Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 05/31/2018Jeff 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 May 31, 2018 Chair Schneider called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Roll Call: Hansen, Hobbs, Rollins, Schneider and Whitley Absent: Carpenter Staff Present: Gloss, Schmidt, Simpkins, Wray, McWilliams, Martina, Bethurem Harras, Sullivan, Beane, Tuttle and Gerber 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 Discussion agenda, stating that the Fort Collins Mennonite Church Storage Lockers Minor Amendment (formerly Agenda Item #2) has been moved to the June 21, 2018 hearing. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes Planning & Zoning Board May 31, 2018 Page 2 of 7 Public Input on Items Not on the Hearing Agenda: None noted. Discussion Agenda: 1. 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 District. The proposed PUD Overlay District provides for additional flexibility in site design not available through traditional development procedures, and the ability for extended vested property rights, in return for the provision of significant public benefits. Under the PUD process, parcels 50 acres or greater in size are eligible to create a governing, multi-phased PUD Master Plan that directs and guides subsequent Project Development Plans (PDP’s) and Final Plans for each development phase. Recommendation: Approval Secretary Gerber reported that Paul Patterson urges the Board to consider requiring two neighborhood meetings for a PUD. Article 5, Definitions, in Attachment 1 was updated in the packet with a new version on 5/29/18. Section 2.1.1, 2.1.1, 2.1.3, and 2.1.6 were added to supplemental documents on 5/29/18. Member Rollins recused herself Member Hansen stated he had viewed a previous PUD presentation as a member of the Development Review Advisory Committee. Staff and Applicant Presentations Planning Manager Gloss gave a brief overview of this project. This overview included a history of PUD’s in Fort Collins, public benefits, standards to be set, community engagement and attributes of the proposed ordinance. Public Input (3 minutes per person) Mickey Willis, 150 Fairway Lane, would like to see smaller parcel sizes rather than the large 50-acre greenfield parcels. Would like to recommend that the acreage be as little as 5-acre parcels. Paul Patterson, would like a requirement for neighborhood meetings for PUDs to be set at two and timing be when modifications and provisions of significant public benefit can be explicitly stated. Staff Response Planning Manager Gloss responded to Mr. Patterson’s concern about neighborhood meetings that the proposed requirement that a second neighborhood meeting would be required after the first round of development review and include requests for modification and the vesting of property rights. In response to Mr. Willis’ comments, Planning Manager Gloss spoke to the parcel sizes and rationale for the staff’s position relative to the size threshold. Board Questions / Deliberation Chair Schneider sought clarification as to whether or not this is in draft or final format. Planning Manager Gloss explained that the element that is not complete is the specific techniques to amend the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards and Engineering Standards; otherwise, all other aspects are complete. Chair Schneider is uncomfortable with making a decision due to potential changes from now until the final adoption version. Assistant Planning & Zoning Board May 31, 2018 Page 3 of 7 City Attorney Schmidt responded that she agrees with Planning Manager Gloss and added that they were seeking input from the Board early in the process. Member Hobbs feels that PUDs have a large ramification for the community and it seems that outside of the P&Z Board and the one other Board conversation was limited to talking to some in the development community. Member Hansen expressed interest in other forms of community engagement. Planning Manager Gloss stated that the outreach process with legislative changes of this type was appropriate, since staff anticipates outcomes being better than plans that would go through a conventional process and that there would be a more rigorous public review process. It is felt that these projects will be held to a higher standard. Member Hobbs asked if it was reasonable to perceive that the PUD was like starting with a blank slate; zoning defined uses, setbacks, densities, etc. Planning Manager Gloss commented that in theory one could make that assumption however; the principals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan and detailed area plans still stand, leaving the burden on the applicant to prove those values are embodied in the development plan. Member Hansen spoke to significant public benefits as a requirement. As Member Hansen understands, there has been a focus on removing subjectivity from the Land Use Code and this seems to be adding it in. How will we be measuring significant public benefit? Planning Manager Gloss responded that we do not have a definition that specifically states what this significant public benefit would be other than the PUD objectives. This is something that would be weighed by the decision maker, being either this Board or City Council. Member Hansen stated is it easy for him to agree in a small group with relatively common interests in mind but that he foresees that without a way to quantify it could turn contentious. Member Hansen is in favor of the PUD, but feels if there is too much uncertainty and onerous on developers, it will become another PDOD. Member Hobbs asked why the PUD was stopped or left behind. Planning Manager Gloss understands that when the system was previously in place there were a range of issues, for some it was a sense of less predictability, concern from the public and development community about the length of time it took to get through the review process, while others enjoyed the flexibility provided since our present code is highly prescriptive. Member Hobbs asked what the rational was for differentiating below and above 640 acres? Planning Manager Gloss responded that due to anything 640 acres or above is considered a legislative action and would need to go before Council. Chair Schneider asked why 640 acres matters. Attorney Schmidt spoke to the history of the 640- acre threshold, and that the concept is that, at some point, rezoning gets so large that is becomes more of a legislative act than an application of a narrow set of standards to a piece of property. This community has set the dividing line at one section. Chair Schneider asked that the goal then was to not change the zoning over the whole 640 acres. Would this automatically go to Council or come to the Planning and Zoning Board? Planning Manager Gloss responded that the PUD overlay zone does not create a rezoning with the underlying zoning remaining the same. Chair Schneider state that there was some confusion as it appears there is an opportunity to take property and rezone/reuse and change what is there, why if we are not changing the use or overlying zoning, why do we need a PUD? Planning Manager Gloss responded that the PUD Master Plan allows the applicant/property owner to essentially have uses that are different than what is allowed under the underlying zoning without the act of rezoning. Chair Schneider commented that the PUD Master Plan can change zoning and density and everything else that is allowed on that property. Planning Manager Gloss agreed and stated that the burden of proof is on the applicant and that this is an optional process. Attorney Schmidt commented that it is about creativity and allowing that creativity in the context of an overall master development plan that is intended to consider compatibility with existing areas around it and is intended to deliver something in terms of a high or better level of public benefit. Chair Schneider does not feel there is anything that we can compare it to and wants to make sure that people understand when they are buying property or have bought property in certain areas that they understand what they are up against. Member Hobbs feels that the Board must be careful with the effect on utilities, transportation, level of service issues, and other areas. Even if it is a greenfield site, the Board must look at what is located further away. Member Hobbs agrees and shares Chair Schneider’s hesitation. Chair Schneider stated that it looks like we are getting rid of the PDOD process, Planning Manager Gloss answered yes. Chair Schneider questioned what happens with the current project that is currently in the process. Planning Manager Gloss stated that the project did not submit a formal application and that there is not a project currently in Planning & Zoning Board May 31, 2018 Page 4 of 7 the process. Chair Schneider asked if we were getting rid of the APU process, Planning Manager Gloss answered no. Chair Schneider questioned a statement in the APU, 1.34 C1B, and wondered if this was going to affect the PUD. Planning Manager Gloss responded that this was a section that was not to be changed other than a few minor text amendments. Member Hobbs asked for issues that transcend a zoning district like the setbacks from oil wells - would these things still be on the table as a negotiable item in a PUD overlay? Planning Manager Gloss stated that all article 3 and 4 standards remain except where a modification is being requested, evaluated and granted under the PUD Master Plan process. Chair Schneider asked about trash and recycling design and that the Director can waive the design standards. Why are we not making this mandatory? Planning Manager Gloss responded that this is the way the code reads today and that no changes are being proposed. Chair Schneider made mentioned of a letter received from Post Modern Development and Mr. Patterson about requiring two (2) neighborhood meetings and wondered if this was going to be mandated. Planning Manager Gloss stated that was correct. Prior to submittal and the second will coincide with the first round of review. To answer questions posed by Post Modern Development, the staff reviewed in its presentation the range of sizes and can understand about the 50-acre minimum. Considerations would be made for other size thresholds. Chair Schneider referred to section 2.10 1 A-G and 2 A-E. Planning Manager Gloss responded that these sections relate to how an amendment would happen when you have a PUD Master Plan. For the most part, the PUD Master Plan amendment process mirrors what has been done for other types of applications. Deliberation Member Hobbs feels it is good for the community and offers flexibility to staff and will not become another PDOD, however; he is not at a point where he is comfortable voting on a recommendation and would like a continuation. Member Hansen agrees with Member Hobbs’ approach and offered suggestions. Developers will be able to think out of the box a bit. Some suggestions may be to devise a point system; he is also concerned about the parcel size of the threshold of 50 acres. Member Hansen also spoke to Chair Schneider’s concerns. Chair Schneider is not against the proposal, he feels is has been pushed too hard, too fast. There needs to be an opportunity for discussion and that if it is larger than 640 acres it becomes a political conversation, and that is not what the Land Use Code is about, it is about what is available and what is being used on that property. The size should go less than 50 acres. He would like this item to be continued Member Hobbs stated that the same two issues are also of concern to him. He is concerned about the surrounding effects of the larger PUDs that will come down. He would also like to discuss the possibility of appeal for Land Use. Member Hansen asked why there was a sense of urgency. Planning Manager Gloss responded that they had a target of August 1, 2018, roughly and even if there continued to the June 21, 2018 hearing, they would remain on that schedule. Member Hobbs made a motion that the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board continue the Planned Unit Development Overlay Land Use Code changes included in the Board’s May 31, 2018 agenda to a future hearing date. Member Whitley seconded. Member Whitley would like more time to understand all of it. Chair Schneider agreed and is looking forward to a full work session. Vote: 4:0. 2. Oasis on Olive PDP180003 Project Description: This is a request to develop a 3-story multi-family, condominium building and ground level parking on approximately .223 acres of existing vacant land, located at 310 W. Olive Street. The 7-market rate residential units will be a mix of 3 1-bedroom units, and 4 2-bedroom units. The building includes 8,468 of living space, and 7 parking spaces provided at the ground level in an enclosed parking garage. Access to this site will be from W. Olive Street by means of a one-way private entry drive into the garage, and one-way exit to Canyon Avenue from a private drive. The site located in the Downtown (D) zone district, is subject to a Type II Planning and Zoning Board Review. Planning & Zoning Board May 31, 2018 Page 5 of 7 Recommendation: Approval Secretary Gerber reported that an applicant response to LPC condition #3 was added to Supplemental Documents on 5/30/2018. Staff and Applicant Presentations Planner Wray gave a brief overview of this project which included a PowerPoint presentation. This is a three-story multi-family condo with ground level parking. The Applicant, Cathy Mathis of TB Group gave a brief presentation explaining circulation, entry and exit via a private drive and the overall look of the building. Planner Wray clarified a few points in relation to the parking requirements, Landmark Preservation Commission – through discussion the LPC provided a recommendation including conditions. Parking requirements are based on number of bedrooms, at this site, because of the TOD overlay, the requirement is 6 available spaces. The PDP is showing 7 spaces. The Landmark Preservation Commission forwarded a recommendation showing compliance with Land Use Code section 3.4.7 if the four conditions are met (conditions stated in motion). Planner Wray spoke of the historic rose garden location and documentation. Public Input (3 minutes per person) Brian Cook, member of the Historic Preservation Code and Process Review Committee and member of the neighborhood, spoke to his concern on exposure and the surprise he had with the proposed building. He is concerned with the amount of noise the prospective residents will endure and cause with additional development in the downtown area. Staff Response Cathy Mathis stated that they will not have the standard metal receptacle, but rather the regular residential carts. As for the sunlight and the historic roses, Cathy referred to Planner Wray. Planner Wray explained where the plants would best thrive with the landscape layout and it would also include some gathering space in the yard. Chair Schneider asked if staff was ok without a final plan. Planner Wray stated that staff would be ok. Board Questions / Deliberation Member Hansen asked where specifically the rose garden was located on the site. Karen McWilliams, Historic Preservation Manager explained where the historic rose garden was located and that they are thriving and that the street trees do not present an issue. Member Whitley asked if the building height would impact the solar access to the rose garden. Mrs. McWilliams stated that shading would not be significant. Member Rollins asked for neighboring properties were owned by the same individual. Mrs. McWilliams responded yes. Member Rollins asked if the rose garden would be a common area. Responses, that is correct. Member Rollins wanted to know what guarantees we had that the current owner would not sell off the property and a fence is built. Planner Wray responded that was a possibility and that the intent was to further extend the common area for all three properties. He believes there was a recommendation of supporting not adding a fence with this project. Mrs. McWilliams stated that Historic Preservation recommends that there not be a fence built. Member Rollins asked if a condition of no fence be added to a condition of the site plan. Mrs. Mathis stated that the owner is passionate about the properties and he would in support of a condition of no fence, and that she is willing to allow the condition to be added without the presence of the owner. Member Hobbs asked if a sale were to happen would the condition stand. Discussion between Board members took place, Attorney Schmidt responded that the Board think about a covenant that binds the properties. Planning & Zoning Board May 31, 2018 Page 6 of 7 Member Hobbs was curious of roses having designated status and if they did want to place a fence would it have to be reviewed by LPC. Mrs. McWilliams stated that it would need to come before the LPC depending on which property the fence would be built behind. Monitoring would not happen. Member Hansen wanted to know how the trash was going to be brought out to the bins. Mrs. Mathis stated it would be carried out to the bins. Member Hansen questioned the parking on the street and how much is available. Planner Wray stated that it varies and is time limited to two-hours. Member Rollins wondered why there could not be two-way parking as opposed to one-way. Planner Wray commented that because of existing trees being preserved, the drive will be narrower in width and that they will retain the current access points. Member Rollins made a motion that the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board approve Oasis on Olive PDP #180003 with the following conditions: 1. Provide an identifiable entrance with a door into the building; if from a design standpoint that is not feasible, then the LPC would accept an identifiable entry into the site (to comply with 3.4.7) (F)(2)). 2. Horizontal elements such as the roofline facia should align across the building (to comply with 3.4.7) (F)(2)). 3. The rose garden should be relocated to a location where it will get adequate exposure to the sun so that the roses thrive; and the location should be in a place where it is a prominent feature of the site (to comply with 3.4.7) (F)(5)). 4. The current conditions and location of the historic rose garden will be documented before relocation (to comply with 3.4.7) (F)(5)). 5. The additional condition related to LPC Condition #3 recommended by staff: the Low Impact Development (LID) design for the site can be completed at Final Design with the stipulation that the site provide treatment of 50% of the proposed impervious area with an approved and appropriately sized LID method that does not impair the location or function of the historic rose garden. This will include removal of the proposed rain garden facility (South of the stair tower) to allow for an expanded heritage planting area (see Oasis on Olive LPC EXHIBIT 1). 6. That no fence shall be installed along the East property line between 231 S. Howes and 310 W. Olive and such conditions shall be included in a legally binding covenant with respect to both properties. This approval and condition(s) are based upon the agenda materials, the information and materials presented during the work session and this hearing, and the board discussion on this item with the following findings: The 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 contained in the staff report included in the agenda materials for this hearing are adopted by this Board. Member Hobbs seconded. Member Whitley continues to be uncomfortable with the drive. Vote: 5:0. Other Business Planning & Zoning Board May 31, 2018 Page 7 of 7 None noted Adjournment Chair Schneider moved to adjourn the P&Z Board hearing. The meeting was adjourned at 8:25pm. Minutes respectfully submitted by Shar Gerber. Minutes approved by a vote of the Board on: