commission April 26, 2023 Page 7 of 9 speak for a developer, but she felt staff would agree. Planning Manager Frickey commented on the stand-alone water adequacy piece, this would be a difficult thing to evaluate. What plan would staff be reviewing against if there was a stand-alone request? It is a risk to the developer to have to go back during the PDP phase as staff cannot go back and ask for another water adequacy determination if the project is not substantially different. Vice Chair Stackhouse asked Member Sass if this discussion addressed his concerns. Member Sass stated that he continues to believe the process is moving too fast. Vice Chair Stackhouse recapped the three areas of deliberation. 1. Does the Commission believe that more time should be allocated for review of the Code language for the sake of certainty that there is a shared understanding between all parties? 2. Should Section 3.13.5(C)(5) receive additional research and review because of the impact of the language to alternative providers? 3. Should the timing of the adequacy determinations be further studied to ensure the language is well understood by developers? Member Sass does not feel it is a bad time to have this, he just wants to make sure the Commission understands the ramifications of their decision. Member Shepard is sympathetic to Member Sass’s point. He is leaning toward the timing suggested by Attorney Potyondy. He commented that one area of conversation was the Commission recommend to City Council that they take extra time between first and second reading. This has been done before. Attorney Potyondy spoke to the process of the water court. The Water Court Judge has made clear that this is going to proceed forward irrespective of what the City does here. The judge indicated that he will set a trial at the next status conference and that the trial date will likely be in March of 2025. The major disclosure deadlines start coming due in June of 2024. The primary risk that the City articulated previously was that Montava, the City and the other parties could potentially be working on a version of the augmentation plan for over a year before it gets amended due to the water adequacy process. This could result in lost effort and time. Vice Chair Stackhouse stated her view that is important for all stakeholders to have a chance to look at this proposed Code Language carefully and fully appreciate the ramifications. It would not take a long amount of time to do this. Attorney Potyondy responded that with respect to the risk of having the parallel court process and water adequacy regulations, the risk was acceptable. However, he was not looking forward to telling the judge the Code language is not on its expected schedule. Member Sass asked for clarification on the June 1st date. Attorney Potyondy responded that progress will have been made certainly if it is approved on first reading and the second reading was pushed back more than the standard two-weeks. This would not be as big of a deal. Attorney Yatabe commented and made a suggestion. With this currently set for May 16th Council first reading, the second reading would occur and the following regular meeting, June 6th. There is a possibility that the Planning and Zoning Commission could make a recommendation between the first and second reading. Staff at first reading could communicate to Council the substance of consternation over timing and the issues that the Commission is grappling with. Member Sass agrees and feels that they should not wait until the second reading. If the Commission understands that they send something to them stating that the Commission would like to have more review time to provide more constructive feedback. He would like further review time, another month. Member Haefele commented that the Commission’s job this evening is to send a recommendation to adopt or not adopt this Code language. She does not see where the Commission has anything other than to request that the Council make space between the first and second reading for additional input. Other Commission members weighed in. Member York understands the timing concern. But feels it would be more of a deal if there was more that the Commission was concerned about with the language and there is only one section of code that is of concern. He feels the Commission could send it to Council stating the concerns and would like more people to weigh in on it. Member Sass commented that the Commission could go more into the specifics. He does not feel there is an affordable option. He would like to understand what other non-potable options are available that are not the traditional methods. DRAFTPacket pg. 20 Planning & Zoning Commission April 26, 2023 Page 8 of 9 Vice Chair Stackhouse summarized the Commission’s discussion, and suggested two points as a direction for a recommendation to the City Council: 1. Allow parties additional time to review the Code language. 2. Instruct staff to continue studying section 3.13.5(C)(5) to weigh both the clear issues raised by water companies against the benefits of competition and longer-term implications. Member Hafele commented that the Commission is making an assumption that everyone is concerned about 3.13.5(C)(5), and she is not necessarily concerned with this. This piece of Code is intended to enable competing with other water sources. The situation right now precludes those. Planner Axmacher responded that with the current situation, we would not have anything to evaluate a potential new provider against in order to confirm the adequacy. Vice Chair Stackhouse addressed the concept of “incapable of providing a reasonable level of service.”.” She feels there may be very few situations where existing water companies would have any reason to approve these proposals and there is no appeals process. Member Sass asked what happens when a water district that is not the City of Fort Collins with their deep portfolio says you need x amount of dollars to provide water, what do we do as a city to stop this from happening if we do not put strong provisions in place to allow that developer who is going to build those homes to build an affordable home. We should not be considering water to be an unlimited resource. Member York understands some of the concerns, but without concrete examples of something negative from this area, he sees it as a reasonable step forward to start with. Member Stegner is back and forth, but the concern is timing. She is leaning toward more time. Member Shepard appreciates Member Sass’s perspective in the cost of not only the tap but bringing the raw water equivalent or the cash in lieu of real water right in ELCO, that inconsistency is maddening. City Plan did not envision $80,000 taps for a single-family detached home. Member Sass commented that it is now more than that in our GMA. This is concerning. Member Shepard asked if is a circular argument if a developer seeks to go to a special district to be removed and gets denied by the Board, what happens then? Planner Axmacher responded that staff would not be able to approve their private proposal as adequate. Member Shepard heard in the testimony from the water districts that neither the Special District Boards have an appeal process which is a system of governance that perhaps served us well during the dust bowl but does not serve us well today. Member York commented that he thought the appeal process was to go before the court. Attorney Yatabe responded that this is a legislative matter, different than a quasi-judicial matter where you are more bounded. Mr. Pletcher responded that during the course of the discussion, they verified that there is an appeal process above the water district board. Appeals go to the Board of County Commissioners. He was not aware of this prior to this hearing. This was new information for all involved. The Commission noted that this is a critical piece of information. Member Sass agreed that it addressed some of his concerns. Planner Axmacher responded that staff attorneys advised that there would be an appeal process likely through court, this is different than what they were suspecting. Attorney Yatabe has not researched this topic, in fact it was not on his radar to be prepared with an answer and does not know if Attorney Potyondy has researched this issue. Member Shepard asked if the information about an appeals process would factor into Code language. Planner Axmacher responded that it provides a better understanding of the alternatives should a district not consent and that it might not be an absolute end to the process. Member Shepard asked if a Board of County Commissioner decision can be appealed in a 106 District Court. Attorney Yatabe responded that it might depend on the nature of the action. Rule 106 action is for a quasi-judicial decision, and he has not studied the specifics of the nature of the decision. Member Stackhouse made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that City Council not adopt the Proposed Water Adequacy Determination Amendment to the Land Use Code to: • Provide additional time for stakeholders to fully review Code language, especially with respect to timing of a water adequacy determination. DRAFTPacket pg. 21 Planning & Zoning Commission April 26, 2023 Page 9 of 9 • Instruct staff to continue study of Section 3.13.5(C)(5) of the proposed Code to fully understand the ramifications of the language, for both water providers and potential applicants, and especially with respect to the applicant’s ability to appeal a determination of a water supply entity. Member Shepard seconded. Member Shepard thanked staff for their hard work under a deadline. He supports the motion. Member York thanked everyone who came out and provided input. Member Sass thanked everyone who worked with this, and he hopes that his concerns are not seen in a negative light and encourages people to participate. Member Haefele supports the motions because she agrees that having more time to review is important but feels these Code changes help facilitate different innovative uses or sources of water while also still protecting entities that have some long-established investments in providing water. She does not have the concerns but agrees that water is a confusing piece of law. Vice Chair Stackhouse thanked everyone that came out. Knowing what it means is beneficial to everyone. We want to find the balance between preserving the investments that have been made by water companies but also creating the right economic incentives. Vote: 6:0. For more complete details on this hearing, please view our video recording located here: https://www.fcgov.com/fctv/video-archive.php?search=PLANNING%20ZONING Other Business None noted. Adjournment Vice Chair Stackhouse moved to adjourn the Commission hearing. The meeting was adjourned at 8:18pm. Minutes respectfully submitted by Shar Manno. Minutes approved by a vote of the Commission on: June 15, 2023. Paul Sizemore, CDNS Director David Katz, Chair DRAFTPacket pg. 22 Planning and Zoning Commission Rules of Procedure Public Participation Land Use Code Section 2.2.7(B)(1) states: Rights of All Persons. Any person may appear at a public hearing and submit evidence, either individually or as a representative of a person or an organization. Each person who appears at a public hearing shall state their name, address and, if appearing on behalf of a person or organization, the name and mailing address of the person or organization being represented. The Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Commission (“Commission”) encourages members of the public to comment on matters before the Commission. Members of the public may comment prior to the public hearing by providing comments in writing. (Procedures are contained on the Commission’s website: https://www.fcgov.com/cityclerk/boards/planning-zoning.) Members of the public may also comment as part of the Hearing. For comments that are a part of the Commission’s hearing, the agenda will provide two opportunities for comment: Issues or non-quasi-judicial items not on the Commission’s Discussion Agenda For issues not listed on the published discussion agenda of the Commission, public comment will be held after the review of the agenda. Public comment regarding quasi-judicial items that are either on the agenda or may come before the Commission for a decision may not be provided at this time but should be provided when the item is reviewed by the Commission at a public hearing. Quasi-judicial items require the Commission to decide whether a particular development proposal complies with the Land Use Code requirements and should be approved. Examples include Overall Development Plans, Project Development Plans, Major Amendments, appeals of Basic Development Review decisions, and Site Plan Advisory Review. For quasi-judicial items on the consent agenda, limited public comment may be allowed at the presiding member’s discretion but generally, the item should be removed from the consent agenda for discussion. Time Permitted for Comments: •Comments are generally limited to three minutes per speaker. Time will be monitored by staff using a timer. The chair of the Commission, at their discretion, may extend the time allocated for a comment based on their assessment of the benefit of the comment. •In situations where members of the public share a comment (normally, residents of a common neighborhood), such members of the public may assign one individual to comment for the group (“the group”). -Such requests for a group comment and time extension should generally be made in advance of the meeting. Requests should be submitted to the individual identified on the Commission’s website. The request will be reviewed with the chair of the Commission. The chair of the Commission, at their discretion, will set a reasonable time greater than three minutes for the group’s comments. -Members of the group, including their addresses, must be provided before, or at the time, comment is made. -Members of the group must attend the hearing, either virtually (phone or webinar) or in person. •In their discretion, the chair may limit the time allocated to each commenter in the interest of an orderly and timely agenda while respecting the rights of all persons to appear at a public hearing and submit evidence. ITEM 3 Packet pg. 23 Items on the Commission’s Discussion Agenda For items on the Commission’s discussion agenda, public comment will be held after the applicant’s and city staff’s presentations. The chair of the Commission (or vice chair, in their absence) will explain the comment procedures, including the order of comments to be heard (in person, virtual meeting, and telephone). Time Permitted for Comments: • Comments are generally limited to three minutes per speaker. Time will be monitored by staff using a timer. The chair of the Commission, at their discretion, may extend the time allocated for a comment based on their assessment of the benefit of the comment. • In situations where members of the public share a comment (normally, residents of a common neighborhood), such members of the public may assign one individual to comment for the group (“the group”). - Such requests for a group comment and time extension should generally be made in advance of the meeting. Requests should be submitted to the individual identified on the Commission’s website. The request will be reviewed with the chair of the Commission. The chair of the Commission, at their discretion, will set a reasonable time greater than three minutes for the group’s comments. - Members of the group, including their addresses, must be provided before, or at the time, comment is made. - Members of the group must attend the hearing, either virtually (phone or webinar) or in person. • In their discretion, the chair may limit the time allocated to each commenter in the interest of an orderly and timely agenda while respecting the rights of all persons to appear at a public hearing and submit evidence. ITEM 3 Packet pg. 24