HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 11/16/2006Chairperson Lingle called the meeting to order at 6:04 p.m.
Roll Call: Meyer, Fries, Schmidt, Stockover, Rollins, Lingle. (Andy Smith absent)
Staff Present: Gloss, Eckman, Olt, Shepard, Barnes, Maizeland, and Dairies
Director of Current Planning, Cameron Gloss, reviewed the Consent and Discussion Agendas:
Citizen participation: None.
Consent Agenda:
1. Minutes of the April 20, 2006 Planning and Zoning Board Hearing
2. Resolution PZ06-13 — Easement Vacation
3. Resolution PZ06-14 — Access Easement Dedication
4. Resolution PZO6-15 — Drainage Easement Dedication
5. Resolution PZ06-16 — Sight Distance Easement Dedication
6. Resolution PZO6-17 — Easement Dedication
Discussion Items:
7. #22-06 — Morie at Capitol Hill (617 Wood Street)— Project Development Plan
8. Recommendation to City Council for Fall 2006 Biannual Revisions,
Clarifications and Additions to the Land Use Code.
Member Schmidt moved for the approval of the Consent Agenda consisting of the Minutes for
April 20, 2006 and Resolutions PZO6-13, PZO6-14, PZ06-15, PZO6-17, and PZO6-17.
Member Fries seconded the motion.
The motion passed 6-0.
Planning & Zoning Board
November 16, 2006
Page 2
Project: Morie at Capitol Hill (617 Wood Street), Project Development Plan -
#22-06
Project Description: This is a request to demolish the existing single-family house at 617
Wood Street and construct two new residential buildings, each
containing two, 2 or 3-bedroom dwelling units on a platted property that
is 17,115 square feet in size. These two family dwelling units will be in
2-story buildings (25' in height) on the north and south halves of the
property. These principal buildings will front on Wood Street, with the
dwelling units accessed from Wood Street and an existing alley along
the west side of the property. Each dwelling unit will have an attached
2-car garage facing either Wood Street or the alley. The property is
located on the West side of Wood Street between West Vine Drive and
Elm Street. The property is in the NCM — Neighborhood Conservation,
Medium Density Zoning District.
Staff Recommendation: Project Approval; Denial of Modification to Section 4.7(D)(1)
Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence:
Staff member Olt provided contextual site information. The Mode at Capitol Hill (617 Wood Street)
Project Development Plan is a request to construct two new residential buildings, each containing two,
two or three bedroom dwelling units. This is a platted property 17,115 square feet in size, and the
existing single-family home at that address would be demolished. The surrounding neighborhood is
predominantly single-family. Two of the dwelling units would access directly from Wood Street and
two units would access from the alley on the west side of the property. There are multi -family
residences to the west and south. The City of Fort Collins Service Center is directly to the east.
Associated with this development are three modifications of the standards. Staff member Olt feels
that they have been met.
Modification 1 is to Section 4.7(D) (1) of the Land Use Code. This section deals with
Density Intensity Development and states that minimum lot areas shall be the equivalent of
two times the total floor area of the building, but not less than the following: It must be a
minimum of 5,000 square feet per minimum for a two-family dwelling and 6,000 square feet
for all other uses. Open balconies and basements shall not be counted as floor area. In
this particular case, there is a total property area of 17,115 square feet. As proposed, the
four dwelling units and attached garages would be 8,967 square feet. That is
approximately 409 square feet more than half the size of the property. The applicant has
requested a modification to allow the additional 409 square feet. Staff has evaluated the
modification request and determined that it is not supported by Section 2.8.2(H) of the
Land Use Code. Therefore, staff recommends denial of the modification request. Also
built into the applicant's request is the ability to convert one-half of each of these two car
garages into a car port. That would provide one enclosed garage and one carport. As
defined by the Land Use Code, a carport is not considered part of the total building square
Planning & Zoning Board
November 16, 2006
Page 3
footage. By eliminating those two garages, the living unit square footage would be
reduced by approximately 400 square feet.
2. Modification 2 is to Section 4(F) (1) (C) of the Land Use Code. This section states that
accessory buildings and attached garages should have a front yard setback that is at least
10 feet greater than the front setback of the principal building that is located on the front
portion of the lot. This plan has two buildings facing Wood Street. One unit of the two
units facing Wood Street does not meet the setback requirement. Staff Olt stated the
reason for the modification request was to preserve the three large, deciduous shade trees
on the property. To preserve one of the trees, the front porch had to be moved back a
foot, creating a nine foot instead of ten foot setback. After evaluation, staff felt that by
saving the trees, an equal to or better than situation has been created as required by
Section 2.8.2(H).
Modification request 3 is to Section 4.7(F) (1) (g) of the Land Use Code and deals with roof
form. This section states that the minimum pitch of any roof of the building shall be 212
and the maximum pitch of the building shall be 1212 except that new detached accessory
buildings and additions to existing dwelling units may be constructed with a pitch that
match any roof of the existing dwelling unit. Additionally, the roof pitch of a dormer or
turret or semi -architectural feature may not exceed 2412. This is the crux of the section
that we have to deal with for this modification. The covered porch may be flat whenever
the roof of said porch is also considered to be floor of a second story deck. In this case,
the covered porches over these two units facing Wood Street are flat, but they do not
create an outdoor space or a second -level deck. Staff has evaluated this against the
overall architectural character of the building and determined that the architectural
character created on the site is equal to or better than an architectural plan that would
comply with this standard in the Land Use Code.
Staff member Olt stated that he received a call from a homeowner at 621 Wood Street. She feels that
the project is too big for the lot in the neighborhood, there is poor access into the property from both
Wood Street and the alley, and that the alley is narrow and it is difficult for many cars to pass through
the alley. The homeowner is concerned because of the future ability to market and become rental
property in the future.
Chair Lingle asked if the front porch would need to be covered in order for the garage setback from
the face of the primary dwelling to be in compliance. Staff member Olt responded that if the garage
were not covered or part of the building, then the garages would have to be set back even further from
the living unit. It can be either the living unit or a covered porch.
Applicant Craig McKee, managing partner of McKee Brothers, LLC presented. He stated it was
previously determined there is no historical value to the house being razed. The project will promote
green building. While the proposed project creates a denser usage of the space, the appearance
from Wood Street will be residential. He stated the project is beneficial to Fort Collins because it will
enhance redevelopment in Old Town, increase neighborhood property value, and increase the City
tax base. Applicant requested the Planning and Zoning Board approve the first modification request
to build the two -car garages to retain property value and provide adequate enclosed storage for the
new property owners.
Member Schmidt asked McKee if he was planning any improvements to the alley. He responded
saying that they were not planning to pave the alley because of the sizeable cost. He said that on his
Planning & Zoning Board
November 16, 2006
Page 4
property side there would be an 8 foot setback to yield the garage spaces, which would open up the
space to the west of the property. They will probably gravel the area.
Member Schmidt presumed that the fire department approved the access plan. McKee agreed. Any
fencing will have unlocking gate doors to allow access from the sides. However, the fire department
noted that they would be fighting a fire from the Wood Street side.
Member Schmidt asked if there would eventually be any fence at the back of the property. McKee
said no, but that there would be a small amount of fencing for privacy. The current fencing would be
removed to open up the space.
Member Schmidt asked about the wells along the sides of the building that were referred to on the
plans. McKee said that they are the window wells to the basement.
Member Schmidt asked how tall the building is compared to the other two -stories next door and on
the corner. McKee wasn't sure of the heights of the other buildings. He said that his building would
be about 20 feet, in addition to the pitch of the roof. He noted that the land slopes substantially and
wasn't sure how that would affect the appearance.
Member Schmidt asked if the grading would stay the same or if they will try to make it flat from the
street. McKee stated that the grading is planned to direct water to a natural holding area and to a
detention area for water that will create the natural feature. There will also be drainage installed to
ensure that water flows correctly. McKee said that the height will be similar to what is to the south of
them.
Member Schmidt wanted to verify that there is only 5 feet from the deck of unit B to the property line
and if McKee knew how far away the house is on the other side. McKee showed where the distance
was 5 feet from the building and the property line. He also noted where the distance increases as you
go up to the second floor. McKee noted that it is difficult to tell because of the towering trees that
have not been pruned.
Member Schmidt asked if they are going to be four individually owned townhomes. McKee stated that
they will be individually owned and that an HOA will be implemented to manage and maintain the
property.
Chair Lingle asked if the solution being proposed for compliance with the Density and Intensity of
Development is McKee's suggestion and if taking 100 square feet from each unit was considered and
denied. McKee said that halfway through the project, they realized that they miscalculated the FAR
ratio. Because of that, they already reconfigured the base and pushed a lot of the first level spaces to
the second level. Later on, they realized that they were over on the FAR ratio once again. He did not
think that they could reduce the space any further because it would lose its functionality for the users.
Chair Lingle asked Staff member Olt if the City's control over the site amenities remains the same
even though it is a HOA situation. He asked this due to his concern that, over time, the HOA may
determine that the water features and other extensive site features are too much for them to deal with,
but that they would still be bound by the PDP and FCP. Staff member Olt replied that they would be
bound by this approved and recorded development plan. Any changes to the amenities would require
a minor amendment request. Chair Lingle said that these amenities were being proposed as
mitigation to the intensity of development of the site and wants them to remain in place. McKee noted
that his purpose was to engineer functioning detention spaces that are also dedicated to the City.
Planning & Zoning Board
November 16, 2006
Page 5
Public Participation
Ben Stein lives directly west of the proposed development project and across the alley on Park Street.
He states that the alley is too narrow to promote access for vehicles. He stressed the importance of
the privacy that the alley provides. Stein admires the built green goals but does not think that the
building has any architectural ties to the rest of the neighborhood. Stein also wanted to know if there
is any guarantee that this property would not be rented or leased in the future. He said that there are
enough rentals in the city as it is. Stein further stated that, although he wasn't sure of the numbers,
this property would not significantly increase the value of the surrounding neighborhood. Lastly, Stein
asked a question to clarify the city codes relating to the height of the roof line and the space between
units.
Riley Phipps lives at 612 Park Street, directly west of the proposed development. He believes that the
home will negatively impact the neighborhood. The proposed project will be the only two-family home
in a neighborhood of single family homes and will not contribute to the theme of the area. It will set a
precedent for future construction and continue to erode the character of the neighborhood. He also
feels that the home is too big for the property. Lastly, Phipps agrees with Stein that the proposal to
access the property through the alley is unnecessary and the property should be accessed through
Wood Street.
Brian D'Agostino has been working with McKee on the proposed development project. He stated that
he was very impressed with McKee's concern for keeping the neighborhood feel of the area and
designing an environmentally conscious project. To do this, he resigned some of his initial options for
a denser building and more of a "lease space." D'Agastino stated that the sale price for the homes is
substantial and that it is not practical to use it as a rental property.
End of Citizen Participation
Chair Lingle asked Staff member Olt to return to the pictures of the alley. He said that his experience
tells him that most of the alleys in Old Town are paved almost the full 20 feet width of the alley right of
way. He asked if an engineer had evaluated the alley. Randy Maizeland said that he took the project
to the Transportation Coordination meeting and that it was decided that there were two units on two
lots and that this was not different than a single unit with a carriage house as far as trip generation
and traffic. Therefore, they did not feel that they had to pave the alley to the full standard.
Chair Lingle wanted to know if the width of whatever is there is up to the standard. Maizeland stated
that it is not a standard width. Member Schmidt asked if two cars can pass each other in the alley.
Maizeland responded that there is 20 feet of right of way, but looking at the picture, it does not look
like two cars could pass each other easily.
Chair Lingle followed up by asking if Maizeland was comfortable leaving the width the way it is and
supporting the project. Maizeland said that it could be completely unimproved with no pavement.
Member Schmidt asked if in the future, other residents want to build garages backing into the alley,
when improvements would be made and if the entire alley would change. Maizeland responded that
improvements would be triggered if there was a proposal for development on a high density lot. If
everyone came as an individual and just put one carriage house or garage with their access on the
alley, improvements would not be triggered.
Member Stockover stated that the fences looked like they were encroaching and that from the site
plan. It looked like the property line was in about 8 feet from the right of way. Maizeland responded
Planning & Zoning Board
November 16, 2006
Page 6
that it appeared that some of the fences might be encroaching into the alley right of way making it
appear a lot narrower.
Chair Lingle asked McKee to explain the architectural character of the homes. McKee said that they
had two objectives. One, they wanted to provide a contemporary style that speaks to the freshness of
the area. Secondly, he wanted to create a residential feel that resembles some of the newer projects
on West Mountain and near Lab Elementary School. The buildings will be a mixture of contemporary
stucco designs and hardi board. He noted that the homes will look residential from Wood Street, but
along the center path you will have a fantastic view of the courtyard.
Member Schmidt commented that she was concerned that the two sides of the buildings will look
massive and lose the residential feel when they are covered in stucco. McKee responded with two
comments. For one, the square footage of the buildings is not very large. Secondly, one entire side
will be lined with trees and a 6 foot fence. The north side has two large trees in the back that cover up
that space. He also mentions that the space is very open, due to the fact that they have maintained
the 33% FAR and the fence that has been pushed back 8 feet from the alley.
Member Schmidt asked if the height of his building would resemble that of the neighbor to the south.
McKee said that he thinks it will. Member Schmidt asked if the trees shown in the picture were on his
property line. McKee said that they are on top of the property line and that the fence shown
encroaches three feet on their property. It will be torn down and replaced.
Chair Lingle asked if the color in the rendering is accurate. McKee said that the actual color will be
sandy colored and sagebrush. They will paint the colors on a few samples of the building to see how
it looks, and then make adjustments if necessary. Chair Lingle asked if this was an FCP step for
approving the color. Staff member Olt said that they will get into more detail later and record it in the
final plans.
Chair Lingle had some further questions about the strong color. McKee said that the pale sage green
will be on the south side and will absorb more of the sunlight making the building more energy
efficient. The lighter color, a sandy ochre, will be on the south building.
Member Stockover made a side note regarding making decisions on development proposals. He said
that he always tries to weigh the needs of the neighbors and the property owner. He notes that in this
case there is not a lot of opposition in the neighborhood, and feels that once the, project is done they
will be happy. Stockover thinks that with the green space, the project will be in compliance. He
supports it as is and thinks that accepting it will be better than open car ports.
McKee responded by saying that the structure of the building is supposed to have a layered effect
resembling a village. Even with the parking lot across the street, he feels that the area has the
potential to be very nice, connecting to the parks and Poudre River.
Member Schmidt asked McKee to describe the second floor since they did not receive a sketch. He
said that the deck will come off the master bedroom and cover only a portion of the garage area.
There will be double door exits with a wall of windows. Member Schmidt asked for verification of the
size of the decks. McKee stated that the front ones are a tiny bit larger than the back ones.
Member Schmidt was concerned about the one on the north being so close to the neighboring
property. McKee said that 3 of the decks face inward. The other faces the drive space and they will
be building a fence line along that area.
Planning & Zoning Board
November 16, 2006
Page 7
Member Schmidt commented that it would be better to leave the carports as garages and hopes that
the developer will do what he can to make the homes compatible. Chair Lingle agreed, saying that
since it is about 4% of the total area that is allowed, it is an inconsequential deviation.
Member Schmidt made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board approve the modification
request to section 4.7(D)(1) of the Land Use Code, based on the fact that granting the
modification would not be detrimental to the public good and that the plan submitted is
equally well or better, meets the standard, and will not diverge from the standard in more than
a nominal and inconsequential way.
Member Fries seconded the motion.
Motion passed 6: 0.
Member Schmidt made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board approve the request for
modification to the standard section 4.7(F)(1)(C) of the Land Use Code, based on the facts and
the findings that granting the modification would not be detrimental to the public good and
that the plan submitted is equally well or better, meets the standard, and will not diverge from
the standard in more than a nominal and inconsequential way.
Member Meyers seconded the motion.
Motion passed 6: 0.
Member Schmidt made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board recommend approval for
modification in section 4.7(F)(1)(G) of the Land Use Code, based on the facts and findings that
granting the modification would not be detrimental to the public good and that the plan
submitted would promote general purpose of the standard, equally well or better than a plan
which complies and that the reason of exceptional physical conditions are extraordinary
exceptional standards unique to the property warrant that.
Member Fries seconded the motion.
Motion passed 6: 0.
Member Schmidt moved that the Planning and Zoning Board recommend the approval of the
project development plan #22-06 for Morie at Capital Hill.
Member Rollins seconded the motion.
Motion passed 6: 0.
Member Schmidt commented that she thinks this is a good plan for the site, but that the developer
should do whatever possible to buffer the scale of the project. Member Meyer likes the project as
well.
McKee thanked the City and the Board for all of the work that they do.
Planning & Zoning Board
November 16, 2006
Page 8
Member Schmidt made a caution to the staff regarding the future issues that may arise with alleys and
notes that it could become a very dangerous situation if more and more people begin putting garages
in the alley. Staff member Olt said that if that were the case, the project that pushed the threshold
would be responsible for paying for the paving of the alley. There is also the potential for repays to be
set up. He notes that the decision to pave an alley is on a case by case basis, and by no means says
that this will occur in every situation.
Member Schmidt was concerned that if neighbors started using the alley, and one decides to build a
garage and tips the threshold, he would be responsible for it. Staff memberr Olt responded that he
thinks it would be illogical to build garages and provide access back there. Member Fries said that if
the properties on the west side built garages, it might be an improvement because the fences are
clearly built too close. McKee added that it is actually a little bit less than 20 feet, and that they
dedicated another 8 feet off of that alley for the new development.
Member Fries wanted to state that none of the public comments really addressed the modification
issues. He also noted that the word "character" was used several times. He thinks that the
development has demonstrated character by the effort to maintain existing landscape.
Chair Lingle said that he has been on the fence about this. He believes that this is what this zoning
district can become in the next 20 to 30 years, but that it is a jolt right now. He thinks that this
neighborhood has a lot of untapped potential and he is in favor of the development project.
Staff member Olt added that two blocks down Elm Street on the north side of the road, a developer
built two large, two-story homes. At the time they were unsure about it, but there have not been any
adverse comments and now the homes are occupied and acceptable to the neighborhood.
Chair Lingle noted that he thought it was commendable that the emphasis is internal to the courtyard,
rather than having the four families out to the perimeter. Lingle stated that he is concerned about the
alley. He thinks that it could become a problem in the future, especially if additional properties begin
to use it as access.
Project: Fall 2006 Biannual Revisions, Clarifications, and Additions to the Land
Use Code
Project Description: This is a request for the Recommendation to City Council regarding
the biannual update to the Land Use Code. There are proposed
revisions, clarifications, and additions to the Code that address a variety
of subject areas that have arisen since the last update in the Spring of
2006.
Staff Recommendation: Approval
Hearina Testimony, Written Comments and other Evidence:
Staffmember Shepard noted the biannual Land Use Codes changes are to be considered by the
Board in this evening's review. He brought to the Board's a memo distributed earlier in the evening
referring to where we will be broadening the color range allowed in the electronic reader board sign.
Planning & Zoning Board
November 16, 2006
Page 9
They also received an 8 1/2" x 11" version of the map for the transit oriented development area where
the multifamily parking standard would be in effect. Many of the items were discussed at their work
session. Shepard was prepared to go through them one by one if that is how they chose to proceed.
Both he and staff member Barnes (who's assisting on many of the changes) are prepared to answer
any questions.
Chair Lingle said what he would like to review as they normally do —which is approve like a consent
agenda except for those items that Board members wanted further discussion. Since there isn't
anybody in the audience, they will proceed with no public participation. Members noted which items
they wanted pulled for further discussion.
Member Schmidt made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board approve the Land Use
Code Changes recommended except for item number 670, which is amending 3.2.2, item 730,
which amends 4.1.61), item 740 amending 3.2.4D3, and 744 amending 3.8.7.
Member Fries seconded the motion.
Motion passed 6:0.
Item 670 amending LUC section 3.2.2 K(1)(a) related to parking for multi -family in the Transit Oriented
Development areas
Member Schmidt asked if the TOD area broadens would it be automatically reviewed? Staff member
Shepard responded that it would have to come back to the Board as a code change and then to City
Council for two readings.
Member Rollins wanted to know if they (the Board) were establishing an overlay district. Staff
member Shepard said that essentially they were, noting that currently it includes the work done on the
Mason Street Corridor, Campus West, and the main campus area (which includes College and Laurel,
Shields and Laurel.)
Member Rollins expressed some concern about the Campus West area because it seemed far too far
to the west. Member Schmidt disagreed. She wondered why it stopped there. In response,
Staffmember Shepard said that there is a well -traveled bus route that heads west on Elizabeth. He
said that they didn't want to go west of the CC Zone or the Campus West Study area.
Chair Lingle asked what research backed up the recommendation to eliminate the parking
requirement, instead of reducing it. Staffmember Shepard responded that many changes have
occurred over the last 6-12 months since the Board last looked at this issue. City Council has
provided some new criteria and they have been working with some multi -family developers in the
area, including Atrium Suites and Johnson Mobile Home Park. They have implemented some non -
vehicular structures in these areas, like bike and bus routes. There is the potential for some Federal
Grant money as well.
This has been an evolving issue. City Council gave staff additional review criteria under neighborhood
compatibility in 3.5.1 that speaks to spill over parking. Council was comfortable with reducing required
minimum parking, but they also want something that would address the potential impact of spill over
parking. Staff now has new criteria and as a result of that and think it is pretty effective. The other
thing that we are hearing is that there is potential for receiving significant federal grant money by
demonstrating a true commitment to multi model development, Transit oriented design and reducing
Planning & Zoning Board
November 16, 2006
Page 10
vehicle miles traveled. All of these things came together really in the last 6-12 months, I think we
have progressed along a continuum and it is our feeling that this community is ready to take that step.
It is a bold step and we haven't tried to undersell it. It is significant but we think it is definitely the
direction this community needs to take, if we are to work within a fixed GMA boundary and commit to
infill and redevelopment.
Chair Lingle asked if staff was confident that Council will support a zero parking requirement. Staff
member Shepard replied that the Council is very much attuned to this issue. They came up with the
idea —let's not get into quantitative numbers, let's get into a neighborhood protection criteria. If you
look at that TOD map and you go north of Laurel Street (e.g. Myrtle/Meldrum area,) it might not make
sense for there to be zero parking. We could invoke that neighborhood compatibility criteria and
recommend zero parking denied. We are prepared to look at these on a case by case basis.
We have property acquisitions currently going on (West Prospect and south of Prospect Road.) I have
contacted these potential applicants about this particular code change. They were going to give you
letters of support. That didn't happen, but it is a significant item.
Chair Lingle asked if we have any specific places adjacent to the TOD boundary that would be multi
family zoning, where on one side we have zero parking and on the other side is this line to have a
standard parking requirement.
Staff member Barnes responded that the NCB boundary was adjusted so that, for the most part,
except for a small area off of Laurel and Myrtle and across from campus, the NCB is no longer in the
boundary.
Member Schmidt made a motion for the Planning and Zoning Board to recommend approval of
the Land Use Code change number 670 to amend 3.2.2(K)(1)(A) on parking.
Member Stockover seconded the motion.
Motion passed 6:0
Item number 730 amending 4.16(D). the Downtown Zone Development Standards.
Member Schmidt moves to approve Land Use Code item number 730 to amend 4.16(D), the
Downtown Zone Development Standards.
Member Rollins seconded the motion.
Motion failed. Vote was 3:3 with Fries, Meyer & Lingle voting no.
Chair Lingle believes that Item 730 (to revise building height standards in the Canyon Avenue and
Civic Center sub districts of the downtown zone) is an unnecessary step. He does not support
building standards on a block by block basis.
Member Schmidt commented that, although she agrees with Chair Lingle, she does feel that it
provides guidelines and sets expectations in certain areas.
Member Fries agrees with Chair Lingle, feeling that many of the blocks that allow taller buildings will
never redevelop (like the post office.)
Planning & Zoning Board
November 16, 2006
Page 11
Revisit Item number 730.
Near the end of the meeting, the Board decided to revisit the motion on this item. They wanted to
approve the rest of the standards except for the building height (where the reservations existed) so
they could put forward some yes recommendation on everything else.
Member Schmidt recommended the approval of item number 730, amending section 4.16(D),
the Downtown Zone Development Standards, with the exception of the height cap on the
blocks with the tallest buildings —all of the other height standards would be acceptable.
Stockover seconded the motion.
The motion passed 4:0 with Fries and Meyer voting no.
Chair Lingle responded that that motion may not address all of the reasons why they voted as they
did. Member Meyer agreed with establishing design standards, but was not happy with the height
limits.
Member Fries said that he was not comfortable with going block by block and limiting the potential for
height. Chair Lingle responded that he is okay with some blocks having a lower height limit, but that
he doesn't see what the difference is between 12 stories and 14 or 16 stories. Member Fries replied
that he feels that this will limit the overall height of what downtown may look like. Chair Lingle retorted
that this is more concerned with the open, developable space that could develop to greater heights.
Staff member Shepard added that Council emphasized that the heights should have a plus or minus
after them. Council also said that if private off-street parking or underground parking is part of the
project, then that would be considered a public benefit and is one of the justifications to modifications.
Chair Lingle responded by saying that the plus or minus meant about 5 feet, not 30 feet.
Member Schmidt makes a motion to approve the Land Use Code item number 740, amending
3.2.4(D)(3), the lighting design standards
Member Stockover seconded the motion.
Motion passed 6:0.
Item number 744 amending 3 8 7 Sign Code to update the regulations of election signs electronic
reader boards, and temporary banners and pennants.
Member Fries stated that he would like to amend the amendment to allow for an additional 20 days for
all organizations, both for -profit and no -profit. Member Stockover disagreed, saying that for the
overall public good, 20 more days is unnecessary. Staff member Barnes said that the Council
believes that there are enough banner days already.
Planning & Zoning Board
November 16, 2006
Page 12
Member Fries asked how many businesses applied for permits. Staff member Barnes replied that the
number was in the neighborhood of 693 for almost 300 different businesses. Fries further responded
that he does not think that allowing potentially 300 businesses to go another 20 days will do
tremendous damage.
Member Stockover said that he was in support of the current code because it gave an extra
advantage to new businesses, and would support giving new businesses an extra 20 days during the
first year.
Member Schmidt asked how this is enforced. Staff member Barnes responded that the staff receives
a report of the banners that should be removed, and uses that during their four times a week zoning
inspections.
Member Schmidt made a motion the Board approve Land Use Code item number 744,
amending the section 3.8.7, the Sign Code.
Member Stockover seconded that motion.
Member Fries made a motion to amend the motion. He'd like to see 40 versus 20 days
in Section 3.8.7 (n). Member Meyer seconded the motion. The amendment motion
failed 2:4 with members Meyer, Schmidt, Stockover, and Lingle voting no.
Motion passed 6:0
Chair Lingle stated that he would prefer that businesses used the colors, so that they could use colors
specific to the time of year, as long as the brightness was regulated. He said that they would have to
come up with some type of language to regulate the brightness. Staff member Barnes said that the
current technology on reader boards does not allow for multiple colors from day to day. Chair Lingle
responded by saying that green and blue will be added, to include the following colors: amber, blue,
green, and white.
Other Business:
None.
Meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m.
c
Cameron Gloss, Direc r Dave Lingle, Board Cha