Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 03/02/2000n LJ Chairperson Colton called the meeting to order at 6:35 p.m. Roll Cali: Meyer, Carpenter, Gavaldon, Bernth, Torgerson, Craig, and Colton. Staff Present: Blanchard, Eckman, Jones, Olt, Kreimeyer, Schlueter, Bracke, Jackson, Stringer, Wamhoff, and Macklin. Agenda Review: Director of Current Planning Bob Blanchard reviewed the Consent and Discussion Agendas: Consent Agenda: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. #55-84K 7. #29-99 8. bi Minutes of the April 15, May 20 and June 17 (Continued), 1999 Planning and Zoning Board Hearings. Resolution PZ00-8 Easement Vacation. Resolution PZ00-10 Easement Vacation. Resolution PZ00-11 Easement Vacation. Resolution PZ00-12 Easement Vacation. Ridgewood Hills PUD, Third Filing — Final. Civic Center Office Building — Project Development Plan Recommendation to City Council for Amendments to the Master Street Plan. Recommendation to City Council for Amendments to the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code. Discussion Agenda: 10. Change of Use for 1516 Remington — Referred Minor Amendment. Member Craig pulled the June 17, 1999 minutes, and Items 6, 7 and 9. Member Craig also recommended that Item 10 be moved to the Consent Agenda. Al Koppel, Citizen asked to pull Item 8, Master Street Plan. Member Gavaldon moved for approval of Consent Items 2, 3, 4, 5 and 10 and also • the April 15 and May 20, 1999 minutes from Item I. Member Craig seconded the motion. The motion was approved 7-0. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 2, 2000 Page 2 Member Craig stated that she pulled the minutes from June 17, 1999. She felt that there was more said at that meeting than was put in the minutes. She asked for a continuance of those minutes and asked for a video tape to review the meeting. Member Craig moved to continue the minutes of June 17, 1999 until the next scheduled meeting. Member Carpenter seconded the motion. The motion was approved 7-0. Project: Ridgewood Hills PUD, Third Filing — Final Project Description: Request for a residential development consisting of single family lots on 106.7 acres located south of Trilby Road, west of South College Avenue, and east of South Shields Street. The project would contain 414 lots, with 381 lots being conventional detached single family homes and 33 lots being attached and detached patio homes and/or duplex dwelling units. Recommendation: Approval Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence: Member Craig asked about the ridgeline zone that was 100 feet on both sides. She asked if somewhere along the line, if it was a condition, or was it just a commitment made by the developer. Planner Olt replied that the restriction on homes along the ridgeline stems back to filing one. He stated that in the first filing the lot lines were not set back any particular distance, it was felt that with the normal rear yard setback and a certain restriction on the building height, that would mitigate the visual impacts of the homes along the ridgeline. That has carried over into the second filing, and the restriction has been put on the site plan for both the second and third filings. It has not been necessary to make that a condition of approval, because it has been a commitment by the applicant on the development plan. He stated that the plan layout has not changed from the previously approved preliminary plan. Member Craig stated what she was looking at, was whether the intent has been met with the current homes being built along the ridgeline. Member Craig asked to see the sight shots. • Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 2, 2000 Page 3 Planner Olt reviewed the site shots of the development site and the ridgeline. Member Craig asked about fences she saw on homes in the buffer zone and thought that they were required to have a certain kind of fence. She asked if they were appropriate fences. Director Blanchard read the note on the site plan for the third filing regarding the fence. It states that "fencing along the open space shall be limited to open three rail fences with 5 to 6 foot cedar privacy fences allowed on the rear and side yards when not adjacent to the open space. Planner Olt read the note on the recorded plan for the second filing regarding fencing. It states that "fencing is restricted per the Ridgewood Hills PUD covenants". Planner Olt stated that he did not have a copy of those covenants. There was no fencing restriction along the ridgeline on the recorded plan. He stated that the fences Member Craig questioned in the slides were in compliance with the approved plan. Member Craig asked about general note number 19 on the site plan with regards to • prairie dogs and the proper relocation thereof. She asked if there were any prairie dogs on this site. Planner Olt replied he did not see any prairie dogs when he was walking the site. PUBLIC INPUT None. Member Craig asked about Avondale Road connecting to County Road 32, and what would it take to get that connection. Eric Bracke, Transportation Department replied that the Avondale extension to County Road 32 would be development driven. Triangle Drive would be signalized within a few years, and there have been some improvements at Trilby, so it is operating at acceptable levels of service. Member Craig asked what would it take to trigger the "necessity" of Avondale. Mr. Bracke replied that there was no exact number, it was a question of volumes, the arrival rates, the geometry and the cycle length of the signals that will come into play, not a set number. For Avondale to be put it, we may need to experience excessive • delays for the northbound left turn. He stated that the only real problem with the Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 2, 2000 Page 4 intersection that they have experienced on Trilby Road is the eastbound left turn. The city has now constructed a turn bay, which has helped immensely. Member Gavaldon moved for approval of Ridgewood Hills PUD, Third Filing, Final, #55-84K. Member Torgerson seconded the motion. The motion was approved 7-0. Project: Civic Center Office Building, Project Development Plan, #29-99 Project Description: Proposal to build a 71,515 s.f. office building at the northwest corner of Mason Street and LaPorte Avenue. The site is in the Civic Center Sub -district of the (D) — Downtown Zoning District. Recommendation: Approval Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence: Troy Jones, City Planner gave the staff presentation, recommending approval of the project. Planner Jones stated that the Planning and Zoning Board was reviewing this project, which would have been a Type I review, because of the size of the building being over 50,000 square feet. He stated that the applicant was requesting a modification to the standards in the Land Use Code. Planner Jones stated that the Civic Center Master Plan that was done back in 1995 for the Downtown Civic Center area had some urban design concepts that were associated with it. One of the concepts that was integrated into the Land Use Code was the concept of the mid -block pedestrian spines. One is a north/south pedestrian spine connecting the current block, where the current Court House is located, with mid -block pedestrian connections all the way up to Martinez Park. The second connection connects in an east/west manner, the block of City Hall, across to the block where this development application is, over to the block east of this application, where the Freight Depot is currently located. He stated that the two mid -block Civic Center spines were integrated into the Land Use Code in Article 4 under the Downtown Zoning District. The code states that all development proposals have to provide for these pedestrian connections. He stated that the applicant has provided an east/west pedestrian connection on -site. He stated • Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 2, 2000 Page 5 the difficulty is to the east of their site where they have to cross Mason Street as part of the spine. In working with Suzanne Durkin in Transportation Planning, who is in the process of working on the Mason Street Corridor Plan, it has come up that there are several conflicts with providing the mid -block crossing. The first conflict is a bike lane separated from the traffic lane by a low wall a foot or so high as part of the Mason Street Corridor Plan, which is for safety reasons to keep the bicycles separated from the pedestrians. The other conflict is the existing railroad tracks on Mason Street would require crossing the railroad tracks mid -block, and the railroad company has made it clear that they do not want to introduce any new crossings of the railroad track for pedestrians. They would like to keep the pedestrians at the designated crosswalks at street intersections. In light of those issues, which were brought before the Growth Management Lead Team, to get a sense from higher staff management and what they felt about these issues. Given the two facts, the Growth Management Lead Team supported the modification request. Planner Jones stated that the applicant was also asking for a modification to not provide trees in an area in front of the main entrance. The applicant is requesting to not provide trees in that location, not because of any conflicts with any utilities, but because they • would like to emphasize a significant level of architectural detail that they have provided in the entry feature. The analysis that the Planning and Zoning Board needs to take into account, is that this request satisfies the review criteria by which the Board may grant the Alternative Compliance request. Roger Sherman, BHA Design, Landscape Architects for the project gave the applicant's presentation. Mr. Sherman gave a summary of the project. Mr. Sherman spoke about access to the building, pedestrian connections, sidewalk widths, urban design improvements along Mason Street, building materials, the water quality treatment pond to the northwest of the building, the two public and the employee entrances to the building, and that the project incorporates about 49% open space. Member Torgerson asked about the parking coming off into an alley, and he remembered that alley being a pedestrian way all the way to Lee Martinez Park. He asked if it was ever intended to have vehicles on it like that. Mr. Sherman replied that this is what he called an interim plan. A master plan has been done for this block, which does incorporate the "civic spine' all the way from LaPorte Street to Maple Street. With this configuration, the alley is in place and needs to stay in place to serve both this building and buildings on the other side of the alley. As soon as the block goes through the transformation of future development, that "civic spine" will be extended through the block. 0 Member Torgerson asked if car traffic would still be dropped on the pedestrian mall. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 2, 2000 Page 6 Mr. Sherman replied that the current master plan anticipates that the parking lot will go away and will be replaced by a building. Also, west of the alley would be other buildings and it will be purely pedestrian with no traffic on the interior of this block. Bob West, Oz Architecture, 1820 Folsom, Boulder Colorado, Architect on the Project spoke about the architecture of the building. He stated that their goal for the concept of this building from the beginning, was to provide the community of Fort Collins with what they consider "timeless" building design. One that will, meet the intent of the Civic Master Plan, and also the Downtown Zoning District guidelines. Mr. West reviewed the architectural features, the building colors and materials and the relationship to the other buildings in the area. Public Input None. Member Gavaldon asked if there has been any consideration to a corner entrance to the building to be similar to the Parking Structure and the Justice Center. Mr. West replied that it was looked at in the original design of the building. The way that the building is laid out is that the center of the building is the 'center" of the design of the building. Mr. West explained that there is a 'central rotunda" which then has a series of hallways that come off of it. That rotunda sets up the future entry off of the plaza, which will occur when the Civic Master Plan is fully brought forward. Their feeling was that for the efficiency of the building, and the design of the building on the first floor, that the entry had to occur at mid -block so it served both people coming from the south as well as people coming from the north. Mr. West explained that future uses to the north were considered heavily when the decision to position the entrance at mid -block was made. A future parking garage and possible Library site were two. The base design of the building and its efficiency was absolutely set on the fact that the center entry was the most efficient way to access the building. Member Gavaldon questioned the importance of the entry being mid -block when the pedestrian accesses are on the corners and not at mid -block. He stated that the entrance was also taking away some trees, hence the second modification request, so he was concerned about the location. Mr. West replied that the cut out in the building allows the entry to come further down the building to the south. It gives a progression of process to the entry. If the building • Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 2, 2000 Page 7 were just straight then he may agree, but the cut-out gives a soft way to approach the entry so you see the entry equal from the north as well as the south of the building. Member Gavaldon felt the trees would be a big benefit in front of the entrance as seen in other buildings and a consistency of trees going down the facade. Mr. West felt the tree issue is an opinion issue, and he can understand someone wanting to run the trees consistently down the facade. Member Gavaldon asked about the potential user capacity for the parking lot going into the building. Mr. West replied that they were customers visiting the various city departments. Member Gavaldon asked if the parking structure is built how would it functionally integrate with this building. Mr. West replied that architecturally they have not proceeded with a design of the . building. Functionally, it will work just as the parking lot does, however, it will hold many more cars that a single level lot. It will have the same adjacencies to this building, and there will not be any specific connections to this building. Member Torgerson stated that he agreed that the center of the building is a fair location for the entrance if there were a mid -block pedestrian connection. He asked if he was arguing that they were trying to pull people from the north. Mr. West replied that the only reason for the mid -block crossing in dealing with this would be for people coming from mass transit to the building. The key element of determination of not showing the mid -block crossing was safety. The mid -block crossings have no lights and with the railroad compounding the issue, was of a large concern. They felt that from the Transit Center, the use would be from Maple, and also from LaPorte where the existing lights will solve the safety issue. One more reason why the entrance is at equal distance, you can pick either Maple or LaPorte to cross Mason. Mr. West added that the Civic Center Master Plan did not stop at Maple Street. Just because it is being developed from the south to the north, there is more development considered on the north side of Maple Street. There will be more population load to the north that will also be utilizing this building. That is why they felt that this entry should be equal distance on this building and not based upon the side. It also has huge impacts of the flexibility of an office building to put an entry on a corner. 0 Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 2, 2000 Page 8 Member Torgerson asked landscape architecture team if they felt that the mid -block crossing was important from a planning perspective to the overall Civic Center Master Plan. Mr. Sherman replied that it was a good concept from a very big picture perspective. But when examined closer, and you look at all the safety issues and concerns for this situation, there are several factors that make it scary. Besides the railroad tracks and the bike lane wall, there is also a median strip to the north that goes around the railroad track switch. The "kiss and ride' for the Transit Center is also located opposite of this site, and cars will be parking in that area and trying to merge back into traffic. He does like the idea in the "generic" sense, but when you look at it in this context, it doesn't seem to make much sense. Mr. Sherman pointed out that there will be a "safer" mid -block crossing on LaPorte Avenue from the Justice Center to the plaza area. He also pointed out that they are providing a mid -block crossing interior to the site that will eventually extend west to Howes Street and then on to City Hall. Member Craig asked for the history of public outreach for this building. She also wanted a better feeling from the architect on how the design of the building brings in the "Old Town" architecture. Mr. West responded to the architecture question. Mr. West reviewed the two public sides of the building and explained how the building was designed to bring in the traditional "shop front" "Old Town" feel to this building in a contemporary way. Jack Gianola, Facilities Department reviewed the public outreach process for this public building. He stated that they held a neighborhood meeting before conceptual review. After receiving the proposals, they met with the DDA (Downtown Development Authority) and the DBA (Downtown Business Association), reviewed the proposals and asked for their comments and input. Member Craig asked what the response from the DDA was regarding this building. Mr. Gianola replied that they were very excited, and very positive and like what we were doing in this part of the downtown area. Member Craig asked if they looked at the architecture and felt is was appropriate for the area. Mr. Gianola replied they did • Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 2, 2000 Page 9 Member Gavaldon asked for copies or evidence of the notes from the neighborhood outreaches from the neighborhood meeting, and the meetings from the DDA and DBA. Mr. Gianola replied that he did not have those notes. Member Gavaldon stated that this project does have the need for notes from those meetings. The Parking Garage and the Justice Center did have extensive summaries of their meetings. He wondered where the process says that this project did not need those. Mr. Gianola replied that there were no negative comments from the DDA or DBA so he felt that there was not a need and they elected not to record anything. Member Gavaldon asked if there were any comments about the entrances on the north or south side. Mr. Gianola replied there was not. • Member Gavaldon asked if Advance Planning, who is now the coordinator and reviewer of the Civic Center Master Plan, has had a chance to look at the project and provide their comments. Mr. Gianola replied that they have commented and he referred him to Planner Jones for those comments. Planner Jones responded that the Advance Planning Department participated as well as all the other reviewing departments. One major issue from Advance Planning was to preserve the internal east/west pedestrian spine. To integrate that concept on site as much as they could. They wanted the mid -block pedestrian crossing from an Advance Planning standpoint, but once it went to the Growth Management Lead Team, Joe Frank, the Director of Advance Planning, concurred that it did not make sense in this particular case. Member Gavaldon asked about the neighborhood meeting minutes and was it typical to have those notes at neighborhood meetings and outreach. Planner Jones replied that there were notes from the neighborhood meeting, they were inadvertently left out of the packets. _ Member Gavaldon asked about the notes from the meeting with DBA and DDA. is Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 2, 2000 Page 10 Director Blanchard replied that the staff would include the minutes from the neighborhood meetings, but that any other meetings held by the applicant is at the discretion of the applicant if they want to put them into the record. Member Gavaldon asked Eric Bracke of the Transportation Department to summarize his intentions — what he did on his informal updated traffic analysis and the city's commitments for the rest of the Civic Center Plan. Mr. Bracke replied that the updated traffic analysis shows no change in traffic from two years ago. He stated that with the Civic Center and the Justice Center and the Parking Garage and Transit Center things could change. He stated that they will be requiring updated traffic studies for the rest of the projects downtown that come in. Member Carpenter asked Mr. Gianola about the notes from his meetings with DBA and DDA and if any changes were made as a result of those meetings. Mr. Gianola replied no. He explained the design build process for the board and how the building design is selected through the city's Purchasing Department. Member Craig asked what the timeline would be for the Transit Center. Planner Jones replied that the plans have been submitted to the Current Planning Department for the Transit Center. Mr. Gianola added that the project has been submitted and they would hopefully start construction in August or September of 2000 and completed in May or June of 2001. Member Craig asked if the current parking lot will be eliminated. Mr. Gianola replied it would. Member Craig asked how many employees will be working in this building. Mr. Gianola replied 150. Member Carpenter asked if this building design would be sent out to the public for review as the parking structure did. Mr. Gianola replied that this building is going through the same process as the parking structure did. He again explained the design build process for the board. Member Carpenter argued that she thought that the designs went out to the public. • Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 2, 2000 Page 11 Mr. Gianola answered that he did not remember the parking structure designs going out to the public, but offered to check into that for her. Member Craig remembered that one design was picked for the parking structure and then that design went out to the different boards for review. She also remembered that there was a public outcry of why wasn't the public more involved in which design was picked. She thought that was a procedure question that maybe as a board they could address at a worksession. If they don't like the way the process works, the board could make a recommendation to Council that the designs be more public before they are chosen. Chairperson Colton felt that 150 employees for 75,000 s.f. was not a good use of space. He asked if this has went through Council and did they know there was going to be an office this big with 150 employees. Mr. Gianola replied that Council was aware of this when the financing package was put together. He explained that this is not all just office space. He went over the unique • features of the building such as a community room, training room, break rooms, conference rooms and an exercise room. Member Craig asked about the entry way being in the middle of the block and that it would encourage people to cross mid block without a mid block crossing. She asked why there wasn't at least a second opening at the northeast corner. Planner Jones replied that some of the first comments made to the applicant was why the entryway was not on the corner and that we would like to see the entryway on the corner. He said that there was no code to require it on the corner. Other than recommending it, we cannot force them to put it there. Member Craig asked if it met the pedestrian circulation or safety criteria. Planner Jones stated that there is adequate level of service for pedestrians according to the criteria by which it is reviewed. It meets the pedestrian level of service standards and therefore there was nothing we could do to require the entryway on the corner. Director Blanchard added that there is one significant feature that would tell pedestrians not to go across the street at the center. The wall that will separate the bicycle traffic that is going the wrong direction on a one-way street will preclude anyone from crossing over at the center entry point. 0 Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 2, 2000 Page 12 Member Gavaldon was proposing to continue this project for the applicant to further address safety, circulation and the alternative compliance for 3.2.1(D)(2) of the Land Use Code. Director Blanchard suggested that the options have been explored on the alternative compliance, they either meet the 40 foot spacing or they don't. Unless the board would want the applicant to consider somewhere else of clumping the trees that would have gone in front of the entry. He was not convinced that it is necessary to ask them to consider alternatives. The board has the information to make that decision. Member Gavaldon stated that the access, circulation and parking refers to the center entrance, specifically the safety considerations. Member Carpenter agreed that this should be continued. She stated that on the one hand they are being asked for a modification to the east/west pedestrian connections of the Civic Center Master Plan because of safety problems with luring people across the street mid block, yet the whole orientation of this building is mid block. She did not see the justification and felt that we were losing a lot over the Civic Center Plan, which makes her uncomfortable. She did not think that this building site plan had a lot of public outreach. Member Bernth asked if anyone could access the building from anywhere else besides the center. Mr. Sherman replied that the building has to functionally work inside as well as the exterior. The determining factor in setting the entry was looking at the building and how it functions. Mr. Sherman explained the design concepts of the building. He stated that there was an entry point off of the west side as well as the east side that centers onto a central rotunda that has the elevators and one stair. Off of the central spine, there are a series of corridors that lets you plan the building for the maximum use of the city on both sides of the central rotunda. There is a hallway that comes down and has a north entry point, so you can come off of the parking lot and come into the north entry. Chairperson Colton asked how much this building was going to cost. Mr. Gianola replied that they were under contact with the Neenan Company for $8.4 million dollars. Chairperson Colton's concern is that on every other major city project of this scope, there has been extensive public discussion. He was concerned that the public has not seen what they are getting for their money before it actually gets approved. He stated that when there is a community room and an exercise room, a step was missed in the • Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 2, 2900 Page 13 process. He expected this to be on the front page of the newspaper just like all the rest of the projects have been in terms of what this is and how much it costs. Jared Interholzinger, Facilities Manager stated that there has been articles in the paper about a year ago. He offered copies of those to the board. Member Torgerson agreed with Chairperson Colton that if the outreach was limited to a required neighborhood meeting and the meeting with the DDA and DBA, for a project of this size you would expect a lot more public outreach. It seems odd to design a building completely and assume you would make no changes for a design competition. Member Gavaldon asked the applicant to see more on the internal workings of the _ building. Mr. Gianola responded that he would make those available to the board, but he did not understand why the board would be interested in the internal layout of the building, when those are building code not planning issues. Member Gavaldon replied that the architect made some significant points about . inflexibility to look at different designs of the exterior, and that the interior of the building is driving how this building is shaping up. Mr. Gianola explained again that this was a design build process where we produced request for proposals, where it goes out to competition. In the request for proposal, all the criteria is in the proposal that we would like to see in the building. Staff was very thorough in what we wanted in this building. Next, you go through a competitive process to select the design that you feel meets the intent of the request for proposal. We have done that through the selection process through the Purchasing Department and that is why no changes have been made to the elevations of the building. There have been changes to the interior design which is normal process. Member Gavaldon noted that the parking structure had a lot of facial fagade changes and suggestions made. He did not understand how fixed this is versus what we have done in the past. He also noted the outreach process and that it was not enough to say there was any outreach. Member Gavaldon stated that from his view he saw no reason to deny this, but he sees improvement to it. He felt up against a wall with the RFP process. In looking at past performance, the board did make input on the parking structure and he was finding that there was reluctancy or any kind of flexibility to make a good product better. 0 Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 2, 2000 Page 14 Mr. Gianola reviewed the process for the parking structure and stated that the intent of the RFP was not changed except for two elevations, which were changed at the board's direction. That was the east and south elevation where paint was added. Mr. Gianola asked if Member Gavaldon was asking to change the exterior of the building. Member Gavaldon stated that he was looking at the process they have to work with and the modification they have requested is asking for a deviance from that. He felt the difference between this and the parking structure was the outreach. There was a better approach to the outreach for the parking structure than we see with this proposal before them. Mr. Gianola explained that the only difference in the outreach on the parking structure and this building, was that they went not only to the DDA, the DBA, but also the County Commissioners. The city elected to take this project to the DDA and the DBA for review so they could see how we were doing and how it would fit into downtown. He felt that was very positive outreach on our behalf. Member Torgerson asked if a formal application was made to the railroad. Mr. Gianola replied that no formal process with the railroad. Staff has been meeting with them a lot regarding some other work they are doing. They expressed in one of those meetings that they did not want the mid block crossing, so staff did not pursue it any further. Member Torgerson asked why the mid -block crossing would be any more dangerous than crossing at Maple Street. Mr. Gianola explained that the major thrust, when developing the Civic Center Master Plan, was to do the crossings at the intersections and discourage any mid -block. That is the approach that they are taking with this project. Member Torgerson commented that it seems, when Peter Calthrop did this Master Plan, clearly that was one of the major spines of his whole design. Mr. Gianola stated that, since that was done, if you look on that Civic Center Master Plan, there was a Convention Center proposed, and since that time things have changed. The plan has been adjusted based on how the uses are developing as time goes on. - Member Torgerson felt that, with the Transit Center located where it is, a mid block crossing will happen whether it is designated or not. • Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 2, 2000 Page 15 Mr. Gianola reported that all the employees working in the building will be parking in the parking structure and there will be no employee parking on this site. Member Meyer commented that if staff knew that the crossings were going to be at the corners, why would they pick a design that has a mid block entryway. She was struggling to figure that one out. Member Bernth also felt it was odd that there was not an entryway on the southeast side of the building when the 900 space parking garage is just across the street. Member Gavaldon commented that he thought this project had a good start, however, when the Civic Center Master Plan was put together, it was put together with good intentions and logic. The movements and the pedestrian plan had a good fit and he felt this project fell a little short, and he felt there needed to be a little more effort on it. He would like to ask that the development go back and review and bring back the alternative to keep the civic spine as requested, or with alternative compliance, and to maintain the trees in the front of the building. He would also like the applicant to look at entrances on the south and north sides of the building. • Member Gavaldon moved for a continuation of the Civic Center Office Building, Project Development Plan, #29-99. To be continued for two board meetings until April 6, 2000, so the alternative compliance to the civic spine could be looked into and kept within the scope of the Master Plan, as well as introducing the same trees and an entrance on the south side of the building. Member Craig questioned how we could ask for an entrance on the south side. She questioned what criteria they could use to ask for the entrance. Member Gavaldon replied, access considerations, 3.2.2 (C)(6), Direct On -site Access to Pedestrian and Bicycle Destinations. Member Carpenter seconded the motion. Member Torgerson commented that he did not have a problem with a mid -block entrance to the building if there was a mid -block crossing. His biggest problem is the mid -block connection, and he felt it had not been explored. Based solely on the east west connection, he would be supporting the motion. Member Carpenter would also be supporting the motion. She felt as though they were not quite there. She felt that losing the east west spine was of major importance. She also does not like the process that was followed for this, but felt that it should be taken • up in another forum. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 2, 2000 Page 16 The motion was approved 6-1 with Member Craig voting in the negative. Chairperson Colton stated that the citizen that pulled item #8, Recommendation to City Council for Amendments to the Master Street Plan had gotten his questions answered and no longer had any issues with the amendments being put forth. Member Gavaldon moved to recommend to City Council approval of the Amendments to the Master Street Plan. Member Bernth seconded the motion. The motion was approved 7-0. Project: Recommendation to City Council for Amendments to the City of Fort Collins land Use Code. Project Description: This ordinance would make two changes to the Land Use Code. The first change would clarify that when a modification of standards is requested under the Land Use Code, and the justification is based upon a substantial benefit that the development will provide to the City, the mere fact that the project will constitute an affordable housing project within the meaning of the Code, should not necessarily justify the granting of the modification of standard. The second change would state that, when a modification of standards is requested under the Land Use Code, findings should always be made in support of the decision on the application. At present, findings are required only when the modification of standards is approved. Hearing Testimony, written Comments and Other Evidence: Member Craig stated that she had real concerns about the change that is asking them as a board to justify why the applicant should follow the law. She asked why they would have to justify findings that the applicant should follow the law, the law being the Land Use Code. • Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 2, 2000 Page 17 Member Craig stated that her understanding of a modification is an intentional violation of the Land Use Code, supposedly with just cause. Defending why they should not violate the law is not in her job description. Why should she have to defend why they should have to follow the Land Use Code. She felt the board's job was to interpret the Land Use Code, and then make sure it is being followed. Member Craig felt that this was setting them up for more appeals than they are already getting. She felt that if Council really feels that this is necessary, that they continue it and meet with the board and the attorneys and go through this thoroughly to understand exactly what is being asked of the board and what they are setting themselves up for. Member Craig moved for denial of the recommendation to City Council for the change to the Land Use Code which states; "whereas the Council has determined that the Planning and Zoning Board should also be required to make supplemental findings showing how the plan, as submitted, fails to meet the requirements and criteria to justify a modification in the event the Board determines that the modification should not be granted". She would like that • paragraph removed. In the Land Use Code itself where is says, "any findings made under subparagraph 1, 2 or 3 above shall be supported by specific findings showing how the plan as submitted (instead of saying either meets or fails to meet) of said paragraph 1, 2, or 3. Member Torgerson was concerned with Article 2. He stated that developers are less likely to propose affordable housing in order to get a modification if this is passed. There is not promoting affordable housing in Fort Collins as it is. It seems to him the definition of an affordable housing is 10%, and that to him is a substantial benefit to the city. In taking that out, you will get less developers proposing affordable housing in order to justify their modifications. Member Torgerson seconded the motion. Member Gavaldon stated he would be supporting the motion. Chairman Colton stated he also supported the motion. He believes that the Land Use Code stands on its own two feet, and for a modification to be granted, there should be adequate demonstration that it is adequately supported and he did not feel he should have to go in and find specific criteria. Member Craig recalled her previous motion. 0 Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 2, 2000 Page 18 Member Craig moved to deny the recommended change to the last paragraph of Section 2.8.2 (H) of the Land Use Code, as she read in her previous motion. Member Torgerson seconded the motion. The motion was approved 7- 0. Member Torgerson moved to recommend to City Council approval of Section 2.8.2(H)(2) with the exception of the final paragraph that was added. Member Meyer seconded the motion. The motion was approved 7- 0. There was no other business. The meeting was adjourned at 9:35 p.m.