Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 01/30/1989r1 lions that were raised. They have had an opportunity to discuss this possibility with one of the neighborhood representatives that spoke on behalf of the neighborhood group at the January 23 hearing who stated that he would be willing to participate in that type of worksession. Mr. Vaught stated that due to the schedule that this project was under, they felt that the options were clear that they either appeal the decision to City Council, reconsider this site to determine if there were options still available to make this site acceptable to the Board, or they reconsider and move to a separate site. He stated that they would like to rule out 1 and 3 of these options. He asked for due consideration this evening. Larry Stroud spoke. He represented Paul Heffron, general partner of US 287 Ltd., owner of the property under consideration. He conveyed a request, from the landowners, the developer and PACE Warehouse, to appeal to the Board to continue this process in a working environment where some of the issues could be more specifically addressed, quantified and identified without the smoke from the last meeting. After that meeting, several major issues were identified and valid. He added that there was a basin problem with Fossil Creek that PACE did not create and PACE will not make it worse. That was a problem that the drainage department needed to address. This was an unclear issue that they felt was a city issue not necessarily a PACE issue. Mr. Stroud stated that PACE preferred to be in Fort Collins but has a second choice of Loveland. They felt that PACE would bring employment to the city, would have tax -based dollars, and the acceptance of them will help the eco- nomic development. They did not feel that going through the appeal process would be amiable to the neighborhood or would be in the best interest of the city or the neighborhood. He added that they felt there were enough unan- swered questions and specific issues raised that the Board wanted final answers for in a preliminary stage. There were also some mitigation of wetlands outside of the 10 acre boundary that could be addressed. He respectfully requested the Board to reconsider and adjourn to a working session. Chairwoman O'Dell asked Paul Eckman to advise the Board as to the next step they should take and how it would affect the neighbors that were not present. Paul Eckman stated that, with respect to the motion to reconsider, the motion may be made at either the same meeting or this meeting. He stated that if the Board determined to reconsider this, it would take a member of the prevailing side to make the motion, any member of the Board may second the motion, and a simple majority can pass the motion. If this were moved to reconsider and the motion passed, then the issue should be given full notice as a normal hearing so the entire neighborhood will have notice of the meeting, even though it would be a worksession. However, a decision could not be made at that worksession. A full hearing would be required later. Chairwoman O'Dell asked if the developer would have the opportunity at the worksession to present new information. Mr. Eckman replied that the worksession would be for the purpose of surfacing and identifying issues by both sides. -11- PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING MINUTES OF CONTINUED ITEMS JANUARY 30, 1989 The Planning and Zoning Board meeting of January 30, 1989 was called to order at 6:34 p.m, in Council Chambers of City Hall West, 300 Laporte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. Board members present included Chairwoman O'Dell, Frank Groznik, Dave Edwards, Jan Shepard and Alternate Rex Burns. Members absent were Sandy Kern, Jim Klataske, Lloyd Walker. Staff members present included Tom Peterson, Linda Ripley, Ted Shepard, Mike Herzig, Ruth Clear, Peter Barnes, Paul Eckman and Kayla Ballard. Chairwoman O'Dell stated this was a meeting to hear the remaining items from the January 23, 1989 meeting. Tom Peterson reviewed the remaining items on the agenda which included: #69-84G, CSU Bull Farm PUD, Parcel D - Preliminary; #34-88, Interstate Lands First Annexation; #35-88, Interstate Lands Second Annexation; #38-88, Interstate Lands Tract A Zoning; #39-88, Interstate Lands Tract B Zoning; and #8-89, Amendments to the City Zoning Code Pertaining to Signs. CSU BULL FARM PUD, PARCEL D - PRELIMINARY #69-84G 0 Ted Shepard, project planner, gave the description of the proposed project. Frank Vaught, Vaught/Frye Architects, represented Roger Peterson Real Estate Investments. Mr. Vaught briefly discussed the CSU Bull Farm Master Plan, pad sites of the proposed project, square footage of the anchors, the location and shape, vehicular and pedestrian accesses. He stated there was also a curb cut on Elizabeth Street with a deceleration lane into the curb cut that aligned just west of Wendy's. The far west curb cut aligned with the Taco Bell curb cut and provided a deceleration lane and an island boulevard -type entry. A pedes- trian walkway along Elizabeth Street would be detached in areas that would be detached. A major north -south connection between the two buildings and the easement would be provided. The sidewalk would then continue on Elizabeth Street and connect back into a second crossing and pedestrian bridge. He stated that they were still refining the exact dimensions of the service road. Negotiations were underway with the ditch company to combine their access road with the proposed service road. Mr. Vaught stated that a wetlands had been identified on this property. This particular site would require a nationwide permit. It had been applied for by his engineers. He added that the project was compatible from a scale and material standpoint with the apartment sites. The combined use of brick and synthetic stucco material, along with concrete tile roofs, will be used. The colors would be either identical to or compatible with each other. �J Mr. Vaught stated that a 30 foot tower would be incorporated into the plan. A very extensive landscape plan had been illustrated. He added that there were existing trees in the northeast corner of the site. Those trees will be preserved to the fullest extent possible. They had illustrated a plan that could accommo- date parking and a reasonably sized building and still preserve the maximum number of trees. The site was elevated. They have worked on those grades in terms of access and have been sensitive to the area as it was related to the trees. Member Groznik asked how many trees would be lost. Mr. Vaught replied that there will be 11 trees preserved and 5 lost Member Shepard asked if phasing was planned for the different pads and what was that phasing. Mr. Vaught replied that all of the northeast portion would be one phase with the pad sites being the second and third phases. However, they may be forced to cut one anchor out of the first phase. Member Shepard asked Mr. Vaught to review the traffic circulation for the fast food restaurant. Mr. Vaught stated that the entrance would be off of Elizabeth Street, then loop around the west side to the drive -up window and exit south to the park- ing area. He added that during the peak hours of the fast food restaurant there would be shared parking with the large anchor but those hours would not conflict with the peak hours of that anchor store. Member Shepard asked if the two curb cuts on Elizabeth Street would be east/west turning. Mr. Vaught responded that they would be full turns. The traffic study recom- mended two deceleration lanes into those two curb cuts, as well as a restriping of Elizabeth Street, to provide a continuous left turn lane from City Park Drive west. Chairwoman O'Dell asked if the bicyclists coming from across the southernmost bridge would be going downhill and would it be a conflict between them and the cars. Mr. Vaught stated that the approaching cars would be forced to stop at that location. They are proposing textured crossings to identify the bike/pedestrian area. Chairwoman O'Dell asked if the bicyclists would be coming downhill at a great rate of speed. Mr. Vaught stated that there was not that great of a level change. Members Burns asked for clarification of the storm drainage plan for the site sa 0 Mr. Vaught stated that this site was part of improvements that have been made in the entire basin as related to the apartment site. There will be on -site detention which will release water back onto Elizabeth Street at no greater than historic flows. Member Burns had a concern about the water flowing to the east as indicated in his packet. Mike Herzig, City Development Coordinator, stated that the flow into the ditch off of this property was into the west but this operated as detention for this flow. Until improvements were made downstream in the ditch, the developer may not be able to develop as planned. Ted Shepard gave the staff report recommending approval with the following conditions: 1) Prior to the approval of a final PUD, the Army Corps of Engi- neers shall make a determination regarding the status of a possible wetland area and the developer shall follow all the rules and procedures of the Corps as necessitated by that determination; 2) The final PUD plan shall enhance the western side of the building that is adjacent to the service drive, the Larimer County Canal #2, and the apartments of Fort Ram Village. Such enhancement shall consider such measures as increased landscaping, screened walls, a narrower service drive, off -site landscaping on the west side of the canal; 3) The final PUD shall include a lighting detail that would be designed to protect the safety of the pedestrians who use the sidewalks and the bridges of the PUD. Specific attention shall be paid to the 30 foot wide area between Anchor One and the retail building; 4) At the time of final PUD, the proposed pedes- trian length across the parking lot, located between Anchor One and the retail building, shall be treated with a distinctive surface treatment which shall caution vehicular traffic and promote the safety of the pedestrian. Member Groznik asked for clarification of the treatment of the bike surface. Mr. Shepard stated that the surface would be specifically for the pedestrians across the parking lot, not the bicyclists. Bill Jacobi, 1621 Lakeridge Court, had concerns which regarded the car and bike traffic, the widening of Elizabeth Street, the deceleration lanes not being the width of a lane, the corner of Plum Street and City Park Drive, and the pedestrian and bike traffic on Plum Street. Mr. Shepard responded to some of Mr. Jacobi's concerns by stating that Plum Street was a local street. Parking was allowed on both sides of it. This area was an older, mature part of town that was high residential. It would take a minor capital improvement project to replace the sidewalks on both sides of the street for the section between Shields and City Park Avenue. This had been discussed with the Engineering Department. Mike Herzig stated that the Bull Farm apartments will cause impact on Plum Street. He stated that the shopping center will not impact Plum Street with heavy pedestrian traffic. Chairwoman O'Dell asked if there was room on Plum Street for improvements to the sidewalks. -3- Mike Herzig replied that there was not much room for improvements on Plum Street. Ted Shepard stated that where there were sidewalks, they were rollover curb and gutter. None of them were more than four feet wide and they ran for one property length and then picked up again at another property line. He added that for anything meaningful to happen, the intent would have to be to do both sides of the street full length. What existed was inadequate in terms of sidewalk width and general condition of the sidewalk. An acquisition of property or condemnation would need to be done. Mike Herzig stated that the City had a successful sidewalk program. This program had cost sharing between the city and property owners to install sidewalks. Chairwoman O'Dell stated that she had concerns with the increase of traffic on Plum Street which in turn would increase pedestrian traffic. Ruth Clear, City Traffic Operations Engineer, stated that the traffic impacts on Plum Street would be fairly negligible. People would not access off of Plum Street but off of Elizabeth Street. Utilization would mainly be by the college students in the apartment buildings to the west. The history of accident rate on City Park Avenue and Skyline Drivc was very low. The lane width was 10 feet, which was below the standard of 12 feet. The bike lanes were 5 feet wide. Member Groznik asked if the lane widths were narrowed to accommodate bicycle lanes. Ruth Clear stated that she believed this was the case. In order to get the 5 foot wide bike lanes, it was necessary to narrow the vehicle lanes. Member Edwards asked what was the minimum street width allowable. Ruth Clear replied that the absolute minimum was 9' - 9 1/2', which is located at Elizabeth Street and northbound Taft Hill Road. However, on Elizabeth Street east of College Avenue, the lane widths in some areas were 10 feet and widened out to I feet. Member Edwards asked if there would be any additional space to add a bike lane by reducing the size of the travel lane. Ruth Clear stated that 10 feet would be the narrowest for the area of Eliza- beth Street east of College Avenue. Member Edwards asked for background information on Elizabeth Street in front of the site in question. Ruth Clear stated that if the widening was not continued for that 1/2 mile section, it would not be beneficial. The right -turn lanes, used as an access into the site, were very good. A double stripe of the bike lane would identify the bike lane. This would enhance the safety of the site. Member Edwards asked if the deceleration lanes would be wide enough to accommodate traffic. -4- Ruth Clear stated that those lanes should be 10'-12' wide, which will get the right turning vehicles out of the thru-flow of traffic and away from the bicycle traffic. Member Groznik moved to approve CSU Bull Farm Parcel D Preliminary with the four conditions recommended by staff. Member Shepard seconded the motion. The motion carried 5-0. INTERSTATE LANDS FIRST ANNEXATION - Case #34-88 INTERSTATE LANDS SECOND ANNEXATION - Case #35-88 INTERSTATE LANDS TRACT A ZONING Case #38-88 INTERSTATE LANDS TRACT B ZONING - Case #39-88 Linda Ripley gave descriptions of the Interstate Lands annexations and zonings. Eldon Ward, Cityscape Urban Design, briefly discussed the background of the site. He stated that the State Department of Highways was in the process of designing the interchange and frontage road improvements to this location. City staff also had expressed an interest in annexing the property The importance of this interchange has been identified in the Downtown, Eastside Neighbor- hood, Poudre River Trust as well as other planning efforts that have been going on for the past five years. This was a very important entrance to Fort Collins. This annexation process was started in late March of 1988. It has taken this long to come before the Board because they wanted to do some pre- planning at a conceptual level. Some right-of-way was deeded to the Highway Department which needed to be signed by the department. He added that they requested the annexation of 192 acres but because of Boxelder Creek and the other waterways that run through the site, there would only be approximately 120 acres that would be developable. They proposed substantial landscaping along Prospect Road and the interstate. Because of the design of the frontage road, they have ended up with a 30 acre parcel between the frontage road and the interchange. They were also attempting to preserve an approximate 80 acre H-B parcel in the center of the site for a future regional shopping mall. Mr. Ward discussed the master plan which was in progress but not presented to the Board. Traffic could be successfully directed away from local streets. The streets in Boxelder Estates sent traffic to Summitview and north to Mulberry. They would orient their traffic to the frontage road and Prospect Road. He stated that the width of the requested R-P zone was about 560 feet. It would give them adequate space for a residential area. Member Edwards asked if the preliminary plan would accompany the Master Plan for this site. Mr. Ward replied that there has been preliminary interest but there was nothing definite planned for submittal. Member Shepard asked if these two annexations created two enclaves on the north side of Prospect Road. Mr. Ward stated that neither of the two parcels to the south of this area would become enclaves as a result of these annexations. -5- Member Shepard asked what the current land use was for the area to the southwest corner of the requested annexation. Mr. Ward stated that there were a series of large 3-5 acre parcels that have individual homes on them. Member Shepard asked if Phase H of the Master Plan would be multi -family. Mr. Ward stated that this is what was envisioned. Chairwoman O'Dell stated that the Board needed to keep their questions and comments regarding the Master Plan more general rather than specific. Linda Ripley gave the staff report which recommended approval of both annexation and zoning requests with PUD conditions placed on both the R-P and H-B zoning designations. Development then would be evaluated under the Land Development Guidance System. Gerritt Newton, 3418 Boxelder, President of Boxelder Homeowners' Association, stated the association had concerns about the water table, the access into the area, and the transition between the existing Boxelder Estates and what will be planned for this area. In order to provide a proper transition from Boxelder Estates acreage lots to whatever is planned, the R-P area needed to be increased to double its size. He added that there was a lawsuit pending against G. T. Land which concerned an area of about 125 feet in width along Boxelder Estates' eastern boundary. This lawsuit was in regards to the use of the land. Because of this lawsuit, the association .requested that the first 125 foot strip running north and south along Boxelder Estates' eastern boundary be designated T-Transitional until the legal issues were resolved. Linda Ripley responded to Mr. Newton's concerns and stated that developments are required to do 3 dwelling units per acre or more under the LDGS. Paul Eckman stated that the city had petitions certified by an attorney as to the ownership of the property and if that should turn out to be incorrect, and if the court should determine that someone else had some right -of -use, the right decreed by the court would be binding, notwithstanding whatever zoning the Planning and Zoning Board might recommend to City Council or what Council might end up placing on the property. Transition zoning can be recommended if the Board wished although recommendation of the zoning requested would not detrimentally impact the outcome of that lawsuit. Chairwoman O'Dell asked, if the outcome of the lawsuit would find in favor of someone other than the property owner, how would that affect the zoning that the Planning and Zoning Board is recommending. Paul Eckman stated that it would not affect the zoning but it might affect who has the right to use and occupy the property. Frederick Smith, 1047 Greenfield Court, stated that he concurred with Mr. Newton and would like to see the area expanded that was designated R-P. He suggested that they move the high density business further east. He also requested assurances that the traffic would be directed away from their neighborhood. Im Jay Kammerzel, 3418 Surrey Lane, stated that as a county resident, he has had • no say in the selection of the Planning and Zoning Board. He stated that this neighborhood was a quiet community and felt that this environment should not be changed by the proposed development. He added that another concern was that G. T. Land would not be the people who would develop the property. He stated that he would like to see this area zoned T-Transition. Member Groznik asked Mr. Ward to address the streets going through Boxelder Estates. 0 Mr. Ward stated that the site was designed so that those street connections were not necessary. However, sometimes police and fire state that their response time could be cut down if they could go through a neighborhood. This has been debated in a number of neighborhoods around town over the last few years. He stated that if there would be a need for emergency access, there were design solutions that can allow emergency vehicles through and not everyday traffic. Member Edwards asked what the difference was between city planning pro- cesses and county planning processes and which is more restrictive. Mr. Ward stated that the city, in general, was more rigorous and tended to have a tighter set of detailed guidelines and controls. The city dealt with urban intensities of development where impacts tend to be greater which created a greater level of scrutiny although it was not as wide of a gap as it was ten years ago. Member Edwards moved to recommend to City Council approval of Interstate Lands First Annexation. Member Shepard seconded the motion. Motion carried 5-0. Member Shepard moved to recommend to City Council approval of Interstate Lands Second Annexation. Member Edwards seconded the motion. Motion car- ried 5-0. Member Groznik moved to recommend to City Council approval of Interstate Lands Tract A Zoning with the condition that it comes before the Board as a Planned Unit Development. Member Edwards seconded the motion. Motion car- ried 5-0. Member Groznik moved to recommend to City Council approval of Interstate Lands Tract B Zoning with the condition that it comes before the Board as a Planned Unit Development. Member Shepard commented that she would support the motion but would have felt more comfortable if there had been additional R-P area designated in the northern corner. She added that given the fact that there was a PUD condition and that this was undevelopable land, perhaps those single family residences would not be adversely impacted. Member Edwards commented that he felt that the citizens that live in the area, regardless of what jurisdiction they live in, will be better served by having this particular parcel go through the city planning process rather than the county planning process. -7- Chairwoman O'Dell commented to the neighboring property owners of this pro- posal that this will go to City Council. At that time, the adjacent neighborhood will have the opportunity for input on these annexations and zonings. She added that at the time a specific development is proposed, it will come back before the Planning and Zoning Board for a final decision, not a recommend- ation item to City Council. The Board will review what is proposed as a buffer or transition area between their area and what could potentially become a regional mall. At that time the Board could discuss if there would need to be additional greenbelt setbacks or if more single family would be appropriate. She stated that because it was zoned H-B, it did not necessarily mean that the Highway Business would take up the entire space. Member Edwards commented that by the Board zoning this anything, the Board was not necessarily superceeding any private suits or the outcome of any private suits. Member Burns seconded the motion. The motion carried 5-0. AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY ZONING CODE PERTAINING TO SIGNS Case #8-89 Peter Barnes, City Zoning Administrator, gave a description of the proposed zoning code amendment. He stated that there were two changes to the proposed ordinance submitted to the Board for review: 1) Section 2 - with respect to the definition of ideological sign - the phrase "ideological shall mean a sign other than an election sign" should be deleted; and 2) Section 8. He proposed adding a subparagraph 2, (Section 29-599 (2)) to clarify that an election message can be included as an ideological sign and, by meeting the requirements of ideolog- ical sign, it is not subject to the time and size limitations pertaining to an election sign. Mr. Barnes continued by stating that the purpose of the sign code was three- fold: 1) to protect the aesthetic qualities of the city; 2) to ensure the safety of vehicular and pedestrian traffic; and 3) to recognize the first amendment rights of persons posting signs. He summarized the proposed changes by stating that the most significant effects would be to: 1) permit an unlimited number of election signs for a specified period of time while still regulating the size of the sign; and 2) to specifically permit the expression of non-commercial ideological messages on the same basis, or less restrictive basis,. than commercial signs in all districts. Mr. Barnes stated that election signs could be erected without a permit and there could be any number of these signs. However, since they are of a tempo- rary nature and there are no limitations as to the number of how many can be erected, it would still be important to have some control over them for safety purposes, therefore, size criteria has been established. He briefly reviewed sections of the code as follows: Section 1 - deletes fraternal, religious and civic organizations and educational institutions from the list of entities whose flags, pennants or insignias are exempt from the sign code; 2) Section 2 - established clear definitions for elections signs and ideological signs; 3) Section 3 -clarifies the current section of the code which exempts certain types of signs from needing permits; 4) Section 4 - amends the regulation pertaining to the number of political signs which are allowed in residential zones; 5) Section 5 -adds ideological signs to the list of permitted signs in residential zones and -8- establishes a maximum size criteria for such signs of 10 square feet per face, with a total aggregate area of 20 square feet. In addition, it would allow the one identification sign currently permitted for the different uses listed to be either an identification sign only, an ideological sign only, or a combination of the two; 6) Section 6 - adds election signs and ideological signs to the list of permitted signs in non-residential districts; 7) Section 7 - clarifies an existing provision of the code that allows no more than one freestanding sign per property per street frontage. The amendment makes an exemption for election signs and "for sale" and "for rent" signs; 8) Section 8 - amends the section of the code that currently contains most of the regulations for political signs by dealing now with the length of time election signs can be displayed; and 9) Section 9 - amends the regulations dealing with structural requirements of signs by stating that "for sale," "for rent," and election signs do not have to be engineered to withstand a windload of 30 pounds per square foot. He stated that staff found that these changes were in keeping with the purpose of the sign code and recommended approval of these modifications. Member Burns asked if the sign code was independent of the land use parts of the code and if the Planning and Zoning Board reviews it before it goes to Council because it is deemed appropriate by staff. Mr. Barnes stated that this was correct and that there was a section in the zoning code, of which the LDGS is a part, which required amendments to the zoning code to be heard by the Planning and Zoning Board for recommend- ation to City Council Chairwoman O'Dell asked what category roofer signs or builders sign fall under. Mr. Barnes stated that those were considered signs which were conveying commercial messages, not ideological. If, however, they reside at that site, the code would allow them to display a 2 square foot identification sign to identify a home occupation, the names of the tenants, etc. Member Edwards asked if the enforcement of violations of the sign code would be handled by complaint basis. Mr. Barnes replied that zoning violations were handled by either a complaint basis or a drive -by basis. The sign code was almost always enforced by staff on a drive -by basis because violations were readily apparent. Member Edwards asked if private covenants, such as homeowners' association by-laws, could allow for more restrictive provisions, such as length of time, placement and size. Mr. Barnes replied that they could, however it would be up to the homeowners that established those rules to enforce them. The Zoning Department would only be enforcing what our code stated. Member Shepard asked that if the Zoning Board of Appeals has the power to grant extensions of the 65 day time period, would this allow a person to request the placement of a sign prior to 60 days before an election or does this apply only to the length of time after an election that they could leave the sign up. Mr. Barnes replied that the time period was 65 days. If a person wanted to come to Zoning Board of Appeals 90 days before the election to ask for a variance to put up a sign, they would be allowed to do so. They would have to go before the Zoning Board of Appeals and explain the circumstances that deemed it necessary for them to put up the sign that early, and then the Board would either grant or deny the request. Chairwoman O'Dell asked if there were restrictions on the closeness to corners and sidewalks. Mr. Barnes replied that the sign code only dealt with regulation of signs on private property. The sign code had specific criteria dealing with permanent signs. If an ideological sign were requested, a sign permit would be required along with a site plan and a sketch of the sign showing height and location of the sign. There are setbacks applicable to ensure adequate site distances which vary based on the size and height of the sign. Permanent signs could be controlled. Election signs, which fall into the 65 day time limit, are considered temporary and can be no larger than 8 square feet. This should not present a site obstruction. Member Shepard moved to recommend approval to City Council of the amend- ments to the City Zoning Code pertaining to signs. Member Groznik seconded the motion: The motion to recommend approval carried 5-0. OTHER BUSINESS Tom Peterson stated that there would be a Downtown Plan meeting February 8, 1989 in City Hall West Council Chambers at 7:00 p.m. He stated that this will be an informal meeting. Tom Peterson stated that the applicants from the PACE development wished to make a request of the Planning and Zoning Board at this time. Frank Vaught, Vaught/Frye Architects, represented Fiest Meager and Company and the PACE Membership Warehouse. He stated that after coming before the Board January 23, they were unclear of the direction given by the Board for this site. At this time, they wished to have some clarification for the denial however, three of the prevailing members were absent tonight. He added that they had a certain level of discomfort with three areas of the process which included: 1) new issues by the neighborhood that were not discussed at three previous neighborhood meetings; 2) questions were raised by the Board of the applicant and staff regarding the point chart; and, 3) the applicant was asked to give final answers to a preliminary proposal. All of these occurred without the opportunity on their part to address them. After reviewing their notes, it became clear to them that the three prevailing Board members that voted for the denial of the proposal did not say specifically that they felt this site was not developable or inappropriate for the particular use proposed. He added that in reviewing their options, they felt that an appeal to City Council was inappropriate. PACE does not wish to come to Fort Collins and make enemies. They felt that the most appropriate way to discuss the issues that were presented at the meeting was to have a worksession however, this can only be accomplished if a reconsideration of the vote is considered by the Board. He stated that they would respectfully request that reconsideration in order that this meeting might be adjourned to a worksession to answer some of the ques- -10- Member Groznik asked Mr. Eckman to clarify the difference between a work - session on what was previously considered and a resubmittal of another site plan for the same site. Paul Eckman stated that the applicant could resubmit for the same site how- ever, he understood that they prefer not to resubmit because of time problems or expense. The applicants' avenues are to appeal to City Council, resubmit or ask the Board to reconsider the issue. Member Groznik commented that with so many prevailing members absent he did not feel comfortable making a motion to reconsider. Member Edwards asked if time was an issue regarding a revisiting of certain issues as opposed to reapplication or a rehearing. Tom Peterson replied that if the Board reconsidered this issue tonight and agreed to hold a worksession, this could be accomplished in the middle of February. Assuming that the application went forward from the worksession, the Board could hear this at their regular February meeting. If the applicant were requested to resubmit, which would not be significantly different, they could not submit until February 5 and would be scheduled for the March meet- ing. There would be time between submittal and the March meeting to hold a public hearing. The former track would be a bit faster and the second track would be a seven week process. Mr. Vaught stated that they would like to avoid a resubmittal because of the time and money spent required to go back through the process and take the risk of being denied a second time. Their initial goal was to have the store in operation by August of 1989. Member Groznik asked if the Board could hold an informal worksession with- out a formal resubmittal. Tom Peterson stated that from a structure standpoint, it would be more appro- priate for the Board to formally agree to reconsider this application as a continuation of this meeting and take action at the meeting after that. If the Board does not choose to do this, then the applicant would have to resubmit. The applicant has rights by being in the process. If there was an informal meeting and then the applicant decided not to resubmit, the applicant might loose what appeal rights they have at this point. Paul Eckman replied that there is a 14 day time limit on an appeal to City Council. A vote to reconsider needed to be accomplished tonight. It would be inappropriate to hold a worksession without having moved to reconsider the matter because the matter, at the moment, is off of the table. The Board does not have anything to have a worksession on unless it is brought back on to the table with the reconsideration. The only other way to get it back on the table is to file a new application. Member Edwards asked if this were appealed, could City Council remand this back to the Board if the decision were overturned by them. Tom Peterson stated that this could come back to the Board in a form of remand. -12- Paul Eckman stated that the appeal chapter provided that if the Council decided that the Board failed to receive evidence that was relevant and was . offered to the Board, then Council must remand it back to the Board for reconsideration. Chairwoman O'Dell asked if Member Burns could vote since he did not vote at the last meeting. Paul Eckman stated that he could not make a motion to reconsider but he could vote on the motion. Mr. Vaught stated that their intent was not to backdoor the neighborhood and get the Board to change their vote. Their purpose was that they wished the Board to reconsider based on what was presented at the January 23 meeting. Chairwoman O'Dell commented that this was a difficult decision because three members were absent. She added that she was still opposed to the project and felt that there were other sites in the city that would be appropriate for this project. Member Edwards commented that he would like to find a way to do a better job highlighting the specific issues that were as yet unresolved. He did not accept the conclusions drawn at the last meeting which would say that the issues were unresolvable. Member Groznik stated that there would be a difference of three to four weeks. He stated he realized that time is money and that the applicant prob- ably would not wish to go through the process again, yet without the presence of the Board member who made the motion to deny the project, a motion to reconsider would be inappropriate as far as he was concerned. The applicant could resubmit, hold a worksession and decide whether to go forward or with- draw the project. Paul Eckman stated that the worksession would be like a public hearing and the decision the Board made were quasi-judicial in nature. The Board hears facts and based on those facts, a decision is made. This is why it is important to emphasize that the Board does not have any one -party hearings. Everyone should have an opportunity to be heard. Mr. Vaught asked, if they resubmitted February 5, could a worksession be held between submittal and the February meeting, a worksession could be held. Member Groznik stated that he felt that this would be an opportunity to have a worksession. is Mr. Vaught asked if the applicant could contact the neighborhood, set up a neighborhood meeting, and invite the Board to attend. Paul Eckman stated that the Board would need something on the table to con- sider. There would be nothing to consider unless the applicant resubmitted. Mr. Vaught stated that if this is their only alternative, he hoped that they can decide on a convenient date. The final plans have already been submitted and partially review by staff. -13- Paul Eckman stated that this issue of reconsideration seemed to be the only way under Robert's Rules of Order that something can be brought back before the Board to consider. These Rules require that a person on the prevailing side make the motion to reconsider. Chairwoman O'Dell asked that if Member Groznik or herself were to move to reconsider, would they be stating that there was new information, there would be something that could be presented to persuade them to vote differently. Paul Eckman replied that they could be stating that or that new issues could be raised at an informal setting and that the only mechanism that was avail- able was through reconsideration and therefore willing to reconsider to raise those issues in an informal setting. Chairwoman O'Dell asked if there was another way to have the votes of the absent prevailing members clarified to the applicant. Tom Peterson stated that in a public setting, clarification would have to be made as to why they voted for denial. This meeting could be continued to a regularly scheduled worksession for the purpose of clarifying the votes, if a motion was made for reconsideration. Paul Eckman stated that the votes could not be changed but clarification can be made. Member Groznik stated that he believed the only way out of this would be for a resubmittal of the application if they want this site. Member Burns stated that he would be opposed to reconsideration of this project unless there were a substantial change, such as a different site or a different footprint. Chairwoman O'Dell stated that it appeared there was no motions so the options would be to resubmit the application or appeal to City Council. Tom Peterson asked for a consensus of the Board whether it would be appro- priate to schedule a special worksession with the applicant and neighborhood if the applicant resubmitted. Member Edwards asked if a neighborhood meeting would be more important. Tom Peterson stated that a neighborhood meeting would be part of the resub- mittal process. Member Groznik stated that he would be willing to attend a special workses- sion with the applicant and the neighborhood for clarifying issues and concerns prior to a meeting. Member Shepard stated she also would be willing to attend a special workses- sion although she questioned that, with a resubmittal, what would be the role of the Board at that meeting. Tom Peterson stated that the Board would not be asked to take a position at the worksession. -14- • 0 Member Edwards stated that the applicant's request to reconsider was coming from lack of clarity by the Board. He asked if there was a way to clarify the individual messages inrespective of the collective message of a denial. He stated he did not hear a wealth of new information but did hear what the outstand- ing issues were, for which there was no resolve, therefore there was a prevail- ing vote to deny. Paul Eckman stated that it would be difficult for the Board to clarify their votes individually except in a public setting. It could be done in a motion for the minutes. He added that he would not recommend that individual discussion be entered into with the applicant unless a new application were filed. Member Burns stated that he would not like to see a worksession nor reconsid- eration unless there were substantial changes. He felt there would be nothing to discuss. Ile added it would be feasible, in any event, to hold a public meeting with the neighborhood to discuss the issues, alternatives, and different proposals and then resubmit on those basis. Chairwoman O'Dell stated that if there was a resubmittal of the same proposal or similar proposal on the same site, the Board could discuss it at their regular Friday worksession prior to the Monday night meeting. Meeting adjourned at 9:45 p.m. • • -15-