Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 06/21/2018Planning & Zoning Board June 21, 2018 Page 1 of 15 Jeff Schneider, Chair City Council Chambers Jeff Hansen, Vice Chair City Hall West Jennifer Carpenter 300 Laporte Avenue Michael Hobbs Fort Collins, Colorado Christine Pardee Ruth Rollins Cablecast on FCTV Channel 14 & William Whitley Channel 881 on Comcast The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224- 6001) for assistance. Regular Hearing June 21, 2018 Chair Schneider called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Roll Call: Carpenter, Hansen, Hobbs, Pardee, Rollins, Schneider andWhitley Absent: None Staff Present: Gloss, Yatabe, Prassas, Beals, Everette, Wilkerson, Tuttle, Andrews, Frickey andGerber Chair Schneider provided background on the board’s role and what the audience could expect as to the order of business. He described the following procedures: • While the City staff provides comprehensive information about each project under consideration, citizen input is valued and appreciated. • The Board is here to listen to citizen comments. Each citizen may address the Board once for each item. • Decisions on development projects are based on judgment of compliance or non-compliance with city Land Use Code. • Should a citizen wish to address the Board on items other than what is on the agenda, time will be allowed for that as well. • This is a legal hearing, and the Chair will moderate for the usual civility and fairness to ensure that everyone who wishes to speak can be heard. Agenda Review Planning Manager Gloss reviewed the items on the Consent and Discussion agendas, stating that all items will be heard as originally advertised. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes Planning & Zoning Board June 21, 2018 Page 2 of 15 Public Input on Items Not on the Hearing Agenda: None noted. Consent Agenda: 1. Draft Minutes from May 17, 2018, P&Z Hearing 2. Draft Minutes from May 31, 2018, P&Z Special Hearing Public Input on Consent Agenda: None noted Chair Schneider did a final review of the items that are on consent and reiterated that those items will not have a separate presentation unless pulled from the consent agenda. Member Carpenter made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board approve the draft minutes for the May 17, 2018 and May 31, 2018 minutes, Member Whitley seconded the motion. Vote: 7:0. Discussion Agenda: 3. Affordable Self Storage, PDP170005 Project Description: This is a Project Development Plan to develop 4 lots of the Evergreen Park Replat (Parcel #’s 9701310009, 9701315001,9701214008 and 9701214007) as a self-storage facility. The proposal consists of in a mix of drive up and interior storage units. Building A on the corner of Conifer Street and Red Cedar Circle will be a 2-story facility with interior storage units while the remaining five buildings will each be one story. The overall proposal contains 96,773 feet of building area and is located in the Industrial Zoning district. Recommendation: Approval Secretary Gerber reported that no citizen emails or letters were received for this item. Staff and Applicant Presentations Planner Frickey gave a brief overview of this project. The project consists of 6 buildings of self-storage and is roughly 96,773 sq. ft, located at the North-East corner of Red Cedar Circle and Conifer St. This project is located in the industrial or I zone district. The applicant is seeking 3 modifications. The applicant did not have a presentation to present. Curtis Koldeway, Hauser Architects, stated that he was present for questions and did not have a presentation. Planner Frickey gave a verbal/visual detailing of the project by showing a PowerPoint presentation. Member Hansen questioned the neighboring property to the East and if they currently had a fence. Planner Frickey responded that immediately to the East is the access drive and a small strip of landscaping for the Murphy Center for Hope. Member Carpenter asked Planner Frickey if the applicant or himself had pictures of what the modifications with the fence and landscaping will look like. Planner Frickey stated he could pull up the landscape plan. Member Carpenter was looking for more of a rendering. Planner Frickey did not have a rendering. Public Input (3 minutes per person) None noted Planning & Zoning Board June 21, 2018 Page 3 of 15 Staff Response None noted Board Questions / Deliberation Chair Schneider asked if it was felt that the new proposed fence will be of the same high quality of the prior proposed fence. Planner Frickey responded that staff does not feel it is of the same quality, but that the tradeoff is that the elevation along Conifer St. much more enhanced from the previous iteration and equals what was proposed before, if not better. Member Whitley agreed that the new fencing is more attractive than the previous version. Member Carpenter does not have any issues with the 104’ compared to the 100’. She is having a hard time with 7’ buffer being equal to or better than a 30’ buffer. She feels that we have traded a better fence which is more attractive for a straight fence. Member Hansen commented on Member Carpenters comment above. He remarked that normally 7’ versus 30’ is not the same, however; there is a driveway, not a playground, open space or someone’s house and that it may not be appropriate with a 30’ landscape buffer next to it. Member Carpenter, though she may agree with Member Hansen, has to look at it from a standard of equal to or better than. Member Hobbs is impressed with what is being done along Conifer. He is disappointed with how much has been traded off with the fence as it was the better-looking part of the building and now the building is the better part of the project. Member Hobbs asked the other Board members if they would be interested in proposing a condition where we had a more attractive fence, like what was originally in the Eastern boundary and have the more standard fence in the back. Chair Schneider asked Member Hobbs if he wanted to bring the applicant back up to ask that question. Member Hobbs asked the applicant to return to the podium for further questions. Curtis Koldeway, Hauser Architects, stated that they would be willing to accept that condition. Chair Schneider asked Member Hobbs if he had a distance he would like to see. Member Hobbs stated that he thought the whole Eastern portion of the fence would be the older and that to the North would be the new design. Member Carpenter asked Planner Frickey to bring up a slide. Planner Frickey stated that the original proposal had the fence being discussed up to the point where the zone district boundary line extends to for the CCN. Member Hobbs asked Member Carpenter what she would think about replacing a certain section, where the third modification is in play. Planner Frickey confirmed. Member Carpenter agreed. Chair Schneider clarification of what the modification would involve. Planner Frickey confirmed. Member Rollins asked to see an aerial photo. Member Rollins then asked if the Murphy Center were to ever change, would they also be required to have the buffer. Planner Frickey responded that it is a specific standard in the industrial zone. No. Member Rollins is not sure that you would need it all the way along the Murphy Center. She is thinking more visual than compatibility with the adjacent Center is her perspective, walking along Conifer versus the Murphy Center. Chair Schneider asked if Member Rollins was thinking a 20’ or 30’. Member Rollins responded she would be happy with something a little less. She feels the applicant did a good job with the site and building design that a smaller amount on the one side would satisfy the equal to or better then. Member Carpenter asked Member Rollins how far back she was thinking. Member Rollins referred to Planner Frickey. Planner Frickey referred back to the Board, but to keep in mind that the fence would transition to another kind of fence and to be mindful. Member Hansen stated he was fine with the other fence and feels the trade-off, of moving the cost from the fence to the building, was a significant improvement. He suggested the portion of the fence along Conifer revert back to the previous proposed design that continued to the corner and turned, heading North, and then transitioned to the more economical fence. Member Rollins stated she liked the suggestion. Member Pardee concurred with the suggestion. Member Hobbs and Chair Schneider agreed as well. Planning & Zoning Board June 21, 2018 Page 4 of 15 Member Carpenter appreciates the applicant coming back with the better design for the building. Member Hobbs made a motion that the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board approve modification number one (1) of the Affordable Self Storage PDP170005 which requests a modification to section 3.8.11(A) to provide a fence greater than 100’ in length without a change in alignment. The approval of this modification would be based upon the agenda materials, the information and materials presented in the staff report. Member Rollins seconded. Vote: 7:0. Member Hobbs made a motion that the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board approve modification number two (2) of the Affordable Self Storage PDP170005 which requests a modification to section 3.8.11(C) to have a fence exceeding 4’ in height and a front or side yard setback area in the front yard and 6’ in height in the side yard setback area in the rear yard and that this approval be based upon the agenda materials, staff report and their findings. Member Hansen seconded. Vote: 7:0 Member Hobbs made a motion that the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board approve modification number three (3) of the Affordable Self Storage PDP170005 which requests a modification to section 4.28(E3)(A2) to have a landscape buffer yard along zone district boundary less than 30’ in depth and that this approval is based upon agenda materials and information and recommendations from the staff and the staff report. Member Whitley seconded. Vote: 6:1 Member Hansen made a motion that the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board approve PDP170005 Affordable Self Storage with the following condition: The proposed fence along Conifer be reverted to what was seen on the previous design; Composite fence of CMU and continuation of the building design and that fence shall be continued North along the East property line for a distance that is consistent with the design module that is seen along Conifer. The approval and these conditions are based upon the agenda materials, the information which was presented during this work session and this hearing and the board discussion of this item with the following findings: This PDP complies with all applicable Land Use Code requirements as stated in the staff report prepared for this hearing and contained in the agenda materials, the information analysis, findings of fact and conclusions. Member Rollins seconded. Vote: 7:0 4. Planned Unit Development (PUD) Land Use Code Amendment Project Description: Revisions to Land Use Code Article 1 (General Provisions), Article 2 (Administration), Article 4 (Districts) and Article 5 (Definitions) as they relate to the creation of a new process and regulations for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Overlay. Recommendation: Approval Secretary Gerber reported that a letter from Max Moss was received explaining the need for this ordinance. This letter was added to Supplemental Documents. An update to the PUD overlay LUC 2.15 and 4.29 code section were added to the packet. A new code section (2.2.2.1_ Proposed Pre-Application Review) was added to Supplement Documents. An updated PUD Ordinance was received at 3:30 pm on 6/21 and added to Supplemental Documents. Disclosures and/or ex parte communications: Member Rollins recused herself from this item. Planning & Zoning Board June 21, 2018 Page 5 of 15 Chair Schneider disclosed that he attended City Council’s work session on 6/19/2018 to gather information and to hear what they had to say about this item. Member Hansen disclosed that he watched a recording of that session. Member Whitley disclosed that he too watched a recording of that session. Member Hobbs disclosed that he watched a portion of that recording. Member Carpenter disclosed that she watched a portion of that recording. Staff and Applicant Presentations Planning Manager Gloss gave a brief overview of this project and stated that there were very few substantive changes and the received corresponding amendments would bring those sections of the code into compliance with the PUD changes. The only substantive change from the May 31st and this evenings hearing is the threshold for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) application. The threshold is being increased from 20 acres to 50 acres. This could potentially affect 24 properties within the growth management area. Currently there are three (3) to four (4) property owners who have expressed interest to move forward with a PUD. It was heard clearly from City Council that there was a lack of support for going forward at this time with a smaller threshold, primarily because those smaller properties are surrounded by existing neighborhoods and districts. Council’s perspective on the public process is that the community engagement platform was not sufficient to reach all potentially affected property owners. Staff will bring back to the Board and City Council a specific scope of work for community engagement over the next year, which will include those community members that may be impacted by a smaller threshold. Part of this plan will happen in conjunction with the City Plan update currently underway. Planning Manager Gloss asked if the Board would like to see the full presentation that was presented at the previous hearing. Chair Schneider asked the Board if they were interested in viewing the full presentation. Member Hobbs stated that he felt it would be a good opportunity for the community to view the presentation. Chair Schneider agreed. Member Pardee stated she would like to see the presentation. Planning Manager Gloss gave an in-depth visual/verbal presentation of the Planned Unit Development (PUD) process. The PUD process keeps the underlying zoning, creates an overlay by which a master plan is created, and this master plan then dictates the vision and character for the property. The PUD also commits the project to certain design features and requests specifically what rights are to be vested. Density and use can then be stipulated in that master plan. For each phase of the development there is a Project Development Plan similar to what the Board would typically see. The presentation also covered public engagement wherein the acreage threshold was the principal concern. The development community expressed that the 50-acre threshold is too large. Public benefit criteria also drew comments and, from staff’s perspective, the code draft satisfactorily addresses the issue by affording the Planning and Zoning Board and Council to act fairly and equitably when evaluating a PUD application. Clarifying questions Member Carpenter asked if staff’s intention was to work on reducing to 20-acres and public outreach to bring it back at a later date; Planning Manager Gloss responded that was correct. Public Input (3 minutes per person) Max Moss, Developer, Montava - Mr. Moss spoke of investing his life in building this community. This is not just a development, this is a commitment to community. He feels the PUD process is needed because of the uniqueness of the Montava project. This is the first in the country. This project includes 100% zero energy ready home standards, it has a large organic farm at its core, it is new urbanist in its design which intentionally creates community and is designed as a multi-generational place, and integrated with the municipal utility to create a model of energy conservation. This project is completely designed for water conservation and will be a model for affordable housing. Planning & Zoning Board June 21, 2018 Page 6 of 15 Staff Response None noted Board Questions / Deliberation Member Hobbs asked, in relation to peer cities, if PUD’s were similar in the way that they are administrated and what the conditions and requirements are within all the different PUD’s; Planning Manager Gloss responded that generally they are very similar with only a few communities that have PUD’s that are not overlays and are districts. They rezone the property to PUD which then creates a different right. Most of these communities have code text that is very similar. The codes speak to community benefit, trade-off and that there is an expectation that a PUD is an innovative, higher quality development. Member Hansen feels that adding this tool will be valuable to the City of Fort Collins. His only concern is the threshold size. Member Hansen asked what negative impacts might come fourth having a low or no threshold size and if staff has discussed this; Planning Manager Gloss stated that staff has within the context or comments received from Council at work session. The concern is some misunderstood what the PUD represents, and the degree of flexibility that is afforded. Planning staff would like to take this cautiously, starting at the 50-acres and then commit to coming back and investigating a lower threshold and making certain that all details are fleshed out. Member Carpenter agrees with Member Hansen in that she hesitates to call this a new tool as Fort Collins had this previously and is not exactly new, but does understand that many individuals were not here and aware of this. She is excited to see this coming back into place. She would like Planning staff to look at lowering the threshold as well. To do this it might be that there is more community involvement especially from those around infill sites. Member Whitley concurs with Member Carpenter in that a lower threshold would be interesting and useful. Member Pardee thanked Planning Manager Gloss for the thorough and thoughtful review. She feels the PUD is an excellent tool and is excited to see what can come out of this. She also concurs with fellow Board members in support of consideration of a lower threshold. Member Hobbs is not opposed to a lower threshold but is concerned about the buffering and transition around the perimeter of the area that is going to have an effect on whether it is welcomed into the surrounding community. By basic physics, the smaller the parcel, the more difficult it is physically and economically. Member Hansen commented on concerns of going to a smaller parcel size. He does, however, feel it will bring more community involvement at the master planning stage, and when a PDP or series of PDP’s come in, each of those will have a public engagement process for comment and input. Member Hansen feels the PUD process will only increase the public input that address the concerns. Chair Schneider does not understand why the size has gone from 50 to 20 to 50-acres. With examples of smaller sizes given at work session and how well they worked, he is glad to see the PUD coming back, but feels there are opportunities for the 10 to 20-acre sites that potentially could use the process and be a better development and community in the long run. Chair Schneider called for a recommendation to Council. Member Hansen requested discussion around the recommendation to Council. He would like to propose no minimum, as the process in and on itself will filter out projects that cannot and will not apply. Member Carpenter is in support of no minimum. Chair Schneider ask Planning Manager Gloss for clarification on no minimum standard that there would be at least three community conversations: two at the PUD stage and one at the PDP stage; Planning Manager Gloss responded that was correct. Member Hobbs shared his philosophical concerns and knows this will be decided at the Council level. He feels it is important to have a consensus on the Board and is willing to follow the Board’s view point on this subject. The other concern Member Hobbs has with the PUD is the timing. He feels it is oriented toward a couple of developments and not the way we are supposed to legislate changes to the Land Use Code; by specific projects. Member Whitley agrees with Member Hobbs in regard for the Planning & Zoning Board June 21, 2018 Page 7 of 15 need of Board consensus; he will be supporting this item, at no minimum threshold. Chair Schneider stated that it sounds as though everyone is ok with changing the minimum to zero. Chair Schneider called for a motion. Member Carpenter made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board recommend approval of the Planned Unit Development Overlay and Land Use Code changes based on the agenda materials, the information and materials presented during the work session, this hearing and the Board discussion on this item with the following findings and that the Board recommends the application threshold be zero for the PUD process. Member Whitley seconded. Vote: 6:0. 5. Sign Code Update, Phase 2 Project Description: The purpose of this item is to update the Land Use Code (LUC) sign regulations. This Ordinance will address the following: • Signs in Downtown (wall signs, projecting signs, and window signs) • Restoration or Replacement of Historic Signs • Secondary Roof Signs • Electronic Message Centers (EMCs) • Conversion of Nonconforming Billboards • Horizontal and Vertical Projected Light Signs Recommendation: Approval Secretary Gerber reported that no citizen emails or letters were received for this item. Staff and Applicant Presentations Planner Beals gave a brief verbal/visual overview of this project. This is phase II which is set to improve the overall legibility of the sign code, to implement action items from the downtown plan, give digital billboard options and discuss sign standards for new technology. This includes public engagement items. Clarifying questions Member Carpenter asked Planner Beals to clarify if he had meant maximum as opposed to minimum. Planner Beals confirmed he meant to say maximum. She then asked for clarification on the electronic signs and the movement. Planner Beals responded that current electronic message centers (EMC) can only change a message every 60 seconds. This is not a proposed change. With the digital billboard option, they will need to mimic the EMC wherein a new message can only be displayed every 60 seconds. Along I-25 the billboard could change every 24 seconds. Chair Schneider asked; What about a sign that is placed in the growth management area (GMA) now that is not in the City limits and would that count against the overall number or what would the overall number be. Planner Beals responded that it would be a non-conforming sign and would not be part of the five (5) new locations. Chair Schneider wanted to know if it made a difference if they were new ones added today in the GMA before that portion was annexed into the City. Planner Beals responded that we do have one in the GMA at this moment. If we had the five locations built out before and the area was annexed, that sign would be non-conforming and put us over the five (5). It would be treated as any other non-conforming use that we annex in. Member Pardee asked for clarification on the 50% and a business that uses the screen process on the entirety of a window. Will this be grandfathered? Planner Beals responded that if it were a legally conforming sign then and is now non-conforming, they could not put it back in. Member Pardee asked if staff will give consideration to the Dark Skies initiative and any type of buffering. Planner Beals responded that we are not seeing the lighting like you do on the static boards, however; conversations have taken place in regard to the Night Sky initiative and will address issues. Member Rollins asked how many billboards are in place currently. Planner Beals responded within the GMA 70-75. The desire is to have these static billboards removed, this will happen as new business moves in. Member Hansen Planning & Zoning Board June 21, 2018 Page 8 of 15 made a comment that if one company owned eight (8) signs they would have incentive to trade them out for one new sign. Currently 90% of the billboard in place are owned by the same company. Public Input (3 minutes per person) None noted Staff Response None noted Board Questions / Deliberation Member Hobbs asked if the number of current billboards included HWY 287 before South of its merge with HWY 14, that we have no jurisdiction over. Planner Beals responded that the number includes all signs within the GMA. Member Hobbs asked/commented that even if we are successful in getting people to take down billboard in exchange for electronic ones, can they do that with ones on HWY287 to accomplish this. Planner Beals responded, yes. Member Hansen reiterated a stated goal of improved readability of the code and that there would be more illustrations and wondered of Planner Beals had any examples of what that would look like. Planner Beals responded that the only illustrations were in the presentation. Member Whitley questioned if it was possible that we end up with more than five (5) digital billboards. Planner Beals responded that it is a possibility if the County were to approve a digital board before the property were annexed. Currently there is just one digital billboard. Member Schneider clarified stating that for instance; if someone were to come in and apply for signs along Mulberry (not City) the County could approve and then the project is annexed. Planner Beals responded that it would not count against our five (5). Member Whitley asked for understanding in that we are going to trade eight (8) billboards for one (1) digital sign. Planner Beals responded yes and that it is eight or the greater of 2200 sq. ft. of static. Member Whitley wanted clarification that the proposal is for no more than five (5) digital billboards. Planning Manager Gloss offered a complicating factor that the State issues some of the permits for billboard placement if they are within State highway right-of-way. In Ft. Collins, we have HWY 287. South of Mulberry would be within HWY 287 right-of-way. The County would not be issuing these permits Member Whitley made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board recommend to Council Phase II of the Sign Code update to Land Use Code as it relates to the creation of a new process and regulations specifically signs in downtown, all signs, projecting signs and window signs, restoration or replacement of historic signs, secondary roof signs, electric messaging centers, conversion of billboards, horizontal and vertical projected light signs. This recommendation is based on the agenda materials, information presented during the work session, this hearing and the Board discussion on this item. Member Carpenter seconded. Attorney Yatabe requested clarification if this is a motion for recommendation of approval. Member Rollins likes everything in this, except, for the digital billboard replacement. She will be voting against the recommendation. Chair Schneider stated he appreciated Planner Beals work, and that he will be supporting the motion. Vote: 6:1. 6. Mason Place, MJA180003 Project Description: This is a request to convert the existing 21,850 square foot building at 3750 S Mason into a 3-story multi-family building with support services (parcel #9735119004). All 60 of the proposed units will be affordable to households earning 30% or less of the Area Median Income (AMI). The redesigned building will be built within the existing CMU walls and the roof will be approximately five feet higher than the current condition to Planning & Zoning Board June 21, 2018 Page 9 of 15 accommodate a third story. Detention is proposed on the north side of the property. The property is within the Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay District and is proposing 45 parking spaces. The site will take access from Creager Dr. The proposed project is within the General Commercial (CG) zone district. Recommendation: Approval Secretary Gerber reported that numerous emails and letter were received and are as follows: Representatives from Catholic Charities, the Murphy Center for Hope, Homeward 2020 and the Affordable Housing Board each sent letters expressing strong support for the project. Laurie Stolen supports the project. John and Bonnie Stegner supports the project. Wendy Cohen opposes the project due to concerns about safety and behavioral issues. Sandra Holter opposes the project due to its location. Kevin Kirsh opposes the project due to the high density and traffic concerns. Steve Lewis opposes the project and mentioned concerns over inadequate requirements for residency. Summitstone Health Partners supports the project. Marla Cleary, Linda Nuss, David Rout and Mary Alice McComb of Homeward Alliance, each wrote letters in strong support of the project. Larimer County Criminal Justice Services Division supports the project. Diane Matthews supports the project. Donald Scott opposes the project and voiced concern about its impact on safety and property values. CARE Housing supports the project. Kelly Evans and Melissa Faure with Neighbor to Neighbor both wrote letters of support for the project. Vanessa Fenley, consultants for Coordinated Assessment and Housing Placement Systems (CAHPS) in Northern Colorado strongly supports the project. Amy Takken suggests another location would be better and expressed concerns about the crime rate. Lou Anne & Kim Yee of Karate West oppose the location due to concerns for the safety of their customers. Besty Sullivan, Manager of Supportive Services for Veteran Families with Volunteers of America’s Colorado Branch, supports the project. Chris Klumph opposes the location, citing crime and safety concerns. He included three attachments about crime statistics. Karen Doloth questions the location of the project, and offers some comments on the plight of the homeless. Staff and Applicant Presentations Planner Frickey gave a brief verbal/visual overview of this project. Kristen Fritz, Director of Real Estate Development for Housing Catalyst, provided a verbal/visual presentation regarding their proposal is to convert the mid-town Arts Center building into 60-units of affordable housing, specifically for homeless individuals with a disability and homeless veterans. On-site supportive services will be provided. Public Input (3 minutes per person) Charles Heinzmann, Tanager St., he is offended by the project. He feels that the citizens are being told what will happen to them as the process has been completed and the decision has already been made. The presentation was lacking the effect that the residents will see. Shawne Sanders, Trautman Park, voiced her concerns with the project. Her concerns focus on the lack of program requirements. She does not believe this is the best location for this type of project. She would like to see low income elderly housing. Jennifer Hawley, Butte Pass Dr., concerns stand in the location of the project and the way crime and homelessness have been presented to the surrounding neighborhoods. Feels that the City is naive in the obvious rise in crime. Feels that this facility is not compatible with the neighborhood. Amanda Collins, resident, feels this project is better served in a different location. Gave statistics regarding homeless and veteran activities. Would like to see low income elderly housing. Nancy Odam, Marigold Ln, she feels we have reached a critical point in how we as a City approach decision making around where to locate supportive housing. It is needed; however, it needs to be geographically disbursed. Planning & Zoning Board June 21, 2018 Page 10 of 15 Stated 40-units as opposed to 60 would be better. Clint Bunton, resident, primary concern is the crime rate. Has had multiple encounters with the homeless, and feels they do not care, and that they will do what they are going to do. Their home has been broken into, no remorse was shown. Steve Kuehneman, Ptarmigan Ct., is in strong support of Mason Place. Housing positively impacts those that can get into them as well as crime rates, healthcare costs, and the local economy. There is a great need for affordable housing. Sandra Holter, resident and business owner, voiced her concerns regarding the location of this project. She spoke about the increase in crime and the projects location in relation to schools. Leslie Jimmerson, Benthaven St., feels that there has been ignorance to what has been happening to the West of the project location. They did not receive outreach information and did not have opportunity for input. She has had to register complaints and will no longer walk the trail alone as it is no longer safe. Deanna Schoenunger, Douglas Rd., does not feel it is fair that another housing type such as this is being put in the area. Would like to see elderly housing instead. Staff Response Mrs. Fritz responded to concerns over services provided. A referral process will be in place. This process will start from the local service provider as a referral to Mason Place. Regarding the notification area; this area was based on the City’s notification area which is based on the Land Use Code. Spoke to the number of seniors at Redtail Ponds and believes that they are serving a large number of seniors. They also feel that this will be the same situation at Mason Place. Chair Schneider requested that any information they could share from Police Services would be helpful. Lieutenant Jerry Schiager, Community Policing. Based on his experience, spoke to homeless transient activity increasing due to increased police presence in the downtown area. They are staffing bicycle officers to patrol the North, Mid-town, and South end of town regularly (daily). His belief as to the increase in the mid-town and South is more because of MAX and increased the police presence in other areas. As for Redtail Ponds, he does not believe that they are drawing homeless activity to that area, individuals must sign in if visiting, those that live there are not out at night. This is permanent supportive housing and a solution for homeless issues. Redtail Ponds is a high call area for police, and it is felt that there would be many more calls to the area if there was not the Redtail Ponds facility. You will see more police in the area; however, there would be much more time spent on calls policing the population if there was not a place like Mason Place. Planner Frickey commented that staff met with Neighborhood Services, Social Sustainability, Police Services and Economic Health to convene a neighborhood meeting to talk about the existing safety issues separate and apart from the Mason Place application. This neighborhood meeting will be held July 25th. Chair Schneider asked Mrs. Fritz to return to the podium to respond to questions that may have been missed. Chair Schneider asked Mrs. Fritz to explain hours of operation, who visitors might be, etc. Mrs. Fritz responded that there is a guest policy unique to permanent guest housing; there is no guest allowed for the first 30 days. After 30 days, residents are limited to 14 overnight guests per year. Guest hours are from 8 am to 11 pm, guests are required to show a photo ID and sign in and out. There is also an internal phone system to call residents, and the residents clearly understand that they are responsible for the behavior of their guests. Chair Schneider asked why there is no mandated programs. Mrs. Fritz responded that residents pay 30% of income. As for mandating services, she believes it is not allowed. The vouchers for veteran’s services is a voucher for home and services, they are required to be signed up for services through the Veteran’s Services, but otherwise mandating services is not allowed. Chair Schneider wanted to know if at Redtail, with services not being mandated, if they see individuals participating and what the level of participation is. Mrs. Fritz responded that it Planning & Zoning Board June 21, 2018 Page 11 of 15 depends on the individual and their level of engagement and comfort. If there are issues, the programs are offered as a means to stay in housing and though attendance is not mandated, the individual typically attends to keep their housing. Chair Schneider asked if the facility was a dry facility. Mrs. Fritz responded, no. Member Pardee thanked the applicant for their time and thought going into this project. Member Pardee asked if pets were allowed. Mrs. Fritz responded that service animals and companion animals are allowed. There will be an enclosed courtyard with a pet area. Member Hansen requested clarification from Planner Frickey in relation to the notification area. Planner Frickey responded that the notification area in the Land Use Code is set at 800’, exclusive of right-of-way. Staff also captured four (4) blocks of neighborhoods to be as inclusive as possible. Member Hobbs requested Planner Frickey to pull up a site map and point out the project location to discuss distances from neighborhoods and schools that were referenced. Planner Frickey pulled up Google. Attorney Yatabe offered advice to the Board. The Federal Fair Housing Act includes disabilities which can encompass drug, alcohol and mental health issues. There are conditions placed on persons with disabilities and housing that may not be placed on persons without such disabilities. The language is broad, and problems can be run into. Planner Frickey gave an overview of the location of proposed project site. Member Whitley asked for the difference to be explained between homeless and transient. Zach Penland, Program Manager at Redtail Ponds, responded that there is not a defined distinction. However, often it is thought of as a homeless individual is from the community and a transient is an individual that became homeless in another community and traveled t a new community where they are experience homelessness. Member Hansen wanted to know if all exits were monitored. Mrs. Fritz responded that all doors have emergency alarms and cameras and that access to the facility and stairwells is fob controlled. Member Hansen requested the East elevation slide be pulled up. He also wanted to hear from the design team on the articulation in regard to the Land Use Code on the East elevation. Planner Frickey responded that they can invoke to the standard that is feasible per the Land Use Code. Because this is residential, and a Major Amendment staff had to go with the perspective of feasibility. Chad Holtsinger with Shapertz Architecture, commented that they added a sun shade to the East elevation to create some relief in detail. Member Hansen appreciates the approach and sustainability. He would like to see use of color to break up the monotony. Member Rollins wanted to know if there were any requirements for an outdoor patio area. Planner Frickey responded that there are if the parcel exceeds two (2) acres. The parcel for this project is under the threshold. Member Rollins wanted to know what the size of the outdoor area will be. Mrs. Fritz responded 3000 sq. ft. Member Rollins wanted to know if residents would have to enter the building to leave the patio area, and if it met fire standards. Planner Frickey responded yes. Board Questions / Deliberation Member Rollins agreed with Member Hansen that this is a nice redesign and reuse of the building. The Board can only look at the building and not crime. She will be supporting the project. Member Hobbs has compassion for the individuals that spoke. The solution is not exclusion and disregard. The solution lies with the Police and not Planning. He is in support of the project and the fears and concerns of the surrounding residents. Member Whitley feels the problem with affordable housing is the full spectrum within Fort Collins. Housing prices are going up. He is in support of the project. Member Hansen reiterated what Member Rollins stated. He is not convinced that adding this housing type will increase the homeless in the area. He feels it is a good location due to employment opportunities. The adaptive reuse is impressive. Planning & Zoning Board June 21, 2018 Page 12 of 15 Member Pardee does not see anything on the site plan or presentation from staff or the developer that would give any reason other than to support the project. She encourages everyone to continue to come speak and share with the Board. Member Carpenter too appreciates the participation. This project meets the Land Use Code and is a good product. She will be supporting. Member Hobbs made a that the Planning and Zoning Board recommend approval of the Mason Place, MJA18003 based on the agenda materials, the information and materials presented during the work session, this hearing, the Board discussion and citizen participation on this item. Member Whitley seconded. Chair Schneider appreciates everyone who showed up. Vote: 7:0. 7. Country Club Reserve, PDP 170008 Project Description: This Project Development Plan (PDP) proposes 160 single family detached residential lots on an 80-acre property at the southwest corner of Turnberry and Douglas Roads, at the northern edge of the City’s Growth Management Area (GMA). Zoning is Urban Estate (U-E). The lots are configured as a residential cluster development with over 50% of the property to be open space. The open space includes required oil well buffer yard areas for five wells, one of which is plugged and abandoned. A Modification of standards is requested for the buffer yard setback dimension around the plugged and abandoned well. Recommendation: Approval Secretary Gerber reported that there were two items received and added to Supplemental Documents and are as follows: A new copy of the traffic study provided, as the one originally in the packet became corrupted during the compression of the file and a map of oil well locations and information was provided by member Hobbs. Staff and Applicant Presentations Planner Mapes gave a brief verbal/visual overview of this project. Jim Birdsol, TB Group, gave a brief visual/verbal presentation. There is no relationship to the surface owners and the wells. They are pleased with the plan. Public Input (3 minutes per person) Deanna Schoeninger, Douglas Rd., shared concerns in relation to the potential increase in traffic, lighting, public transportation, quality of living, residents and potential commercial development. Brian Buckner, resident, feels this project is completely out of place and out of character. Christine Schrader, resident, shared concerns relating to volume of traffic and feels this project is out of place and out of character. The buffer area does not appear to be large enough, not enough transition. Robert Lotz, Juanita Rd., spoke about oil storage batteries, underground piping and the potential of three (3) more wells. Kathleen Kilkelly, resident, is dissatisfied by not receiving neighborhood meeting invitations. Wants the Board to review the 1996 P&Z hearing notes. Staff Response Planning & Zoning Board June 21, 2018 Page 13 of 15 Martina Wilkenson responded to traffic concerns. In relation to accesses, the developer has accommodated resident feedback to add access along Turnberry. The roadway is going to be made wider with turn lanes. These roadway changes are scheduled to be completed before people start moving in. Planner Everette, responded to the concern of underground pipelines and safety concerns. No reports of safety issues on this site. Board Questions / Deliberation Chair Schneider asked about the possibility of three (3) new wells. Planner Mapes clarified that these would be existing non-active wells being reactivated. Ward Giltner, Prospect Energy Representative, responded to concerns. Currently there are three injectors and one producer. There is a potential for two (2) more. They are testing a new formation. He is not aware of any of the stated safety issues. They have identified where the flow lines are located, none of which run through said properties. The three new wells will not have flow lines that run near Hearthfire. Each location will need a water tank and separator tank located 100’ from the separator. Planner Everette clarified the buffer zone. Member Hobbs wanted to know if a setback increase would still allow enough room for tanks. Mr. Giltner responded that the goal is to get all built before houses are built. Chair Schneider asked if Mr. Giltner knew when they would find out if they are awarded the permit. Mr. Giltner stated, September. Member Hobbs wanted to know if Mr. Giltner was involved in abandoning of other wells located nearby and if this current developer had spoken to him regarding these wells. Mr. Giltner stated, yes, in regard to the first developer and no to the second. The economics would prohibit any purchasing of these wells. Member Pardee wanted to know how they go about identifying underground lines. Mr. Giltner responded that they were required to identify using metal detectors. The one issue being, not all the lines are metal, and all cannot be identified. Member Hobbs asked if the lines were production flow lines or secondary lines. Mr. Giltner responded that they know where all the flow lines are located. It is only the abandoned lines that they do not know about. Member Hansen wanted clarification; there are no flow lines that have not been identified. Mr. Giltner responded that was correct. Chair Schneider asked if this plan was 55+ or open to anyone. The applicant responded that it is age targeted not age restricted. Chair Schneider asked about transportation. Planner Mapes responded that there is no plan in place for this project in relation to transit. Chair Schneider asked why urban estates was given as a type. Planner Mapes responded that it is in alignment with the County, though it may not be an exact match. The cluster provision is allowed. Member Rollins asked about buffering, and what is required. Planner Mapes spoke to the Southern stretch of lots and the thinner buffer which is lined with a grove of Russian Olive trees. This grove helps with the buffer. There is no required buffer; there are no homes on this lot line. Member Hobbs requested a zoom on Wanita Ln. on the West side. to talk about the topography in that area. Planner Mapes responded that he noted the drop; 16, 28, 20’ and along the property edge there is roughly a 10’ embankment. There is not going to be a strong connection between the end of that street and Wanita Ln. Chair Schneider wanted to know what the height limit for the homes would be. Planner Mapes responded 3 stories. The cul-de-sac rises 20’ with an additional rise at the end of the street another 16’ to 18’. Member Hansen commented Planning & Zoning Board June 21, 2018 Page 14 of 15 that the rise will conceal neighboring properties. Chair Schneider commented, unless the slop is too great, the basement would count as the third story. Member Hansen brought up that there was a question about policing. The applicant felt as though he was not qualified to respond. Member Hansen questioned the upland habitat zone in the Northeast corner. Planning Manager Everette explained why the area was chosen. Member Hobbs asked Ward if the report from the COGCC on the abandoned well; It has a depth of 1995 feet, the date of drilling was the same date of abandonment; this means it was a dry hole? Ward responded yes. The Codell well is roughly 5300 feet deep and above the muddy. Member Hansen commented that this site is complicated and not just a greenfield, he is impressed how staff and the applicant have addressed the complications. Member Pardee had concerns that there are other things that could happen with the wells. Member Hobbs shared some of those same concerns. However, since tank batteries will be added to ease the buffer and the City is moving toward a 500’ buffer, he feels he is not as concerned with the plugged and abandoned wells as he originally was. Member Rollins would like to see the additional landscaping, on the South edge, evaluated. Member Carpenter would like the West end to also be evaluated. Member Hobbs requested the broader (Google Earth) view be pulled back up. He sees open space, true rural estates land, he understands that the developer has met the requirements, but the site is challenged with the wells, it looks like they crammed everything in. It looks like a dense neighborhood and it does not fit the character. Member Hobbs is interested to know if any of the other Board members feel the same. Chair Schneider reminded of the conservation; sod farm and property to the North. How do these lot sizes compare to Hearth Fire? 50’ x 113- 120’. Planner Mapes compares these lot sizes to Maple Hills and Bright Water Landing. Urban estate cluster allows what this plan is offering. Planning Manager Gloss added to the conservation easement which is maintained by the City, but does not encumber the entire property. Member Carpenter feels that it does meet all the metrics and yet agrees with Member Hobbs that it is not characteristic. Member Hansen made comment that there is much buffer with the well setback. He does not feel he squeezed every developable spot out of it. Member Whitley would like to know the density per square foot between Hearth Fire and this property and how they compare. As Hearth Fire has wells as well. Member Hobbs commented that Hearth Fire was established before there were setback requirements. Chair Schneider asked if the Board was comfortable with the modification on plugged and abandoned wells. The members nodded. Member Carpenter would be more comfortable with the exception of the additional information and lack of information regarding the increased equipment around the wells that will expand the area. Chair Schneider asked Attorney Yatabe to clarify COGC procedure which is taken on a case by case. If you apply for a new well the setback will apply though there are variance procedures to reduce the setback which is out of the City’s discretion. As to an existing permitted well site Attorney Yatabe is not knowing as to if you could add on or not. Member Hobbs commented that the batteries could be placed opposite from where the houses are. Ward was called back up. Ward responded that they could work with the developer and locate the tanks in another location, this could happen with all four (4 tanks). Member Carpenter asked how big tank batteries were. Ward responded they are 400 barrel tanks, 20’ in diameter and 20’ high. There would be one (1) water tank and (1) oil tank on each site.