Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 06/28/1989• PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 28, 1989 The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board was called to order at approximately 6.33 P.M., in the Council Chambers, 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. Board members present included Acting Chairman Klataske, Jan Shepard, Rex Burns and Joseph Carroll. Staff members present included Tom Peterson, Ken Waido, and Gail Ault. Planning Director Tom Peterson reviewed the Discussion Agenda which consisted of Item 1 - Resolution PZ89-5 - Adopting the Westside Neighborhood Plan - Chapter 5, as an element of the City's Comprehensive Plan. Ken Waido gave a description of the item noting that it would be voted on as two items: 1) Adoption of the revised Chapter 5 at this public hearing, and 2) Resolution 89-5 of with the Planning and Zoning Board formally transmitting their recommendation to City Council. He gave a brief history describing the area involved as being essentially west of downtown and north of Colorado State University. The Plan, except for Chapter 5 -Transportation and Circulation, was approved approximately one year ago. General public meetings on Chapter 5 were held in October 1988 and June 1989 reviewing the revised plan and no new issues were raised. The plan contained additional discussion on preserving older neighborhoods, pedestrian/bicycle problems and concerns, and a re -assessment of transportation needs of the entire community. Twelve policies to guide decision making and ten implementation actions were included. Staff recommended approval of the revised Chapter 5. Member Shepard stated perhaps clearer maps clarifying existing and proposed actions were needed. She felt additional transit routes would not necessarily alleviate traffic volumes on a street and questioned the timeframe used to determine the traffic data. Mr. Waido noted the survey period was from 1983 through 1987. He indicated transit routes never surfaced at the public meetings as an issue but noted that any proposed change would involve citizen input. A Transportation Assessment Process was proposed for the entire city and would provide new data. Maps 5A and 5B are essentially the same except for the suggestion to upgrade Vine Drive. Concerns about the preservation of Mountain Avenue were included in the Plan and will also be looked at in the Comprehensive Transportation Assessment Plan. Member Shepard questioned traffic diverters and their proposed locations. Mr. Waido responded a collector street would be inappropriate for diverters (cul de sacs and other physical barriers) and they would be used on local streets. A detailed traffic study would be required before installation of diverters. Mr. Waido responded to Member Shepard's questions on Action 9, deletion of the pedestrian bridge, that it was viewed as impractical. • Member Shepard asked for an explanation of the statement regarding bike lanes sharing one of two lanes on Mountain Avenue. Mr. Waido stated it related to bike traffic on LaPorte being dangerous and encouraging bike utilization of Mountain Avenue. He pointed out the Plan boundaries to Member Shepard. Edith Thompson, 623 Del Norte Place, member of the Westside Committee, thanked the Board for their concern. She stated the January through May meetings resulted in this revised document which is not perfect but may be the best possible. Major changes include 1) the role of Colorado State University, 2) the importance of bike and pedestrian traffic, 3) the call for future planning to take into consideration existing land use, 4) request for new streets and sidewalks guidelines for older neighborhoods, and 5) the need for a neighborhood transportation committee. In closing she asked the Board to approve the revised Chapter 5 Plan. Ron Steinbach, 1345 West Mountain, member of the City Park Neighborhood Association, highlighted some concerns with Chapter 5: 1) The process should be reevaluated to shorten timeframes by identifying potential issues at the beginning. 2) The Plan's intent was reasonable now but there was a concern in regard to implementation. There should be representatives from all neighborhood groups on the transportation committee being established. The City Park Neighborhood Association felt the Chapter should be reviewed upon receipt of current data. Lastly he noted the Plan was not a neighborhood -generated document but a City plan supplemented by the neighborhood at the City's discretion (some neighborhood data was used by City staff), and the neighborhood did not endorse the inclusion of the Mulberry/Magnolia one-way couplet. The Plan did not attempt to balance the neighborhood needs with the City as a whole. The Association would reserve the right to challenge any implementation that may occur but recommended the Plan be approved. Doug Swartz, 910 West Oak, felt the process had been open and public and many unpopular items were no longer a part of the plan. The end result was a plan that may be a little wordy but the substance was there and it can be supported. There were stronger statements about 1) preservation of residential character, 2) differing needs between older and newer neighborhoods, 3) bike and pedestrian use, and 4) a call for public input on future transportation issues. Nell VanDriel, 1212 West Mountain, strongly urged the Board to not adopt the revised Chapter 5 until a new traffic study with accurate and up-to-date figures was completed. The subject of CSU parking had not been solved and CSU should be more responsible for their parking needs. Traffic diverters and cul de sacs were restrictive to fire and police safety and curb extenders were useless and restrict cars as they depart. The perpendicular parking was difficult to get into and out of and should not even be considered. Dennis Sumner, 602 West Mountain, spoke of the spirit of the Plan and encouraged the Board's support. Member Shepard had questions regarding semantics on several pages. She felt three additional policies might be appropriate even though one and two were stated in the Plan. -2- Member Burns noted considerable time and effort has been put forth and he will support adoption of Chapter 5 and encourage residents to stay involved in the process. Member Klataske stated he would also support the Plan. It was a living document with provisions for citizen input and guidelines for the City and residents. Member Shepard moved to recommend approval to City Council of the revised Chapter 5 of the Westside Neighborhood Plan, amended to include: 1) In considering any circulation and transportation improvements in the Westside Neighborhood, primary concern should be given to preserving the residential character with minimum disruption to the neighborhood. 2) Mountain Avenue should be protected from excessive traffic and preserved as a parkway. 3) Additional right-of-way for traffic lanes and other purposes should be acquired only as a last resort. Member Carroll seconded the motion. Member Shepard believed the policies were good and should be reiterated. Member Burns also felt they were appropriate inclusions. Member Carroll felt it was good to include them in the transportation chapter. The motion to recommend approval of the revised and amended Chapter 5 Plan carried 4-0. Member Burns moved to approve Resolution PZ89-5 and Member Carroll seconded, and motion was approved 4-0. The meeting was adjourned at 7:38 P.M. P -3- 0 • moll I e 31KArw AN - - 0- N . . . . . . . ... ............. ... . ........... ......... ........... •NIGNWM 14 .... ...... .. .. ............;FORT::. .......... ........E COL 'LN POUDR VALLEY HOSPITAL EXPANSIO] . ... ........ .............. -1 .... .... ........ ....... 1maz=. ::GRAHAM BED & BREAKFAST - a ....... ......... LILY PONDS STONEHENGE::: ......> W.CONGREGATE Livib ........ ::: w ::::::c , �EE ARROLL •:DELLENBACH CHEV ' MARKLI Y MOTORS!4 WARREN .............. ............ WEBER( ................. ................. ........ .. J.7 . ............ ,A: .......... 4: L INDALE 185 OUD ARMS 3rd :% BURGER KING AT ...... S.THE MARKET PLACEV. ..... City Limits: 7.1.89