No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning and Zoning Commission - MINUTES - 12/19/202412/19/24 - MINUTES Page 1 Planning and Zoning Commission REGULAR MEETING December 19, 2024 – 6:00 PM City Council Chambers 300 Laporte Avenue Fort Collins, Colorado CALL TO ORDER: Chair Stackhouse called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. ROLL CALL a. Board Members Present - Stackhouse, Connelly, Peel, York, Katz, Sass, and Shepard b. Board Members Absent - None c. Staff Members Present - Matsunaka, Kidwell, Jarvis, Winslow, Baty, Schumann, Castelli, Nelson, Mounce, Collins, Marko, Frickey, Myler, Beals 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 and noted that members are volunteers appointed by City Council. The Commission members review the analysis by staff, the applicants’ presentations, and input from the public and make a determination regarding whether each proposal meets the Land Use Code. She noted that this is a legal hearing, and that she will moderate for civility and fairness. AGENDA REVIEW Planning Manager Clay Frickey reviewed the items on the Consent and Discussion agendas stating all items will be heard as originally advertised. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ON ITEMS NOT ON THE HEARING AGENDA None. CONSENT AGENDA 1. Draft Minutes for the P&Z October 17, 2024, Regular Hearing 12/19/24 - MINUTES Page 2 The purpose of this item is to approve the draft minutes of the October 17, 2024, Planning and Zoning Commission hearing. 2. Carnegie Building Renovation Lighting Update – MA230137 This is a Minor Amendment request for modifications to the exterior lighting on the south side of the Carnegie Building to improve safety/security. It is located in the Neighborhood Conservation Medium Density (NCM) Zone District. 3. Schoolside Park – BDR240009 This is a request for a Basic Development Review for the development of Bacon Park at 5830 S Timberline Rd. (parcel #8608253901). Access is proposed to be taken from a private drive west of S Timberline Rd. The site is directly east of S Timberline Rd. and 0.27 mi south of Kechter Rd. The property is located in the Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (LMN) zone district and is subject to a Basic Development Review (BDR). As a City proposed project the decision maker will be the Planning and Zoning Commission. Vice Chair Sass made a motion to approve the Consent Agenda for the December 19, 2024 hearing as originally advertised. Commissioner Connelly seconded the motion. Yeas: Shepard, Connelly, York, Peel, Sass, Katz, and Stackhouse. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. DISCUSSION AGENDA 4. Heritage Annexation – ANX240001 This is a request to annex and zone 13.6 acres of land generally located around 2506 Zurich Drive. The annexation is subject to a series of hearings including a Type 2 review and public hearing by the Planning and Zoning Commission and recommendation to City Council. OWNER: APPLICANT: Fort Collins, CO, 80524 STAFF ASSIGNED: Ryan Mounce, City Planner 12/19/24 - MINUTES Page 3 Commissioner Katz noted he is a commercial real estate professional and has a piece of land listed in the general area, although it does not impact the annexation area and will not impact his decision. Staff Presentation Ryan Mounce, City Planner, stated this item is a request for a recommendation to City Council for the annexation and zoning of a 25-acre property located near the northwest corner of International Boulevard and Timberline Road. Mounce noted the property is contiguous with city limits on several sides and meets the state requirements for contiguity. Mounce stated the requested zoning for the property is E – Employment and noted the zoning around the site varies between residential, light industrial, and employment in both the County and the City. Mounce showed photos of the site and one existing building on the property. Applicant Presentation Angie Milewski, BHA Design, provided background information on Heritage Christian Academy, which occupies the building on the site. She stated the annexation of the property will allow the school to move forward with its plans for expansion and discussed the benefits of the property being zoned Employment. Milewski stated the applicant concurs with the staff recommendation of the property’s placement in the non-residential sign district and LC1 lighting context area. Staff Analysis Mounce stated staff recommends zoning based on land use guidance provided through the Structure Plan Map and City Plan, as well as the East Mulberry Plan in this case. He stated staff is recommending Employment zoning due to the transitional buffer area between the existing neighborhoods and heavier industrial uses in the Airpark. Commission Questions Commissioner Shepard asked if the future development of the school would be a Site Plan Advisory Review or a Project Development Plan. Mounce replied it would likely be a Project Development Plan as the school is private. Chair Stackhouse requested additional information regarding this annexation consideration versus a future Project Development Plan. Mounce replied that future physical development, including expansion of the school and facilities, will take many years and much more review by the City. He noted this first step, is just the annexation of the property, which is voluntary, but is also a requirement per an intergovernmental agreement with Larimer County. Additionally, Mounce noted that the City Council will be the ultimate decision maker, though a recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission is required. He stated the next step will be an Overall Development Plan followed by individual Project Development Plans. Public Comment Julia Branstrator, 539 Winnipeg Court, indicated that Heritage Christian Academy already owns the land and asked how that would impact the annexation decision. Staff Response Mounce confirmed the school has purchased the land; however, the annexation process must occur prior to any physical development. He noted there are state requirements related to 12/19/24 - MINUTES Page 4 annexation and reiterated this is a voluntary annexation. Commission Questions / Deliberation Commissioner Katz commented on initial concerns about industrial lands diminishing, but stated he is more comfortable with the Employment zoning after further review. He requested assurance that non-conforming uses will not be created with the existing industrial building on Zurich. Mounce replied most of the business and structures around the site would not be non-conforming and noted there is a great deal of overlap between the uses allowed in Employment and Industrial. Commissioner York stated going through this process to allow additional review of the physical expansion in the future is the proper thing to do and expressed support for the annexation. Commissioner Shepard thanked staff for the slide showing the buildable lands inventory and commented on several recent changes of industrial properties to residential and other uses. He encouraged the Commission to be just as supportive of a property that may be going from residential to industrial uses in the future, but stated he would support the annexation. Vice Chair Sass made a motion that the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that City Council approve the proposed Heritage Annexation– ANK24001 – of 24.84 acres northeast of the intersection of International Boulevard and Mexico Way within the East Mulberry Enclave and the proposed Zoning of Employment (E). This complies with all applicable land use code procedures and requirements, and the Commission adopts the information, analysis, findings of fact and conclusions contained in the staff report included with the agenda materials for this hearing. This decision is based upon the agenda materials, the information and materials presented during the work session and this hearing, and the Commission discussion on this item. Commissioner Katz seconded the motion. Yeas: Peel, Katz, Connelly, York, Sass, Shepard, and Stackhouse. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. 5. Proposed Soil and Xeriscape Landscape Standard Updates As a Council priority, staff is recommending code changes and seeking feedback on landscape standards regarding xeriscape, soil amendments, and irrigation. City of Fort Collins 300 Laporte Ave Fort Collins, CO 80524 STAFF ASSIGNED: Katie Collins, Water Conservation Specialist, Utilities Katheryne Marko, Environmental Regulatory Affairs Manager Noah Beals, Development Review Manager 12/19/24 - MINUTES Page 5 Staff Presentation Katheryne Marko, Environmental Regulatory Affairs Manager, stated several City departments have collaborated to draft amendments to the Land Use Code that respond to three of the 2021- 2023 City Council priorities with a goal of developing standards that will establish landscapes that are well equipped to survive or thrive despite a changing climate and finite resources. Marko stated the objectives are to reduce the impact of the built environment while still maintaining Fort Collins’ unique sense of character and place while considering how to meet current and future needs. Marko noted the Colorado Legislature passed Senate Bill 24-005 which goes into effect on January 1, 2026, and prohibits the installation of non-functional turf, artificial turf, and invasive species in commercial developments. She stated the City’s proposed standards have been made consistent with the new State law and include additional requirements that are not tied to the State law. Marko provided additional details on the proposed regulations and stated staff is planning to go before Council for first reading of the ordinance in January. Marko outlined the public engagement process related to this effort and noted there was support for commercial landscape regulations and education and incentives. Concerns have consistently centered around including residential as part of the xeriscape regulations, which is not part of the proposal, and around prohibiting artificial turf; however, that is part of the State law. Katie Collins, Water Conservation Specialist, discussed the analyses conducted to assess the financial impact of the proposed standards. She stated staff has engaged with two local landscape design firms to further assess the cost impact as well and she detailed the various costs that were associated with projects complying with current regulations versus proposed regulations. Collins outlined the level of service that is currently occurring from a regulatory perspective and stated adding two additional full-time employees would be needed to help support and promote the proposed Code amendments by providing more opportunities for education. Commission Questions Commissioner Shepard asked if the new water supply requirement rate is reflected in the cost estimate data. Collins replied in the negative and stated 2024 rates were used along with the current water supply rate. Commissioner York asked what enforcement methods are possessed by the State if these changes are not made. Assistant City Attorney Jarvis replied she would examine the Senate Bill language. Commissioner Shepard asked about the removal of the requirement for landscaping of vehicle display lots. Marko replied the Code was reorganized and cleaned up as part of this effort and stated the item referenced by Commissioner Shepard was found to be a redundancy. Public Comment Angie Milewski, BHA Design, expressed support for the proposed changes and commended the public outreach conducted by staff. She commented on incremental costs being added to projects and thereby impacting affordability. She specifically commented on the dual irrigation system requirement and suggested softening the language to encourage the system but not require it. Additionally, she stated there could be potential for tension between developers and the City given the proposed new escrow requirements. 12/19/24 - MINUTES Page 6 Commission Questions / Deliberation Marko stated the justification behind the dual irrigation system requirement to have a drip irrigation zone specific to trees relates to protecting trees during water shortages. She noted the cost estimates provided do include that dual irrigation system requirement and noted concerns have been raised about the long-term maintenance of those zones. Noah Beals, Development Review Manager, stated the current escrow requirements do not guarantee the establishment of landscaping and stated the proposed change would not only guarantee the installment of the landscaping, but also its establishment. He stated the proposed escrow amount is lower but is held for a longer period of time. Commissioner Sass asked about the definition of ‘established.’ Beals replied it typically takes a year or two to determine whether a tree is going to survive and stated weeds frequently invade lightly watered areas; therefore, staff would be looking for maintenance of those situations. Assistant City Attorney Jarvis stated the current Code does not reference tree establishment but does include a two-year escrow. Commissioner Shepard asked whether the escrow applies to street trees in the right-of-way or to all trees. Assistant City Attorney Jarvis replied it applies to landscaping and irrigation and would include any trees included therein. Regarding Commissioner York’s earlier question regarding what enforcement methods are possessed by the State if these changes are not made, Assistant City Attorney Jarvis stated the bill itself did not specify enforcement for the new regulations and she is researching information related to the general enforcement of Title 37. Commissioner York asked if it is correct to state the current Code establishes escrow until the certificate of occupancy is issued and the new Code is requesting that to be expanded to two years. Members discussed the escrow change and opted to move forward with additional questions. Commissioner Sass asked if the existing xeriscape incentive program is being modified. Collins replied that the xeriscape incentive program primarily serves for existing landscape renovations and there are no proposed changes to the program. Commissioner Sass asked if there is a fine or other penalty for non-compliance. Collins outlined the water allotment model and stated that water use in excess of that allotment results in an additional surcharge being assessed to the account. She noted the water supply requirement is calculated at the time of development based on the estimated water demand of the landscape. Beals noted landscape inspections do occur, primarily upon request, and the first step would be a reminder that the approved landscape plan needs to be maintained, followed by a notice of violation, court summons, or fines. Commissioner Shepard asked what would occur should a property owner go over their allotment after installing landscaping that would meet the xeriscape and water efficiency standards. Marko replied that the calculated annual water need for the landscape is based off the hydro zone table. If a property’s landscape is found to be out of compliance, the owner will need to plant appropriate landscape to comply with the approved plan, and theoretically, the water use should not have changed from what was anticipated per the approved plan. 12/19/24 - MINUTES Page 7 Commissioner Shepard commented on older industrial areas in the city that have no landscape plan or hydro zone calculation and questioned what could be done in these situations. Beals replied that properties without an approved landscape plan are not considered to be out of compliance and only redevelopment could trigger the need for Code compliance with landscape standards and an associated water allotment. Commissioner Shepard questioned how to avoid a new use coming in and meeting landscape standards next to an existing use that does not need to meet the standards. Beals replied that incentive programs can be utilized in those instances. Chair Stackhouse noted there are three areas of consideration for the Commission: the Land Use Code, City Code, and staffing levels. Commissioner Shepard expressed concern that the language is not truly representative of the cost and effort it takes to maintain a perennial bed, specifically citing the lack of the word ‘weeding’ among others. He encouraged staff to rewrite the narrative language to be more realistic. Commissioner Katz also noted the language fails to address the net present value of items. Chair Stackhouse asked Commissioners whether there are issues with compliance with the State regulations. Commissioner York stated meeting those requirements is necessary moving forward. Chair Stackhouse asked Commissioners whether there are issues regarding the proposed Code amendments. Commissioner Shepard stated there is a difference between a parking lot and a vehicle display lot and expressed support for the existing Code calling out that difference. He asked Commissioners if they would support retaining the Code section, 5.10.1(D)(6), regarding the landscape intervals required for vehicle display lots. Commissioners Sass and Katz expressed support for retaining the section. Commissioner Shepard expressed support for the remaining amendments. Commissioner Katz expressed concern about requirements that increase the cost of development and requested further information regarding the increased upfront costs of the dual irrigation system mentioned during public comment. Collins commented on the specialty irrigation tree drip zone line item included in the cost estimates for the landscape alternatives. She noted this is often happening anyway as more dedicated irrigation is installed for new landscaping types. Chair Stackhouse asked how much cost the drip system would add to an affordable housing project. Collins stated the unit cost is about $1,000 per zone. Chair Stackhouse commented on other instances wherein concessions were made for affordable housing projects; however, she acknowledged this is considering the long-term health of trees when water is scarce. She stated she would be more inclined to support the changes if she could be assured they would not put affordable housing projects at risk. Commissioner Shepard asked if Housing Catalyst was consulted as a stakeholder. Collins replied in the affirmative and stated Housing Catalyst did provide some comments. She noted Housing Catalyst also has requirements similar to the water budget requirement if certain funding sources are involved. Commissioner Shepard asked if multi-family projects are part of the allotment program. Collins replied that multi-family indoor water use does not have an allotment; the outdoor water tap does however. Frickey noted the line item for tree irrigation for a multi-family project is about $3,000 and noted the 12/19/24 - MINUTES Page 8 recently developed Oak 140 affordable housing project was about a $23 million project; therefore, the initial irrigation investment is relatively small compared to the overall project cost. Commissioner Sass asked if the 70% established growth rule prior to releasing escrow is being changed. Marko replied that standard will remain. Commissioner Sass asked if any provisions are being made for a mulched area or native grasses for establishment as there are native grass areas that never get to 70% growth. Marko replied work is currently being done with Environmental Planning on those issues. Commissioner Peel requested additional clarification regarding the two-year escrow. Assistant City Attorney Jarvis replied that the former Land Use Code included the two-year 125% landscape escrow, irrigation escrow, and in at least one other location. The proposal is to bring those all together with the intention of potentially including a three- to five-year forestry escrow in the future. She stated she has yet to find the two-year requirement in the newly adopted Land Use Code. Commissioner Peel asked how much money is held in escrow on average. Beals replied that a multi-unit project may be $30,000-$100,000, some of which may be in letters of credit or bond letters. The amount may be $500 or so for a builder who is building one house at a time. Beals stated staff would be willing to remove the escrow language and leave the current language if it is a concern for the Commission. Commissioner Sass stated in his experience, larger projects will secure a bond for that escrow amount. He stated he does not want to put additional pressure on smaller home builders to write checks for those amounts and stated escrow dollars should be returned once certificates of occupancy are issued. Commissioner Shepard suggested partial escrow releases as an option. Chair Stackhouse outlined the three lingering issues: the impact of dual irrigation systems on affordable housing projects, the landscape escrow requirements to assure clarity and reasonableness, and the retention of the language in Section 5.10.1(D)(6) related to vehicle display lots. Commissioner Sass asked if the Land Use Code requires establishment of native grass to a particular level. Beals replied that the natural habitat buffer zones currently have an establishment requirement; however, there is no establishment requirement for native grass that is not in a buffer zone. Chair Stackhouse made a motion that the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed the recommendations for proposed soil and xeriscape landscape Land Use Code updates. The Commission believes the proposal meets State requirements and is consistent with the water conservation goals of the City. For that reason, the Commission supports the proposal and recommends City Council approval. In making this recommendation, the Commission suggests that City Council ensure that the impacts to affordable housing projects from dual irrigation systems is understood, that it examine the landscape escrow requirements to ensure clarity and reasonableness, and that the Code retain the current language addressing landscaped vehicle display lots. This decision is based upon the agenda materials, the information and materials presented during the work session and this hearing, and the Commission discussion on this item. The Commission hereby adopts the information, analysis, findings of fact, and conclusions regarding this Land Use Code update contained in the staff report included in the agenda materials for this hearing. Commissioner York seconded the motion. Yeas: York, Connelly, Katz, Shepard, Peel, and Stackhouse. Nays: Sass. 12/19/24 - MINUTES Page 9 THE MOTION CARRIED. Chair Stackhouse commented on the importance of addressing increasing incremental costs. Commissioner York stated this is a step toward making the Code better. Chair Stackhouse noted that the Commission needs to decide whether to express support for adoption of the City Code amendments. Commissioner Sass expressed concern the total cost impact has yet to be ascertained and noted these changes exceed the State requirements. He suggested a wholesale look at water conservation could be more valuable, but expressed support for the City Code changes. Chair Stackhouse made a motion that the Fort Collin Planning and Zoning Commission, in its capacity as an advisor on planning matters to City Council, express support for the adoption of City Code amendments regarding soil amendment and soil loosening. Commissioner Sass seconded the motion. Yeas: York, Connelly, Sass, Katz, Shepard, Peel, and Stackhouse. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. Commissioner Sass expressed support for additional staffing to support these efforts. Commissioner Shepard concurred. Chair Stackhouse stated she would be more comfortable encouraging City Council to examine opportunities to augment staff to fully implement the proposal rather than having a budget addition. Members discussed ways to formulate language related to finding efficiencies. Chair Stackhouse made a motion that the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Commission, it its capacity as an advisory on planning matters to City Council, advise that the proposed Land Use Code amendments may require augmented staff to fully implement the proposed changes. The Planning and Zoning Commission encourages City Council to examine opportunities to fully implement the proposal. Commissioner York seconded the motion. Yeas: York, Connelly, Sass, Katz, Shepard, Peel, and Stackhouse. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. Chair Stackhouse commended staff work on this item. 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 Frickey noted staff received a letter from Liberty Common School with its response to the Planning and Zoning Commission’s comments from last month’s meeting related to the SPAR for the middle school expansion. Frickey summarized the main suggestions from the Commission and stated the school indicated it will work with the City on roadway striping and signage, committed to scheduling a meeting with the City Forester to go over the existing trees on site and to minimize impacts to 12/19/24 - MINUTES Page 10 those trees, responded they intend to reuse the existing roof screens to screen HVAC units to the extent feasible, and committed to evaluating the feasibility of contributing to construction of the detached sidewalks and crossings. Commissioner Shepard commended the response and stated it speaks to collaboration. He noted there will be an interesting design conundrum with how to create a detached sidewalk given the existing trees that are located right behind the attached sidewalk. ADJOURNMENT a. Chair Stackhouse moved to adjourn the P&Z Commission hearing. The meeting was adjourned at 8:23 pm. Minutes respectfully submitted by Krista Kidwell Minutes approved by the Chair and a vote of the Board/Commission on 02/20/25