Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 04/18/2019Jeff 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 April 18, 2019 Chair Hansen called the meeting to order at 6:01 p.m. Roll Call: Hansen, Hobbs, Hogestad, Rollins, Schneider, Whitley Absent: Pardee Staff Present: Beals, Leeson, Yatabe, Tatman-Burruss, Ward, Smith, Wilkinson, Betley, Scheidenhelm, Beane 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 Development Review Manager Beals 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 April 18, 2019 Page 2 of 13 Public Input on Items Not on the Hearing Agenda: Kara Linn, 5100 Northern Lights Dr. - Spoke of her frustration with the Harmony Corridor plan and process. She implores the Board to not approve the amendment and let it go to City Council. Lisa Alworm, 6453 Rookery Rd. - She seconds what Kara spoke of and added that there should be more public input and the ecological impacts. She would like the amendment delayed for more public input. CDNS Director Leeson addressed the concerns of Kara and Lisa. Stating that several conversations have been had with Kara and other neighbors regarding the Harmony Corridor Plan. Public process is on-going, and that the amendment is moving forward. There is a planned work session in May with City Council to review this amendment. There have been multiple public outreach meetings and have incorporated comments into the amendment. It will be a public and transparent process moving forward. Once completed with City Council this amendment will go before the Planning and Zoning Board. Attorney Yatabe cautioned the Harmony Corridor Plan should be looked at as legislative item and that the Board needs to be careful to draw the line when looking at a development. Look at the item on a legislative level as to what could generally go in there, to his knowledge there has not been a project development plan submitted for H25 for anything concrete up to this point. UConsent Agenda: 1. Draft Minutes from March 21, 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 Hobbs made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board approve the Consent agenda for the March 21, 2019, Planning and Zoning Board hearing as originally advertised. Member Whitley seconded the motion. Vote: 6:0. UDiscussion Agenda: 2. Sunshine House at Bucking Horse Major Amendment MJA#190001 Chair Hansen addressed the following issue: Prior to the hearing Chair Hansen requested that a summary of information communicated by board member Pardee to all, but one board member be placed into the agenda materials for this item. Member Pardee was not present at the hearing due to a work commitment. At this point all board members are aware of the information communicated by Member Pardee. The information provided by Member Pardee is only relevant to this hearing as it may relate to the ability of one or more board members to hear the application in a fair and impartial manner. The summary placed in the agenda materials was not written by Member Pardee but is based on information she provided to the board. City Legal staff assisted in writing the summary and is not intended to be an exhaustive recounting of all the information member Pardee provided to the board. The summary is not intended to establish or comment upon whether the interaction occurred as described by Member Pardee and is presented not for its truth, but to document the information that was provided to the board by Member Pardee. A full text of this summary is contained in the agenda materials. Gino Campana, applicant, has submitted documents that dispute Member Pardee’s accounts, these documents are part of the record of this hearing. The purpose of disclosing this information is to check in with each board member to see if he or she can apply the land use code standards to the major amendment application in a fair and impartial manner in light of the information provided by Member Pardee and Gino Campana. Chair Hansen asked each member of the board if Planning & Zoning Board April 18, 2019 Page 3 of 13 they felt they could do so. Member Whitley, yes; Member Hogestad, yes; Member Schneider, for disclosure he was not at last months hearing, he did watch the tape, and feels he can be part of the hearing with the information provided; Member Hobbs, recused himself; Member Rollins, yes; Chair Hansen, yes. Chair Hansen outlined the procedure: 1. Staff input on additional information received since last hearing. 2. Applicant will have opportunity to provide additional information and testimony. 3. Public will have opportunity to provide additional information and testimony. 4. Applicant and staff rebuttal/response to public comment. 5. Questions from the board. Questions can be asked at any point. 6. Close and enter into board discussion and decision. Project Description: This is a request for Major Amendment for a child care center located on Tract C of Bucking Horse Second Filing. The one-story building would be 11,238 square feet in size. The 2.5-acre site is located on the east side of Miles House Avenue, south of Nancy Gray Avenue, north of Drake Road and southwest of the Great Western Railway. Access to the site would be taken from the existing driveway along Miles House Avenue. This request would amend the approved plan, which designates this parcel as a Working Farm and Agricultural Activities. The parcel is fully entitled and partially developed including the parking lot. A request for Modification of Standard is included and pertains to the relationship of the existing parking to the adjoining property. The parcel is zoned U-E, Urban Estate. Recommendation: Approval Secretary Gerber reported that numerous items were received and are as follows: • Letter of opposition received from Jennifer Beccard citing the extreme change in plans by the developer. • Letter of opposition from Kathleen Hunt-Speciner concerned about the timing of the March hearing when many people were out of town. • Letter of opposition from Jake Wilson with timeline information regarding homes being purchased, and how the center will negatively impact property values. • Multiple emails from Tim and Donna Clarkson, requesting additional information on the Land Use Code and opposing this item citing code, safety issues, and respect for current residents. • Letter of opposition from Sharon Ross, who does not feel this is an appropriate location for a daycare center. • Letter of opposition received from Mary Patterson stating the neighborhood was falsely advertised by the developer • Letter of opposition from Rachel Smith, who does not believe this commercial property fits appropriately into the neighborhood. • Letter for support from Susan Ernst who believes the daycare center will further foster a sense of community in their neighborhood • Letter of support from Doug Mayes stating the previous agricultural plans were not realistic, and the daycare center will support a family friendly environment. • Letter of support from Beverly Wood Thurber, citing research regarding the lack of licensed child care availability in Larimer County. • Letters of support from Adelle Leblanc, Katie Watkins, Amanda Broz, and Lisa Poppaw who state Fort Collins is lacking in high-quality child-care facilities. • Letter of opposition from Samuel and Marianna Jeng with concerns regarding the child care’s proximity to a sewage and treatment facility with attached research article. Planning & Zoning Board April 18, 2019 Page 4 of 13 • Three letters of opposition from Arnold Robinson, including two letters stating the information the developer presented at the March P&Z hearing was inaccurate, and one letter with concern for the safety of the children regarding the FEMA flood zone. • Letter of support from Rebecca Jones who has three children that have all attended the current Fort Collins Sunshine House. • Staff Report Supplement Memorandum. • Board Member Interaction Information. • Childhood Center Buffer document. • Two Comment Letters, one from December 14, 2018 and one from February 15, 2019. • Water Treatment Plant Buffer meeting notes. • Parking Demand Analysis. • Recorded Development Agreement. • Survey of 256 members of the community with comments. • Water Board Variance Packet. Staff and Applicant Presentations CDNS Director Leeson gave a brief verbal/visual overview of this project and provided answers to questions from the work session. Member Schneider requested capacity and hours of operation information. Director Leeson ran through capacity information on various centers in Fort Collins; 2 Young People’s Learning Center, Hearts and Hand, Primrose School, Little People’s Landing, Little Bear’s Child Center, Children’s Workshop, Bright Horizon’s. Director Leeson mentioned that a question was also asked regarding compliance or conformity to the existing land use code with each of these locations. Many of these were approved under much older versions of the land use code and without doing full analysis of the current code, there was not enough time to do that. However, the fact that these were approved and given building permits, we presume that they were in compliance with the land use code. In regard to the City park; hours of operation will be 5:00 am to 11:00 pm, there are no lighting requirements for a City park. If lighting is installed it will be out by 11:00 pm. This is a six-acre park with a potential start of construction date to be 2021 and possibly slipping to a construction start of 2022. This is dependent on the BFO. This will be a drop-in use only, not a programmed field. Gino Campana provided a brief verbal presentation stating that the remainder of his presentation will be completed by his attorney Caroline White. Attorney White provided a verbal/visual presentation of the Sunshine House at Bucking Horse Major Amendment. She spoke of the 49 criteria of the land use code highlighting those that are relevant to the project. She also spoke of the Water Board’s approval of the project. Attorney White requested the Board approve the project as presented. Public Input (3 minutes per person) Rachel Smith, 2608 Palomino Ct., stated she left the last hearing feeling she was heard, and that she heard the Board as well. She wanted to call the Board’s attention to some relevant items in the land use code. Article 1, Division 1.2, 1.2.2 Purpose (M)&(N). Article 5, 5.1.2. She knows that they are hard to measure, but at the heart of dismay. Troy McKaskill, 2608 Palomino Ct, spoke of the December 31st community meeting and the thought to purchase the property and that the interest of a farm still exists. They remain interested. He feels the information from Russel Mills is inaccurate and was given validation by the staff presentation. He would like the Board to review the zoning of the parcel. Laura Schaffer, 1652 Sprocket Dr., spoke of her support for the Sunshine House. She is a current customer and is in support of the project. It is compliant with City zoning and very much needed in the community. Planning & Zoning Board April 18, 2019 Page 5 of 13 Matthew Fowler, 2445 Palomino Dr., spoke of the Fort Collins noise ordinance. He believes there will be twice the children at the proposed location, therefore increasing the noise level. He feels that those living there made the decision to live there based on what they were told when purchasing. Maria Martin, 2837 39P th P Ave., Greeley, is currently an employee of Sunshine House in Fort Collins. She read two letters regarding the shortage of childcare in Fort Collins. Charlie Odell, Ft. Collins resident, spoke of her daughter who will be moving back to Fort Collins with her very young children. They found Sunshine House and are very impressed. She supports the project. Genesis Steffens, Loveland resident, Regional Director for the Sunshine House, spoke of being good positive neighbors and how they contribute to the communities in which they exist. She supports this project Jake Wilson, 2421 Palomino Dr., he is against the project due to the character of the neighborhood. This is a major change as it is built out, not a new development. Carly Finch, 1813 Belmar Dr., A5, Center Director of the Sunshine House. She addressed compatibility, pick up and drop off times, safety, being a good neighbor, traffic and noise. Mary Space, 2603 Palomino Ct., she is concerned with safety and traffic. Samantha Coontz, 2732 Wakonda Dr., she knows that trust has been broken. She spoke of the trust that parents put in them the previous day when the school districts in the entire State of Colorado were closed. Jackie Montoya, 2636 Walkaloosa Way, she is opposed to the daycare center. She spoke of conflicting information stating specific documents within the supplemental items. Jenna Maeda, 3320 Yule Trail Dr., spoke of how difficult it was to find daycare in Fort Collins. The Sunshine House called in time. She is in support of the project. Mike Montoya, 2636 Walkaloosa Way, he is opposed to the daycare center. He feels that there is a bait and switch situation. He would like to ensure that this center is used only for Sunshine House during set hours of operation. He asked for numerous considerations for a response. Tracy Yoder, 2225 Podd Berg, Johnstown, she is a current educator at the Sunshine House. She supports the project. Oren Ryssman, SE Ft. Collins, he supports the project. Childcare is needed in our community Tracy Ryssman, 2814 Paddington Rd., she supports the project. Childcare is needed in our community Steven Sorenson, 1404 W. Mountain Ave., HOA Board member, attending as private citizen. He spoke of health of community. From a business perspective, he has lost employees as they could not find affordable childcare. He feels that the development does have the character of the neighborhood. Mary Ward, 126 N. Sherwood, St., she spoke of the need for quality childcare. She provided statistics of childcare for the area. Jediah Foster, 2624 Walkaloos Way, thanked the Board for their service. Discussed traffic requirements from previous approval and how it is current state. He believes that the developer does not comply with standard conditions nor adhere to the land use code as written. Steve Schonfeld, 2630 Walkaloosa Way, he is opposed to the project. According to what he saw before purchasing was a farm. Please take the neighborhood input seriously. Dave Nanninga, 2414 Palomino Dr., listed land use code sections. He feels Mr. Campana has been allowed to create his own standards. He feels that if this project is built, it will be setting a precedent. He is opposed to the Planning & Zoning Board April 18, 2019 Page 6 of 13 project. Candice Capitelli, 2275 Cutting Horse, is in support of the project. Donna Clarkson, 2708 Walkaloosa Way, spoke of the parking lot and lighting. She is concerned that the lighting will shine directly into the back of her house. She would like the modification modified. Elizabeth Giglio, 3501 Stover St, #55, she supports the project. She feels her son has done better in school because of daycare. Samuel and Marianna Jeng, 2642 Walkaloosa Way, they are against this project. There is a water treatment facility in close proximity to the daycare center. He feels this may cause potential health issues and provided statistical backup. Andy Reese, 2151 Cocklebur Ln., HOA board member, is in support of the project and opposed to the working farm. There is a high cost to managing a farm. Jennifer Beccard, 2602 Palomino Ct., thanked the Board for their service. Spoke of the memo posted by Rebecca Everette as well as other information found in the packet. Andrea Schaffer, 2203 Sandbur Dr., read a letter by Lisa Pappaw, Executive Director of Crossroads Safehouse. She states the need for affordable, quality childcare. Andrea is in support of the project. Courtney Johnson, 1331 Redwood St., spoke of what daycare provided for her when she needed it. Diane Ellen Phillips, 2439 Palomino Dr., community members are not opposed to childcare, but they are opposed to the Sunshine House in Bucking Horse on the estate side. Lindsay Roselle, 2614 Palomino Ct., Community Coordinator for the HOA. This was an informal non-scientific survey. This survey is not a good representation of the complete neighborhood. There was a working sub- committee created. Lower cost offers were forwarded to Gino. Collette Thepenies, 2383 Palomino Dr., is opposed to the project. They are not anti-kids or anti-daycare; they just do not want it in their neighborhood. No notation of a commercial entity was ever listed in documentation. Had she known; they may not have moved there. Zero interest in the project. Scott Frella, 2609 Palomino Dr., spoke of working garden and the Sunshine House being looked at for at least the last seven years. He is opposed to the project. Staff Response Director Leeson responded to Rachel Smith and Jake Wilson regarding dramatic change of character. The reason we are here this evening is because it is a change of character, this is what a major amendment is in place to do, otherwise it would be a minor amendment and would not go through this extensive process. Is it out of character with the neighborhood and is it not compatible? The type is a permitted use and compatible with the zone district, otherwise it would not be listed as a permitted use. Noise, light and traffic can be mitigated through conditions of approval or other efforts in design. Matthew Fowler, noise issues. The City does recognize and have ordinance throughout the City, 55 decibels from 7:00 am to 8:00 pm but we do not approve or disapprove a project on the potential to violate the noise ordinance. If it gets too loud, code offices can come out to enforce the noise ordinance. Dave listed the permitted uses and setting a precedence. It will not set a precedence as it is a permitted use. As for the several variances received, there is only two modifications being requested as part of this project; the setback and the landscape. Donna Clarkson mentioned the light from the parking lot. The modification does not affect this, as she is speaking of the cars that come out of the parking lot and shine across the street. The modification is more to the North. Jennifer Piccard mentioned Mr. Sheppard was removed because of improper behavior. This is not the case, he voluntarily removed himself from this project so that there was not a perception of bias. Planning & Zoning Board April 18, 2019 Page 7 of 13 Martina Wilkinson responded to Mary Space regarding the intersection of Miles and Drake being signalized. This is a potential in the future. We look at the benefits and the impacts. These has been no crash history, not a signal crash in the last five (5) years. Signals generate crashes, impact. If crashes start to happen, it is possible the benefit of adding a signal will then outweigh. Jediah questioned the auxiliary turn lanes and appropriate left turn lanes. A previous filling did require auxiliary turn lanes and were completed. Appropriate left turn lanes are currently in place on all arterials. No requirement in place for a left turn lane on Miles House and to their access. Follow up and clarification was given to the traffic study regarding the 25% traffic reduction percentage. Attorney Yatabe clarified a previous point raised by Mrs. Smith regarding land use code section 1.2.2 Purpose. This is not considered to be a binding performance standard, you could consider this as guidance in terms of interpretation of particular standards within the land use code in an of itself, it does not set a binding standard. Caroline White responded to citizen concerns. She requested that all signs displayed be turned in as exhibits. She went over noise ordinance, compliance and that the client will comply or the City will use tools of compliance if necessary. To the extent that the member of the public spoke, she believes that the levels were taken from another Sunshine House location and that it was evidenced that this location was likely to violate the ordinance. She mentioned that there is a science around taking sound measurements and that code itself provides requirements. Unless there were evidence entered into the record about the calibration, distance, normalization of peak hours, ambient noise level, etc. She could not infer that this location would have similar levels. To the individual that stated the daycare was the plan all along, she encouraged that individual to read additional supplemental information and that the 7 years comment was the number of years Mr. Campana served on the Planning Commission, and not how many years he was working on the Sunshine House proposal. She addressed the original ODP and that childcare was acceptable and allowed. With the wastewater treatment plant, the measurement is from the source of the odor to the structure of Sunshine House. This distance is reduced to 500’ with mitigation in the code. In relation to the study from the Journal of Environmental and Public Health, it is unknown what the standards are in the stated location in Greece. The client has met the alternative compliance regardless of which measure is used. The last point is regarding headlights existing the parking lot to be visible in her home. Mr. Campana had offered to implement some mitigation to address this in the form of evergreen trees on the Sunshine House property or even on the individual’s property. He is still willing to do this and if the condition is added he would agree, he would agree even if it is not added as a condition. She asked for favorable approval of amendment. Board Questions / Deliberation Member Schneider questioned Mrs. Wilkinson regarding a potential roundabout instead of a signal as a potential opportunity the City is looking at. Mrs. Wilkinson responded that there is a standard for evaluating intersections for the potential of a roundabout. Roundabouts are typically considered if all the legs have a similar volume, which is not necessarily the case with this project. This is the same when considering a signal vs. pedestrian crossing. Member Rollins questioned Mrs. Wilkinson regarding a supplemental parking study and whether or not she had the opportunity to review it. Mrs. Wilkinson did, and she does not expect any type of queuing issue out onto Miles House. Member Whitley questioned parking requirements and on-street parking for the daycare center. Director Leeson overviewed the number of spaces available in the parking lot of the center and that there is not a conflict as in many cases neighborhood parks do not require parking. Mrs. Wilkinson explained that the on-street parking should not cause any issues with pick up and drop off at the Center. It is legal and appropriate for people to park on the street if they do so. Member Hogestad wanted to know who our representative was for the parking study. He held his question for later. Member Schneider wanted clarification and questioned distance from the facility, the wastewater treatment plant, variance and 1000 feet. Director Leeson informed the Board that there was not a representative from Utilities present, but that he believed that if there were a measurement discrepancy it’s a measurement from either the building to building or property line to property line. The larger concern from a utility’s standpoint was the distance from a future expansion (of the wastewater treatment plant). Planning & Zoning Board April 18, 2019 Page 8 of 13 Member Schneider asked about hours of operation. Why is there a deviation? Mrs. White explained that the earliest the site will be opened is 6:00 am and the latest, 7:00 pm. The exact hours for this location have not yet been established. Mr. Mann addressed the question and commented that exact hours have not yet been set. They set their hours based on community need, typically not more than 12 hours, but have not yet made the determination. It will be no earlier than 6:00 am and no later than 7:00 pm. At this time, they cannot clarify what the specific hours will be. Mrs. White offered the idea of a condition of approval that said a maximum of 12 hours being open, those hours to be between the hours of 6:00 am and 7:00pm. Member Schneider is seeking a solid clarification. Member Rollins likes the modification on timing and would also like it to be every day and not fluctuating. Member Whitley questioned the neighborhood nature walks. He would like to know if they allow these walks and in what neighborhoods. Mr. Mann stated it was community dependent and regulated by the State childcare licensing authorities. No determinations have been made. Member Whitley asked about the practices of other facilities. Mr. Mann brought up Carley French, Director of the Centerra location. They go on nature walks because they have an environmental learning center within their community. Member Whitley questioned if they were going to be walking through inhabited neighborhoods within Bucking Horse. The plan is to partner with the community. If they desire for the Center to stay within the center, then they will. Member Schneider asked about the 20-year lease, wanting to know if it was an accurate statement. Mr. Mann responded that it is committed to the community for the long-term. Member Hogestad asked about expansion. Mr. Mann responded that the maximum number is 176 and that in all likelihood they will not hit this number. This is based on quality decisions, not State licensing requirements. Member Hogestad asked for clarification and had questions on the parking demand analysis. Matt Delich responded to queuing questions and timing. Member Rollins clarified that within the parking lot there will really be no queuing, Mr. Delich agreed. Mr. Mann spoke to student drop-off times based on a study he conducted. The average time is 5 - 10 minutes with 35 parking spots available in the parking lot. Member Hogestad asked about prime time for pick-up and drop-off. Mr. Mann feels they are spread out further, not necessarily 8:00 am and 5:00 pm. They do meet the requirement for available parking spaces. Member Schneider asked about the potential modification for 5’ and lighting spillage. Director Leeson explained that the fixtures proposed are fully shielded and downcast, so that there is no spillage. There are large standard street lights which will drown out any light coming from the property to the adjacent homes. Member Hogestad asked if it was a single or multi-level light system. Mr. Leeson deferred to the applicant team. Mrs. White requested clarification, Member Hogestad clarified that there might be some lights that are on and some that come on later in the evening, as needed. Mrs. White responded that the lighting meets the standard and that the assumption is that the lights are all on at the same time. Member Hogestad is more concerned with the point source than the property line light levels. Member Schneider shared his understanding that the light fixtures are full cutoff, that you will not necessarily see a point source. Director Leeson agreed. Member Rollins asked if they will only be used as a daycare, you will not be renting it out, about the connection at Sharp Point and the park. Mr. Mann stated it will only be used for daycare. Mrs. Wilkinson responded to the Miles House and Drake traffic study which included the estimates. It is unknown what will happen until the connection opens. Director Leeson responded that the City has provided Bellissimo a letter of intent to purchase the property. This park will be going before the BFO the next cycle. Member Hogestad questioned operation on weekends. Mr. Mann responded, Monday through Friday with the potential of gatherings occasionally on the weekends. Member Whitley wanted to know when cleaning staff was on-site. Mr. Mann stated that they typically clean their own facilities, they do not have late night cleaning crews. Member Schneider asked that if there are two conditions of approval, one being 12 hours of operation between the 6:00 am and 7:00 pm consistent for five days a week, would this be amenable to the applicant. The second Planning & Zoning Board April 18, 2019 Page 9 of 13 condition for extra tree mitigation along Miles House to mitigate any headlight interference on adjacent property. Mrs. White stated that the applicant is prepared to agree to both (in concept). Chair Hansen wanted to know if there was any additional space directly opposite the driveway. The applicant is prepared to install the required mitigation in the place that it would make the most effective mitigation, provided that whomever owns the property actually wants it to be planted there. Mr. Campana feels that the best place is along one of the residents back property. They will work with the homeowners. Member Hogestad wanted to know if they would have any objection to curtailing weekend operations especially as they relate to childcare, as a condition of approval. Mrs. White was unclear of what Member Hogestad was asking; would the applicant agree to a condition of approval that prohibited the building from ever being used on weekends for any purpose, no. Member Hogestad clarified he did not say ever, but for childcare use. Mrs. White thinks that the operational flexibility of the Sunshine House, they are going to want to know if they need to go there on the weekends sometimes, they can. It all depends on how the board writes the condition. Member Hogestad wanted to make sure that the monument sign would not be luminated, as this may possibly be part of the conditions of approval. Mrs. White commented that the applicants intend to not luminate the monument sign. This is part of the intention and could be added as part of the condition. Chair Hansen discussed the crafting of conditions along with two modifications which require a separate motion and vote. Member Schneider did not see an issue with either one that they are asking for as it does not appear to be of detriment to public good. Chair Hansen feels there is some restraint on the site and a unique use, and they are trying to make the use function better. Member Hogestad supports a motion that would approve the modification to the parking lot setback 3.2.2, but that he will not support the modification for the lack of the landscape 3.2.1, based on the intense increase in use of the parking lot. Chair Hansen feels that if you move the setback then there would be no opportunity for landscaping in the space between. Would this be on the applicant or part of the park design? Member Schneider asked that the slide be brought back up. Member Rollins asked Member Hogestad if it was only on the Northern piece. Member Hogestad responded yes. Member Schneider did not understand why Member Hogestad would not support either one. Member Hogestad explained. Member Rollins stated she was in support of both modifications; she does not feel it is detrimental. Member Whitley disagreed as the headlights will be pointing toward residences. Light was one of the concerns of the neighbors. Member Schneider stated the problem was with lights coming out of the parking lot, not going into the park. Chair Hansen sees the wisdom in the placement of the parking lot. Member Hogestad feels he will not support either modification due to landscaping. Member Schneider made a motion the City of Fort Collins planning and Zoning Board approve the modification of standard request to section 3.2.1(E4) for the Sunshine House. This approval is based on the materials presented tonight, at the work session, at this hearing and the following conversations. The modification is not determined to be a detriment to the public good, and the plan performs equally as well as the plan complies with the standard. Member Rollins seconded. Vote: 3:2 Member Schneider made a motion that the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board approve the parking lot perimeter landscape modification request to section 3.2.2(J) based on the findings of facts of the agenda material, the items presented at the work session, the hearing and the Board discussion tonight, and that this modification is not detrimental to the public good and the plan performs equal as well or better than the plan that would be complied with in the standard. Member Rollins seconded. Vote: 3:2 Member Schneider made a motion that the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board approve the Major Amendment for the Sunshine House at Bucking Horse MJA19001 based on the findings of facts of the materials presented tonight, the work session and deliberation with two (2) conditions of approval: 1. Add extra mitigation along Miles House to prevent headlights from entering onto lots 10 and 11. 2. Standard hours of operation not to exceed more than 12 hours in one given day, consistent from day-to-day through the normal five (5) day work week, and not to go earlier than 6:00 am and to exceed 7:00 pm. Planning & Zoning Board April 18, 2019 Page 10 of 13 I find that all the findings and facts are relevant to the materials, work session, this hearing, discussion along with the findings of the staff report for the information provided. Member Rollins seconded. Member Whitley has sympathy for the neighbors but cannot see anything in the City code to disallow this. Member Hogestad thinks the architecture is in line with the land use code and is better than trying to mimic the residential characteristics of the houses. Member Schneider thanked everyone for their time and involvement and that the Board must follow the land use code and that he would be supporting the project. Member Rollins thanked the public, she will be supporting the project. Chair Hansen will be supporting the project based on the land use code. Vote 5:0 Chair Hansen asked that all signage present be photographed for the record. 3. Appeal of 744 Eastdale Drive Minor Subdivision – BDR180017 Project Description: Appeal of the administrative decision approving the subdivision of one lot into two lots in the NCL zone district located at 744 Eastdale Drive. Recommendation: Approval Secretary Gerber reported that a letter was received from Jim Legedda, opposing the zoning variance with concerns regarding the neighborhood and lot size. Staff and Applicant Presentations CDNS Director Leeson and Zoning Supervisor Beals gave a brief verbal/visual overview of this project. Justin Lee was present along with Dennis Sovic and they provided a brief verbal/visual overview of his project request. Terry Dokken, appellant, joined via phone, he provided a verbal presentation. Public Input (3 minutes per person) Eileen Lyons, 801 W. Laurel., spoke of her concern for what could potentially be built behind her house in the future. She asked the Board for guidelines. Dennis Sovick, 750 Havel Ave., agent for owner, he feels that this is a really good project. He spoke of the size of the lot and perspective of shoregate. Laurie Stirman, 748 Eastdale Dr., great neighbors, they have improved the property, the split makes sense. Asked the Board to support the application. Doug Turley, 721 Eastdale Dr., the owners are highly considerate. He supports the project. Linday Cox, 760 Eastdale Dr., she supports the project. Staff/Applicant Response Mr. Lee provided a closing, urging the Board to approve the project. Mr. Dokken provided a response to the applicant as to how they framed their appeal. Director Leeson responded Board Questions / Deliberation Member Rollins asked City staff to respond to citizen input. Planner Beals spoke to minimum lot size in the NCL zone district. Staff would be fine with meeting with Eileen after the meeting to discuss her issue that is unrelated to Planning & Zoning Board April 18, 2019 Page 11 of 13 this appeal. Member Hobbs received clarification on needing a modification for a carriage house and it being the same process. Member Hogestad is concerned with house facing, this is regarding section 1.2.2. Planner Beals did state that they looked at it within the context of the whole neighborhood, and that it does fit. Member Hobbs wanted to know if there were other permitted uses, beside residential, within the NCL zone district. Member Hobbs questioned if it was possible to add a condition of approval to limit the size or style of structure that goes on the parcel? Attorney Yatabe responded that it does allow for the imposition for conditions of approval. Member Rollins agrees that the shortage of 35’ is inconsequential. Member Hobbs feels the ruling by staff is correct. He feels that it is important the Board take variances seriously and that it does not become a gray zone. Member Hobbs has some concern with what will be built on the lot and would need to take a deep look if it were a two-story building. Member Whitley agreed. Member Schneider cannot support a condition as it goes against property owner rights. Member Whitley feels that single-story would keep with the feel of the neighborhood. Member Hogestad is concerned with neighborhood character. 35’ will not make a difference on divide. He feels the questions is the lot size. Chair Hansen is looking at the character of the neighborhood and a potential modification. Member Hogestad feels addressing Laurel Street makes the most sense, front entry. There is no access to Eastdale and that troubles him. Attorney Yatabe spoke to section 1.2.2 regarding purpose. This section does not establish a binding standard. He cautioned using this section as a general ability to judge character or compatibility. Member Rollins questioned if a homeowner could tear down their house and build a two-story house and be completely compliant. Planner Beals responded that they could do just that, and that they could also “pop the top”. Chair Hansen feels that this is expected with densification, a modification to limit it would not be appropriate. Member Schneider made a motion that the City of Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board approve the modification of standard to the Land Use Code Section 4.7(D1) the required lot area to allow each proposed lot to be less than 6000 sg. ft. In support of this approval the following findings, the modification will not be of detriment to the public good, the plan that was submitted will not diverge from the standards of the land use code except in a nominal and inconsequential way in consideration form the perspective of the entire development plan and continue to advance the purpose of the land use code as contained in section 1.2.2. The findings and conclusions contained in the staff report adopted by this board, the discussion is based on the agenda materials, work session, and information presented at this hearing tonight. Member Hobbs seconded. Chair Hansen agrees that the standard of nominal and inconsequential is not defined and sometimes questionable to figure out what that is. 0.6% is nominal and inconsequential. Vote: 6:0. Member Hobbs made a motion that the City of Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board approve BDR180017, 744 Eastdale Dr. Minor Subdivision and uphold the previous City staff decision. In support of this approval the Board adopts the fact, finds and conclusions contained in the staff report, and this decision is based upon the agenda materials, the work session and the information presented in this hearing. Member Whitley seconded. Vote 6:0 4. Northfield Project Development Plan - 180011 Project Description: This is a request to develop a residential project on 55.3 acres of vacant farm land located west of Lemay Avenue and north of the Alta Vista Neighborhood. As proposed, there would be 442 dwelling units, yielding a density of 8.00 dwelling units per gross acre. Dwellings are divided among four housing types and distributed across 57 residential buildings. The project includes a small commercial building with two apartments above, along with a clubhouse and outdoor amenities. Suniga Road bisects the parcel between Lemay Avenue on the east and the Lake Canal on the west. Two public local streets would be extended over the Lake Canal and tie into The Retreat, a student-oriented housing project on the west side of the canal. A total of 819 parking spaces are provided, divided between garages (660) and surface (159) spaces. The parcel is zoned L-M-N, Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood. Planning & Zoning Board April 18, 2019 Page 12 of 13 The P.D.P. includes two Modifications of Standard. Three conditions of approval are recommended that address landscaping along the south side of Suniga Road, raised walkways across alleys and the timing of approving the alternative mitigation strategy to ensure Adequate Public Facilities to serve the development. Recommendation: Approval Disclosure: Member Rollins disclosed that she is doing some transportation work for the applicant in Timnath, CO. She has no personal or financial interest in this project before the Board this evening and would like to continue but asks the Board if there is any hesitation. No board members felt she needed to recuse herself. Secretary Gerber reported that there were no citizen communications received. Staff and Applicant Presentations Planner Shepard gave a brief verbal visual overview of the project. Jason Sherrill of Landmark Homes provided a brief verbal/visual presentation of the project. Public Input (3 minutes per person) Mark Schafer, 605 Brewer Dr., is concerned with traffic issues on Lemay. He believes the City does not take into consideration when approving developments. Don Schlagel, 1131 Lemay, is happy that staff has handled this very well and glad to see it moving forward. Staff Response Planner Shepard called attention to packet pages 192-194 which identify the findings of fact and conclusion. Board Questions / Deliberation Planner Shepard deferred to Martina Wilkinson to the comment regarding Suniga Road. The solution to the traffic cannot legally be given to one applicant alone, though the City can have the applicant provide plans to mitigate their own traffic impact and to provide their proportional share contribution toward the major improvement. In this case the applicant must build roughly one-half mile of four (4)-lane arterial for Suniga. They are also being asked to provide a financial contribution toward the overpass project. Conversation was had about a stop sign at old Lemay, and that there would be one in place. Member Hobbs wanted more information on the safety of the pedestrian and bike traffic and trail connectivity between the units on the South side of Suniga. Mrs. Wilkinson commented that the crossing will not be put into place until it is needed. Until then, ped. and bike traffic will be routed to the Redwood intersection. Member Hogestad questioned if the historic park was a passive park. Mr. Sherrill showed that it is a bike ped. connection. Alta Vista was involved with signage and buffer. Member Whitley feels it is an impressive piece of work with all the variations. Member Hogestad agreed Member Whitley and appreciates the cohesiveness. Member Schneider has no issues or concerns with the two (2) modifications. Member Hobbs would like to see the at grade crossing sooner rather than later. Member Rollins appreciates the design.