Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 10/30/2003Planning and Zoning Board Minutes October 30, 2003 6:30 P.M. Chairperson Torgerson called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. Roll Call: Colton, Meyer, Schmidt, Gavaldon, Craig, Carpenter, and Torgerson. Staff Present: Gloss, Eckman, Waido, Jackson, and Dairies. Consultants Present: Bruce Meighen, EDAW, and R.A. Plummer, PBS&J. Director of Current Planning Cameron Gloss reviewed the Consent and Discussion Agendas: Consent Agenda: 1. Minutes of the January 17, 2002, Planning and Zoning Board Hearings -- pulled, not heard 2. Brittany Knolls Development Easement Dedication. 3. Brittany Knolls Development Easement Vacation. Discussion Agenda: 4. Recommendation to City Council on the Revision of City Plan. 5. Recommendation to City Council on the Transportation Master Plan Update. 6. Red Tail Development -- Applicant requests postponement to November 20, 2003. Member Gavaldon moved for approval of Consent Items 2 and 3, Brittany Knolls Development Easement Dedication and Vacation. Member Schmidt seconded the motion. The motion was approved 7-0. Member Gavaldon moved to continue Discussion Item 6, Red Tail Development, PDP 2601, until November 20, 2003. Member Craig seconded the motion. The motion was approved 7-0. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes October 30, 2003 Page 2 Project: Recommendation to City Council on the Revision of City Plan. Project Description: Recommendation to City Council for adoption of update of City Plan, the City's Comprehensive Plan. Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence: Ken Waido, Chief Planner, and Bruce Meighen, Lead Project Manager, gave the staff presentation. They highlighted both what is changing and what is not changing in the first update of City Plan since its initial adoption in 1997. Staff, consultants, and a Citizen Advisory Committee have been working on the Update for about 18 months. The final step in the process before submitting the City Plan Update to City Council for adoption is to gather input from City Boards and Commissions. Consultant Meighen explained the major changes in City Plan and the two-part process used to update it. The first part focused on answering one question: What is the future size and character of our community? This produced a number of characteristics, adopted by City Council in March 2003. The second part, which is where we are now, updated principles and policies in City Plan to support those characteristics. The large public involvement included a public survey, six pubic meetings, and a Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) as well as working with various Boards and Commissions and City staff. In the first phase, staff and consultants found that our citizens want a compact community, with a Growth Management Area (GMA) very similar to what it is today with some flexibility; our undeveloped lands will continue to urbanize; existing areas should be renewed through redevelopment; neighborhood character should be preserved at all costs; our community should have a healthy economy, good regional cooperation, a balance of jobs and housing, a high level of city services; an active land acquisition program for open lands; and that our community should be served by a multi -modal regional and interregional transportation system. The second phase, updating the City Plan document, was a five -step process. Consultants went through the existing document and, in light of the adopted characteristics, found places where changes were needed. They recommended changes to the CAC, who provide initial feedback on those changes plus Planning and Zoning Board Minutes October 30, 2003 Page 3 additional areas in need of change. Based on those recommendations, consultants reworked the changes and return to the CAC with final changes. The CAC then gave final recommendations on whether the changes were appropriate, and those recommendations were used to update the entire document. Additional input on parts of the document was provided from City departments and other Boards and Commissions, for example the National Resources Advisory Board, to ensure requirements of other plans, such as the newly revised Natural Resources Policy Plan, were consistent with the language of City Plan. Consultant Meighen presented changes to the document in five categories: Development Patterns, Region and Economy, Open Space and Natural Areas, Neighborhoods and Housing, and Transportation. He noted that most of the document did not change, and the process served to reconfirm the original vision of City Plan. Some of the changes that did occur were major, and these are the ones he outlined. In Development Patterns: • the GMA is to remain essentially as it is today, with some flexibility to be amended in the future. Two potential inclusion areas are the CSU Foothills Campus and Fossil Creek Cooperative Planning Area (CPA), which the document says will be investigated. • Because they no longer make sense in light of the GMA remaining at its current boundaries, references to maintaining a 20-year supply of land have been removed from the document, as has the definition of a CPA as an area of potential future city growth. City Council did not adopt a characteristic calling for a CPA. • Criteria and procedures for amending the GMA in the future were defined. In Appendix C, the process for a comprehensive update of City Plan is outlined. That is just one way of updating City Plan; there are also procedures for minor amendments. • City Plan calls for using subarea plans to focus on planning and redevelopment. The Subarea Plan Map includes a proposed subarea plan for the northwest area of the city, because it contains vacant lands, and is expected to feel some growth pressure with the CSU Foothills Campus adjacent. Staff feels a subarea plan will be warranted there in next five years. • City Plan also calls for targeted redevelopment in areas where the community in general agrees redevelopment is appropriate, not everywhere throughout the city, and for infill to be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. The Redevelopment Map shows targeted redevelopment areas; areas covered by existing subarea plans, and areas where existing zoning as well as City Plan allows for greater intensification than current use. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes October 30, 2003 Page 4 The Structure Plan has been modified to take a more regional look at both our immediate community and what is happening on the edges of our GMA. It acknowledges the growth plans of surrounding communities and what we would like to have happen on the edges of our community, including anticipated county development and where we would like to see community separators and open lands acquisition The Structure Plan Map has been updated to more accurately reflect existing and proposed future land uses. The Action Plan, which addresses the question what are we going to do to make City Plan a reality, has been refined, and is now a five-year plan. It includes amending the Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA), evaluating the two GMA amendments outlined in City Plan, development of a northwest subarea plan, evaluating the targeted redevelopment areas for appropriate or whether a new subarea plan is required as well as for any limitations, and additional refinements to the Land Use Code identified through the City Plan Update process. In Region and Economy, consultants found a number of policies addressing the health of the Fort Collins economy. The updated City Plan contains additional policies: • Related to attracting and retaining employers. • Ensuring our community has a strong revenue base. • Strengthening our retail base. • Promoting regional strategies, not only in terms of economic growth, but for land use, development and transportation as well. • Addressing when public investment strategies are appropriate and how to evaluate when to use them, and different ways to expand the city's revenue given that the GMA will not be increasing. In Open Space and Natural Areas, City Plan was modified to be consistent with the updated Natural Areas Policy Plan (NAPP) and Air Quality Plan (AQP), In addition: • A section on Community Separators was added. • What we envision for the edges of the GMA was clarified. • New policies for protecting Boxelder Creek were added. • Acknowledgement was made that protection of natural areas should require a regional strategy beyond our GMA. In the Action Plan, City Plan assumes the NAPP and AQP are the primary implementation tools. In Neighborhoods and Housing, the original City Plan was very strong. Updates include: Planning and Zoning Board Minutes October 30, 2003 Page 5 • Additional refinements directed at providing stability to existing neighborhoods while offering opportunities for infill and redevelopment. • Conducting redevelopment and infill according to subarea/neighborhood plans. • Enhancement of policies related to development of affordable housing. • A new policy on providing housing with basic access and functionality for personas of all ages and abilities.: • The Action Plan recognizes that further work beyond the City Plan update is necessary to ensure the goal of neighborhood preservation is met. It calls for modification of the Land Use Code and design guidelines to avoid incompatible infill and redevelopment; updates to the Eastside and Westside Neighborhood Plans; modification of zoning where intensification is incompatible with existing neighborhoods, and new zoning to preserve very low density (rural) neighborhoods. In Transportation, City Plan policies were modified to be consistent with the update to the Transportation Master Plan (TMP), which will be presented later in the meeting. Modifications include: • A clarification and refined definition of transportation corridors. • Additional policy on content -sensitive design. • A new policy for transportation corridors within open lands • Policies supporting a multi -modal transportation system and regional transportation connections. • The Action Plan recognizes that the TMP defines improved strategies to implement the City Plan vision. PUBLIC INPUT David Wright with Citizen Planners spoke to add to the e-mail he sent the Board prior to the meeting. Some of the changes he encouraged have been made, but City Plan needs a statement that growth needs to pay its own way. We're in a very unusual circumstance and will be for some time. Federal funds are extremely limited. When she was in Denver, Gale Norton said the future of federal funding is most likely in the past, and will likely stay restricted. State having a hard time coming up with funds, with TABOR holding back generating new funds even if the economy picks up. Citizens seem quite unwilling to dish out new tax funds -- we've had transportation issues defeated, and now a jail issue -- there's a consistent pattern of not wanting to pay more taxes. Our population is expanding at a fairly rigorous rate, maybe over 3 percent. If growth is not paying its way, the state and federal government is not providing money and the public is not willing to dish out more taxes, the amount of money being Planning and Zoning Board Minutes October 30, 2003 Page 6 spent on infrastructure per person will be decreasing. California is the extreme case -- in 1978 they passed Prop 13, and the people refused to pay any more taxes. The population skyrocketed and growth was not paying its way, so now hospitals are closing, roads are falling apart, schools are deteriorating, and police services are not adequate. Colorado is close to being in a very similar California Trap: People are reluctant to pay taxes, growth does not pay for itself. According to Dr. Sieidel of CSU, for every $1 spent by developers, the people pay $1 in taxes; for rural development the ratio is $3 of taxes for every $1. In that situation, we start running a deficient, and pretty soon we are unable to provide infrastructure. I hear Fort Collins alone has $500 million of deferred road projects, things that need to be done. We have a county jail that needs improvement, but that issue is not likely to pass. I would like to see this document ask all growth to pay for itself. This is a very critical issue. The other item I want to talk about is economic development. California has discovered they can't develop themselves out of the problem. Frequently new development doesn't pay its full way, and the situation deteriorates. Then new development actually contributes to the problem. Economic development has to be a sustainable sort of development. This document needs to address sustainable economic development, not just passing out hundreds of thousands of dollars to businesses that when they come don't cover the cost of infrastructure. The importance of economic sustainability and development paying for itself cannot be overstated. I'm hoping such a statement will show up in this document so it is there for future reference. This is a great City Plan, and a great City. I want to make sure it stays that way. Thank you for a great job. PUBLIC INPUT CLOSED Member Schmidt agreed that economic sustainability is very important, and she didn't see anything in the Economic Development Action plan that deals with sustainability. Consultant Meighen said that CAC had made recommendations for a new policy on sustainability at its last meeting, after October 15 when the draft document was last updated. No direct feedback on adding anything to the Action Plan has been received yet. The Board discussed process for communicating recommendations to Council. Member Craig suggested voting on specific policies and sections rather than giving general recommendations. Chairman Torgerson had more general comments. Planner Waido requested a formal vote on issues to get the Board's Planning and Zoning Board Minutes October 30, 2003 Page 7 position to effectively communicate to Council. Member Gavaldon suggested that while members may be OK with an overall section but have concerns about issues within the section. He proposed voting on any issues members have within each section then moving on the next section. Member Colton agreed, and suggested voting on topics and ideas first, then going back to develop the specific wording of alternatives. The wording could be distributed between this and the next meeting for review. Member Meyer agreed with developing specific language offline, saying she didn't want to spend the next three hours wordsmithing the document. She added that any issues addressed in the section -by -section review should be things that are unacceptable, not just little irritations. That way everyone can say what they need to say, and the Board can move on to the Transportation Master Plan, which is just as important if not more so.. Member Carpenter agreed, asking members not to beat dead horses, and to concentrate on issues of concern to the entire Board rather than individual issues that members can address before Council as citizens. We need to come to a consensus of what we have problems with. The discussion started with Member Colton proposing the same updated wording for the Community Vision he had suggested as a member of CAC. This rewording did not appear in the draft document. Planner Waido explained that the draft City Plan document reviewed by P&Z has not been changed or rewritten since October 15, so that all Boards and Commissions can respond to the same document. Chairman Torgerson said he would rather not vote on specific paragraphs. Planner Waido suggested the Board vote on more general issues, such as Member Schmidt's concern about the lack of principles and policies dealing with economic sustainability. Staff could take that sort of useful direction and work on the issue between now and when the final document is submitted to Council, to develop language Council can decide whether to incorporate. He did not have a firm date for when Council will consider adoption of City Plan. Member Carpenter felt submitting items already voted on by the CAC didn't make sense. Member Gavaldon said all input should be incorporated, whether it is on a concept or a text issue. Individuals have to have the same weighted input as the Planning and Zoning Board Minutes October 30, 2003 Page 8 Board. He asked Planner Waido how all the input will be presented to Council so individual comments don't get lost. All input will be compiled by staff, without analysis or commentary, on two lists that will be forwarded to Council with the October 15 draft. One list will contain changes that are either editorial in nature or where there is no disagreement.; it can be thought of as similar to a consent agenda. The other list will contain items where there is sharp disagreement either between different Boards and Commissions or between Boards and Commissions and staff; similar to a discussion agenda. This will allow all perspectives on key issues to come before Council equally. He added that if Council members want to pull items from the consent list, they can do so. The discussion list currently contains a manageable amount of issues, according to Planner Waido, and the key issues to go before Council should be just a handful. In response to a question from Member Gavaldon, Planner Waido confirmed that this process applies to anyone who submits comments, individuals, Boards, or outside groups, such as Homebuilders. In response to a question from Member Schmidt, Planner Waido explained that all comments will be given equal weight and no Board or Commission has seen or been asked to comment on the comments of other Boards and Commissions to avoid becoming trapped in an infinite loop of comments on comments on comments. He emphasized the Board's role as that of giving advice to City Council, which will ultimately be responsible for weighing and reconciling the differing perspectives. Chairman Torgerson asked the Board to start with discussing The Big Issue, the GMA boundary, then work toward specifics. Member Carpenter suggested confining the discussion to content and the bigger issues, the ones the Board will actually be advising Council on, rather than try to change the documents at the level of wordsmithing. Member Craig agreed, as long the Board is not giving up its right to set policy. Member Gavladon said he was OK with the GMA, but had some specific areas of concern. He would like to see analysis done on alternatives to make sure any acquisition is cost-effective for the city. If the cost of bringing infrastructure improvements for the CSU Foothills Campus up to city standards is too high, he doesn't want that piece of property in the city. He's uneasy dealing with CSU. Planner Waido said that a future expansion of the GMA sets the stage for potential annexation, which requires an annexation agreement, a negotiated thing. The City is the logical provider of needed utilities, but that's down the road. Intensification of use in the area will have an impact outside CSU's property, and Planning and Zoning Board Minutes October 30, 2003 Page 9 the University is sensitive to the issue. Lately there has been good cooperation. Betweent he City and CSU, but Member Gavaldon still expressed nervousness about dealing with CSU. Member Craig said we should use the pre -established criteria in City Plan to evaluate the two potential expansions. Chairman Torgerson countered that he had a problem with those criteria, because bulleted Item 3 says expansion can only occur if the activity cannot be accommodated on lands within the GMA. It may require drastic measures, but all uses can be accommodated, and the item does not say "reasonably accommodated." Member Schmidt noted that the word "reasonable" appears in the title of item 3, and the CAC, of which she was a member, thought it redundant to include it again. Consultant Meighen pointed out there are two versions of this item; among other small differences, staff recommends adding "reasonably' into the body of item 3, to emphasize that due diligence must be performed. Member Schmidt explained CAC wanted to be sure that in the future there was a very specific reason to expand the GMA, not just an arbitrary decision. Planner Waido explained that both versions appear because prior to October 15, this was the only issue on which CAC and staff could not come to agreement. Member Craig moved to recommend the CAC version of City Plan Policy GM 1.3. Member Gavaldon seconded the motion. The motion carried, 4-3, with Meyer, Carpenter, and Torgerson voting no. The Board discussed the issue of requiring a 20-year supply of buildable land, which was removed from the updated document. Chairman Torgerson disagreed with the change. Member Craig suggested that with increased density and increased intensity of use, there might be a 20-year supply within the GMA. Chairman Torgerson said that according to the Redevelopment Map, there isn't, especially in light of proposed down -zoning and a moratorium on infill and alley houses in Old Town. Member Craig asked for staff input. Consultant Meighen explained that the supply of buildable land depends on the growth rate. Previously, City Plan was written so that the GMA would be sized to accommodate everyone who wanted to come to Fort Collins, with a sustained growth rate over 20 years of 2 percent. Now we will be at capacity within the current GMA boundary in approximately 10-15 years. Chairman Torgerson pointed out that 40 percent of the growth rate is internal, which means in 10-15 years, our kids can't stay here. Planner Waido added that an analysis of the capacity of the current GMA performed by staff and consultants based on available vacant lands, economic studies, and figures from the state demographer, assuming 10 percent of the expected population increase can be Planning and Zoning Board Minutes October 30, 2003 Page 10 accommodated through infill, gives a total population of approximately 190,000. Once that is reached, the community must make a decision on whether there should be more infill and redevelopment like that 10 percent. Future updates of City Plan may have to address the question, if you don't grow up and you don't grow out, what do you do? Member Colton said the basic question was do we want the GMA to grow? It is consistent with the current plan to remove references to a 20-year supply of land. The CAC and public input gave support for community separators and maintaining the rural character of lands outside the GMA, and such references would be in opposition to the adopted characteristics. He felt it was a major issue at the heart of the document. Chairman Torgerson said he disagreed with those characteristics as much as Member Colton disagreed with the Community Vision. Member Carpenter noted that outside the GMA we have no control, and these policies will push growth outside the GMA into surrounding rural lands, which is incongruous with preserving the rural character of those lands. The whole document is based on the first philosophical decision made at the beginning of the process, and we have to look at the document in that light. Removing the references only makes sense, whether we agree with it or not. Chairman Torgerson said that would be the key issue why he will vote against the document as a whole, because limiting the GMA is fundamental to the document. Member Colton pointed out that allowing 50 percent more population is not no - growth, and the CAC did not discuss growth caps, preferring to limit the physical size. Member Schmidt added that the CAC expects nearby communities to continue to grow and take responsibility for some of this growth, as embers of a neighborhood of communities, and felt it would be better for Fort Collins to say this is the area we are comfortable taking care of, rather than assuming control and responsibility for infrastructure in an ever-expanding area. The discussion returned to Member Colton's issue with the Community Vision and Goals. He read his suggested wording, but the consensus of the Board was members needed more time to digest it before voting. Planner Waido confirmed that this change is already included on the consent list of changes for Council. Member Colton felt more than one Board supporting the change sent a stronger message, but Member Schmidt pointed out staff will be compiling all comments with equal weight. Chairman Torgerson felt in light of stopping cooperative planning and limiting the GMA, it is disingenuous to include maintaining rural character of the area outside GMA control. Member Craig said she liked the new community separators acknowledged on the Structure Plan, and those, in Planning and Zoning Board Minutes October 30, 2003 Page 11 essence, are our cooperative planning areas, where other communities have agreed to clustering and other methods to keep the communities separate entities. Chairman Torgerson disagreed, pointing out that the Timnath separator is controlled by Larimer County which has agreed to no such thing and would approve a subdivision in that area. The program is only voluntary, not a legal agreement. Member Schmidt agreed that separators are not immune from development, and she recapped the CAC discussion on this point, which hinged on the definition of lands inside the GMA being destined for urbanization. The City can own parcels of land outside the GMA to protect their character. Members will review the wording of Member Colton's version of the Community Vision during the next break, and vote on it later. Member Craig asked to take up the issue of economic development and sustainability, as presented on Page 117 for the document. She felt that while i is referred to throughout the document, sustainability isn't stated in the Policies and Principles at the level that it should be, and suggested that a new Policy ECON 2 with two or three supporting Principles be added. In response to a question from Member Carpenter, Member Schmidt read the definition from Appendix G-9 of the document: Sustainability refers to the long-term social, economic and environmental health of a community. A sustainable community thrives without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their meets. Sustainable cities use resources efficiently and effectively. They conserve, reuse and recycle. The use local resources where the can, they minimize exportation of environmental risk. Sustainability requires integration of goals and policies. For example, economic development, afford housing, public safety, environmental protection and mobility are interrelated ad should be addressed in a holistic way. Similarly, the city's future is intrinsically linked to that of the region, state, nation and the world. Sustainability depends on inclusion bringing together different stakeholders to identify common values and goals and to work to achieve them. Sustainability means thinking long-term. Meaningful solutions to challenges transcend calendar year and electoral cycles. All decisions about how to meet the present needs of the community should take into consideration potential impacts on the ability of future generations to meet their needs. Member Craig would like this to be the basis for the new Policy ECON 2. Member Schmidt moved to recommend that the City Plan document include more definite policies, principles and action items in the Action Plan related to economic sustainability. Member Craig seconded the motion. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes October 30, 2003 Page 12 Member Galvaldon asked if sustainability is included throughout the Economic section. Planner said that if it is a duplication, it's a good duplication. Member Meyer pointed out that while she had no problem adding such a policy, the City's has no economic development policy, which would be more important. Member Colton felt it was important to start talking about how the City will achieve sustainability. The motion was approved 6-1 with Chairman Torgerson voting in the negative. Member Colton asked why Policy ECON 1.1 was rewritten by staff. Planner Waido replied that it was in support of the adopted characteristics. Consultant Meighen added that it was added through the CAC consensus and compromise process, to be truer to the characteristics and provide a higher level of emphasis, as with the sustainability policy just added. Member Colton wanted to know if it implied the City will be giving financial incentives to companies. Planner Waido and Consultant Meighen replied no, since the wording is not "will" but will be "strategic" and working with employers and use other mechanisms. Member Colton was concerned it would be expanding the City's involvement in economic development. Quality of life is the economic engine of the community, and he doesn't want to see the City start wooing new businesses. A supermajority of the CAC did not instruct staff to reword it or strike it. Member Gavaldon asked for clarification of why it was rewritten if the CAC was split on the issue. Consultant Meighen pointed out that the CAC was split on most issues on which they voted, and very little in the City Plan document received unanimous support. Without the meeting notes in front of him, he could not say exactly what the vote was, but if it was reworded, staff and consultants had received direction to do so from more than 50 percent of the CAC. Member Colton moved to keep existing wording of Policy ECON 1.1. Motion seconded by Member Craig. Member Carpenter would not support the motion, because she saw nothing in the rewritten version implying incentives. She asked rhetorically, if our kids won't have anyplace to live, they wouldn't need jobs either? She expressed concern that the Board was pulling out anything and everything having to do with the basics of life. It's part of the City's job to make sure the community has a good economic environment. Member Craig said the old policy said the same thing in fewer words. Member Carpenter asked why change it back? That's wordsmithing. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes October 30, 2003 Page 13 The motion was defeated 4-3, with Chairman Torgerson and Members Meyer, Carpenter, and Gavaldon voting in the negative. Member Gavaldon wanted to make clear that he felt ECON 1.2 would be sufficient to prevent incentives for being used, but he didn't want to see an expansion of them. More words were better for him. Member Colton said incentives were bad policy and didn't want to support them. Member Schmidt brought up the criteria and procedures for GMA modification. While the criteria are stated on Page 148, procedures are contained in Appendix C. She would like to see the procedures moved up with the criteria, and focused much more on what is required for a GMA expansion. She felt the procedures in Appendix C dealt mostly with procedures for updating City Plan as a whole, of which GMA modification can be a part. Member Schmidt moved to recommend specific procedures for updating the Growth Management Area become part of Policy GM 1.3, right below the criteria, and refer to what is required for a review of the GMA. Member Colton seconded the motion. Member Gavaldon asked if we move this, shouldn't we move other items too? He asked for staff input. Planner Waido pointed out that the GMA couldn't be modified outside a comprehensive update of City Plan, but a comprehensive update does not necessarily involve a GMA boundary change. If a GMA boundary change is proposed, it automatically kicks in a cover -to -cover review of City Plan. It's not a minor amendment. A comprehensive update of City Plan is the only one way to change the GMA. Chairman Torgerson asked if a comprehensive update of City Plan just for a minor expansion of the GMA would be a good use of staff and city resources. Planner Waido replied that while the size of a GMA expansion may be minor, the implications of expanding it are far- reaching, and those implications need to be considered fully. Member Colton felt adding the procedures under the criteria would add clarity to the document. The motion was defeated 4-3 with Chairman Torgerson and Members Meyer, Carpenter, and Gavaldon voting in the negative. Member Carpenter respectfully requested that the discussion remain focused on content, not items like organization of the document more appropriately handled by staff. Chairman Torgerson addressed Policy HSG 1.6 on page 121. He read it: Planning and Zoning Board Minutes October 30, 2003 Page 14 Housing units, including single-family houses and multiple housing units, shall be constructed with practical features that provide basic access and functionality to people of all ages and widely varying mobility and ambulatory -related abilities. He said what that means is that we'll all have handicapped ramps in our homes. Visitabilty is a movement afoot in the Building Department, to make is possible for handicapped folks to be able to visit every home in Fort Collins. He personally feels he has a problem with this because he doesn't need ramp into his home. Every seventh apartment built in Fort Collins is fully accessible, and that makes sense for rentals, but not for individual homes. Member Gavaldon added that the Fair Housing Act has specific requirements for accessibility, and he agreed with Chairman Torgerson that he didn't want a ramp in his home. Chairman Torgerson said that the reality is that he's never had this problem at his home so he doesn't see the need to cause extra expense. Member Craig asked what practical features meant. Planner Waido explained the policy came from staff and the Commission on Disability and grew out of the Practical Housing for All projects. Director Gloss added that some of the requirements include wider door openings, bathroom dimensions to allow wheelchair access, walls constructed to be able to support grabbers in the bathroom but not the grabbers themselves, as well as one accessible entrance. Member Craig pointed out that minor modifications made at the time the house is built are much less expensive than retrofitting should the need arise in your family or you want to sell your house in the future. She recalled the Practical Housing presentation to the Board and thought it made some valid points. She suggested giving staff general direction on this point rather than voting on including or not including it, and have staff check if it would mean ramps or an extra stud or two in the wall. Chairman Torgerson said adding handicapped accessibility upfront still adds significant expense to construction. Member Gavaldon said his remodeling of his 1940s house was made accessible through means other than a ramp at the front door. He didn't want to be micromanaging design issues that are better dealt with by consumers, builders and neighborhoods. The rest of the document isn't micromanaging, why is it here? Member Carpenter felt the wording was so undefined, it wasn't clear if it meant wheelchair ramps or extra studs, so she was uncomfortable approving it. Member Colton suggested changing the wording to encourage not mandate accessibility. Member Meyer added that another question was who is going to be in charge of deciding what you have to do, and who will administer it. It can be interpreted to mandate a ramp. Chairman Torgerson moved to recommend striking Policy HSG 1.6, Accessibility. Member Gavaldon seconded the motion. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes October 30, 2003 Page 15 Member Craig said she would hate to lose the thought behind this, and though she will vote to strike it, she would like to add the caveat that staff should look at the wording as Member Colton suggested and rework it before it gets to Council. The motion carried 6-1 with Member Schmidt voting in the negative. BREAK As the final item in the section of City Plan dealing with Policies and Principles Communitywide, discussion returned to Community Vision. Member Colton moved to replace the second paragraph of the Community Vision section on page 7 with new wording: Fort Collins' transformation from a small city to a larger urban center will continue within its growth management area. To protect the desirable attributes of the city and its surroundings which we have inherited, the geographical area of the city will be limited. Our vision is that growth and change will continue within the growth area, affording new opportunities for us and for future generations. Areas between Fort Collins and surrounding communities and in the areas immediately outside the GMA will be managed to preserve the existing rural character. Neighboring communities will continue to develop and maintain their own identities and character. Fort Collins will become part of a neighborhood of communities, each separate and identifiable. Member Craig seconded the motion. Member Carpenter said she would not support the motion, being more comfortable with the currently wording than with this change. Motion defeated 4-3, with Chairman Torgerson and Members Meyer, Carpenter, and Gavaldon voting in the negative. Member Colton brought up the issue touched on by David Wright in his testimony, of development paying its own way, specifically Policy GM6 and its related principle GM 6.1 on page 154. GM6 Development will pay its "fair share" of the costs of providing need public facilities and services. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes October 30, 2003 Page 16 GM 6.1 The City will have an efficient and fair system of fees and development requirements that assess s the costs and benefits of financing public facilities and services the need for which is generated by new development. Member Colton recommended strengthening the requirement, to ask development to pay its full cost, not just a "fair share." Fair is ambiguous and public facilities are becoming inadequate because we have not been aggressive in charging an adequate level of fees to new development. Member Colton moved to recommend changing "fair share" to "full share" in Policy GM 6. Member Gavaldon seconded the motion. Member Gavaldon agreed, wanting to send the message that there is a full share of costs that should be charged to new development for public facilities and services. The public school district, university and public sector should be included, since we pick up the cost for that, too. Deputy City Attorney Eckman explained that courts usually interpret the fees needing an impact -related connection or nexus. He suggested wording such as "full legally permissible share of services." Member Colton amended his motion to substitute "full legally permissible share" for "full share." Member Gavaldon accepted the friendly amendment. Member Schmidt asked who determines what is legally permissible. Attorney Eckman confirmed that developers would have the right to have that determined by the courts. Chairman Torgerson asked Transportation Planning Director Mark Jackson if a high proportion of the transportation deficiencies were attributable to out -of - community trips into town, and what percentage of the deficiencies could be attributed to development, the school district, the university and government not paying its own way. Director Jackson did not have those percentages in front of him, but did confirm that the deficiencies are a combination of all those factors. He said through the Master Transportation Plan Update process, staff had found a marked increase in the willingness of people within Northern Colorado to live further from their employment and increase their travel times as a result. He added that the newer development coming in is being built to our current -day standards and pays impact fees proportionate to the impacts they generate. Chairman Torgerson asked if restricting growth within our community would Planning and Zoning Board Minutes October 30, 2003 Page 17 increase the regional transportation problems. Director Jackson replied that traffic does not respect lines on a map, and as long as there is growth in surrounding communities, and Fort Collins remains a center for employment, shopping, culture and entertainment, he would have to agree that there would be a remarkable increase in the regional travel shed. Member Colton disagreed with the characterization of new development paying its own way outside of the immediate area surrounding it. His point is that the impacts of new development on the greater community have not been covered. Rather than a Regional Transportation Authority (RTA) that would collect taxes, he would prefer charging regional impact fees. Member Schmidt suggested using creative ways to come up with development fees to cover parks and other services as well, and maybe broadening the scope of the Land Use Code to gather it more effectively. Member Carpenter has a problem with anything other than fair fees. Blaming development is easy, but the changing nature of the community itself is part of it, as kids grow up and start driving. Fort Collins can't solve this problem alone, it needs regional cooperation, and simply raising our impact fees won't solve it. Chairman Torgerson added that raising our fees might exacerbate the problem. Motion carried 4-3 with Chairman Torgerson and Members Meyer and Carpenter voting in the negative. Member Gavaldon asked if the reference to special support for low-income housing in GM 6.2 on page 154 should be changed to affordable housing. Planner Waido said the terms are interchangeable and both refer to housing affordable to families making less than 80 percent of the Area Median Income. Member Gavaldon suggested combining the terms with a slash. He asked about "special support." Planner Waido said it includes programs that waive or delay collection of certain development fees, federal grants and subsidies of impact fees. In the Neighborhoods section, there were no concerns raised. In the Districts section, Member Craig asked about building heights on page 199, and wanted to be sure that the references correspond with the requirements of the Downtown Strategic Plan. Planner Waido confirmed that when the Downtown Strategic Plan is adopted, if the requirements of Principle DD3.4 are inconsistent with it, this section of City Plan would have to be amended. In the Corridors section, there were no concerns raised. In the Edges section, there were no concerns raised. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes October 30, 2003 Page 18 In the Appendices, Member Colton addressed the characteristic concerning jobs/housing balance: The ratio of jobs to housing must be considered in determining planning policies so that a balance between employment and housing can be maintained as well as a balance between basic jobs and non - basic jobs. and it's supporting Policy ECON 1.4 on page 118: The City will strive to ensure reasonable balance between housing demand and residential development capacity. Member Colton wanted to know what was wrong with using the wording of the characteristic in the policy. He saw a difference between planning for right amounts of employment, commercial and residential and trying to balance housing demand and residential development capacity. Member Colton moved to recommend that staff reword Policy ECON 1.4 more closely to conform to the characteristic. Member Craig seconded the motion. Planner Waido explained that staff's intent was to have the types of housing available for the types of wages being paid. The scope of the policy was expanded to focus on all types of housing and employment, not just low-income. Member Carpenter clarified that the intent was to have a match between the various types of housing and the types of employment available. What would be the mechanism to ensure that. Planner Waido said the emphasis is on workforce housing because they are the one usually squeezed out of the market. Consultant Meighen confirmed that the change under consideration would not change the intent of the policy. Motion carried unanimously. In Appendix C-3, Member Schmidt asked staff if there could be a requirement that the area to be affected by any modification of the GMA be represented on any future CAC, even though they would most likely be County residents.. Member Gavaldon moved for recommendation affirmative to the City Council regarding the revised version of City Plan, the City's comprehensive plan, and to include the specific votes and items that were identified by the Planning and Zoning Board and Planning and Zoning Board comments to be forwarded as well to City Council for their consideration. Member Schmidt seconded the motion. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes October 30, 2003 Page 19 Member Gavaldon observed that lots of good work has gone into City Plan, even if it is not what everyone entirely agrees with. He thanked everyone who participated in it. Member Carpenter felt there were lots of good things in City Plan that she could agree with, but she disagreed with the basic premise to limit the GMA. She said she realizes that she'd lost that fight a long time ago. She will support the motion for all the good in it overall. Member Meyer said the GMA limit is the reason she will not be supporting the motion. The basic premise gives her chills. She cannot live with that premise, which lets the whole world decide who we are. Once we close the gate, the rest of the world can do what they want and they won't be asking us for recommendations on how to us their land. She thanked staff for all their hard work. Member Colton said he would be supporting the motion. He recognized the long process that produced the document, and that it addresses hard questions. Communities all over the country are dealing with landlocked situations and are deciding to limit their area. City Plan gives us pragmatic tools, like open space, low -density zoning and community separators, to protect our lands and the character of our community. He praised the Structure Map for showing Fort Collins' intent to protect areas between communities, and to work with Larimer County to maintain their rural character. He called it a big step forward. By not addressing the GMA sooner than every five years, we can give the City Plan vision a chance to work. Member Schmidt observed that the differences of opinion on the Board and the CAC reflect the opinions of the community. Staff worked hard to reconcile the opposing views. Sooner or later the City will run out of space, and we're trying to address that sooner to find the most effective ways to deal with it in the long term. We've got a plan in place for how to make the best use of resources so we have our options open in the future. She urged continued public outreach so the citizens can continue voicing their opinions. Chairman Torgerson had serious concerns with the fundamental issue of not expanding the GMA and not cooperatively planning the area around us. This document makes infill redevelopment more difficult. Everything going through the subarea plans is an effective moratorium, because we can only do subarea plans so quickly, and downzoning limits development within the city even further. Aggressively acquiring open space while hiking impact fees sounds like Boulder. He feared we'll have a lot of the same consequences, including a lot of growth just outside of the GMA, increased traffic and pollution. Capital projects will rise as everyone drives in to use our facilities but not providing any funding for them through taxes. Growth will continue but we can't control it, and there could be nasty unintended consequences. This is not a good direction for the city, and he won't be supporting the motion. Member Craig said it was time for the other communities to build communities, build their own parks and libraries and cultural facilities. They don't want to be just bedrooms for Fort Collins. I strongly support the characteristic that says we go out into the region and partner with the other communities. We respect they want to be their own entities, which Planning and Zoning Board Minutes October 30, 2003 Page 20 1. requires physical separation, and 2. we look at things like fiscal sharing on regional roads. She didn't feel we have to be the leader, but that we can be part of the neighborhood of communities. Let's let them build what they want to build and don't think everyone is coming to Fort Collins. When it come to appropriate regional commercial investment, like the lifestyle center, we're here and we're ready to support that out of the appropriate funds. She will be supporting the motion. The motion carried 5-2 with Chairman Torgerson and Member Meyer voting in the negative. Project: Project Description: Recommendation to City Council on the Transportation Master Plan Update. Recommendation to City Council for adoption of update of the Transportation Master Plan. Hearina Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence. Mark Jackson, Director of Transportation Planning Services, and Consultant R.A. Plummer gave the staff presentation. They said the updated Transportation Master Plan (TMP) final draft document is the result of two years of work, and has been developed in close collaboration with the City Plan Update, especially in the areas of goals, principles and policies. Staff and consultants have also worked with the P&Z Board in study sessions to shape the document. It is also an analytical and forecasting document, a long-range vision document, and an implementation document that deals with the City's Master Street Plan and develops a fiscally constrained capital improvements plan. Some parts are an update, some have been completely rewritten, and some items are completely new since the original document was adopted in 1997, including traffic signals and the traffic management system. It's a comprehensive look at transportation in Fort Collins, both within the City and how we connect to the rest of the region. Included as an intellectual exercise is the Enhanced Fiscal Capital Improvement Plan, which looks beyond the stark picture presented by our current financial situation to ask "What if?" It outlines what hypothetical additional funding would buy. This will be moved to an appendix in the final document. Current fiscal restraints have limited the number of projects that can be considered now. The document is definitely a step up from the 1997 document, especially in the way Planning and Zoning Board Minutes October 30, 2003 Page 21 we document and account for capital needs. Director Jackson asked the Board to recommend adoption of the document to City Council. PUBLIC INPUT None. PUBLIC INPUT CLOSED Member Craig asked about follow-up on her question from a prior study session on Characteristic TR-7, which recommends the City promote a local transit system. She did not feel that the principles and policies adequately support this. Director Jackson had discussed this issue with Transfort management and staff. Promotion currently consists of implementation of the Transfort Strategic Operating Plan adopted a year and a half ago. It reflected a profound philosophical shift in the way public transportation is provided to the City of Fort Collins. It identified a series of four phases to be implemented, and has remained as true as possible to that as fiscal constraints allow. The first phase is currently being implemented, but it may be impossible to implement them all, given the current funding available. Transfort is also working with SmartTrips and employers to manage transportation demand and future commuter demand. Director Jackson's department also promotes transit through the Development Review Process, especially along the four identified Enhanced Travel Corridors, requiring projects to allow for adequate anticipated transit facilities and ensuring what we do today does not preclude transit options in the future. Member Craig asked about the long-term vision of the TMP and the Master Street Plan. Right now, we're looking at the constrained version, but we need to go above and beyond, she said. Member Craig moved to recommend that City Council direct staff to enhance the Transportation Master Plan to include a principle or policy that states the City of Fort Collins will promote a local transit system, similar to Characteristic TR-7 in City Plan. Member Schmidt seconded. Member Gavaldon said he was not a fan of the Transfort "experiment" underway since 1973. There are empty buses, and he's worried that CSU students may get tired of paying for the service and not support it. Tranfort should pay for itself. He supports a transit system, but we should look at Transfort and decide if we want to support it all the way or not; it has to work or we have to do something different. He supports studying RTA concepts and linking it up with our local Planning and Zoning Board Minutes October 30, 2003 Page 22 transit. We can build infrastructure and reduce our tax base through trade-offs. Transfort should go where the public wants to go, not where Transfort wants to go. Any statement should include the idea that if it doesn't work, we should look at other alternatives. Member Carpenter clarified that the motion was in support of a local transit system, not specifically Transfort. The motion was approved 5-2, with Members Meyer and Gavaldon voting in the negative. Member Schmidt felt that she could not support the proposal in the Master Street Plan for expansion of Prospect and Carpenter Roads to six lanes. Her concern was that when the six lanes merge into fewer lanes, major bottlenecking would occur. She would prefer both roads improved to four lanes and develop transit opportunities along those routes, since we will have build -out either way. Member Craig asked for clarification that six lanes on Prospect would extend from Lemay Ave. to 1-25. Director Jackson said the intent was to have six lanes at a minimum between the interstate and Timberline Road. On the current Master Street Plan, Prospect is designated as a four -lane arterial from the highway west to College Ave. and beyond. To accommodate anticipated increased intensity of land use, the new Master Street Plan calls for it to be upgraded to six lanes. Forecast models suggest that there will be severe strain on all of Fort Collins' primary gateways, and this is a response to that. Director Jackson also clarified that this did not imply that road construction would begin immediately, just that the City could secure rights -of -way proactively, a major tool of the Master Street Plan. If such demand occurs, funding would be part of the street oversizing and developer impact fees. Member Craig pointed out that in the developed area between Lemay and Timberline, rights -of -way would have to be purchased anyway. That brings up the question of the cost/benefit of adding the two additional lanes that we might not need for 20 years, and all the associated costs, and whether analysis still showed it was worth it. She suggested Prospect would be a better candidate for context -sensitive design solutions, because of the constraints and costs, and construction and environmental feasibility issues involved. Director Jackson explained context -sensitive design is a concept that says full design requirements may not be most appropriate in all situations, and design must be sensitive to the surroundings while still accomplishing its purpose. He agreed that elements of the Prospect Corridor are particularly well suited to such Planning and Zoning Board Minutes October 30, 2003 Page 23 solutions and strategies to minimize the footprint in some areas. Level of service for intersections and their linkages are forecast for the worst -case scenario of usage, usually the afternoon peak period. Member Craig shared figures that showed traffic counts from Sharp Point Drive east on Prospect are currently about 20,000 cars per day, while the Master Street Plan is anticipating 60,000. She asked what percentage of growth was used in the modeling for the traffic increases. Consultant Plummer referred to the table in the TMP that showed population growth from 1995 to 2001 as 3.1 percent, which was then translated into growth of households and employment for transportation distribution purposes. Different land use intensities generate different traffic demands. Director Jackson reminded the Board that in the future, as the entire Northern Colorado region grows, Prospect will become a major corridor in and out of the community of Fort Collins. The development pressures around the Prospect/1-25 interchange are mounting daily, and the model looks 20 years into the future. Anticipated growth in all communities in the region as well as interaction with the Denver metro area is part of the reason Mulberry St. and Harmony Road are already designated travel corridors. Member Craig pointed out Mulberry and Harmony are state roads, and those are the roads she would prefer to maximize through partnerships with CDOT. She asked if 1-25 would be widened to accommodate all the anticipated traffic in 20 years, and what about the Prospect interchange? Director Jackson said there are not extra lanes in the Fort Collins Corridor on the CDOT long-range plans, based on 1999 figures. Now that CDOT is into the environmental impact phase of the TAFFS study, it may re-examine the benefits of widening 1-25, as well as east -west roads in the region that feed into the highway. Surrounding communities and counties are also planning for increased traffic capacities and all will play a part. In that case, Member Craig asked, why not take College Ave. to eight lanes? Director Jackson said that would not be acceptable to the community because of the effects it would have on an already constrained corridor. Member Craig felt that widening Carpenter and Prospect to six lanes would also be a community statement, and she would hate to see roads the only thing we think about. She was also concerned that such plans would be setting the City up for financial failure, since we can't afford to pay for four lanes now. Director Jackson clarified that the incremental increase from four to six lanes would be funded by street oversizing fees. Member Gavaldon said his concern was that if Prospect is upgraded to six lanes, motorists will use Summitview as a shortcut between Timberline and Lemay, which may occur even at four lanes. Two houses would have to be removed at the corner of Prospect and Welch to accommodate the expansion, and a lot of other properties, parks, and environmental areas would have to be taken out between Lemay and Timberline. Then there's the question of whether CSU would be Planning and Zoning Board Minutes October 30, 2003 Page 24 willing to give up some land for the additional lanes. There are serious constraints in the area. There are opportunities on Carpenter east of Ziegler, but on the west, there are a number of homeowners and a new church that will be upset. Where else do six lanes go other than interstate, he asked. He felt Harmony and Mulberry were the best roads to handle the traffic but Prospect makes him nervous. He also asked how far Carpenter would be six lanes. If we leave these two at four lanes, could we do something different? Director Jackson replied that if we leave the roads at four lanes, we would be forced to do something different to accommodate the demand. Overflow will be forced onto other roads in the system, how far will depend on how badly drivers want to get around the congestion. Member Colton questioned whether street oversizing fees will actually pay for improvements over natural areas, although he would like to see them included. Director Jackson pointed out that street oversizing fees are not project -specific, but go into a more general pot of funds to be used for those types of improvements. Member Colton asked what happens to all the traffic funneled into the city through the six lanes. Won't that increase the pressure within the constrained areas in the middle of town? Director Jackson reminded the Board that the Master Street Plan represents the ultimate vision of the system, not just dumping all the projected traffic onto current streets. The plan calls for that connection to be made to the ultimate capacity design of the rest of the system. Consultant Plummer added that the traffic runs both ways, so the plan looks at outflow as well as inflow. Member Colton questioned whether more roads encourage commuting by allowing people to live further away while driving the same amount of time. Director Jackson replied that the issue is more complex, and that people choose to live where they live for many reasons. As we grow as a region, there will be more choice. We have to think about the choices our people make to work or shop outside Fort Collins, as well as people who chose to come into our community. Member Schmidt clarified that the design is a whole package, and we won't be having big funnels coming down into little cups, that the other parts of the system will be built to work together. If College Avenue is already built out north of Carpenter, will it be able to handle the increased load? Consultant Plummer pointed out that the east -west gateways feed the entire system, and Harmony and Mulberry are feeling additional pressure because Prospect is constrained. Director Jackson reiterated a key assumption of the Master Street Plan is that there will be a built -out, fully functioning, full -grid transit system bolstering it. If we don't have that, a whole other set of assumptions comes into play. Member Schmidt asked if six lanes refers only to traffic, and other lanes for acceleration and deceleration, exit ramps and such, will also be required, increasing the footprint. Director Jackson replied that specific designs depend on CDOT design standards for state roads, and/or Land Use Code Planning and Zoning Board Minutes October 30, 2003 Page 25 requirements for city streets, which brings us back to the concept of context - sensitive solutions. Chairman Torgerson asked about rerouting Vine Drive. Director Jackson said that is on the current Master Street Plan and was originally planned to reroute truck traffic around the Mountain Vista subdivision, and came about through the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan process. What is has more to do with is to provide a safe crossing of the Lemay/Vine intersection by elevating it and not requiring a wide span on the grade separation over the railroad tracks. It also protects some of the neighborhoods that are out there. The Mountain Vista Subarea Plan is being revisited now, and consideration is being given to taking the alignment out even further for cost savings and more safety. Chairman Torgerson asked if it would be appropriate to comment on these two projects, specifically the need for grade -separated crossings, given that they are not part of the recommendation for an update. Director Jackson welcomed all comments, but pointed out that the northeast quadrant contains the last area of developable land within the City's GMA, and given the decision to limit the GMA, intensity of development will increase significantly in that area. The railroad forms a significant barrier to ultimate capacity and demand, as well as posing significant safety concerns. The Public Utilities Commission is very reticent to grant at -grade crossings, and this area is not only a crossing but a switching location as well. Member Craig moved to recommend to City Council that the proposed widening of Prospect Street and Carpenter Roads return to four lanes, not six. Member Schmidt seconded the motion. There was no further discussion. The motion was approved 4-3, with Chairman Torgerson and Members Carpenter and Meyer voting in the negative. Member Colton felt the language in Policy T1.9 -- The City will encourage partnerships among CDOT, the FHA and private interests to build and/or improve existing interchanges, overpasses and underpasses on 1-25 to increase mobility. Note: this policy does not commit the City to financial participation in the interchange improvements.-- was not strong enough. Member Colton moved to recommend that Policy T1.9 be rewritten to state: The City will not use City monies, including tax increment financing, to fund interstate interchange improvements. Member Craig seconded. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes October 30, 2003 Page 26 Member Colton said during the City Plan process, it was clear the community felt such improvements are the responsibility of the state and federal government and the city should not be using limited finances to fix a highway interchange. Member Schmidt asked for clarification that special improvement districts are not the same as tax increment financing. Member Colton felt tax increment financing was not appropriate or fair to existing taxpayers. Member Gavaldon asked for clarification that this motion would not allow the City to contribute to Park 'n Rides, landscaping, lane improvements and other facilities not directly connected with the interchange but contributing to it. His concern was by not doing those things, private interests and the state would do them and the City would have no input. He felt that would be shortchanging the City. Member Carpenter agreed, and said the original wording leaves it open for the City to do the things we want but not pay for the interchange, which would be unimaginable if the federal government is already paying for it. Member Craig suggested what we want to avoid is the tax increment financing, which the City Manager seems to be looking at without a public process. She would like to close that loophole. Member Meyer pointed out the lateness of the hour and her continued reluctance to wordsmith the document at this point in the process. Make a note of the issue, but don't rewrite it now. Chairman Torgerson disagreed with the whole concept, saying that tax increment financing could be a valid way to fund the kinds of improvements we're going to have to have anyway. If we're talking about a shopping center at Prospect and I- 25, we're going to gather a lot of sales tax and if we can use that to fund an improvement we're going to need in the future, he'd hate to see the city limit themselves in that way, and couldn't support this. Member Carpenter said she would need more information about it before voting for it. If it is being considered, we should have a public process. We shouldn't preclude options for the future. Director Jackson clarified that, despite recent articles in the newspaper, the City is not considering financial participation in the Prospect interchange improvements. It is looking at sponsoring a preliminary study by CDOT to enter in into the process of making improvements to the Prospect interchange. An independent developer needs a municipal sponsor to do that. Sponsorship does not mean there are funds attached; the City is not financially participating. Member Colton offered a friendly amendment to his motion excepting improvements similar to those made at the Harmony Park 'n Ride. Member Planning and Zoning Board Minutes October 30, 2003 Page 27 Craig accepted the amendment. The motion carried 4-3, with Chairman Torgerson and Members Carpenter and Meyer voting in the negative. Member Colton asked how the City can ensure the provision of adequate facilities, as required in Policy T1.4, if there is no money in the budget to do so. He suggested wording similar to that contained in Policy GM 4.1 of City Plan should be included in the TMP as well. Member Colton moved to recommend adding to the beginning of Policy T1.4 -- Adequate Public Facilities, the phrase: Recognizing the limits of the City's financial resources, and retain the wording of the rest of the policy. Chairman Torgerson seconded. Member Meyer asked if the City can't provide adequate public facilities, does that preclude us from doing anything? In other places in the document, we require adequate public facilities to be in place before development can occur. This could be pivotal. She was concerned this motion could result in hamstringing ourselves.. The motion carried unanimously. Member Gavaldon moved to recommend City Council adopt the Transportation Master Plan Update, to include the votes on particular items submitted by the Planning and Zoning Board and also the comments of members of the Planning and Zoning Board to be forwarded to City Council for their consideration as these are our inputs. Member Schmidt seconded. Member Carpenter asked for clarification that a vote for the motion was a vote for the TMP as submitted or as amended through discussion and action by the Board tonight. The motion refers to the plan as amended, with all comments and results of votes also forwarded to Council. Member Craig thanked staff and consultants for the wonderful process and excellent plan. She particularly praised the amount of information contained in the plan and way the information was presented, which made the plan very accessible. Member Gavaldon agreed with Member Craig, and he particularly liked the work session updates, which made the process go very smoothly, considering the amount of information in the plan. He suggested both the Transportation and City Plan Update team deserved a letter of commendation. Member Colton also thanked the Board for its thoughtful consideration and discussion. He thought the TMP was a great improvement over the previous plan and praised the comprehensiveness of the plan. Chairman Torgerson added his Planning and Zoning Board Minutes October 30, 2003 Page 28 commendation for making a not -very -sexy topic understandable. He added that at some point in the future, the City has to revisit the realignment of Lemay and Vine, however. The motion carried unanimously. Chairman Torgerson asked that any specific wording changes be sent to him for discussion at the next meeting, before the packet is forwarded to Council. Member Colton asked the secretary for a summary of the actions taken so he could comment appropriately. Other Business: Member Gavaldon asked Director Gloss about the timing of the Fall Land Use Update, currently on the Nov. 14 agenda.. He asked for additional time for research and comment. Director Gloss said the only other major item on the Nov. 14 agenda is the CSU master planning efforts, which will take about an hour. The Land Use Update includes three or four main items, and the biggest one, changes to the Natural Habitat Buffer Standards, has already been moved to the spring. The rest are relatively minor, and staff would like to highlight the couple that could be controversial. Attorney Eckman urged the Board not to postpone, to keep the process disciplined so fall changes can go into the Land Use Code by the first of the year and the spring changes by the first of July. Member Gavaldon asked for longer lead time from the team in the future to give Board members more time to digest the information. Meeting adjourned at 11 p.m. Approved by the Board December 4, 2003.