Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 10/17/2019Jeff Hansen, Chair City Council Chambers Jeffrey Schneider, Vice Chair City Hall West Michelle Haefele 300 Laporte Avenue Michael Hobbs Fort Collins, Colorado Per Hogestad David Katz 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 October 17, 2019 Chair Hansen called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Roll Call: Haefele, Hansen, Hobbs, Hogestad, Katz, Schneider, Whitley Absent: None Staff Present: Leeson, Yatabe, Tatman-Burruss, McWilliams, Betley, Everette, Overton, McWilliams, Scheidenhelm, and Manno Chair Hansen 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 Director Leeson 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 October 17, 2019 Page 2 of 6 Public Input on Items Not on the Hearing Agenda: Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, wanted the Board to be aware of the latest application for a metro district. Also, to follow up on comments from the last meeting regarding changes to code regarding appeals procedures. Discussed his experience with personal appeals brought forward. Mike Feldhausen, 5102 Northern Lights Dr., lives near the Harmony Gateway, provided documents to the board entitled “Protect our Harmony Gateway” with a 5P th P scenario proposed by the citizens. Director Leeson responded to Mr. Feldhausen, mentioning the public forum on Monday 10/21 from 6-8pm at the Lincoln Center, encouraging people to attend. Attorney Yatabe noted that the City 6-month calendar reflects that the appeal code updates are scheduled to go to first reading before Council on January 7, 2020 and will come before P&Z soon. UConsent Agenda: 1. Draft Minutes from September 19, 2019, P&Z Hearing Public Input on Consent Agenda: None noted Chair Hansen 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 Schneider made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board approve the Consent agenda consisting of the draft minutes for the September 19, 2019, Planning and Zoning Board hearing. This motion is also based on the materials and information presented during the work session and at this hearing along with Board discussion, the analysis, finding of fact and conclusion contained within the staff report which includes the agenda materials for this hearing, be adopted by this Board. Member Whitley seconded the motion. Vote: 7:0. UDiscussion Agenda: 2. Garcia House Adult Residential Treatment Facility, PDP190009 Member Haefele disclosed her neighbor is an architect involved in the project. She does not feel it will interfere with decision making. Member Whitley disclosed his wife worked for SummitStone Health Partners for 9 years, she has since retired, he feels this will have no effect on his judgement. Member Katz’s firm is a representative of the applicant Russel + Mills on a different project, he does not feel this will affect his judgement. Project Description: This is a request for a Project Development Plan to build a two-story long-term care facility on a .6-acre site at the corner of Patton Street and East Elizabeth Street. The request includes a modification of standard to reduce parking lot drive aisle width from 24 feet to 22 feet. Recommendation: Approval Staff and Applicant Presentations Planning & Zoning Board October 17, 2019 Page 3 of 6 Planner Overton gave a brief verbal/overview of this project. Shelley LaMastra of Russell + Mills Studios also provided a presentation. Highlighting the preservation of current trees. The parking lot will be smaller, with an exit only onto Patton. No shade trees on one side due to utilities present under the sidewalk. Outdoor screened courtyard with seating, gardening, and room for activities. Pedestrian access will be from Patton and McHugh. Reviewed Zone District Standards and how this project meets those standards. Sean Moscrup with ALM2S, architects for the project. Discussed existing architectural concepts in place prior to this project. A building nearby was found to be historically eligible, and they modified their plans. Changed the color of the brick to more closely match the color of the moss rock. The brick has been lowered to relate to the nursing home. Tried to tie in the shapes of their roof into the surrounding buildings. Planner Overton responded by covering topics on what we are looking for under the Land Use Code. Building and project compatibility was referenced. Showed pictures of surrounding buildings for comparison. The nursing facility at 1020 Patton has been determined to be a historic resource. Referred to the Institutional and commercial buildings, design that is comfortable for pedestrians with architectural interest with materials tailored to the project and context. Reviewed the modification being requested. The plan does not diverge from the code but in a nominal and inconsequential way. There was a question in the work session as to what is located to the south, it’s a 5-foot mulched area. Member Katz asked about the exit for the west and how that would be regulated. Ms. LaMastra explained there will be proposed signage, exit only and public right of way signs will indicate this is exit only, enforced by management for the property. Member Katz also asked about the width of the parking aisle, concerned about vision and backing out. Ms. LaMastra believes this is an additional 5-6 feet from the drive aisle. Public Input (3 minutes per person) Tony Hanlen, 1020 Patton St., owner of the nursing home, did not receive notice of this project, and has concern with semi-trucks coming in constantly backing into the south side of the property. Sysco comes to deliver food, trash trucks come twice a week. Annabel Simpson, 1317 Laurie Street, owns a duplex close by, this is a quiet business area. The sidewalks are one person sidewalks, there are 12-14 employee parking spots, what about visitors and people dropping off patients. Something needs to be widened. Most of the area is filled with duplexes, but there is not enough parking for the added traffic from this project. Diane Campbell, Annabel’s daughter who helps with the duplex. This is the first they have heard about the project. Asked multiple questions about the type of residents, and the security of residents and others with bicycles and car traffic, there are 2 childcare facilities close-by, with the traffic and parking, she feels more parking needs to be available for staff, visitors and vendor parking. Colin Campbell, Diane’s husband, the announcement is the first they have heard about the project. The development can create fear. He has security concerns especially with the childcare facilities nearby. Dixie Gibbons, 1026 McHugh Street, says she didn’t know about this project. She wants to know if this type of project will negatively affect her property value. She is also concerned with parking and the potential for issues. She also questioned the safety of those living in the neighborhood. Bill Gibbons, Gibbons Trucking, is there enough room to back trucks in safely? Staff Response Planner Overton responded to the question regarding the type of people in the facility and the length of stay. The project is being reviewed under the definition of a long-term care facility. This definition supports facility types for patients that require in patient services for substance abuse disorders and other mental health issues, housed up to Planning & Zoning Board October 17, 2019 Page 4 of 6 90 days. Clients are not free to come and go as they please. The facility will be staffed 24 hours per day, 365 days per year. Planner Overton verified the affected property owners list, and that everyone was on the list. The mailing went out September 4, 2019, the sign was posted June 10, 2019 and a neighborhood meeting was held on June 10, 2019 (zero attendees). Staff feels confident that all efforts were made for this project. Parking is based on the number of spaces required per bed. For this type, .33 parking spaces per bed are required. This project has a proposed 16 beds which equates to 6 parking spaces. A punched window is a window surrounded by material on all four sides. Based on existing conditions the access will grow compared to what it is currently. Kelly Toll and Greg Murphy addressed the security. There will not be any coming or going from the facility. Visitors must be scheduled with staff. This is a voluntary treatment facility, not a corrections facility. Sidewalks will be improved around the entirety of the site. Sidewalks not within the project but near the site would be required to come up to current standard at the time of their redevelopment. Deliveries could be coordinated to avoid and safety issues, additional pavement is being added as well. Property values are not evaluated during the review process. Board Questions / Deliberation Member Hogestad heard from citizens that all who came forward did not receive notification, is this normal? Planning Manager Everette responded that the Planning Department did review the address list and sent letters based on criteria. How many notices were sent out? CDNS Direct Leeson responded 116. Planning Manager Everett stated that she would go back and review the list to see if those missed were indeed on the list. She did state that they were all on the list. Staff was not surprised that there was not much interest in the neighborhood meeting. Member Haefele commented that it is unusual the no one showed for the neighborhood meeting. Planner Overton responded to Member Whitley regarding his inquiry into the sign posting timeline. Planner Overton reiterated the timeline as stated above. Member Hogestad wanted to know why it did not go to the Landmark Preservation Commission but rather a closed- door meeting with the Director and some staff. Historic Preservation Manager McWilliams responded that staff and the Director can make the determination based on the Land Use Code, Section 3.4.7. Member Hogestad wanted to know if a decision was made before it went to the Director for review. HP Manager McWilliams responded that staff first reviewed, then discussed with the Director and he then signed off on the project. He feels this is a short cut and is not as in-depth as it would be if Landmark Preservation Commission were to do the review. HP Manager McWilliams commented that the new codes went into effect in March and roughly 4-6 reviews have taken place and have followed the new process. HP Manager McWilliams reviewed the building compatibility with adjacent buildings as well as the materials being used. Member Hogestad questioned the shed roof. In response to the roofing, the gables seemed to create an awkward connection, so the shed roof became a focus. Chair Hansen wanted to know if and is concerned with the standard for a dead-end drive isle in the parking standards. Engineer Betley responded that the 22 feet was beyond the parking area and that there was greater than one car length and enough room. Planner Overton commented that there is a width standard for drive isle for angle of parking. 90 degree parking the width is 24 feet. Member Katz wanted clarification on the underground installation of stormwater detention. Mr. Simpson with Fort Collins Utility Stormwater explained the requirements for all new projects. The risk is on the private property owner. The applicant has worked to provide sufficient volume and would drain over a period of hours. If clogged a restrictor plate could control the flow to allow cleaning and let the volume out of the system. The system was created for a 200-year storm event and flow off to the adjacent right-of-way. Planning & Zoning Board October 17, 2019 Page 5 of 6 Member Hogestad wanted clarification and/or meaning on what was meant in the staff report regarding Section 3.5.1. Planner Overton explained that is was about the improvements to the sidewalk and pedestrian experience along the sides of the building. Staff dose believe this would be an enhancement with the narrow sidewalks that exist and the surrounding area. Member Hogestad is concerned with the review process of this project. It cut out public input from the process and has also cut out LPC from reviewing the project. Member Hansen commented on compatibility and that is should not be taken too literally; it should not look forced. Member Hobbs does not see continuity within the neighborhood, and he has no issues with the compatibility and design of the project. Attorney Yatabe interjected commenting that 3.4.7(f) has a waiver of this requirement made by determination of the Director. He does not believe the Planning and Zoning Board has the ability to require that the recommendation be done pursuant to the Land Use Code. Chair Hansen, for understanding, the LPC review was waived by the Director and that eliminates the option of sending it out to LPC. Had it gone to LPC, they would be giving us a recommendation so that we, P&Z, would have our own discussion. This lets us do the same review as LCP would have done. Mr. Yatabe stated that it is not the same review that this Board does. 3.4.7 makes the P&Z the decision maker. Member Haefele understands, based on the timeline, that the project was brought to the City for its review and scheduled for its consent agenda in September. It was discovered a step was missing, the project was pulled it and now back a month later. When was the Director’s waiver granted? Director Leeson responded; we the determination was made that there was a historic resource that needed to be reviewed. The applicant went back and made changes to the building to be more compatible. Based on the revised plans, the determination was made. Member Whitley requested clarification on if the building was not considered next to a historic resource initially because there was not sufficient review of the surrounding area by staff and then it was pointed out that there was local historic resource at which point it did go back. This sounds like the step was missed way far back. Why did someone not look around next door and aske the right questions? Member Hobbs stated that this is a process question that does not specifically relate to the process this project has gone through. Member Hobbs heard the concern of the owner of the nursing home, 1020 Patton, and the semis blocking this shared access easement. Chair Hansen commented that this is a shared space and that there needs to be a shared level of neighborly cooperation required to make it function like it should. Member Hobbs made a motion that the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board approve the modification to standard in section 3.2.2(l) Parking Stall Dimensions. Based on staffs recommendation that it is nominal and inconsequential and that our approval of this modification would be based on the agenda materials, the materials presented during the work session and this hearing and the board discussion on this item with the following findings; that the modification complies with applicable land use code requirements as stated in the staff report prepared for this hearing and contained in the agenda materials. Vice Chair Schneider seconded. Vice Chair Schneider supports the motion because it is a singular parking bay, there is no typical back to back. Chair Hansen can support as it is single loaded and available bumper overhang. Vote: 7:0. Member Whitley made a motion that the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board approve the Garcia House Adult Residential Treatment Facility, PDP190009. This approval is based on the agenda materials, the information and materials presented during the work session and this hearing and the Board discussion on this item. Member Katz seconded. Member Hogestad will not support the motion, he does not believe the project has met 3.4.7 and 3.5.1. Member Katz spoke to the context and compatibility. Chair Hansen spoke to compatibility. Vice Chair Schneider added that the neighborhood is eclectic, and compatibility is tough. The project has done a good job to improve, he believes this project complies with the standards and compatibility. Member Whitley agrees with Vice Chair Schneider, but historic compatibility should have been looked at from day one. Member Haefele feels the process may have been a bit rushed. Vote: 6:1 Other Business