Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 12/14/1987PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MINUTES December 14, 1987 The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board was called to order at 6:32 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 300 Laporte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colo- radn. All Board members were present which included Don Crews, Sandy Kern, Dave Edwards, Bernie Strom, Sharon Brown, Linda Lang, Jim Klataske and Chairper- son Laurie O'Dell. Staff members present included Director of Planning, Tom Peterson, Debbie deBesche, Ted Shepard, Mike Herzig, Rick Ensdorff, Joe Frank, Peter Barnes, Linda Ripley and Renee Joseph. Leal representative was Paul Eckman. Planning Director, Tom Peterson, reviewed the Consent Agenda noting staff was requesting Item 2, #53-85G Centre for Advanced Technology POD -Amended Master Plan; and Item 3, #53-85H Greenfield PUD at the Centre for Advanced Technology - Preliminary & Final; be pulled for discussion. The remaining items on the Consent Agenda included: Item 1, Minutes of the November 16, 1987 meeting; Item 4, #48-87A North College Properties PUD -Final; Item 5, #44-79F The Mallards at the Landings PUD - Final; Item 6, #69-87 KCOL Radio Station - Expansion of Non -Conforming Use; Item 7, #70-87 Bingham Hill Road Out -Of -City Water Request; and Item 8, #53-85F Centre for Advanced Technol- ogy PUD -Tract J - Rezoning. Member Edwards abstained from voting on Item 5, The Mallards at the Land- ings PUD - Final, due to a perceived conflict. Member Crews rated a perceived conflict concerning Item 8, Centre for Advanced Technology PUD - Tract J - Rezoning and abstained from the vote. Member Kern also abstained from voting on Item 8. Member Edwards moved to approve Items 1, 4, 6, and 7. Member Kern sec- onded. Member Edwards also included Item 8 in the motion, therefore, another second was required. Member Strum seconded. Motion passed 6-0. Member Strap moved to approve Item 5. Member Brown seconded. Motion passed 7-0. Chairperson O'Dell informed Members Crews and Kern were unable to vote on Items 1, 4, 6, and 7. She stated another notion was necessary. Motion passed 7-0. CENTRE FOR ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY PUD - AMENDED MASTER PLAN Ted Shepard gave a description of the project. Tom Livingston, Project Director for Centre for Advanced Technology, stated there -are two issues the neighborhood has raised. First, that. an appropri- ate balance be ,maintained between the high tech, commercial and industrial P&Z Minutes December 14, 1987 Page 2 use and the more conventional commercial retail, residential, and service use. He stated the plan is a high tech mixed use project. Second, in gen- eral the neighborhood is in support of the project. The problem is a pro- cedural issue which relates to the fact that there was no neighborhood meeting to discuss the amendment to the PUD and the Greenfield PUD. He infonncti staff had reviewed the plan for the Greenfield PUD and at the con- clusion of the meeting with staff it was unanimously decided a neighborhood meeting was not necessary. This was concluded because the project was seen as having a positive impact on the neighborhood and a deintensified use. He referred to the letter from the Prospect/Shields Neighborhood Group stating the neighbors had commented there would be no negative impact due to the project because it is a less intensified use than the original master plan. It will also stretch the buffer between the residential areas and the more intensified use to the south. In conclusion, as the developer, he stated he has followed all the regulations for filing a PUD. Staff decided a neighborhood meeting was not necessary because of the less intensified use. The camnents in the letter show the neighborhood approves of the PUD as presented tonight. Member Brown inquired what percent of the ,raster plan remains in high tech areas and haw much to recreation areas. Tom Livingston stated the entire master plan including the T transitional area is 131 acres in total. Of this amount, 42 acres is proposed as com- mercial retail, residential, an service use; 37 acres is T transitional; and the remainder is high tech. The recreational areas are included in the balance of the 131 acres. Member Brown stated the concern is the balance and mix use. She wondered what kind of balance is being achieved. Tam Livingston stated the balance except for the four acre PUD remains unchanged. Tract C on the original master plan was retail. On the amended master plan Tract C will be office use designed to accommodate professional services. He stated the direct trade-off would be retail to high tech. Ted Shepard stated staff is recommending Tract D for the nursing home use. Alan Lamborn informed he was present on behalf of the Prospect/Shields Neighborhood Association. He stated the proposal is the most important infill project the City will. have because of its sheer size, central loca- tion, and proximity to Colorado State University. On the positive side, the project creates an opportunity for the City to link the University with campus south. On the negative side, there will be a substantial cost to the City if the project is not handled properly. There will be traffic pressure and increased air pollution. The project will create a new center piece for the City and the risks are reflected in the neighborhoods views of the Centre for Advanced Technology. The original master plan was viewed as a well balanced document. The three classes of uses included: High Tech in purple, Passive Recreation in green, and Other Use in yellow. The third category will provide the income to make the first two uses possible. He stated the amended master plan as proposed tonight will take 5.99 acres of Tract D and convert it into the new Tract N. This will change high tech P&7. Mirnites December 14, 1987 Page 3 • into a nursing home use. If the project is viewed in isolation there are no negative impacts on the neighborhood because of the less intensified use. However, the project can not be viewed in isolation. To avoid a mis- undc r,.., r, 'ice uLressed a few points. They included: 1, the neighborhood does not oppose the proposed use perse but the piecemeal. approach; 2, all the staff was impressed with the deintensification of use but the deinten- sification is not the issue; 3, the neighbors are not arguing that master plans are set in concrete and they are not opposing charge; and 4, the issue is balance not change. He suggested the Board table the project so the master plan could be rebalanced. The result would be a burden on the developer by a one month delay. The point is balance. By delaying the project by one month it will give an opportunity to take this unique piece of property and develop it the proper way. The developer pronised he would be patient to the neighborhood; that the project would take 20 to 30 years to complete. We do not understand why he is in such a hurry now. Jim Gefrch addressed the issue that time is of the essence. He stated to table the project for one month would have severe effects on the developer. Member Brown asked the developer and staff to comment on the future amend- ments to the master plan for next month. Ted Shepard stated a submittal was received for the January meeting. The issues were discussed at the neighborhood meeting. The amendments in Janu- ary will be to redesignate the transition tract to high density residen- tial, redesignate the old part of Tract D into Tract N and Tract P will became high density residential, Tract E transitional and Tract D will became high density residential, and a new lettering system will be in effect. Member Lang asked Ted Shepard with being informed with what is caning up in January is he still recannending approval of the project at this point. She inquired if the staff and planning process had been completed even with the information that will be presented in January. Ted Shepard stated all the projects have gone through the planning process and the master plan is not here all at once for this project. At the request of CSURF the desired changes were severe enough to require a neigh- borhood meeting, that is why that part of the project was postponed until January. The Everitt Co. recommended changes which were considered as deintensification, well buffered from the neighborhood; therefore, not requiring a neighborhood meeting. Because of the two different owners the Board is seeing one project tonight and one in January. Member Brown inquired with the changes tonight and the changes in January what percent of the master plan will remain high tech. Ted Shepard stated he did not have the percentage breakdown. He informed Tract D of 27 acres will be taken and given to residential. Thirty one acres of the transitional tract will go to residential. • Tom Peterson stated Tract C which was approximately three acres of retail will be charged to Tract M of four acres for professional office use. P&Z Minutes December 14, 1987 Page 4 Tan Livingston cautioned the Board from reviewing the proposed amendment to the master plan for the January meeting. He stated the Board had received figures from Ted and Tom which were acres changing from high tech to resi- dential. Also, Tract B would be reduced from a 350,000 square foot shop- ping center to 150,000 square feet, allowing for more than 50% of the par- cel to be committed to high tech. Member Brown stated she was concerned about what would be happening in the future. She wanted to look at everything at once to see how it all bal- ances. Member Strap inquired about the list of uses in the initial proposal for the high tech areas of the master plan. Ted Shepard stated the uses were Industrial, Research and Development, High Tech, Bio-tech, etc. Basically a list from A to Z. Tan Livingston stated the list included Research and Development, Corporate Facilities, Incubator space, Traditional Office space, and Exhibition space. He added Holiday Tnn represents phase one of this type of support facility. Chairperson O'Dell spoke to Member Brown about master plans. She indicated master plans sometimes are in effect for a year before amendments are pro- posed. It is not unusual to anticipate future amendments. Member Brown stated the time proximity has an effect on the project. She feels time is of the essence for the nursing home. She indicated she wanted to see all the proposed changes at one time. She inquired what the zoning district is a nursing hone included in. Is the use by right? Ted Shepard informed nursing hones are considered high density residential zoned districts. The use by rights depends on the number of beds proposed. Member Edwards discussed the evolutionary process of a research and devel- opment park. He inquired if there is any substance to the theory that a nursing hone type use would spin off into a research and development use of its own. Tt could compliment the use of research and developnent. Tom Livingston stated the research and development would benefit the ccmmu- nity directly related to the nursing hone use. The applicant of Greenfield PUD is an owner and operator of nursing hones in northern Colorado. His company employs over 300 people and this facility would employ another 90 individuals. He has developed a program for graduate students to work in the nursirq homes. Jim Gefroh stated the program is through the Department of Social Services and Human Development. The Greenfield Association offers an internship program in health care nursing facilities so that graduate students can receive on-the-job training. Member Brown inquired if the program is already in place. P&Z Minutes • • December 14, 1987 Page 5 40 Jim Gefroh stated yes, it has been active for a rnmiber of years. The pro- gram is on an as -needed basis. The Greenfield Association provides intern- ships when needed. He added it is an ongoing program. Member Brown inquired if there is a possibility to interface the program with the programs at VOTech. Jim Gefroh stated he was unable to answer. Member Kern stated these activities do not represent high tech capabili- ties. His point dealt with to what extent is ad hoc planning occurring on a piecemeal basis. He commented Tract B, the retail portion, will now be devoted to high tech. Tom Livingston stated the PUD had been approved to change Tract B from retail to high tech. Member Kern indicated Tract B of approximately 30 acres was reduced to half, approximately 15 acres leaving 26 acres now converted to high density residential. He was concerned about the alteration of the original intent, as brought up at the work session. Tan Livingston stated the Greenfield project is not a piecemeal attempt. The project has been given considerable thought. Also, the intent of the project has not been altered. The developer is committed to develop a high tech park which will be mixed use. Chairperson O'Dell informed the Board had the options to approve, deny or table the proposal. She stated the Board was only dealing with the change to allow for the nursing hone in Tract D. Member Edwards moved to approve the Centre for Advanced Technology PUD Amended Master Plan on the simple basis that it is a reasonable amendment. He stated he agreed the issue is balance and he does not want a piecemeal project. Member Lang seconded. Member Crews stated the project is the first medical complex west of the railroad tracks. He informed master plans tend to raise a level of expec- tation for the public. He indicated he has never seen a master plan totally built out at such an early stage. Member Kern stated some of the positive points the project include: the proximity to a medical facility, the proximity to Rolland Moore Park, it supplies a buffer from the retail and high tech uses, and the project is low intensity as to the traffic and the other items noted previously. How- ever, he informed he does wish to see the project retain a its sharp high tech component and the original intent intact. Member Strom stated he was concerned about the trade-offs at the beginning. He indicated if he felt the amendment was a major charge in the direction • he would agree to postpone the proposal for 30 days. But since this is not a major charge in direction he stated he approved the project. He did P&Z Minutes December 14, 1987 Page 6 infonn he would be taking a hard look at the future proposals and view their direction. Member Brown also agreed the amendment is not a major change. She informed the developer snould be aware the Board would be taking a closer look at the future proposals. Motion passed 7-0. G fENFIELD PUD AT THE CENTRE FOR ADVANCED TECFMI= - PRELIMINARY & FINAL Ted Shepard gave the staff presentation of the project. Jim Gefroh spoke about the Greenfield Association. He stated the Green- field Association has been providing nursing care for the twenty years. He discussed the nursing care facility which would be located on the extreme northwest corner of Tract D. The facility would be a single story building with two, sixty bed nursing care wings. The front of the building in the center would be the entry and administrative office. Tn the center of the building would be a open court yard for the occupants. The patients using the facility need 24 hour care and would remain on the premises. He stated the facility was designed with this in mind. He added a full medicare operation would be provided. Parking would accanmxxiate 74 spaces. The front parking would be for visitors, while side parking would be for the employees, with service to the rear. He indicated there would be 30 employees per shift, equalling 90 employees per day. He stated the lands- cape plan is an asset to the project. He referred to it as a "backyard" habitat plan. The building materials included brick and asphalt roofing. He commented entry area and the outdoor patio were intensified with planted siding and brick. He stated the attributes from the site were the view of Rolland Moore Park and the front range. Member Crews inquired about the brick used for the structure. Mr. Gefroh stated the building was approximately 15% painted siding and 85% actual brick. Member Crews inquired about the landscape plan. He asked if the three cot- tonwood trees would be saved. Mr. Gefroh stated two of the cottonwood trees are on the property and will be saved so they can be maintained as part of the PUD. Chairperson O'Dell inquired about Note 13 referring to the security fence. She asked where it would be located, why it was needed, and why it is called a security fence. Mr. Gefroh stated although the entry into the facility is controlled some patients in the center might want to leave the building. These patients are not allowed to leave the facility and a means of control is important. He consented the fence would be low profile around the perimeter boundary P&Z Minutes • • December 14, 1987 Page 7 for the purpose of control of canal. access and control. of people on the ` grounds. He stated a chain link fence of four feet high was being consid- ered but the developer is still investigating what type of fence to use. Chairperson O'Dell stated the nursing hones around Poudre Valley Hospital do not have fences. She inquired what type of security system they use. Mr. Gefroh stated most of the security is within the building. Member rdwarcis caimiented there are treahnants that can make chain link fences unobtnasive. Mr. Gefroh stated this is true and that these materials are being consid- ered. Member Brown stated looking at the preliminary and final site plan the fence is referred to as security, chain link. She inquired if changes were to be made they would be administrative charges regarding the security fence. Mr. Gefroh stated the developer would like the option to provide a fence of chain link quality. Member Brown asked if a certain type of fence should be specified at this point. Ted Shepard stated he would recommend specifying the type of fence at this time. Mr. Gefroh stated he would not be opposed to this. Member Brown comnented she could not find reference to the building materi- als on the site plan. Mr. Gefroh stated staff received drawings of the elevations of the build- ings which describes the materials proposed for the facility. Member Brawn inquired if the parking needs at shift change have been addressed. Mr. Gefroh informed the parking spaces available exceed the norm for this type of facility. This was done to accommodate the extra need during shift changes. Member Brown stated from personal experience the overlap might be a hour to a hour and a half due to shift charges. Mr. Gefroh stated he feels there is an adequate parking ratio. Member Brown stated as part of the Board's packet was an exhibit entitled Figire 1: Greenfield Nursing Home Location. She inquired if this is what. . would be reviewed at the January meeting. P&Z Minutes December 14, 1987 Page 8 Ted Shepard stated the lettering systan would be new at the January meet- ing. Member Brown stated she was concerned she was seeing many different parcels than those on the master plan. Ted Shepard stated staff is recommending approval. Staff has reviewed the Project looking at the residential point chart, however, these are not dwelling units perse. There are locational advantages achieved including: the proximity to the medical center to the north, Rolland Moore Park, the neighborhood service center, and the street system. The project meets the underlining assumptions of the residential point chart. Alan Lamborn, representing the Prospect/Shields Association, stated they have no fundamental objections to the landscape or site plan. He asked if the Greenfield Nursing Hane will accept medicade patients. Mr. Gefroh stated the Greenfield Nursing Horne will accept these patients. The facility will have full medicade capabilities. Alan Lamborn indicated some observations the group he was representing had included the chain link fence and parking. These are examples of the unde- sirability of the combined master plan preliminary and final for review. The fencing will affect the site plan and the overall layout of the whole concept of a mixed use park. Vague statements have been made regarding the fence and the parking without the ability to say whether or not these can- ments are true. This is not a desirable way to operate, especially when the parcel being dealt with is part of a much larger operation and not an isolated site. Member Kern inquired why the preliminary and final is being reviewed together. Ted Shepard stated the decision was based on the progress of the utility planning including the fact a SID has been in force and approved by the City since summer. (SID 90) Also, the widening of Shields, the construc- tion of Research Blvd, Worthington, and Center Ave. played a part in the decision. He indicated work is still continuing with the improvements to Drake. Typically, the utilities are the bulk of the work that has to be done between preliminary and final. In this case the utilities were there to the site. He added the project is in a master plan and the parcels have gone through the planning process. For these reasons, he stated staff elected to have the Board review the preliminary and final together. Member Lang moved to approve Greenfield P11D at the Centre for Advanced Technology - Preliminary and Final. Member Crews seconded. Motion passed 7-0. FRONT RANGE FARMS II ANNEXATION AND ZONING Linda Ripely gave the staff description of the project. She stated the land is located within the Fort Collins urban growth area. She informed staff recanmends approval of the annexation request. P&2 Minutes • • December 14, 1987 Page 9 • Member Edwards inquired if this was a voluntary annexation. Linda Ripely stated this is a 100% voluntary annexation. Joseph Carroll, representing Greenline Equipment Inc., stated they oppose the annexation for several reasons. First, the Board should take a long hard look at this annexation for the fact that it is across I-25. It is the first annexation of any property proposed on the east side of I-25. Why is this any different? The primary reason is utilities. In order to pro- vide utility services for this property the City will have to drill those utilities under the interstate. This would be very expensive and a long process. He stated this is something that has not been investigated by the applicant, who chose not to come tonight, or the City staff. Second, there is no development on the property at the present, nor is there any develop- ment proposed for the property in the immediate near future. Just the oppo- site, the property immediately to the north is developed at this time by Greenline Equipment Inc., and the property north of the line on the map is also developed. The small area niched out of the property below the road was originally part of the annexation, however, the property owner to the north of this area wishes to buy the property to the south; a company called New Haul Land and Farming. They do not wish to be involved in the City and made their contract contingent with Front Range Farms that this property would be deleted from the annexation request. Third, fire and police for the property has not been addressed by the applicant or by the City. He summarized by stating the annexation is being done to allow City input into future development, which is a notable item; however, on the !, downside there are future costs and needs of this property against specific utilities that have not been addressed by the applicant or the City. He suggested until these items are addressed the City should forego making annexations into areas such as this before determining haw to serve it. He commented it seems odd that the property directly to the north did not join in the annexation and the property owner who is purchasing part of that lanai is asking the property be deleted from the annexation. He suggested the Board recortmend to City Council that this property should not be annexed at this time and this matter not come before the Board again until these issue have been addressed properly. Tan Peterson addressed the issue of utilities. He stated the only signifi- cant item that will happen due to the annexation of the property is the Public Service Co., which has a franchise there, will have the obligation to take over the electrical service to the property. Essentially the City will take over the Public Service lines, so the service will not charge. The property is in the Box Elder Sanitation District and the ELCO Water District, both are private service districts. The City will not affect this. The fire district situation will not change. In terms of City taxa- tion the Fire Department is included as part of the whole bill. The City will assume the responsibility for the Police Department. The property across the street from the proposed annexation is already within the City and protected by the City police. The major reasons for annexation are: the property is within the urban growth area and we are under an obligation to the County, and the ability as a community to plan long term capital improvements. (water, sewer, roads, etc.) He added there is riot a major impact on the City with this annexation. P&Z Minutes December 14, 1987 Ikmr10 10 Chairperson O'Dell inquired if at the time of development the utilities will be addressed. Tom Peterson stated this would be the time when the negotiations would take place. The developer would be in negotiation with the water and sewer departments. In terms of electric, this will be there and the City would provide services necessary to the property. Member Edwards stated this is not a unique situation. He informed there is sewer being extended under I-25 to the golf course at I-25 and County Road 32. Tan Peterson stated sewer is drilled under interstates all the time. It is part of the capital improvement planning process. Member Lang asked Tom Peterson to comment on the letter from the Colorado State Highway Department. Tan Peterson stated he has no appreciation for the State Highway Department when they involve themselves in the real estate business. He commented staff does not believe the statement about land values is valid. Also, the City does not have the ability to restrict the alignments for a proposed road which has not been constructed. He stated the letter is without merit. Member Kern commented he has lived here for twenty years and every year this issue has been under study. He stated the State Highway Department has not made any motion to affect the Board's decision. Tan Peterson stated once the State Highway Department has made an alignment decision and if the City has it on the master street plan, then the City does have the ability under State law to reserve right-of-way. Member Crews moved to approve the Front Range Farms II Annexation and Zon- ing. Member Edwards seconded. Motion passed 7-0. Joe Frank stated there would be one motion for all the items. He summa- rized the amendments by stating that most of the charges are minor in nature. The most significant change generally dealt with the vested prop- erty rights. He stated this section is consistent with the existing poli- cies and procedures. He stated approximately 86 letters were sent to developers to notify as to the request. He commented 17 categories of changes are being recommended for approval to City Council at the January 5, 1988 hearing. He added Peter Barnes and Paul Eckman played a signifi- cant role in preparing the amendments. Chairperson O'Dell inquired if the new vested property rights will bring the City into canpliance with State laws. She also asked if the law will. be retroactive. P&2 Minutes • December 14, 1987 Page 11 Joe Frank stated the Governor had passed a bill which will be in effect January 1988. The new vested rights provisions are in direct response to the new State statute. The bill will take effect on projects approved as of enactment of the ordinance. Paul Eckman informed the Board that the law becomes effective on January 1, 1988. Any projects approved as of January 1, 1988 will have a three year vested right. Until January 1, 1988, the law is not in effect and there- fore, two years of life will be authorized to planned unit developments that have been approved. The question is, what. if one of the previously approved PUD's should expire before three years has past, under the old Code. He stated he would recommend, in a case such as this, that the Board give another year to avoid the conflict. He added he did not believe this would occur very frequently. Joe Frank commented State statutes specifically state they apply only to projects after January 1, 1988. Member Kern stated on Page 4, where staff had made a note, that a double negative was being used as an explanation. He inquired if this had been corrected. Joe Frank stated this was in a note section and not part of the ordinance. He commented when it goes to City Council it will be corrected. Member Kern indicated Paul Eckman intended to address the issue of "sub- stantially complete." The definition is clearer later in the text where it is says "undertaken and completed" the development. Paul Eckman stated the language in the State statute that will became effective uses the term "undertake and complete." The old language of the Code was "begin and substantially complete." This phrase will be changed everywhere it is seen in the Code to conform to the State law. Member Brown read from Page 2, Item 6, "...require that landscape plans to be shown at ten years of maturity". She then inquired what the present Code is. Joe Frank stated the current Code states full maturity. Member Brown continued on Page 2, ..allows the Planning Director discre- tion to vary minimum plant size requirements". She stated she is not sug- gesting that the criteria should be placed in the Code but she wondered if policies and procedures were written that establish the criteria under which the Planning Director can do this. Joe Frank commented this is putting into Code what has been taking place already. This is done on a case -by -case basis. There really is not any written policies which would apply but more on a project -by -project basis. Member Brown stated she does not object to establishing where the authority lies but wonders if the overall policies are clear enough for the public. P&Z Minutes December 14, 1987 Page 12 Member Kern commented there are a number of places where the proposed ameximents would put the Director of Planning in the position of making decisions. With good cause shown, will the Director of Planning be put in the line of fire? If the developer or the public felt the decision made by the Director of Planning was incorrect, is there any mechanism where the conflict could be brought to the Board for judgment. Joe Frank stated any landscaping plan is ultimately approved by the Plan- ning and Zoning Board. If there are conflicts where it is felt lamer materials are needed and it can not be agreed upon, then the Planning and Zoning Board would have to resolve the issue. He stated he did not feel it is necessary to specify criteria unless there were a lot of conflicts, then more specific details would be considered. Member Kern commented that other than the landscape issue, he feels any other type of decisions that have to be made that involve "pushing and shoving" should be brought to the Board. He stated he does not feel there is a mechanism which would allow the Director of Planning to present the issue to the Board. Tom Peterson stated there is a very clear mechanism. He indicated any administrative decision made by staff, essentially, the Planning Director being the representative of staff, is immediately appealable to the Plan- ning and Zoning Board. Joe Frank stated the Code permits the Planning Director, at any time, to go to the Planning and Zoning Board for guidance. Ton Peterson stated that anyone in his position would not be politically astute enough to want to grapple with a hot potato, that the Board is much better able to deal with it. Paul Eckman stated one point that can be made with respect to the master plan issue is that the Code presently requires a master plan to be accompa- nied by a preliminary plan sutmittal. The change allows for cause, for the Planning Director to determine if the requirement should be waived. The Code does not authorize the Planning Director to impose any additional strong-arm tactics on a developer, but rather relieve a developer of an obligation. Member Kern stated he would like it to be more clear that the good cause shown is on the part of the developer, not the Planning Director. Member Edwards asked if a problem is not being created. Administrative changes that occurred all the time were previously included in the Board's packets. The Board does not see contested administrative charges but there have been situations regarding charges in architectural style and character where the Planning Director has cane to the Board and inquired if the change is substantial enough for the Planning Director not to handle the charge administratively. Member Kern stated an example was seen earlier in the evening when it came to having a complete master plan, preliminary, and final all in one pack- P&Z Minutes • • December 14, 1987 Page 13 . age. Ile slated he wouLd have preterret! clearly laid out and that the good cause hectored at the developer. to have seen Cho project more shown were listed, rather than Harold Worth stated he was not sure if he had a concern to express or a clarification to request. He comnented that Joe Frank has undersold that these changes are just merely housekeeping and minor in nature. He felt some of the changes are extremely substantive and have very strong legal implications and deserve careful consideration by the Board. His specific concern was the establishment and extension of the vested rights. He stated, as he understands it, the State law requires the extension of vested rights to a developer. He wondered how the Board goes about extend- ing the three year requirement that the State has placed on the vested rights. This seems to have very strong legal implications. Daring the period of vested rights, the citizens have no way of changing a decision on a final except by going through the legal process of condemnation and pay- ing the costs involved. It seems giving administrative authority to the Planning Director or even to the Board to do this that the citizens of the City are being obligated for expenses that normally would not be incurred. Is this a desirable thing to do? If this is going to happen should it not be legislated by the City Council, having full knowledge of the implica- tions of that legislation. Paul Eckman stated Mr. Worth's concerns are the vested rights are vested for three years under the State law and might be extended administratively for additional terns by the staff or by the Board. Tt is the extending of that tern that is of concern to Mr. Worth. He stated Mr. Worth has made a valid point. By extending a vested right, if later it would turn out it should not have been done, then nothing can be done until the extension runs out, unless the property would be condemned. This provision was in the Code before with respect to the two year approvals. When a PUD was approved, the Planning Director could extend the project for two additional six month terns. To this extent the Code is no different than what the Code has provided .in the past except now it is an extension for a three year tern instead of a two year tern. Member Brown stated the alternative to extending the vested right would be to let it expire and the developer submit a new plan, in which case, the vested right would be re -invested for an additional three years. Harold Worth stated that the sane procedure is taking place as before if the vested right was terminated in three years and reenacted with a new approval. Member Brown stated this is an alternative. Harold Worth stated that, on the face, this sounds like a suitable scheme to him by actually requiring a second approval on the same project if it is to be extended. Member Brown stated this would not necessarily protect the City in the future from the expense for having to condemn. P&Z Minutes December 14, 1987 Page 14 Harold Worth cannented that anther part of this issue that bothers him deals with the extensions that are provided for without any public notice or public hearing. He stated this is an important part of the process. In getting a second approval the review process would occur. Chairperson O'Dell stated that at the review session, Joe Frank had men- tioned these administrative changes will need to be publicized. Joe Frank stated that the extensions will not need to be publicized. Admin- istratively, two six-month extensions could be given. After this time, the Planning and Zoning Board would conduct a full hearing. Member Brown commented in view of the fact, currently the Code states there is a two year time period in addition to two six-month extensions made by the Planning Director. This totals three years. Then the project automat- ically nines to the Board. Under the new law three years are allowed plus two six-month extensions, equalling four years. She inquired if the fourth year could be eliminated and have the project come directly to the Board at the end of three years. Tan Peterson stated the reason for this section originally being included in the Code was to keep the Board from being overwhelmed with requests for extensions. Member Kern stated the point that Mr. Worth is raising is that no public notice is required. He inquired if a note could be placed in the local newspaper one month prior to taking effect. Tan Peterson stated he would not have any problem with doing this since it is an extension of a vested right. Paul Eckman inquired what good would public notice do if there were no opportunity for a public hearing. Harold Worth stated by publicizing the information, this would help solve the problem. He added he had one final question concerning whether or not, under the new law and revised ordinance, the City will have a different type of liability than they would have under the existing form of exten- s ion. Paul Eckman commented under the new law as it is drafted here, he does not see any different type of liability except being on the end of a three year tern instead of a two year term. Harold Worth inquired if the time period is the main difference. Paul Eckman stated this was correct. He commented the reason for breaking the extension up into two six-month tenons is to afford the Planning Direc- tor sane opportunity to see into the future to determine whether to grant the extension. Another safeguard in this respect might be to authorize four -month extensions instead of six-month. If the City is aware of the need, it is not likely that the Planning Director would authorize the extension since he has no obligation to do so. P&Z Minutes • Decomber 14, 1987 Page 15 Tom Peterson stated there is no problem to create administrative guidelines to be incorporated in the Code. Member Brudi, atacao this would help from the public's perception and pre- vents misunderstandings down the road. Joe Frank stated that not everything needs to be put into code form because it takes away flexibility. Member Kern inquired if the public notice issue should go directly into the amendments itself. He asked if it would be included or should a specific amendment be made. Tom Peterson stated a specific suggestion should be made. Paul Eckman suggested this could be handled since already in the draft is the requirement of a notice of approval and this is in keeping with the State statute. For instance, if Tam Peterson approves an extension, then within 14 days of the approval, this would be published and also state that within a specific time frame after publication Ton's approval can be appealed to the Board. Member Kern stated that it becomes defacto for someone if fighting uphill. They might want to have their suggestions up front. �. Tom Peterson indicated once an administrative decision is appealed, the decision is invalid until the Board's resolves the issue. Joe Frank stated another option might be that under the current require- ments for the initial vested rights, there is a notice ahead of the hearing and a notice afterwards of the approval, this could be suggested for the new Code. Member Kern stated he would like a notice in the paper, "action only taken" if there is a response to the notice. He inquired if this should be a spe- cific amendment or will this be automatically included in the new Code. Tan Peterson stated that if the staff could get a sense of the Board's desires that it would be included. A specific amendment would not be needed. Chairperson O'Dell inquired regarding time, will this give staff enough time if the developer is required to submit his extension request 30 days in advance. A certain amount of time would be given for an appeal and then if the staff went beyond the 30 days would the plan still be enforced. Paul Eckman stated a submission requirement 30 days in advance would be present. He commented that if he has heard the Board correctly, they want a publication of notice prior to making the extension. Member Kern stated this is correct. He indicated 30 days might be too much in this instance and perhaps 14 days before the decision would be adequate. P&Z Minutes December 14, 1987 Page 16 Paul Eckman stated staffwould publish at least 14 days before the decision and after the decision is made there would be another publication 14 days thereafter. This would give citizens the opportunity to take the matter to the Board. �a the meantime, if there were no appeal, he suggests the extension is valid and the project has not expired. Chairperson O'Dell inquired if there were an appeal would there be a cer- tain amount of time that citizens could appeal the matter. Paul Eckman stated the citizens would be given 14 days to file an appeal. Member Brawn stated that if the developer has not filed for the extension until 30 days before, staff does not file it until 14 days before, and saiieone decides Lo appeal on Lhe 13th day into this time, what happens to the developer's plans which will expire soon after? Paul Eckman stated that if the Planning Director has approved the exten- sion, then it would continue on until it came to the Board. This would give an extension of at least one month to get the item on the Board's agenda. Joe Frank recommended that on the notice required prior to the hearing date, to keep it consistent with the vested rights, that the time be seven days. Member Brown stated on Page 7, Ttem c (after the underlining), " .. exten- sions for successive periods of six months can be granted by the Director of Planning on the same basis as for non phased developments..." She inquired if this means any number of extensions, because it is not specific about haw many. Joe Frank stated the ordinance goes on to state that two six-month exten- sions by the Planning Director with any additional extensions made by the Board. Chairperson O'Dell. asked if it is clear enough to staff what. the Board's intentions are as to the amendments. Member Kern moved to approve the Amendment to the Zoning and Subdivision Regulations. Member Crews seconded. Member Brown asked that if staff is having to publish requests for exten- sions, is there a fee for doing this. Joe Frank stated if this notice is required, a fee of $50.00 should be col- lected, which is the same as the original vested rights. Motion passed 7-0. PF7. Minvtas 9 • December 14, 1987 Page 17 . OTHER BUSINESS Rick Ensdorff discussed the Fort Collins Parkway. He stated the intent of the discussion was to brief the Board of the progress, the plans for 1988, and to answer any questions concerning the parkway. He presented some slides to the Board. The first slide showed the existing alignment of the parkway and the area already under construction. He informed the second phase of the parkway, as currently aligned, runs between HWY 287 and Shields and Taft Hill around to HWY 287 at approximately the intersection at Conifer. He stated there is no work or funding at this time for this section. The third phase will be under discussion in 1988. This area encompasses four different alignments that the State is reviewing at this time. The four alignments include: the Lemay Corridor alignment, one of the earliest alignments in the process; the Airpark Diagonal Corridor, the one the City currently has approved on the master street plan; the Vine Corridor, running approximately 1500 ft. north of Vine; and, the County Road Fifty Corridor, tying into Mountain Vista and using the existing interchange at County Road 50. There have been many reports prepared and data collected by the State. He stated several processes will be taking place. First, the City will need to review what makes sense for the County and City, and second, if they should update the master street plan to show the other alignments beside the Airpark Diagonal. He informed the Board that City staff has conducted one public information meeting last week and will continue to do this as an attempt to share the progress with the pub- lic. The State process is in February or March of 1988. The State will hold a public meeting, which is mandatory, to share information they have gathered with the public. Rick Ensdorff continued by stating that in the Fall of 1988, the State is proposing to have a draft of the EIS. Included in this will be the recan- mended alignment, chosen from the four proposed aligrtttents. The City has one alignment on their master street plans and the State is proposing another, causing sane frustration. In 1988, the City part of the process will be to inform the public, and depending upon where things go from there, bring any changes to the master street plan to the Board. Member Strom inquired if the State has started their Environmental Impact Statement. Rick Ensdorff informed the State has been working on the EiS for several years. Most of the data that has been gathered regards all non -traffic projection type studies. The traffic projections have been redone in the last six months to update then. Member Strait inquired if the FIS will be the State's primary decision pro- cess. Rick Ensdorff stated this is the first step in making the decision regard- ing the alignment. Member Strom inquired what the canment period is on the F,IS. Rick Ensdorff stated he did not know. P&Z Minutes December 14, 1987 Page 18 Member Strcrn stated if the EIS is the principal instrument for deciding on the alignment, staff should inform the Board where they can have the most influence on the process. Member Crews humorously inquired if the Fort Collins Parkway will be built in his life time. Rick Ensdorff stated unless the urban growth area has charged again, the alignment should be completed in Spring of 1989. Member Brown commented under the new County Comprehensive Use Plan and the intergovernmental agreements between the City and the County, the City can now annex lard outside the urban growth area. She inquired if this impacts the parkway at all. Tan Peterson stated assuming the new plan was adopted by City Council the answer is yes. Chairperson O'Dell thanked Rick Ensdorff for taking the time to inform the Board as to the progress of the Fort Collins Parkway. Member Lang informed since she has moved out of the City limits of Fort Collins and therefore has to resign from the Board. In tendering her resignation she stated she looked for the words to express her tern on the Board and the words that best fit her feelings was "a really interesting experience." After serving 20 years in the construction industry, being a Board member has given her the chance to "jump up on the fence post and see both sides." There are a couple of things she wanted to say including: commending the staff during the transition of the past several years, and the Board with it's transition of new Board members. As an outgoing member of the Board, she stated some concerns that she has seen serving on the Board. First, the neighborhood concerns versus the Land Development Qiid- ance System Points Chart has created a great emotional tug-of-war. She stated she does not know if it is feasible to add something into the point chart in the beginning so that the developer does not spend thousands of dollars getting to a one night decision. Or whether or not, on the items where there is going to be strong neighborhood opposition it needs to be an agenda item prior to being a preliminary item so that the Board can do some research before voting. She stated personally she would like to see the attorneys eliminated. She also addressed the item she commented on is that she has always agreed development should always pay its own way, however, there are numerous times, which are happening more and more, inadequate financial planning by the City is forcing the developers to pay more than their fair share. She thought this issue should be reviewed. She com- mented by far Fort Collins is the nicest city to drive through because it is planned well. She concluded by stating it has been a pleasure sitting with the other Board members, she has learned a lot, has a much better understanding of the total process, and will miss everyone. Chairperson O'Dell stated the Board reluctantly accepts Member Linda Lang's resignation. She thanked Member Lang for her two years of service on the Board. P&? Minutes DpeLmber 14, 1987 Page 19 • With no other business, the meeting adjourned at 9:35 p.m. C J 40