Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAMENDED CSURF CENTRE FOR ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY - ODP - MJA110001 - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTESPlanning & Zoning Board June 16, 2011 Page 5 Area Ratios (FAR). It seems to be really irrelevant. Unless it's really clear what that was, he doesn't see any reason for not them not being able to agree to let go of that note. He thinks overall that is the only part of this ODP that gives him some "heartburn". Ultimately he'll support the motion as presented. Member Carpenter said she'll support the motion as well. She thinks a realignment that does not impact the wetlands is the way to go. She thinks that is more important than trying to hit the connectivity standard. Member Campana said to Member Smith that the reason he is pushing to have the note left on the ODP is MMN has a minimum density where E does not. That FAR could be restrictive on the E side whereas on the MMN it could conflict —on one hand the LUC says you have to go a minimum. That note is saying you can't go more. The motion was passed 5:1 with Member Schmidt dissenting. The Grove at Fort Collins Project Development Plan, # 16-10B Proje Description: This is a request for a multi -family residential, student housing proje containing a total of 218 dwelling units (210 units in 11 residential buildings + nits in a clubhouse building). The site is located at the southwest corne f Centre Avenue and existing Rolland Moore Drive, directly south of the Gard son Spring Creek, in the Centre for Advanced Technology. Rolland Moore D ' e would be realigned to the southerly portion of the subject property and ended east, from the ex ing terminus approximately 800 feet east of So Shields Street, to connect with tre Avenue just to the /spac rim Canal No. 2. There would be 403 park spaces on -site, 96 paces on the proposed Public Local Stree , nd 128 parallel pon the Public Commercial Street and Rolland Moore rive. The propres in size. It is located in the MMN, Medium Density ed-Use Nend E, Employment Zoning Districts. Recommendation: Approval Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and O Evidence City Planner Steve Olt said the Grove at Fo Collin , PDP consists of the majority of Parcel C on the CSURF (Colorado State University Rese ch Foundat n) Centre for Advanced Technology, Overall Development Plan (ODP) that was a oved by the Pla ing and Zoning Board in February, 2003. Parcel C is identified as MMN, Me ' m Density Mixed -Use ighborhood and E, Employment on the ODP. The proposed multi -family a is consistent with the pe ed uses in the MMN and E Districts. Therefore, the PDP is consiste with the ODP. After reviewing The Grov at Fort Collins, Project Development Plan, s makes the following findings of fact and conclusions - /The is in conformance with the Amended CSURF Centre fo dvanced Technology, osed land use is permitted in the MMN, Medium Density Mixed- serhood District. c' y Planning & Zoning Board June 16, 2011 Page 4 CDP is more specific to a certain piece of ground. He said you could say the LUC has more detail and has a lot more specificity. It might be better to clarify with a motion. Member Lingle amended his motion to add that In the event of a conflict between the ODP notes and the provisions of the LUC as they pertain to MMN zoned land within the ODP, the Land Use Code would govern. Member Campana seconded that amendment. Member Schmidt had a question about notes related to Larimer Canal # (ditch) and the information presented in Mr. Podmore's letter. She said that if, in fact, it's an independent project and not part of the OOP, what would happen if the ODP moves ahead and for some reason the ditch is not realigned before the buildings are constructed. How serious would the resulting seeping and potential breach, as outlined in Mr. Podmore's letter, be? Member Campana said any health and safety issue would be addressed in a Development Agreement. Member Carpenter asked if we are going to require that as a part of this project would that be under the CDP or the PDP. Schmidt suggested the Board leave it as a note on the CDP and when they get to the PDP to make comment there. Member Campana said he thinks it's specific to the PDP—certainly not an ODP. He said on the PDP plans there will be significant detail and engineered drawings supporting it. Member Carpenter said she'd like to hear from City staff on that. Shepard said the notes are information. He said the ODP does not grant vested rights —you cannot pull a building permit with it. He said the note does not have to be there. Schlueter said he's aware of Mr. Podmore's premises. He said there is no department at the City that reviews ground water —it's really left to the private sector and their professional engineers. Schlueter recommended the Board talk to the applicant's geotechnical engineer. Member Lingle said the way he looks at that is there are ditches that run for miles through the City and it's the ditch company's obligation to maintain them in a safe manner. A breach that is described here could occur anywhere within the city limits. He said he does not see any need for any extraordinary conditions that would apply to the CDP. Member Lingle said in support of his motion, the Board is really looking at two things —the relocation of Rolland Moore Drive and the elimination of the Northern Drive extension. He sees those as both positive things. If we leave it where it is it's impactful from a wetlands standpoint and it's impactful from a floodplain standpoint. It seems that should be easily supportable until the Board gets to the PDP where they'll discuss the project in more detail. He thinks the alternative compliance to the connectivity standard is valid. He found it a little curious in the neighborhood's presentation they made an issue of needing the connectivity to the south but did not make mention of connectivity to the north. Also, it's good that at this point there is no modification of standard required for the block standard. He said the land use is remaining in compliance with the allowable uses for this parcel. For those reasons, he'll be supporting it. Member Schmidt said she agrees with most of what Member Lingle said. She says it's a very hard decision for her because she doesn't like the existing ODP and that is why she voted for the amended CDP last time. Going back to the reasons City Council overturned the Board's prior decision relative to block standards, she doesn't feel comfortable with Fact and Finding # D that "it is infeasible for the structure of potential Blocks 1 and 3 to be defined by features set forth... because of existing development". For that reason only she will not be voting in favor of the ODP. She does think the road needs to be realigned and she thinks the ideas the neighbors had for a possible realignment could also work. Member Smith said he supports the motion. He's been convinced by the applicant how their alternative development plan with regard to vehicular street connectivity is equal to or better than the purpose is in the LUC for that section. He's not been convinced there is a need to keep the note regarding the Floor 4 Planning & Zoning Board June 16, 2011 Page 3 The Alternative Development Plan proposed in this Amended ODP does not extend Northerland Drive to the south into Parcel C and does not propose crossing the Larimer Canal No. 2 with streets. However, the Alternative Development Plan accomplishes the purposes of Section 3.6.3(F) equally well or better than a plan that would meet the standard and that any reduction in access and circulation for vehicles maintains facilities for bicycle, pedestrian and transit, to the maximum extent feasible for the following reasons: • The Alternative Development Plan will provide enhanced bicycle and pedestrian connectivity within the Amended ODP. The pedestrian and bicyclist will be able to access parks, recreational opportunities, schools, commercial uses, and employment uses within the mile section. • The streets that are being proposed in the Alternative Development Plan will distribute traffic without exceeding Level of Service (LOS) standards. • Lastly, the Alternative Development Plan eliminates negative impacts to high quality wetlands, avoids constricting an important drainage way, eliminates impacts to the FEMA floodway and avoids negative impacts to natural habitats and features associated with the designated wildlife corridor along the Larimer Canal No. 2. Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Board approve the Amended CSURF Centre for Advanced Technology Overall Development Plan - #MJA 110001 based on the preceding Findings of Fact/Conclusions. See http://www.fcgov.com/cablel4/video-archive.php, City Program tab for a video recording of the proceedings for: Applicant's Presentation • Public Input Board Questions, Discussion and Deliberation A full verbatim transcript of the hearings is being produced and will be preserved in the City's records for the Board. Member Lingle made a motion to approve the Amended CSURF Center for Advanced Technology Overall Development Plan, #MJA110001, based on the Findings of Facts and Conclusions beginning on page 11 of the staff report with the exception of the two ODP notes concerning secondary uses and FAR (Floor Area Ratio). They should remain as shown as they currently are on the existing ODP. Member Campana seconded the motion. Member Schmidt said on the materials the Board received are notes to the current ODP related to density for MMN (zone) outlined. Member Lingle said he made the motion to get it on the table and to get staff's opinion whether the Land Use Code (LUC) requirement for MMN density would govern should the notes cause a conflict. Member Campana said the note related to .37 would prevent them from going to 18 units per acre. Member Lingle asked if that's enough explanation of the two notes. He said he'd refer to the numbers but some are crossed -off and some are new and it's hard to tell what's real. Deputy City Attorney Eckman said if you think you're creating an internal conflict in the document, you could clear that up by saying in your motion that if there is a conflict internally, the LUC would trump the note. Member Lingle said he'd be willing to do that in regards to any land zoned MMN. He's a little uncomfortable referencing the other zones in the ODP because the Board had not discussed ramifications. Eckman said the trouble is the ODP is not a law and the first question is which one is more specific. One could argue that an 11 Planning & Zoning Board June 16, 2011 Page 2 iC ScSchmidt said that what the Board discussed in Worksession is that although the v may not seem st?bn u h but there are rea! commitments by the URA and a es. She said City Council serves as the and relocations of that ne as a last resort. Schmidt said hopefully City Council will strengthen ge at a later date. She said she feels comfortable with the language the wa Th motion was the 5:1 with Member Lingle dissenting. Discussion Agenda: 3. Amended CSURF Centre for Advance Technology Overall Development Plan, # MJA 110001 4. The Grove at Fort Collins Project Development Plan, # 16-10B Project: Amended CSURF Centre for Advance Technology Overall Development Plan, # MJA 110001 Project Description: This is a request for an Amended CSURF Centre for Advanced Technology Overall Development Plan (ODP). The purpose of the Amended ODP is to realign the proposed future Rolland Moore Drive street connection through Parcel C between Centre Avenue and South Shields Street; and, to eliminate the proposed future Northerland Drive street connection from Parcel C to Gilgalad Way in the Windtrail on Spring Creek PUD to the north. The properties contained on the ODP are, accumulatively, 116.7 acres in size. They are located in the MMN - Medium Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood and E - Employment Zoning Districts. Recommendation: Approval Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence City Planner Steve Olt said the Amended CSURF Centre for Advanced Technology ODP complies with the applicable review criteria in the Land Use Code (LUC), including: the ODP criteria; the E, Employment, and MMN, Medium Density Mixed Use Neighborhood Zone District Standards; the General Development Standards; and the adopted Master Street Plan. In evaluating the request for the Amended CSURF Centre for Advanced Technology ODP, staff makes the following findings of fact: A_ The Amended ODP was submitted on March 30, 2011. It is in conformance with Plan Fort Collins and the Structure Plan Map adopted in February, 2011. B. The Amended ODP satisfies the applicable requirements of Article 2 —Administration. C. The ODP complies with the applicable standards as stated in Section 2.3.2(D) (1 — 8). D. It is infeasible for the structure of potential Blocks 1 and 3 to be defined by features set forth in Section 4.6(E)(1)(a) of the LUC because of existing development. E. The re -alignment of Rolland Moore Drive is in compliance with the intent of the Master Street Plan and enhances preservation of the existing wetlands.