Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning and Zoning Commission - MINUTES - 04/17/2025Planning & Zoning Commission REGULAR MEETING April 17, 2025 – 6:00 PM Council Chambers, City Hall 300 Laporte Ave Also via Zoom CALL TO ORDER: 6:00 PM ROLL CALL a. Board Members Present – Julie Stackhouse (Chair), Adam Sass (Vice Chair), Shirley Peel, Ted Shepard, York, Russell Connelly, Kent Bruxvoort b. Board Members Absent – None c.Staff Members Present – Frickey, Meyer, Kidwell, Yatabe, Boster, Gilchrist 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. Chair Stackhouse welcomed new Commissioner Kent Bruxvoort and Commissioner Bruxvoort introduced himself. AGENDA REVIEW Clay Frickey, Planning Manager, provided a review of the agenda. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION None. CONSENT AGENDA 1.CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 20, 2025 The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the February 20, 2025, meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Commissioner York made a motion, seconded by Vice Chair Sass, to approve the Consent Agenda. Yeas: Shepard, Peel, Bruxvoort, Connelly, York, Sass, and Stackhouse. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. DISCUSSION AGENDA 2. LIBERTY COMMON JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL PHASE 2 – SPA250001 DESCRIPTION: This is a request to change the use and occupancy of the existing building at 1901 Sharp Point Drive from an office building to Liberty Common Junior High School, which includes interior tenant finish renovations. The project also involves constructing an addition to connect the building to 1825 Sharp Point Drive and implementing site work to manage stormwater flows, create new stormwater detention features, and re- access. administrative offices, a cafeteria, a gymnasium, and support spaces for 330 junior high students. This is the second SPAR submittal for the project, following phase 1, which is currently under construction. The site is located in the Industrial (I) zone district and is subject to a Site Plan Advisory Review STAFF: Kim Meyer, Principal Planner Commissioner Bruxvoort disclosed that he has had the opportunity to partner with Neenan on projects outside of Fort Collins as he is a practicing civil engineer, though this will not impact his ability to remain impartial. Assistant City Attorney Yatabe disclosed that he previously advised a tenant in the same business complex on a lease issue, though he does not believe that constitutes a conflict of interest in his ability to advise the Commission. Staff Presentation Kim Meyer, Principal Planner, provided an overview of the Site Plan Advisory Review (SPAR) for the second phase of this project to add a building and construct a new connection between two buildings. She provided a map and images of the site and noted there is an active bald eagle nest within a quarter mile of the site. Meyer outlined the considerations for a SPAR review, which allows the City to look at compatibility with City Plan in terms of location, character, and extent. She noted the site is zoned Industrial; however, the Liberty Common School has been in this location for some time and the school owns several buildings in the area. She stated Sharp Point Drive is a two-lane collector and noted the Poudre Trail and a natural area are across the street from the school buildings. Meyer discussed the site plan, and stated staff are generally supportive of the overall proposal. She noted several street trees will be removed as part of the project, though there is a tree mitigation plan to determine appropriate replacement plantings. She also noted staff is recommending some parking screening, perhaps in the form of an architectural wall along the northeast side of the site, to help mitigate headlight impacts to the natural area. Meyer showed renderings of the proposed project and reviewed the Site Plan Advisory Review criteria. She noted a traffic impact study was provided and staff is recommending a pedestrian crossing across Sharp Point Drive. Additionally, staff is recommending the school work with Colorado Parks and Wildlife to ensure construction takes into account the bald eagle nest and is recommending limiting light spillage onto properties to the east. Applicant Presentation Jeff Jensen, Liberty Common Representative, stated this new Junior High School will serve over 300 students and will include the addition of a new gymnasium and cafeteria building. He thanked the City departments that have helped with the vacation of Riverbend Court. Kathleen Kearney, Liberty Common Junior High School Principal, discussed the history and expansion of Liberty Common School in the community. Shelby Hinchliff, Neenan Archistruction, showed some renderings of the project and noted the parking lot will be removed from the front of the 1901 building and replaced with a functional grass area. She discussed the project architecture and noted Matt Delich has completed traffic impact studies for both phases of the project. She outlined the proposed traffic circulation and parking on the site and noted the school has committed to staggered start and end times. She also outlined the bus routes between campuses. Shelby Hinchliff stated the planned construction timeline will avoid encroachment with the active bald eagle nest. Additionally, the City’s suggestions about lighting have been incorporated into the design; however, the school is not interested in constructing a wall to screen parking as there are security concerns. She noted the parking lot is sunken and there is a berm between Sharp Point and the parking lot that helps with some of the headlight mitigation. She offered thanks to the many City staff members who have collaborated on this project. Staff Follow-up Meyer discussed other options for how the parking could be screened, including plantings or rocks, and acknowledged there is a grade difference between the parking lot and Sharp Point. Commission Questions Commissioner York asked about the goal of potentially constructing a wall. Meyer replied the initial thought was to maintain the architectural urban edge with the placement of the gymnasium building at the street level. Additionally, the wall would function to screen parking that normally wouldn’t be permitted in its location. Vice Chair Sass asked if the Code section that requires a wall could be used in the recommendation, had this not been a SPAR. Frickey replied that the Land Use Code requires parking lots to be screened from view and if this were not a SPAR, landscaping or some other type of wall or fence would be required to screen the parking lot as parking is not allowed between the building and the street. Commissioner Bruxvoort asked the applicant to elaborate on the safety concerns related to the construction of a screening wall. Kearney replied one of Liberty Common’s priorities is to keep students safe and there is a concern that a wall or landscaping would not allow for cameras to see people coming off the trail or others who are not meant to be on the campus. Public Participation None. Commission Questions/Discussion Commissioner Shepard requested an update on the potential for a signal at Sharp Point and Prospect. Steve Gilchrist, Traffic Operations, replied that the intersection was part of a preliminary project plan to widen Prospect all the way to the Interstate, and there is the potential for a traffic signal at that location. However, the widening plan is somewhat stalled, though these projects have triggered the need to determine whether a signal is warranted and some warrants are met. The thought is to mitigate that potentially through a proportional share in the short term with a long-term capital project for the full signal. Chair Stackhouse asked how to achieve the best outcome to meet the staff goals around the architectural wall and the safety concerns of the school. Meyer replied there may be some potential for additional landscaping rather than a wall, given the safety concerns. She suggested staff could work with the applicant during final plan stage to determine what types of plantings may work; however, she noted the school is not required to meet the Land Use Code and these are recommendations. She stated that staff is comfortable with adjusting the recommendation language to soften the word ‘wall.’ Vice Chair Sass stated edging the parking lot with plantings is not unreasonable. Commissioner Bruxvoort suggested it may be helpful to include language in the recommendation related to height. Commissioner York noted safety was discussed in two different components related to the installation of a fence in one area to keep students safe and concerns about a fence or wall in another area. He noted the original intent of the recommendation was related to urban design character rather than headlight mitigation. Meyer concurred that was the original intent and stated a wall would also serve the purpose of parking lot screening, though she is comfortable with other types of materials there. Commissioner Peel noted the fence will serve as a safety feature and cameras would not be able to see to the other side of a wall. Kearney replied that the fence would have good visibility while still keeping children secure in the space. Commissioner Shepard commended the collaboration on the project thus far and suggested the objective could be met with hardscaping or softscaping and suggested the language should leave it up to the parties to work out. He stated he would not like the recommendation language to be prescriptive around the topic. Commissioner Connelly concurred. Chair Stackhouse suggested using language that gets to the objective rather than the material involved. Commissioner Shepard noted that one of the things that makes Fort Collins great is the collaboration among a wide variety of groups, and this is a good example of that. Commissioner Peel commended staff on a job well done. Vice Chair Sass made a motion that the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Commission direct staff to provide the review comments contained in the staff report regarding Site Plan Advisory Review SPA250001 to the Liberty Common Board of Directors with a request for a response, with the modifications as discussed at the hearing on April 17, 2025. In consideration of the review comments to be provided to the Board, the Commission finds the location, character, and extent of the proposed development plan is consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan and mitigates its functional and visual impacts to streets, sidewalks, utilities, lighting, screening, and noise to the extent reasonably feasible. This decision is based upon the agenda materials and information and materials presented during the work session and this hearing, and the Commission discussion of this item. Further, this Commission hereby adopts the information, analysis, findings of fact, and conclusions contained in the hearing staff report. Commissioner Connelly seconded the motion. Yeas: Peel, Bruxvoort, Sass, Shepard, Connelly, York, and Stackhouse. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. OTHER BUSINESS None. ADJOURNMENT d. Chair Stackhouse moved to adjourn the P&Z Commission hearing. The meeting was adjourned at 6:59PM. Minutes respectfully submitted by Krista Kidwell Minutes approved by the Chair and a vote of the Board/Commission on 06/25/25.