Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 04/06/20000 n Chairperson Colton called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. Roll Call: Torgerson, Gavaldon, Meyer, Carpenter, Craig, Bernth, and Colton. Staff Present: Blanchard, Eckman, Fuchs, Schlueter, Smith, Bruno, McCallum, Byrne, Gianola, Jones, Wilder, McNair, Bracke, Durkin, and Kuch. Agenda Review: Director of Current Planning Bob Blanchard reviewed the Consent and Discussion Agendas: Consent Agenda: 1. Minutes of the February 17 and March 2, 2000 Planning and Zoning Board Hearings. (Continued) 2. #8-00 Kendall -Harmony Annexation & Zoning Discussion Agenda: 3. #29-99 Civic Center Office Building - PDP 4. Recommendation to City Council Regarding the Poudre River Floodplain Regulations 5. Recommendation to City Council Regarding Downtown River Corridor Implementation Program Staff continued item 1. Member Gavaldon moved for approval of Consent item 2. Member Torgerson seconded the motion. The motion was approved 7-0. Project: #29-99, Civic Center Office Building - PDP Project Description: Request for a 71,515 square foot office building at the northwest corner of Mason Street and LaPorte Avenue. The site is in the Civic Center Sub -district of the Downtown (D) Zoning District. Recommendation: Approval Hearing Testimony Written Comments and Other Evidence: Troy Jones, Current Planning Department, gave a short presentation and review of the project. He addressed issues brought up at the previous hearing. Frank Bruno, Assistant City Manager and the applicant, responded to the issues raised during the previous hearing. He addressed the mid -block pedestrian crossing, the relationship of the office building to the Civic Center Master Plan and the building entrances. The applicant elected not to seek the modification of the street tree standard. Mr. Bruno stated that the Master Plan for the Civic Center was just a guide and not a requirement. There would be differences from the original plan, but the applicant felt the current plan was best. Bruce Hendee, BHA Design, discussed the modification request for the east/west civic spine. Mr. Hendee described the original Civic Center Master Plan and the ideas behind the east/west civic spine. He pointed out the differences from the revised Master Plan and the issue of the Transit Center on the east. The unique problem of the bus service on the west side of the Transit Center, in conflict with the safety of the pedestrian access from the east/west spine is the reasoning for the modification request. Mr. Hendee noted that there was no requirement for a corner entry. He did state that the applicant would accommodate a door at the south end of the building for employee access. Eric Bracke, Transportation Department, described the safety concerns of the mid -block crossing. There would be weaving vehicles during the mid -block and the kiss -and -ride feature of the Transit Center would also cause weaving of traffic throughout the mid - block. He felt there was an increased threat due to the railroad tracks and the high - profile vehicles on this block. The Traffic Engineering Department was against implementing the mid -block crosswalk. Member Torgerson asked why the kiss -and -ride was designed on Mason with the knowledge of the east/west spine ending at that site. Susanne Durkin, Transportation Department, responded that there were not any other locations available for a kiss -and -ride. There was also the Burlington -Northern Switch that limited the mid -block lane changes to get from one side to another. Frank Bruno added that realities and problems arise upon development that conflict with the Master Plan and previous thinking. Bruce Hendee reminded the Board of the difficulty of mid -block crossings as a whole, especially with the unique issues of the railroad tracks and the short blocks. • Member Craig asked Mr. Hendee why he allowed the ideas of the Master Plan in the initial meetings to continue when the safety issues were in existence then. Mr. Hendee responded that he was not involved with the initial meeting concerning the Master Plan. He had a conflicting meeting, so his name was connected, but he did not attend. Eric Bracke added that he was involved with those meetings and he was the staff member that brought up the concern with the mid -block crossing. Public Comment: None Discussion: Member Gavaldon asked for clarification about the south door. Mr. Hendee responded that the south door was for employees only. The parking for people with a handicap was located on the north side of the building and access would be available for them at that end of the building. The floor plan did not lend itself to a public entry. • Member Carpenter expressed a concern that the east/west spine had lost the green space/park aspect on the north side of the building. There was a connection, but it had become too thin. Bruce Hendee mentioned that the area to the north had not been designed yet. The Planning and Zoning Board could make sure that future designs would integrate the green space. The building code required a minimum of 40-feet separation between buildings in the long term. On the proposed plan that incorporated the Library site included a 60-foot separation between buildings. Member Craig felt as if the open space was lost to the north of the building instead of what was on the new Master Plan for the east/west spine. Mr. Hendee described the distance of separation between the future buildings and the plan for keeping a desirable amount of green/open space available. Troy Jones added that in the City Plan, there was no specific wording about the east/west civic spine. City Plan only gave general direction for development. Member Gavaldon was concerned about negative changes that would allow the open space to be lost. He asked how temporary the parking lot was. Mr. Hendee felt that, in the spirit of the Civic Center Plan, the north/south spine had been lost due to the Larimer County Justice Center. That project did not follow the proposed north/south spine. Mr. Hendee pointed out that the Civic Center Office Building brought the spine back to the proposed alignment in the Master Plan. He felt the project included many pedestrian friendly amenities to honor the spirit of the Master Plan. He described some of the temporary amenities and the permanent features of the project. Frank Bruno addressed the challenges of site selection of the Library. The process could take a considerable and unnamed timeframe. Also, the timing of funding for the project depended upon the chosen site. He estimated between 4 and 7 years until construction would begin on the Library site. Member Carpenter asked why the east/west spine was lost instead of square footage of the building. Mr. Hendee did not feel that the east/west spine was lost. Frank Bruno added that the Master Plan did not make specific implication of dimensions for the east/west spine. On the Master Plan, the east/west spine was thinner. Member Carpenter asked if they could lose parking spaces to incorporate the green space. Mr. Hendee needed to discuss changing the parking lot with the applicant. Member Bernth asked the number of feet necessary for the green space. Paul Eckman, Assistant City Attorney, sensed a tendency to redesign the plan and eliminate the parking spaces. The Board could assess a condition upon approval to specify a distance. Member Craig asked if the access off of Mason would influence the future buildings. Mr. Hendee stated that the access could be moved to Maple Street in the future if it would cause problems on Mason. Member Torgerson asked what would be done to ensure the water quality when the current water quality feature would be replaced with the build out of the library site. Mr. Hendee responded that a different feature would be developed at that time. Member Torgerson asked for an explanation of why the mid -block intersection, like the one on Oak Street, is so unsafe. • Eric Bracke sited studies of why the mid -block crossing would be unsafe. If the crosswalk were signalized, the City would have to coordinate with the Railroads and people would feel safe to cross there. The drivers may see an inconsistent use of the crosswalk and possibly disregard safety when driving through the crosswalk. At Oak Street, there were no weaving issues due to the median as there would be on Mason. He also mentioned the laws concerning parking around a crosswalk and how that would remove a considerable amount of parking along that block. Member Torgerson expressed his concern that there would be continued crossing at the mid -block. Eric Bracke stated that the pedestrians would be more careful at the mid -block if there were no crosswalk. They would be more careful because they would know that they should not be crossing at that site. Bob Blanchard reminded the Board that the applicant had some amenities that would need to be included in the motion. He asked the applicant to describe some of the changes and amenities. Roger Sherman, BHA Design, described the added amenities to the project, including an ornamental fence and seat -walls, 18-20 inches tall, to prevent illegal crossing of the street. There would be ornamental pedestrian streetlights with artwork attached to them and artwork medallions within the pavement. Member Gavaldon moved to approve the modification stating that the east/west spine would not cross Mason Street to the Transit Center. Member Carpenter seconded the motion. Member Craig asked if the modification only included the crossing of the street, not the spine itself. Mr. Jones and Member Gavaldon agreed and ensured that the modification was for the crossing of the street only. The motion was approved 7-0. Member Gavaldon moved to approve the project with the conditions of adding a south employee door, requiring a 60-foot wide spine separation from the north wall of the building of substantial greenspace, and requiring the applicant to add the amenities as presented at the worksession and meeting (i.e. the fence & seat wall and other elements) with any amendments to this being reviewed only by the Planning and Zoning Board. 0 Member Meyer seconded the motion. Member Craig asked if the amenities would stop the people from crossing and would they add design. Bruce Hendee stated that the fencing was not really useful in design, but the seat -wall was a pedestrian amenity. Member Torgerson added an amendment that the applicant could have flexibility to change the amenities if they chose to do so. Member Gavaldon accepted the amendment. Member Meyer also supported the amendment. The motion was approved 7-0. Project: Recommendation To City Council Regarding the Poudre River Floodplain Regulations Project Description: Recommendation to City Council regarding the options identified for the Poudre River Floodplain Regulations. Hearing Testimony Written Comments and Other Evidence: Bob Smith, Utilities Department, gave a presentation explaining the options for the Poudre River Floodplain Regulations. Public Comment: Ryan Staychock, 621 Remington, asked the Board, with the increase in development, to be sensitive to the wildlife along the corridor. His recommendation of the Options would be for Option C. Randy Fisher, 3007 Moore Lane, noted his participation with the City Stormwater & Utility Floodplain Task Force for a year and a half. He also served on the City's Storm Drainage Board for eight years. He currently was a practicing engineer with a background in civil and environmental engineering. Mr. Fisher reflected upon some previous recommendations from August of 1999. He strongly supported the original August recommendation. He asked to learn from the lessons of the 1997 Flood. He believed that the FEMA flood regulations were not sufficient and that the City should adopt the most stringent regulations possible for the safety of the citizens. Tom Post, 818 E. Elizabeth, agreed with the previous speaker. His neighborhood had concerns of the flood in 1997 and he had experience with the Big Thompson Flood back . in 1976. He believed any option beyond Option A is better than what was currently existing. He did prefer the most restrictive option. Mr. Post was concerned that the berms would cause more problems further down the line of the flow. Discussion: Member Craig asked for a review of the Open House results. Bob Smith explained the attendance and results. Member Torgerson asked for the definition of "Critical Facilities". Bob Smith gave a definition and many types of places that would be included. Member Craig asked about the question posed by Tom Post concerning the effects of the berms. Bob Smith responded that they would have to study the area and if there were any ill effects, they would have to mitigate them. Member Craig asked about funding sources for some of the stormwater projects. • Bob Smith stated that the funding would not be any additional cost, just a shifting of existing funds and regularly collected funds from development. Member Gavaldon asked if there was a priority list of projects? Bob Smith stated there was not a prioritization of projects. They would look at the benefit/cost ratio to decide which project would take priority. Member Colton asked if Bob Smith could respond to the concern raised about the natural areas along the banks. Bob Smith stated he could not respond to that issue. Member Gavaldon supported Option B1. Member Torgerson supported Option B1, even though he did not support more regulations. He was concerned about the definition of the Critical Facility. He was concerned that people would not have the option to add on to their own homes. Member Craig had concerns about the commercial additions in the floodplain. She wanted to limit the percentage of addition. She was also concerned with the redevelopment issue for the same reasons. She wanted more Dry Land Access . included with the recommendation. She raised a concern about a way to control the floatable materials like cars and trucks. Member Craig wanted to forward a specific comment to Council, that any berms in the Master Plan would only be used to channel the river so that they would minimally impact the upstream and downstream. Another concern was that the City would be creating developable land. She only wanted the berm to protect existing structures that were currently in the floodplain, but would come out of the floodplain with the berms. She wanted the flood protection to only be completed if the project was cost effective throughout the completion of the Master Drainage Plan. Member Carpenter asked why there was a problem with new development in the areas removed from the floodplain if they would be just as protected as the existing structures. Member Craig was concerned with the placement of the levy more than the actual creation of developable land. Member Carpenter supported Option B1. She was uncomfortable with the restrictions placed on citizens concerning additions and remodels, but she did understand the reasoning. Member Bernth for the most part supported Option Bi, but he agreed with Member Craig on the issues of removing development, additions and remodels from the floodway and floodplain. Member Meyer stated her concern with the restriction of no additions and remodels in the floodplain. She was uncomfortable with using the 500-year floodplain. She supported Option B with development allowed in the floodplain. She also stated her concern that promises would be made that protection projects would be completed, but she felt it was necessary to get it in writing so the government would be held accountable for their promises. Member Colton agreed with the concern of priorities. He agreed with Member Craig and Bernth about the development issues. He supported Option C with those issues of new development. He felt prevention was best. The following motions were included in the memo forwarded to City Council for the recommendation: Motion #1 Member Bernth moved that the Planning and Zoning Board forward a recommendation to City Council for adoption of Option B1 of the proposed Poudre River Floodplain Regulations with the exception of the issues concerning redevelopment, new development, and additions. Member Bernth recommended that those issues be adopted as listed in Option C of the proposed Poudre River Floodplain Regulations. Member Craig seconded the motion. . Member Torgerson did not support Motion #1. He felt that by recommending Option C for some issues, the City would be placing more restrictions within the Floodplain Regulations. He did not believe that was necessary. Member Gavaldon did not support Motion #1. He agreed with Member Torgerson that Option C placed too many restrictions. He felt that the restriction of no additions to existing residential housing would "ghost town" many areas. Member Carpenter did not support Motion #1. She had a problem with recommending that there be no additions to existing structures in the specified areas of Option C. She agreed with Member Torgerson's comments. Member Craig agreed with Motion #1. She added that if there was an interest in developing under Option C, the City has a special variance process available. Member Craig felt that the recommendation was not "closing the door' as much as it seemed. She did not feel that the additional restrictions of Option C would have a ghost town effect. She felt that it was better to take a proactive approach to the problem and that the variance process could be used. Member Colton agreed with Motion #1 and the proactive approach to the regulations. He felt the majority of the citizens that provided input agreed with the more stringent regulations. . The motion was denied 4-3, with Members Torgerson, Gavaldon, Meyer, and Carpenter voting in the negative. Member Torgerson supported limits on how much could be added to a commercial building, but he could not support the recommendation of Option C concerning additions. In the case of residential additions, he leaned more towards Option B to allow people to add on to their homes. He was uncomfortable taking away the right to add on to a home and possibly devaluing the properties effected. He would only support limiting additions for commercial properties. Member Gavaldon agreed that he was uncomfortable taking away the citizen's rights to expand and grow. He felt that parts of the specified areas consisted of small housing and that this would not be a good investment if they couldn't expand. He did say he would agree to limit the expansion of commercial properties. Member Craig stated that the City was committed to protecting housing in the specified areas. By building berms, the housing areas would be protected, removed from the floodplain area and possibly see an increase in value. Member Gavaldon was concerned that the construction of the berm to protect the Buckingham and Airpark areas would either take too long or would never be built. He . felt the restrictions would be too much during the interim. 1 Member Torgerson asked how many structures would be left after the construction of the burms. Bob Smith, Stormwater Department, stated that 109 structures would be left in the floodplain. Member Craig felt the additional restrictions would ensure that fewer people would be brought into the danger area of the floodplain. She also noted the option of buy-outs at market value. Member Craig wanted to forward the different recommendations to the Council for review. Motion #2 Member Gavaldon moved that the Planning and Zoning Board forward a recommendation to City Council for adoption of Option B1 of the proposed Poudre River Floodplain Regulations with the exception that members of the Board could express individual interests and concerns on specific issues. Member Torgerson seconded the motion with an amendment that Council is provided with the individual comments. Member Bernth seconded the amendment. Member Meyer wanted to note that the interests for the more restrictive Option C were the minority. Member Gavaldon restated the motion and Member Torgerson seconded the motion again. The motion was approved 7-0. Project: Recommendation to City Council Regarding the Downtown River Corridor Implementation Program Project Description: Recommendation to City Council on the list of Downtown River Corridor projects and their priorities. Hearing Testimony Written Comments and Other Evidence: Timothy Wilder gave a presentation explaining the options for development and improvement of the Downtown River Corridor. He asked the Board for a recommendation of the priorities of the projects. .I • Public Comment: Matt Evans, a citizen involved with the recreational initiative with the downtown corridor program and member of the Poudre Paddlers Conservation Committee, gave some history of the project and the plans for the initiative. He suppbrted the projects. Tom Post, President of Rocky Mountain Fly Casters, supported the plans for improvement along the river corridor. He said that any improvements were going to assist in the improvement of the community. Bill Baker, President of the Colorado Rivers Alliance, gave some insight to the needs and improvements necessary to preserve the river corridor. He supported the projects. Lucy Ghoda, of the Colorado Rivers Alliance and the Colorado White Water Association, expressed the importance of the opportunities for wildlife and the community given by the improvements. Ryan Emend, Alumni from Colorado State University and outdoor enthusiast, expressed his support of the projects. He felt it would be an asset to the community. Dr. Robert G. Streeter, citizen of Fort Collins, felt the Poudre River was a treasure for the community. The river corridor would be a natural area and an economic benefit with the improvements. Discussion: Member Gavaldon asked if there was a timeline for the projects. Timothy Wilder responded that the process would start immediately after the approval by Council, but there was no way to set a time for completion of all the projects. Member Gavaldon asked about the funding and made the suggestion to charge user fees for sections of the corridor. Timothy Wilder described the sources of funding and the additional possibilities. Member Colton asked how the priorities and the funding come together. Timothy Wilder responded that they were looking for the direction of the Council, but the funding would be decided subsequently. Member Carpenter asked about the purchase of the Oxbow and the uses upon that site. Mike Powers, CLRS Administration,. stated that the approximate cost was for the • construction only, not the purchase of the land. Member Craig wanted the Oxbow Flood Protection in first priority. She also wanted the other flood protection projects into first priority. She wanted to use utility funding to purchase the lands. Member Craig discussed the Triangle area and the purchase of that land. She felt the Link-n-Greens Levee needed to be a first priority. She asked for clarifications on the streetscape plans. Timothy Wilder described the plans and that the streets would be improved along with the streetscapes. Member Craig strongly recommended that the general fund not be used for the streetscape and transportation issues. She also wanted the issues of off-street parking to be a public outreach process and involvement from new development in the area. She did not want to see a Library site in the river corridor. Member Craig could not support the amphitheater on the Oxbow site. She wanted the floodplain protection there first. She wanted the historic buildings on the Link-n-Greens site preserved. She wanted to complete a feasibility study for the recreation river channel enhancements as a first priority. She wanted the river habitat, flood protection and bank stabilization to be hand in hand as first priorities. Member Gavaldon agreed with the issues brought up by Member Craig. He felt that user fees would be a good income source. Member Colton agreed with Member Craig about the river habitat and flood protection and restoration as a first priority. He was interested in enhancing and restoring the river as a whole. He wanted the feasibility study as Member Craig did, to assist in finding a balance between the use by people and preserving the natural areas for wildlife. He also agreed with Member Craig on the streetscape funding not coming from the general fund. Member Colton agreed with the acquisition of the Oxbow site, but not for use as an amphitheater. Timothy Wilder reminded the Board that the improvements to the Linden/Jefferson intersection would be included with new developments as they were submitted. Member Colton agreed with the Natural Resources Board about not using their funding for the Triangle Area. Member Meyer agreed with the flood protection issues. The following motions were included in the memo, written by Timothy Wilder, forwarded to City Council for the recommendation: Member Gavaldon moved that the Planing and Zoning Board forward a recommendation to include the changes on the Downtown River Corridor Implementation Program to City Council. The changes included the following: . ■ Move floodplain protection projects including Oxbow for flood protection only and purchase from willing sellers (option 1) for N. CollegeNine and Triangle to 1st Priority. • Add Lemay Avenue/Airpark flood protection levee to the project list as a 1st priority. • Separate Oxbow "Acquisition for Public Use" and "Floodplain Protection". ■ Use Stormwater funds to pay for floodplain acquisition in N. CollegeNine and Triangle and do not use natural area funding to pay for acquisition. Do not use general funds for streetscape projects or off-street public parking. ■ Provide strong outreach for the off-street parking project. ■ Move Bank Stabilization up to 18t priority. Member Bernth seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0. Board Comments Chairperson Colton questioned how the community wide priorities would be determined, given the high cost of streetscape improvements. Member Carpenter felt that she wanted to know what the Oxbow was going to be used • for before making a recommendation on purchase. Also, funding needed to be figured out. Member Craig said she didn't like combing acquisition for public use and floodplain protection on the Oxbow. She said one costs $5 million and one costs $500,000 and one impacts Buckingham and one protects Buckingham. Flood protection is very important. Other two flood protection projects should be moved to 151 priority. For N. College and Vine, use utility funding like along Spring Creek to acquire. Not necessarily for use as natural area and don't use natural area funding. That area could be a park. Don't build a levee there, but pursue buy-out options. For Triangle, there may be contamination. She preferred purchase only in the product corridor if Council chooses Option B-1. She felt that we should take in consideration when purchasing the possible contamination of the sites and we shouldn't pay for areas in the natural habitat buffer. Add Link-n-Greens levee to the projects and it should be top priority. She had problems with using general funds for the streetscape improvements because we already have a large deficit for roads. She said she wanted to see a huge public outreach process for off-street parking. Also, she did not want the library in this area because the site downtown is a better place. She questioned the maintenance costs, parking and use of an amphitheater, and said the Buckingham neighborhood was against it. She wanted to see historic buildings on Link-n-Greens protected, and the 100-year floodplain should be protected, if it was not protected through the floodplain regulations. She could keep the recreational channel feasibility study as a top priority. Many of the projects should go hand in hand - bank stabilization, habitat restoration and the flood projects. Member Gavaldon liked the idea of moving up the flood protection projects. He didn't like the idea of the amphitheater. User fees should be explored to pay for some improvements. Chairperson Colton agreed with the habitat restoration and felt bank stabilization should be moved up. The priorities should be enhancing the river, and the feasibility study should continue, but we should try to keep a balance. He agreed with Member Craig on not using general funds for streetscape improvements. He supported acquisition of the Oxbow but not for an amphitheater. The Jefferson/Riverside crossing is very important. He said that we shouldn't use natural area funding for floodplain areas and make sure the public doesn't pick up the costs for contamination at the Triangle. Member Meyer said the flood protection projects belong as top priorities. Other Business: Bob Blanchard's last Planning & Zoning Board Meeting. The meeting adjourned at 12:15 a.m.