Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 09/25/19850 0 PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MINUTES September 25, 1985 The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board was called to order at 6:31 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 300 Laporte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. Board members present included Tim Dow, Gary Ross, Laurie O'Dell, David Edwards, Sharon Brown, and Sanford Kern. Member Don Crews was absent. Member Lang arrived at 7:20 p.m. Staff members present included Linda Hopkins, Joe Frank, Steve Ryder, Bonnie Tripoli, Kayla Ballard and Barbara Hendrickson. Legal staff was represented by Steve Roy. Linda Hopkins gave the Consent Agenda which consisted of:#112-79H, FOUR SEASONS 5th FILING, PHASE 2 PUD-FINAL; #20-85C, BREAKWATER ESTATES 2nd FILING -FINAL SUBDIVISION and; #4-83G-FIVE OAKS VILLAGE PUD-PHASE 1-FINAL. Item 2-#25-85A- REDWOOD VILLAGE CENTER PUD-FINAL,has been continued to the October meeting. Member Ross asked why Five Oaks Village, which was on the Monday evening Consent Agenda, was continued to this meeting and again put on the Consent Agenda. Joe Frank replied that there were some unresolved engineering problems which have now been resolved. Chip Grant, 736 Butte Drive, requested that#112-79H-FOUR SEASONS 5th FILING, PHASE 2-PUD-FINAL,be pulled for discussion. Member Ross moved to approve the Consent Agenda which consisted of Items 3 and 4. Member O'Dell seconded the motion to approve. Member Edwards abstained from voting on #3, due to a conflict of interest. Motion to approve passed 5-0 on Item #3 and 6-0 on Item #4. 1112-79H-FOUR SEASONS 5th FILING -PHASE 2 PUD-FINAL Steve Ryder gave a description of the property. The applicant was not present at this time. Chip Grant stated his property adjoins Four Seasons 5th. He stated he was concerned about the drainage situation behind his home. A temporary drain pipe was installed and was clogged 2 days after installation. This was creating a small lake behind his home. He requested information on what the permanent plan is for the drainage of this area. Bonnie Tripoli stated that the city is requiring the storm drainage improvements be completed prior to the release of more than 35 building permits. Where Moss Creek Drive enters the site next to the school, a box Planning and Zoning Bo September 25, 1985 Page 2 Minutes culvert will be built. If they do plug, the city will be responsible for cleaning them out. Until more than 35 permits requested and unless there is a specific danger, the developer is not required to do more than what is existing. Mr. Grant stated there are no plans for lots behind his house and this area is like a holding pond for the occurring drainage. His concern is that water should not stand in this area for a long period. This breeds mosquitoes. It also is not safe for small children who will be attending the proposed school. Bonnie Tripoli stated that the area behind Mr. Grant's house is intended to be a channel, not holding water. It is a natural drainage which will be slightly rerouted. Mr. Grant asked if the area would be fenced. Chairman Dow stated that typically, there is no requirement for fencing. Member Kern moved to approve Four Seasons 5th Filing, Phase 2 PUD-Final. Member Edwards seconded the motion. Motion to approve passed 6-0. #59-85 - REDWOOD VILLAGE COMMONS PUD-MASTER PLAN Member Edwards excused himself from Items 5 and 6 due to a potential conflict of interest. Steve Ryder gave a description of the property. Bob Sutter, Sutter Architects, stated that one of the major considerations for this site was the 75 foot right-of-way next to the power station. This would be a natural separation of the area. He discussed the points earned on the Density Chart and the access to both properties from the south. Member Brown asked where the access is to Redwood Village Commons. Mr. Sutter replied that the access in and out, for the present, will be on Redwood Drive north. Steve Ryder gave the staff report in which he discussed the residential and commercial uses. Staff recommends approval of the Redwood Village Commons Master Plan. Member Brown was concerned with having warehousing on the western part of the property and manufacturing on the northern part. The existing development is on the west from the manufacturing area. Mr. Sutter stated this is why the access was shown. There will be either a private access point or a public street between the two areas. Member Brown asked what type of showrooms are proposed. Planning and Zonin and Minutes • September 25, 1985 Page 3 Mr. Sutter stated that there will be carpet, tile, appliance type showrooms but no car showrooms. Member Ross moved to approve Redwood Village Commons PUD-Master Plan. Member O'Dell seconded the motion. Motion to approve passed 5-0. #59-85A- NEW BEFINNINGS PHASE ONE -REDWOOD VILLAGE COMMONS PUD-PRELIMINARY and FINAL. Steve Ryder gave a description of the property. Bob Sutter, Sutter Architects, introduced Mr. Dick Kesler of New Beginnings in Washington, D.C., and Mr. Kam Pratt -Director of the new facility if approved, and Mr. Jim Porter of New Beginnings in Denver. He stated that this is not a detention center for alcohol and drug abusers but that the clientele pays for their voluntary treatment. No one is locked in. Currently, people must go out of town for treatment. He discussed the layout of the building, the potential impact of the proposed expressway, the number of staff, parking, the program being a total family program, the landscaping and the drainage. Member Lang arrived at this time. Chairman Dow asked if the landscaping phase out is tied to Phase 2 of the development, then it is three years, no matter what? Mr. Sutter replied that it is three years no matter what. Chairman Dow asked what lighting treatment will be in the parking lots. Mr. Sutter replied that there would be 25 foot poles with 1/2 foot candle per surface of the parking lot. There will be (5) 10 foot high globe poles for pedestrian access enhancements. Chairman Dow asked how many parking spaces there will be and if designated employee parking spaces will be provided. Mr. Sutter replied that there are 75 stalls but no designated employee parking spaces at this time. Member O'Dell asked what plans are being used from now until 3 years regarding the landscaping in Phase 2. Mr. Sutter stated that in Phase 1, Kentucky Blue Grass and trees will be planted. Phase 2 will have dryland grasses but none of the major vegetation in the plan. Member Brown asked what the building and roof materials are and what the colors and signage will be. Planning and Zoning Boar Minutes September 25, 1985 Page 4 Mr. Sutter stated the building will be beige or brown brick with a band of prefinish siding. The gutter will be hidden behind the facia and of a prefinished material. The roofing will be composition shingles with skylights. The retaining wall in front of the building will taper from 30 feet to 0 feet and will be made of masonry. The proposed backlit sign will be 4 feet high, 6 feet in length and of burgundy and gray color. Member Kern asked why 114 parking spaces, with a maximum of 50 employees and 40 patients parking spaces, are needed. Mr. Sutter replied that if community programs begin, these additional spaces will be needed. Steve Ryder gave a staff report recommending approval. Member Dow asked that, since this is a preliminary and final, if any bonding is in place for requirement to cover the landscaping maintenance. Steve Ryder stated the landscape covenants have been included into the development agreement. Member Brown moved to approve New Beginnings -Phase 1, with any staff recommendations. Member Ross seconded the move. Motion to approve passed 6-0. A196-77E-NORTH SHORES OFFICE PARK PUD-PRELIMIANRY. Member Edwards rejoined the Board at this time. Steve Ryder gave a description of the property. Allan Curtis, representing Dr. John McLean, spoke regarding the previous application. He discussed the issues that have been addressed which included: 31% reduction of the building footprints; reduction of the square footage from 4,850 feet to 3,334 feet with 2,470 of office space and the remainder being crawl space and basement; the parking; increase in landscaping; and materials of the building. He then presented slides of the proposed site to the board. Steve Ryder gave a staff report recommending approval. He briefly discussed the setback increase, the building square footage reduction, parking and the landscaping. Eleven letters have been received in favor of the projects and a petition signed by 50 people stating parking would be no problem. Dr. John McLean, owner, stated he would be moving his office to this new location. He added there have been no parking problems since the first of the year. Member Ross asked for a definition of a professional office building. Planning and Zoning•ard Minutes September 25, 1985 Page 5 • Chairman Dow stated the zoning ordinance defines a professional office building as; "Offices for professionals such as physicians, dentists, lawyers, architects, engineers, artists, musicians, teachers, designers, accountants and others who, through training, are qualified to perform services of a professional nature when no storing or sale of merchandising exists." He then suggested that the applicant work with staff to define conditions for final that if the use did change to intensive auto -type use, this would be subject to review. Member Kern commented he would like to see a legal restriction made to retain a less intensive nature of business. Steve Ryder stated the 4 spaces within 1,000 square feet is high as far as amount of parking area is required. The land use can be defined for a low intensity that would still give flexibility that would be required and reasonable to the applicant. Member Brown moved to approve North Shores Office Park PUD- Preliminary, with the comment that the applicant work with the staff to define a reasonable limitations on the uses prior to the Final. Member Edwards seconded the move. Motion to approve passed 7-0. #113-80C-AMENDMENT TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT GUIDANCE SYSTEM Joe Frank stated that these amendments are staff initiated. The reasons for doing the study were two fold: (1) because new staff people were brought on line and, in discussions, it was found they were not all interpreting the guidelines the same and definitions were needed to be written on the interpretations; (2) City Council asked staff to review the LOGS and present a study to them with education for Councilmembers that were not familiar with the LOGS. This report was called the "Summary of Performance of the LOGS", which reviewed four basic areas: 1) how the LOGS implemented the strengths and weaknesses of the Comprehensive Plan: 2) how the LOGS affected citizen participation; 3) how the LDGS affected design and utility planning and 4) the enforcement problems. A number of recommendations came from this study. Several recommendations have taken place that did not require a code change and were implemented administratively. The 13 recommendations before the Board are ones that are more of a critical nature that changes the way staff is doing things and require code amendments. It was realized in 1981, when the LDGS was adopted, that changes were likely to occur in the future. Over the years some changes have been made to the LDGS. These 13 recommendations were presented to developers and neighborhood associations at 2 meetings, August 26, 1985 and September 16, 1985. Mr. Frank then reviewed the proposed amendments for the Board. Randy Larsen, 312 Star Board Court, discussed each item briefly. He stated #1, Neighborhood Profile, is increased cost with no benefit. Neighborhood compatibility is a totally subjective decision to be made by the Planning and Zoning Board and falls the burden of the developer to prove whether or not he has neighborhood compatibility. He does not see an objective set of Planning and Zoning Boar '1inutes September 25, 1985 Page 6 guidelines on such a subjective variable type of situation. He also feels this should not be left to the discretion of the Planning Director. He had no problem with #2, the Building Height. He has problems with the definition of landscape architect but this being at the discretion of the Planning Director would be a problem. He had no problem with #4, Enforcement. Whether or not a preliminary or final could be submitted at the same time presented problems for Mr. Larsen. The original intent of 2 submittals was to save the developers cost. This should be up to the developer as to how much cost is involved and if he wants to submit a preliminary and final together. Item #6, Administrative, presented no problems. Item #7, Rehearings, presented problems such as the Board being more careful about the frivolity of denial and more concern about tabling items. New information but no new design seems backwards. Trying to limit resubmittal will increase appeals to City Council. This might be a quicker process and they might overturn the Planning and Zoning Board's decision. Item #8, Expirations, again, has the requirement of discretion of the Planning Director. By due process, the property owner should be able to go before the Planning and Zoning Board with that extension regardless of the Planning Director's decision. With the requirement of only 25% building permits in 2 years, he says a developer may have all the curb and gutter in and be in an economic recession and not getting permits, then have the whole development taken away. He has no problems with Item #9, Appeals. On Item #10, there is basically no problem that he wants to preclude. Items #11, 12 and 13, were already discussed in Items #3, 5 and 6. He stated he was concerned about the cost of the development process and how it has skyrocketed. Within the last 2 years, elevations, renderings and everything else are being required on preliminaries and finals. Traffic studies are now routinely required on any project whereas 8 months ago, they were not. All these proposals can have the possibilities of increasing the developers' expense. Something should be shown for this increase. It cost the developers but it is the consumer who is paying for it in either higher prices, no development or no potential to enjoy that part of it. The goal is quality development but this needs to be defined. Chairman Dow asked if the measurement of the building height in the LOGS is consistent with definition of the Uniform Building Code. Mr. Frank stated the UBC is different and will still be used for building code purposes. The UBC and the existing zoning code do conflict because it is measured from a different point. The building code determines heights by 5 feet from the edge of the building, then up to the top of the highest point, excluding mechanical systems. To meet this code, they have bermed up the side of the building. Under the building code, it would be, for example, a 2 1/2 story building, whereas standing anywhere on the site, it would be a 3 story building. It would be presented as a 2 1/2 story building but, in actuality, is a 3 story building. This is misleading. In discussions with Building Inspections, they stated there was no problem with this as long as they know the definition and can apply it. UBC codes will be used and governed. Ken Bonetti, 722 West Mountain, stated there is substantial agreement among the neighborhood groups regarding the context of these amendments. These groups are; Core Area Neighborhood, Prospect and Shields Neighborhood, Planning and Zoning•ard Minutes • September 25, 1985 Page 7 Fairview West, Brown Farm, West Mountain, north of Core Area which includes North Sherwood Street, Senora View Estates and the hospital area. Members of the development community expressed lack of information and knowledge as to neighborhood concerns over the performance of the LDGS. Some of the neighborhood concerns are: 1)That the LDGS encourages high density development in infill projects with little recognition from neighborhood perspective, too much density may be incompatible with existing neighborhood; 2) That neighborhood meetings are of little ;use to the neighborhood because adequate information is not available to assess the compatibility of a project. The neighborhood feels left out due to little neighborhood/developer communication. 3)That homeowners feel a lack of long term stability in their neighborhoods, given the fact that almost any infill development can be approved. In regards to the LDGS Amendments, Mr. Bonetti expressed the following concerns: Item #1- the neighborhood groups basically agree with the intent of this provision but not enough information is available about the development. A neighborhood profile of some sort is a necessary requirement of what exists in the neighborhood surrounding a proposed development. The composition of the neighborhood profile should be the primary responsibility of the Planning Department given sufficient input from both the applicants and the neighborhoods. Making the developer responsible for the profile may be burdensome on individual applicants. Single neighborhood profile may be useful for more than one applicant and may service as important basis of information for eventual development of neighborhood plans. The Planning Department can serve as a relatively neutral intermediary between the developers and the neighborhoods. Mr. Bonetti felt the following items should be included in the neighborhood profile; 1)The existing density in terms of population and residential units within a 1,000 foot radius should have a definition of an impact of a neighborhood developed or a case by case determination in writing. 2)The capacity of existing infrastructure including streets, parking, pedestrian circulation, emergency vehicle access. 3) Demographics including tenancy, average tenure, distribution of age groups, centers of employment and distribution of income. 4) Neighborhood trends, including homeownership, condition of property, school boundary changes. 5) Vacancy rates for residential and commercial uses. Mr. Bonetti had the following concerns and suggestions with Item #10:it 1)Include items listed in the amendments plus the summary of traffic impact, and emergency vehicle routes. 2) Fact sheets mailed with notices prior to the meetings. 3) Notices mailed not been sent out in time. An addition to Item #4, should be to tie in use of Special Improvement District and decisions of the ZBA with the LDGS enforcements. He feels any decision made by the Planning Director should be made in writing. In Item #7, he feels that six months is an appropriate time period for resubmission rather than 1 year. In Item #8, the main concern is that the master plan development not result in long term negative impacts due to construction delays. Measures should be taken to mitigate those negative impacts and master plans that seem unrealistic be denied by the Board. In Item #9, the impact of the $75 charge should be looked at on a case -by -case basis. He stated the Planning staff has worked very hard to address the needs of the neighborhoods, and the neighborhoods are generally pleased. Planning and Zoning BoaMinutes September 25, 1985 Page 8 Kent Andrews, 1843 Michael Lane, represented the Senora View neighborhood. He stated they are in general support of the concerns raised by Mr. Bonetti. However,there are a few more concerns. In Item #1, they would encourage the staff to take into account those things because they have been in general intangible categories. They would also like to encourage the city to strengthen and speed up their neighborhood planning process. Finally, the applicant should come in even with nothing more than a concept to bring all the impacted interests together and work from there. This will save money and conflict. Dennis Sumner, 602 West Mountain, stated that in Item #1, the traffic studies provision is deficient. He discussed the situation of the paving of the alley and the sidewalks in his neighborhood. He felt enhancement of sensitivity of issues of neighborhoods and their concerns should be reviewed. In Item #10, he has concerns regarding the timing of neighborhood meetings. He suggested more time needs to be allowed and the neighborhoods develop their goals and identities or make a priority for staff to facilitate this type of development activity on a neighborhood level in advance. The developer would then have the benefit of being able to assess these statements to help determine which specific neighborhood would be compatible. There is a deficiency in the comprehensiveness of the LDGS process in regards to Item #1. Jim Koenig, 722 West Mountain, brought up the point that it would be in the best interest of public account if determinations by the Planning Director and Planning Department be in writing and be entered into the public record. Harold Worth, 1501 South Shields, represented the Prospect/Shields Neighborhood. He presented a detailed statement to the Board. They are in agreement with Ken Bonetti's concerns. A major objective of what they plan to be doing in the future in observing the operation of the system will be to find means for neighborhoods to participate more effectively at an earlier stage of the PUD process. They hope to eliminate or reduce conflicts between the developers and the neighborhoods that the present system almost assures. Applicants are now unwilling to make changes in the project concept unless required to do so by the City Planning staff or by the Planning and Zoning Board. Recommendations put forth by neighborhoods are typically ignored or regarded lightly by developers. This could be largely avoided if the LDGS required an effort by applicants and neighborhoods to resolve differences before a concept project is solidified or an application accepted. He would recommend continued involvement by the Board in review and revision of the LDGS as time goes on. Debra Swetland, 1232 Constitution, stated Fairview West supports Ken Bonetti's proposals. Traffic considerations were also a concern and hopes traffic impacts will be addressed. Vacancy rates also need to be addressed. Dee Ann Vink, 2318 Ryland Court, spoke in support of Ken Benotti's notification in her neighborhood. This caused problems with the area school. She recommended that PUDs and city ordinances be tied together. Planning and Zoningrd Minutes • September 25, 1985 Page 9 Chuck Mabry, 1413 Stonehenge, commented that what the neighborhood perceives as right for them and what the developers perceives as right for them needs to be established. The staff has made, over the past few months, some significant and substantial changes and were responsive to comments by the neighborhoods and the developers. However, it was not stated as to what initiated these changes. The concept of the LDGS is to be flexible in the development process, trying to encourage creativity in that process and trying to keep the quality of life in Fort Collins. In Item #5 seems to be a self-policiny aspect. In Item #7, he suggested that the Planning and Zoning Board have total discretion to reject a plan if submitted a number of times and as certain that numbers of times for the developer to wear out the neighborhood. Item #8, is a superior proposal than what was originally proposed. Cathy Chianese, 925 Columbia, followed up on comments made by Mr. Mabry. She stated the LDGS is a vast improvement of what the city had previously. Goals to be examined are to encourage quality development and to encourage infill projects. There is a concern about the increasing need for information that is required for submittal. There is no reluctance for this additional information by the developer but is related to what the purpose is, if information is useful and is it presented at the correct time of the process. The developer does not have the ability to make a number of decisions or number of commitments at that time in the process that the city and the neighborhood are requiring him to do. The Board and the neighborhood are asking for more information at the neighborhood planning stage and at the preliminary plan stage but, at the same time, asking the developer to allow the neighborhood more participation in his planning. There is a contradiction in this. In Item #1, everyone has a different expectation as to what this is to accomplish. She questioned what the content of the profile is to be, who is to prepare it, who is to determine what the neighborhood is to be defined as and what is the existing physical structure of the neighborhood. Architects, designers and developers are looking at the neighborhood because the issues of compatibility are subjective. They can not submit a plan that everyone in the neighborhood feels is compatible. In Item #7, regarding regulations for resubmittal procedures, there are some concerns with how the requirement is presently stated. Having to start through the process again on a technical merit, is putting an undue burden on the developer. More flexibility should be given to a project in terms of the resubmittal. For projects with significant neighborhood input where there are significant design changes, starting over in the process in proper. David Moore, of Dueck Development, 791 Chambus Drive, Aurora, stated he had the same concerns as Ms. Chianese regarding the neighborhood studies. He does not feel that the landscaping item is the right solution. Landscape designers have a better feel for what will grow in Colorado and how it is planted and how far to space it. Item #7 was of great concern to his company because in almost every project that they have done, there have been reasons to make changes and resubmit. This can be quite costly. Another concern is the time limit on preliminary plans. Bonds are put out for SIDS and this includes a lot of information. This gives assurance to the buyers of the bond of what may be built in that project. Planning and Zoning Boa Minutes September 25, 1985 Page 10 Member Ross asked Mr. Moore if he, as a developer, found that there was a reasonable approach that pertains to the safety and quality of life that could be worked into these amendments the Board would have the right to require revisions. Mr. Moore stated there must be a process for this that is feasible. Chairman Dow suggested that the Board table this item to allow for at least one public worksession and study of the proposed amendments. Member Lang suggested that the neighborhood areas submit written comments to the Board so their concerns are not misinterpreted. Chairman Dow concurred with Member Lang's suggestion. He then asked Mr. Frank if the October 16th Planning and Zoning Board orientation meetings could be bumped and replaced by a public worksession for this item. He suggested this item be tabled to the November Planning and Zoning Board meeting. Mr. Frank agreed with these two suggestions. He then asked if this would be open to the public. Chairman Dow replied that it would be "public" in the fact that the public can attend but have no public input at this time. No decision by the Board would be made at that time. Member Edwards moved to table this item to provide the Board to more time to review this item and more time for the community to discuss it and to understand the ramifications of these amendments. Member Ross seconded the move. Motion to table the Amendments to the Land Development Guidance System was approved 7-0. Meeting adjourned at 10:28 P.M. PRCSFECT-SHIELDS Nd_IGH;DRHDCD SSCCI TI '; 1027 West Lake Street Fort Collins, Colorado 90521 September 25, 19B5 To: Members of the Fort Collins Planning & Zcninp Board Subject: Proposed revisions to the Land Development Guidance System The Prospect -Shields ei-hbnrhocd association stronoly supports the City's efforts to remedy ❑rcblems that have arisen in administering the L=.nd Development Guidance System. Our onpping experience in dealing with the System leads us to believe that ch-noes are necessary if this approach to development, and particularly infill development, is to re- main oclitically acceptable to the citizens of Fort Collins. Present ambiquities in the ordnance olece unnecessary burdens on the City Plan- ning Staff, developers, and imoacted citizens. Changes in the LDGS now dein❑ proposed by the City Planning Staff ad- dress several OF our major concerns, and we acraE in principle with their assessment of most of the oroblems they have identified. We do not concur in all cases with the solutions they have recommended. Alternatively, our Association subscribes to solutions that will be (have 'several oroposed by a representative of the CCRE Neighborhood on behal1�several of the City's neighborhood groups. The ❑resent effort to arend the Land Use Guidance System should produce much needed i7ornvementc. HDwever, we foresee that a more cemorghensive _aview uill `:a repuired in the near future. To that end,, Our r.ssnci-t:On exnects to continue to study the LDGS and its Opsr=_tion :nd to w_rk with other neic_hborhogro Groups to recommend further improvements. A m,-jor objective will be�find me-ns for neighborhoods to participate more ef- fectively and at an earlier stage in the PUD planning process. We hope to eliminate or significDntly reduce the confrontational relationships between applicants .and neighborhoods that the present system almost as- sures. The repuired nciohdorhood meetincs, as now structured, be not serve this ouroose, ❑rinarily because the ch=_racter of proposed projects has been larosly determined before such meetincs are held. In our exoeri- ence, applicants are unwillino at this point to make significant changes in the project concept unless required to do s❑ by the City Planning Staff or, ultimately, by the Planning & Zoning Board. Recommendations out forth by nsiohbarheods are typically ionored or r=_oarted lightly by applicants. This leads to protracted adversarial oroceedinos with all sides the losers in ter7s of wasted time, effort, and money. O:e believe this nonproductive =_srect pf the ❑lanning ❑rdcess could be laracly avoid- ed if the LDGS r=guired e Deed -faith effort by applicants and neighbor- hoods�5`eoTe z'ojecE concept is solidified, or an explication accepted. As our Associ ticn interprets the intent of the Land Use Guidance System, it is to encoureoe productive land use on p=_rcels within otherwise developed areas Of the City that for some reason are unutilized or underutilized. The LDGS makes it puite clear, however, that such development is not to be al- lowed if there will be an unreasonable cost to existing neighborhoods that -z- surround the proposed 'project. The question, then, is how to create ade- quate incentives for developers to pursue such projects without jeopardiz- ing the property rights end cuality of life of citizens that would be im- pacted by the development. The City has the major responsibility for de- vising equitable answers to this question, and the LDGS is the appropriate place to spell out this resoonsibility. In the information meetings the City Planning Staff have held to explain and discuss the amendments presently proposed, it has been evident that the City is having trouble administering the LDGS as presently specified. It is also clear that developers and their design agents perceive the system as already beino too hurdensome and that any further restrictions would be counterproductive in terms of infill development. Neighborhood interests have cited serious ❑roblems they have with the due process re- quirements of the system and see the need for further definition and en- forcement of these provisions. Resolving these complex issues requires strong leadership on the part of the City. ++ction is needed that goes beyond the chances presently ❑roposed. Fnr this reason, we recommend that the Planning 8 Zoninp 9nard continue to advise the Planning Staff and the City Council on the evolvement of a more satisfactory Land Development Guidance Svstem and strongly encourage modification of the ❑rdnince as further insights reveal ways to make the system more Economically effici- ent, more effective -,dministrtively, and at the same more responsive to citizen perticioation. Respectfully submitted, Harold E. `.dorth, Secretary Copy to: City Planning Director CORE