Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 08/26/2004Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 26, 2004 6:00 p.m. Council Liaison: Karen Weitkunat Staff Liaison: Cameron Gloss Chairperson: Mikal Torgerson Phone: (W) 416-7435 Vice Chair: Judy Meyer Phone: (W) 490-2172 Chairperson Torgerson called the meeting to order at 6:05 p.m. Roll Call: Lingle, Gavaldon, Meyer, Schmidt, Craig, Carpenter and Torgerson. Staff Present: Gloss, Eckman, Olt, Aspen, Wamhoff, K. Moore, Buffington, Stanford, Leman. City Planner Steve Olt, standing in for Director of Current Planning Cameron Gloss, reviewed the Discussion Agenda (there were no items on the Consent Agenda): Discussion Agenda: 1. #29-03A 317 and 325 Cherry Street, Modification of Standard. 2. #28-04 Human Bean Drive-Through Coffee Shop, 799 N. College Avenue, Modification of Standard 3. #27-04 CDOT Poudre River Rest Area Relocation, Site Plan Advisory Review ITEMS CONTINUED FROM THE AUGUST 19, 2004 PLANNING & ZONING BOARD HEARING: 4. #13-82CT Oakridge Business Park, Continuing Care Senior Campus, Modification of Standard. Recommendation Item: The Planning and Zoning Board provides a recommendation to the General Manager of Utility Services on the following item: 5. Spring Green Out-of-City Utility Request. (CONTINUED TO 8/26/04 PER APPLICANT) Member Gavaldon asked that the continued items be heard last. Chairperson Torgerson stated that, since this is a special meeting, and the items that were continued were from a regular meeting, the continued items should be heard last. Chairperson Torgerson, Member Gavaldon, and Member Carpenter declared conflicts on Item #1, 317 and 325 Cherry Street, Modification of Standard. Vice-Chairperson Meyer acted as Chairperson for this item. Approved 9/16/04 Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 26, 2004 Page 2 Project: 317 and 325 Cherry Street, Modification of Standard, File #29-03A Project Description: Request for a modification of standard to Section 3.2.2(K)(1)(a) of the Land Use Code to waive the total required number of off-street parking spaces required for nine multi-family dwelling units located at 325 Cherry Street and one single-family dwelling unit located at 317 Cherry Street. Staff Recommendation: Approval Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence: NOTE: Members Gavaldon and Carpenter, and Chairperson Torgerson declared conflicts on this item. Vice-Chairperson Meyer asked City Planner, Anne Aspen, to discuss the changes to the parking situation as well as the affordable housing aspects of the item. Planner Aspen stated that the Board had previously approved a modification allowing all on-street parking for this project, if the project met the affordable housing criteria and the on-street parking on Meldrum Street was converted to diagonal. Currently, the on- street parking was converted to diagonal and the change is, the property to the east 317 Cherry Street, has been bought and incorporated into this project. Previously, there were 14 required parking spaces and 14 were needed on-street. Now, the applicant is proposing 5 off-street garage parking spaces and they need to provide 16 total, given the 1 existing surface space. The total need is 16 and they would be providing 6 off the street. They would then need 10 on-street parking spaces to meet the requirements. It is an improved condition from the project as it was previously approved by the Board. In the prior modification, there were 9 units, 10% of which needed to be affordable to meet the criteria as an affordable housing project. Effectively, 1 unit needed to be affordable. Now, there are 10 units including the house at 317 Cherry; they are now proposing that the single family house at 317 be the affordable housing unit so it still meets the 10% affordable housing criteria. Dana Lockwood, Lockwood Architects, 217 Jefferson Street, gave the applicant’s presentation. He stated that the reason for this modification is change in scope, as the property at 317 has been purchased. With that, the parking situation has improved. The previously-approved modification included no on-site parking. The new modification includes 6 on-site parking spaces. Additionally, the house at 317 Cherry would be used Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 26, 2004 Page 3 as the affordable unit which would allow a single-family detached unit to be affordable, which is unusual for Fort Collins. It is marketable and more desirable to have the affordable unit be the detached unit. The gist of going for this modification is to be able to utilize the single-family house as the affordable unit. It is the intent of the owner to submit the PDP next week, with or without the modification. Public Input Valerio Miranda, 323 North Howes Street, gave his testimony to the Board. He stated that he recently spoke to everyone on the 300 bock of Cherry Street that was home and there is not one person that agrees that this is a good idea. The traffic is crowded now and there is no place to park. It should not be allowed to have more cars on the street. There are three two-story buildings just north of this project on Meldrum Street and they do not have enough parking. The other new building on the corner of Howes and Cherry is parking where the City hadn’t allowed parking before and has taken up the bike lanes. Mr. Miranda stated that he was opposed to the whole project. Manuel Martinez, 310 Cherry Street (also owns 306 and 308 Cherry Street), gave his testimony to the Board. He stated that the cars from the non-profit organization at Howes and Cherry, which gives classes, are parking in the neighborhood. He stated that this project would create more parking problems. Joe Coria, 234 Cherry Street, gave his testimony to the Board. He stated that he owns three houses on that block and has notice, since the new building at 230 Cherry Street, they have moved in so many cars that the parking has become non-existent. To have anymore on-street parking would disrupt the neighborhood terribly. Nine units would likely have a minimum of two vehicles per unit, which necessitates 18 parking spaces. Mr. Coria stated that Cherry Street has become the main artery to the City facilities on Wood Street and the traffic is so congested that it is becoming dangerous to walk across the street. With anymore on-street parking, this will get worse. Mr. Coria stated that he did not see how this could be approved and asked the Board to deny the project completely as it does not belong in the neighborhood. Gregory Glebe, 325 Cherry Street and the owner of the project, gave his testimony to the Board. He stated that the claims regarding the non-profit building and the parking issue are being somewhat exaggerated. There is no question that a lot of on-street parking is being utilized for that project. Mr. Glebe stated that there are usually about 2 cars, on average, parked parallel on the north side of Cherry Street. There are not cars parked all the way up to Meldrum. The space on the south side of Cherry Street, along the frontage of 325 and 317 is used entirely by Mr. Glebe’s staff. Rarely does anyone park there for any other reason. Mr. Glebe stated that the issue before the Board is primarily regarding the use of the “Haddy House” which has some historic value to it. It was decided that it would be more valuable to preserve that house and make use of it Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 26, 2004 Page 4 as a unique, single-family dwelling. Leaving an industrial building in that location has pretty much “run its course.” Mr. Glebe stated that he had been sensitive to the issues and residents in the neighborhood. He added that this is superior to what was approved prior to this. He mentioned City Plan Policy #DD5.4 which states that “reduced parking standards will be applied to downtown in recognition of its proximity to high-frequency transit service (the new bus station), walkable environment and a mix of uses.” This is a mixed-use project. “Shared parking allowances will be encouraged for nearby uses with staggered peak periods of demand such as retail, office, and entertainment.” Mr. Glebe stated that his intent is to address that by trying to support people who would be running business during the day and the residents would be coming home when the workers are leaving. Six parking spaces have been added off-street, 5 garage spaces and a surface space. Steve Rauber, 313 Cherry Street, gave his testimony to the Board. He stated that the parking situation has not been over-stated. The non-profit building has created a large mess. He stated that he lives directly across the alley from 317 and, during the daytime, there are almost fights breaking out about the parking. The affordable housing that is already there has on-street parking and stuffing 10 more cars into the on-street parking will not work. He asked the Board to deny the request. Public Input Closed Member Craig asked (noting that one of the conditions of the original modification was the diagonal parking on Meldrum) if any staff has gone back since that has been put in and noticed any improvement because of it. Planner Aspen replied that she has been on the site since then and what used to be two spaces are now five. She stated that, during the day, the parking has not been a problem; there have been empty spaces. Three spaces were gained on Meldrum. Four on-street parking spaces will be added on Cherry in front of this site. Member Craig asked if there would then be seven new spaces. Planner Aspen replied that there will be five garage spaces, one on-site surface space, and seven on-street spaces. The requirement will be 10 on-street parking spaces. The plan shows a total of 11 on-street parking spots plus the six on-site parking spots which equals a total of 17. The total requirement is 16. Member Lingle asked if the modification from September of 2003 is still in effect. Planner Aspen replied that it is. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 26, 2004 Page 5 Member Lingle asked how many parking spaces were required with the original modification. Planner Aspen replied that the requirement from which the modification is being requested is on-site parking. The previously approved modification required 14 on-site parking spots and they were not going to be able to provide any of those. Now, they need 16 total and are providing 6 on-site so they need a modification to be able to have 10 street spots. It is a net reduction in on-street need of 4 parking spots. Member Lingle asked about the staff report stating that 17 spaces are needed. Planner Aspen replied that she was incorrect; the project does need 17 spaces so the modification is for 11 on-street spaces. Member Lingle clarified that the net result of the modification would be to go from 14 to 11 on-street spaces. Member Schmidt asked what the parking requirements of the non-profit building are. She stated that there is a dirt lot to the east but asked, as a place that is holding classes, if they were required to provide any parking. That use was not in place when the original modification was granted. Director Gloss replied that, because it is a commercial use in the downtown district, there may not be a non-residential parking requirement. The project was processed through a building permit review. Member Craig asked if there was any recourse for the neighborhood since it is within a residential area. Director Gloss replied that there would not be. Vice-Chairperson Meyer asked if a neighborhood meeting was required. Planner Aspen replied that there was not a neighborhood meeting since she has been involved in the project. Vice-Chairperson Meyer asked if there was one before the first modification. Director Gloss replied that this application is a Type I and does not require a neighborhood meeting for the PDP. Vice-Chairperson Meyer asked why the item was coming to the Board if it is a Type I. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 26, 2004 Page 6 Director Gloss replied that, when the previous modification was submitted, the Land Use Code required that all modifications come to the Board. Member Lingle asked if the PDP would be a Type I when submitted. Director Gloss replied that it would be. Member Lingle noted that page 2 of the staff report stated that the PDP would be a Type II. Member Lingle asked if a neighborhood meeting was normally required for a modification. Director Gloss replied that it is not required because it is a Type I use. Member Craig asked Mr. Glebe about his relationship with the neighborhood. Mr. Glebe replied that he put out a mailing to the Martinez Neighborhood Association inviting everyone to come by and visit with him. He stated that several people did come by and that pleasant exchanges were had. Mr. Glebe stated that Meldrum is grossly underutilized. The parking on Meldrum averages 7 cars at all times. It can now hold 52 cars in the block. He added that the spaces adjacent to his building are not used. He stated that he did not want to be difficult but would submit the PDP with the old modification if this one did not pass. Vice-Chairperson Meyer stated that making neighborhood contact was a good idea. She asked if anyone told him that he was going to create parking problems. Mr. Glebe replied that no one brought up the parking problems. He asked if any of the parking will ultimately end up where the dirt lot is behind the non-profit building. Director Gloss replied that he was unsure. Joe Coria, member of the audience, was allowed to speak to the issue again. He stated that there is no parking space provided for the non-profit building. The lot immediately to the east of the building belongs to the C&S railroad. He asked if a modification was granted to move the garage five feet from the alley and stated that there is supposed to be an offset from the alley to where the build a structure. He stated opposition to that. Member Craig asked if the new building was going to be mixed-use as she understood it to be. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 26, 2004 Page 7 Planner Aspen replied that they are planning small office space/studio space and possibly retail on the corner of the first floor and the upper two levels will be residential. Director Gloss stated that the gravel lot east of the newly constructed building on the north side of Cherry is part of the Mason Street North project. That will be a parking lot in the future which will serve this new building as well as those built as part of the Mason Street North project which was recently approved. With respect to the alley garages, there is a standard of 24-feet backing distance from the garage face to the opposite side of the alley. Based on the development plan, it appears that setback is being met. Also, the Code clearly states that modifications do not require a neighborhood meeting. However, in the past, some applicants have elected to have a neighborhood meeting for a modification. Member Lingle moved for approval of #29-03A, Modification of Standards for 317 and 325 Cherry Street, citing the findings of fact and conclusions in the staff report. Member Schmidt seconded the motion. Member Lingle stated that he is supporting this because there is a currently approved modification that requires no on-site parking and allows 14 on-street parking spaces. The proposed modification would provide 6 off-street parking spaces and reduce the on- street parking demand from 14 to 11. In addition, there is the inclusion of the historic house that is being worked in to the PDP submittal. Member Craig stated that she understood the frustration of the neighbors but does not feel that this project should be punished because City code says that a commercial building can come in with absolutely no parking. She added that Mr. Glebe has made sure there is parking around his building and believes he would be willing to talk to neighbors about how the problem with the non-profit building can be worked out. Member Craig asked that this issue, relating to downtown parking and infill projects, be discussed at a future worksession. Member Schmidt agreed with both Member Craig and Member Lingle stating that the modification on record allows more on-street parking than this modification will allow. Therefore, this second plan is preferable to the first. She stated that she would support the modification. Member Lingle asked if approving this modification would automatically rescind the previous modification or if that needs to be done formally with the motion. Deputy City Attorney Eckman replied that he would recommend putting that in the motion. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 26, 2004 Page 8 Member Lingle amended his motion to include rescission of the previous modification. Member Schmidt seconded the motion. The motion was approved 4-0. (NOTE: Members Torgerson, Gavaldon, and Carpenter declared conflicts on this item.) Project: Human Bean Drive-Through Coffee Shop, 799 N. College Avenue, Modification of Standard, File #28-04 Project Description: Request for a modification to Land Use Code Section 3.5.3(B)(1) to allow the vehicle use area between the building façade and a street (North College Avenue); and Section 3.5.3(B)(2) to allow the proposed building setback to the greater than 25 feet behind the street right-of-way of an adjoining street that is larger than a two-lane arterial street. The project site is located at 799 North College Avenue and is zoned CN – Commercial, North College District. Staff Recommendation: Approval Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence: City Planner Anne Aspen gave the staff presentation, recommending approval. She stated that the site is on North College Avenue between Woodlawn and Alpine. The site, being on College Avenue, is on a Colorado State Highway. CDOT limits access to this site to one location on the south end of the lot so it can be aligned with the existing entrance on the east side of College, across the street. The proposal is for a drive- through coffee vendor; primarily a vehicular use establishment. Because it is a narrow site and they are restricted to the one access, they must cross the pedestrian walkway from College in to the walk-up window. The applicant is proposing to have cars come in off College, turn right and be presented with signage and different colored walkway for the pedestrians as well as appropriate landscaping and lighting so the site where the vehicles and pedestrians intersect will be as safe as possible. Because of the limitations of the site, this is the best that can be done to accommodate the connecting walkway. Joe Carter, Cityscape Urban Design, gave the applicant’s presentation. He stated that the modification request is to provide a vehicle use area between the building and the Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 26, 2004 Page 9 street. Mr. Carter pointed out that the site map was incorrect and that the site is just north of where it is identified on the map. A vehicle use area is needed between the building and the street due to the exceptional narrowness of the site and the single point of access as established by the CDOT short-term access plan. If this were not a consideration, the access points could be split and eliminate the vehicle use area between the building and street. Mr. Carter explained the vehicular movement of the site noting that cars will not be stacking on College. He stated that a small seating area has been provided in front of the building. Member Craig asked if there was parking on site at all. Mr. Carter replied that there are three parking spaces in the back. One is a van- accessible handicap space and the potential exists to flip the parking with the detention to get the parking closer to the building. Member Craig encouraged situating the parking as close to the building as possible. Member Schmidt asked where the employees are going to park. Mr. Carter replied that employees would use those spaces as well. Member Gavaldon asked how many employees there would be. Mr. Carter replied that there would be two at maximum at any one time. Public Input There was no public input. Public Input Closed Mr. Carter stated that more parking spaces could be added to extend further east. Member Gavaldon asked if they would then eliminate detention. Mr. Carter replied that the engineering had not been completed to determine the volume of detention needed. Member Gavaldon stated concern over taking away some of the detention. Chairperson Torgerson noted that this site plan is illustrative and is not a PDP to be reviewed. He asked if the site plan could have been created to have separate entrance and exit points. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 26, 2004 Page 10 Mr. Carter replied that it could have been if the CDOT Short Term Access Control Plan allowed that to occur. That plan has limited the site to a single point of access lining up with the point of access immediately across North College Avenue. Chairperson Torgerson asked if the applicant had considered an “equal to or better than” argument because it seems this design is actually preferable to one that would be compliant with the standard but would have two points of access causing problems on College. Mr. Carter replied that CDOT certainly thought that a single point of access was better. Member Lingle moved for approval of Modification request #28-04 for the Human Bean Drive-Through Coffee Shop at 799 N. College Avenue, citing the findings of fact and conclusions in the staff report. Member Schmidt seconded the motion. Member Craig asked to add a friendly amendment in regards to the parking – that they do add more parking because pedestrians will have to do a lot of crossing over which is not as safe as if they could park on site. It was noted that that could be decided at PDP stage. Member Craig then retracted her amendment. Member Gavaldon stated that he would like to see additional parking worked into the plan and would like to have an amendment to the motion to force the applicant to come back with the additional parking. Chairperson Torgerson stated that the applicants have heard the concern but asked Member Lingle if he would like to accept the amendment. Member Lingle stated that he would. Member Schmidt agreed. Member Gavaldon stated that the amendment should be that the PDP come back with four parking spaces and that it meet the storm drainage requirement. Chairperson Torgerson noted that that was a foregone conclusion. The motion was approved 7-0. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 26, 2004 Page 11 Project: Oakridge Business Park, Continuing Care Senior Campus, Modification of Standard, File #13-82CT Project Description: Request for a modification of standard to Section 4.21(D)(2) of the Land Use Code for secondary uses. The site is 21.5 acres in size and the proposed future campus will have approximately 15.9 acres of residential use (secondary use) which exceeds the 25% maximum allowed by the Harmony Corridor zone district and the approved Overall Development Plan. Staff Recommendation: Approval Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence: City Planner Steve Olt gave the staff presentation, recommending approval. He stated that the property is located at the southwest corner of McMurray Avenue and Oakridge Drive, just south of Harmony Road. The request is for independent living cottages, which is defined by the Land Use Code as a residential use. The residential is a secondary use in the Harmony Corridor zone and the Land Use Code limits the amount of secondary uses in any development plan to no more than 25%. This proposal would push the residential use to approximately 37-39% in the Oakridge Business Park Overall Development Plan. The applicant would have to be granted a modification to that standard to allow residential uses to exceed 25% in the Oakridge Business Park in order to proceed with this use. Staff made a determination that the modification, as requested, satisfies Section 2.8.2(H)(2) of the Land Use Code dealing with substantial benefit to the City as described in the City’s Comprehensive Plan. This proposal would ultimately be an independent living campus. Member Craig asked, regarding the Overall Development Plan 2000 for the Oakridge Business Park, if Parcel C, shown as 22.53 acres, is what is to be modified. The staff report mentions 15 acres. Planner Olt replied that Parcel C is 22.53 acres total but there is already an existing facility, The Residence, in a portion of Parcel C and there is another portion which has been seen as part of the Homewood Suites Hotel. These two would be about 4-5 acres, leaving the remainder of Parcel C for this project. Member Craig stated that she did not see that from the map, given that the Homewood Suites was to go in Parcel B. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 26, 2004 Page 12 Planner Olt replied that a portion of Parcel C is part of the land the Homewood Suites will be built on. Member Craig asked if it would be about 7 acres, out of Parcel C, we are counting towards primary uses. Planner Olt replied that one of the findings of fact in the staff report is that the Board would not be amending the Overall Development Plan. We are not recommending that the ODP be amended at this time because if this modification was to be granted and the developer took no action within one year, the modification would expire. An amendment to the ODP would more appropriately be submitted with the PDP. Member Craig stated that, if the modification is granted, and the developer comes before the Board wanting to amend the ODP, we have lost a lot of primary use land in this ODP. Planner Olt replied that, by granting a modification, there would be the better part of 20 acres of Parcel C going to a secondary use. Member Craig asked if each development in the Oakridge Business Park had to abide by the 25% secondary use. Planner Olt replied that was correct. In 2000, the 25% cap on secondary uses was being approached for the overall Oakridge Business Park. At that time, this ODP was submitted to define all of the areas to be primary and secondary uses that weren’t already developed, to maintain that 25% ceiling. Stuart MacMillan, with Everitt Companies, gave the applicant’s presentation. He stated that an assisted living project is defined as a primary use in this area. This developer came in with an assisted living project, but it was non-traditional in that it had a multi- story apartment as well as these individual residences, which is the new trend across the country. Ron Vaughn, president of LBA Community Development Group, spoke regarding the independent living cottages. He noted that this development would greatly help the growing senior population in Fort Collins. These cottages will allow for home ownership which will accommodate all levels of aging with nursing and skilled staff available. He noted the need for this type of housing according to City Plan. He noted that restrictive covenants will be placed on the deeds of all independent living cottages to ensure continuity of services and character of the campus in perpetuity. These covenants are age restrictions to 55 years+, a first-right buy back option, provision for scheduled transportation, priority respite care in the assisted living facility, meal program, in-home Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 26, 2004 Page 13 emergency call system, concierge, health care referral program, and grounds and exterior home maintenance. Don Gorsuch, Vice-President of Lifestyle and Sales for LBA Community Development, gave a brief presentation regarding the need for this type of senior housing and “aging in place” with appropriate care services. Steve Pfister spoke regarding the fact that this concept is not in the Fort Collins zoning code and that this site is really the only, most logical place for the project to be located. Public Input Lou Stetzel, 521 East Laurel, gave her testimony to the Board. She noted that this in an opportunity to integrate a senior neighborhood within a retail/business area. She stated that this is an opportunity to keep ahead of the rapid change in our community and encouraged the Board to approve the modification. Dean Miller, 2856 Camby Way and member of the City of Fort Collins Senior Advisory Board, gave his testimony to the Board noting that the Senior Advisory Board voted unanimously to support both the concept and this particular project. This is an opportunity for the City to provide great access to services but to also set an example of the kind of planning and community cooperation in which people will be able to age well. He encouraged the Board to approve the modification. Chelli Purcell, 1314 River Oak Drive and representative of the Oakridge, 7th Filing HOA, gave her testimony to the Board stating that the HOA is in complete support of this project. She read some letters in support of the project and encouraged the Board to support the modification. Polly Zeleny, with Concept 360, 123 N. College Avenue, gave her testimony to the Board. She stated that she represented the design community and noted that her company is an expert in “aging in place.” She stated her support of the project. Kim Siefken, 4920 McMurray, gave his testimony to the Board. He stated his support for the project and encouraged the Board to approve it. Mark Beck, 230 North Sunset Street, gave his testimony to the Board. He stated that he is the present chairman of the Fort Collins Commission on Disabilities. He stated that this is a marvelous project which allows occupants to live out their lives in one home. He encouraged the Board to support the project. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 26, 2004 Page 14 Petty Haller, 33979 Cliff Road in Windsor, gave her testimony to the Board. She stated that she is a geriatric case manager and stated her support for this project and the “aging in place” concept. Linda Bauer, 1672 Shenandoah in the Golden Meadows subdivision, gave her testimony to the Board. She stated her support for the project Steve Pfister gave his testimony to the Board. He stated his support for the project. Public Input Closed Chairperson Torgerson noted the refreshing aspect of so many people speaking in favor of a project. Member Lingle asked about the modification review procedures and where the 25% secondary use cap comes from and how important it is to the City. Planner Olt replied that the number was generated when the Harmony Corridor Plan was originally adopted, around 1990. Staff now feels they can support the modification request based on changing needs. Member Lingle noted that the 25% was not an arbitrary number but that it was not based on any empirical data. Planner Olt replied that he was not with the City at the time the Harmony Corridor Plan was created and could therefore not answer that question specifically. Stuart MacMillan stated that he was involved in the original Harmony Corridor Plan in 1986, 87, or 88. He stated that the intent was to not make Harmony Road another College Avenue with straight retail. The 25% number really was somewhat arbitrary but was there to support primary employers. There was no market research. Member Carpenter agreed that the 25% really was arbitrary at the time the Plan was created but the idea behind it was that we not have a lot of residential, that it was mostly employer-based businesses. Member Gavaldon moved for approval of the Modification of Standard for Oakridge Business Park, Continuing Care Senior Campus, File #13-82CT citing the findings of fact and conclusions in the staff report. Member Meyer seconded the motion. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 26, 2004 Page 15 Member Carpenter stated that she was struggling a bit noting that this is a great project but questioning whether it needs to be in this location. The Harmony Corridor was to be basically business and employer based but does it really meet the Land Use Code? Chairperson Torgerson asked if this was to be a Type II review. Planner Olt replied that it would be. Chairperson Torgerson noted that the Board should keep their comments to the modification request in order to remain an unbiased tribunal. Member Craig stated that she would not be supporting the modification because the Harmony Corridor Plan specifically states that the point was for Harmony Corridor to be a major economic focus and this was to be the employment core. The 25% was to be support services and residential for people who will be employed in this area. She stated that the Board received a memo from Timothy Wilder in regards to the assessment of supply of employment land. In it, he specifically states “City Plan contains a policy regarding the need to balance employment and housing. Staff estimates that this balance will be maintained in the future if the current distribution of land between residential and non-residential land is maintained.” She stated that we should back off straying from the original intent and that she would not be supporting the motion. Member Gavaldon stated that he would support the modification because plans have to be flexible, reviewed, and modified. He added that it makes sense to put this project in this location. Member Schmidt stated that she has no problem with the concept of the plan or the need for it in Fort Collins but added that the original guidelines were put in place to create an overall effect and, unless there is an overriding reason why the project won’t work somewhere else, we need to stick to the plans. She stated that the Board has denied other groups that have come in to change an employment area to allow housing. She stated that she would not be supporting the motion. Member Lingle stated that he struggled with the employment issue as well and did think he was not going to support the modification. However, listening to the testimony and input from the community has led him to look at the 25% not as firmly and as it may be a moveable number, primarily because it wasn’t based on anything to begin with. He stated that he appreciated the information regarding the potential sites and could see why this site was ideal in terms of its level ground and walkability to other services. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 26, 2004 Page 16 Member Schmidt stated that a lot of the services may not really be within walking distance, as they are across Harmony Road and added that there are other sites that would be feasible for this type of project. Chairperson Torgerson noted that the criteria of whether there are other sites is not really one the Board should be using; it is really a matter of whether it is detrimental to the public good and whether it impairs the intent and purposes of the Land Use Code. Member Gavaldon stated agreement with Chairperson Torgerson. Chairperson Torgerson stated that it is probably a pretty gray area as to whether or not this is truly a secondary use, given the fact that the cottages will have access to many of the assisted living services. It certainly does not appear to be detrimental to the public good and it obviously addresses a community need. For those reasons, Chairperson Torgerson stated that he would be supporting the modification. The motion was approved 5-2 with Members Schmidt and Craig voting in the negative. Project: CDOT Poudre River Rest Area Relocation, Site Plan Advisory Review, File #27-04 Project Description: Request for a site plan advisory review for construction of a CDOT rest area on approximately 16.02 acres to replace the existing two rest areas located along I-25 just north of the Harmony Road interchange. The proposed project will have a 2,659 square foot building housing restrooms and a lobby area as well as a separate structure for an equipment garage. The site is located south of Prospect Road and west of I-25. Zoning is RC and POL – River Conservation and Public Open Lands. Staff Recommendation: Approval Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence: Please see the verbatim minutes for this item. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 26, 2004 Page 17 Project: Spring Green Out-of-City Utility Request Project Description: Request to extend City sanitary sewer service from an existing main serving the LaPorte Area to a 56-acre County property known as the Spring Green PD, a 27-unit residential development, and other County residences currently served by septic systems. The property is generally located north and east of Overland Trail and south of the Poudre River and abuts the Fort Collins Growth Management Area and LaPorte Sanitation District boundaries. Staff Recommendation: Approval Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence: NOTE: Member Carpenter declared a conflict on this item. Current Planning Director Cameron Gloss gave the staff presentation, recommending approval. He stated that this is a request for the Board’s recommendation to the General Manager of Utility Services for City water and sewer service to be provided to a property lying outside the City limits, in the south end of the LaPorte area. The site is known as the Spring Green PD, a 27-unit residential project currently under review in Larimer County. The General Manager of Utility Services is the person who has the sole discretion to make this decision but in the case where more than one unit is asking for service, the application is referred to the P&Z Board and the Water Board for recommendations. The Water Board did examine this request and made a unanimous recommendation of approval. Director Gloss stated that the Laporte area does not have a specifically identified sewer service provider. The City of Fort Collins has been providing water service to the area essentially since the 1920’s. The City has set a criteria that we use to evaluate these requests: whether we have surplus capacity, if what is being proposed for development is in conformance with County zoning and planning, whether or not it is eligible for annexation (this property is not), that the applicant holds the responsibility for all costs borne for the extension of utility lines to serve the development, and that there is a demonstrated health hazard. Director Gloss showed an illustration of some of the lots around the Spring Green area with poor septic systems. The request at hand would not only provide water and sewer service to Spring Green but also to these additional 41 units. If a septic system is within 400 feet of an existing main and the septic system is failing, the service provider has the ability to require a connection to the main. In some cases it is cheaper to connect to a Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 26, 2004 Page 18 sewer main than it is to radically change or re-create an existing septic system and leech field; therefore there is an economic advantage for some of these property owners to connect to the main. Director Gloss stated that, from staff’s perspective, all of the criteria mentioned in the staff report are being met and staff is recommending that the Board recommend approval of this request. Linda Ripley, VF Ripley Associates, gave the applicant’s presentation, representing the developer and owner of the property, Mark Linder. Ms. Ripley stated that the Spring Green development will involve 27 units on approximately 56 acres with a density at less than 0.5 dwelling units per acre. She added that Mr. Linder purchased the property in 1999 under the assumption that the City of Fort Collins did provide sewer service to this area and made sure that the City of Fort Collins had capacity to do it. He did receive indication from the City that, in all likelihood, this area could be served. Ms. Ripley stated that, in 2003, a sketch plan for this area was submitted to the County. It complied with the LaPorte Area Plan which indicated sewer service was available. Plans were routed to the City and no issues were raised at that time that sewer service would not be available. When the PD was submitted to the County, the official request for out-of- city service needed to be submitted and it was discovered then that this was not a sure thing. Ms. Ripley stated that there are three very important reasons for the Board to support this request: there is a very real public health issue that can be resolved with extension of sewer to the area; there are several community benefits that this project either provides or contributes substantially to; and out of fairness to the client who has relied on this and done his research. With respect to the public health issue, serving this area would allow older homes in the area with failing septic systems to connect to a public sewer. It would be an expensive proposition to replace and/or repair the septic systems. Because of the geology of the area, the affluent does not percolate and the contaminants can eventually reach the Poudre River or the raw water system. There are 22 homes that can be served by this sewer extension immediately and there are additional lots to the west that could be connected in the future. Ms. Ripley noted that this project will also provide larger community benefit, including creating a community separator as 35 acres of this project is a lake and much more of it is not going to be developed and is open space. In combination with other open space areas, this is a tremendous separator between LaPorte and Fort Collins. Secondly, the rural character of the area has been of concern. This project is being created as a substantially lower density than the LaPorte Area Plan allows and because of the way it is situated in the landscape, it is barely visible. The development only has 138 feet of frontage on Overland Trail. The design of the project was purposeful in keeping the Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 26, 2004 Page 19 structures away from the irrigation ditches. There is also a tree farm on the site which will continue to operate. The project will also allow for trail connections. Ms. Ripley noted that her client relied on several pieces of data, including conversations with City and County staff, the LaPorte Area Plan, and a document called the 208 Plan, the North Front Range Water Quality Plan, in which the City designates this area as their service area. Ms. Ripley stated that this plan is always what she has used to determine who the sewer provider is in a particular area. Developers typically rely on this plan to determine who is going to provide sewer service. In the Fort Collins City Code, there is a list of seven criteria which, if met, mean that the City will provide service. This project meets each and every criterion. Growth Management Policy #5 indicates that sometimes, providing public facilities will be used as a growth management tool and it also says that the policies will not preclude the City from working with other jurisdictions to provide services and facilities that benefit the entire community, such as water and wastewater facilities, trails, open space, and parks. This project will solve a public health crisis, contribute to a community separator, maintain the rural character, enhance the trail system, create a water storage pond, and enhance wildlife habitat. Additionally, the LaPorte Area Planning Advisory Committee supports this plan and the Fort Collins Water Board also recommended unanimously to provide service. Public Input There was no public input. Public Input Closed Member Gavaldon asked about the 208 Plan and if it was something that “has” to be done. Director Gloss replied that the purpose of the 208 Plan is to coordinate between the various service providers, primarily wastewater service to protect water quality. We are not obligated to serve the LaPorte area; it is at the discretion of the City. The graphic indicates that the City can physically provide service for that area but there is no specific requirement that we do so. Member Gavaldon stated that Ms. Ripley mentioned the criteria and asked if they were the same as the findings of fact and conclusions in the staff report. Director Gloss replied that they are the same. Member Gavaldon noted that the staff report indicates that the applicant is going to pay the entire cost of putting in the sewer lines. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 26, 2004 Page 20 Director Gloss replied that was correct. Member Gavaldon asked if the applicant would also pay for any maintenance and how much this will cost taxpayers. Roger Buffington, with the City Water and Wastewater Department, replied that the utility improvements have a two year warranty period for defects in workmanship and materials. Beyond that time, it is just the monthly utility billings that cover the maintenance of those facilities. Member Gavaldon asked if those in the City proper would have to help pay for that maintenance. Mr. Buffington replied that maintenance is spread over all the utility users’ bills. Member Gavaldon asked about the court case that prevents the City from charging a higher rate to out-of-city users. Mr. Buffington replied that years ago we did have higher rates for those customers outside City limits. Sometime in the mid-90’s, there was a court case elsewhere in the state where a utility was taken to court and the entity taking them to court was successful. Therefore, our attorney’s advised that there is some risk in charging the higher rates. Member Gavaldon asked who would pay for these other homes that are not part of Spring Green to tap in to the line. Mr. Buffington replied that those homes would pay the cost to connect to the system and would pay the City’s planned investment fees. They are responsible for maintaining their individual service lines from the main line to their homes. Member Craig asked about the section in the staff report which states that “the requested out-of-city sewer extension has the capacity to provide sanitary sewer service to as many as 68 single family houses.” She asked if this pipe would only have the capacity to service 68 single-family houses. Director Gloss replied that his point was that it has the potential to serve, based on geographic location, an additional 41 units. The main itself could actually accommodate more than that. Member Craig asked what the capacity of the sewer line would be. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 26, 2004 Page 21 Mr. Buffington replied that it could serve an additional 500 or 600 homes. Member Craig asked about easements for the laterals and where they are located. Fraiser Walsh, TST Engineering, replied by showing the locations on a map. There would be easements across some properties to laterally tie in to the main line. He stated that the County can create a special district to help pay for the lateral installation. Member Craig asked what it would take to create such a district. Mr. Walsh replied that he was unsure of the particulars of creating a district. Mr. Buffington also replied that he was unfamiliar with the process. Member Craig stated that she was concerned about health and safety and asked how residents are forced to tie in to the line if their septic systems failed. She stated that she did not want to see a situation where the residents are forced to do it. Mr. Walsh replied that there is a significant cost savings in connecting up with the sewer line versus replacing a failing septic system. Member Craig stated that, first, the septic system has to fail and asked how long that would take. Mark Linder, owner and developer of the property, replied that a lot of the septic systems have failed, more than indicated by records. He stated that he did not solicit participation in this main but added that people have been showing interest over the years. Over half of the 22 homes that are directly adjacent to the proposed route have expressed interest in hooking on to the line. There is no mechanism to make the residence hook on, other than the problems they have experienced when their systems fail are so bad that they wouldn’t ever want to experience them again. When they do hook on to the line, it adds to their property value so the incentive to do that is very strong. This main is the first step in helping to address a public health issue. If it is not built, you can be assured the problem will continue. Member Craig asked how to get around the fact that when a system fails and the property owner finds that he is within 400 feet of a main and therefore has to hook up to it, he is then responsible for getting an easement and paying to hook up his system. Mr. Linder replied that the fix is way less expensive than the option to replace the entire leech field and there is no cost to the property owner for getting the main in place. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 26, 2004 Page 22 Member Craig stated that she just wanted the comfort level that they are actually going to tap into the line that it is not just facilitating a development. Member Lingle asked Member Craig if she was concerned that people were going to be forced to tie in or if she was concerned that people should be made to tie in. Member Craig replied that the bottom line is money. If we are forcing them into it but it is less than what they would have to pay anyway, then there is a better comfort level with forcing them into doing it. If would cost them more to hook on than to repair, then it is a concern. Member Lingle stated that perhaps there is a third piece – if the line is available and the County has a mechanism to force them to tie on if they need to, then that takes care of the on-going pollution problem, as opposed to them not repairing it at all. This would be more of a mechanism for the County Health Department to use to alleviate those problems. Member Lingle asked Cameron what the wording of the seven criteria is, specifically what the wording of the public health issue. Director Gloss replied that you have to look at the request being for the Spring Green project only. It could accommodate these other units that are in close proximity to it but the request is specifically for this development, despite the additional benefit. Member Lingle asked if the project has to meet all seven of the criteria in order for the Board to recommend approval. Director Gloss replied that he took the City Code criteria and paraphrased a bit for the staff report. Member Lingle asked if they only had to demonstrate providing the availability of the line in order to meet the public health criteria. Director Gloss replied that the public health issue is not a specific criterion. From staff’s perspective, that was relevant but it is not a specific criterion that the General Manager of Utility Services uses to evaluate the request. Director Gloss added that this agreement would be legally binding in perpetuity for the property. They would have to petition for annexation, if it were to ever happen that the GMA would be expanded that far. Member Gavaldon asked if the seven criteria would be met, if the health and safety issue weren’t considered. Director Gloss replied that all of the criteria are being met. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 26, 2004 Page 23 Member Gavaldon stated that he would make his decision based on the seven criteria, not on the additional benefits. Member Schmidt asked if it would be a shorter distance to bring the main line from a subdivision that is being serviced already that to go this other route. Mr. Buffington replied that topography would make that much more difficult. There is an existing sewer that is on the northeast side of the applicant’s property and that is really a more direct route to get service to his proposed lots. Member Gavaldon asked if residents could opt to live with the failing system rather than ask for the repair permit, or until someone turns them in, which would in turn force them to hook up to the main line. Mr. Buffington replied that was possible but that hooking up to the line does increase property value and is a permanent solution. Member Gavaldon stated that he was not inclined to support this at all but has now changed his mind due to the seven criteria provided. Member Gavaldon moved that the Planning and Zoning Board recommend that the General Manager of Utility Services approve the Spring Green Out-of-City Utility Request based on the additional data provided in Section 26-651, Conditions for Furnishing Service. Member Schmidt seconded the motion. Member Craig asked about the fact that providing services outside our GMA is not our goal in City Plan and how that relates to these criteria. Director Gloss replied that, in this situation, our provision of sanitary sewer service to the LaPorte area pre-dates City Plan. We made a commitment through the Water and Sanitation District to provide service in that area. That does not mean that we have to expand the district; it is at the discretion of the Utilities General Manager to grant this request or not. There have been problems in the LaPorte area for a long time with people having substandard systems. We’ve tried to address that by allowing people to hook on to our system. Member Craig noted that we are putting forth these urban services in order to help out our neighbor, not to help expand urban living out to nowhere. Director Gloss noted that City and County staff have been talking about this issue in terms of re-examining the densities in the LaPorte Area Plan. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 26, 2004 Page 24 Member Schmidt asked if Member Gavaldon’s motion also included the findings of fact and conclusions in the staff report. Member Gavaldon replied that he did not include anything in the staff report, only the seven criteria, because that is what the Utility Director will use. Member Schmidt asked to make a friendly amendment to include the item from the staff report that this will not set a precedent for other out-of-city utility requests and that that issue can be used for other requests that come before the P&Z Board. Member Gavaldon stated that he would accept the precedent finding as an amendment but would not accept anything relating to health and safety. Member Schmidt agreed. The motion was approved 6-0 with Member Carpenter having declared a conflict on the item. Director Gloss announced that Sheri Wamhoff was chosen to replace Dave Stringer as the new Development Review Manager for Engineering. The Board extended their congratulations. There was no other business. The meeting was adjourned at 11:24 p.m.