Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 05/15/2008Chairperson Schmidt called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Roll Call: Campana, Lingle, Rollins, Schmidt, Smith, Stockover, and Wetzler Excused Absences: Staff Present: Gloss, Eckman, Bracke, Olt, Maizland, Shepard, and Sanchez -Sprague Agenda Review. Director Gloss reviewed the Consent and Discussion agenda. Of special note: on the Consent agenda —at staffs request Item 2 Meadowview Campus of Fort Collins PUD, # 2-08 will be moved to the Discussion agenda and Item 3 Downtown River District Plan will have a short presentation before approval of the Consent agenda. Discussion agenda: Item 5—a new item (800) has been added to 2008 Annual Revisions, Clarifications & Additions to Land Use Code. Amendment 800 will add 2.1.2(GXH)-overview of Development Review Procedures —to allow an applicant of a complex development proposal to request a non -binding hearing with City Council for preliminary comments. Citizen participation: None Chair Schmidt asked members of the audience and the Board if they wanted to pull any items off the consent agenda. There were no further changes. Consent Agenda: 1. Minutes from the April 17, 2008 Planning and Zoning Board Hearing 3. Downtown River District Plan Discussion Items: 2. Meadowview Campus of Fort Collins Park Project Development Plan, # 2-08 4. Text Amendment of the Land Use Code to Amend the Definition of Farm Animals 5. 2008 Annual Revisions, Clarifications & Additions to Land Use Code Project: Downtown River District Plan Project Description: The Downtown Development Authority (DDA) and the City of Fort Collins, along with the consulting team of HDR Engineering and BHA Design, have jointly developed the Downtown River District design project to address the lack of sufficient public infrastructure to support infill development and redevelopment in the Downtown River District area. This project has been funded by the DDA and is co -managed by the City and the DDA. Recommendation: Approval Planning & Zoning Board May 15, 2008 Page 2 Presentation Transportation Planning & Special Projects Director Kathleen Bracke reported the Downtown River District design project includes the development of conceptual level engineering plans for needed transportation and utility improvements for the area including Jefferson, Willow, Lincoln, and Linden streets. These infrastructure improvements are needed to support existing conditions as well as provide a framework for future development within this important area of Downtown Fort Collins. The improvements made to the River District are designed to be respectful of the river and its surrounding natural environment. All project elements support and follow the suggestions of the Poudre River Enhancement Project. In addition, the River District project team has received creative suggestions from the community and the Landmark Preservation Commission on ways to incorporate historic information and interpretive educational opportunities throughout the proposed streetscape improvements. The River District improvements can be an exceptional opportunity to showcase Fort Collins' rich cultural heritage and celebrate the beauty of the natural environment. The designs for the proposed River District address interim and ultimate improvements, including cost estimates for both "basic improvements" as well as "enhanced" features, and a prioritized phasing process. In addition, the project has identified potential funding and implementation strategies for the recommended streetscape improvements, parking strategies, and transit service enhancements. The project team has also identified a list of "action items" recommended to support the on -going momentum and community excitement for the Downtown River District improvements. The final (draft) report for the Downtown River District design project has been developed to summarize the project and community involvement process, as well as provide conceptual design plans for each street within the project area, recommendations for prioritizing improvements (short- term & long-range), and suggested funding strategies and other "action items" that should be pursued to continue on -going implementation of the Downtown River District improvements. The Downtown Development Authority (DDA) and the City's Transportation Planning, Traffic Operations, Engineering, Advance Planning, Current Planning, Natural Resources, and Utility departments have developed the Downtown River District design project to address the lack of sufficient public infrastructure to support infill development and redevelopment in the Downtown River District area. This project has been funded by the DDA and is co -managed by the City and the DDA. The consulting team of HDR Engineering and BHA Design has been very instrumental in developing the Downtown River District project and final report. The transportation and utility improvements that come about through this project will help this area achieve the visions and goals set forth by City Plan and the Downtown River Corridor Implementation Program as well as the recommendations from the "UniverCity Connections" partnership among the City, DDA, Colorado State University, and the Community Foundation. These infrastructure improvements are needed to support existing conditions as well as provide a framework for future development within this important area of Downtown Fort Collins. The North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) and the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) are considering a proposal from the City & DDA for a Congestion Mitigation & Air Quality (CMAQ) grant to conduct a detailed alternative analysis and engineering design process for the Jefferson Street (SH14) streetscape improvements and the potential intersection improvements at Jefferson Street & Mountain Avenue. Final approval for this CMAQ funding will be determined later this year. In addition, the North Front Range MPO and CDOT have approved federal Planning & Zoning Board May 15, 2008 Page 3 Enhancement program funding to begin implementation of the Linden Street streetscape improvements north of Jefferson Street in 2009. The City and DDA will continue working together with the MPO, COOT, and other potential funding partners — both public & private - to further expand the implementation opportunities for the Downtown River District. The project team has also identified a list of "action items" recommended to support the on -going momentum and community excitement for the Downtown River District improvements. These action items include the City and DDA: 1. Actively pursuing future grant funding opportunities from a wide -variety of potential sources to build the recommended improvements, 2. Exploring short-term & long-range parking strategies, 3. Conducting an inventory and assessment of available land within the City limits and/or Growth Management Area boundary for industrial businesses wishing to relocate out of the River District, and 4. Supporting the implementation of the UniverCity Connections recommendations for the River District, particularly the wayfinding/information system improvements and new transit loop to link the project area to/from Downtown and the surrounding areas. It is important to keep in mind that the timing of the actual construction of the recommended improvements will be determined based upon available funding sources and development activity within the project area. However, it is necessary for the City and DDA to work pro -actively over the next few years to help encourage and support the exciting transformation of the Downtown River District. Bracke and Co -Project Manager Matt Robinalt of the DDA asked the Board recommend to City Council the adoption of the Downtown River District Plan. Wetzler asked Bracke about the increased volume of traffic on Jefferson when it is narrowed down to three lanes. He stated that trucks use one side and local traffic uses the other, and when that is combined, there is a bottleneck. Bracke stated they will continue to work with CDOT to ensure that they are not doing anything in these improvements that would not handle the capacity for any of the streets. She also stated that they are continuing to discuss the combined truck and local traffic issues. Member Schmidt stated her concern with parallel parking is that it holds up traffic flow more than diagonal parking. Wetzler stated that the pedestrian crossing across the round -about seem to be counterproductive and asked how that would be managed with the traffic volume. Bracke responded that round-abouts have proven to work well for pedestrians in an urban environment. The main consideration is the slower vehicle speeds. Member Stockover moved for the approval of the Consent Agenda including minutes from the April 17, 2008 Planning and Zoning Board Hearing and a recommendation to City Council to approve the Downtown River District Plan. Member Campana seconded the motion. Motion was approved 7:0. Planning & Zoning Board May 15, 2008 Page 4 Project: MeadowView Campus of Fort Collins Project Development Plan, # 2-08 Project Description: This is a request for a long-term care (assisted living & memory care) facility on 3.8 acres. There will be a total of approximately 90,350 square feet of floor area in one (1) 3-story building containing 33 memory care rooms and 57 assisted living residential units. The maximum height of the building will be 37' to 40', with a walk -out basement at the east (downhill) end of the building. A total of 41 parking spaces will be provided on the site. The property is located at the northwest corner of triangle Drive and South College Avenue. There will be two (2) points of vehicular access to the site from Triangle Drive. The property is in the MMN - Medium Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood Zoning District. The proposal does not comply with Section 3.2.2(K)(1)(a) in that the project will provide a total of 41 parking spaces on -site, which includes 57 assisted living residential units (49 1-bedroom and 8 2-bedroom). Based on the number of l- and 2-bedroom units, the minimum parking requirement for the residential units is 88 spaces. The Applicant has requested a modification of this standard. The Applicant's Request and City Staff Evaluation are included in the associated Memorandum to this Staff Report. The proposal does not satisfy standards set forth in Section 3.5.3(Bx2) Orientation to Build -to lines for Streettront Buildings. The portion of the building facing Triangle Drive does not meet the maximum 15' setback requirement for at least 30% of the total length of the building along the street, as set forth in Section 3.5.3(B)(2xa). The Applicant has requested a modification of the standard. The Applicant's Request and City Staff Evaluation are included in the associated Memorandum to this Staff Report. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested modification of standard (parking) set forth in Section 3.2.2(K)(1 xa). Staff recommends approval of the requested modification of standard (build -to lines) set forth in Section 3.5.3(13)(2)(a). Staff recommends approval of the MeadowView Campus of Fort Collins, Project Development Plan - #2-08. City Planner Steve Olt reported this proposal complies with the purpose of the MMN District as it provides a long-term care facility that is part of a large overall development plan (ODP) for commercial and residential uses. There is an existing single-family residential neighborhood to the west, a planned business office park to the south (across Triangle Drive), and an existing commercial nursery business directly to the north. The ODP links together the NC District with MMN - Medium Density Mixed -Use and LMN - Low Density Mixed -Use Districts by a planned network of streets and trails. Planning & Zoning Board May 15, 2008 Page 5 The proposed MeadowView Campus of Fort Collins, a long-term care (assisted living and memory care) facility, will consist of one (1) large 90,350 square foot building containing 33 memory care rooms and 57 assisted living residential units on 3.8 acres. This will be a 3-story building, a maximum of 37 to 40' in height, with a walk -out basement on the east (downhill) end of the building. A significantly large detention pond/water feature will be on the east (low) end of the site, between the building and South College Avenue. There is an existing irrigation ditch/wildlife corridor on the west end of the site, between the building and the existing single-family residential to the west. The property is located at the northwest comer of Triangle Drive and South College Avenue. Two (2) points of vehicular access to the site will be from Triangle Drive. A total of 41 parking spaces will be provided on the site. The applicant is requesting a modification of standard for Section 3.2.2(K)(1Xa) of the LUC. This proposed development plan is for a senior assisted living, congregate care facility. The applicant has submitted information indicating that the transportation (personal automobile) needs of a senior resident in this type of retirement community are significantly lower than those of a typical multi -family resident. The majority of the residents do not own private cars and they all have alternate transportation available for use. There will be 30 - 45 direct employees for the facility, which operates on a 24-hour, 3-shift basis (7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., 3:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m., and 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.). Typically no more than 15 - 25 employees will be in the facility at any one time, with the largest number being on the day shift from 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. There will be a full kitchen, community dining room, and other common areas in the 3-story. The applicant's proposed Site Plan would provide less paving associated with parking, which would decrease storm water runoff, and provide additional setbacks and landscaping on -site. Staff finds that the development plan as submitted would result in a plan that is equal to or better than a plan that complies with the parking standard. The applicant is also requesting a modification of standard for Section 3.5.3(B)(2)(c) that requires the building to be located at least 10' and no more than 25' behind the street right-of-way (ROW) of an adjoining street that is larger than a two-lane arterial street. The proposal does not, and can not, satisfy the standard set forth. The east elevation of the building faces South College Avenue, a major arterial 6-lane highway, and is set back 188' from the ROW for the street. However, due to the extreme topography of the site as the landform goes from west to east (approximately a 24' drop), and the need to locate the required detention pond at the east (downhill) end of the site, it is infeasible for the building to satisfy this section of the LUC. In this case, the building location is supported by the exceptions set forth in Sections 3.5.3(B)(2)(d)2(a) & (b) that state: If the building abuts a four -lane or six -lane arterial street, and the Director has determined that an alternative to the street sidewalk better serves the purpose of connecting commercial destinations due to one or more of the following constraints: o high volume and/or speed of traffic on the abutting street, o land form. Although the long-term care facility (containing residential units by virtue of inclusion of microwave ovens) is not a true commercial use, the nature of the facility is better served both functionally and physically by the greater setback from South College Avenue, both a high volume and high speed State highway. Staff recommends approval of the requested modification of standard (parking) set forth in Section 3.2.2(K)(1)(a); the requested modification of standard (build -to lines) set forth in Section 3.5.3(B)(2)(a); and the MeadowView Campus of Fort Collins, Project Development Plan - #2-08. Applicant Fred Fuller reported the project follows the concept of a congregate care property. The proposal is specifically designed for the needs of senior citizens. A wide spectrum of services is Planning & Zoning Board May 15, 2008 Page 6 provided to residents that live in their own private studio or apartment. The average MeadowView resident is approximately 82 years old. There are approximately 93 units contained in one 90,350+/- gross square foot structure. This will be a 3-story building, a maximum of 37 to 40' in height, with a walk -out basement on the east (downhill) end of the building. A single level area on the west is dedicated to memory care residents. A significantly large detention pond/water feature will be on the east (low) end of the site, between the building and South College Avenue. Fuller presented a slide that showed a cross section of the project across the slope of the lot and how three levels of retaining walls would be used to fit the project into the somewhat narrow lot with a steep grade. He showed what an adjacent property owner's view might be looking east to the lake. He said, as much as they could, they tried to mitigate the impact on the neighborhood. They want to be good neighbors and believe this type of project would have far less impact on the neighborhood than another allowed in the MMN zone that had higher activity/noise. He believes the proposal — directed to helping seniors— added value to the community. Member Wetzler asked if there was a control on the number of resident automobiles. Fuller responded that most residents do not own autos because of their 82+ ages and those employees will be parking in the main lot. Member Lingle asked about the detention pond. Fuller responded that it will be a non -potable detention pond shared with Fossil Creek Nursery. Public Input Greg Greaves who resides at 7114 Strasburg Drive addressed three issues. Greaves felt the transportation impact study is incomplete because it does not address how many cycles drivers have to sit through to access the Avondale to Trilby intersection to finally go north on College. He also stated that it is his opinion that the left turn from Triangle to north College is too dangerous. Secondly, he feels that this will truly be a four-story building, and the developer's claims that it is a three-story with walk -out basement are simply an attempt to meet the three-story limitation. His concern is that he will lose his beautiful view of Benson Lake; a view for which he paid a premium. The marketability and value of his property is going to be in peril as a result of this proposed project. Finally, Mr. Greaves feels that sufficient parking spaces have not been allotted to the project. End of Public Input Member Lingle moved to approve the request for modification of standard set forth in Section 3.2.2(I)(1)(a) of the Land Use Code based on the findings of fact in the staff report. Member Rollins seconded the motion. Motion was approved 7:0. Member Lingle stated he's comfortable with the rationalization the applicant provided for the modification of standard for parking. Chair Schmidt agreed. Chair Schmidt asked Matt Delich of Delich Associates to address the traffic concerns. Mr. Delich stated that the number of trips generated by this particular development is extremely small. The first left turn on to College is a legal turn and drivers can wait in that legal waiting area until traffic clears from the south. Although this intersection is a potential signalized intersection, it will not meet the criteria or warrant for a signal with this development. Neither the City nor the State will put a signal in that location until or unless it meets one or more of the signal warrants in the manual on uniform traffic control devices. Staff Olt addressed Mr. Greaves' concerns regarding building height. Based on the average height of the structure and the square footage, this is defined as a three story building with a walk -out Planning & Zoning Board May 15, 2008 Page 7 basement at the east end by the City of Fort Collins Building Department definition. The MMN district allows for a three story building based on the number of stories, not the height of each story. Member Lingle asked Staff Olt to confirm that since there is no definition of a basement in the Land Use Code, was the definition of a basement taken from the Building Code. Staff Olt confirmed that. Fuller affirmed the definition used by the Building Department is in the IBC, and it states that 50% or more of the lower level slab floor be below grade. Chair Schmidt asked that the parking space calculations be addressed. Member Olt stated 41 spaces are proposed. Eighty-eight parking spaces would be required for the 57 assisted living units. The 33 memory care rooms do not have a minimum parking requirement. There is also a .75 parking space per employee guideline. But, that is a maximum parking allowance, not a minimum parking requirement. It is up to the developer as to decide what their needs are. The applicant has submitted information indicating that the transportation (personal automobile) needs of a senior resident in this type of retirement community are significantly lower than those of a typical multi -family resident. The majority of the residents do not own private cars and they all have alternate transportation available for use. Typically no more than 15 - 25 employees will be in the facility at any one time, with the largest number being on the day shift from 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. Staff finds that the development plan as submitted would result in a plan that is equal to or better than a plan that complies with the parking standard. Chair Schmidt asked about bus service and delivery vehicles. Delich responded that the bus on College this far south is the Foxtrot bus with service to Loveland. Fuller stated that there will be one truck a week that will deliver food supplies. They are consistent in their building size and number of occupants, so are certain one truck will handle food supplies and will arrive in the middle of the day. There may also be occasional pick-up truck or % ton truck deliveries. Member Campana mentioned the standard of .56 parking per bed. Fuller responded that number is used in national studies as to the average of like facilities usage. It includes employee parking. Fuller also stated that the parking lot will be empty most of the time. Chair Schmidt requested information on the outdoor lighting. Staff Olt responded that there are three 25' pole lights on the light plan. Chair Schmidt asked about future development plans that might trigger a warrant for a traffic light at College and Triangle; and, if that does occur, who will pay for it. Member Olt reviewed development status for the immediate area and stated there are no developments planned in the immediate future that would trigger a warrant. The developer that causes the intersection to meet the warrant would be responsible to pay for the signalized lighting. Member Lingle asked about fire protection. Kevin Forbes with Stewart and Associates responded that the building is going to be compartmentalized and that will take care of fire access. The building will have full sprinklers and there is a safety spot for the residents to exit into the court yards. The parking lot in the front of the building has adequate room to swing the required pumper truck. The pumper truck has a 3-point turn on the east side of the building. There is also a roadside stop along Triangle. Director Gloss stated the Poudre Fire Authority evaluated the plan through the internal review process. Olt reviewed sight lines from the back yard of the affected homes and stated that the property has been zoned MMN since the adoption of the Land Use Code in 1997. Fuller stated that the houses which will have an obstructed view are houses No. 4 and No. 5. Number 6 is going to be to the north of the building looking right over the nursery. Numbers 1 and 2 will be looking right down the parking Planning & Zoning Board May 15, 2008 Page 8 lot, and No. 3 will be looking over the memory care roof and across the administration roof. Stockover confirmed that the affected lots are Lots 109 and 110. Member Lingle moved to approve the request for modification of standard set forth in Section 3.5.3(13)(2)(a) related to the build -to line based on the findings of fact in the staff report. Member Rollins seconded the motion. Member Lingle asked Olt, in the evaluation of the modification of standard, if it ever becomes apparent that the proposed use or building footprint is inappropriate for the lot. Member Olt responded yes. In this case, it was evaluated based on their program, their building footprint and the site. Member Stockover asked if part of the building could be moved down into the detention pond to make better use of the square footage on the lot. Forbes responded that there are two elements that make it almost impossible to move the building towards the east. One is the detention pond which is also a detention easement that's been established; the second is that the elevation of the lower level cannot be changed. Stockover stated he felt that hardship is self-imposed because there are other sites in Fort Collins that would be suitable. He questioned whether they are trying to put too much on the lot. Campana asked if the build to line is on Triangle. Member Olt confirmed that it was. Wetzler asked if any compensation would be granted to the homeowners losing their view of Benson Lake. Attorney Eckman stated that property owners don't possess view rights across their neighboring property. Campana stated it is his opinion the applicant has done a good job of mitigating the view issues because the developer could have done three stories right at the edge of the first building. Campana stated that a multi -family development that met minimum density requirements, parking requirements, market demands would be much more obtrusive than the building the developer is proposing. Member Olt added that a multi -family development would also add a vehicular impact to the area. Motion was approved 6:1 with Member Stockover dissenting. Member Lingle moved to approve MeadowView Campus of Fort Collins Project Development Plan, # 2-08 based on findings of fact starting on page 9 of the staff report including the revised colored elevations presented at the hearing tonight and which replace the black and white copies originally distributed in the staff report. Member Campana seconded the motion. Schmidt asked if a zoning change could be initiated for an individual piece of property. Director Gloss stated that only a property owner, or group of property owners can initiate a petition for rezoning. Attorney Eckman stated that requests for rezoning can be initiated by City Council, the Planning and Zoning Board, or the Director. Lingle stated he thinks perhaps too much building is being put on this land and is concerned about the walk -out basement. He stated that anyone looking at this from South College will view it as a four- story building and the building has a significant visual impact. It is Member Stockover's opinion that the building is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Smith asked about the consideration given to individual site topography at the time of zoning. Staff Gloss replied there is none. At the time of Land Use Code (LUC) adoption, they looked at existing neighborhoods, existing land uses and creating the proper transition using concentric circles from neighborhood commercial areas out to the lower density neighborhoods. Planning & Zoning Board May 15, 2008 Page 9 Chair Schmidt asked for confirmation of the three-story height limitation. Member Olt stated it is in the LUC. The height of a story can vary, but the LUC is based on a story, not a defined height. Stockover asked if that included the roof or attic space. Member Olt said a story is defined as a habitable floor and that an attic space is not habitable. Rollins asked if there will be assisted living units in the basement. Fuller responded there will be walk -out basement units which are considered premium units. Based on the basement living units, Rollins felt there are four stories of habitable units. Staff Olt responded that it is the building department's opinion that there is a three-story building with a walk -out basement. Schmidt stated she feels the developer has done a good job of buffering the portion of the building close to the neighbors. She also felt that a smaller project with less scale would still impact the views. Wetzler stated he feels the use is not incompatible even though the building is so tall, and based on the definition, he would vote in support of it. Motion was approved 6:1 with Member Stockover dissenting. Project: Text Amendment to the Land Use Code to Amend the Definition of Farm Animal Project Description: This is a citizen -initiated request for a Recommendation to City Council regarding a Text Amendment to the Land Use Code. The proposal would amend Section 5.1.2 which is the definition of "Farm Animals." The effect of the change would allow up to six chicken hens in all zones of the City. Chickens are presently included in the definition and, therefore, are allowed only in the zones which allow Farm Animals (RUL, UE, and RF). Recommendation: Approval Chief City Planner Ted Shepard reported The Land Use Code allows for a Text Amendment to be initiated by a citizen. Presently, chickens are allowed in the RUL, UE and RF zones, with no restrictions. The request would broaden the allowance to all zones, but subject to limitations. These restrictions would apply to all zones except the RUL, UE and RF and be placed in the Animal Control section of the City Code. The limitations would require that only chicken hens be allowed with a limit of six. In addition, roosters would be prohibited. Further, chicken hens must be contained within a secured enclosure at least 15 feet from all property lines. Finally, no slaughtering would be permitted. Staff recommends approval with restrictions listed in the staff report. Enforcement would be undertaken by the Larimer Humane Society, they are contracted by the City for animal related Code enforcement. Dan Brown, the citizen who initiated the text amendment to the Land Use Code, is in support of the change of the definition of farm animals because of issues surround sustainability--local food production and food security. He thinks hens number six or few shall be considered pets and not be considered farm animals for the purpose of the land use code. He believes hens are viable as pets because they are: • less disruptive to the public than outdoor dogs and cats • locally raised eggs for personal consumption are a part of the sustainable lifestyle Planning & Zoning Board May 15, 2008 Page 10 • positive and public steps to raising urban hens has taken place in places such as Seattle, WA, Portland, OR, Cedar Falls, IA, Missoula, MT, and Madison, WI The only impediment to allowing the raising of urban hens in the City of Fort Collins is the wording of the Land Use Code definition of farm animals. He seeks the Board's support in changing the text. Member Wetzler asked how the chickens are cared for in the winter. Brown responded one way is a covered wind proof enclosure with heat. A 75 watt lamp would provide the heat they need. The area should be kept free of snow. Member Wetzler asked about code enforcement relative to people taking care of the hens. Chair Schmidt said it will most likely be what's in the Municipal Code now --when someone sees neglect, you call the Humane Society. They investigate and with established criteria such as whether there's water, food, etc.; they make an assessment of whether it's an abuse situation or not. Member Lingle asked how the number of hens allowed (six) was determined. Brown replied the number came from what other cities regulate —Missoula, MT has six and Seattle, WA has unlimited. They also considered what number would best be suited to a typical urban lot. Member Lingle asked how long the hens lived. Brown replied in the city a hen could live an average of 7-8 years-10 years if they are well cared for. Member Lingle asked if they typically lay eggs their entire life. Brown responded the average is about 5 years. He added they are also looking at chickens as pets —not solely as a food source. He knows of properties in the county that could be considered 'retirement homes' for hens. People take them to live the remainder of their lives there. Brown said they are very satisfying pets —'"sitting in the back yard and watching them is more satisfying than most television shows." Member Lingle asked if they died how you handle disposition. Is it cremation by a veterinarian? Brown replied it would be handled like any other pet body after death —you'd have to dispose of it in an approved manner —which would probably mean cremation. Member Campana referred to a slide in which hens were compared to pot belly pigs and goats —you'd have to prove compatibility in their case. Campana asked for standards (criteria) used to evaluate the compatibility of urban hens. He'd like to educate himself and use the same criteria to evaluate his recommendation. Brown said historically hens have been a part of Fort Collins' past. Campana agreed they had played a role in the past but that was when we had a more rural setting. Brown said criteria would be the small amount of space needed, their small size, little noise if properly cared for, no smell if their environment was kept clean, and a non -aggressive animal. You could consider the criteria used for domestic animals —hens would meet and exceed those criteria. Member Campana said that Rigden Farms had a community garden. He asked what Brown's thoughts were relative to a community farm. Is it necessary for every home to have six hens? Brown replied owners want to take personal responsibility for their hens. In a community setting you have questions about ownership and who's responsible for taking care of them. If you put them as a community resource, you add layers of complexity that aren't necessary if you allow individuals to own them privately. Member Campana noted at Linden Lake they have community horse stables as a part of the neighborhood and that seems to work out well —it seems to deal with ownership and caretaking. Campana thought it was good in that it contained the animals in one location within the neighborhood. People who move in the neighborhood understand and accept that. Campana saw issues relative to Planning & Zoning Board May 15, 2008 Page 11 neighbors being unhappy about moving by a neighbor with six hens. (In a community setting, there would be an understanding and acceptance of the situation.) Member Wetzler said that in many HOAs (home owners associations) there are restrictions that out buildings have the same appearance as the home. In view of the developments of what HOAs can enforce, he was curious how the impact the text amendment would have on HOAs. Deputy City Attorney Eckman said there would be no impact. The regulations Wetzler is referring to apply to conservation—xeriscape gardens, clothes lines, photo cell collectors, composting, turf grass. It does not pertain to chickens or chicken homes. If you had an HOA that prohibited chicken houses, the code section would not "trump" that restrictive covenant. Member Campana noted that was not the response they had gotten at work session when he'd raised the question. Does that mean you could have hens but not a protective enclosure? Director Gloss replied that Eckman had stated it accurately —the HOA covenants would trump this Code section. The staff member who responded at work session misspoke. Member Lingle said this text amendment would be in the definition of farm animals. Are definitions modifiable? So someone couldn't come in and ask for 12 chickens. Shepard said definitions are not modifiable. Member Rollins asked Brown if he'd had chickens before. Yes. Rollins asked if he had dealt with chickens in an urban setting. He replied he was aware of many people in Fort Collins who have chickens. Public Input Marti Morgan, 433 N. Roosevelt, stated a lot of reference has been made to chickens in urban areas. The Fort Collins LUC amendment does not speak to domestic ducks, geese, etc. They are legal in the City of Loveland. In fact, in her old neighborhood there were 4 or 5 homes with chickens and it was never a neighborhood issue. They did not have noise problems with chickens like they did with dogs. She said that given the small number being considered, they could be housed quite unobtrusively. Also, it's quite easy to keep chickens warm in the winter without heat. If heat is added, the chickens are more likely to lay eggs all winter. Curt Lyons lives in unincorporated Larimer County. He would concur with the winter care of the hens. If you have an insulated building you don't necessarily need supplemental heat. The bigger challenge is providing daily water as it does freeze. A couple of tongue and check things about chickens — never heard of chicken biting a mailman, chickens don't make a peep after dark, chickens don't kill local songbirds, they only eat insects and worms, and chickens don't urinate or defecate in neighbor's yards. You don't have to spay or neuter your pets because your neighbors have chickens. Also, they have 4 hens and they do not always lay daily eggs so maybe that's why six is recommended. Lastly, he has a 3 Y2 year old daughter and it gives her great pleasure to collect the eggs. End of Public Input Member Smith moved to approve the text amendment to the Land Use Code to amend the definition of farm animals to include hens including the specific recommendations and restrictions as spelled out on page 2 of the staff report. Member Wetzler seconded the motion. Member Lingle added for the record the Police Department is opposed to this revision. Shepard confirmed their opposition is noted in the staff report. Planning & Zoning Board May 15, 2008 Page 12 Member Smith is in support of the change especially as it relates to food security. He appreciated the humorous comments made both by Mr. Brown and Mr. Lyons. If he lived somewhere he could have them he would. Unfortunately his HOA will not allow them. Chair Schmidt noted she lives in a rural area on the north side of Fort Collins and there are many properties with chickens. Unfortunately there are also many roosters so she was happy to see that roosters have been excluded in urban Fort Collins as they do make a lot of noise. Chickens have been a great benefit. As far as enclosures, children's play houses rival chicken coops. She thinks they will not likely be an issue. She supports the motion. She thanked the individuals who worked with the applicant to get this changed —many people will benefit from this. Member Lingle said he was not going to support the motion just because the precedent issue is of concern to him. Chair Schmidt commented that it was not a concern for her as anyone who wanted any further changes would need to show their benefit and that they are compatible in a neighborhood —if they could do that, she'd be in support of a change. Also, we can start with this and develop a track record. If there are issues, it may make it harder for anyone else to have. It's also a Code item that can be reassessed at some later date. Member Stockover said he's had chickens on a large lot (1/4-1/2 mile from his closest neighbor.) It would be tough if you lived in a denser population to have a neighbor with a chicken really close. You have to really want to have chickens. Kids like them for three weeks and then dad has them for six years. I will support it. I don't think, however, you'll have that many people who want to go through the challenges of having chickens. Member Rollins said she does have chickens. She lives in an UE (Urban Estate) zone. I am going to support this and she agreed with what Member Stockover said. It is a bit of work but the eggs are totally worth it. She did have concerns about predators. (She had a friend who lives in an HOA where they are not allowed and the neighbors are upset because they have a lot of predators —even going through their yard to get to the chickens.) I think there are some things that will play out and it will be a learning experience for the City. Member Campana said he will not be supporting it. With the compatibility standards we're talking about, we could apply them to a pot belly pig just as easily as a hen (comparing to a dog —the space it needs, size, aggression.) It helps that the CCRs (HOA restrictive covenants) over rule this text amendment. In many neighborhoods, however, they do not have CCRs. He was fearful that there will be people who will try it and they won't know what they're doing. While he likes the ideas of fresh eggs and free range chickens, he just doesn't think they have a place in an urban setting. He thanked the applicant for his efforts. Member Wetzler asked if there were any restrictions on an older neighborhood HOA establishing CCRs. Eckman said there were no restrictions in the Code. He's not familiar with State law. He suspects it takes "a pretty heavy majority' maybe even an absolute majority to create one. Motion was approved 5:2 with Members Campana and Lingle dissenting. Chair Schmidt thought it would be a good idea to work with the Humane Society for the times that it didn't work out for some households. Maybe they could develop a referral list for individuals who would take chickens. Planning & Zoning Board May 15, 2008 Page 13 Applicant Brown said there are currently a number of individuals in city limits with 'underground' chickens. He thanked the Board for their support and hoped for success with the change as relates to sustainability. Project: 2008 Annual Revisions, Clarifications & Additions to the Land Use Code Project Description: This is a request for a Recommendation to City Council regarding the annual 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 2007. Recommendation: Approval Chief City Planner Ted Shepard reported there are fourteen proposed items that change, clarify or add to the Land Use Code. The revisions, by Article, are summarized as follows: • Article One — Organization — one change • Article Two — Administration — zone change • Article Three — General Development Standards — four changes • Article Four — Districts — five changes • Article Five — Terms and definitions — three changes Item 800 has recently been initiated at the City Manager/City Attorney's office level. The proposal will --Add 2.1.2 (G)(H) —Overview of Development Review Procedures —to allow an applicant of a complex development proposal to request a non -binding hearing with City Council for preliminary comments. That item was added after the work session. A memo outlining the change was distributed prior to the Board hearing. The board agreed they were ready to act on items 780-799. Member Lingle moved to approve the 2008 Annual Revisions, Clarifications and Additions of the Land Use Code, items 780-799. Member Campana seconded the motion. Member Stockover asked if item # 794, Exemptions from Building Height Regulations would have affected the case previously heard? Shepard said the change would amend 3.8.17 (C) Building Height Regulation to resolve a discrepancy with 3.5.1 (G) — Building Height Review. Section 3.5.1 (G) requires that buildings greater than 40 feet in height above grade shall be reviewed and evaluated for impacts on view, lights and shadow, privacy and neighborhood scale. Section 3.8.17(C) lists seven building components that are exempt from the building height regulations. One of these exceptions is "elevator bulkheads and stairway enclosures." The proposed solution would be to continue to allow the exemption, but only a long as elevator bulkheads and stairway enclosures cover no more than five (5) percent of the horizontal surface area of the roof. This allowance of up to 5% coverage matches the allowance offered by "cooling towers, ventilators and other similar equipment that cover no more than five (5) percent of the horizontal surface area of the roof." The solution resolves a discrepancy between two code sections. Motion was approved 7:0. Planning & Zoning Board May 15, 2008 Page 14 ffiI�I�� Eckman reported that presently the Code does not offer a process by which an applicant may seek informal feedback or preliminary comments from City Council regarding complex land use proposals that involve both legislative and quasi-judicial decisions on the part of the City. Council may consider applications via the quasi-judicial process such as an appeal of an O.D.P, or a P.D.P., by a party -in - interest. Council may also take action via the legislative process such as consideration of an annexation; Comprehensive Plan element; zonings or re -zonings of more than 640 acres; or establishing an urban renewal district, tax increment financing district or special improvement district. For land development proposals that have a high degree of complexity and involve both kinds of decision, there is no process for either applicants or City Council to engage in an informal dialogue about the feasibility of the overall proposal. Direct, on -the -record communication between applicants and Council may provide information for both parties that otherwise could not be communicated. Both City Council and potential applicants have indicated that a new format that allows preliminary, but non -binding feedback would benefit all parties. The proposed solution would be to add a new section to Article Two that establishes a review procedure for the purpose of receiving preliminary comments from the City Council. The new section would also clarify that it would be inappropriate for an applicant or other members of the public to talk to the City Council, the Planning and Zoning Board or the Hearing Officer "off-the-record" outside of the hearing process about a development plan. Whenever an application for approval of a development plan also entails the approval of an annexation for petition or an amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan or some other kind of legislative action by the City Council, the applicant for such approval may request that the City Council conduct a hearing prior to submittal of the development application or annexation petition for the purposes of receiving preliminary comments from City Council. Such a hearing will then be held in accordance with the provisions contained in Steps 6, 7(B) and 7 (C) of the Common Development Review Procedures, except that the signs required to be posted under Step 6(B) shall be posted subsequent to the scheduling of the hearing and not less than fourteen (14) days prior to the date of the hearing. At the time of requesting the hearing, the applicant must advance the City s estimated costs of providing notice of the hearing. Any amount paid that exceeds actual costs will be refunded to the applicant. At the conclusion of the hearing, members of the City Council may, but shall not be required to, comment on the development plan. Any comment, suggestion, or recommendation made by any Councilmember with regard to the development plan is gratuitous and does not bind or other wise obligate any City decision maker (including this Board) to any course of conduct or decision after an application for approval of the plan has been submitted. Is it permissible to talk with decision makers about a development plan prior to the decision makers' formal review of the application? No. Development plans must be reviewed and approved in accordance with the provisions of this Land Use Code and the City's decision whether to approve or deny an application must be based on the criteria established herein and on the information provided at the hearings held on the application. In order to afford all persons who may be affected by the review and approval of a development plan an opportunity to respond to the information upon which the decision regarding the plan will be made, and in order to preserve the impartiality of the decision makers, all decision makers who intend to participate in the decisions are encouraged to avoid communicating with the applicant or other members of the public about the plan prior to the hearings in which they intend to participate. Planning & Zoning Board May 15, 2008 Page 15 It's important to an impartial tribunal in the event of an appeal. That's why we want to make sure it's non -binding. Eckman has never seen a case where there's been an open public hearing (and they can provide non -binding feedback) that later biased individual council members on appeal. If the content of a hearing is quasi-judicial matters it becomes more difficult to avoid bias. They are trying to fashion a way that this meeting can be held with Council prior to the filing of an application. It's modeled somewhat after the City/County of Broomfield, City of Loveland and others. Public Input. None Chair Schmidt asked the following questions: • Is only one hearing allowed? Eckman responded yes. ■ Where will the notice be posted? Shepard replied on the Public Meeting Notice Board at City Hall and via a legal notice in the Coloradoan. • Can other people such as staff participate in the hearings as information providers? How will City Council get all the correct information on whether it meets the provisions of the Land Use Code? Eckman said he couldn't answer those questions from the language in the recommended amendment. His opinion, however, is it's a hearing and with notice gives anyone who comes has an opportunity to speak. • Would Council be given contextual information by staff such as sub -area plan information when applicable? Would that be allowed at the hearing or would that be considered biased? Eckman responded staff could participate and answer questions. It was not intended, however, that the Planning & Zoning Board participate. The intention is to keep the Board's process separate, purely quasi-judicial, and free from tainting the process. Member Lingle asked how it would not taint their process. Eckman replied the Board would not be involved with the hearing so you wouldn't hear their particular input. Lingle asked if an applicant got non -binding comments from City Council first, wouldn't City staff present at that hearing not take into account the non -binding comments? Wouldn't that influence their recommendations to the Board? Eckman responded that the staff would be instructed that the Land Use Code is their guiding document as it is the Board's. Member Lingle said he thinks this is one of the most incredibly bad ideas he's heard in a long time. Member Lingle asked about the proposed paragraph G—"Any comment, suggestion, or recommendation made by any Councilmember with regard to the development plan is gratuitous and does not bind or otherwise obligate any City decision maker (including the Board) to any course of conduct or decision after an application for approval of the plan has been submitted" —that's just so unrealistic --to really think that would not happen. I can think of an example since I've been on the Board of something that came up between the City and the State of Colorado relative to moving the rest areas. There were all these "deals" that had been made between the City and the State for land exchanges and open space prior to it coming to the Board. It was behind the scenes and the Board knew nothing about. They made a recommendation to City Council 7:0 against the development. City Council overturned that decision and then chastised them for not following their direction for which they were not even aware. Chair Schmidt said it would be a waste of the Board's time if that's the way it's going to be. In the case of the City and the State of Colorado they spent a lot of time reviewing that. Planning & Zoning Board May 15, 2008 Page 16 Chair Schmidt asked how the Board would know that any of the recommendations made by a Councilmember will be based on the Land Use Code. Their recommendation could be different then the Land Use Code criteria the Board uses. Chair Schmidt said she understands that part of the reason for the change is to get some of the proposals more into the daylight. That's admirable —it goes to City Council, they make their comments. What if another municipality offer them more and the developer comes back to counter — how many hearings will they have? Is it going to alert other municipalities to our bargaining If we're going to bargain in the daylight, is every body else doing that? Or are we, in some respects, putting ourselves at a disadvantage? Eckman noted the more than one hearing is a good point that he'll take back to the managers. The number of hearings allowed should be clarified. Member Campana said that Schmidt had a good point about confidentiality. The way he sees it (as a developer,) however, is you get the chance to get a "gut check" on non -Code related items. If you need approval of a zoning change or a Comprehensive Plan change it would be good to know what direction Council wants to go. You'd get a sense of whether to proceed on spending your time and money --limit your risk to getting turned down later. When it comes to the Board, we'll use the Land Use Code —not what we're reading in the paper. He likes the proposal. Member Wetzler doesn't like the proposal for a couple of reasons: he thinks the change would "precondition" the outcome. If the project came to Council on appeal —wouldn't a Council member have already made their decision at the hearing? Also, he likes the way the system currently works —staff does an incredible job of working with the applicant/ Board. Member Rollins asked if the Board was being asked to vote on Item 800 tonight. Shepard replied yes. It's a LUC recommendation. Shepard said whatever action taken by the Board tonight will go to City Council at their June 3`d meeting. Rollins said the other code changes were worked on for two work sessions. Item 800 was given to them as recently as tonight. There are a lot of questions the Board has not even thought of yet. This is a very important proposed change so she feels very uncomfortable making a yes or no determination tonight. It doesn't seem appropriate. Member Stockover asked since this is an annual recommendation, would the Board be allowed to table the item and take it to a work session to review. Shepard replied the "annual-ness" is not written in stone. A good idea does not have to wait a year or any idea does not need to get rushed through. Staff has taken items out of sequence given the time of the year the idea was brought forward. Eckman added the City Manager wants the changes to go to City Council on June 3'". He'd think they'd want a yes or no versus a postponement. Member Smith asked how do applicants currently make queries about the Council's preference on legislative matters —is it through the City Manager? Eckman replied applicants can currently talk to Council on legislative issues (which are annexations, Comprehensive Plan (including sub -area plan) changes, and re -zonings greater than one square mile (640 acres.) Member Smith said if an applicant can lobby individual Council members on legislative issues, he didn't understand what would be gained by addressing the group. Eckman provided a theoretic example. In the case of Front Range Village for instance, the applicant wanted to speak to Council about a zoning change to the Harmony Corridor Plan, the applicant would need to lay out his general development concepts. Smith wondered how he could talk about rezoning and not talk about quasi- judicial matters —it becomes very difficult. Planning & Zoning Board May 15, 2008 Page 17 Chair Schmidt asked Director Gloss if a change had not already taken place that makes it easier for an applicant to come in to meet with staff without having to pay fees. Gloss responded there is a preliminary design review that is more comprehensive pre -application process. Staff collaboratively works through issues before a submittal. That process, however, does not involve the Council, the Board or the Hearing Officer. Schmidt asked if staff ever gives guidance such as 'this isn't going to fly; nothing like this has ever been built before...' Gloss said staff tries to identify fatal flaws early in the process and make it very clear, in their professional opinion, whether an application has a chance to go forward or not. Member Campana said staff does a good job at that —letting them know if modifications will need to happen to make the project fly. He thought the proposed change would be a valuable tool in the tool box for some of the complex issues for upcoming projects. He thinks there's a reason why they (developers and Council) are asking for it. The dynamics have changed regionally and this just gives us a tool to be more efficient in putting the best project forward on a particular piece of ground. Eckman stated that this does not apply to "any run of the mill" project that doesn't involve a legislative action on the part of Council. If it's simple application for a Planned Unit Development under the Land Use Code that's purely quasi-judicial, this process would not be available. Member Lingle said he thinks the Board understands how City Council feels if it's a Land Use Code or a modification of standards request. He thinks, however, this direction is off base. We either have a good planning review process or we don't. He doesn't think it should be changed on a whim based on what a neighboring municipality might do —it's not good planning. Chair Schmidt said she understands the issue and she remembers Council's frustration relative to the rest stops. Her thoughts are she wished we would have known. Whether their decision would have been different or not it would have been nice to know (possibly via a staff report.). Then it's up front ... you know what Council thinks ... you just then operate in the quasi-judicial arena for a decision. On the Front Village project the pressure was so intense on the timeframe (to beat other projects.) It was very obvious which direction City Council wanted to go whether there was an open hearing or not. She had concerns about the public notice of the hearing —posting on a bulletin board or in the Coloradoan doesn't really "cut it for me" to make sure the public is aware of a proposal. Member Wetzler thinks we're operating on thin ice if we move this to the political arena. We have a great review process as it is. He thinks staff —their work, their support of good ideas, and their collaboration with applicants works. It's not like the "ole days" when developers went down the road because the City was impossible to deal with. People have a much more positive outlook. They understand what kind of opposition (heat) they're going to have to face. He's not going to support the change. Member Campana said he'd like to rally a little more support for the proposal. The planning methodology is good —the support staff gives developers and the improvements the City has made — makes it friendlier for developers. In today's environment, however, it would be helpful to make some improvements at the starting gate level. There could be a project out there that would benefit the City in a number of different ways (something we may not even hear) because a developer says I don't even know what's going to happen there so I'm going to go to another community. He thinks we should have the option (within the context of what's good in the Comprehensive Plan) to keep the projects in our community. With every change there's pros and cons. This may not be 100% positive —there may be flaws. He thinks, however, it's necessary for what our community is dealing with. Planning & Zoning Board May 15, 2008 Page 18 Member Smith said he'd like to echo some of Member Rollins concerns. The proposal has some merit and some issues. He doesn't feel confident making a decision with limited analysis —not like analyses they've recently done on less significant Land Use Code changes. Like I tell my children: "If you want me to decide now, I guess I need to tell you no." Chair Schmidt asked staff members Gloss, Shepard and Eckman what really is our benefit to doing it this way—out in the open? I think we all know that discussions are taking place. It's still going to take time to schedule a hearing, to post a notice, to have a hearing. That could take on average four weeks and they could have had informal conversations in the meantime. Plus, you're also saying they're having those conversations with other municipalities. She's not sure what we're gaining by doing this. Eckman replied as it says in the problem statement, "both City Council and potential applicants have indicated that a new format that allows preliminary, but non -binding feedback would benefit all parties." Eckman said relative to the Board's perceptions that conversations are taking place —that's not so. The City doesn't support developers talking to City Council members "out of school." We think they honor that. This proposal would provide a forum for that dialogue. Schmidt asked if developers talk to staff who will take the content to City Council in work session. Eckman said staff does not take Project Development plans to City Council in work session. Shepard said they present potential amendments to sub -area plans. For example, there may be a pretty substantial revamp of the Mountain Vista Sub -area Plan and the South College Corridor Plan. They're staff initiated and not the result of any one developers —it's just good Comprehensive Planning. Chair Schmidt asked if a developer can talk to staff and ask them to take a particular issue to City Council. Shepard replied that does not happen now. Eckman said that is what the proposed amendment would allow. It doesn't fit the format of a work session. It' better to have a written procedure with notice and not to confuse it with Council work sessions. "If you're going to do it, do it under a specific procedure." Member Stockover asked if there was going to be a procedure for reporting non -binding recommendations made by City Council. Eckman thought the Board should receive their applications as they've always had and measure them against the Land Use Code. If the Council decides they want to make legislative changes to the Land Use Code before it's reviewed by the Board that would be their prerogative. He'd like to suggest we keep our process here just focused on the Land Use Code. Shepard said the Land Use Code requires that any changes to the Land Use Code first come to the Planning & Zoning Board (to make a recommendation to Council.) Eckman reminded them that Council would be free to approve or deny any recommendation made by the Board relative to the Land Use Code. Shepard asked Eckman if it would be appropriate that a request for hearing minutes be delivered to the Board in a certain time frame. Eckman replied the Board should feel free to make any change requests to the proposal. He'd already made a note related to having one hearing. Eckman said that a recommendation one way or the other would be appreciated by City Council. Member Stockover said he's not as concerned as other members about a developer's plan to get the approvals they need. Boards change —City Council and Planning & Zoning. They still need to concentrate and satisfy Land Use Code requirements. He didn't think that adding this step would really change the outcome. Planning & Zoning Board May 15, 2008 Page 19 Chair Schmidt used an example —Bayer Property (Front Range Village.) There was a lot of pressure to approve it as a life style center and the Board did that (even based on very sketchy drawings.) Then they were back asking for a big box project. It's hard to deny a project when there's been a collaborative work relationship. It's hard to change in the middle of the stream and say no. Chair Schmidt asked how long this new non -binding process would take last. Would it change with a new City Council? This Council may say this is a good vision and its two years down the road before this vision (a development) materializes. Eckman said it's non -binding in the first place so even if Council changes, it shouldn't affect the process. Say an appeal comes —Council might be persuaded by the Board's decision (with their level of more current detailed information) than with the information they had at the preliminary hearing. Member Smith wondered about the quality of the deliberations —given a hearing is in the early stages of planning a development and an apolitical review. A hearing may be inadequate to insure a high quality development. Then, later on, if the developer's plan is for an appeal (should the Board deem they do not meet the requirements of the Land Use Code,) it doesn't seem like it would be in the best interests of the citizens. Member Campana said P&Z just makes recommendations relative to changes of the Comprehensive Plan. We're only ruling on actual Land Use Code issues. The intent is everything outside of what we're doing. Generally speaking you can design your project around that Code Book —it either works or it doesn't. It may involve modification requests. The wild card here is has the vision of the Comprehensive Plan changed? Has the vision of the Harmony Corridor Plan changed? Has the vision of 1-25/Harmony changed? What they're trying to accomplish here is to get a "gut check" from the decision makers on those issues. Member Wetzler says he thinks the proposal is a compromise that will undermine the integrity of the system —little by little "it'll turn the boat upside down." Chair Schmidt asked if the Board was ready to give direction. Do you want to have a vote? Another option might be we could just list individual comments. Staff member Shepard said that a recommendation is requested —a vote to approve or deny is being requested. Member Campana moved the Planning and Zoning Board recommend the adoption of Land Use Code Item 800 with changes that there be one hearing and a summary of that hearing be given to the Planning &: Zoning Board. Member Stockover seconded the motion. Member Wetzler thinks there will be unintended consequences —the process has been too quick. Chair Schmidt said that was her general feeling. She can see both sides. She can see there would be a benefit to people but 1 think this is being rushed through and I don't like the feeling of that. There are some things to be taken into consideration --do you want to do more public announcement, what exactly would be covered? I don't think the Board's been given ample enough time to discuss (even with the Board's Council Liaison.) At this point in time, she cannot support it. The motion failed 2:4 with Members Smith, Lingle, Wetzler and Chair Schmidt voting no and Member Rollins refraining from voting. Eckman asked if it is to be interpreted that the Board does not recommend the adoption of the LUC Item 800. The Board agreed that is the interpretation. Eckman asked if the Board wanted to make a motion that would make their recommendation more clear. Member Lingle said we did not support a Planning & Zoning Board May 15, 2008 Page 20 positive recommendation to Council —he does not see that it's not clear. If we need to do something different we could. Eckman said that if you want us to take that to Council we will. Chair Schmidt says that pretty accurately describes how some of us feel —at this time, with the way it's been proposed they do not recommend the adoption of LUC Item 800. Member Smith said that perhaps with a more thorough analysis and discussion (work session or what have you) there could have been a different outcome. Member Wetzler said that he could be convinced if whatever takes place does not circumvent processes that are there for very good reasons... thus, the unintended consequences concerns. Other Business: Director Gloss wanted to remind the Board of their retreat, Friday, May 23. The agenda is being finalized. In fact, one of the discussion items is LUC Item 800. We'll have the opportunity for the Deputy City Manager to address the Board and talk more about the specifics of the Code change. Council Liaison Diggs Brown will be there to talk to the Board about topics of mutual concern. Meeting adjourned at 10:40 p.m. C eron Gloss, ector Brigitte �'