Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 02/20/2020Jeff 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 February 20, 2020 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, Ward, Betley, Gloss, Kleer, Evans and Manno Board Nominations Nominations for Chair and Vice Chair were conducted. Jeff Hansen nominated for Chair; Michele Haefele nominated for Vice Chair. 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 Planning and Zoning Board Minutes Planning & Zoning Board February 20, 2020 Page 2 of 6 CDNS Director Leeson reviewed the items on the Consent and Discussion agendas, stating that all items will be heard as originally advertised. Public Input on Items Not on the Hearing Agenda: Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant Blvd., spoke to the Montava PUD and legal deficiencies. Mr. Sutherland provided a slide regarding Land Use Code Section 4.29(D)(2). He feels there is significant room for improvement. Consent Agenda: 1. Draft Minutes from January 16, 2020, P&Z Hearing 2. 128 Racquette Drive Annexation and Zoning 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 Hobbs made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board approve the Consent agenda for the February 20, 2020, Planning and Zoning Board hearing as originally advertised. Member Whitley seconded the motion. Vote: 7:0. Chair Hansen recused himself from the discussion item stating conflict of interest. Discussion Agenda: 3. Harmony Gateway Plan and Standards and Guidelines Project Description: This is a request to amend the Harmony Corridor Plan by adopting revised Plan polices, standards and guidelines pertaining to the ‘gateway’ area located west of I-25. Recommendation: Approval Secretary Manno reported that there were no citizen emails or letters received. Staff and Applicant Presentations Planner Gloss gave a brief verbal/visual overview of this project. No applicant presentation provided. Public Input (3minutes per person) Kara Linn, spoke for a group, 18 minutes given, provided slide presentation. The Board was provided a hard copy of the presentation. They provided an alternate scenario, scenario E, for the Board to consider and voiced concerns of the current plan laid out by staff. Scenario E would allow mixed use but with lower minimums for employment, commercial, retail and residential and added a cultural use component. Regarding density and intensity, they have a lower building height threshold and prohibit big box, retail and drive thru. They would like maximum trail connector, heron tree protection year-round, tree match maturity and size of large as opposed to medium and a high architectural standard. Caroline White, representation for private property owners was given 10 minutes to speak per Vice Chair Haefele. Mrs. White spoke to the changes and that they feel are positive and to the concerns they have with Scenario D. Scenario D fundamentally is not a feasible development scenario. The cost maintaining the property as it is are sizeable. The return on investment is far less, given the constraints. The 40% open space translates to roughly 55 Planning & Zoning Board February 20, 2020 Page 3 of 6 acres that would not be available for development. She asks the Board to not recommend this to City Council in its current form. If the recommendation is made to Council, she would ask that the Board recommend removing the 40% open space requirement or reduce the percentage. They also seek to have the setbacks reduced. Staff Response Planner Gloss explained what “big box and large retail establishment” is in relation to size. Large retail is 50,000 sq. ft. format or larger. Big box is 100,000 sq. ft. or larger. The landscape setback has an average and there are provisions for buildings and parking lots to be closer than that average. 95’ for building and 75’ for parking. The height limit proposed is 3-stories. Non-residential and mixed use are the taller ones. Board Questions / Deliberation Member Katz questioned if the 40% natural areas is within the entire gateway or per new development. Planner Gloss confirmed that it would be per development. Member Hobbs asked if for each PDP that comes in under an OPD, each PDP block has to be designated as 40%? Planner Gloss: That is correct. Vice Chair Haefele wanted to know the percent of the area that is currently in the floodway. Planner Gloss stated that 40% was relatively close. Member Hogestad questioned the 40% natural area, asking if this is part of what has been looked at as for green areas, trails and buffer areas around the site. Planner Gloss: Yes. Would requirements for plantings in parking lots still be enforced? Planner Gloss: This is not included in the 40% calculation. Vice Chair Haefele; when you say cultural facilities are not constrained by the land use limitations, does this mean an entire project could be 100% cultural facility? Planner Gloss: Hypothetically, yes. What types of facilities does this mean? Planner Gloss: Habitat restoration area, park, ball field, these are recreational, open, undeveloped properties. There are others such as art related as well. Director Leeson asked for clarification regarding the 40% being applied to each individual PDP within and ODP. Planner Gloss clarified that if a property owner came in and did an overall development plan and had multiple PDP’s within an ODP you would use the ODP to calculate the 40%. Planner Gloss misunderstood the question asked by Member Hobbs to mean if someone did a standalone PDP would they have to meet the 40% even if it was a relatively small area, then yes, they would. Member Hogestad asked if clustering would be allowed. Planner Gloss: Absolutely. Member Schneider requested clarification if the Board had previously approved an ODP for the area. Planner Gloss: Yes, a portion of the gateway area, not its entirety. Member Katz asked if within the previously approved ODP, how much is in the floodway? Planner Gloss does not believe that the present ODP has any land within the floodway and that there are portions of the parcels that are within the floodplain. Attorney Yatabe clarified that his understanding of the ODP that it encompasses all the area South of Harmony that is within the gateway area and extends further to the South. There is only a portion of the Northwest corner that has been delineated essentially as eligible to have different phases or different PDP’s coming in on that portion of the property. If other phases want to come in on the remainder of that ODP, an amendment to that plan would be in order. Member Hobbs sought clarification from Planner Gloss in relation to his definition of mixed-use building and the number of stories those structures could be. Planner Gloss explained that mixed-use is an office or commercial use mixed with residential. Vertically separated not side by side. Member Schneider: Based on reading the revised plan, the 40% is based on the overall area not on individual parcels. Planner Gloss clarified that it is the same as it is today. If you have an overall development plan it is the Planning & Zoning Board February 20, 2020 Page 4 of 6 gross site area for each one of those uses, not the building footprint or square footages, it is the site area allocated to that use. Member Hogestad asked if the 1991 Corridor Plan was still in affect currently. Planner Gloss: Yes. In this plan it talks about low-rise development and tapering into natural areas. Planner Gloss responded that if you look at the gateway section of the 91’ plan, it called for an examination and clarity over some general direction, you are correct, that there is some language there that would suggest potentially some lower buildings. This is contrary to findings when out in the community. Conditions have changed and staff feels that building heights should be the same within the gateway as they are within the Harmony corridor. Member Hogestad commented about the “conditions have changed” statement. Planner Gloss commented that back then much of the corridor was vacant land, the context was different, and Timnath was 1 ½ square miles in total. Vice Chair Haefele asked if the setbacks counted toward the undeveloped, they are not additive? Planner Gloss responded that they are inclusive. Member Hogestad does not feel this plan will come close to delivering the vision. Planner Gloss commented that staff is charged with creating a framework for the Gateway Plan Amendment. Staff cannot dictate what all the design details are. Member Katz asked about a City option to purchase land to keep as natural area. Planner Gloss commented that there was consideration given to purchase and conservation easement; the biggest concern is assuming liability. Member Hobbs spoke about the substitute water supply plan. The determination was that the evaporative loss which is what we speak of when looking at liability. 120-acre feet of evaporative is what needs to be augmented by a SWSP. Do you know whether the issue of the standing water can be or would be cured in water court by the attachment of water rights to cover 120-acre feet or whether the State Water Board would not accept that for a cure? Planner Gloss could not answer that definitively but knows there is hesitation to take on the liability. Member Hogestad asked for clarification on where the City stands on the cultural/civic aspect. Planner Gloss responded that the notion of a cultural use as opposed to a civic use, the staff is specific in the cultural use. The different types of uses permitted within the corridor today as well as other uses in the City, we would have a broader accommodation for civic uses than suggested by the citizens. A private park falls under a civic use, this could be beneficial to the site, as one example. Could the size of sports complexes (example) be limited? Planner Gloss stated the Board might want to consider. Member Hobbs: Attorney White stated that there was one landowner being impacted by this. After looking at the Larimer County GIS maps it appears there are actually a few other owners that may be impacted, is this accurate? Planner Gloss: We are taking Mrs. White’s testimony to mean the Southern area has been aggregated under one ownership control even though the Assessor’s record show multiple names. The State Land Board does hold properties on the Northwest portion, which would be subject to the gateway standards. Member Haefele wanted a comparison as to what 45,000 sq. ft. looks like. Example the North Fort Collins King Soopers. Director Leeson responded roughly 120 to 130,000 square feet. The Taft and Elizabeth King Soopers is roughly 65,000 square feet. Member Katz asked Mrs. White if it was correct that the property owner would like to keep the property natural. Mrs. White responded no, the dialogue with the City was whether the area would be used as a natural area or as part of a conservation easement. This led to the conclusion that the City did not wish to acquire the land. She would not say that her client desires to keep it as a natural area. They agree that there should be heightened standards for landscaping and so on. The City did indicate that they would like to see the land kept as natural. Member Hobbs asked if the evaporative water loss could be covered by permanent shares of water. Mrs. White responded that she is not working on any of the water rights. Member Hogestad commented that he is struggling with the unpredictability of the land set aside for natural areas, as to what it may end up looking like. There is too much opportunity for the landscape to find its way into Planning & Zoning Board February 20, 2020 Page 5 of 6 unbuildable areas. He does not feel it supports the vision at all. As for the undefined civic or cultural component, we do not really know what this is all about. Member Schneider questioned Member Hogestad on his civic and cultural uses concern. What scenario is being looked at? Member Hogestad is looking at scenario E that speaks to a cultural component. Civic is too broad, this could allow for very large impact. Member Hogestad is in support of a cultural component. Vice Chair Haefele feels that 40% is a large amount. Is there a way to pull back some of the 40% and place upon the developer, attributes in the standards and guidelines that would ensure that 25% of the ODP is truly beneficial to the public. Member Schneider asked Vice Chair Haefele to keep in mind that the floodway is buildable for commercial use, you cannot have high occupancy use or residential use in the floodway. Member Hobbs commented there is a distinction between floodway and floodplain. Vice Chair Haefele would like to see a defined cultural area that incorporates natural landscaping. Member Hogestad feels the language needs to speak to greenbelts and how they engage building, rather than run along edges, they should run through the built areas. There seems to still be things missing. Member Schneider commented that currently if someone were to submit, the submission falls under today’s standards and with the new plan we are trying to reduce the footprint and doing a lot to increase the natural area and not have the density and take away some of the concerns and potential concerns of what could potentially be out there today. Member Hobbs feels the plan achieves as much as a municipality could expect to impose on landowners in general or in aggregate and it is not realistic to appropriate 40% of private land for naturalistic open space. This is a difficult piece of land to develop and close to 40% of it is in the floodway and won’t be developed. We must be careful as a City to not have an overreach of what we expect. The elements that we can communicate by standards and guidelines in the land use code must be the greenbelt type, pathways, community areas and open spaces within the footprint of the development. We could not expect a private landowner to create, revegetate and maintain natural areas at the behest of the City. This is the City’s job and they do not want it. Member Schneider commented that this is not an ODP, this is a plan, guidelines and standards update. The Board cannot talk to specifics and what works the best with what, this happens when a plan is submitted. Member Hogestad questioned the current ODP and if there would be multiple PDP’s from this submittal. Planner Gloss: Yes, there will be multiple. Member Hobbs questioned if the current ODP, approved in 2014, would be regulated by new guidelines or if it would be grandfathered in? Planner Gloss responded that an OPD does not create a vested right. Attorney Yatabe agreed that there are no vested rights associated with an ODP and this is a plan that is potentially subject to change in regulations going forward. There was discussion regarding making some of the items in the plan concrete, a must-do as opposed to a want-to, such as building height and use. Member Katz feels 40% is an overreach for any one landowner. He will not be supporting this as it is written. Setback depth was discussed. There is a mandated minimum of 80 feet currently, with this new plan it will be considerably deeper. Member Whitley would like language to recommend to Council that they approach a private/public to come up with a percentage. Member Hobbs reminded the Board that this is a recommendation and suggested concreteness. Member Hogested will not support anything less than 40%. The Board also discussed the pooled/pond water the liability and greenspace. Member Katz made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board recommend that City Council adopt the amendments to the Harmony Corridor Plan and Harmony Corridor Standards and Guidelines with the conditions that the City of Fort Collins participates with the private landowners in creation, management, and maintenance of the 40% natural area created within the ODP, of which up to 20% of the natural area requirement could be satisfied by cultural amenities, City participation would include purchasing or contributing in other financial matters and maintaining in perpetuity for the public enjoyment. Planning & Zoning Board February 20, 2020 Page 6 of 6 The Harmony Corridor Plan is in need of the proposed amendments and the proposed amendments will promote the public welfare and will be consistent with the vision, goals, principals, and policies of City Plan and the elements thereof. The information and findings contained in the staff report prepared for this hearing are adopted by this Board, with the exception of the conditions. Member Hobbs seconded. Member Schneider asked if the Board could place the condition as it puts a financial burden on the City. Attorney Yatabe responded that the Board could recommend, as this is non-binding, merely a recommendation. Member Hogestad requested an amendment to add that 20% of the project be of cultural content. The request was declined. The Board discussed the definition of cultural and that the Land Use Code does not have a definition and would require a code change. Vote: 4:2. The link to the video is: https://fortcollinstv.viebit.com/player.php?hash=anquODCBLEj1 Attorney Yatabe massaged the language of the motion as little as possible as he felt Council would find it most instructive in understanding the motion if they can hear the discussion itself or at least fairly detailed minutes. The initial motion is made at approximately 2:47, the amendment at 3:00:15 is Michael Hobbes amendment regarding 20% amenities, 3:05:25 is the vote. Other Business A reminder was given that the March Hearing will be held on the 4th Thursday of the month, March 26th. The work session will be held on March 20th, the Friday beforehand. This is to accommodate those that will be out for local spring break. Adjournment Vice Chair Haefele moved to adjourn the P&Z Board hearing. The meeting was adjourned at 9:12 pm. Minutes respectfully submitted by Shar Manno. Minutes approved by a vote of the Board on: ____________. Rebecca Everette, Development Review Manager Jeff Hansen, Chair 6-18-20