Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 08/27/1990PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MINUTES August 27, 1990 The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board was called to order at 6:35 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall West, 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. Board members present included: Chairman Jim Klataske, Bernie Strom, Lloyd Walker, Joe Carroll, Jan Cottier, and Margaret Gorman. Laurie O'Dell was absent. Staff members present included: Planning Director Tom Peterson, Deputy City Attorney Paul Eckman, Sherry Albertson -Clark, Steve Olt, Kirsten Whetstone, Joe Frank and Kayla Ballard. AGENDA REVIEW Mr. Peterson reviewed the Consent and Discussion Agenda which consisted of: Item 1 - Minutes of the May 21, and June 25, 1990 meetings; Item 2 - 032-90, Stepping Stones Preschool/Child Care Center PUD, Preliminary and Final; Item 3 - #34-90, Saturn of Fort Collins PUD, Amended Final; Item 4 - 017-90B, One Prospect PUD, Amended Final; Item 5 - #112-79L, Four Seasons PUD, 6th Filing, Preliminary and Final; Item 6 - #39-90, Land Development Guidance System: A Report to the City Council on its Performance. Member Carroll requested that the June 25, 1990 minutes be pulled. Member Walker moved to approve Consent Items 2, 3, and 4. Member Cottier seconded the motion. The motion passed 6-0. • JUNE 25, 1990 MINUTES Member Carroll wished to amend the minutes to note that he was present at the June 25, 1990 meeting. Member Carroll moved to approve the June 25, 1990 minutes as amended. Member Walker seconded the motion. The motion passed 6-0. #112-79L FOUR SEASONS PUD, 6TH FILING - PRELIMINARY AND FINAL Sherry Albertson -Clark gave a description of the proposed project. She stated that after the Board's approval of this item, this project was appealed to City Council. City Council remanded the item back to the Board for a new hearing. Issues raised at the appeal included provision of a visual buffer between existing lots on Moss Creek Drive and the 6th Filing. The applicant had agreed to maintain a 20 foot drainage tract along the eastern boundary of the property which will remain open as a visual buffer. The applicant had also proposed a restriction to limit any construction of any home on Lot 27 to a single story structure. This restriction was placed on the site plan but staff has since asked the applicant to remove it after discussions with legal staff. However, the applicant substituted a deed restriction which would limit the future height of any home on Lot 27 at the request of the adjoining property owner. She added that staff was recommending approval of this proposal. . Mike Jones, Northern Engineering, was present to represent the applicant and to answer any questions. Member Strom asked if the deed restriction could be removed later. Paul Eckman stated that he briefly reviewed the deed restriction and believed that this was not a municipal concern. He stated it did not seem appropriate to add a note on the site plan thereby requiring the city to enforce something that was a private concern. He added that he had previously suggested tho note be taken off of the site plan. He believed that this was a pledge from property owner to property owner that would go with the land and, if sold, would apply again. He stated that this was different that Fairway Estates because it was between two property owners. Fairway was the entire area of property owners and the city was not involved. He urged the Board not to consider the deed restriction in the deliberation of voting. Member Collier asked, since this was remanded back to the Board from City Council, should this be a new vote or should the Board uphold the previous vote. Mr. Eckman replied that this should be a new vote. Member Cottier moved to approve Four Seasons PUD, 6th Filing, Preliminary and Final. Member Strom seconded the motion. The motion passed 6-0. #39-90 - LAND DEVELOPMENT GUIDANCE SYSTEM: A REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL ON ITS PERFORMANCE Chairman Klataske stated that this was a continuation of the Board meeting one week ago. He began this item with Public Input. Emily Smith, 1000 S. Prospect, stated believed that Item 5.31 and 5.32 be moved to the "most important" category and addressed concurrently with Items 4.41 and 4.42. She stated that the Prospect/Shields Neighborhood Association believed that 2.22, 4.11, 4.21, 6.22, and 6.23 should be considered as "most important" instead of "important" on Chart 2. They also believed that the Point System be recognized as a major issue. Furthermore, the expression of policies through the point charts and the criteria for their evaluation must be clearly interpretable to both citizens and developers. They suggested that 2.21 be elevated to the "most important" category. She added that the Transportation Plan should be integrated into the LDGS audit and developed interactively with Planning and Zoning, incorporating all issues in the LDGS Audit that relate to the effects of traffic. (See attached letter from Mrs. Smith.) Gina Janett, 337 Edwards, spoke for Citizen Planners. She highlighted a letter from Citizen Planners and updated comments that were given to the Board. They believed that the most important issues were: clarification and implementation of land use policies, economic growth and development issues, citizen participation, and implementation to provide substantial resources with each action plan involving the public. They felt that the citizen participation issue should be its own category. They felt the priorities of issues should be: 2.22, 2.14, 4.42, 1.61, comprehensive explicit visions of Fort Collins, and improved, informed, early public participation integrated into the review process with equitable resolution of conflicts as they arise. (See attached letter from Ms. Janett.) Chairman Klataske closed the public input portion. Member Walker commented that the items raised were important and shared priorities with Mrs. Smith and Ms. Janett. He encouraged the clarification of compatibility and the continuation of citizen participation. -2- • Chairman Klataske asked how the priorities and numbers should be defined by the Board. Mr. Peterson replied that staff was requesting a recommendation to City Council on the LDGS audit and a prioritization as a motion. Mr. Frank stated that any changes to other sections could be taken informally or formally. He asked for the Board's consensus as to their priorities of Chart 2. The Board went into worksession to discuss the prioritizations of recommended actions in Chart 2. Chairman Klataske stated that, after a discussion, Chart 2 should be revised to add to the most important category on Chart 2: 1) 1.9 Transportation, 2) 2.22 Policy Clarity for Public Planning Process, 3) 2.13 Access to the LDGS Information, and 4) 5.31 Area Plans. The Board moved from most important down to important: 1) 3.21 Urban Design, 2) 6.5 LDGS as a Variance Specifically for Group Homes and Child Care Centers. They added to the important category 1) 6.22 neighborhood meetings, 2) 6.23 notification areas, and 3) 5.31 consider limited ranges of uses. Member Carroll commented that among the items listed there were categories of three months, nine months and eighteen months for duration. He believed that it was important to recognize that this was an indication of how long a project would take to complete. He also stated that staff would not complete all of the most important items and then move onto the important items. Some of the items • in the second and third categories could be completed by staff and the Board quickly. Some are currently being accomplished. On the other hand, some of the other items, whether they are most important or on one of the other lists, may take longer to complete. Member Cottier cautioned that 2.22 referred to land use policies not environmental policies which were not within the Board's jurisdiction to propose and implement at this time. She stated that the LDGS cannot be consistently implemented until the policies are clear. She stated that the urban design had been dropped because it would follow many of the policy clarifications. She stated that transportation was being added to the most important list because it had been inadvertently omitted from the list. Group homes and child care centers were moved to important because it is not very often when a group home or child care center would be submitted using the LDGS. She was concerned about prioritizing their concerns as to which has the broadest applicability. . Member Strom stated that 6.22 and 6.23 were inserted under the important category but were not meant to be downgraded. Member Walker commented that citizen participation was obvious in policy clarity and was critical. Other items were basically housekeeping items. He encouraged staff to activate citizen participation, as appropriate, when these items are reviewed. Member Strom commented that the participation of citizens has been very involved and he encouraged citizens to continue that participation. -3- Member Cottier commented that the Board concurred very often with the priorities suggested by the citizens. She urged the citizens to continue to be involved as much as possible which make the LDGS as an instrument to guide development much more effective. Member Strom moved to accept the LDGS Report and endorse It to City Council with the changes to Chart 2 Policy Prioritization that the Board suggested. Member Carroll seconded the motion. Chairman Klataske commented that the audit has raised issues that the Board has concerns with. He believed a more specific system would result from these action items. Motion to recommend approval passed 6-0. OTHER BUSINESS There was no Other Business. The meeting adjourned at 7:47 P.M. -4- 0 August 27, 1990 Jim Klataske, Chairperson Planning and Zoning Board City of Fort Collins P.O. Box 280 Fort Collins, CO 80522 Dear Jim: CITIZEN PLANNERS P.O. BOX 93 FORT COLLINS, CO 80522 493-4677 We greatly appreciate the Board's decision last Monday to allow further review of the LDGS Audit final report. We could not digest and respond adequately to the final draft that was not available until the preceding Friday and which most of us did not see until the week -end. The implementation procedures pro- posed in the new Chapter 6 are of vital importance to the future of the LDGS. Observations by the various Board members at the Monday night hearing were very informative and helpful. They left us with the impression that the Board has a good grasp of the issues raised by the Audit and that you are preparing to deal with them in a constructive manner. The view expressed that action on the Staff's recommendations should be an ongoing process with full public partici- pation was welcome indeed and has our full support. The enclosed additional camments deal mainly with the proposed implementation of the Audit recommendations. However, we have also expanded somewhat on the comments sent with our letter of August 16. Thank you for this additional opportunity. "GinSincerely, . Jnm Preside r1 CITIZEN PLANNERS COMMENTS ON A PERFORMANCE AUDIT OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT GUIDANCE SYSTEM 1985 - 1990 Report dated August 15, 1990 These comments are in addition to those we submitted under the date of August 16, 1990, and reflect the discussions at the Planning and Zoning Board hearing on August 20. Policy/LDGS Relationships The current LDGS Audit has emphasized the critical relationship between the City's land use policies and the Land Development Guidance System. The general public often fault actions taken under the LDGS for failing to carry out the City policies stated in the Land Use Policies Plan. The planning staff counter these complaints with the argument that the LUPP may no longer accurately re- flect camunity values, resulting in public criticism of policy implementation under the LDGS. We think this is only part of the problem, since most of the original intent of the LUPP is still valid. A more appropriate analysis in our opinion is that policies set forth in the LUPP are so broadly stated that they can be various interpreted in the.LDGS process by City staff, developers, and the general public. Differences in interpretation are further compounded by lack of precision in the LDGS criteria. We believe this ambiguity between policy and implementation is responsible for most of the Systen's lack of pre- dictability. Fundamental changes needed in the LDGS are ultimately dependent on further definition and clarification of the basic land use policies. We urge that this task be assigned top priority and that adequate resources be allocated to achieve this goal with the next 6 months. Economic Growth Our earlier comments addressed the need for a clearer vision of what Fort Collins should become. We suggested some ki.nd,of.planning limits•on geographic boundaries and population. Lest this be interpreted as a "no growth" initia- tive, we want to expand on this concept. Because of the trend in national and regional demographics, we believe further population growth in Fort Collins and surrounding areas is virtually inevitable. To sustain the life style our citizens expect, score degree of economic and social growth must be anticipated. The questions are how much and what kind of growth should be planned and what geographic direction should be encouraged. Under present conditions, with Colorado's economy faltering and our local econo- my soft, we tend to seek any new economic activity that will create jobs of any type, accelerate demand for land and new facilities, and stimulate the flow of dollars through more hands. A large sector of our population spawned by our area's rapid growth in the '80s is financially dependent on this kind and level of economic activity. Unfortunately, such development generates public costs as well as private fortunes. We now know that development in Fort Collins does not pay its way directly and may fail to do so indirectly. Public interest therefore demands that only selected types of development be encouraged or permitted. Plans for the City's future must distinguish between those types of growth and development that benefit the City as a whole and those that only enrich a few. Fundamental considerations, such as the City's chronic under- -Z- employment, the shortage of capital for local enterprises, and technical assist- ance for existing small businesses, require more attention in the City's econom- ic planning. We hope to see these considerations built into the planning pro- cess as a legitimate economic and social curb on the present "market driven" philosophy. Complete reliance on the private sector to set development goals under the LDGS has resulted in inordinate amounts of empty space and numbers of failed businesses. The City is empowered to discourage, condition, or con- trol spurious development. We consider it essential that such provisions be- came a part of the City s policies and its planning objectives. Citizen Participation A principal purpose of our organization is to encourage citizen participation in the land use planning process. Active citizen involvement is a fundamental right and obligation and is the stated goal of most of our elected representa- tives in Fort Collins. In practice, however, effective citizen participation is hard to achieve. A major, perhaps main, deterent is citizen apathy. Unless the impact of land use decisions is clear and direct, individual citizens tend to rely on public officials to safeguard their interests. Under these circum- stances, officials are obliged to surmise which citizens are affected and what solutions are in the public interest. Too'often the negative economic and social fall -out of decisions made without effective public input must be resolved by belated political action. The inefficiencies of ballot -box decision making on such limited issues are obvious and suggest that assuring timely public par- ticipation will be rewarding. Ways of achieving this have been discussed at some length in our previous submittal. A specific of public participation that received attention in the Audit is the Neighborhood Meeting. This feature of the LDGS, which was added after the System was originally designed, has been positively received by the general public. However, two aspects of this feature are still a problem. One is deciding when a Neighborhood Meeting is required. The other is determining who should be notified and what information the public should be provided before the Neighborhood Meeting. A letter accompanying the staff report of August 15 recommends resolution of these aspects of the Neighborhood Meeting. We strongly support firmer requirements on these procedures. We specifically urge that Neighborhood Meetings be made a mandatory part of the LDGSTrocess, the only exception being cases where it can be conclusively shown that no sector of the public or no impacted individual has responded to vigorous at- tempts to solicit public participation. As for notification, we urge the City staff to assume full responsibility for a procedure that informs all affected citizens about proposed developments, without errors or omissions. Citizen Planners would like to participate in formulating the needed guidelines. To sum up our extreme interest in the citizen participation phases of the LOGS, we urge the Planning and Zoning Board to identify this as an issue of major consequence and focus on it as a separate issue category, i.e., Issue Category Seven, Citizen Participation. Implementation Recommendations made in the staff report for addressing issues raised in the Audit deal primarily with areas of consideration rather than defined changes. We generally agree that the most important issues have been identified and that the changes that are recommended for consideration are appropriate. -3- To make the actual changes, however, will require much further deliberation on the part of the Staff, the Board and the Council. Presumably, much of the initiative to formulate these changes will come from the Staff, with advice from the Board. We further asume that the Staff will be guided by the public input they have received during the Audit. Substantial resources will be required to iimplement these changes. We strongly support making the needed resources available. We also propose that each of the action plans contain specificed opportunities for public involvement from organizations and individuals and that their input be given full consideration in final decisions. Within the scope of its resources, Citizen Planners will be pleased to participate in these deliberations. Priorities The goal of the LDGS Audit is to make the LDGS as efficient as possible. To attain this goal, we believe there is a need to better align the LDGS with the policies in the Land Use Policies Plan. Clarification of the land use policies which form the basis of the LDGS should be an URGENT priority. Following are issues we feel are important to make the overall functioning of the LDGS more efficient. While we understand staff needs to categorize them under time constraints, we believe these issues should have URGENT priority. They are preceeded by the section number given in the report. - (2.22) Clearly, well-defined policy statements. - (2.14) Apparent and accessible coordination of existing and future plans, i.e., Environmental Management Plan, Storm Drainange Plan, Transportation Plan, Air Quality Plan, Water and Wastewater Plans, etc. - (4.42) Compatibility - definition, guidelines, and specified transitional land uses. - (1.61) Completion and adoption of the Environmental Management Plan. - (No category) Comprehensive, explicit visions of Fort Collins. - (No category) Improved, informed, early public participation integrated into the review process with equitable resolution of conflicts as they arise. • . August 27, 1990 - LDGS Performance Audit Members of the Planning and Zoning Board and Members of the City Planning Staff: I am Emily Smith, Secretary of the Prospect/Shields Neighborhood Association. We thank the Planning and Zoning Board for delaying any decision on the LDGS Performance Audit to allow citizens more time to study Chapter 6 of the draft which relates to the implementation of the recommendations. We recognize that the LDGS Performance Audit has been a massive and time-consuming endeavor and we commend the Planning and Zoning staff for the thorough and conscientious manner in which the performance audit was carried out. In particular, we appreciate their invitation for citizen participation throughout the audit. The Prospect/Shields Neighborhood Association largely agrees with the record of issues identified in the Performance Audit of the LDGS. However, there is one area with which we strongly disagree and another group of issues which we think should be brought together and emphasized more strongly. The first has to do with the treatment of Area Plans (item 5.31) and Appropriate Uses (item 5.32). The second area involves three major issues we consider to be critical to implementation: Citizen Participation, the Point System, and the Transportation Plan. •The Prospect/Shields Neighborhood Association regards the development of a series of neighborhood plans to be crucial to the successful Implemen- tation of the LDGS. Our neighborhood first requested a neighborhood plan in the early 1980's. Both that initial request and subsequent ones failed for inadequate funding and staffing. It is our view that the LDGS will fail to address the legitimate concerns of neighborhoods until it is matched with a series of neighborhood plans. Therefore, we strongly believe items 5.31 and 5.32 be moved to the "most important" category and addressed concurrently with items 4.41 and 4.42, Spatial Context and Compatibility. We also believe that recommendations of the Performance Audit would be substantially strengthened if the large number of issues involving Citizen Participation, the Point System, and the City's Transportation Plan were grouped and more explicitly addressed. We recommend that CITIZEN PARTICIPATION be identified as a major issue in the LDGS Performance Audit Implementation. Citizen participa- tion is imperative in all facets of the process if the LDGS is to excell as a successful planning tool. Thirteen of the issues identified in Chart 1 relate to citizen participation. Of the 13, we request that the following 5 issues be considered as "most important" instead of "important" in Chart 2: 2.22 - Policy Clarity 4.11 - Information in Notice • 4.21 - Community Training 6.22 - Neighborhood Notification Guidelines 6.23 - Geographical Area of Notification We consider these "most important" because the current proposals essentially create an agenda for choice; they do not identify the choices that will be made. It is crucial that in both the making of these policy choices and in the future implementation of an amended LUGS, citizens be actively involved. We recommend that the POINT SYSTEM be recognized as a ma3or issue in the LDGS Performance Audit Implementation. The Point System requires a comprehensive study that is not adequately reflected in the Performance Audit. Since the Point System directly reflects not only LDGS policy, but other City policies, the Point System must be comprehensively analized and clarified so that it accurately reflects the interrelated nature of all policies. Furthermore, the expression of policies through the point charts and the criteria for their evaluation must be clearly interpretable to both citizens and developers. Therefore we recommend that issue 2.21 be elevated to the "most important" category in Chart 2. We recommend that the transportation planning be integrated into the LUGS Performance Audit Implementation. We are concerned that the results of the City's Transportation Plan may not be adequately reflected in amendments to the LDGS. There are direct interrelations among the LDGS, the Land Use Plan, and the Transportation Plan that are acknowledged, but not adequately addressed in the Performance Audit. In addition, there are also direct interrelations of traffic to air quality and parking. It is not clear that the City recognizes that the outcomes of the LDGS process drives the traffic and transportation problem. We recommend that the Transportation Plan be developed interactively with Planning and Zoning, incorporating all issues in the LDGS Performance Audit Implementation that relate to the effects of traffic. While the issues I've addressed tonight are important to the Prospect/Shields Neighborhood, we wish to emphasize that we are pleased with the efforts the City has made to hear citizen input and to incorporate this input into the audit. We encourage all citizens to participate with the City and we encourage the City to actively encourage our citizens to participate. Thank you.