Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 10/30/1985• 0 PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MINUTES October 30, 1985 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, Colorado. Board members present were Gary Ross, Dave Edwards, Laurie O'Dell, Tim Dow, Sanford Kern, Don Crews, Sharon Brown and Linda Lang. Staff members present were Joe Frank, Bonnie Tripoli, Elaine Kleckner, Ken Waido, Steve Ryder, Bob Wilkinson, Matt Baker and Barbara Hendrickson. Legal staff was represented by Steve Roy. Chairman Dow welcomed the public to the meeting. Joe Frank stated continued items were: Item 2 - #25-85A - Redwood Village Center PUD - Final, Item 4 - #68-85 King Soopers #9 Expansion, and Item 5 - #24-80J -Park Central PUD Phase V - Preliminary. Item 8 - #78-85 Fort Collins Pipe Out -of -City Sewer Request has been withdrawn. Mr. Frank reviewed the consent agenda which consisted of: #143-80B Spring Creek Manor PUD - One Year Extension and #13-80F Sundering Townhomes PUD, 2nd Filing - Amended Preliminary. Member Edwards motioned to approve the consent agenda. Member Brown seconded the motion. Motion to approve the consent agenda passed 7-0. Board proceeded to the First Discussion Agenda Item. #62-85 EASTSIDE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN Member Kern excused himself from the discussion and subsequent voting due to a conflict of interest. Ernie MacQuiddy, ESN Steering Committee, gave the presentation. He stated this plan was worked on by the City and Cityscape and represents a true neighborhood effort. He introduced the members of the Steering Committee who were present in the audience. He began his presentation by briefly explaining the sections of the Plan: Purpose - to create a tool to inhance the neighborhood; Policy - to create stability; and Implementation - puts recommendations into action. He then briefly explained the Policy Plan and how it is perceived and how it will grow, balancing the needs with the neighborhood. He stated there were approximately 30-60 people at each of the 4 neighborhood meetings and he had attended 3 of the worksessions and the Transportation Workshop. Eldon Ward, Cityscape Urban Design, presented the content of the Plan Policy. He stated the three areas for study were; Commercial fringe around the neighborhood, buffer between old structures and land use, and historic and residential. He noted that the plan calls for a creation of two new zones, written just for this neighborhood but is similar to existing Planning and Zoning Bo. Minutes October 30, 1985 Page 2 to be reviewed, such as truck bypass of downtown, widening of Mulberry Street, the completion of the Prospect and I-25 intersection and the Whedbee-Oak Street area. Mr. Ward felt that overflow parking, pedestrian access, alternative transportation, and traffic management were all items which needed to be addressed. Included in the Plan was a section on Private Maintenance which would include housing codes and annual street/tree renewal program for which there are tax incentives. He felt the Plan addressed the need to review the demolition criteria and a survey of historic buildings and their assets. The Plan addresses open space and conceives a park near the new Laurel School and to convert the Mountain Bell facility into a senior center. The Plan gives ideas to upgrade neighborhood. An example would be sidewalks and their need in some of the older areas to be improved. There are also views given to animal control in the Plan. He concluded by saying the Plan should be adopted and to create a Neighborhood Planning Board, which would look at zoning codes and participate in neighborhood workshops to work with the neighborhood. Joe Frank thanked the people who have worked so long on this Plan including City staff, Rick Endsdorff, Bob Lee, Bob Smith, Carol Osborne, and Ken Waido. Mr. Frank described the process to impliment the Plan and felt it is the cornerstone on long-range planning in Goals and Objectives, Open Space, Land Use Policies, Master Street Plan, Air Quality Plan and Energy Conservation. He stated the Eastside Neighborhood Plan will become part of these and will be used by the City as a decision making tool. Staff recommends approval as it will be a valuable tool and is compatible. The additional concerns of the the Plan are: outstanding traffic problems, future use of the Plan, and actions necessary to implement the Plan. He requests the Policy Plan be approved with the implementation plan as a guide rather than adopted. Specific implementation schedules will be presented at a later date. Bob Lee, Director of Transportation, spoke regarding the traffic options which he and Rick Endsdorff had reviewed. He felt the traffic problems now and in the future could be reduced with the efforts of the Traffic Department and the Planning Department. Chairman Dow asked Mr. Lee the present status of East Laurel Street and Riverside Avenue. Mr. Lee responded by saying they are looking at an access into the shopping center not a thru street. Member Crews noted that Mr. Frank described what the Plan does do and he asked Mr. Frank to describe what it does not do. Mr. Frank stated it is not a rezoning attempt. He stated it was to be used as policy and would not affect present zoning. He felt it reflected the desires and ambitions of the neighborhood. Member Crews questioned its permanance and whether this Plan would be an evolution. Mr. Frank replied if it doesn't work, then it could be changed. He said a periodic review with public participation would be done with the re-evaluation. R Planning and Zon-0 Board Minutes • October 30, 1985 Page 3 Member Ross questioned the boundaries and stated either all of downtown should be included or all excluded. Eldon Ward presented slides to the Board to show the the area and that the original boundaries were arterial streets. Member Ross asked what type of evaluation is done to determine what structure is obtrusive and cited the variety of buildings at the corner of Oak Street and Remington Street. Mr. Ward replied this was,the reason to review the criteria for demolition. Member Ross was concerned the re -use of land would dictate the structure's existence. He gave a hypothetical example of an existing vintage home being desired by the developers of a gas station and which would be more valuable to the neighborhood. Mr. Ward answered by pointing out the Plan is not intended to take away rights but to keep the ambiance of this unique area alive. Member O'Dell asked Mr. Frank in what way the Planning and Zoning Board become involved in the implementation and if they would deal with it all at once or each aspect as it is ready. Mr. Frank responded by saying the implementation would come about in pieces at a time, spread over 6-7 years. The Board would only be concerned about the zoning and land use portions of the Plan. Member O'Dell asked if different departments are dealing with the separate aspects of timing and funding of implementation, would this be one document. Mr. Frank answered yes, but it would be a fairly general document due to the uncertainty of future budget priorities. Member Ross questioned Mr. Ward as to the creation of preservation easements. Mr. Ward stated there are incentives to the owner to maintain the structure by selling an easement. This is only for designated landmarks and is a voluntary surrender of the rights to a structure's facade for tax write off which then is used to maintain the building. Member Edwards felt the Plan creates energy to follow through to implementation and wondered as to the risk of any enforcement which was not there prior to the possession of any property. He also asked if the private maintenance policy would be equal with the rest of the city or more stringent. Mr. Frank replied many of the items would be City-wide, such as the demoliton criteria. Mr. Don McMillen, property owner, showed the Board the property he currently owns in the Laurel School area. He explained the area is k- Planning and Zoning Bo Minutes October 30, 1985 Page 4 designated by the Eastside Neighborhood Plan for a 10 acre park. He wishes the Board to amend this as he has plans to construct an elderly home on that property now that there is an access road. Mr. Ward stated the boundary illustrations are conceptual and the inclusion of Mr. McMillen's property was done because it was vacant. The Plan does call for a 10 acre park but does not feel an amendment is warranted. Mr. McMillen is concerned that what is said tonight is concrete. He cited various city promises he feels were given and not fulfilled. He felt the traffic on East Elizabeth is too heavy and the options to relieve the traffic won't work and gave his own ideas as to the problem, those being; no one-way, no restricted right turns, a school light, dips and narrowing and the design of a three block connector system. He felt Laurel Street should shoulder the burden of some traffic. Mr. Ward corrected Mr. McMillen's comments as the Plan does not call for a one way or restricted right turns. The Plan described this option but went on to explain the failure of such a plan. Lou Stitzel, 521 E. Laurel, stated she supports the plan and felt it to be a tremendous step forward. She thought the larger urban areas, such as Denver, could take example from this Plan. She concluded by saying this is one way to balance the influences of neighbors and the quality of life. The Plan is workable yet flexible. Bob Zimdahl, CAN Board Member, commended the group for coming together to bring about this plan and felt the over all goal of plan is to promote and maintain well being of neighborhood and although we all agree that it is desirable goal, we don't all accept the means of achieving the goal. He looks forward to help implement the plan and to comment when appropriate. Dick Beardmore, 2212 Kiowa Court, noted there is already a mechanism to assist the Eastside Neighborhood Plan and that is the Landmark Preservation Committee and Cultural Resources Board. Part of the policy and implementation is local designation of individual structures and districts. He feels the Plan is complimentary and will not require all new ordinances to implement. Tom Skillman, 818 E. Elizabeth, recalled Mr. McMillen's comments and spoke of the changes on Elizabeth Street. He felt Mr. McMillen's ideas should be reviewed and the policy has been to spread the flow of traffic. Mr. Ward responded to Mr. Skillman's comments with the Plan's hopes to avoid heavy traffic by using different ideas evolved from the Traffic Department and the Steering Committee. Mr. McMillen asked if the Board was capable of making recommendations for changes to the Plan. Chairman Dow stated they do make recommendations to the City and can recommend that any portion be modified, not adopted, or reviewed again. k Planning and Zoni oard Minutes October 30, 1985 Page 5 • Member Edwards remarked when he first received the Plan he was struck by the extent of it as a result of a great deal of work. As a policy document he feels it goes into much detail and can't be looked at simply as a plan. He felt it was too much to digest in too short a time. Member Lang agreed and added that staff has had the Plan for 18 months while the Board has had only 30 days. Member Edwards said he did see the plan at the worksession but did not have the opportunity to get in depth and study implications of it. Member O'Dell stated she viewed it as a policy plan and would feel comfortable in adopting it. Member Brown questioned the specific traffic recommendations made in the Plan, yet Mr. Lee spoke of alternative ways. She felt the policy should read the options and not the specifics, as she feels she would be voting for what exactly is written. She does support the goals of the Plan. Member Crews noted it is a Plan and not cast in concrete. He felt it is a step in the right direction and is better plan than is now available. Chairman Dow agreed it is not an implementation plan. The Plan was developed by experts and people active in the neighborhood and large amounts of money and grants have been spent to develop the Plan. He recommended approval. Member O'Dell motioned to approve the general policy excluding 2.8 and Chapter 3. Member Crews seconded the motion. Mr. Frank clarified the issues: suggesting option of one-way coplet between Mathews and Remington be alternative, change the thruway from Lincoln to Timberline and add special desiyn to intersections are conceptual only. Member O'Dell stated they would be acceptable adding the general traffic portion be looked into further. Mr. Frank asked Member O'Dell to be more specific. Member O'Dell replied Laurel Street. Member Brown asked that Magnolia and Mulberry couplet be added as well. Member Edwards noted the problems they were experiencing shows the depth of the plan. He was concerned with the governance and how the Neighborhood Board would be appointed. He felt this Plan to be a precedent and how they proceeded would be important. Member Lang stated that they are asked to approve a policy plan and when conditions are added, more specific information is needed and this bothers her. Member Ross feels the Plan goes beyond a plan and, if it is not resolved now, the City Council may not have the time to go over it as it should be. He felt they should recommend approval with exclusion of 2.8 and Chapter 3 with the following conditions: 1. Basis of implementation to be studied further, 2. Traffic aspect of possible one way couplet using Magnolia Street and Mulberry, 3. Alternative traffic options in regards to Lincoln Planning and Zoning Bc i Minutes October 30, 1985 Page 6 and Timberline and special intersection treatment, and 4. Alternatives be studied to Laurel Street going east to Riverside commercial area. Member O'Dell moved to approve with the conditions. Member Dow seconded the motion. Motion denied 4-3. Members Ross, Edwards, Brown and Lang voted no. Member Ross moved to schedule worksession and table Plan to November. Member Brown seconded the motion. 171-85 2218, 2318, 2440, 2444 WEST LAPORTE OUT -OF -CITY SEWER REQUEST Ken Waido gave a brief description of the request to extend sewer service. Member Ross moved approval. Member Edwards seconded the motion. Motion to approve was passed 7-0. POUDRE RIVER TRUST LAND USE POLICY PLAN Gene Mitchell, Chairman of Poudre River Trust, introduced members of the Poudre Trust Board and gave a brief background of the Trust and adoption of the Plan. He described the conceptual ideas the Trust had for the beautification of the river. Jim Reidhead, Acting Executive Director of the Poudre River Trust stated the Plan can't work without cooperation. He spoke of the drastic problems on the Poudre River and the 200-300 jobs along the river. Eldon Ward, Cityscape Urban Design, said it is the hope of the Trust to revitalize the River and noted the areas of concern --historic, natural resources, recreation, mixed use development. He realized the need to consider private and public cooperation. Elaine Kleckner stated the Plan is a guide to future action and a commitment to adopting the implementation of the Plan. Ms. Kleckner said property owner involvement had given them a feeling of being part of this plan and, if approved, would be adopted as an element of the Comprehensive Plan. Member Kern questioned the part of the land in the county and what jurisdiction would the Planning and Zoning Board have. Mr. Ward stated it would be subject to the same criteria and would be subject to annexation into the City. Member Kern asked if county needs to know of decisions. Ms. Kleckner answered no, there is no parallel process. Member Edwards asked Mr. Mitchell about the Trust itself and its financial workings. Mr. Mitchell replied that the Trust was a non-profit development company with written terms. Money made from development would return to the trust. Planning and Zoninoard Minutes October 30, 1985 Page 7 Mr. Harold Fisher, property owner, pointed out to the Board the condition of the dam north of the power plant and if not repaired will damage City sewer system and hinder irrigation. Mr. Kenneth Wing, East Vine resident, said he did not believe that Mr. Mitchell knew enough about the river and its peculiarities to develop along it. Mr. Jed Scholsbery, resident along the river, felt he was being ignored by the developers and there was no need to develop the river --it is fine the way it is. He described the asthetic and recreational enjoyments he finds along the river and was concerned about possible evictions to acquire land to develop. Dick Beardmore recommended to the Board the Plan be adopted. Ernest Monroe, 101 East Vine Drive, stated he has been a resident along the River for over 40 years and does not want the developer to take his land away. He also pointed out the crumbling power plant dam and added that when he called the City about this, he was told it was not their responsibility. Mr. Reidhead addressed the residents concerns by stating they would not disposess people of their homes to get land and respects the property owners. Mr. Gonzales, resident of river property, stated his family owned the property in the Trust boundary for over 40 years and recently received a notice from the City asking them to trade their property for property on Sycamore. He did not feel the development was necessary. Member Kern asked of the displacement of residents and the zoning restrictions. Mr. Mitchell responded by saying no one has been approached or threatened to move. Zoning changes may be necessary but won't deprive persons of their property rights. He stated there was more economic value to multi -family units than to industrial. Member Kern asked if present residents would be denied access to the river in the future. Eldon Ward noted present access is unclear and City owns only 10-15' easements. The plan would expand access to river. Member Ross was concerned about Mr. Gonzales' notice to move. Ms. Kleckner thought the notice could be from the Housing Authority. Member Edwards motioned to adopt the Plan. Member Ross seconded the motion. Motion to approve passed 7-0. Meeting adjourned at 10:30.