Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 10/15/2020 Jeff Hansen, Chair Hybrid Hearing Michelle Haefele, Vice Chair City Council Chambers Per Hogestad 300 Laporte Avenue David Katz Fort Collins, Colorado Jeff Schneider Ted Shepard 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 15, 2020 Chair Hansen called the meeting to order at 6:05 p.m. Roll Call: Haefele, Hansen, Hogestad, Katz, Schneider, Shepard, Whitley Absent: None Staff Present: Sizemore, Yatabe, Stephens, Claypool, Overton, Holland, Beals, Mchaffey, Currell, Shaw, Gloss, Smith, Stroud, Betley, Virata, Lindsey, Kimberlin, Smith, Havelda, Rosen, Mapes, Ex, Benton, Van Zee 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 Interim PTD Director Sizemore reviewed the items on the Consent and Discussion Agendas, noting the minutes of the September 17, 2020 meeting have been pulled from the Consent Agenda and stating all other items will be heard as originally advertised. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes DocuSign Envelope ID: 82C76515-20AD-40D7-B906-3AE8413A5BD1 Planning & Zoning Board October 15, 2020 Page 2 of 13 Public Input on Items Not on the Hearing Agenda: None noted. Consent Agenda: 1. Draft Minutes from September 17, 2020, P&Z Hearing (pulled from the agenda) 2. Draft Minutes from September 3, 2020, Special P&Z Hearing 3. CSU Raw Water Site Plan Advisory Review 4. Affordable Housing Fee Waiver Process Update 5. Maple Hill Park Minor Amendment Public Input on Consent Agenda: Lisa Nothern discussed existing infrastructure issues along Trilby Road and stated there is too much affordable housing in the area. Jerry Gavaldon commented on the intensity of affordable housing in the Trilby and Lemay area. Chair Hansen requested staff input regarding the comments about Trilby Road infrastructure. Sizemore replied the City is working toward a project to widen Trilby Road with the anticipation of a public outreach process taking place in 2021 and construction in 2022. Chair Hansen did a final review of the items remaining on consent and reiterated that those items will not have a separate presentation unless pulled from the consent agenda. Member Whitley made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board approve the Consent agenda for the October 15, 2020 Planning and Zoning Board hearing as originally advertised. Member Shepard seconded the motion. Vote: 7:0. Discussion Agenda: 6. Sun Communities Modifications of Standard Project Description: This is a request for two stand-alone modifications to the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code for a proposed manufactured home project (The Foothills) located east of S College Ave and south of E Trilby Rd at 6750 S College Avenue. Recommendation: Approval Secretary Manno reported on emails received from Jake Schuch, Lisa Nothern, and Greg and Barb McCune, and a letter from Jaden Ray. Staff and Applicant Presentations Planner Overton provided a brief overview of the project and site noting it is currently predominantly vacant with the exception of one single-family home and associated outbuildings. The property is zoned LMN, low-density, mixed- use neighborhood. Overton discussed the stand-alone requests for modifications to the City's requirements for street-like private drives and requirements for a mix of housing types. She noted manufactured home parks are a permitted use in the LMN zone subject to approval by the Planning and Zoning Board. Overton noted a project development plan (PDP) must be filed within one year of approval of stand-alone modifications and she reviewed the requirements for approving a modification: that it be found to not be detrimental to the public good and that it meets one or more of four specific criteria in the Land Use Code. DocuSign Envelope ID: 82C76515-20AD-40D7-B906-3AE8413A5BD1 Planning & Zoning Board October 15, 2020 Page 3 of 13 Bill Anderson, Atwell, planners and engineers for the project, introduced John McLaren, Sun Communities President, and other members of the project team. McLaren discussed the Sun Communities company, its core success attributes, and the types of manufactured homes being built today. Anderson discussed the subject property and conceptual plan for 204 home sites , one-acre amenity center, and 14 acres of open space. He discussed the City's desire to increase affordable housing and stated this community will help provide housing to support local workforce needs, noting 15%, or approximately 30 homes, will be classified as affordable and will be deed restricted for 20 years. He discussed the home prices and land rental prices. Regarding the modification request related to street-like private drives, Anderson stated the proposal is to provide travel lanes, tree-lined borders, and detached sidewalks, but not-on-street parking. He showed an illustration of the proposed roadway cross-section stating the narrower width slows traffic, provides an attractive and decluttered pedestrian-friendly streetscape, and reduces stormwater runoff. He st ated each home site provides three parking spaces which will allow for visitor parking and there are an additional 98 guest spots throughout the community. Anderson also noted the wider road cross -section is not feasible in many areas of the site given its odd shape and narrowness. He stated that requirement would also significantly reduce unit count and density. Regarding the modification request related to housing types, Anderson stated this community only has one type, manufactured housing; however, varying architectural styles, colors, and materials will be used to provide a diverse streetscape. He detailed the various aspects that will be differentiated on units within the community. He stated Sun Communities is only able to increase the cost efficiency of the development, and therefore the affordability of units, by decreasing the number of housing types. Anderson played a video showing a 3D rendering of the proposed community. Staff Analysis Overton discussed the policy documents considered for these stand-alone modification proposals. Regarding the modification request related to street-like private drives, the lack of on-street parking is the only difference being proposed in this case. If the modification were not approved, the applicants contend it would result in a loss of 24 units, which staff estimates would place the net density of the project at about 4 ½ units per acre, which is below the minimum for the LMN zone. Overton noted one condition is being recommended with this modification request to ensure the guest parking is provided at the time of submittal of a project development plan and one condition is being recommended to ensure the 15% affordable units are provided in the project development plan. Overton stated staff finds this modification request would not be detrimental to the public good and that the modification request meets the necessary criteria for a modification. Regarding the modification request to have only one housing type, while the applicants will only be pr oviding one housing type, they have agreed to include a minimum of five floorplans and three building elevations in the future PDP with additional variations of garages, porches, and carports, as well as 15 small lot homes. Staff is recommending a condition for this modification to ensure a minimum of five floorplans, three elevations, and 15 small lot homes are provided when the PDP is submitted, if the modification is approved. Overton stated staff finds the strict application of this standard infeasible as the applicant is solely a manufactured housing developer. Staff also finds this modification would not be detrimental to the public good and meets the necessary criteria for a modification. Member Shepard noted affordable housing is very specifically defined in the Land Use Code and clarified the other 85% of the units in this project can be defined a number of ways, including attainable, but not as affordable. Member Katz asked about the 15% deed restricted homes are based only on the acquisition cost of the unit or on the gross of the financing of the unit and the lot rent. Anderson replied it would be combined. DocuSign Envelope ID: 82C76515-20AD-40D7-B906-3AE8413A5BD1 Planning & Zoning Board October 15, 2020 Page 4 of 13 Vice Chair Haefele asked if the City requires a public park on a development of this size. Overton replied this zone requires 90% of the units to be within a certain distance of a central feature, park, or gathering space. Vice Chair Haefele commented on the recently approved manufactured home zo ning district and asked how this would be affected by that. Overton replied the manufactured home zone district does not have any specific requirements for central features, gathering spaces, or housing types, primarily because the zone district is intended to preserve existing manufactured home communities rather than be applied to new development of manufactured housing. Member Schneider asked if there is a specific number or percentage of units that are for sale or for rent for both the deed restricted units and attainable units. Anderson replied that is still being evaluated; however, generally speaking, most of the homes would likely be sold instead of rented. He commented on the lower barrier to entry for purchase for the workforce, or attainable, units. Chair Hansen asked about the small lot units being described as a housing type and whether the modification should actually be for two housing types rather than four. Overton replied staff's interpretation of the housing types in LMN is that manufactured housing is one type of housing, so even though small lots and larger lots are being provided within the community, the Land Use Code still considers it one type of housing. Member Shepard requested more detail regarding the location of the street trees. Anderson replied the street trees will be provided in the five-foot parkway strip between the curb and the sidewalk. Member Shepard asked if the parkway strips will be irrigated. Anderson replied the common areas will be irrigated but they are not to the level of detail on the irrigation of parkway strips. Member Shepard asked if all units will be 90-degree angles to the street, not at angles more traditional of a certain era of manufactured housing communities. Anderson replied in the affirmative. Public Input (3 minutes per person) Dennis Gunther discussed the density issues in the one-square mile area around this site and opposed the development being located on this site. Jaden Ray expressed concern about traffic, infrastructure, and long-term stormwater runoff for the communities in the area. He stated the updated plans appear better, but area residents would like a guarantee that swale and the wetlands are not going to be interrupted. Additionally, he stated he would rather see a multi-family development with more open space than a manufactured housing development. Ann McSay noted the Lakeview on the Rise is a high-density, income-qualified neighborhood and she expressed concern about traffic impacts in the area. She asked how the density of this proposed neighborhood compares to other single-family neighborhoods in the city. She asked if Kevin Drive is going to feed onto Trilby Road and questioned the definition of 'elevations.' She also asked if there will be another streetl ight on Trilby between Lemay and College. Marilyn Heller noted Fort Collins is behind on its affordable housing goals and stated the community is fortunate to have this quality developer taking on this project. Linda Sylvie discussed the Fort Collins Land Bank Property Disposition Study and stated zoning changes and modifications should only be considered when the master plan is up for review and open for community discussion. She stated the City should deny any projects that cannot meet existing reg ulations. Vonna Ault expressed concern about the density of this project and resulting traffic issues. She asked if the property just to the south of the subject property is land grant property that will also be used for affordable housing. She noted there is no bus service to this part of town and questioned the true affordability of this development given the rent. Jerry Gavaldon suggested a requirement for two housing types and questioned ADA accessibility to the homes. He questioned the HOA and land lease fees stating those cut into affordability. He expressed concern about traffic in DocuSign Envelope ID: 82C76515-20AD-40D7-B906-3AE8413A5BD1 Planning & Zoning Board October 15, 2020 Page 5 of 13 the area and questioned how bikes and pedestrians will function on the narrower street cross-section. Melissa Cobb agreed with traffic congestion concerns and requested assurance stormwater will be properly addressed. She expressed concern about the lack of transit in the area and questioned the true affordability of this development. Lisa Nothern stated there are 660 affordable housing units in this one square mile and expressed concern regarding traffic in the area. Mary Lou Flowers opposed granting these modifications stating this housing type will not be compatible for the area. Staff Response Planner Overton thanked the speakers for their participation. Regarding stormwater concerns, she noted the wetland on the site will need to be assessed along with any other wetlands or natural resources on the site through an ecological characterization study which must be completed at least ten days prior to the submittal of a formal project development plan. She noted the City also has specific stormwater requirements which must be met. Overton noted the street cross-section includes detached sidewalks for pedestrians. Bicycles and cars will share the roadway travel lanes. In terms of elevations, she clarified that is simply a term for the way the building looks and does not actually mean the buildings are elevated thereby limiting accessibility. She stated the small lots would be around 4,000 square feet, lots that are perpendicular to the street would be about 6,000 square feet, and parallel lots would be around 7,700 square feet. Marc Virata, Engineering Department, noted a transportation impact study would be required as part of the project development plan submittal and that will address intersection capacity for vehicles and a level of service analysis for bicycles, pedestrians, and transit facilities. He also noted there is an ongoing design project for College and Trilby improvements which will include parts of Trilby Road as well. Beth Rosen, Social Sustainability, stated there is a land bank parcel adjacent to the subject parce l and the intent at the time of its purchase was to hold it for future development dedicated to affordable housing contingent upon certain amenities happening such as public transit, shopping, schools, and parks. She noted there is a disposition policy that would allow for a parcel to be sold out of the land bank program at market rate should amenities not occur or the parcel is deemed not appropriate for development. Regarding the term 'affordable housing,' Rosen noted an affordable unit is one that co sts no more than 30% of the family's gross monthly income for a family making no more than 80% of the area median income. The current area median income for a family of four is $94,000 with 80% being $75,800. She noted income is restricted to below $60,500 for rental units. She further detailed Fort Collins median home prices and the down payment assistance program. Overton clarified there is a minimum one-acre park requirement within 1/3 of a mile of 90% of the dwellings in the LMN zone. She noted the park could be private or City-owned and on or off site. McLaren stated this community would not be like anything seen in the local area. He stated the average household income in Sun Communities' properties is between $45,000 and $50,000 per year, th e communities have a 98% occupancy rate, and residents live in the communities for an average of 14 years. He also discussed community satisfaction scores and having the ability to build homes to ADA standards. Anderson thanked the speakers and reiterated this community will provide attainable workforce housing for the community with a component being defined as affordable by the City. He noted there is a great deal of design work to go but stated he is confident the project will be able to satisfy Cit y requirements while protecting neighboring communities. Member Schneider requested staff address bus service and transit questions. Virata replied there is FLEX service in the area but he is not aware of nearby transit. DocuSign Envelope ID: 82C76515-20AD-40D7-B906-3AE8413A5BD1 Planning & Zoning Board October 15, 2020 Page 6 of 13 Member Schneider asked how the City decides when it is prudent to expand bus service. Virata replied there is a Transit Master Plan that examines development trends. Overton replied the transportation impact study will look at the level of service for various modes of transit when the project development plan is submitted. She also noted the long-term vision is to have 30-minute service on Trilby; however, there is currently no funding for that. Member Shepard noted there will be opportunities for citizens to participate in the design planning for the Trilby and College intersection and questioned whether a bus stop will be part of that design. He also questioned whether there would be a continuous sidewalk from this project's intersection with Trilby west to the bus stop on Coll ege Avenue. Virata replied he will follow up with contact information for the team in charge of the project design and the plan is to have a 30% design by the end of the year. Member Katz thanked the citizens for their comments and noted the proposed d welling units per acre for this project is very low for the LMN zone. Chair Hansen asked if staff has any sense of densities of neighboring developments. Overton replied she has yet to do that analysis as that generally occurs as part of the project de velopment plan. Regarding the concentration of affordable housing mentioned by several of the speakers, she stated that is a challenging question and there is not a widely accepted percentage of affordable housing that makes for a saturated number in an a rea, nor is there a limit on such a number. Member Shepard noted the Land Use Code does not include a standard relating to the concentration of affordable housing and there are other square mile areas within the community that also have a number of afford able housing developments or services for homeless individuals. Chair Hansen asked how and when determinations are made regarding roadway connections to Trilby Road. Virata replied staff would look at connections to existing developments more specifically at the time of PDP submittal and there are Land Use Code requirements for connections to existing roadways and neighborhoods. Chair Hansen requested staff clarify the stand-alone modification process. Overton replied the process is specifically permitted as part of the modification section of the Land Use Code and applicants have one year after the granting of stand-alone modifications to file a PDP or the modifications expire. Stand-alone modifications are typically sought when a major barrier to the project would be in place were the modifications not approved. (**Secretary's Note: The Board took a brief recess at this point in the meeting.) Secretary Manno took roll call to ensure all Members were present given the hybrid meeting format. Board Questions / Deliberation Member Shepard commented on the street trees being a mitigation to the modification requested to the street -like private drive standard. He suggested the trees be at 30- to 40-foot centers and be irrigated citing Land Use Code requirements. He stated he may make irrigation of the trees a condition of approval. Member Hogestad asked about the proposed three variants to elevations. McLaren replied there would be five different floorplans and three different elevations associated with those floorplans. He stated variants could include different stairs, porches, or roof pitches and do not include garages or carports. Member Shepard stated the vagueness around five floorplans and three elevations is somewhat confusing. McLaren clarified there will be 15 different variants one would see from the street. He noted variety will be important for the community. Member Hogestad commented on differing elevations and asked if the more articulated example should be expected over the flatter example. McLaren replied in the affirmative. Member Hogestad asked about the dimension of the parkway strip. Anderson replied it will be 5 -feet wide with the tree plantings within. DocuSign Envelope ID: 82C76515-20AD-40D7-B906-3AE8413A5BD1 Planning & Zoning Board October 15, 2020 Page 7 of 13 Member Hogestad asked how far the buildings will be set back from the sidewalk. Mr. Anderson replied there is a 20-foot deep driveway off the back of the sidewalk to provide adequate parking and homes are beyond that another two to three feet. Vice Chair Haefele asked about the likelihood of achieving affordability with the units that appear more visually appealing. Mr. McLaren replied variety is important in the neighborhood and every unit will fit within the $100,000 to $200,000 price bracket. Member Hogestad asked about the head-in parking situation just the street, noting it is suggested to be an isolated situation in the Land Use Code, and how often it is found in residential neighborhoods. Overton replied it is typical to see head-in parking adjacent to things like amenity center and areas where people will be visiting rather than parking regularly. She stated the applicants have attempted to address staff's concerns about the potential of inadequate guest parking with the head-in parking. Member Hogestad expressed concern the head-in parking throughout the neighborhood is eroding the sense of a neighborhood. He also questioned how this integrates with other neighborhoods and asked if there are any other neighborhoods with this situation. Overton replied she has not seen any projects with that situation recently, but there are older neighborhoods with looped streets and parking in the middle. Member Shepard stated this type of parking is rare and detailed two Land Use Code standards that speak to guest parking which will need to be addressed at the PDP level. Chair Hansen asked if the three parking spaces per unit are all off -street. Mr. Anderson replied in the affirmative and noted the areas referenced are for additional overflow parking. He stated they could be fewer in number or built in the future as needed. Member Hogestad asked if this plan shows the final distribution of these parking areas. Overton replied the applicant has not completed a traffic impact study and staff has not reviewed the site plan at a project development plan level; therefore, these plans are pending and meant to inform the conversation about the modifications. She also noted staff's review of a project development plan would follow the same process that any other review does, and standards would either need to be met or approved for a modification. Chair Hansen noted that the approval of a modification does not obligate approval of a PDP in the future. He stated he is more concerned with the modification to the number of housing types than the modification to the streets, but stated he feels that modification can be sufficiently mitigated. He asked about the definition of manufactured housing in terms of housing type, specifically what disqualifies the small lots as being a separate housing type. Overton replied the fact manufactured housing is a single housing type has more to do with the ownership structure and planning and development of the site as a single -owner property that charges rent for the siting of manufactured housing. Chair Hansen noted the small lots, while not defined by Code as being another housing type, do function to address variation in size and scale and suggested another housing type could be a duplex. He asked if anything would prohibit two manufactured homes from being assembled together onsite to function as such. McLaren replied he has seen that on a rare occasion, but it has never been used in a new Sun Communities community. He stated it would be possible but expressed concern about how much space would exist in the individual dwellings given lot sizes. Chair Hansen suggested the possibility of combining two narrow lots to provide enough space and acknowledged that would be a rental unit rather than an owners hip unit. McLaren commented on his desire to provide variation in the buildings. Chair Hansen commended the aesthetic variations; however, he noted they are all very close to the same size which is why the Land Use Code seeks varying housing types. Vice Chair Haefele stated the reason for the multiple housing type requirement is to provide diversity in the socio- economic profiles of the people living in an area and stated making a duplex of two of these units does not address that. She also noted the recently adopted manufactured home zone district would not require different housing types. DocuSign Envelope ID: 82C76515-20AD-40D7-B906-3AE8413A5BD1 Planning & Zoning Board October 15, 2020 Page 8 of 13 Chair Hansen stated the Code section addressing multiple housing types includes several components. Responding to Vice Chair Haefele's comment, Member Shepard stated the primary motivation for requiring multiple housing types was to have interesting, articulated, diverse neighborhoods. He noted legal staff advised against the inclusion of criteria related to socioeconomics. Member Shepard thanked the citizens who participated in various ways and noted all decisions must be based on the Land Use Code. Chair Hansen concurred. Member Katz made a motion that the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board approve the Modification of Standard to Land Use Code Section 3.6.2(N)(1)(C) regarding street like private drive for MOD -200002 with two (2) conditions: • That the future PDP meets the City’s Land Use Code definition for affordable housing projects in Division 5.1 and provides a minimum of 15% deed restricted units, and • That the future PDP demonstrates adequate parking within the development for guests and residents. This approval is based upon the agenda material, the information and materials presented during the work session and this hearing and the Board discussion on this item. Member Schneider seconded. Member Shepard proposed an additional condition for consideration that emphasizes street tree placement in the parkway, the need for 30’ to 40’ spacing, the need f or irrigation, and if there is a driveway or guest parking configuration that interferes with that spacing, then street trees shall be placed behind the sidewalk or the guest parking by 3’-7’. This is to emphasize the mitigation for that which is being modified. Members Katz and Schneider accepted the amendment as friendly. Member Hogestad expressed concern this is not integrated into any of the other adjacent neighborhoods and stated the roadway design sets the neighborhood apart. He stated he will not be supporting the modifications. Chair Hansen agreed this is different, which is not necessarily bad. He supported the reduction in the impervious area of the development as a whole and commented he is in support of the motion. Vice Chair Hafele feels that narrow streets without cars parked on them are attractive and makes the neighborhoods feel less of an affordable neighborhood rather than more different. She expressed support for the modification. Member Katz stated this design will aid in a com munity feel and will be very nice. Member Hogestad stated he is not objecting to the street width, but rather to the parking segments that do not have a neighborhood feel. Member Shepard asked if Member Hogestad would accept a slight design revision tha t would call for all guest parking modules to be diagonal with the exception of the one that serves the amenity center. Member Hogestad replied he did not feel that would be enough. Member Shepard asked if the motion maker and seconder would accept an amendment to their motion to condition the modification approval regarding section 3.6.2 (N)(1)(C), the applicant must provide housing models that have primary entrance facing the street to the maximum extent feasible with the exception of the small lots. Members Katz and Schneider accepted the amendment as friendly. Member Shepard requested a fifth amendment: the guest parking that is provided must comply with Sections 3.2.2(E)(4) and 3.2.2(D)(3)(B) with guest parking being located no further than 200 feet from any structure . Members Katz and Schneider accepted the amendment as friendly. DocuSign Envelope ID: 82C76515-20AD-40D7-B906-3AE8413A5BD1 Planning & Zoning Board October 15, 2020 Page 9 of 13 Member Hogestad thanked Member Shepard for his efforts but questioned whether the street design will ever make this feel like a neighborhood. Member Haefele questioned if it makes sense to limit the parking pods to a set number. Chair Hansen replied it would not make sense. Vote: 6:1 with Member Hogestad dissenting. Member Shepard made a motion that the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board approve the Modification of Standard to Land Use Code Section 4.5(D)(2) Mix of Housing to allow one (1) type of housing, manufactured home, instead of four (4) for MOD-200002 with the following conditions: • The applicant must provide additional housing models that are significantly distinctive from one another and that such variety and distinctiveness must be achieved by mixing a variety of roof lines (by use of roof pitches, dor mers, gables, and the like) and a variety of front porches (by use of covered, uncovered and with a variety of dimensions) and a variety of building trim and colors. In addition, no two similar housing models shall be placed next to each other. This modification complies with 2.8.2 in reference to not being detrimental to the public good and in reference to the criteria that the request substantially alleviates a significant public policy concern, particularly the 50% affordable housing as defined in Article 5. This approval is based upon the agenda material, the information and materials presented during the work session and this hearing and the Board discussion on this item. Member Schneider seconded. Member Schneider made an amendment request to have a minimum of 15 different elevations. Member Shepard accepted that amendment as friendly. Member Katz stated he does not feel this modification is better than a complying plan, nor does it substantially alleviate a significant public policy concern. Member Haefele stated this property would not need this modification if it were approved for Manufactured Housing zoning. She also does not feel this modification achieves the protection for manufactured h omeowners and renters that the Manufactured Home zoning would, and it does not create a neighborhood that will fit nicely with the area. Assistant City Attorney Yatabe suggested an amendment related to the 15% deed restricted unit count. Member Shepard stated he would like to amend his motion to include the condition that this modification is justified as there will be 15% deed restricted units in compliance with the definition in Article 5. Member Schneider accepted the amendment as friendly. Vote: 5:2 with Members Hogestad and Haefele dissenting. Member Katz made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board choose to continue Item Nos. 8, Manufactured Housing, and 9, Land Use Code Updates, from today's hearing to November 5 th, 2020. Member Shepard seconded. Member Schneider stated he could not support the motion but noted there are citizens present for comment and it does not serve them to push items off by so many weeks. Chair Hansen concurred. Vice Chair Haefele supported continuing the items. Member Hogestad concurred. Member Whitley expressed concern about translators being present for Item No. 8 and suggested avoiding these types of long meeting in the future if possible. Vote: 5:2 with Members Schneider and Hansen dissenting. (**Secretary's Note: The Board took a brief recess at this point in the meeting.) DocuSign Envelope ID: 82C76515-20AD-40D7-B906-3AE8413A5BD1 Planning & Zoning Board October 15, 2020 Page 10 of 13 Secretary Manno took roll call to ensure all Members were present given the hybrid meeting format. 7. Block 23 Project Description: This is a request for a Project Development Plan (PDP) to develop a 4-story mixed use building and three level parking garage at 300 N. Mason St, 303, 331 and 343 N. College Avenue. Recommendation: Approval Secretary Manno reported a memo on staff findings of facts and conclusions with Land Use Code Section 3.4.7 has been provided since the work session. Staff and Applicant Presentations Planner Holland gave a brief overview of this project noting this site is in the Downtown zone district, North Mason subdistrict. He stated the proposed project contains a long-term care facility and 20,000 square feet of retail space with 163 off-street parking spaces. He addressed questions raised at the work session regarding the opacity of the parking garage panels and overall building height. He outlined the next steps, should this PDP be approved, stated staff will fully review the Final Development Plan (FDP) for consistency. Chris Murdy, Haselden Real Estate Development, introduced the project team and thanked staff for their work on the item. Matt Turner, Morningstar Senior Living, stated this project would be the second Morningstar senior living community in Fort Collins and discussed the history and foundational principles of Morningstar. He stated the project will include about 160 independent living, assisted living, and memory care units. He discussed the high- quality design of the building and noted the senior living use will generate 100 well -paying jobs. He showed images of other senior living facilities Morningstar has constructed in Colorado. Liz Peterson, Hord Coplan Macht Senior Living Studio , stated this site gives the opportunity for Morningstar to be in Fort Collins in a more urban setting, which is something desired by seniors aging in place. She showed plans for the proposed building and discussed the design details of both the interior and exterior of the building. Staff Analysis Holland stated the proposed landscaping does meet City street tree requirements with the combination of existing and proposed mitigation trees and the plan meets the Code for sidewalk widths. He discussed streetscape enhancements and the design of the project anchoring the north transition into the downtown area. Holland detailed the tree mitigation plan and stated some of the trees being removed are Siberian Elms and tree condition is a factor. Holland stated there are no compliance issues with proposed parking quantities, though some permitted deductions in the TOD overlay zone are being taken. In addition to the parking structure, the project is providing 13 angled public parking spaces along Maple Street plus private on-street parking. Regarding the proposed reduction in bicycle parking, the applicant is stating not as much bicycle parking is needed due to the population of the senior care facility. He suggested various options for utilizing private shared bikes or the forthcoming bike share program as mitigation options. Holland stated staff agrees the proposed building mass reduction plan is effective and the proposed design and colors are appropriate. He stated the historic review illustrates compliance with the Code's compatibility requirements given the historic resource housing A Classic Touch will be separated from the new construction by an arterial street. The proposed building elevations indicate compliance with five of the required standards in section 3.4.7(E) related to building articulation and material detailing and compatibility. Holland detailed the ways in which the building design meets the requirements of the Downtown zone. He stated building articulation requirements are met with one exception, which is the modification to the wall length. DocuSign Envelope ID: 82C76515-20AD-40D7-B906-3AE8413A5BD1 Planning & Zoning Board October 15, 2020 Page 11 of 13 Regarding the parking garage, Holland stated staff is recommending a condition of approval that design variation be provided with the panel design. He discussed the proposed design and materials for the parking garage and mentioned the exception for retail space on Cherry Street on the first floor of the garage. Holland summarized the four conditions of approval being recommended by staff: to provide colored concrete with the sidewalk improvements along College Avenue, to provide design variation in the parking garage screen panels, to incorporate air conditioner terminal (PTAC) units into the window design, and to address the interior door for the trash and recycling enclosure. He stated staff is recommending approval of the PDP and the requested modification of standard for wall length and alternative compliance request for bicycle parking space requirements. Vice Chair Haefele asked why the bicycle parking reduction from 132 to 30 spaces is considered an alternative compliance rather than a modification and why the exception for retail space along Cherry Street is not a modification. Holland replied the Land Use Code includes certain sections in which alternative compliance is allowed, bicycle parking being one. Regarding the exception for retail along Cherry Street, Holland stated the Code requirement includes language that the decision mak er can grant an exception for areas with low pedestrian interest or activity. Chair Hansen asked about the wall length modification of standard and stated the fenestration in the two pieces looked different between staff's presentation and the applicants' presentation. Peterson replied nothing in that regard has changed. Members noted it appears the PTAC units being integrated into the windows has already been addressed with the design. Public Input None noted. Board Questions / Deliberation Chair Hansen requested clarification regarding the wall length modification specific to the provided drawings and apparent differences between them. Peterson clarified which image is correct. Chair Hansen asked if the alley has two-way traffic. Holland replied in the affirmative. Chair Hansen asked if the building will be addressed off College Avenue. Holland replied that hasn't been identified. Chair Hansen expressed concern about wayfinding directing people to the alley for building entrance. Turner replied the overall vernacular of the building ushers people toward the alley as there isn't a logical entrance from College Avenue; however, there is an emergency entrance on College Avenue. He stated vehicular traffic will naturally flow to the alley but noted specific wayfinding signage has yet to be developed. Chair Hansen reiterated concerns people will still try to enter the building off Co llege, particularly if it is addressed off College. Turner replied his team will study that issue. Member Shepard suggested adding some general notes with the final development plan regarding the space being office space, personal service, coffee shop, café, or restaurant which would allow for a change of use or occupancy in the future. Chair Hansen asked if some of those different uses would have a different bicycle parking requirement. Shepard replied this could be considered a center which has one parking ratio, not individual ratios per tenant. Chair Hansen commented on bicycle parking being needed in the area. Peterson replied staff has conditioned the approval on the applicant including more bike parking on the street. Member Shepard commended the design change adding more transparency along the Cherry Street parking garage frontage. He encouraged the applicant to look at the number of windows in the stairwells to ensure their safety as well. DocuSign Envelope ID: 82C76515-20AD-40D7-B906-3AE8413A5BD1 Planning & Zoning Board October 15, 2020 Page 12 of 13 Member Hogestad asked about the materiality of the light-colored brick. Peterson replied it is actual whole- dimension brick. Member Hogestad asked about the metal sculptural piece on the back of the parking garage. Peterson replied it is a space frame that is meant to signal the parking structure entry. Member Hogestad asked if it was a conscious choice to make the wall requiring the modification as long as it is. Peterson replied in the negative but stated it is meant to mimic what is happening inside the building and stated there is still a lot of movement on the street façade. Member Hogestad stated there is a general sense about the look of College Avenue that is captured on the southern part of the building, but the large expanse of wall on the northern part of the east elevation does n ot capture that. Chair Hansen stated this building is an entire block face and this change in design makes the building look like two different buildings. He commended the new design and stated it fits proportionally despite not meeting the Code to the letter. Member Hogestad stated this is an issue about scale, mass, and proportion and suggested a fix would be easy. He stated he has not heard a compelling argument for granting the modification. Member Shepard commented on the CSU Powerhouse building which includes the historic building and new addition and suggested that may have a vernacular relationship to this end of Old Town. Member Hogestad stated that building has some very regulated windows and detailing that breaks up the building substantially. Chair Hansen stated the new window design for the proposal makes a large difference and he is comfortable with the requested modification. Member Katz concurred with the restraint shown by the design team and stated the building could have become too busy with articulation. Member Shepard suggested the possibility of the area in question featuring more textured materials. Peterson replied that is what the team is suggesting, and she provided additional detail. Member Hogestad asked how many different material surfaces are being used on the building. Peterson replied there are multiple treatments using brick, siding, and concrete panels . Member Shepard stated he is not opposed to the modification but is sympathetic with Member Hogestad's perspective that it is important to address the College Avenue frontage. Member Hogestad suggested a material adjustment could help the situation. Member Shepard stated he would accept that versus a plane change. Peterson asked if the Code would require a three -foot plane change if a new material were used. Holland replied that would be necessary at the step back, which is already done. Chair Hansen stated a material change would be a mistake unless there is a change in plane. Member Schneider made a motion that the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board approve the modification of standard to Land Use Code Section 4.16(C) Maximum Wall Length for PDP-20006. This approval is based upon the agenda material, the information and materials presented during the work session and this hearing and the Board discussion on this item. The modification complies with all applicable Land Use Code requirements, the information and analysis, finding of fact and conclusion regarding this modification and as contained in the staff report prepared for this item and adopted by this Board. Member Katz seconded. Member Hogestad stated he will support the motion as the building as a whole has a good design. Vote 7:0. Member Schneider made a motion that the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board approve Block 23 Moring Start PDP-20006 with the four (4) conditions set forth on page 24 of the staff report provided for this item. This approval with conditions is based on the agenda materials, the information and materials presented during the work session, DocuSign Envelope ID: 82C76515-20AD-40D7-B906-3AE8413A5BD1 Planning & Zoning Board October 15, 2020 Page 13 of 13 this hearing, the Board discussion o n this item with the following findings: the PDP complies with all applicable language, Code requirements, the information, analysis, finding of fact and conclusions contained in the staff report included in the agenda materials for this hearing that are adopted by this Board. Member Katz seconded. Members Shepard and Schneider commended the project. Member Hogestad stated he likes the building design. Member Whitley stated this will be a wonderful building and a contribution to downtown. Chair Hansen supported the project. Vote: 7:0. Adjournment Chair Hansen moved to adjourn the P&Z Board hearing. The meeting was adjourned at 12:55 a.m. For more complete details on this hearing, please view our video recording located here: https://www.fcgov.com/fctv/video-archive.php?search=PLANNING%20ZONING Minutes respectfully submitted by Shar Manno. Minutes approved by a vote of the Board on: November 19, 2020. Paul Sizemore, Interim Director, CDNS Jeff Hansen, Chair DocuSign Envelope ID: 82C76515-20AD-40D7-B906-3AE8413A5BD1