Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 09/17/2020 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 September 17, 2020 Chair Hansen called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Roll Call: Haefele, Hansen, Hogestad, Katz, Schneider, Shepard, Whitley Absent: None Staff Present: Stephens, Everette, Sizemore, Beals, Hahn, Bzdek, Kleer, Mapes, Yatabe, Spencer, Virata, Holland, Stroud, Smith, Smith 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 CDNS Interim Director Sizemore 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 DocuSign Envelope ID: 927C7C0D-C665-4710-8C90-ABD2D1C4E9F8 Planning & Zoning Board September 17, 2020 Page 2 of 10 None noted Consent Agenda: 1. Draft Minutes from August 20, 2020, P&Z Hearing 2. Mountain View Community Church Chair Hansen did a final review of the items that are on consent agenda 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 which consist of the draft minutes of the August 2020 Planning and Zoning hearing and the Mountain View Community Church PDP 200008. This approval is based on the agenda materials and information presented during the work session, this hearing and discussion. It also includes information, analysis and finding of fact and conclusion contained in the staff report including the agenda materials and the hear that are adopted by this Board. Member Katz seconded the motion. Vote: 7:0. Discussion Agenda: 3. Brothers BBQ PDP 200005 Project Description: This is a proposed Project Development Plan to redevelop an existing abandoned gas station for a barbeque restaurant. The property is within the Low-Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood District (LMN). Recommendation: Approval Secretary Manno reported that there were no citizen emails or letters received for this item. Staff and Applicant Presentations Planner Mapes gave a brief verbal/visual overview of this project. Applicants Nick O’Sullivan, Chris O’Sullivan, and Nathan Hall (Architect), Jess Deal (Accountant and other) also provided a brief verbal/visual overview of this project. Public Input (3 minutes per person) Jeff, via Zoom, is in favor of the project and asked what was going to happen with contamination and underground tanks. Staff Response Planner Mapes reviewed what the four modifications entailed. Parking dimensions: Standard parking stall dimensions are 19’ long, for this project they would be 18’. Standard parking lot aisle is 24’ wide, for this project it would be 20’. Landscaping: This was gone over in the presentation. Walkways: Standards require that there be a walkway to the building that does not require a person walking to walk across any vehicle use area. This project will use marked or separated pedestrian access to the building. There is not a clear route to mark in this small lot, everyone will have to watch out for each other. Neighborhood Centers: This was included in the project review and staff report. To meet the standards the neighborhood center must have access to the neighborhood with local streets such that arterial street access is not required. They are required to be part of a neighborhood and have an outdoor gathering space. This modification was questioned, but staff felt the the type of use should be reported on. Applicant Chris O’Sullivan responded that the tanks have been removed and testing was completed as well as four (4) monitoring wells. The site is fully clean with a letter of compliance received. Board Questions / Deliberation DocuSign Envelope ID: 927C7C0D-C665-4710-8C90-ABD2D1C4E9F8 Planning & Zoning Board September 17, 2020 Page 3 of 10 Chair Hansen asked for clarification of the four modifications. Member Hogestad asked about 3.4.7 and if preservation staff had been involved and if not, why not? Planner Mapes responded that because of previous changes /alterations, the project no longer requires preservation oversite. Planner Bzdek responded that 3.4.7(c) details the process for determining eligibility. In this case this building is more than 50 years old, but without documentation. A third party was hired to complete and intensive level survey. The survey was completed, it was found that due to extensive alterations, the building no longer required input by preservation staff. Member Hogestad quested the 20’ drive aisle and asked if Poudre Fire Authority was ok with it. Planner Mapes responded yes. Member Hogestad questioned 3.2.2(b)(c)(d), he is concerned with the lack of safety with pedestrians walking through the lot. He is also concerned that it does not support the bicycle or pedestrian plans. Chair Hansen asked if Member Hogestad saw any alternate means for getting pedestrians off the site where they do not cross the drive aisle. Member Hogestad was not sure, but felt it is contrary to pedestrian safety to not offer any sort of demarcation or separation of the walkway. Member Hafele wanted understanding of the modification. Is it possible to remove one or two parking space to create a walkway? Member Hogestad commented that those that come on bike or foot need better safety. Member Hogestad commented that the issue also is people coming in other modes of transportation, bike, and foot. Chair Hansen asked where the bicycle parking will be located. Mr. O’Sullivan responded that on the the North East of the building, a bicycle rack will be installed. Due to the site be ing such a small location, when you do park, it is such a small walk. Mr. O’Sullivan responded that there has not been a problem at other locations within the past 20 years. Member Haefele commented that the site is small and normally would not have so many parking spaces. Would it be better to remove two parking spaces to make a walkway on one or the other sides? This would facilitate walking there even if people come out to one of the arterials and around. Member Shepard wondered if pavement stripping would work to satisfy this issue. Multiple board members agreed. Chair Hansen asked if there was enough space for someone to safely access the site without having to cross the drive aisle? Chair Hansen also asked about vehicle access. Are both the curb cuts full access and are they right in, right out only? Planner Mapes responded they are right in , right out. He felt that it could be stripped if the Board felt it should be. Chris felt that these are great ideas, and they can work with Planner Mapes. Chair Hansen wants to make sure that it is well thought out in terms of thinking where people will walk, and not just striping for the sake of striping. Member Haefele commented that people will walk where they are going to walk and those that are concerned will see that there is a designated area for them. She hopes that motorists will see that there might be pedestrians. Member Hogestad is concerned about the lack of landscape. He feels there need to be attention paid, whether that is losing parking space or what have you. He feels that “not detrimental to the public good” is completely wrong. It is a loss of canopy cover, stormwater control, lack of water conservation, an increase in air pollution, increase in glare and increase in heat island. Chair Hansen asked if all the trees in green were currently on the site. Planner Mapes responded that the trees on the West and South side are existing. All the street trees are new. Located in the Northeast corner is a planter. Member Shepard recalled that this is where the monitoring well is located and that they built the planter to disguise the monitoring well. Planner Mapes did not know. Chris responded that the monitoring well is located on the Northwest corner not where the planters are. All will be irrigated. Planner Mapes added that losing a couple parking spots would allow for extra landscaping and pedestrian stripping. Chris questioned if the patio landscaping counts as interior landscaping. Planner Mapes responded it does not meet the requirement. Chair Hansen commented that per the LUC it is clear the alternate ideas would not work on the site. Member Haefele asked if more trees on the South side would be workable. Is it possible to make the parking lot porous pavers? Member Shepard asked if their plan was not already a greater amount of landscaping than what is there presently. Planner Mapes explained that the big change is the street trees. Other than that, it is pretty much all paved currently. Member Whitley is sorry that we are going to lose the perimeter of green, and he is also concerned about the heat affect. Member Katz asked if there was any way to fit some planters between the curbs and sidewalk. Nathan responded that to get to a 10’ wide sidewalk they condensed the parking to 56’ which is comfortable. It is not possible to shrink the parking more than 56’. Tree health is better if it is closer to the interior of the lot, but for pedestrian safety the trees need to be closer to the street to create a buffer. As far as adding more trees, there are specific City rules for engineering for how close to the street trees can be placed. After working with everyone, the number originally proposed is what will work . Member Shepard asked Member DocuSign Envelope ID: 927C7C0D-C665-4710-8C90-ABD2D1C4E9F8 Planning & Zoning Board September 17, 2020 Page 4 of 10 Hogestad, what if the trees were upsized increase the caliper size? Planning Manager Everette responded that Forestry staff are experiencing issues with upsized trees. Sourcing is more difficult, and the survival rate is lower. Member Hansen asked about the parking spaces and the requirements. Planner Mapes responded the minimum required is 12. Member Schneider commented that stormwater is involved in the process and there must have been conversation in that area. Planner Mapes did not recall what the discussion has been, b ut there are no remaining outstanding issues with stormwater. The site is already 100% paved. Member Hogestad commented that it is about the purpose. Member Schneider responded that there are no changes or increases in the existing condition of impervious surface on the site, and this is the reason stormwater has no concerns. Chair Hansen asked if the Board were to include a condition on the modification that they add some landscaping, positioning it in such a location that water flowing off the site ha ppened through it would be a good recommendation. Member Shepard made a motion to approve modification 3.2.2(L) Parking Stall Dimensions, to allow reduced drive by width from 24’ to 20’ and 19’ to 18’, the justification of 2.8.2 is due to the exceptional physical conditions and peculiar uniqueness of the site . This is based on the findings of fact in the staff report, materials that have been presented in the staff packet, at the work session, throughout this hearing and Board discussion. Member Schneider seconded. Vote: 7:0. Member Schneider made a motion to approve modification of standard 4.5(D)(3) Neighborhood Centers that the subject property does not comply to the standards. The neighborhood centers in the LMN , the modification of the standard is not detrimental to the public good and complies with Section 2.8(2)(H). This is based on the findings of fact in the staff report, materials that have been presented in the staff packet, at the work session, throughout this hearing and Board discussion. Member Katz seconded. Vote 7:0 Member Schneider made a motion to approve modification of standard 3.2.2 Access and Circulation around parking. This modification will not be detrimental to public good and satisfies 2 .8.2(H) along with the condition of approval that there be two pedestrian stripped access point, one off the northern property line and one off of the eastern property line for access to the building. This is based on the findings of fact in the staff report, materials that have been presented in the staff packet, at the work session, throughout this hearing and Board discussion. Member Hogestad is somewhat concerned that the Board is tinkering with the design rather than allowing the architect to work out what this all should be. He would have liked to table this and let them design it and come back. He will support this, so the project moves on. Chair Hansen commented that Member Hogestad could make an amendment to the motion. Member Shepard agreed with Member Hogestad. Member Haefele asked if the condition of approval for the modification says, “to pedestrian access points within the parking lot separated from each other so they provide multiple entrances”. Member Schneider prefers to leave the motion as is. Chair Hansen feels the motion is good as it stands. Member Katz seconded. Vote: 7:0 Member Shepard made a motion to approve modification of standard to the maximum extent feasible increasing the amount of landscaping on the site subject to the requirements of the departments such as Poudre Fire Authority, Utilities, Engineering, and Stormwater. This is based on the findings of fact in the staff report, 3.2.1(E)(4), 3.2.1(E)(5), recorded by 2.8.2 due to the exceptional physical nature and conditions of the site, materials that have been presented in the staff packet, at the work session, throughout this hearing and Board discussion. Member Schneider finds it interesting that a requirement is never placed on the “not feasible” other than what is proposed. He would like the applicant team and staff do everything possible to try and increase the landscaping to the best of their ability without doing major changes to the overall plan. Member Whitley wished there were more green space and barriers. He will be supporting the project. Member Katz would like to see more landscaping but acknowledge that this is a big improvement in this space. He will be supporting the modification. Chair Hansen would like the applicant to find other ways to inc rease the landscaping. Member Haefele feels this will be an improvement on the corner and will be supporting the project. Member Haefele seconded. Vote 7:0 Member Schneider made a motion that the Fort Colins Planning and Zoning Board approve the Brother’s BBQ PDP 200005. This is based on the findings of fact in supporting explanation of the primary staff report, along with the two conditions that should be addressed in the final plans. For the final plans, the DocuSign Envelope ID: 927C7C0D-C665-4710-8C90-ABD2D1C4E9F8 Planning & Zoning Board September 17, 2020 Page 5 of 10 details and mulch around raised planter at the street corner and along with the 6’ fence on the South property line. This is all based on the information provided to us in the staff report, the discus sion in the work session and the tonight’s hearing. Member Schneider is happy to see that the corner is being redeveloped and cleaned up. Member Shepard is supporting the recommendations and conditions of approval as well. Member Hogestad believes in good design; he hopes this is an opportunity to step up and so something extraordinary. Member Whitley acknowledges that the plan is an improvement. Member Haefele appreciates the effort to bring the building back to its original design. Chair Schneider is excited to see this site redeveloped. Member Katz seconded. Vote: 7:0 4. Timberline Church Rezone Project Description: This is a request for a rezone of Lots 1-5 and Tract A of the Timberline Church Campus from Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (L-M-N) to Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (M-M-N). Recommendation: Approval Secretary Manno reported that the following was received:  Email was received from Brad Florin commenting that the recommended Conditions of Approval are the spirit of the intended development, but they would prefer a rezone.  Email received from Julius Medgyesy stating opposition to the project.  Email received from Olivia Moench stating opposition to the project. Staff and Applicant Presentations Planner Holland and Planning Manager Everette gave a brief verbal/visual overview of the project. Brad Florin, applicant, also provided a brief verbal/visual presentation. Public Input (3 minutes per person) Amber Kelly, she is thankful there was thought into buffers. She wanted to know if this could only be a multi-family project and that there should be a neighborhood meeting. Kim Schwindt, 2400 Pinecone, she wants to know how the City will address the drainage and is unhappy with traffic on the bike trail and on the street. Brian Kelly, he is concerned with adequate facilities to allow this medium density. He is also concerned with the traffic and safety of the traffic. He feels the drainage should be kept the way that it is. Randy Schwindt, 2400 Pinecone, he feels there should be a maximum per acre. He wanted to know if some of the parking lot for Timberline Church was going to go away. He is opposed to this project. Randy Munzt, via Zoom, Kansas Dr., he has seen flooding and the ponds fill. He feels the area is overwhelmed with people and new building. He wanted to know if the open space requirement is being met. Diane Benta, via Zoom, Iowa Dr., she is concerned with drainage and traffic. She is wondering if a traffic study could even be done during this pandemic, pre-pandemic people were driving over driveways. It is very unsafe. Udea, via Zoom, she wonders why CSU is looking for housing away from campus and she feels Fort Collins is losing its character. She is tired of the same issues being raised on every project, such as traffic, drainage, etc. Elda Hopkins, via Zoom, is concerned with the traffic on Timberline. There is no consideration for the people trying to turn off Timberline when leaving the church. She is not in favor of any houses being built. Staff Response DocuSign Envelope ID: 927C7C0D-C665-4710-8C90-ABD2D1C4E9F8 Planning & Zoning Board September 17, 2020 Page 6 of 10 Planner Holland responded to citizen comment. He spoke to buffering to the South and the East and what is possible in that area. The channel will be looked at when a site-specific plan is received. Overall drainage will be looked at when submitting the overall development plan. Regarding traffic, both foot and vehicular, all comments and questions will be forwarded to Parks staff so that they are aware of the concern. Vehicular traffic will be addressed when they submit a specific site-plan. Regarding drainage, Planner Holland cannot confirm whether or not it fits within the 30” buffer separation at this time. Additional park space could be looked into when the time comes. Other uses allowed in the MMN zone is residential uses like multi-family, townhomes, two-family dwellings, mixed-use, institutional use, parks, and a handful of commercial uses. Maintenance of right-of-way frontages within Rigden Farm and who is responsible. Development and impact fees would be collected to help contribute to the maintenance. The property owner is the one who must maintain the right-of-way frontage. Mr. Florin responded that with the new zoning, an affordable housing standard could be achieved. This is not a CSU development, but would offer CSU employees an affordable option for housing. Board Questions / Deliberation Member Hafele wanted clarification on the trail and buffer, that they are not developable? Planner Holland responded yes, that is correct. Member Hafele; is the 30’ setback a mirrored section? Planner Holland commented that it is normal and reasonable and allows some separation of buildings. Member Schneider requested clarification from the applicants. What acreage are you trying to rezone? Mr. Florin responded that the whole property is what is being requested with the rezone, 33 acr es. Density will follow what is allowed, looking at 17-20 units, this is what will make the project viable. It is based on the area of use and gross acreage. Chair Hansen asked about the first condition that is regarding max height. The first is to reduce max height, in the MMN zone what is the max height without the condition? Planner Holland; 3 -stories with max height of each story at 12’8”. Required pedestrian connections are being reinforced. The setback is a matter of building code. Member Katz requested clarification on condition four and if they wanted the Board to drop this condition or all four of the conditions. Mr. Florin responded that they feel all four conditions are overly prescriptive and would l ike all four dropped. Currently this is conceptual and would like to wait until they come forward with a submittal. Member Hogestad feels that since there are conditions, that there is a level of detail required. Have they considered, as one of the conditions, a maximum floor area or a number of units? Planner Holland has thought about this, they are focused on a rectangular building but there are options and ways to approach this. Member Schneider questioned if the applicant had a conversation with staff regarding increasing the de nsity between the two zone districts making this all obtainable housing or looking at doing an 80% AMI or some sort of justification for the increased density? Mr. Florin responded that there were conversations with staff and developers, and it became obvious that LMN density would not work without extra density. This is the reason for this request. A MMN master plan for the whole 33 acres is the direction as opposed to just the 10 acres. Member Haefele is frustrated that there is a plan for obtainable housing, but it is attached to the the land. Find a builder, willing to build on the land. Mr. Florin responded that Timberline Church will be giving (donating) 6 of the 10 acres to CSU. The church does not have the finances to subsidize construction of a project. CSU is donating the land to the developer, this is for the obtainable housing, even with the MMN. This is how we can get to an 80% AMI goal. Chair Hansen asked about the access point to Custer Dr. and if there is capacity to improve this i ntersection? Mrs. Hahn Hahn responded that, if and when, a submittal comes in, they would look at intersection improvements and making the traffic pieces function. There is capacity to facilitate the volumes with this development. Member Hogestad asked if Timberline is constrained? Mr. Virata explained that there is capacity with the right-of- way to add a third lane on Timberline, making a total of 6 lanes. DocuSign Envelope ID: 927C7C0D-C665-4710-8C90-ABD2D1C4E9F8 Planning & Zoning Board September 17, 2020 Page 7 of 10 Member Katz is not a fan of rezones as they may cause issues down the road . He would like to see a PDP come in and the land be built organically. Member Haefele feels that the property owners do not have a right to rezone, they have a right to request a rezone and only if it can be done in a way that does not negatively impact all the other property owners adjacent who have rights as well. She will not support this rezone unless the conditions are retained. Member Shepard wanted to know if flexibility could be added to the prescriptiveness. Chair Hansen feels there are already provisions in the Land Use Code that would address bulk and mass. This may hurt as opposed to help. Member Schneider is in the middle and can understand both sides. He is most concerned with overall density on the property. May be a cap of 20. Member Shepard feels the conditions are of the middle ground. He would like a little flexibility of prescriptiveness of the standards. Member Haefele feels it makes sense to limit the density to something more than LMN but less than unlimited and matching the 21, 12, 13 of the existing current MMN neighborhoods. Member Schneider questioned changing the density over part of the parcel as opposed to all of the parcel or would the Board leave it all MMN but with a cap for the whole parcel? Member Katz asked what the highest density was in MMN in the City? Member Shepard responded within the 14-20 range. Member Katz made a motion that the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board recommend to City Council the following recommendation for the Timberline Church Campus Rezone REZ -200002 with the following condition:  Maximum gross unit per acre density of 20 units and that an overall development plan precedes or accompany the PDP This recommendation is based upon the agenda materials, the information presented during the work session, this hearing, and the Board discussion on this item. Member Schneider feels this is a happy compromise. Member Hogestad agrees with Member Schneider, 20 is a bit high, but he supports the motion. Member Whitley feels this is a good compromise, 20 is a bit on the high side, but will support the motion. Member Hafele feels this is a good compromise. Chair Hansen agrees that dropping the previous conditions and creating their own is a good idea. Member Schneider seconded. Vote: 7:0. 5. Ridgewood Hills Fifth Filing Project Description: This is a proposed Project Development Plan (PDP) for residential development comprising 362 units in a combination of multi-family buildings, townhomes, and duplexes distributed across the 34-acre site. The project is located on the west side of S. College Avenue/US Hwy 287 between Triangle Dr ive and Long View Farm Open Space where Avondale Road/Carpenter Road define the southern edge of the City. Recommendation: Approval Secretary Manno reported that the following was received:  Email received from Scott Hollingsworth stating their concerns for the project.  Email received from Dave and Hilary Snyder stating some preferences they would like to have noted for the project. Staff and Applicant Presentations Planner Kleer gave a brief verbal/visual overview of this project. Member Shepard disclosed that he walked the sight this morning, but no ex parte contact with any person. Bri Kneep, Mrs. Hahn Renner, Donald Cecil, Chris Walla, and John Beggs also provided a brief verbal/visual presentation. DocuSign Envelope ID: 927C7C0D-C665-4710-8C90-ABD2D1C4E9F8 Planning & Zoning Board September 17, 2020 Page 8 of 10 Public Input (3 minutes per person) Jeff, via Zoom, feels there will be traffic issues, pedestrian issues and wants the Board to deny this project as is. He feels their requests have been ignored. Varah, via Zoom, disagrees with the project, does not want people just shoved in every open space, and no mention of sustainability. Scott, via Zoom, he is concerned with neighborhood safety with traffic that will cripple current roads. He is against the project. Bill Cobb, via Zoom, would like to know more about the traffic impact within the neighborhood, what commitment is there for the safety of the children? Speeds limits are not obeyed, there has been a death. Hilary Frazer, via Zoom, she does not agree with this project. The traffic is a tremendous issue. She would like to see specific entries and exits, a couple of sound barriers, access to the entrance closet to College Ave., trail access, every tree they take out needs to be replaced with 10 t rees, separate park, clashing cross walk sign in front of house, round-about installed, security guards etc. House values will drop because of the rentals. Bill, via Zoom, he is concerned with the traffic. Will there be another school? Ben, via Zoom, would like to know how this filing meshes with the fourth filing. He is concerned with traffic and density. Debbie, via Zoom, does not approve of this project. She is concerned with traffic issues that will arise. Staff Response Planner Kleer and Mr. Delich responded to questions brought forth from public input relating to the traffic impact survey. Chair Hansen asked about schools in relation safety and capacity. Planner Kleer responded that discussions were had with Thompson School District. They have capacity for 385 students and indicated that there is capacity if this moves forward. Chair Hansen asked about design fit. Mr. Beggs responded that they have looked at documents from the Carpenter Gateway plan which is considered or part of the Southern Gateway. Chair Hansen spoke of concerns that this project may not be meeting the City’s more innovate, sustainability goals. Planner Kleer responded that the building code has a higher standard of building in relation to energy code and providing conduit for EV’s. The solar orientation is sufficient and lend to efficiency. The Land Use Code does not require a higher level of energy efficiency beyond what the building code does. Mr. Beggs gave response to the trail system. Chair Hansen requested clarification regarding the tree mitigation of 10:1. Mr. Beggs responded that they have completed extensive walk -abouts with Forestry. Documentation has been completed and recommendations followed. Member Schneider asked if staff could reach out to existing residents regarding traffic calming and what can be done to help. Mr. Delich responded that the neighborhood has extensive traffic calming in place currently. Speed studies have been conducted and found that there has been a reduction in speed. Planner Kleer responded to visual and sound buffering commenting that this is not applicable. There is not much other than landscaping that could offer a visual buffer. Board Questions / Deliberation DocuSign Envelope ID: 927C7C0D-C665-4710-8C90-ABD2D1C4E9F8 Planning & Zoning Board September 17, 2020 Page 9 of 10 Member Shepard asked how far the backs of the garages that face College Ave. and the terrace wall. Mr. Beggs responded that some of them abut the wall and others are offset. Is the area for parking a street like private drive or a private parking lot drive aisle? Mr. Beggs responded that the street like private drive is in the northwest corner of the project. Are the two-family dwellings manufactured housing? Mr. Beggs responded no. Are the single - family attached on individual lots? Mr. Beggs, yes. Member Haefele asked if the intention was to rent the cottages and duplexes. Mr. Beggs, rental. Is any of the development expected to be owner occupied. Mr. Beggs, the single-family attached is intended to be owned, along with the townhomes in the southwest. Member Shepard, along Longmont Street there are five buildings that face the wetlands area, but no walkways between the buildings, how the emergency personnel get to the front door? Mr . Beggs, there is a front door on both sides of the building. Member Shepard asked about improving traffic distribution by connecting to Carpenter Road through the Kroger property via the proposed future right-of-way. Mrs. Hahn responded that they could meet the level of service without making additional connection. It would be a meaningful connection for the neighborhood and Kr oger. Mr. Beggs responded that attempts have been made to contact Kroger but have been unsuccessful. Member Katz questioned if Goodwin, Knight ever pursued acquisition of the Kroger site. Mr. Beggs responded that not at this time, they are not interested. Member Shepard feels there is a sight distance issue at the Trilby/Constellation intersection due to the hill. Mrs. Hahn responded that it is a consideration when installing traffic signals. In this case, there have not been a lot of crashes of vehicles exiting either direction. Installing a signal could cause crashes. Chair Hansen asked about pedestrian crossing for the trail. Mr. Beggs responded that they could bring it down to cross at Avondale only once. Chair Hansen asked if there were 8 conditions. Planner Kleer responded yes, describing the difference between a couple of them. Chair Hansen asked if the color was in the Land Use Code or more of a preference. Planner Kleer responded that in the code is states to not have those colors be vibrant and selected from the surrounding neighborhood, and in character or aligned with surrounding natural environment. Member Shepard commented that maybe a residential metro district could be sought in the future. Chair Hansen commented he was getting at a similar thing. Member Schneider commented that metro districts are currently on hold. Member Shepard asked if the street trees could be at 35’ center as opposed to 40’, also could the parkway strip could be widened by 1’. He approves the first modification if this could be added. Modification #1 – On-street Parking Member Shepard made a motion that the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board approve modification number one to 3.2.2(K)(1)(B) to consider Strasburg an internal street for multi-family parking and to allow the on-street parking as proposed. This complies with 2.8.2(H) and is not d etrimental to public good and is equal to or better than. This is subject to the condition that the street trees along the multi -family section of the project are 35’ center. This approval is based upon the agenda materials, the information presented during the work session, the findings of fact, the staff report, this hearing, and the Board discussion on this item. Member Schneider seconded. Vote: 6:1. Modification #2 – Dwelling Fronting Streets or Walkway Spines DocuSign Envelope ID: 927C7C0D-C665-4710-8C90-ABD2D1C4E9F8 Planning & Zoning Board September 17, 2020 Page 10 of 10 Member Schneider made a motion that the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board approve modification number two to 3.5.2(D) regarding the relationship with dwellings to street parking to allow three duplex buildings not to front either street, a connection walkway or major walkway. This modification will not be detrimental to public good and qualifies with section 2.8.2(H). This is based on the finding of fact, staff report, the work session, and this hearing tonight. Member Katz seconded. Vote 7:0 Modification #3 – Building Variations Member Shepard made a motion to deny this modification to 3.8.30 regarding footprint size and shape. Attorney Yatabe requested specificity as to why this is being denied. Member Shepard responded that the footprints are strikingly similar. The standard contains the word significant . Attorney Yatabe commented that the applicant’s justification is that this is equal-to or better-than. Based on the standards, what part of the modification of standard is not being satisfied? Member Shepard stated that it does not meet 2.8.2 in terms of being equal to or better than, it appears to be self-imposed, there is no hardship, and it is not equal to or better than. Member Schneider commented that it is hard for him to tell the difference in architecture from what is normally seen. He agrees that it looks repetitious and looks like mirror imaging. Member Haefele agrees that the buildings are substantially similar. In this case there is not a benefit, it is not equal or better. Chair Hansen disagrees in that they are asking for the modification for the subtle changes and the building end caps help to make them look different. Member Haefele seconded. Vote 5:2 Condition #9 – To Clean up Modification Denied Member Shepard made a motion for approval that Condition #9 read as follows: Applicant will work with staff and the design team meeting 3.8.30(F)(2) to comply with the standard to the maximum extent feasible. Member Schneider seconded. Vote 7:0 Member Schneider made a motion that the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board approve Ridgewood Hills Fifth Filing – PDP-190018 subject to the eight (8) conditions that were included in the staff report with the additional condition tonight. This approval is based upon the agenda materials, the information presented during the work session, the findings of fact, the staff report, this hearing, and the Bo ard discussion on this item. Member Schneider feels this is a good project. Chair Hansen likes the natural areas and the layering. Member Katz seconded. Vote 7:0 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 Other Business None noted Adjournment Chair Hansen moved to adjourn the P&Z Board hearing. The meeting was adjourned at 2:13 am September 18, 2020. 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: 927C7C0D-C665-4710-8C90-ABD2D1C4E9F8