HomeMy WebLinkAboutMemo - Read Before Packet - 3/3/2020 - Memorandum From Cameron Gloss Re: Draft February 20, 2020 Planning And Zoning Board Hearing Summary Meeting Minutes - For Agenda Item #8Community Development & Neighborhood Services
281 North College Avenue
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580
970.221.6760
970.224.6134- fax
fcgov.com
Planning, Development & Transportation Services
MEMORANDUM
Date: March 2, 2020
To: Mayor Troxell and Councilmembers
Thru: Darin Atteberry, City Manager
Jeff Mihelich, Deputy City Manager
Caryn Champine, Planning Development and Transportation Director
Tom Leeson, Community Development and Neighborhood Services Director
From: Cameron Gloss, Long Range Planning Manager
Re: Draft February 20, 2020 Planning and Zoning Board Hearing Summary Meeting
Minutes
______________________________________________________________________
Introduction
Staff is providing City Council DRAFT Planning and Zoning Board Hearing minute
excerpts related to the request to amend the Harmony Corridor Plan with revised Plan
polices, standards and guidelines pertaining to the ‘gateway’ area located west of I-25.
Project Details
Regular Hearing
February 20, 2020
Chair Hansen called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
Roll Call: Haefele, Hansen, Hobbs, Hogestad, Katz, Schneider, Whitley
Absent: None
Staff Present: Leeson, Yatabe, Ward, Betley, Gloss, Kleer, Evans and Manno
DocuSign Envelope ID: 29809D3B-4E57-4282-87DA-3A5689FD2B9A
Agenda Review
CDNS Director Leeson 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:
Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant Blvd., spoke to the Montava PUD and legal
inefficiencies. Mr. Sutherland provided a slide regarding Land Use Code Section
4.29(D)(2). He feels there is significant room for improvement.
Consent Agenda:
1. Draft Minutes from January 16, 2020, P&Z Hearing
2. 128 Racquette Drive Annexation and Zoning
Public Input on Consent Agenda:
None noted
Chair Hansen did a final review of the items that are on the consent agenda and
reiterated that those items will not have a separate presentation unless pulled from the
consent agenda.
Member Hobbs made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board approve the
Consent agenda for the February 20, 2020, Planning and Zoning Board hearing as
originally advertised. Member Whitley seconded the motion. Vote: 7:0.
Chair Hansen recused himself from the Harmony Gateway Plan and Standards and
Guidelines item discussion item stating a conflict of interest.
Discussion Agenda:
3. Harmony Gateway Plan and Standards and Guidelines
Project Description: This is a request to amend the Harmony Corridor Plan by
adopting revised Plan polices, standards and guidelines pertaining to the ‘gateway’ area
located west of I-25.
Recommendation: Approval
Secretary Manno reported that there were no citizen emails or letters received.
Staff and Applicant Presentations
DocuSign Envelope ID: 29809D3B-4E57-4282-87DA-3A5689FD2B9A
Planner Gloss gave a brief verbal/visual overview of this project.
No applicant presentation provided.
Public Input (3minutes per person)
Kara Linn, spoke for a group, and provided a slide presentation. 18 minutes of
presentation time was allotted by presiding Vice Chair Haefele. The Board was
provided a hard copy of the presentation. Citizens provided an alternate scenario,
Scenario E, for the Board to consider and voiced concerns of the current plan laid out
by staff. Scenario E would allow mixed-use but with lower minimums for employment,
commercial, retail and residential and added a cultural use component. Regarding
density and intensity, they requested a lower building height threshold, continued
prohibition of big box retail and drive thru uses. They are recommending a maximum
trail connector, heron tree protection year-round, additional tree size requirements and a
high architectural standard.
Carolynne White, legal representative for private property owners south of Harmony
Road was given 10 minutes to speak per Vice Chair Haefele. Ms. White spoke to the
changes and that they feel are positive and to the concerns they have with code
recommendations based upon Scenario D. Scenario D fundamentally is not a feasible
development scenario. The cost to maintaining the property as it is are sizeable. The
return on investment is far less, given the constraints. The 40% open space translates
to roughly 55 acres that would not be available for development. She asks the Board to
not recommend this to City Council in its current form. If the recommendation is made
to Council, she would ask that the Board recommend removing the 40% open space
requirement or reduce the percentage. They also seek to have the landscaped
setbacks reduced.
Staff Response
Planner Gloss explained what “big box and large retail establishment” is in relation to
size. Large retail is a 25,000 sq. ft. format or larger. Big box is considered 100,000 sq.
ft. or larger. The landscape setback has an average, and there are provisions for
buildings and parking lots to be closer than that average: 95’ for buildings and 75’ for
screened parking. The proposed height limit is 3-stories. Non-residential and mixed
use can be taller, up to 6 stories, if they provide structured parking; otherwise, they are
limited to 5 stories.
Board Questions / Deliberation
Member Katz questioned if the 40% natural areas is within the entire gateway or per
new development. Planner Gloss confirmed that it would be per development.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 29809D3B-4E57-4282-87DA-3A5689FD2B9A
Member Hobbs asked if for each PDP that comes in under an OPD, each PDP block
has to be designated as 40%? Planner Gloss: That is correct.
Vice Chair Haefele wanted to know the percent of the area that is currently in the
floodway. Planner Gloss stated that 40% was relatively close.
Member Hogestad questioned the 40% natural area, asking if this is part of what has
been looked at as for green areas, trails and buffer areas around the site. Planner
Gloss: Yes. Would requirements for plantings in parking lots still be enforced? Planner
Gloss stated that landscaped areas within and surround parking lots is not included in
the 40% calculation.
Vice Chair Haefele; when you say cultural facilities are not constrained by the land use
limitations, does this mean an entire project could be 100% cultural facility? Planner
Gloss: Hypothetically, yes. What types of facilities does this mean? Planner Gloss: A
habitat restoration area, park, ball field, these are recreational, open, undeveloped
properties. There are other uses such as art-related that would fall in this category.
Director Leeson asked for clarification regarding the 40% being applied to each
individual PDP within and ODP. Planner Gloss clarified that if a property owner came in
and did an Overall Development Plan and had multiple PDP’s within an ODP you would
use the ODP to calculate the 40%. Planner Gloss misunderstood the question asked by
Member Hobbs to mean if someone did a standalone PDP would they have to meet the
40% even if it was a relatively small area, then yes, they would.
Member Hogestad asked if clustering would be allowed. Planner Gloss: Absolutely.
Member Schneider requested clarification if the Board had previously approved an ODP
for the area. Planner Gloss: Yes, a portion of the ODP is within the gateway area, but
not its entirety.
Member Katz asked if within the previously approved ODP, how much is in the
floodway? Planner Gloss does not believe that the present ODP has any land within
the floodway and that there are portions of the parcels that are within the floodplain.
Attorney Yatabe clarified that his understanding of the ODP that it encompasses all the
area South of Harmony that is within the gateway area and extends further to the South.
There is only a portion of the Northwest corner that has been delineated essentially as
eligible to have different phases or different PDP’s coming in on that portion of the
property. If other phases want to come in on the remainder of that ODP, an amendment
to that plan would be in order.
Member Hobbs sought clarification from Planner Gloss in relation to his definition of
mixed-use building and the number of stories those structures could be. Planner Gloss
explained that mixed-use is typically an office or commercial use mixed with residential,
and is vertically separated, and not side-by-side.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 29809D3B-4E57-4282-87DA-3A5689FD2B9A
Member Schneider: Based on reading the revised plan, the 40% is based on the overall
area not on individual parcels. Planner Gloss clarified that it is the same as it is today.
If you have an overall development plan the calculation is based upon the gross site
area for each one of those uses, not the building footprint or square footages; it is the
site area allocated to that use.
Member Hogestad asked if the 1991 Corridor Plan was still in affect currently. Planner
Gloss: Yes. In this plan it talks about low-rise development and tapering into natural
areas. Planner Gloss responded that if you look at the gateway section of the 91’ plan,
it called for an examination and clarity over some general direction, you are correct, that
there is some language there that would suggest potentially some lower buildings. This
is contrary to findings when out in the community. Conditions have changed and staff
feels that building heights should be the same within the gateway as they are within the
Harmony corridor. Member Hogestad commented about the “conditions have changed”
statement. Planner Gloss commented that back then much of the corridor was vacant
land, the context was different, and Timnath was 1 ½ square miles in total.
Vice Chair Haefele asked if the setbacks counted toward the undeveloped, they are not
additive? Planner Gloss responded that they are inclusive.
Member Hogestad does not feel this plan will come close to delivering the vision.
Planner Gloss commented that staff is charged with creating a framework for the
Gateway Plan Amendment. Staff cannot dictate what all the design details are.
Member Katz asked about a City option to purchase land to keep as natural area.
Planner Gloss commented that there was consideration given to purchase and
conservation easement; the biggest concern is assuming liability of open water areas.
Member Hobbs spoke about the substitute water supply plan. The determination was
that the evaporative loss which is what we speak of when looking at liability. 120-acre
feet of evaporative is what needs to be augmented by a SWSP. Do you know whether
the issue of the standing water can be or would be cured in water court by the
attachment of water rights to cover 120-acre feet or whether the State Water Board
would not accept that for a cure? Planner Gloss could not answer that definitively but
knows there is hesitation by City staff to take on the liability.
Member Hogestad asked for clarification on where the City stands on the cultural/civic
aspect. Planner Gloss responded that the notion of a cultural use as opposed to a civic
use, the staff recommendation is specific in the cultural use. The different types of uses
permitted within the corridor today as well as other uses in the City, we would have a
broader accommodation for civic uses than suggested by the citizens. A private park
falls under a civic use, this could be beneficial to the site, as one example. Could the
size of sports complexes, as an example, be limited? Planner Gloss stated the Board
might want to consider clarification.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 29809D3B-4E57-4282-87DA-3A5689FD2B9A
Member Hobbs: Attorney White stated that there was one landowner being impacted by
this. After looking at the Larimer County GIS maps it appears there are actually a few
other owners that may be impacted, is this accurate? Planner Gloss: We are taking
Mrs. White’s testimony to mean the southern area has been aggregated under one
ownership control even though the Assessor’s record show multiple names. The State
Land Board does hold properties on the Northwest quadrant of Harmony and I-25,
which would also be subject to the gateway standards.
Member Haefele wanted a comparison as to what 45,000 sq. ft. looks like. Example the
North Fort Collins King Soopers. Director Leeson responded roughly 120 to 130,000
square feet. The Taft and Elizabeth King Soopers is roughly 65,000 square feet.
Member Katz asked Mrs. White if it was correct that the property owner would like to
keep the property natural. Mrs. White responded no, the dialogue with the City was
whether the area would be used as a natural area or as part of a conservation
easement. This led to the conclusion that the City did not wish to acquire the land. She
would not say that her client desires to keep it as a natural area. They agree that there
should be heightened standards for landscaping and so on. The City did indicate that
they would like to see the land kept as natural.
Member Hobbs asked if the evaporative water loss could be covered by permanent
shares of water. Mrs. White responded that she is not working on any of the water
rights.
Member Hogestad commented that he is struggling with the unpredictability of the land
set aside for natural areas, as to what it may end up looking like. There is too much
opportunity for the landscape to find its way into unbuildable areas. He does not feel it
supports the vision at all. As for the undefined civic or cultural component, we do not
really know what this is all about.
Member Schneider questioned Member Hogestad on his civic and cultural uses
concern. What scenario is being looked at? Member Hogestad is looking at the citizen-
initiated Scenario E that speaks to a cultural component. Civic is too broad, this could
allow for very large impact. Member Hogestad is in support of a cultural component.
Vice Chair Haefele feels that 40% is a large amount. Is there a way to pull back some
of the 40% and place upon the developer; attributes in the standards and guidelines that
would ensure that 25% of the ODP is truly beneficial to the public? Member Schneider
asked Vice Chair Haefele to keep in mind that the floodplain is buildable for commercial
use, you cannot have high occupancy use or residential use in the floodplain. Member
Hobbs commented there is a distinction between floodway and floodplain. Vice Chair
Haefele would like to see a defined cultural area that incorporates natural landscaping.
Member Hogestad feels the language needs to speak to greenbelts and how they
engage building, rather than run along edges, they should run through the built areas.
There seems to still be things missing. Member Schneider commented that currently if
someone were to submit, the submission falls under today’s standards and with the new
DocuSign Envelope ID: 29809D3B-4E57-4282-87DA-3A5689FD2B9A
plan we are trying to reduce the footprint and doing a lot to increase the natural area
and not have the density and take away some of the concerns and potential concerns of
what could potentially be out there today. Member Hobbs feels the plan achieves as
much as a municipality could expect to impose on landowners in general or in
aggregate and it is not realistic to appropriate 40% of private land for naturalistic open
space. This is a difficult piece of land to develop and close to 40% of it is in the
floodway and won’t be developed. We must be careful as a City to not have an
overreach of what we expect. The elements that we can communicate by standards
and guidelines in the land use code must be the greenbelt type, pathways, community
areas and open spaces within the footprint of the development. We could not expect a
private landowner to create, revegetate and maintain natural areas at the behest of the
City. This is the City’s job and they do not want it. Member Schneider commented that
this is not an ODP, this is a policy plan, guidelines and standards update. The Board
cannot talk to specifics and what works the best with what, this happens when a plan is
submitted.
Member Hogestad questioned the current ODP and if there would be multiple PDP’s
from this submittal. Planner Gloss: Yes, there will likely be multiple PDP’s.
Member Hobbs questioned if the current ODP, approved in 2014, would be regulated by
new guidelines or if it would be grandfathered in? Planner Gloss responded that an
OPD does not create a vested right. Attorney Yatabe agreed that there are no vested
rights associated with an ODP and this is a plan that is potentially subject to change in
regulations going forward.
There was discussion regarding making some of the items in the plan concrete, a must-
do as opposed to a want-to, such as building height and use.
Member Katz feels 40% is an overreach for any one landowner. He will not be
supporting this as it is written.
Setback depth was discussed. There is a mandated minimum of 80 feet currently, with
this new plan it will be considerably deeper.
Member Whitley would like language to recommend to Council that they approach a
private/public to come up with a percentage. Member Hobbs reminded the Board that
this is a recommendation and suggested concreteness. Member Hogested will not
support anything less than 40%. The Board also discussed the pooled/pond water the
liability and greenspace.
Member Katz made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board recommend that
City Council adopt the amendments to the Harmony Corridor Plan and Harmony
Corridor Standards and Guidelines with the conditions that the City of Fort
Collins participates with the private landowners in creation, management, and
maintenance of the 40% natural area created within the ODP, of which up to 20%
of the natural area requirement could be satisfied by cultural amenities, City
DocuSign Envelope ID: 29809D3B-4E57-4282-87DA-3A5689FD2B9A
participation would include purchasing or contributing in other financial matters
and maintaining in perpetuity for the public enjoyment.
The Harmony Corridor Plan is in need of the proposed amendments and the
proposed amendments will promote the public welfare and will be consistent with
the vision, goals, principals, and policies of City Plan and the elements thereof.
The information and findings contained in the staff report prepared for this
hearing are adopted by this Board, with the exception of the conditions. Member
Hobbs seconded. Member Schneider asked if the Board could place the condition as
it puts a financial burden on the City. Attorney Yatabe responded that the Board could
recommend, as this is non-binding, merely a recommendation. Member Hogestad
requested an amendment to add that 20% of the project be of cultural content. The
request was declined. The Board discussed the definition of cultural and that the Land
Use Code does not have a definition and would require a code change. Vote: 4:2
(Haefele and Schneider opposed).
The link to the video is: https://fortcollinstv.viebit.com/player.php?hash=anquODCBLEj1
Attorney Yatabe massaged the language of the motion as little as possible as he felt
Council would find it most instructive in understanding the motion if they can hear the
discussion itself or at least fairly detailed minutes.
The initial motion is made at approximately 2:47, the amendment at 3:00:15 is Michael
Hobbes amendment regarding 20% amenities, 3:05:25 is the vote.
Other Business
A reminder was given that the March Hearing will be held on the 4th
Thursday of the
month, March 26th
. The work session will be held on March 20th,
the Friday beforehand.
This is to accommodate those that will be out for local spring break.
Adjournment
Vice Chair Haefele moved to adjourn the P&Z Board hearing. The meeting was
adjourned at 9:12 pm.
Next Steps
Staff is requesting approval from City Council to amend the Harmony Gateway Plan and
Standards and Guidelines to include conditions stated in the Boards motion.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 29809D3B-4E57-4282-87DA-3A5689FD2B9A