Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 03/21/2019Jeff Hansen, Chair City Council Chambers Christine Pardee, Vice Chair City Hall West Michael Hobbs 300 Laporte Avenue Per Hogestad Fort Collins, Colorado Ruth Rollins Jeffrey Schneider 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 March 21, 2019 Chair Hansen called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Roll Call: Hansen, Hobbs, Hogestad, Rollins, Whitley, Pardee Absent: Schneider Staff Present: Everette, Yatabe, Tatman-Burruss, Wilkinson, Ward, Betley, Scheidenhelm and Gerber 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 Manager Everette 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: Planning and Zoning Board Minutes Planning & Zoning Board March 21, 2019 Page 2 of 8 UConsent Agenda: 1. Draft Minutes from February 21, 2019, P&Z Hearing Public Input on Consent Agenda: Kara Linn, 5100 Northern Lights, pleas for help from the Board regarding the Harmony Corridor Plan. She is in opposition of the plan. Submitted Protect Our Gateway booklet. Dr. Walter Lyons, 4022 Rock Creek Dr., he is in opposition of H-25 plan. He is concerned about the destruction of the natural area and wetlands. Submitted presentation. Liv Lyons, 4022 Rock Creek Dr., she is in opposition of the H-25 plan. She is concerned about the birds that have chosen this space to inhabit. She posed an option of a walk over. Rachel Smith, 2608 Palomino Ct., is in opposition of the Harmony and I-25 plan. Tom Welsch, 5550 S CR 7, Strauss Cabin Rd., he is not antidevelopment, but has concerns with the H-25 development. Special attention should be given by City leaders. He is also concerned with significant public safety issues. Planning Manager Everette gave current status update of the Harmony Corridor Gateway Plan. Member Pardee enquired about the number of public meetings that would be held. Planning Manager Everette responded that it is anticipated there will be one additional public meeting once a full draft of the amendment has been vetted. Attorney Yatabe commented that he had a chance to look through the booklet submitted and that each Board member would receive a copy and reminded the Board that this is a legislative matter. Chair Hansen clarified his understanding of the process. The existing plan has a hole in it and needs to be amended for a future plan. A developer took it in and the City is working hard to separate this amendment from the development as much as possible. Planning Manager Everette spoke to a comment made about striking a chapter from the Harmony Corridor Plan, Chapter 5. Staff is working on drafting a replacement chapter for Chapter 5 that would flush the concepts out, add design standards and guidelines and give a vision for the Gateway area. A clear definition. Member Whitley is curious to know if there would be any citizen participation in the development of the replacement Chapter 5. Planning Manager Everette responded that there would be an opportunity. 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 Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board approve the Consent agenda for the draft minutes for the February 21, 2019, Planning and Zoning Board hearing. Member Whitley seconded the motion. Vote: 6:0 UDiscussion Agenda: 2. Sunshine House at Bucking Horse Major Amendment - MJA 190001 Project Description: This is a request for Major Amendment for a child care center located on the Tract C of bucking Horse Second Filing. Recommendation: Approval Planning & Zoning Board March 21, 2019 Page 3 of 8 Secretary Gerber reported that numerous citizen emails and letters were received: Letters of support have been received from: Laura Rob Koellner, April Gerakos-Rooker, Ben & Abbey Kramer, Jenny Maeda, Amber Steves, Deric McIntosh, citing the lack of quality childcare in Fort Collins. A letter of support was received from Tyler Shannon Whose family fids more value in the daycare than the farm but would also be interested in seeing if there is a room for both uses in this space. A letter of support was received from Tyler Shannon whose family finds more value in the daycare than the farm but would also be interested in seeing if there is room for both uses in this space. A letter of support was received from Steven Sorensen who witnessed the discussions at multiple neighborhood meetings and speaks to the developer’s transparency regarding the many different conceptual ideas that might come to fruition at this site. A letter of opposition received from Rachel Smith citing her main concerns as parking and the bait and switch of homeowners, including an article with an interview of Gino Campana. A letter of opposition received from Josh Rees who is also concerned with the bait and switch and believes developers need to be held accountable. A letter of opposition received from Christopher Fields whose house has a direct view of the site and says there was never a mention of a commercial property taking that space. He is also concerned with increased traffic and decreased property values. A survey of 256 members of the community with comments. A memorandum with response was received at 5:00 pm to a question posed at work session regarding chlorine use at the water reclamation facility. Exhibits received during hearing: Protect Our Gateway booklet opposing over-development, H-25. Dr. Walter Lyons submitted his presentation commenting on the H-25 project. At 6:25 pm an email from Collette Thepenier was received stating her concerns at the mismanagement of the “Sunshine House at Bucking Horse” proposal. Attorney Yatabe approved the inclusion of this last email, copies were distributed to the Board. Disclosures Member Rollins disclosed that five to six years ago she was a volunteer for the original Bucking Horse proposal with relationships to chickens and goats. Attorney Yatabe disclosed that he had two children that attend the Sunshine House on Center Ave. and feels that it does not create any conflict or will inhibit him from making fair and unbiased advisories to the Board. Staff and Applicant Presentations Planning Manager Everette gave a brief verbal/visual overview of the item. Gino Campana, Shelly LaMastra and Kayla Baylor gave a brief verbal/visual overview of the item. Public Input (3 minutes per person) Rachel Smith, 2608 Palomino Ct., clarified the number of attendees at the neighborhood meeting was no 58 people but rather over 200 people. She is opposed to the project. She does not believe 25% of the daycares use will come from the development. She is concerned with how the project was handled within the City, commenting on an email by Ted Sheppard and that her email nor the survey was included in the packet. She feels that there was a bait and switch. She also does not feel that a new daycare is needed. Planning & Zoning Board March 21, 2019 Page 4 of 8 Robert Beccard, 2602 Palomino Ct., he is concerned with safety, specifically the intersection Miles House and Drake. The multi-family housing has increased traffic. He did not receive comment from the City on the impact for the connection between Nancy Gray and Sharp Point, because they do not know what the impact will be. He questions how the traffic study is valid without that data. Diane Allen-Philips, 2439 Palomino Dr., she is opposed to the project. Her concern is that the developer commented that they could not hire someone to develop the farm idea and that this was the alternative. She feels as though this was a bait and switch and that there are other alternatives. Donna Clarckson, 2708 Walkaloosa Way, she is opposed to the amendment due to light pollution. The additional traffic will allow for headlights and parking lot lights after dark during the winter months. She asks that there be additional landscaping on the parking lot on the HOA side of property, or funds be provided for her property to prevent the additional lighting being an issue. Carly Finch, 1813 Belmar Dr., A5, she is a Sunshine House employee and feels that the Sunshine House will bring education into the community and allow parents to go to work. She welcomes the project. Jennifer Beccard, 2602 Palomino Ct., she is opposed to the project. She feels that conducting the meeting during spring break was a poor decision. She too commented on the number of people present at the neighborhood meeting and believes this project is a bait and switch. She sights lack of communication in relation to finding people to work the working farm. They were marketed and sold on sustainability, working farm, trail and life style. Jerod Mann, 2636 Walkaloosa Way, he is Vice President of Development for Sunshine House. He expressed his support for the project. Samantha Coontz, 2732 Wakonda Dr., she is the Center Director for Sunshine House. She invites the community to come visit one of their locations. She provided statistics sighting the lack of child care. She addressed traffic concerns and peak times. Jackie Montoya, 2636 Walkaloosa Way, she commented that the only reason that they purchased their home in that location is because of the working farm. She is very disappointed. She believes that many of the children will not be attending the daycare. She questions the relationship between Gino and the Board. She mentions an email from Ted Sheppard. Todd Moran, 2002 Scarecrow Rd., he is opposed to the project. He hopes the Board recognizes the decision to hold the hearing during spring break. He commented on the neighborhood meeting and the number in attendance, over 200, and mostly in opposition of the daycare. He also commented that from 2012 on that there was an understanding that there would be a working farm. Matt Fowler, 2445 Palomino Dr., reiterated that they bought because of the concept and not a commercial property. They could have bought for less somewhere else. He also spoke of a variance due to floodplain. Staff Response Planning Manager Everette responded to questions asked during public input. She clarified the number of attendees at the neighborhood meeting, 58 were the number of individuals that signed in. She addressed concerns toward the email from Ted Sheppard. Ted has been removed from the project. Public Engagement Specialist Tatman-Burruss commented that she did facilitate the neighborhood meeting held on January 14P th P. She does not know the exact number of individuals present, but was more than signed in. In terms of the emails not making into packets, she has recognized the process needs adjustments and will be made. Asst. City Traffic Engineer Wilkinson spoke to how the City did the evaluation and review of potential traffic impacts for the development. The City looks at how it currently functions and determine what the added impact will be of a daycare in that location and then determine whether the traffic meets our standards. To the 25%, it is a national standard to assume in developments that have mixed use that the trip number be 25%. This also includes any trips Planning & Zoning Board March 21, 2019 Page 5 of 8 not being done by car. The intersection at Miles House and Drake has no report of traffic incidents. The reality is the internal collector streets are not near capacity. Sharp Point cross-over has been in the plan for numerous years. This connection could cause an increase in traffic, but the number is not known. Civil Engineering Director Sampley responded to floodplain questions. The site falls within the FEMA 500-year floodplain. Within the flood fringe you can have commercial development. The daycare would not normally be allowed; however, a variance was granted acknowledging the building was located several feet above the 500-year flood elevation and that there is a minimal risk of the property being flooded. The applicant did prepare an emergency response and preparedness plan (ERPP). Member Hobbs questioned jurisdiction, if outside of the 100- year floodplain, the City has jurisdiction without approval from FEMA or is that not the case. Mr. Sampley responded this floodplain is a FEMA floodplain, so the area is subject to the requirements from FEMA. We are required by the State of Colorado with regard to critical facilities. In Ft. Collins, the designation of this project is higher than the State designation. The site elevation is higher than when the modeling was originally completed because of infill. Member Pardee commended the stormwater division. She asked if the ERPP was adopted by the City and for explanation of the plan so that the residents understand what is involved. Mr. Sampley explained where it came from, how it is used and what it includes. The applicant was not required to complete a plan but did so on his own. Member Pardee questioned the mapping, lomr process, and if it was required. Mr. Sampley mentioned the risk map process which is a large version of the lomr process. It was started in 2012, redone in 2013 due to some flooding, but this is the process that will update the floodplain mapping. The City also site-specific conditional letters of map revision before the project and at times after the project. Member Rollins wanted to know if FEMA had to sign off on the project. Mr. Sampley responded no. Mr. Campana responded to floodplain questions. The process included a 3-hour Water Board hearing. The finished product shows the finished level 5 feet above the 500-year floodplain. Mr. Campana is not surprised by the passion being brought forward to the hearing. He clarified the timing of the hearing was not his doing. He commented that at the neighborhood meeting 150 seats were set out. Not all of them were filled, however, some individuals chose to stand in the back. Filling the room is nothing new. The working farm is on the developer’s private property and they were going to lease the farm back to the neighborhood for $1 and they had to cover the operational cost of running the farm which could be as much as $300K. The individual that was hired, resigned and the well has not operated for one year. He believes there are a lot of misunderstandings. Spoke to “bait and switch” and the control he had at the time and that it is farfetched. He feels he did the right thing by switching gears. He feels the communication was sufficient. Member Rollins wanted to know if there was a chance Mr. Campana would be amenable to putting up more landscaping for Donna. Mr. Campana thinks it is a valid point and that the parkway is landscaped and screening there, but they would be more than happy to deal with it if there is a problem after construction. Member Whitley questioned the material presented on the floodplain from the applicant. Shelly LaMastra responded with what the current and floodplain is set at and clarified pg. 32. Mr. Sampley clarified the height of the proposed floodplain. Planning Manager Everett addressed the timing of the hearing. Commenting that the hearing was schedule at its normal time; however, they would be more cognoscente of timing in future scheduling. Board Questions / Deliberation Member Hobbs requested that Mr. Bellitch provide information in relation to what the 25% internal trip capture means. Mr. Bellitch provided the information commenting that this project will generate x amount of traffic in and out on a daily basis and allow during the peak hours. Some of the children at the daycare will come from the Bucking Horse community and that is the 25% that was assumed. Member Hogestad enquired how the 25% was derived. Mr. Bellitch stated that it was an estimate. Planning & Zoning Board March 21, 2019 Page 6 of 8 Member Pardee thanked everyone for weighing in. Member Pardee wanted to hear from staff as to gaining a clear picture as to if this was a clear majority of the citizens that live in the area and the impact. She also commended the City in reassigning. As a general comment, there is not a question as to child care being important, but for the Board it is to focus on the land use code. Can City staff implement a process, so we have consent mapping going forward? Planning Manager Everett responded yes. Member Hogestad questioned queuing space, etc. and if there was enough space and if it was considered. A member of the daycare responded that there would not be queuing issues as the parking lot is adequate. There will be no impact to the street. Member Hobbs questioned the enrollment numbers and size of parking lot at other locations, here in Ft. Collins. As a response – above 90% of capacity. 135 students enrolled with 25 parking spaces. Centre Ave. location. Mr. Campana spoke of compatibility and the land use codes. Member Hobbs questioned the survey. Mr. Campana stated Community Coordinator, Lindsay Rosell assembled the survey based on comments after a story broke of the proposed facility. There was also a neighborhood meeting within hours of the story publication where results were presented from the survey. Member Hobbs questioned the percentage of multi-family rental units within the development. Mr. Campana responded 202 condominiums, 322 apartments, 78 townhomes, 58 bungalows, 16 patio homes and balance mixed between smaller single-family lots and the estate lots (57 possibly). Member Hobbs enquired about notifications. Planning Manager Everette provided that no notification went out to the multi-family units, only to property owners as prescribed in the code. Mr. Campana replied that the property manager did send notice to tenants and posted online for all meetings. They are also part of the HOA wherein discussions are taking place to pull them out. Mrs. Tatum-Burruss commented that the notification process will be discussed at the next work session as to how to get notification to renters. Member Hogestad commented that the architecture fits the feel and wanted to know about the signage. Mr. Campana commented that it is a monument sign and has not yet been designed completely to this point, and that they are happy to work with the neighborhood. They could live with no interior light sign and are willing to commit to this here at the hearing. Member Whitley asked at what point all the lights go out. Mr. Campana responded that the parking lot lights do not go out, but that they will be held to zero-foot candles at the property lines. Building lighting has not yet been discussed, but they are willing to put lighting on a timer for the building. 9:00 pm would be late enough and could be discussed with the neighbors. Member Hogestad would like the discussion to include how to mitigate headlights in backyards. Member Rollins enquired about how communication to/from/about the daycare would take place. Mr. Campana stated the easiest way would be to go through the Community Coordinator. Member Hogestad questioned the on street adjacent parking. This could serve the future park. Planning Manager Everette confirmed. Member Hobbs reiterated that this project was brought before the board because it is a substantial change in use and character and this change is compelling and clear that this is unpopular. Does this make it also incompletable? And does this board have the prevue to differentiate between the two? Member Pardee has the same feelings. Individuals have made decisions to purchase property on the premise that they knew what they were getting into before they made the decision. The sense is that there is an overarching and overwhelming majority that does not feel like the daycare is not compatible with what they originally based their decision on. Member Whitley agrees. Member Hobbs is looking at what was the approved plan for the site, which did not include commercial in this area. He agrees this is a difficult issue and is looking at what was the approved plan. Chair Hansen asked how many zones in the City would a daycare be allowed in as either a type I or type II permitted use? Planning Manager Everette responded 19 zone districts allow daycares as permitted use, 5 zone Planning & Zoning Board March 21, 2019 Page 7 of 8 districts that do not, of the 19 3 districts allow child care through a basic development review process, 11 districts allow it as a type I and 5 districts allow projects subject to planning and zoning board. Member Hogestad is concerned that the change of use, although allowed, is a burden on the neighborhood. Chair Hansen is empathetic with the concerns of the neighbors for the use changing, however, he has not seen anything in the land use code that would lead the board to making a decision based on theses concerns. Any decision that the board makes has to pint to something in the land use code. Does anyone have anything they can point to in the land use code? Member Whitley mentioned the property rights of the property owner and wanted to know if it goes both ways. Member Rollins shares Chair Hansen’s concerns and listened carefully to the neighbors, and feels that the board must make decisions as the planning and Zoning Board; if had been significant traffic impacts, issues that could not be remedied, this follows our process, we look at the code and take into consideration, compatibility in terms of extra landscaping to mitigate lighting and noise. She does not see one of these components here that holds the board accountable based on these types of facts. We look at the facts, the code. The project meets the code. Member Whitley does not think this is a question of whether we like the daycare of not, but rather the change from non-commercial to commercial use. Member Pardee understands that the primary role of the Planning and Zoning Board is to protect the value of property. City Attorney Yatabe provided advice to the board. The board is taking the case in relation to the land use code, a decision in approval or not for approval has to be grounded in the land use code. He also stated the board should consider article 4 of the land use code under urban estate zoning. This is an allowed use pursuant to Planning and Zoning Board review. Questions regarding compatibility are baked into the allowed uses in your zone districts. He cautioned to take a look at the underlying issues that are broached as opposed to just the numbers of for and against a particular project that may not be voicing a reason that is contained in the land use code. Member Hogestad asked if it was possible that the character may not match and that is what we are determining? Attorney Yatabe replied yes to the extent you are looking at character and that you can point to particular land use code provisions that address the issue and whether it is compliance or not. Member Hobbs believes the core issue is whether it materially affects in a negative way the character of the neighborhood. Chair Hansen wanted to know how Member Hobbs feels it negatively impacts the neighborhood. Member Hobbs responded that a number of people purchased properties, looking and hearing from an approved plan that there was going to be a working farm in their backyards, not a daycare center with 500 vehicle trips a day. Chair Hansen asked of Member Hobbs why the land use code would have provisions for the ability to make a major amendment if an approved plan could never be changed. Further discussion took place as to upholding the land use code and making a decision based solely on the land use code. Member Rollins asked if an executive session was in order as she would hate to see a continuance. Attorney Yatabe responded that it was up to someone to make a motion. Attorney Yatabe spoke to a comment presented by Member Pardee in relation to property value; this is not part of the land use code. Discussion was had as to if the sections of the land use code would need to be stated upon a no vote. Member Pardee asked if the board was operating under Robert’s Rules of Orders. Chair Hansen responded, modified rules, loosely following. Discussion continued as to what was followed. Member Hobbs made a motion that the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board continue the Sunshine House at Bucking Horse Major Amendment MJA #190001 to the April Planning and Zoning Hearing. Member Whitley seconded. Chair Hansen restated his opinion that the Board has all the information needed to decide. Member Whitley disagreed, stating that there is not enough information at this time. Planning Manager Everette requested the Board articulate what information is needed that is different from this hearing so that staff can prepare. Member Whitley wants to know why there is material in the packet that is not germane to the land use code such as citizen comment supporting or denying. Chair Hansen reminded the Board members that they cannot discuss this hearing until the next work session. Member Hobbs would like to see more information on both surveys that were presented. In particular, the information about how many people were contacted on the survey so that there is a sense of how many non-respondents there were. Member Hobbs would also like to know how the survey was handed out to determine any bias. Member Hobbs would also like to see the floodplain report referenced in tonight’s hearing. Member Rollins made a comment to Member Whitley regarding citizen input; we