Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMemo - Read Before Packet - 12/7/2021 - Memorandum From Clark Mapes Re: Planning And Zoning Commission Minutes For Fort Collins-Loveland Water District Addition Of Permitted Uses (Apu) - Agenda Item 16Community Development & Neighborhood Services Planning & Development Services 281 North College Avenue P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580 970.221.6376 970.224.6111- fax MEMORANDUM Date: December 6, 2021 To: Mayor Arndt and City Councilmembers Through: Kelly DiMartino, Interim City Manager Kyle Stannert, Deputy City Manager Caryn Champine, Director of Planning, Development, and Transportation Paul Sizemore, Director of Community Development and Neighborhood Services Rebecca Everette, Planning Manager From: Clark Mapes, City Planner Re: Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes for Fort Collins-Loveland Water District Addition of Permitted Uses (APU) This memo is to provide minutes from the October 21, 2021 P&Z hearing on this item. The minutes were only recently completed and are attached. The Commission was required to make a recommendation to Council regarding the APU, as noted in Agenda Item Summary report. The Commission recommended Council approval on a 5-0 vote. The Commission also approved the Overall Development Plan (a master plan for future expansion of facilities on the property), subject to the APU. Staff will carry these minutes from the P&Z hearing forward, along with any other pertinent information from the record, to be included in any future development plans under the Overall Development Plan. Attachments: Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes 1 Planning and Zoning Commission Hearing DRAFT Minutes October 21, 2021 Hearing Fort Collins-Loveland Water District Fort Collins Loveland Water District (FCLWD) Overall Development Plan with Addition of Permitted Uses Project Description: This is a proposed Overall Development Plan (ODP), #ODP210001, for future expansion of Fort Collins/Loveland Water District (FCLWD) office and operations facilities. The ODP is to enable expansion of existing outdoor storage and adding another accessory garage building associated with the water district office headquarters on Snead Drive in south Fort Collins. The FCLWD property comprises four parcels. Three of the parcels are within the Low Density Residential (RL) Zone District, which does not list the proposed uses as Permitted Uses; and thus the plan includes a request for Addition of Permitted Uses (APU) under the Land Use Code. The fourth parcel, along Snead Drive frontage, is zoned General Commercial (CG). Recommendation: Approval Secretary Manno reported that there were no additional citizen emails received. Staff and Applicant Presentations Planner Mapes gave a brief verbal/visual overview of the project and the history of the unique situation where FCLWD operations already overlap onto RL-zoned parcels. He mentioned the need for APU for master planning for long-term expansion. The uses in question are outdoor storage and an accessory building which would be accessory to the office headquarters. The applicant team comprising land planner Mike McBride, architect Rebecca Spears and FCLWD representative Jason Pauley then provided a presentation. They explained that the existing facility was established on the property in 1999, in an approved plan on the CG-zoned parcel. The district provides clean water in south Fort Collins, Timnath, Windsor, and unincorporated Larimer County over 60 square miles, serving 45-50,000 people. They need the proposed master plan for approximately the next 20 years to allow the facilities to keep up with growth in the area. This plan gets the uses tied to the property so the district can follow this with actual development plans over time for the improvements that are shown here. They noted that they personally visited three residences of adjoining neighbors, who had attended the two neighborhood meetings and requested the visits. They benefitted from the perspective and discussion. They changed the plan to move the perimeter screen fence away from the perimeter inward to the edge of the future construction, 2 and put a landscape buffer area external to that. They saw that neighbors have three-rail fences and so the neighbors will really get the benefit of the landscape buffer instead of just seeing a 6- foot fence. Also, seeing the views to the west over the district property helped with understanding of future design of landscaping to work with those views while providing screening and buffering of the facility. Planner Mapes added a few more observations about the components shown on the plan, the history of the existing development on the property, and the context of neighboring lots in the abutting subdivisions. He summarized the code provisions and criteria for APUs and ODPs, regarding those. Public Input (3 minutes per person) Neighbor Lori Scott spoke. She thanked the applicant team that came out to visit and hear concerns, and for revising the plan to show landscaping buffers based on the discussion. One of the concerns is lighting for the drive-through bays that will be facing homes. Another is the building being contemplated as a metal building and wondered if it could be faced with something other than metal, at least on the sides facing neighbors. Neighbors always knew that this land could be developed, but it was always thought of as becoming a neighborhood, Another concern was noise at the water-filling station from trucks coming and going in the morning. Neighbors understand the need, and just wonder what could be done to mitigate the noise from that. They understand that these things are in the future, and so they would like to see if any of these changes could be put as conditions of approval. Applicant Response The applicant responded to concerns. The district is aware of which existing lights are the most offending they are mostly building-mounted lights that do not have the appropriate shielded type of fixture. The team is committed to making sure that they are intentional with the lighting in future plans, which will comply with code requirements, to avoid lighting issues on neighboring properties. The team has discussed treatments for the metal building, and when they come to a development plan, it will include architectural elevations which will comply with code requirements for compatibility, and the team will make sure that it fits in with the neighborhood. The pull-through bays on the new proposed building, with garage doors on both sides, is important for the district as a safety element. The less backing out required during operations, the safer the facility is. It is also an efficiency element in addition to safety. With the landscape treatment, and building treatment, the team will try to mitigate what that looks like. 3 The water filling station is for individuals who are registered users of that filling station with a credit card or an ID card, so it is not just anybody driving through town that can fill up there. This limits some of the traffic through that water filling station. Commission Questions Vice Chair Shepard asked if at the time of a development plan, will there be the ability to provide an analysis with some cross sections showing topographic slope, as to what the headlights would look like as they pull through? Planner Mapes responded yes, this is typical of concerns we have that will be addressed in any development plans. Vice Chair Shepard also confirmed that that there would be another neighborhood meeting when a development plan comes forward for the building. Commission Deliberation Member Katz commented that the District has been using the site for a long time, and it would be very difficult for him personally to deny the APU, but what is interesting and difficult, is part of the APU criteria that Clark shared, for impact mitigation. But yet, this is paired with an ODP, and not a PDP, so the Commission cannot really get into that. So, he was kind of struggling with that aspect. He appreciated the applicants working with neighbors on screening and views. Member Hansen had a similar concern, but noted that the other option was to do a rezone, . That would add a whole list of other permitted uses with no relation to the d and he thinks it is appropriate that there are just two permitted uses specific to the plan. It gives a lot more predictability to the neighbors. Several members discussed their thoughts that it is important that the record from the Commission hearing, and these minutes particular, should be included and highlighted in any future development plan reviews of any type, to address the record of concerns and discussions. To ensure this, members discussed whether to include a condition with their motion; whether to ask for notes on the ODP; or whether file maintenance and institutional and that they will be raised and addressed in any future development. In the end, the Commission directed staff to ensure that it happens, but without any specific condition or direction for how to ensure it. Member Hansen made a motion that the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that City Council approve the Addition of Permitted Uses for outdoor storage and accessory garage for the office associated with the Fort Collins/Loveland Water District Overall Development Plan, ODP #210001. Member Katz seconded. 4 Vice Chair Shepard reiterated to the applicant team and to the applicant, that there will be scrutiny and the burden of proof at the time of future development plans. There will be a lot more detail needed and that's something that he just wants reflected in the minutes, that this is a skeletal APU, but there is a lot of potential for compliance. But the burden is on the applicant and the consulting team to comply with all the applicable standards of the land use code, and not in a minimal fashion. And so he just wanted to make that a comment. Vote: 5:0. Member Katz made a motion the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Commission approve the Fort Collins/Loveland Water District Overall Development Plan, ODP #210001 with the following conditions: The addition of permitted uses associated with this Overall Development Plan must be approved by City Council. Should City Council deny the Addition of Permitted Uses, this approval shall be nullified and the overall development deemed denied, because it will not be consistent with the permitted uses for the RL Zone District. Member Hansen seconded. Vote: 5:0