Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOPPERLEAF (FORMERLY 3425 SOUTH SHIELDS) - PDP - PDP160026 - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTESPlanning & Zoning Board January 12, 2017 Page 11 Board Deliberation Interim Vice Chair Hansen commented that his initial concern had been with building heights, adding that the modifications seem appropriate. Member Whitley stated that he will support the project, as he can find nothing that doesn't meet the LUC requirements. Member Hobbs thinks the modifications are relatively minor, but indicated that the project has certain physical limitations, so he is encouraged by the public interactions taken by the developer to make it compatible, he will support the project with these changes. Member Rollins likes the additional access point, and she is not convinced that traffic will be significantly impacted by density reduction; she feels that the modifications make sense with this type of infill site. Member Carpenter will support this project, saying that she doesn't feel that density is an issue, and this project properly meets the LUC. Interim Chair Schneider also feels that the zoning is consistent and compatible with the area; therefore, he will support the project. Member Hobbs made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board approve the Copperleaf PDP modification of standard 1 relating to section 3.5.2(G)(1)(a) (rear walls of multi -family garages), based upon the findings of fact contained in the staff report that is included in the agenda materials for this hearing and the board discussion on this item. Member Whitley seconded. Vote: 6:0. Member Hobbs made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board approve the Copperleaf PDP modification of standard 2 to section 3.8.30(C) (access to central feature and gathering place), based upon the findings of fact contained in the staff report that is included in the agenda materials for this hearing and the board discussion on this item. Member Hansen seconded. Vote: 6:0. Member Hobbs made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board approve the Copperleaf PDP modification of standard 3 to section 3.8.30(F)(1)(orientation and buffer yards), based upon the findings of fact contained in the staff report that is included in the agenda materials for this hearing and the board discussion on this item. Member Rollins seconded. Vote: 6:0. Member Hobbs made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board approve the Copperleaf PDP #160026, based upon the findings of fact contained in the staff report that is included in the agenda materials for this hearing and the board discussion on this item. Member Carpenter seconded. Vote: 6:0. Other Business Approval of changes to P&Z By -Laws Planning Director Gloss detailed the proposed edits to the Planning and Zoning By -Laws: Under Section 11.3 - Chair and Vice Chair should be elected in February each year for a full term. The title, "Chairman", will be changed to "Chairperson", to be consistent with the By -Laws of other City Boards and Commissions. Under Section 4, the designation of "Director of Current Planning" will be changed to "Planning Director". Assistant City Attorney Yatabe suggested that, under Article IV, Section 3, "the regular meeting in January (change to February) should be the Annual meeting", in order to correspond to the election schedule. Planning & Zoning Board January 12, 2017 Page 10 Valerie Jensen, 3367 Santa Fe Court, acknowledged that there have been several changes proposed, but she still has a concern with the density. She would like to keep the density levels equal on both sides of the street. She also has a concern with traffic, saying that traffic is already difficult to navigate. Harry Santner, 4333 Piccadilly Drive, is in favor of this project, saying that Brinkman has done a good job overall in working with the City and in addressing the neighborhood concerns. He believes this project proposes a lower density level than a previous project did. Kevin Mickie, 3642 Richmond Drive, also has a concern with traffic and the proposed density level. Eric Sutherland has a concern with the LUC wording "equal to or better than", saying that modifications should be based on merit. Rob Haas, 1994 Kinnison Drive, encouraged the Board not to consider the developer's pro forma, saying that the Board should be concerned with only the LUC implications. He also looked online for new submittal documents and did not see the documents that were shown at the hearing. Rich Maroncelli, 924 Richmond Drive, compared this property to the Landmark Apartments, saying that Landmark has about 1/3 of the density on the same amount of acreage. Because the proposed density hasn't changed, he doesn't understand what the changes are that make this project compatible with the neighborhood. Applicant and Staff Response Mr. Johnson responded to the citizen concerns about density, showing how the bedroom counts were decreased, so density actually decreased. He discussed some of the issues raised concerning storm sewers, density standards, lowering of buildings. The applicant has tried to make as many suggested changes as possible. Mr. Ranweiler added that the storm sewer is about 3 feet down, which improves drainage but also creates some constraints for the site. He discussed the zoning density requirements and the traffic concerns. He noted that the neighbors did not previously express a desire for buildings to be a maximum of 2 stories until tonight's hearing. Chief Planner Shepard also pointed out that 110 bedrooms are now proposed; in addition, there was a reference to a surrounding neighborhood, noting that there is a custom for allowing multi -family developments. He added that economics and pro-formas are never used as criterion, and he briefly discussed the impacts of density and how the code can be interpreted. Nicole Hahn, Traffic Engineer with the City, stated that the right-in/right-out from Shields is an additional access proposed to minimize the amount of cut -through traffic in the neighborhood. She discussed the signal spacing and safety aspects, including crash data and overall impact of traffic added. Chief Planner Shepard confirmed that the number of parking spaces is 147 (serving 110 bedrooms), which exceeds the minimum required parking spaces. Also, there were 115 total bedrooms previously proposed and that has been reduced to 110 currently. Board Questions Interim Vice Chair Hansen asked several clarifying questions about the setbacks between buildings and for RL properties and about required parking spaces. Interim Chair Schneider asked about the comparison of densities between this project and surrounding neighborhoods; Chief Planner Shepard stated that there is mix of apartments, townhomes, duplexes, etc. in this area, but he doesn't have specifics on that. Planning & Zoning Board January 12, 2017 Page 9 Scott Ranweiler, Applicant, summarized the recent neighborhood meetings and outreach and how the neighborhood concerns have been reviewed and addressed. These concerns include density, landscaping, and traffic, location of trash enclosure, noise/lights, amenity location. Randall Johnson, Infusion Architects, commented on the recent work performed by the Applicant. Regarding the concern of increased density, he confirmed that there are no maximum density recommendations in the LUC, only minimums, which results in ambiguity and additional questions. There were also concerns about the height and scale of the buildings, so they reduced some of the buildings from 3 stories to 2 stories, which were presented at the neighborhood meeting. He showed slides depicting new building sizes and architecture. He discussed other concerns: building heights, shading in the back, noise and light. The team looked at the various options on how to reconfigure the buildings, and they eventually reduced the density along the north side of the building as well as eliminating breezeways. They also changed architectural lines to have variation along the building sides, although they had to incorporate some constraints imposed by the fire department. He showed slides of the original plan and the changes since the November P&Z hearing. Cathy Mathis, TB Group, also discussed the existing trees and landscaping and how each was evaluated; the proposed plans include 68 new trees (21 for mitigation) in addition to new shrubs and grasses to provide privacy and protection. Traffic was a concern, including circulation and the public access easement. In addition, the trash enclosure has been removed from the proposed plans. Mr. Johnson also discussed the building designs, garage placement, light pollution, plantings, architecture improvements for light and sound concerns, amenities space (green space was created) and buffers. He received a letter of support from one of the neighbors just prior to the hearing. He feels that the team has been able to create a much better product after addressing many of the concerns from the neighbors and from the P&Z Board. Staff Analysis Chief Planner Shepard provided an analysis, discussing the challenges of the parcel and demonstrating how each proposed modification exceed standards and are "equal to or better than" and/or "nominal and inconsequential' to the overall design. He described each of the standards being applied and their compatibility with the parcel. Public Input Charles David Ham, 3324 A Hickok, discussed the compatibility issues with 2-story and 3-story buildings, including the issues surrounding the density issues. He recommended continuance of this project in order to address some of the concerns brought up last November. Bob Miller, 3611 Richmond Drive, has a concern with the number of parking spaces proposed, specifically mentioning the limited parking on Shields and Richmond. He recommended the installation of more parking spaces and traffic lights. Kenneth Orgoglioso, 3641 Richmond Drive, feels the development is attractive, but he has concerns about surrounding neighbors, the agricultural community, and the new neighbors at Copperleaf relating to the egress situations being proposed, saying that being forced into a right-hand egress is very dangerous. Sean Jensen, 3367 Santa Fe Court, has a concern that the density is too high for the area and would be better suited for a different location. He feels that this situation is continuing and only the cosmetic issues have been addressed. Planning & Zoning Board January 12, 2017 Page 8 materials for this hearing and the board discussion on this item. Member Rollins seconded. Member Hobbs is not sure the proposed LUC changes will properly protect the prairie dogs, but determines how the prairie dogs are eradicated in a reasonable and humane way. Member Carpenter asked to clarify about the methods of mitigation for this motion, Assistant City Attorney Yatabe stated that the proposed LUC changes do not address the method by which prairie dogs can be exterminated; rather, the City is preempted under State statute for mitigation methods. Interim Chair Schneider does not see the benefit of regulation, and it appears that it will result in higher development costs. Interim Vice Chair Hansen agrees, adding that this would simply establish more hurdles for developers. Vote: 4:2, with Members Hobbs and Whitley dissenting. Member Hobbs made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board recommend to City Council approval of the proposed Land Use Code changes relating to "sensitive and specially -valued species" as defined in the staff report for the Prairie Dog Management section. Member Carpenter seconded. Vote: 6:0. Member Hansen made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board recommend to City Council approval of the miscellaneous LUC pertaining to the natural habitats and definitions along with wetlands for the Prairie Dog Management section, based upon the findings of fact contained in the staff report that is included in the agenda materials for this hearing and the board discussion on this item. Member Whitley seconded. Vote: 6:0. Board took a short recess at 8:23pm and returned at 8:35pm. Project: Copperleaf PDP Proiect Description: Request for a Project Development Plan for a multi -family project consisting of 94 units on 2.98 acres, 110 bedrooms, 147 parking spaces, zoned M-M-N, Medium Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood. The request also includes three modifications of standard for the size of the private park, setbacks along two property lines and length of the rear wall of garages. Recommendation: Approval Staff and Applicant Presentations Chief Planner Shepard gave a brief overview of this project, listing the number of buildings, units, zoning, and the 3 modification requests: • To allow the length of the garages to exceed 55 feet; • To allow less than 10,000 square feet for private park/central feature/outdoor gathering area, and • To allow less than 25 feet of buffer along portions of the north and south property lines. He disclosed that he just received a citizen email in support of this project and wanted to enter it into the record. Secretary Cosmas reported that, since the work session, she has received a memo from staff referencing public comments from November 2016, a voice message from a citizen in opposition to the project and one citizen email in support of this project. Assistant City Attorney Yatabe also confirmed with the two new Board members (Rollins and Whitley) that they have had a chance to review the November record for this project. Planning & Zoning Board January 12, 2017 Page 2 • 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. Planning Director Gloss reviewed the items on the Consent and Discussion agendas, as well as the two items under "Other Business", for the audience. Public Input on Items Not on the Hearing Agenda: None noted. Consent Agenda: 1. Draft Minutes from December 15, 2016, P&Z Hearing Public Input on Consent Agenda: None noted. Member Hobbs made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board approve the January 12, 2017, Consent agenda. Member Carpenter seconded the motion. Vote: 6:0. Discussion Agenda: 2. Gateway at Prospect Rezoning and Overall Development Plan 3. Land Use Code Changes Related to Natural Resources and Prairie Dog Management 4. Copperleaf PDP Project: Gateway at Prospect Rezoning and Overall Development Plan Proiect Description for Rezoning: This is a request to rezone 12.27 acres of land currently zoned L-M- N, Low Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood and 9.71 acres of land currently zoned E, Employment, a total of 21.98 acres, to M-M-N, Medium Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood zone district. The rezoning request is being submitted in conjunction with an Amended Overall Development for the vacant land located generally at the northwest quadrant of 1-25 and East Prospect Road. This area includes 177 acres and was formerly known as Interstate Lands O.D.P. The site is presently zoned, from east to west, C-G, General Commercial, E, Employment, L-M-N, Low Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood, and U-E, Urban Estate. Jeff Schneider, Interim Chair Jeff Hansen, Interim Vice Chair Jennifer Carpenter Emily Heinz Michael Hobbs Ruth Rollins William Whitley City Council Chambers City Hall West 300 Laporte Avenue Fort Collins, Colorado Cablecast on FCTV Channel 14 & 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 January 12, 2017 Member Schneider called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Roll Call: Carpenter, Hansen, Hobbs, Rollins, Schneider, and Whitley Absent: Heinz Staff Present: Gloss, Yatabe, Richter, Olson, Shepard, Everette, Frickey, Blochowiak, Hahn, Ragasa, and Cosmas Election of Interim Officers Member Hobbs made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board elect Member Schneider as Interim Chair; Member Whitley seconded. Vote: 6:0. Member Carpenter made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board elect Member Hansen as Interim Vice Chair; Member Hobbs seconded. Vote: 6:0. Agenda Review Interim Chair Schneider provided background on the board's role and what the audience could expect as to the order of business. He described the following procedures: