Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 02/10/1997• 0 Council Liaison: Gina Janett I Staff Liaison: Bob Blanchard Chairperson: Gwen Bell (H) - 221-3415 Vice Chair: Glen Colton (M - 225-2760 or (VV) - 679-3201 The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. Roll Call: Chapman, Gavaldon, Davidson, Colton, Byrne, Weitkunat, Bell. Staff Present: Frank, Blanchard, Edminster, Meisel, Wray, Eckman, Wilkinson, Jones and Deines. Agenda Review: Director of Current Planning Blanchard reviewed the discussion agenda for the evening which consisted of one item: 20. #55-95 Recommendation to City Council on Final Adoption of City Plan Documents. Joe Frank, Director of Advance Planning gave the staff presentation. He stated that the three documents are the Community Visions and Goals 2015, The Structure Plan and Principles and Policies. He stated that each of these documents had been previously recommended for adoption by the Planning and Zoning Board and adopted by the City Council with the understanding that they would be polished and returned to City Council for adoption as a package. Mr. Frank reported that since November, staff has received comments and suggestions from the City Council, Planning and Zoning Board, City Plan Advisory Committee, City Staff and the Public regarding the final package of City Plan documents. There have been a number of changes to the documents, and we feel the polishing has been done and the documents are now ready for adoption. Mr. Frank went on to say that each of the documents are important for the next step of City Plan, which is the implementation stage which includes preparation of a new Land Use Code. Mr. Frank stated that there has been an extensive citizen participation effort, which has include numerous open houses, workshops, displayed information at many locations, a booth at the New West Fest, the Public Library, Senior Center, EPIC, and meetings with many groups over the last 18 months. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes February 10, 1997 Page 2 Mr. Frank stated that staff fees comfortable with the documents and feels that it provides an excellent foundation and staff was recommending adoption. PUBLIC INPUT Sally Craig, 1409 S. Summitview stated she was here before the Board tonight with regards to the City Structure Plan. Ms. Craig requested that the area, approximately the northwest comer of I-25 and Prospect, be returned to Urban Estates. Ms. Craig asked the Board to refer to a letter she wrote to Council Member Gina Janett in regards to this piece of property. She stated that this piece of property was designated Urban Estates throughout the City Plan process on all three of the alternative Structure Plans, on the final Structure Plan published in June, and also on the City Plan Zoning Map that was put out last fall. It was not until January 12, 1997 that the change was made. Not to reflect existing uses, not because the land owner requested it, not after a staff meeting involving the different department, and not because of public outcry. Ms. Craig questioned why can't this land remain Urban Estates. Ms. Craig referred to the property on the Structure Plan Maps that were displayed Ms. Craig requested more Urban Estates zoning in this area to give all the employees in the area more choices in the area of where they would like to live, to keep them within the city limits. She referred to the map that came out in June and at that time they were given the Urban Estates zoning and also the proper corridor needed for the Boxelder Natural Resource Area Hopefully, there will be a future trail that will go along the Boxelder Creek, then up along the Cache La Poudre Canal. Ms. Craig stated that recent studies that were done by Dr. Richard Night from CSU has shown that our trails up to this time has not been given the proper buffer areas and have not been far enough away from the waterways, and have not given the habitat that has been necessary. She felt that this area would be a perfect chance for us to try these new guidelines and show that we are state of the art with the studies that have been done. Ms. Craig said in conclusion that this was not a development that is trying to get approval, this is a future view of the City of Fort Collins. Hours of volunteer work by both the City and the public have been spent working together to put this together. Changing this piece of land from Urban Estates was not part of this cooperative process. Making a decision like this is not a joint effort and no justification from the Advance Planning Department can change that fact. Betty Maloney, representing the Affordable Housing Task Force of Larimer County. She stated that they have followed this process from day one. She cannot count the number of meetings they have attended. Their concern has been affordable housing, however, we also live in a community and are concerned with the community as a whole. Ms. Maloney stated that this document would result in a very attractive community. That there were some things within this document that would help affordability and there were things that would have to be watched Planning and Zoning Board Minutes • February 10, 1997 Page 3 carefully in order to maintain affordability. The fact that we are going toward more density should help the affordable problem. The fact that there will be areas on a map that people will know what is a permitted use should help people know what might end up in their backyard. It also may prepare them for what might happen down the line. Ms. Maloney stated that she has heard that because of the mix of housing that is being suggested and the variety of housing types in each area, this could raise the cost of housing. Ms. Maloney felt we need to be conscious at all times of what kinds of "carrots" we have to order to get more affordable housing, particularly for those who are earning below 50% of the average median income. We want our new community to be one that is open to all, so we urge the Board not to forget the cause of affordable housing. Margaret Phillips, citizen representing herself had two concerns. She felt the plan of having alleys and detached garages was taking a giant step backwards. She is neighborhood coordinator for her neighborhood watch plan. People will landscape their backyards so they do not have to gaze upon traffic in an alley; and, you have two sets of landscaping on either side of an alley and it is a ripe place for criminal activity. She also objected to detached garages. She felt that people went to attached garages for a reason, and she did not think that having detached garages would • cause people to be more friendly with people in their neighborhood. The idea of a granny -flat over it is fine, but it can also be done with an attached garage. She did not think this was something we should mandate builders to build. She thought that builders should build what will sell and what people want. Ms. Phillips other area of concern is that we are already talking about a Stage II in the Urban Growth Area. She thought we need to have somebody, the citizenry preferably, how big we really want the City of Fort Collins to be. She felt we needed to set definite boundaries -- you can't have the edges that are being described if you again decide that the boundaries are going to be extended. She thought it was time to think about boundaries that are going to be set and what we want on the edges of those boundaries. PUBLIC INPUT CLOSED Chairperson Bell asked about the issues brought up by Sally Craig. She asked who made the decision and asked why it was made. Ken Waido, Chief Planner for the Advance Planning Department replied there were 55 to 60 changes made to the Structure Plan that was before the Board from the previously adopted version. None of those changes were made lightly and there was some thought put into it. Mr. Waido stated that on the change to the northwest comer of Prospect and I-25 -- there were some • significant changes made in the southwest quadrant, based on the Master Plan that was done for the Resource Recovery Farm and the Environmental Learning Center, which introduce some Planning and Zoning Board Minutes February 10, 1997 Page 4 employment and some commercial uses. Staff felt that the proximity to additional employment and commercial warranted a re -look at some of the residential character within the area. Mr. Waido stated that the second thing done in the Structure Plan was to use the Urban Estate Zone predominantly in areas that we think will be an edge to the community. This site was recognized as having some Urban Estate development to the west of it; but, given the Interstate and commercial development around the intersection and the planned increased development on the east side, staff did not feel that the property did not fit into the edge category. The other reason is that the property is within the Urban Growth Area, and Urban Estate Land is not an efficient utilization of land, so staff felt that a more urban type of development was appropriate for the property and therefore staff decided to put the low density mixed -use designation on the property. Member Weitkunat asked if the value of the Structure Plan was to designate a picture of how the City will look, and how we foresee it. This is not a zoning map? Mr. Waido replied that this was not a zoning map, however, the Structure Plan will provide a basis for zoning designations. Member Weitkunat asked if there were policies in place that will allow amendments to the Structure Plan. Was there a mechanism if something is inappropriate. - Member Weitkunat also asked about a letter from a second party on LaPorte Avenue. If in reality on the Structure Map, something already exists that is not in the site specific place as listed in the Structure Plan, where does that leave them? Mr. Waido replied that something that staff really struggled with in depicting the Structure Plan map, was that the map was not intended to be an existing land use map. It sets an overall basic frame work. With regards to the letter from the party on LaPorte, the designation on that property was actually made as part of the West Side Neighborhood Plan, not the City Plan. City Plan has just carried forth the policies and recommendations of the West Side Neighborhood Plan for that particular area Member Davidson asked what the size of the property in question is. Mr. Waido replied 130 to 140 acres in size. In the zoning map that the Board will see, staff is proposing an Urban Estate Zone buffer between the existing neighborhood and what will then be the Low -Density Mixed Use Neighborhood Zoning to the east of it. Member Davidson asked if this is not locked in concrete, why don't we just leave it the way it was and wait until we come up with a final decision on what we are going to do with the zoning. • Planning and Zoning Board Minutes February 10, 1997 Page 5 Mr. Waido replied that again, this plan is to set the stage for the zoning. As we do the zoning map, we can make certain regulatory decisions, but we may need to come back and amend the Structure Plan if we do some things that maybe inconsistent. The Plan is a guide, an attempt to make some coherent, consistent and coordinated decisions regarding zoning. Member Weitkunat commented that we are talking about an area along the I-25 Corridor that is predominantly commercial and employment. She felt in looking at that, one of the things that goes with City Plan is that we are trying to get a multitude of uses. Part of what is lacking there is the housing and in providing Low Density Housing, we are providing the opportunity for people to live near an area where they work. If we move into the Urban Estate, we have larger lots, less housing and she sees it working against what we are trying to achieve through City Plan. Chairperson Bell asked for someone to address affordable housing. About the mix of housing raising the costs of affordable housing. Mr. Waido responded that staff had a discussion with the Affordable Housing Board last week about some of the implications of City Plan which could affect affordable housing. As you go through the various documents of things that could be positive for the development and promotion of affordable housing -- we have not done a detailed impact analysis of any of the policies as they may affect affordable housing in the community. Regarding the housing types, the recommendation in the plan is that as properties develop, that there be a different types of houses, different models within those types, and that is a cost factor when developers are required to produce different types of housing and models within that housing. Member Byrne commented that when we talk about affordability, we are always talking about affordable housing. He thought is was also important to also make note if the fact that the second largest expense for people is transportation. He felt that City Plan would do a lot in terms of reducing transportation costs for those people who need to do that. Transportation distances to work and shopping will be less. Chairperson Bell asked for someone to talk about the alleys and garages. Mr. Frank responded that in terms of Ms. Phillips comments is that we are not requiring alleys and we are not requiring detached garages. Last summer we did make some changes to the street design standards to allow alleys. Previously under the code they were not allowed and the only way to get it would have been through a variance procedure, and that was a long difficult • process. We know there is a trend toward alleys, and some people do like to be in that kind of environment. It is not a requirement, but we do provide for it and will encourage them. It is the Planning and Zoning Board Minutes February 10, 1997 Page 6 same for the detached garage. We don't require it, but it does provide for detached garages, and again it will happen when there are alleys. Chairperson Bell asked for the comments regarding boundaries and population be addressed. Mr. Frank responded that he agreed with what Ms. Phillips was saying for the need to have a defined boundary. It is a goal of the plan and it is followed through with principles and policies. The plan provides that we want to continue to have an urban growth area boundary, that area of the community where urban growth would occur over the next 20 to 25 years. That is the purpose of the Stage II Urban Growth Area Boundary. There has not been any decision that is the direction we want to go, and he felt that is a discussion we need to have in 10 to 15 years when our Stage I Urban Growth Area Boundary starts filling in. Member Davidson commented that he was still not real accepting of the urban growth boundaries and edges concept because he does not see it much as a concept. His problem with this is what is Urban Estate one decade becomes higher density the next decade. He did not feel that it is an edge, it is only an edge for a short time period. Then, time changes, zoning changes, and what was Urban Estate is then mixed housing higher density. He asked how staff would accomplish what they say with that in mind? Mr. Frank responded that with regards to the Urban Estate changing to a higher density housing would be inconsistent with the plan. This plan is a guideline, it does not lock decision makers into changing their mind at some point in time. A decision to change an Urban Estate to high density housing would be a policy change and he hoped it would be done in the context of an update to this plan, and involve the citizens in that decision making. He stated that there are some edges that are more permanent and some that are more temporary. Right now our urban growth area can accommodate 20 to 25 years worth of growth. We don't need to expand the urban growth area at this time except some areas identified in the plan where it is felt some corrections to the boundary needs to be made. Member Davidson commented that he did not see any guarantee in this plan that will maintain open space that has any functional use for wildlife or for environment as far as crowded living if we keep proceeding with this kind of rationale where we have urban growth boundaries and 10 years from now, we decide we are going to change it and the density on the boundary. This is his biggest concern. Member Weitkunat stated she saw it the other way. Part of what went into this plan was to look to the future. Fifteen years ago, we established a boundary and that is where we see the City. For us to be myopic and say that the world will end in 20 years and Fort Collins is this large would be extremely nieve. The group saw it as an opportunity to move forward into the future and have some direction in the future — so when 20 years does occur in 2015, we have a Planning and Zoning Board Minutes . February 10, 1997 Page 7 direction and whatever the mood or the sentiment of the populous, governing body, or the community is -- we have an opportunity to influence that because we built it into our plan. Member Gavaidon asked about the degree of flexibility and predictability this plan offers. Mr. Waido replied that the Structure Plan is based on 2.21/o growth rate over the next 20 years. The calculations staff has done, assuming that the low -density mixed -use neighborhoods do develop at 5 units per acre, and that the medium density neighborhoods develop at 12 units per acre , that our urban growth area has a capacity of about 125% of our population projection. We have about a 25% "fudge" factor within the urban growth area that we can play with. We have more area within the urban growth area than we need to handle our population projections. Mr. Waido stated that we will try to make this plan as predictable as possible throughout the zoning code. Mr. Frank added that all the districts are mixed -use neighborhoods which will allow a lot of flexibility for the market to work in those districts and provide a variety of kinds of land uses. He thought it was a fine line to balance flexibility with predictability. • Chairperson Bell suggested that the Board discuss each document separately and vote. Member Chapman moved to recommend to City Council the adoption of the Vision and Goals document. Member Weitkunat seconded the motion. Member Colton commented that he felt that this document is very thorough given the fact that the consensus seems to be that we will not attempt to control the rate of growth, but just how happens. He does not necessarily subscribe to that philosophy, but he thinks that is the problematic part of this place, is the 2.2% growth rate. He subscribes to this as much as if your going to let it happen, make it look as good as it can. He did not feel it address the root cause of a lot the problems and issues the Board sees. Member Byrne commented that the way he views this document — is that the balancing act is the economic costs, the societal costs and the environmental costs. He meant that with reference to how we manage a growing community. He feels this document addresses the issue of -- we do recognize environmental impacts and are working on it. 0 Planning and Zoning Board Minutes February 10, 1997 Page 8 Chairperson Bell commented that the real work is going to be in completing the vision or getting closer to it and see how it all turns out. She felt this document is exciting. Member Davidson echoed what Member Colton said in that this document does not deal the growth issue and does not deal with boundaries effectively, but otherwise if we have to have a plan for the City and we have to deal with it, it is a good plan otherwise. He wished we dealt with growth a lot better and got of the political arena for growth. The motion was approved 7-0. Member Chapman asked about the south end of College, we have in the current Structure Plan, located a Neighborhood Commercial Center on the south border of Fort Collins. He asked how that comply with our intentions to maintain some kind of buffer between Fort Collins and Loveland? Mr. Waido replied that the reason for moving the red dot a quarter mile to the south was that we had a long discussion with the property owners, looked at the existing approved Overall Development Plans and the significant investments that have already been made in the properties down there. The Structure Plan reflects what is currently approved and anticipated development of those properties. Mr. Frank added that the configuration of green in that whole quadrant of Fort Collins is consistent with the Sub -Area Plan for the area between Loveland and Fort Collins. Member Chapman moved to recommend to City Council adoption of the Structure Plan as it is before them tonight. Member Weitkunat seconded the motion. Member Colton commented that he was please to see that we did not enlarge the Urban Growth Area as part of this process. He foresees that citizens will continue to recognize the value of open space and continue to fund taxes necessary to procure that and by making some trade-offs we've made with increased density. Member Byrne commented that if we are interested in confronting sprawl, the two elements we have to work synergistically is the zoning, that will come later, and also the acquisition of lands so we do have the edges. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes • February 10, 1997 Page 9 Member Weitkunat felt that with all the pieces that go into City Plan, the Structure Plan was the most misunderstood and controversy. Primarily because it puts into picture what the words say. If we can remember that we are talking about places, and a blueprint of the future it may ease some of the pain we see. It is a key piece that it critical to the direction of where we are going. She has seen the changes that have occurred from where we started and she certainly supported what they have done and she believes that there will be chances to ease some of the problem areas later on. Chairperson Bell commented that Member Chapmans question about the red dot is a good example for supporting this document. If we had a document like this in place a while back, we would not have a red dot down there. She also like the green space and edges, and she thought that was the real nuts and bolts were going to be. If we want this community to look like and stay, it would behoove us to look carefully at how we go about doing that and make sure we acquire these open lands so we can achieve this vision. The motion was approved 7-0. Principles and Policies Member Chapman asked about GM1-6 with respect to TDR"s on page 52, receiving areas. Member Chapman questioned the wording for "receiving areas" and the language was an oxi- moran that contradicts itself. How can we be three miles from the UGA and within it. Mr. Frank replied that the word "but" can be changed to "exceptions". Member Chapman felt that there was still a lot of unknowns as far as how TDR's will meet the final bullet of "Availability of a viable "market" for development rights". "That the TDR program needs to be practical, feasible and make economic sense". He has some deep concerns of how that will wash out. Member Chapman questioned GM1.3, page 49 and 50. Specifically, his concern was the three terms that we were going to refer these urban growth areas. In an earlier meeting tonight they talked about some new terminology and he was in favor of the new terminology. Member Chapman had concerns with the map and the dotted line extends out to the west of the western boarder of the urban growth area, which it referred to as a hard boundary. Also, to the south end of the urban growth area, were again we don't intend to develop on an urban basis. He felt that the pictures and words don't convey that thought and it needed to be worked on to convey that thought; and, at the same time speaking to the discussions we had earlier about whether or not we allow more people to come to Fort Collins and if they do, what do we do with them. He thought . we need to maintain the possibility of future Council's and Board's making decisions to expand the urban growth area if 20 years from now that makes sense. He feels that the map should show Planning and Zoning Board Minutes February 10, 1997 Page 10 where that soft boundary should be. By some combination of words and picture of hard boundaries on the west and south, softer boundaries on the north and east. Member Chapman asked Mr. Frank to respond to the change in terminology. Mr. Frank stated that staff has been working with Larimer County as well as other communities in the region to develop a consistent set of terms. One of the suggestions by Larimer County that they would like used in their plus system, and one that he thought would be carried out throughout the region in implementing the regional plan. What they were suggesting under urban growth area boundary is that it be called the "Community Growth Management Area". The Stage II Urban Growth Area Boundary be called the "Cooperative Planning Area", and that the Cooperative Planning Area be called the "Community Influence Area". It does not change the concept, and he felt they were good terms and recommended that we use them in the Principles and Policies. Member Chapman questioned Principle TC-5 on page 131. He asked how compatible was the travel corridor use down Mason Street with the railroad in terms of public safety? Suzanne Edminster, Transportation Planning replied that the compatible use is something new Fort Collins in the sense that we have never asked the railroad to intensify other that automobile traffic in that area. We would be bringing bicycles, mass transit and pedestrians into that same mix. This is not unusual in other areas of the country, and preliminary discussions with the railroad have indicated that they are open to the idea, but they do have some concerns about safety. We are hoping that now that we have the impetus here under these policies, as well as a funding measure that will be to the voters in April, that we can bring the talks to fruition and address those issues. Yes, this is a serious issue that we have to consider. Member Chapman asked about Policy AN -1.5 on page 64. He stated that through CPAC and several different iterations of this document we first had words in there that it would be O.K. in some cases to have gated streets or communities. He sees that the language now calls for no gated streets or communities in the City of Fort Collins. He asked for insight as to why that is. Mr. Frank replied it was direction from City Council at the study session to eliminate gated street entryways. Member Chapman felt that there may be some places in the City where there are populations who require more security than other people do. Member Davidson had questions on environment, specifically pages 38 and 39. He was concerned that we keep talking about energy efficiency, renewable energy, and conservation of energy, but he did not see the city making any wording regarding what kind of lawns we put in Planning and Zoning Board Minutes • February 10, 1997 Page 11 our city. He was concerned about blue grass and the water consumption it takes to have blue grass maintained. He would like to see some wording that would give some incentive for the turf farms around here to start producing drought resistant grass at an affordable price. He also felt that the city should have more control over what kind of turf we put down in our city. Member Colton also felt the City should promote water saving grasses. Mr. Frank replied that it may be an issue for when we get into the landscaping standards of the zoning code. He thought it did get into the types of seed mix and irrigation in some areas. Mr. Frank added that it was the goal of the City to go to 100% water meters by the year 2005 and that may make people more conscious about types of grasses and landscaping they put in. Member Davidson asked about page 43 and the natural areas and open lands. He wondered in the initial principle NOL-1 whether we could add some language regarding planning integrated networks and corridors for wildlife and open space, rather than just happening by accident. Mr. Frank responded that was addressed on page 46. • Member Byrne commented on the approach of balanced transportation. He thought that it was fundamentally correct That was something that he hoped there was not much debate on by the public. He thought we were creating a plan that raises the quality of transportation planning which is so fundamentally important to a city of our size. Member Byrne moved to recommend to City Council the adoption of the Principles and Policies as written. Member Gavaldon seconded the motion. Member Gavaldon commented that he appreciated the linkage between the three documents and the consistency that has been incorporated into the three. Member Chapman commented that he would support the motion if staff has agreed to some of the clarification language both on the terms used to describe the Urban Growth Areas and the map that we present with it. Also the clarification of the TDR's and the three miles from the Urban Growth Area Mr. Frank stated that he would be working on those changes. • Chairperson Bell commented that on the whole she thought we were in the right direction. She highlighted three areas that she felt we should stay focused on. The area of Natural Resources, Planning and Zoning Board Minutes February 10, 1997 Page 12 infrastructure and how it is being paid for and community involvement. She felt that we always want to strive for the input of as many citizens of this community as we possibly can. The motion was approved 7-0. There was no other business. The meeting was adjourned at 8:43 p.m.