HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 02/11/2016Kristin Kirkpatrick, Chair City Council Chambers
Gerald Hart, Vice Chair City Hall West
Jennifer Carpenter 300 Laporte Avenue
Jeff Hansen Fort Collins, Colorado
Emily Heinz
Michael Hobbs Cablecast on City Cable Channel 14
Jeffrey Schneider on the Comcast cable system
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
February 11, 2016
Vice Chair Kirkpatrick called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
Roll Call: Carpenter, Kirkpatrick, Hansen, Hart, Heinz, Hobbs, and Schneider
Absent: None
Staff Present: Gloss, Yatabe, Burnett, Shepard, Holland, Langenberger, Everette, Ragasa,
Schmidt and Cosmas
Agenda Review
Chair Kirkpatrick provided background on the board’s role and what the audience could expect as to the
order of business. She 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.
Planning and Zoning
Board Minutes
Planning & Zoning Board
February 11, 2016
Page 2
Planning Director Gloss reviewed the items on the Consent and Discussion agendas, including several
changes:
• Verizon Wireless Facility has been pulled from consent and will be moved to the second item on
the discussion agenda; and
• Gardens on Spring Creek will be continued to the April 7th, 2016, Planning and Zoning hearing.
Public Input on Items Not on the Agenda:
None noted.
Consent Agenda:
1. Draft Minutes from January 14, 2016, P&Z Hearing
2. Windsong at Rock Creek PDP
3. Talon Estates PDP Final Plan Extension of Vested Rights
4. Request for 1-Year Extension for Planned Development Overlay District (PDOD)
Vice Chair Kirkpatrick read the following statement prepared by Assistant City Attorney Yatabe:
“Any public hearing item approved on the Consent Agenda shall be considered to have been opened
and closed. The information furnished in connection with any such item and provided to this Board shall
be considered as the only evidence presented for consideration. Approval of any public hearing item as a
part of the Consent Agenda constitutes adoption by this Board of the staff recommendations, findings,
and conditions of approval for those items.”
Public Input on Consent Agenda:
None noted.
Member Hart made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board approve the February 11, 2016,
Consent agenda. Member Heinz seconded. Vote: 7:0.
Discussion Agenda:
5. Gardens at Spring Creek Major Amendment Continuance
6. Verizon Wireless Facility at Lifepointe Church
7. Brookfield Second Filing
8. Bucking Horse Filing Four Multi-Family
Assistant City Attorney Yatabe recused himself due to a conflict of interest at 6:06pm;
Sr. Assistant City Attorney Schmidt continued in his absence.
Planning & Zoning Board
February 11, 2016
Page 3
Project: Gardens at Spring Creek Major Amendment Continuance
Project Description: This is a continuation of the Major Amendment to the Centre for Advanced
Technology 22nd Filing, Community Horticulture Center, which is the formal name and location of the
Gardens on Spring Creek.
Member Heinz made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board continue the Gardens at
Spring Creek Major Amendment to the April 7th, 2016, Planning and Zoning Board hearing.
Member Hobbs seconded the motion. Vote: 7:0.
Assistant City Attorney Yatabe rejoined the hearing at 6:09pm
Project: Verizon Wireless Facility at Lifepointe Church
Project Description: This is a request to install new telecommunications equipment at Lifepointe
Church located at the northwest corner of East Prospect Road and Ellis Street, at 900 East Prospect
Road. The proposed site will include a total of six antenna structures mounted to a screen wall tower that
is incorporated into building's existing architecture on the roof of the church. Additional electronic
equipment associated with the wireless antennas will be placed on the ground, behind the church on the
north side of the building. The equipment will be surrounded by wood fencing that will match the color of
the existing building. The site is located in the Low Density Residential (R-L) zone district.
Recommendation: Approval
Applicant Presentation
Greg Dibona, an agent for Verizon Wireless, gave an overview of the wireless facility setup that was
being proposed. He discussed the time line of the project, the neighborhood outreach, and modifications
that were being made in response to neighbor concerns. He showed a map of the cabinet placements,
indicating the height of the structures. He discussed the improved public safety that would be provided
and how the wireless coverage would also be improved. He stated that Verizon is in compliance with the
FCC requirements, the third-party inspections, and the commonality of such facilities.
Staff Analysis
Regarding the perception of negative health effects, Assistant City Attorney Yatabe stated that, pursuant
to 47 USCS 332, subsection C.7.b.4, “no state or local government can regulate the placement,
construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental
effects of radiofrequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with commissions regulations
concerning such emissions”. He added that the P&Z Board would not be able to consider this criterion in
their deliberations but could only comment on issues related to the Land Use Code (LUC).
Planner Holland gave an overview of the code analysis and how neighborhood concerns were
addressed. He reviewed church renovation history, which had also been reviewed by Historic
Preservation staff, in order to determine whether the building is eligible for historic designation, which it
isn’t due to the 2008 renovation. Neighborhood concerns include the glare of lights, maintenance items,
and the current health issues. He discussed the original equipment building that had been proposed; at
that time, residents had some strong objections, and the building was moved, and the generator was
reduced in scope. He showed the current proposed equipment building, which has been lowered in
Planning & Zoning Board
February 11, 2016
Page 4
elevation. He discussed the criterion that was considered: standards, setbacks, landscaping, color, and
materials. The following conclusions were made:
• zoning is appropriate for this area;
• setbacks are straight-forward and appropriate;
• stealth technology is adequate (concealing wireless use);
• large existing trees will help to soften transition and context;
• height criteria is appropriate;
• will not preclude other wireless providers from using tower;
• landscaping requirements were met;
• design of tower element was positively received; and
• outdoor lighting issues were identified and resolved.
Public Input
Heather Lahdenpera, 280 Circle Drive, opposes this project, and she was given 15 minutes to speak on
behalf of a number of other residents as well. She gave several reasons for her opposition, including
health issues, potential decline of home values, and documentation of safe distances for cell towers.
She also stated the moral and ethical issues at stake: unknown effects of radio frequency (RF) radiation
on the human body. She is concerned with the proximity of nearly schools and that many parents
weren’t properly notified. She listed several studies as evidence of adverse health effects of such towers
and suggested that other sites be considered.
Abigail Hartley, 340 Circle Drive, is also opposed to this project for similar reasons: health concerns and
decreasing property values. She mentioned that other government entities are changing their standards
based on such health risks.
Megan Skeehan, 808 E. Lake Street, is opposed to this project. She focused on the health, moral and
ethical concerns associated with this. She is concerned with the lack of communication on this issue,
construction noise, the aesthetic look of the building, decreased property values, and the true size of the
project (30% increase over original).
Waydene Pixler, 841 Balsam Lane, is opposed to this project. She stated that she would like to see the
City of Fort Collins set strict guidelines for growth and projects. She asked the Board to deny this
project.
Dr. Jody Hansen, 860 Buckeye Street, is opposed to this project in terms of neighborhood aesthetics and
historic significance. She does not feel this project is a good fit with the overall neighborhood look.
Katie Cassis, 1308 Windjammer Cove, is opposed to this project, saying she was not properly informed
and may decide to make a change to her home situation if this tower is built.
Board Questions and Staff/Applicant Response
Travis Griffin, Senior Manager of RF Design for Verizon Wireless, and Mr. Dibona disputed the claims
that property values would decrease, saying that studies show that prospective homebuyers are
generally accepting of having local cell towers. Mr. Griffin stated that cellular phone towers promote
faster emergency response, and cell phones have more adverse health effects than the cell phone
towers due to proximity. He also said that most homebuyers value a strong, reliable signal.
Planning & Zoning Board
February 11, 2016
Page 5
Board members asked questions about:
• Distance to neighboring schools (answer: approximately 600 feet);
• Limits of exposure that are considered harmful (answer: operating within acceptable levels);
• Real-number statistics (answer: none pertaining specifically to this situation);
• Construction noise (answer: construction will be staggered to accommodate neighborhood
needs);
• Opportunities to direct frequencies away from schools (answer: antennas will be on non-
penetrating skids on the roof; cabinets in the back of the building);
• Materials for walls impacting RF waves (answer: walls will be RF transparent, smooth and can be
texturized to match building façade);
• How FCC guidelines apply (answer: antennas transmitting at acceptable levels – normally
operating at lower power)
• Operating wattage here (answer: 360 wattage total – within acceptable levels)
Planner Holland added that the neighborhood meeting notification was provided to surrounding
neighborhoods, in addition to online postings, and the outreach events that were held in accordance with
the sign posting. There is no formal process for notification of schools; generally it would be Poudre
School District that would be notified. There was more discussion on other cell towers being located in
proximity to other schools. Staff did not analyze property valuation impacts because this is not covered
within the LUC criteria. This project was not reviewed by Landmark Preservation Commission, because
the church is not eligible for landmark status; however, it was reviewed by Staff under the section 106
permit processes. The owners of Lifepointe Church were involved in the neighborhood outreach
meetings, and they helped to follow up with concerns by contacting citizens. There was more discussion
regarding the maximum height allowed (while the entire parapet of the building could be at tall as 40 feet,
it is much lower).
Board Deliberation
Member Carpenter acknowledged the emotions involved in this project, reminding the group that the role of
the P&Z Board is to consider this project in terms of the Land Use Code. Member Heinz stated that she
doesn’t feel this is compatible with the neighborhood feelings. Member Hansen is considering this project in
terms of its compatibility with the LUC, and he feels that the tower enhances the design of this church and
does not see a reason to disapprove. Vice Chair Hart feels the architectural features are compatible with the
area, and he doesn’t feel that the data presented indicates a significant negative impact on the
neighborhood. Member Hobbs acknowledged the neighbor concerns, but also that the P&Z Board decision
should be based on the LUC; he is concerned with lack of notification of parents with school children but
feels the project is compatible with the LUC. Member Schneider agreed and said that, while he has empathy
for parents, he also appreciates the applicant’s efforts to screen the tower. Chair Kirkpatrick restated the
role of the P&Z Board to determine whether the project is in compliance with the LUC; however, she
encouraged the residents to speak with other government entities involved in the process.
Member Hart made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board approve the Verizon Wireless
Facility at Lifepointe Church PDP#150022, based on the findings of fact and conclusion on page 5 of
the staff report. Member Carpenter seconded. Vote: 6:1, with Member Heinz dissenting.
Planning & Zoning Board
February 11, 2016
Page 6
Project: Brookfield Second Filing
Project Description: This is a request for a Project Development Plan for Brookfield Second Filing
Tracts D and E, located at the northeast corner of Precision Dr. and Brookfield Dr. The proposal calls for
changes to 2 building types from a previously approved, but expired, plan. The stacked ranch condos
originally approved are now proposed as townhome-style condos. There are 12 buildings proposed with
a total of 68 units; the overall density of the site is 11.1 dwelling units per acre. The parcels are located in
the Harmony Corridor (HC) zone district
Recommendation: Approval
Staff and Applicant Presentations
Jason Sherrill, with Landmark Homes, gave an overview of the project, focusing on the important
features of the project, which is actually the final phase of a larger project that was previously approved
in 2002. Plans had to be resubmitted because the vested rights had expired and had to conform to the
new engineering standards. The buildings are now townhome-style condos, which is more appealing to
the current market; the units are larger but fewer overall. They will have private outdoor areas and 2-car
garages. He reviewed the few changes to the plan, illustrating the changes relative to the original plan
and their conformance with the new standards.
Staff Analysis
Planner Everette provided an analysis of the project, showing the location on a map and reviewing the
zoning compliance of this project; she stated that secondary uses had been previously identified on the
Harmony Park ODP. The project meets the development and dimensional standards established within
the LUC. Regarding open space requirements, Planner Everette stated that the necessary compliance
has been satisfied. She indicated that pocket parks are close by as well, and she showed a map of the
proximity of the project to other areas. Staff finds the project to be similar to the rest of the subdivision
and in compliance with the LUC.
Public Input
John Zac, 5038A Brookfield Drive, is the Chairman of the Townhome Homeowner’s Association, and he
stated his issues with this plan: 1.) he understood that the pool was going to be twice as large as the
current one proposed, and 2.) the clubhouse has an occupancy rate of less than 40 people. He would
like to know if original occupancy was incorporated into this plan or if it was reduced.
Board Questions and Staff/Applicant Response
Mr. Sherrill responded that he was not aware of the size of original proposed pool. Planner Everette
confirmed that the current proposed pool is similar to the original plan.
Board Deliberation
Member Carpenter made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board approve Brookfield Second
Filing – Tracts D and E PDP, based on the findings of fact and conclusions on page 5 of the staff
report. Member Hansen seconded. Vote: 7:0.
The Board took a 10-minute recess at 8:05pm – hearing resumed at 8:15pm.
Planning & Zoning Board
February 11, 2016
Page 7
Chair Kirkpatrick recused herself due to a conflict of interest; Vice Chair Hart will chair in her absence.
Project: Bucking Horse Filing Four Multi-Family PDP#150026
Project Description: This is a request for 322 multi-family units on 23.06 acres located within the Bucking
Horse development. There would be a mix of two housing types: 13 multi-family buildings (304 units)
and nine two-family buildings (18 units). There would be a total of 586 bedrooms served by a total of
573 parking spaces for a ratio of .97 spaces per bedroom and five spaces would be assigned to the
leasing office. Parking would be divided among surface, covered and garage spaces. A clubhouse,
pool, central green and community garden are provided. Primary access would be gained via Yearling
Drive and Miles House Avenue. In addition to two buildings fronting on Gooseberry Lane, there would be
two other access points from Cutting Horse Drive and a private driveway off Nancy Gray Avenue.
Recommendation: Approval
Staff and Applicant Presentations
Paul Mills, from Russell Mills Studios, gave an overview of Bucking Horse as an approved Master
Planned Community, this being the fourth filing piece of the development: the apartment complex. He
showed slides of the project, including the location, the connectivity to the surrounding neighborhood, the
on-street parking, the proximity to the railroad, garage placement to buffer the railroad noise, open
spaces and community amenities, parking spaces provided, and the pool and clubhouse proximity. He
discussed the transitional relationship to surrounding neighborhoods. Ian Shuff, with ALM2S Architects,
gave a brief presentation of the architectural features, including the massing and scale heights. He
showed illustrations of the various home styles for the various family types.
Chief Planner Shepard reminded the Board of the two conditions of approval: 1.) embellishing the
architecture to create greater differentiation within the buildings and 2.) vacating the public right-of-way.
He also stated that, while there are two housing types, the multi-family type is still dominant. He
concluded by restating the project’s overall compliance with the Addition of Permitted Use and with the
ODP.
Public Input
Morton Gerber, 2127 Cutting Horse Drive, stated his concern with traffic, which appears to be
significantly increasing. He feels that this project, combined with the railroad situation, will result in safety
issues for residents.
Robert Collins, 2102 Blue Yonder, discussed the traffic report that was prepared in 2012 and how the
expectation is a significant increase over the current traffic levels; he is afraid that surrounding streets
may become parking lots. He doesn’t believe that the developer is taking into consideration the negative
impacts of this development.
James Weimar, 2108 Yearling, is opposed to this project. He is concerned with potential traffic and
parking issues, since the streets are already narrow, and the safety concerns related to children. He
stated that more meetings were supposed to occur but didn’t.
Board Questions and Staff/Applicant Response
Mr. Mills responded that the neighborhood meetings have included a discussion of traffic and parking,
which also resulted in committees being formed. Matt Delich, Traffic Consultant, stated that he prepared
Planning & Zoning Board
February 11, 2016
Page 8
the original traffic study, making the distinction that this project was previously planned for apartments,
not townhomes. The current proposal is for 322 units, and the original proposal was for 300 units. He
discussed some of the traffic study points that were considered, concluding that the range of volume on
the collector streets is well within the acceptable standards.
With respect to parking counts, there are more spaces available than required by the standards. The
HOA Board will monitor garage use to ensure they will not be used for storage. More discussion
occurred regarding traffic-calming devices to reduce traffic flow.
Marc Ragasa, Engineering (sitting in for Traffic Operations), stated that traffic is being addressed by the
newly-formed Bucking Horse Neighborhood Transportation Committee and the City Traffic Operations
Development Department. Mitigation techniques, such as speed humps and radar feedback signs, are
being considered. He indicated the proposed location of these measures on the map. Regarding the
extension of Nancy Gray past Prospect, there is partial funding to complete Nancy Gray Drive but no
time frame proposed. Traffic forecast flows are expected to increases, but the volume is not known yet.
Board Deliberation
Members Carpenter and Heinz stated that they will support the project. Member Hansen will also
support the project, although he questions the reason for putting such a high pedestrian use as an island
in the middle of the project. Member Hobbs stated his belief that all projects will have traffic issues, and
he will support the project. Member Schneider stated that it complies with the LUC, so he will support
the project. Vice Chair Hart will support the project. The Board confirmed with the applicant that the
conditions are acceptable.
Member Hobbs made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board approve the Bucking Horse
Multi-Family, Fourth Filing, #PDP150026, subject to the two proposed conditions relating to
building materials and based on the memo from Chief Planner Shepard dated February 5, 2016,
relating to vacated right-of-ways, and based on the findings of fact on page 14 of the Staff Report.
Member Carpenter seconded. Vote: 6:0.
Other Business
Vice Chair Hart asked that the motion relating to the Verizon Wireless Facility at Lifepointe Church be
amended to refer to the findings of fact on page 4 rather than on page 5 of the Staff report.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:12 pm.
Cameron Gloss, Planning Director Kristin Kirkpatrick, Chair