HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 05/04/2000•
r �
•
Chairperson Colton called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m.
Roll Call: Meyer, Bernth, Gavaldon, Carpenter, Torgerson, Craig, and Colton.
Staff Present: Wamhoff, Schlueter, Virata, Olt, Stringer, Eckman, Kuch, Byrne,
Baker, Kreimeyer, Stanford, and Daggett.
Agenda Review: Interim Director of Current Planning Dave Stringer reviewed the
Consent and Discussion Agendas:
Consent Agenda:
1. Minutes of the March 2 and March 16, 2000 Planning and
Zoning Board Hearings. (CONTINUED)
2. Resolution PZ00-19 Easement Dedication
3. Resolution PZ00-20 Easement Dedication
4. Resolution PZ00-21 Easement Vacation
5. #1-00 Modification of Standard — Laurel Street Carriage Apartments
6. #7-95D Waterfield PUD, Second Filing — Final
7. #58-86E Richard's Lake PUD, Filing One - Final
Discussion Agenda:
8. Recommendation to the City Council on the Transfort
Strategic and Operating Plan
9. Recommendation to City Council Regarding the Biannual
Revisions, Clarification and Additions to the Land Use Code
(from 4/20/00)
Staff continued item 1. Member Carpenter pulled item 5 and Member Craig pulled item
7 for discussion.
Member Gavaldon moved for approval of Consent items 2, 3, 4 & 6.
Member Bernth seconded the motion. The motion was approved 7-0.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
May 4, 2000
Page 2 of 9
Project: #1-00 Modification of Standard — Laurel Street
Carriage Apartments
Project Description: Request for a modification of section 4.8(D) Land Use
Standards in the NCB Zoning District, more
specifically subsection 4.8(D)(1) Density.
Recommendation: Approval
Hearing Testimony Written Comments and Other Evidence:
Steve Olt gave a brief presentation concerning the project and the modification request.
The applicant was requesting a modification to allow three buildings. The actual
building was not under review.
Paul Eckman, Assistant City Attorney, asked for clarification of what review criteria the
Board should be using for the modification, either "equal to or better than" or 'substantial
benefit to the City".
Steve Olt explained that both criteria were used in the staff report and the Board could
use either option.
Member Carpenter asked if the two existing buildings would be designated as historic.
Dana Lockwood gave a presentation with responses to the Board questions. He stated
that the code would allow additions to the existing buildings. Historic Preservation had
discouraged additions to the existing buildings and recommended that adding an
additional building instead of remodeling would be a benefit to the City.
Member Carpenter asked if the owner would approve of a modification with a condition.
Chris Ray, the owner, agreed to designate the buildings, but not until he knew the
modification would be approved.
Member Gavaldon asked if this condition would tie the hands of the applicant if the
project had problems in the future.
Mr. Eckman responded that it would not because if there was a future problem, he could
still comply with the Code instead of using the modification.
Public Comment:
None
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes •
May 4, 2000
Page 3 of 9
Member Carpenter moved to approve the modification including the findings of
fact a, b, and d in the staff report, with the condition that the two existing
structures obtain historic preservation designation before obtaining building
permits to build the new building.
Member Torgerson seconded the motion.
The motion was approved 7-0.
Project: #58-86E, Richard's Lake PUD, Filing One - Final
Project Description: Request for 293 single family lots, 54 multi -family lots,
a 15,000 square foot (+/-) community/daycare/
clubhouse building, and 21,000 square feet of
neighborhood business/commercial/office/residential
uses, and a 6.0 acre neighborhood park site on
114.49 acres. The property is located at the
northwest corner of Richard's Lake Road and County
• Road 11 and is zoned LMN, Low Density mixed -Use
Neighborhood.
Recommendation:
Approval
Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence:
Member Craig asked for clarification about County Road 11.
Matt Baker, Engineering Department, gave a presentation concerning street
improvements and agreements with the surrounding developments. He had devised a
cost -sharing program to satisfy the off -site street improvements.
Member Craig asked the applicant for information about the mitigation with the
neighborhood concerning a frontage road.
Matt Baker responded that a combined driveway was a favorable solution. The interim
improvements included widening the road and including bike lanes. Any frontage roads
would become a part of the permanent improvements in the future.
Public Comment:
40 Bridgett Schmit, member of the Northeast Neighborhood Coalition, wanted to ensure
that the concept of the frontage road would be on the record as being reviewed and
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
May 4, 2000
Page 4 of 9
favored by City Staff as a solution. Also for the record, the developments surrounding
the area would be partially responsible for the improvements, but there had been a shift
that the City Departments accepted some of the responsibility.
Discussion:
Dave Stringer stated that there would need to be a condition or an agreement stated on
the record to get the information into the Development Agreement.
Scott Price, applicant for the Richard's Lake project, stated that he did acquire a 25-foot
easement on the eastside of County Road 11 from Country Club Road to County Road
52. He stated that there had been a whole list of neighborhood issues and concerns
that the applicant had mitigated. He did not want to see a condition placed on his.
project. The burden of the improvements was in the hands of the Engineering
Department. His project was not the only one involved so he did not want to be
conditioned.
Member Bernth asked if the City did have control of the improvements.
Matt Baker responded that the developer had the responsibility to have an off -site street
requirement for the 36-foot easement for the interim improvements. The shifting of the
roadway for the consolidated driveway would be necessary for the permanent
improvements.
Member Craig asked what the developer would need to complete for improvements if
the City had not taken the responsibility.
Dave Stringer responded that the developer would have to complete the improvements
at the 200 building permit stage.
Matt Baker added that the developer would have to acquire the necessary easements to
shift the road at his expense.
Member Craig commented that if the City would not have stepped in, the frontage road
would be completed sooner.
Ms. Schmit responded that the frontage road would have a large cost and it was a relief
that the City did intervene. She felt all that was necessary was the recognition that the
idea was supported and that the idea did not get lost in the shuffle. She did not feel it
was necessary for the current developer to be conditioned with the development at this
time. She just wanted the minutes of the meeting to be available in the future.
Member Gavaldon referred back to the meeting minutes from 1997. He wanted to
continue the item to obtain further information.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes •
May 4, 2000
Page 5 of 9
Jim Sell, of Jim Sell Design and co -applicant, felt it was appropriate that the City had
taken the roll that they have with the improvements. He felt the issue was how to hold
the City accountable for doing what has been agreed to happen, the frontage driveway.
Member Craig asked if the current development would be putting funds into the street-
oversizing fund to be pulled out later to pay for the frontage road part of the permanent
improvements.
Matt Baker stated that they were obtaining funds with the first phases of the
developments for the interim improvements and then also regular funds for the future
permanent improvements.
Member Torgerson asked why Whitecap and Waxwing did not have the same name.
Scott Price responded that they had worked with PFA and Engineering to work out all of
the street naming problems, but he would be in agreement with changing it to please
the Board.
Member Torgerson stated that either solution of changing Waxwing to Whitecap or vice
versa would work, just so they were the same.
• Member Craig asked about the June 19, 1997 minutes concerning a supplemental
traffic study.
Ward Stanford, Traffic Department, described the August 4, 1997 Travel Time study.
He gave the results of the impacts of the development within that study.
Member Torgerson moved to approve the project with the condition that
Whitecap be changed to Waxwing.
Member Gavaldon seconded the motion.
The motion was approved 7-0.
Project: Recommendation to the City Council on the Transfort
Strategic and Operating Plan
Project Description: Recommendation to City Council on the Transfort
Strategic and Operation Plan to examine the role of
Transfort, the City's transit system, in providing
mobility and accessibility in the community in the
. years ahead. The plan is being coordinated with the
Mason Street Corridor Plan and the Colorado State
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
May 4, 2000
Page 6 of 9
University Strategic Transportation Plan. The plan is
also charged with maintaining transit's compatibility
with City Plan.
Recommendation: Approval
Hearing Testimony Written Comments and Other Evidence:
John Daggett, Transportation Department, gave a presentation describing the options
for recommendation concerning the City of Fort Collins Transfort Transit System. He
described the routes in existence and the headway stops. He also described the
populations who use the services and the fees that each pay. He mentioned the Dial -a -
Ride system and the fees associated with that service. Customer Service was an asset,
but reliability and frequency could be improved according to a survey of riders. John
Daggett stated that the charge of the Board was to decide the future of the Transit
system on the continuum of coverage versus productivity. He described the benefits to
the environment by citizens using the system.
Member Craig asked what the other Boards reported.
John Daggett responded that most of the Board responses were the same in that the
system needed to be leaning toward the productivity side of the continuum, with the
coverage still in place for the disabled and seniors.
Member Gavaldon asked what the fees were for the Colorado State University students.
John Daggett stated that CSU students contributed 5/6 of the fares collected,
approximately $585,000 dollars per year. The general public paid approximately
$100,000 dollars per year.
Member Craig asked if the School District was working with the City.
John Daggett said that there was studies being done to review the current system and
how it could work for and with the District, but there were no complete findings of how
that could work.
Member Craig asked why the charge for a Dial -a -Ride service was $4.00 and if in the
future, a higher charge could offset some of the costs. She felt the citizens that were
capable to pay a higher fee could be a good source of income to offset the high fees to
provide the service.
Member Torgerson asked if the City has considered privatizing the Dial -a -Ride system
to lower costs.
Planning and Zoning Bo?rd Minutes •
May 4, 2000
Page 7 of 9
• John Daggett recalled that in 1994 the City allowed bids for a contracted service. The
problem that came up was a lack of high quality service, so the contract was lost due to
the problems.
Member Torgerson commented that he did not feel it was appropriate that students
were forces to subsidize the Transit system with such high fees.
John Daggett responded that the students did place the referendum of the assessed
fees on their own ballot for a vote, which passed 80/20.
Member Meyer felt that the Dial -a Ride was an extremely important service that was
needed in the community. She felt it needed to continue at a similar existence.
Public Comment:
None
Member Gavaldon moved to recommend that the Transfort System lean more
toward a productivity methodology with a 50/50 balance, and charging the youth
a nominal fee to offset some costs. He added to the motion that Dial -a -Ride was
an important service and should continue to be available and improved for the
citizens.
. Member Colton seconded the motion.
Member Colton agreed with Member Gavaldon concerning the productivity of the
Transfort system. He felt that the Dial -a -Ride system fees should be assessed at an
ability to pay basis.
Member Craig agreed with Member Colton with the subsidized fees for the Dial -a -Ride
service. She also felt the service could be well used by some people under the age of
60. She felt the youth could be charged a nominal fee and hoped that would make the
Transit system more familiar. She could not support a 50/50 split of removing service
from some areas. She felt a decrease in service could only happen minimally or it
would be a disservice to the community.
Member Carpenter agreed with Member Craig entirely.
Member Torgerson supported productivity for Transit and coverage for the Dial -a -Ride
system.
Member Bernth asked if there had to be a vote on the recommendation.
Paul Eckman, Assistant City Attorney, stated that there needed to be a vote.
0 The motion was approved 4-3.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
May 4, 2000
Page 8 of 9
Project: Recommendation to City Council Regarding the
Biannual Revisions, Clarification and Additions to the
Land Use Code (from 4/20/00)
Project Description: Request for a recommendation to City Council
regarding the biannual update to the Land Use Code.
There are proposed revisions, clarifications and
additions to the Code that address a variety of subject
areas that have arisen since the last update in
November of 1999.
Recommendation: Approval
Hearing Testimony Written Comments and Other Evidence:
Postponed until after Public Comment.
Public Comment:
A citizen inquired about churches not being allowed in the Downtown zone and the
subdistrict of the City Center zone. He felt that shared parking was an interest of the
City Plan philosophy and would be of use for churches in the Downtown area.
(There was no response by staff or the Board.)
Discussion:
Member Craig wanted to state that she had no questions for the hearing. She did
extend her appreciation of the staff for taking the extra time after worksession to
address and explain the issues of concern to her.
Member Gavaldon moved to approve the recommendations for the Land Use
Code Revisions.
Member Meyer seconded the motion.
The motion was approved 7-0.
Planning and Zoning Ad Minutes
May 4, 2000
Page 9 of 9
• Other Business:
Paul Eckman asked for consent of the Planning and Zoning Board that Greg Temple
assist the staff during any hearings or discussion of the project related to the Faith
Evangelical Free Church due to a conflict of interest.
Member Craig moved to consent to Greg Temple serving as the legal assistance
when necessary.
Member Gavaldon seconded the motion.
The motion was approved 7-0.
The meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m.
•
40