Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 01/15/2009Chair Schmidt called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Roll Call: Campana, Lingle, Rollins, Schmidt, Smith, Stockover, and Wetzler Staff Present: Dush, Eckman, Olt, Virata, Leavitt, Wilder, Bracke, and Sanchez - Sprague Agenda Review. Director Dush reviewed the Consent and Discussion agenda. Of special note is the addition of the Election of Officers and staffs request that Item 3-- North College MarketPlace Overall Development Plan, # 42-08 be moved from Consent to the Discussion agenda. Election of Officers Member Lingle made a motion to continue with the existing officers (Brigitte Schmidt as Chair and Butch Stockover as Vice -Chair) for the following year. Rollins seconded the motion. The motion was approved 7:0. Citizen participation: Betty Aragon-Mitotes lives at 140 2nd Street in the Buckingham neighborhood (an area with 84 homes.) She said she has concerns because of the proposed Bohemian music venue, which will be very close to them, and the proposed Cultural District sound ordinance, which will increase the decibel level from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. to 70 decibels (from 55) and from 8 p.m. to 7 a.m. to 60 decibels (from 50.) They are already experiencing noise problems with the current levels on New Belgium's movie night. Decibel level testing conducted by Code Compliance staff showed levels of 59.4, 53.6 and 54.5 (above the currently allowed 50 decibel level.) The noise is disruptive to the "working poor neighborhood" whose residents work two jobs and who need peace and quiet. She thinks it's not a good fit. She also thinks the changes will gentrify the area and the elderly and working poor will be at risk of losing their affordable housing. They expect development to be good neighbors. She's asking when this proposed ordinance comes before the Planning & Zoning Board; they consider the impact to their neighborhood and not approve the recommended changes. Cheryl Distaso, who works for the Center for Peace and the Environment, recommends a better understanding of what 70 decibels is (and what 60 decibels is for the one and'/z hour period after a concert as the crowd leaves.) She suggests a sound simulation at the site so the neighbors can get a better understanding of what the proposed changes mean. What they do know and are experiencing now (4-5 times a year) is New Belgium movie night noise. They deem that intolerable. She believes outreach is crucial and with technology and today's "know-how", she believes it's important to help the neighborhood get a better understanding of what they're expected to endure. Distaso said they can then comment on whether or not they believe they can live with it based on a better understanding of what's proposed. Ms. Distaso noted she attended a recent Bohemian Foundation outreach at El Burrito the previous evening. Their representative said they plan to move from an open amphitheater design to an enclosed area similar to the Lincoln Center terrace. She Planning & Zoning Board January 15, 2009 Page 2 does not understand why the Bohemian Foundation will continue to support the proposed decibel increases and she does not understand why the levels need to be that high. Her concern is the noise at the property line. Even with efforts to mitigate with berms, etc; allowing a 70-decibel level is still a concern. She looks forward to continuing to work with the Board as the issue continues to evolve. Chair Schmidt noted the Sound Ordinance would be for the whole Downtown Cultural District not just for that one particular venue. The geography of the Downtown Cultural District is hundreds of acres in size. The southwest quadrant of a proposed district is the Lincoln Center. The northeast quadrant is in the New Belgium area. Director Dush said that staff would be looking at identifying and addressing, the concerns of the neighbors. One thing that will be important is to identify the areas of concern. Staff will be putting together a frequently asked questions/answers list and keep it a "living" document so it can be tracked through the process. Chair Schmidt added that public comment will still be invited at neighborhood meetings for individual projects. Matthew James Gomez said he is a resident of Buckingham. He loves Fort Collins and appreciates its culture, music, and community events. What he doesn't like is when he's trying to go to bed at night and there's noise. He goes to work early in the morning and the New Belgium movie sound track can be heard through his open window (one he has to keep open in the summer because he does not have air conditioning). With the proposed decibel level increase, it'll affect him, his family and his neighborhood. He thinks his neighborhood is low on the economic "totem pole" and they don't have a "really big voice". He invited the P&Z Board to go to his home on a New Belgium movie night and they can hear for themselves. Where they are planning to build the Bohemian music venue is right across from 1" Street. It is 200 feet from his doorstep. He asked the Board to consider the proposed Sound Ordinance and how it affects the people in Buckingham. Teat Luna, 141 15` Street, said he's lived in the neighborhood since the early 1970s. He is against the noise. It used to be very quiet until all the breweries came into the area. He doesn't like it, he doesn't want it, and he doesn't think they can say it's not going to be too loud. He can hear the sound when they have concerts in the downtown area and he's "half -deaf." He asked the Board to consider what's going to happen with the Oxbow and the two breweries -there's going to be a lot of noise and traffic. He's against the Sound Ordinance. Consent Agenda: Chair Schmidt asked members of the audience and the Board if they'd like to pull any items from the Consent Agenda. An audience member asked that item # 2, Hellenic Plaza, Major Amendment, # 41-08 be pulled from the Consent Agenda. Member Lingle made a motion to move item # 4 Centre Avenue Residences —Modification of Standard, # 37-08 to the Consent Agenda. Member Smith seconded the motion. The motion was approved 7:0. 1. Minutes from the December 11, 2008 Planning and Zoning Board Hearing 4. Centre Avenue Residences — Modification of Standard, # 37-08 Member Stockover moved to approve the consent agenda which includes item # 1, December 11, 2008 Planning and Zoning Board Hearing minutes and item # 4 Centre Avenue Residences — Modification of Standard, # 37-08. Member Campana seconded the motion. The motion was.approved 7:0. Planning & Zoning Board January 15, 2009 Page 3 Discussion Items: 2. Hellenic Plaza, Major Amendment, # 41-08 3. North College MarketPlace Overall Development Plan, # 42-08 5. Recommendation to City Council Approving the South College Corridor Plan, Making Related Changes to City Plan and the Land Use Code and Rezoning Certain Properties along the Corridor. Project: Hellenic Plaza, Major Amendment, # 41-08 Project Description: This is a request to change seven (7),of the nine (9) retail units on the ground floor in the approved Hellenic Plaza, Project Development Plan (PDP) to seven (7) two -bedroom apartments similar to those on the second and third floors, above, at the north end of the building. This will result in a total of 46 residential dwelling units, up from 39 dwelling units, and 2 retail units in the project. The two (2) retail units will remain on the ground floor in the prominent corner of the building at the South Shields Street — Birch Street intersection. The property is in the MMN, Medium Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood and NCB, Neighborhood Conservation Buffer Districts. Recommendation: Approval Hearinq Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence Member Lingle left the Chambers because of a conflict of interest on this project. Chair Schmidt asked the audience member who requested that item 2, Hellenic Plaza, Major Amendment, # 41-08 be pulled from consent if he wanted a presentation or if he had a specific question. Public Input Arnold Drennan said his concerns deal with the neighborhood. It looks like a good project. It's adjacent to CSU and the neighborhood around it is exclusively rental property; however, it is all zoned single family low density residential. As more and more commercial is developed, what is the potential for getting the property adjacent to all this commercial zoned for duplex or other uses? Chair Schmidt noted Mr. Drennan was talking about a rezoning issue in the neighborhood around the project. Drennan said yes. He added just west is a vacant lot near Tri Delta.House and there are houses right next to it. Schmidt said she thinks the correct place to take his concern is to Planner Steve Olt or Planning Director Dush since his concern is about rezoning in the area and not the specific Major Amendment for Hellenic Plaza. (The plan has been approved and the amendment isa change from some retail space to some apartment space.) Director Dush offered to give Mr. Drennan his business card and contact him afterwards End of Public Input Planning & Zoning Board January 15, 2009 Page 4 Board Questions: None Motion: Member Stockover moved to approve item 2, Hellenic Plaza Major Amendment, # 41-08. In support of his motion, he adopts the Findings of Fact/Conclusions as contained on pages 8 and 9 of the Staff Report: A. The proposed land use (mixed -use dwelling) is permitted in the MMN, Medium Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood District. B. The PDP complies with all standards located in Division 4.6 — Medium Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood District of the Land Use Code. C. The proposed land use (mixed -use dwelling) is permitted in the NCB, Neighborhood Conservation Buffer District. D. The PDP complies with all standards located in Division 4.9 — Neighborhood Conservation Buffer District of the Land Use Code. E. The Major Amendment complies with all applicable General Development Standards located in Article 3 of the Land Use Code, with the following exception: the standard located in Section 3.2.2(J) - Setbacks. A modification to the minimum landscape setback standard for parking lots along a lot line was approved by the Administrative Hearing Officer on February 4, 2008. G. Staff finds that the Major Amendment plan as submitted, based on the proposed land use and its contextual compatibility with the surrounding land uses, is not detrimental to the public good. Member Smith seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6:0. Member Lingle returned to Chambers. Project: North College Marketplace Overall Development Plan, # 42-08 Project Description: This is a request for an Overall Development Plan (ODP) on primarily undeveloped property being approximately 28 acres in size at the northeast corner of North College Avenue and East Willox Lane. The ODP consists of Phase 1: Open Space/Wetlands on 11 acres on the east and north sides of the property; and, Phase 2: Supermarket, restaurant, bank and small retail uses on 17 acres on the south central and southwest portions of the property. The ODP excludes the existing North College Motors and Pobre Poncho's properties and residential properties on the north side of Grape Street. The property is zoned CCN, Community Commercial North College. Recommendation: Approval Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence Staff presentation: City Planner Steve Olt reviewed the project site information and reported this is a proposal as set forth in Section 2.1.3(B) (2). An ODP shall be required for any property which is intended to be developed Planning & Zoning Board January 15, 2009 Page 5 over time in 2 or more separate project development plan submittals. This request is for a 2-phase ODP on 28.3 acres. Phase 1 is identified for Wetlands (in the development review process but has not yet ready to go to public hearing) and Phase 2 is identified for Commercial Uses (supermarket, gasoline station, standard & drive-in restaurants, small retail, and bank. Phase 2 is in the development review process (been through one round) but is as not yet ready to go to public hearing. The applicant currently has a PDP for Phase 1, containing existing wetlands on 10.9 acres, and a PDP for Phase 2, containing the commercial shopping center on 17.4 acres, in the City's development review process. Tonight the Board is reviewing the overall development plan for the property as required by the Land Use Code (LU.C). It is to establish general planning and development control parameters for projects that will be developed in phases with multiple submittals while allowing sufficient flexibility to permit detailed planning and subsequent submittals. Approval of an ODP does not establish any vested rights to develop property in accordance with the plan. This is a request for approval of a 2-phase ODP for wetlands and commercial land uses permitted in the CCN, Community Commercial —. North College District, as defined in Section 4.19(13)(2)(b)4 — Public facilities, Section 4.19(B)(2)(c) — Commercial/Retail Uses, and Section 4.19(13)(3)(c)4 - Supermarkets of the City of Fort Collins LUC. The wetlands are considered a public facility, a Type 1 Review which will go to a Hearing Officer. North College MarketPlace, by virtue of a proposed supermarket, is a Type 2 requiring Planning & Zoning Board review. That Project Development Plan (PDP) is not being discussed tonight. Applicant's Presentation: Bruce Hendee, BHA Design, said he did not have a lot to add. At the work session there was a question about access points along College Avenue. The very top one (at the very north) currently is the approved access under the CDOT Access Control Plan. As a part of this development there will be a change request to move that access point to the south. If that is approved, the Grape Street access will be eliminated. If that's not approved, the Grape Street access is the one that will be used. Hendee said the Board also had a question about access around College & Willox where North College Motors and Pobre Poncho's are located. As part of the development plan, the access will be preserved for them and will come from the access arrows that are shown on the ODP. Pobre Pancho and North College Motors access off College & Willox will be closed with access on the back side of their properties. Their access is preserved as a part of the overall development. The City, through the Urban Renewal Authority, is building the streets as well as the wetlands. They will own those when the project is completed. They will have pedestrian access that'll connect the project to College. Pedestrians will have easy access into the site. As part of the development, they will be providing sidewalks along College Avenue on the west side. There is a sidewalk that is shown on the plans that goes in front of the Mini - Mart (west side) but it will not extend along the west edge of the road at this time. Taking with the civil engineer, they noted the College Bridge is limited so providing pedestrian access across it is difficult (if not impossible). The project will be providing a pedestrian bridge over the Larimer/Weld Ditch. As part of the upgrade of the overall North College there will be landscaped medians on College. There will be high -quality, upgraded landscape installed along the frontage of the shopping center. They have two areas that will be gateway development through both urban design and landscaping and it will really enhance entry experiences. The details of all of that will be available through the Project Development Plan (PDP) that will come at a later time. Planning & Zoning Board January 15, 2009 Page 6 Hendee said Eric Holsapple of Loveland Commercial, LLC; Lindsay Shelphant of Ayres & Associates and Eric Bracke, the transportation consultant, are present and available for questions. Board Questions: Member Lingle thanked Mr. Hendee for providing the ODP drawing. Lingle noted the internal circulation from the new access points is not really depicted on the ODP. Does the ODP assume the access points stay as they are currently? Lingle asked if the ODP should depict (with arrows) that internal circulation is being provided to the Pobre Pancho's and North College Motors properties. Olt said what we're looking at is a driveway connection internal to the site. Typically the ODP is showing major points of access into the properties without getting into the lower level internal circulation patterns. Olt said if the Board felt it appropriate, they could make that kind of a modification to the plan. Member Rollins asked for clarification, will there not be new pedestrian sidewalks on the west side of College Avenue. City Engineer staff member Marc Virata understands the Urban Renewal Authority is in favor of having sidewalks along the west side of College abutting the property. The final details have yet to be worked out. Technically it's not related to this project. Rollins asked if Engineering would work out that design of College Avenue. Virata said yes. Member Rollins asked for clarification of pedestrian access across College Avenue. She was concerned the residents of the mobile home park near the Y will not have a crossing until they get all the way down to the signalized. intersection of Willox & College. Virata said that's what they are currently working towards. Member Stockover said that when he looked at that he envisioned them crossing at the light at the "Y" and coming down that pedestrian bridge north of the project —it'd be the shortest route for the residents of that mobile home park. Stockover said that is a signalized light. Chair Schmidt said on her way into the meeting she noted it takes one full cycle if you're trying to make a turn south on College and there's one pedestrian crossing the intersection. They'll definitely need to make changes to the light cycles if there's going to be heavy pedestrian crossings. Member Rollins said it is difficult to get pedestrians to walk out of direction' when they're trying to go the opposite direction. It takes a lot of encouragement. She recognizes that determination is not associated with the ODP but with the Project Development Plan (PDP). Depending on the distance, she's wondering if other pedestrian facilities between those two points should be made on College. Virata said they could certainly talk about that with the folks doing the design. Chair Schmidt said there is a large section that says 'limit of existing wetlands' in the middle of ODP Phase 2 portion. Is that part of the wetlands going to be filled in to enhance the other wetlands? If that part is affecting the other part, shouldn't the ODP Phase 1 line actually include that? Environmental Planner Dana Leavitt said to answer Schmidt's first question regarding the limits of the existing wetlands —those are being filled in as part of Phase 1 development for the Wetlands PDP. The other area within that Wetlands PDP will be used for mitigation of the impacted wetlands. As to the question of whether that area should then be a part of Phase 1, there had been an internal discussion and at that point it was decided that it didn't need to be. They could actually do grading work as a part of the plan approved for the Wetlands PDP. Schmidt said her only concern is when that PDP comes for Administrative Review and there are member of the public that want to speak to the wetlands issue, they really won't be able to speak to anything outside that particular Phase 1 PDP. If they have concerns about the other wetlands being filled in, they can't register their concern because it's not Phase 1. Leavitt said the Wetlands PDP Planning & Zoning Board January 15, 2009 Page 7 plan does include the work to be done around the existing wetlands —they show a "limits of construction line" that overlaps onto what will be the second phase. Schmidt asked if we've done this kind of thing before. Olt said this isn't unusual. What we're looking at is an overall development plan that shows ultimately the general planning concepts for the entire property. It accommodates what the ultimate phased plans represent in terms of land use and construction. Schmidt asked if it is more geared toward land use not what you're going to be working. on 15t or 2"d. Olt said that's correct. Schmidt said at the work session the Board had a lot of questions related to the traffic study. She wanted to confirm that by approving the ODP, they are not approving the traffic study that was a part of the staff report. Her impression is traffic considerations will be reviewed at the PDP stage. Olt said the traffic study was the one submitted with the Wetlands PDP. Schmidt asked why we're looking at a round -about on this ODP. Schmidt said she's a little leery of doing that at this phase when there is a lack of detail. Member Rollins asked if they could just add a note to the diagram that a round about or a standard intersection will be determined at the PDP stage. Eckman said it makes more sense to show it that way if the applicant agrees. Hendee said there are fine with it "just as an access point as long as they have the latitude later based on the traffic study to have the appropriate solution. " Concerning the `limits of construction line, Hendee said this is a land use relationship diagram. If the limits move around some, they'd rather just not have the line on there and still be able to do the - construction as is required. The reason that'd like that is they're finding some lime deposits based on sugar beet tailings on site that might require the limits to change. Member Campana asked if they wanted to take it off their ODP and put it on the PDP. Hendee said yes. Chair Schmidt asked if the line was there to show the level of construction that might be happening to work on the wetlands situation. Hendee said yes. Public Input: Barry Lewis asked if the point of this discussion was to approve certain uses for this development. Olt. said the ODP simply approves commercial uses on one portion and the wetlands use (to be retained) on the other. Lewis said he's involved with the center to the south and he agrees that the round about should be held off until there are further studies. He also had a question with regard to the road going through on Willox; will it be widened to the south? Is it a part of the traffic study and to be determined later? Chair Schmidt said as the specific proposals come in later, there will be more traffic/circulation information from which decisions will be made. Kathryn Swanson lives north of Spaulding Lane in the development built by Pete Sherman. It's called Falcon Hills. When they were at the last P&Z Hearing (Addition of Permitted Use,) they said there would be no pedestrian access from Spaulding Road but she understands on the new plan that there will be a pedestrian bridge so they can walk or bike to the center. She asked if you can only turn right at the three arrows noted on College Avenue. She asked if when you are coming from the North do you still have to go all the way to Willox to get access to the shopping center. Virata said if traveling south on College you could make a left hand turn either at Grape Street Access or the access just south of it. She also added they are thrilled that there would be wetlands preservation. End of Public Input Board Questions: Chair Schmidt asked if the Board was ready for a motion. Member Lingle said he'd like to talk about conditions first. Planning & Zoning Board January 15, 2009 Page 8 Lingle would also encourage the Board to consider having access arrows added to the ODP to show internal access to the two corner properties. The reason is this developer has every intention of providing that and they have worked diligently with those two property owners to do that. The ODP will survive this development so if this developer wouldn't proceed, there wouldn't be anything that would bind a future developer to honor the agreements that this developer has made. If we could add those to show some provision for internal circulation to those, he thinks that would be good. Olt asked for clarification —extend this arrow north and off that have a line with two arrows --one to Pobre Pancho's and the other to North College Motors. Hendee said that works. Member Campana asked if the Board could just condition the approval on providing access to those properties. Then the development agreement would have that language in there so we wouldn't need it on the ODP. Lingle said his concern is there may not be a PDP. Campana asked if they could condition it rather than showing it on the ODP. Lingle said he doesn't care if it's one arrow or two arrows, it can be one arrow with a note that says if it remains two individual properties, that access will be provided: Hendee asked if.they could put one arrow and just put a simple flag note that states that they'll provide access to those adjacent properties as necessary Chair Schmidt asked if there needed to be a revision to take the limits of construction line out. She's fine with that so long as it still allows people to use that area if they want to comment on Phase 1. Olt said they'll have that right. The filling of that existing wetland is part of the first filing Wetlands PDP and they will have the ability to comment. Chair Schmidt asked if a "limits of construction" line would be on the PDP. Olt said yes. Motion: Member Stockover moved to approve item # 3, North College MarketPlace Overall Development Plan, # 42-08. In support of his motion he adopts the Facts and Findings/ Conclusion as contained on page 5, 6 and 7 of the staff report. He also conditioned the approval: item 4 on page 5=Transportation to read primary access points to the property will be from 2 private drives from North College Avenue on the west and 3 private drives from Willox Lane on the south. The actual private drive locations, alignments and design are to be further determined with site specific development plans for the North College MarketPlace. Other conditions are the ODP depict the access as necessary to the existing properties currently occupied by North College Motors and Pobre Pancho's and the limit of construction will be eliminated from the ODP. Member Campana seconded the motion. Member Rollins asked to propose a friendly amendment to relative to Page 5, item 4: At the beginning —primary access points to the property from 2 (strike possibly 3). Olt said that would more correctly define what's actually going to occur. The motion above was changed to reflect that. Chair Schmidt asked if that change means the round about disappears from the graph. Stockover said it won't disappear, the design would be determined with site specific development plan. Schmidt said that wouldn't totally satisfy her. She would prefer the ODP does not show it on the diagram. Olt said the legally binding document, once approved, would be the ODP map. Rollins recommended they cross through the roundabout like a standard intersection and put a "to be determined at the PDP stage." Hendee said they'd like to just show an arrow and make a condition that the appropriate intersection solution is selected based on engineering and transportation standards. Schmidt said the motion language is fine; she just needs to know that the graph will change. Hendee said they're fine if they wanted to make a condition that the graphic be changed to add an arrow and not a roundabout because the solution will be determined later by the staff and the applicant. Planning & Zoning Board January 15, 2009 Page 9 Eckman said perhaps what you could do instead of that is simply require that the ODP diagram be amended as Mr. Hendee has suggested and make sure that staff checks that. Schmidt said the motion could be somewhere along the lines that we recommend approval of the ODP with the following changes: • Access arrows to the Pobre Pancho's and North College Motors • Limits of construction line omitted • Roundabout diagram would change to an arrow with the note added that the final intersection solution would be determined at the time of the PDP • Understanding that there are only going to be two access points off North College Staff said the number of access points off North College would be determined by CDOT. Stockover and Campana withdrew their motion. Chair Schmidt made a motion to recommend approval of the North College MarketPlace Overall Development Plan, #42-08 with the following changes to the ODP: • One arrow with a flag note the properties on the southwest (presently Pobre Pancho's and North College Motors) will have access as needed • Limits of construction line would be omitted • Roundabout diagram would change to one arrow and the final geometry of that intersection will be determined at the PDP stage In support of the motion she referenced the Fact and Findings/Conclusions on pages 5-7 of the staff report. * Section 2.3.2(H) (1) - The ODP is in compliance with the applicable criteria and zone district standards in the Land Use Code. As set forth in Section 2.1.3(B)(2), an ODP shall be required for any property which is intended to be developed over time in 2 or more separate project development plan submittals. This request is for a 2-phase ODP on 28.3 acres. Phase 1 is identified for Wetlands and Phase 2 is identified for Commercial Uses (supermarket, gasoline station, standard & drive-in restaurants, small retail, and bank). The applicant currently has a PDP for Phase 1, containing existing wetlands on 10.9 acres, and a PDP for Phase 2, containing the commercial shopping center on 17.4 acres, in the City's development review process. * Section 2.3.2(H) (2) — Although the ODP is in the CCN District this section of the LUC is not applicable because there are no residential uses being proposed as part of the project. * Section 2.3.2(H) (3) - The ODP conforms to the Master Street Plan requirements, the street pattern/connectivity standards, and the Transportation Level of Service Requirements. The ODP fronts on North College Avenue and Willox Lane. No other public streets are proposed with this ODP. It is considered to be in compliance with the Master Street Plan, as set forth in Section 3.6.1(B). The ODP, being approximately 28.3 acres in size, provides for multiple private drive accesses to both North College Avenue (to the west) and Willox Lane (to the south). The existing wetlands and the existing Larimer and Weld Canal makes the ability for connecting streets into the adjacent properties to the north and east unfeasible. The ODP is considered to be in conformance with Sections 16.3(A) - (F). The Traffic Operations Department and the Transportation Planning Department have reviewed and evaluated the required Transportation Impact Study (TIS), as set forth in Section 3.6.4(C), for development on the North College Marketplace property. The TIS is in conformance with the Transportation Level of Service Requirements. * Section 2.3.2(H) (4) - The ODP provides for the location of transportation connections to adjoining properties for vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle movement. As part of the proposed trail connection to Spaulding Lane (including the bridge across the Larimer Planning & Zoning Board January 15, 2009 Page 10 and Weld Canal as part of this development proposal) the North College Marketplace, ODP provides for pedestrian and bicycle circulation systems to Tavelli Elementary School via the existing street and sidewalk networks in the surrounding neighborhoods adjacent to the property, as set forth in Section 3.2.2(C) (6). The North College Marketplace, ODP provides for private drive accesses to North College Avenue (a 4-lane arterial street) and Willox Lane (a 2-lane arterial street). The existing wetlands and the existing Larimer and Weld Canal on the north and east sides of the property makes the possibility for connecting streets into the adjacent properties unfeasible. The ODP is considered to be in conformance with Sections 3.6.3(C) - (F). * Section 2.3.2(H)(5) - The ODP has two (2) existing wetlands and the Larimer and Weld Canal that warrant buffer zones and these features are shown on the plan. Compliance with Section 3.4.1 of the LUC is being addressed with the North College Marketplace, Wetland PDP that is currently in development review. * Section 2.3.2(H) (6) - The ODP is consistent with the Dry Creek Drainage Basin Master Plan. * Section 2.3.2(H) (7) - This section of the LUC is not applicable to the ODP because there are no residential uses being proposed as part of the project. * The ODP contains land uses that are permitted in the CCN, Community Commercial — North College District, as well as 2 additional uses (drive-in restaurant and gasoline station) that were approved by the Planning & Zoning Board. Member Lingle seconded the motion. The motion approved 7:0. Project: Recommendation to City Council approving the South College Corridor Plan, making related changes to City Plan and the land Use Code and Rezoning Certain Properties along the Corridor. Project Description: This is a request: to recommend to City Council, the approval of the South College Corridor Plan and related items, including: ■ amendments to City Plan involving changes to the City Structure Plan ■ changes to the Land Use Code, including o Division 3.11 - Development Standards for the South College Gateway Area o Division 4.20 Limited Commercial District (C-L) o Division 4.22 Commercial North College District (C-N) o Division 4.23 Neighborhood. Commercial District (N-C) .o Division 5.1 Definitions ■ Six (6) rezonings to comport with the South College Corridor Plan, City Structure Plan, and Land Use Code amendments. Recommendation: Approval Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence Staff presentation: Senior City Planner Timothy Wilder reported the South College Corridor Plan (SCCP) has been developed by City staff and a consultant team, including Jeremy Call of EDAW, with extensive public input. An on -going and extensive outreach program was initiated which provided a more inclusive audience for each stage of the plan development.. In total, eight public events were held along with numerous meetings with individual stakeholders. Added to the meetings were a 2,200 survey returns, Planning & Zoning Board January 15, 2009 Page 11 website, three project newsletters, direct mailings and other forms of outreach. In the final analysis, the decision to open the process from a CAC -type format to a broader audience was a good one in that staff received a wide -range of opinions from attendees throughout the study area at every meeting. The plan goals, policies, strategies and plan maps are a reflection of that extensive input. The 18-month planning process, initiated in fall of 2007, is scheduled for completion with adoption by City Council on February 17, 2009. Wilder reviewed Plan information including: • Plan Foundation • Existing Conditions and Issues • Vision • Framework Plan, Goals, and Policies ■ Land Use & Business Activities • A Complete Transportation System ■ Community Appearance and Design ■ Community Partnership & Financing ■ Natural Resources & Drainageways • Implementation City Structure Plan The primary elements of the Plan include vision, goals and policies, implementation, and Framework Plan map. Based on SCCP, amendments to the City Structure Plan map are needed to (1) change the land use designation west of South College Avenue, south of Retail Grove Natural Area, from Commercial Corridor District to Medium Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood, (2) change an area east of the South 13 subdivision from Low Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood to Service Commercial; (3) change an area east of the Kel-Mar Strip from Urban Estate to Commercial Corridor District; (4) change the area at the southwest corner of Trilby Road and South College Avenue from Low Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood to Commercial Corridor District; and (5) change an area at the northeast corner of South College Avenue and Carpenter Road from Urban Estate to Commercial Corridor District. Four other minor "cleanup" amendments to the Structure Plan are also proposed. They are considered minor because they provide consistency with the underlying existing land uses. Land Use Code Changes The Plan recommends changes to the Land Use Code. This is a recommendation to City Council for certain changes to the Land Use.Code, including a new Division 111 Development Standards for the South College Gateway and related amendments to Division 4.23 Neighborhood Commercial District (N-C), Division 4.24 Limited Commercial District (C-L), Division 5.1 Definitions, an amendment to Division 4.22 North College District (C-N), and an amendment to Division 4.6 Medium Density Mixed - Use Neighborhood District (M-M-N). Overview of Amendments 1. New Division 3.11 Development Standards. for the South College Gateway Area, including related amendments: o Amendment to Division 4.23 Neighborhood Commercial District— reference new Division 3.11 o Amendment to Division 4.24 Limited Commercial District -reference new Division 3.11 o Amendment to Division 5.1 Definitions — map of South College Gateway Area 2. Amendment to Division 4.22 North College District — replace with Service Commercial District Planning & Zoning Board January 15, 2009 Page 12 3. Amendment to Division 4.6 Medium Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood District to remove the 15% limitation on secondary uses for the Vineyard site on South College Avenue. Rezoning The Plan recommends 6 re -zonings, providing consistency with the City Structure Plan changes: (1) South 13 subdivision from C to C-S; (2) vacant property directly east of South 13 from L-M-N to C-S; (3) two properties, the Vineyard Church site and Waterstone project site, from C-C to M-M-N; (4) two vacant properties east of Kel-Mar strip, and south of East Skyway Drive from UE to CL; (5) four properties at the southwest corner of South College Avenue and Trilby Road from L-M-N to C-L; and (6) the southernmost property within the Retail Grove Natural Area from C-C to P-O-L. Board Questions: Member Lingle said he's appreciated Wilder's effort to keep the Board up-to-date through his whole process. He said some things that have come through on the actual documents the Board is reviewing tonight, however, are new to them including the. proposed Land Use Code (LUC) . amendments. He's wondering about the development standards for the South College gateway area. Some of the things may be more restrictive, in his opinion, they need to be. In terms of character and image, the thing that only sloped or arched barreled roofs would be allowed seems restrictive. Another is Building Placement —item Al, the buildings or structure shall be place and designed to form a coordinated overall appearance across the intersection with similar placement and image including roof forms, materials, and other design characteristics., The actual implementation would be that the first person in on their side dictates what happens on the other side of the street .He said it may be a nice goal in terms of aesthetics but it may be an impractical hardship on a property owner if they are the second party to develop. He's not sure we need that level of specificity in the LUC. Wilder said the intent behind this particular provision was to try to get the intersection framed in such a way that it defines a clear entrance into Fort Collins. What staff wanted to do is make sure that what you had on one side fairly mimicked what was on the other side —not in terms of identical image but a similar image as to how it portrays the entry way. Member Smith asked if there are examples of any other parts of town where gateway features would be similar. Wilder said not to his knowledge. Chair Schmidt asked, in that same area, (Page 6, Proposed changes to 4.24) why there were changes that no research laboratories are allowed. She wasn't sure they should be excluded. Wilder said that goes back to intent to try to get the kind of uses they think would be appropriate for the gateway area. It was staffs judgment that use would not likely occur. Chair Schmidt asked why on the map on page 7 of the Staff Report, the gateway stops south of Victoria Drive. Why doesn't it go closer to Victoria Drive? Wilder said the reason are the SCCP Framework Plan and what they are proposing in the Structure Plan amendments —particularly on the east side of the intersection. Wilder said that theoretically it could be extended but they felt it should be a contiguous area and stop where you'd have possible commercial development on the east side. Chair Schmidt said that looking at that and looking at the actual statement in the Plan, it says you envision an inviting gateway from Carpenter Road to Trilby Road —do you still envision some other enhancements besides just this particular gateway area? Wilder said essentially it was to include not only the portion right against the intersection as shown but also include the idea that the open spaces (Benson Lake and Pelican Marsh) help to identify the gateway. There are open areas between some of the developments. EDAW's Jeremy Call said that north of the area identified as the South College Gateway is the Benson Lake Natural Area. Because the Plan doesn't recommend development; that area in and of itself provides a gateway setting in terms of a distinct image in entering the city from the Planning & Zoning Board January 15, 2009 Page.13 south. Call said there are three basic districts within the South College Corridor —the southernmost being from Trilby Road south to Carpenter Road. Chair Schmidt asked about the proposed Zoning Map. On the east side of College, does that need to show that's'CL? Wilder said that currently that area is not in city limits. Schmidt asked if the goal is when that is annexed into the city limits it would be CL. Wilder said correct. Chair Schmidt was wondering about the small piece of UE below the public open lands. She realizes it's outside the boundary area and she's wondering if it's already a developed parcel. Wilder said he was not familiar with that area as it was not a part of the study area. Schmidt said she's had concerns about changing UE to CL and it just seems odd that then we have these two tiny little pieces of UE on either side of the POL zone. She was wondering if there was a reason for that. Wilder said if you looked broadly at the Structure Plan, it shows those parcels as Urban Estate. Chair Schmidt said on page 3 of the SCCP, there are date ranges for the Southwest Enclave Annexation Phases-- Phase III by 2010 and Phase IV by 2014. Wilder said Phase III will be done in 2010 and Phase IV will be done by 2014. Schmidt asked if someone met the requirements and they wanted to annex prior to those dates, would it be possible to do that. EDAW Consultant Call said yes. Chair Schmidt said that she presumed that when the Zoning Map for the City changes, we'll also change other areas such as North College to CS. Will it just be a name change and not necessarily an amendment? Wilder said that if you look at the language on page 9 of the LUC Amendment Staff Report it's only for areas that have been designated under an adopted sub -area plan as being appropriate for either the C-S District or the C-N District. It allows staff to apply if it's been designated as a C-N district. Chair Schmidt said the team had done a great job on.the Plan. Chair Schmidt that when she was first read the LUC amendment regarding the 15% limitation in the MMN district, she thought that would be a good place where the policy for permitted uses might apply. If there was a permitted use and it brought them over the 15%, it could be reviewed on a case -by - case basis instead of rewriting the Code for one specific spot. Wilder said that staff debated on that particular change and they decided to err on the side of trying to make it very clear versus doing a conditional zoning. It was one specific site but it was a little clearer/cleaner to do it that way. Chair Schmidt said she hoped we could find some mechanism such as an urban renewal authority that would help with connectivity for the number of parcels in the Kel-Mar strip. There are so many little parcels developing at different rates, it'll be hard to get them all connected with the secondary roads. The frontage roads will help. Member Lingle asked if lot and block were defining the South College Gateway Area. How will developers know about the applicability of the provisions outlined there? Wilder said they are following the lead of how maps have been used in the past to outline an area. It is not "super rigid" on where it's going to apply, the question will be whether or not a building falls into the envelope is less of a concern than how it functions overall in that area. Member Lingle said when that was done in the past, has it caused some parties to want to be in the area and others not. Wilder said that one of the benefits of this area is that we have two maybe three property owners. So folks do know whether they are inside the area or not —it's pretty clear. Staff has spoken to the property owners so there's no confusion at this point and he didn't foresee any in the future. Planning & Zoning Board January 15, 2009 Page 14 . Public Input: Bill Veio is a developer in Fort Collins affiliated with Solitaire Homes. He said he'd worked with Wilder during the public process for the SCCP. The Plan affects a complex mix of properties. He said the fact that we now have a Plan and the potential for a highway along Carpenter Road connecting to the City on the south end is really exciting and creates a lot of opportunity south of Harmony. Veio said we now have some tools and guidelines for College to become the "Broadway" for Fort Collins. He'd like to be a part of that in the Benson Lake area. He'd like to give his input as to the property he owns and to share his intentions. He is one of the largest landholders in the area. He owns 33 acres of land designated residential north of Benson. Lake on the east side of College. A friend owns 19 acres. They are negotiating for 20 acres of property adjacent to Benson Lake —that's 75 acres total. The City has a parcel of 15-17 acres they purchased for affordable housing right in the center of their properties —all together it's about 90 acres of potentially developable land. Veio described elements of his development and said he'd return in the near future with an Overall Development Plan. His concerns tonight are: • He's been having discussions with the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) for the past 5 years about a traffic light. It's not an issue that will be resolved easily because of CDOT requirements for its South College Access Plan. It's essential to make the village concept work. • On the west side of College the City wants a 35-foot setback but on the east side of College they want a 50 feet setback. Why do they have to give up an additional 15 feet? Why can't it be an equal distance on both sides of College? • He noticed the City cannot zone property not in the city limits yet their property is. designated LMN on all City documents. If by adopting the Plan, it can change zoning; he'd like to save a few steps and designate their property for a neighborhood commercial and medium density zone as shown on the Plan. If they have to do that down the road, certainly they'll do that but if you can do that now by adopting the Plan, he'd certainly like to see that done. Veio said the Plan is one of the best things they've seen done in terms of a design plan and guideline of any city along the Front Range. The City intends to use this as a guide. He'd like the Board to consider a change in the Framework Plan (in terms of graphics or verbiage). He said it'd it would certainly be helpful to them —saving time and money. Chair Schmidt asked Wilder to speak to the difference in the amount of setback for each side of College. Wilder said he's not sure about the distances referred to by Mr. Veio. The distances they have in the Plan refer to the area south and closer to College & Carpenter Road where a 50 feet setback would be required within the gateway. On the east side, there's already a 50-foot setback that's publicly owned. Wilder said that particular provision does not affect Veio's property, however, there may be some additional widening/right-of-way requirements as part of CDOT's Access Control Plan. Chair Schmidt asked Wilder to speak to the LMN zoning referred to by Mr. Veio. Wilder said to give staff's perspective, they've had at least a half dozen meetings with Mr. Veio, Transportation, Engineering, Natural Resources and others to discuss his proposal. Advance Planning generally supports a concept, for the reasons stated in the Plan, for some type of a City Plan neighborhood center that Provincetown and any new residential development could have easy access. A primary site for a super market still holds at the northwest corner of College Avenue and Carpenter Road. Staff, however, is unwilling to designate a particular location for the neighborhood center in that it Planning & Zoning Board January 15, 2009 Page 15 seemed premature and would require more discussions of Mr. Veio's concept. Access is a major issue in terms of needing full access with a signal. Staff decided they could not resolve those issues as a part of this Plan. It's going to take further discussions which could happen later with an Overall Development Plan. Chair Schmidt advised Veio that Plans do get amended so do not be concerned if it doesn't get changed at this point. As Wilder stated, with further discussions and deliberation, it's not too difficult to come in with an amendment. Brian Schumm, 7203 Woodrow Drive, had a question about rezoning. Are these items: Structure Plan and LUC amendments and re -zonings going to be approved by City Council when the Plan is approved? Chair Schmidt said if the Plan is adopted these other elements are necessitated by approving the Plan. The Planning & Zoning Board will be making a recommendation for each. Wilder said they are individual action items by City Council. Wilder said Council needs to act on them sequentially because they all depend on the previous item but they will all be considered individually. Schumm wanted to speak to the middle section of the Framework Plan. He has two properties that are impacted by this proposal. One is in the center of a residential development. There are a number of things that need to be done on South College and the Plan is a good step forward. He's concerned and frustrated by some of the details in the Plan. He thinks his input has been rejected and he thinks some of his input was on mechanics of existing conditions that could be corrected outside of this Plan. Schumm has a house just outside the study area at Saturn and Ballina. He's asked that those properties on the east side of future Aran Street be included in this study. Why, because you're going to take a part of our back yard. He knew that when he bought the property as all property owners should have as a part of due diligence. He objects to the Structure Plan changes on the east side of Aran. He thinks it should be identified as a commercial corridor and gives everyone the opportunity to rezone to commercial as was done at 209 Skyway. Also, staff is making a. recommendation for rezoning of vacant parcels that have no access. The access they have is through the Prairie Dog Meadows Natural Area. The two, future, limited commercial "purple parcels" do not have access —it will have to come from Aran Street and if Aran is the reason for those properties being commercial, then what would be wrong with the properties to the north on the east side of Aran being commercial. Randy Whitman, 209 Skyway, said the request to rezone 209 Skyway to commercial is different from other residential parcels in the area. They have four acres and that makes it significantly different than a residential lot. The other two parcels on his property are also 4 acres each so it does make sense that they are for commercial use. You'd have to look at a small, established residential versus their situation. Spiro Palmer lives at 7400 Streamside Drive. He started a small business downtown in 1976 and then moved to Horsetooth & College in the 1980s. He is now the owner of the northeast corner of Carpenter & College and said it was great to see how South College has developed. He's been working with staff on the South College Corridor Plan. He had only compliments on how helpful staff has been. Every time he needed to speak to them they were available. He said it as exciting to be involved in such a great plan. End of Public Input Planning & Zoning Board January 15, 2009 Page 16 Board Questions: Member Rollins noted Aran Street is currently a dirt road with a narrow right-of-way (ROW). She'd like to insure there's some type of buffer or setback to those residences. As it develops as the Plan suggest, the characteristics of traffic on that roadway are going to drastically change from what they are today. In addition to getting additional ROW from the commercial properties, she'd recommend mitigating the impact of the additional traffic on the residences on the east side of Aran Street. Bracke said in the future as Aran Street is designed and developed, certainly they'd want to make it compatible with the adjacent neighborhood. That would be part of the design process. It's not envisioned ,as a high volume street it's simply to provide circulation through the area because of the long term access changes on Highway 287. She said it's a parallel. circulation for the east side of Highway 287. Chair Schmidt asked if there would also be a frontage road —will that go all along South College? Bracke said in this section of Highway 287 the Access Control Plan does not call for frontage roads. It would have rear circulation through parallel streets such as Aran Street or other types of commercial driveway access. The reason the frontage roads aren't shown here is the safety of coming up to an intersection. Skyway (where you have a close connection of a frontage road relative to the location of the highway) causes concern from a safety and capacity perspective. She's noted the Board's suggestions and they plan to do a good job on design. Deputy City Attorney Eckman asked if the issues raised by Brian Schumm (whether or not the residences on the east of Aran would lose portions of their backyards to ROW) with Bracke's response (that she'd confirm her impressions with Engineering and get back to the Board) would require a delay in their deliberation. He asked if that information comes back different from what she'd provided would that be critical to your recommendation to City Council. If yes, he'd recommend postponement until the Board receives the information needed to give a fully advised recommendation to Council. Chair Schmidt asked how many residences on the east side of Aran are affected. What is the procedure for someone who wants to make a rezoning request? Director Dush said without knowing what the specific proposal is, he couldn't say what the process would be. It depends on the specific use. Whether the conceptual review that Mr. Schumm was referring to (where staff had indicated additional ROW was needed) was for a wholesale commercial change versus a home occupation; you'd have a different answer. Dush suspects, without knowing, that the reason that additional ROW is not necessary but for the 15 foot on the west side is because it doesn't anticipate additional _ commercial on the east side. _ Bracke said that was a great way to clarify. Transportation is looking at Aran with the east side remaining as residential. In that case there would not be any need to widen into those existing back yards. Chair Schmidt added those residents would not need access to Aran from their back yards but if you were a commercial site, you'd want access onto Aran versus access through the neighborhood. Member Campana said the bigger issue might be whether Mr. Schumm gets his property changed to commercial. His decision is not going to be based on that and he didn't believe they should have a condition of waiting for additional information. Chair Schmidt agreed. She said it's the same as Mr. Veio's issue —Plans are modified so if Mr. Schumm meets with the neighbors and all of them feel like they want to do a commercial rezoning, they could come back and ask that the Plan be amended. Eckman said it appears there is no further information being sought. Chair Schmidt said that's correct. Planning & Zoning Board January 15, 2009 Page 17 Member Lingle said he wanted to follow up with something related to Mr. Veio's presentation ... Figure 26 on Page 42 of the SCCP where the potential small neighborhood center is identified on that exhibit. If it is appropriate for it to appear there why could it not appear on the Framework Plan? Wilder said the intent is to clarify what's possible without dictating whether or not it occurs. Once we place it on the Framework Plan, it -means the intent is in that particular location. Wilder said a center mayor may not occur in that district and the location depends upon where the developer decides they want to put that center. So rather than dictate that in the Framework Plan, we felt it better to clarify that in the language in the Plan in a separate section. If something like this comes to you, you can be informed by the Plan without having it dictated in the Framework Plan itself --basically providing more flexibility. Member Lingle said that if the SCCP is approved it becomes a sub -area plan, is that not correct? Wilder said it becomes an element of the Comprehensive Plan. Lingle asked if it would it not have equal weight to the Framework Plan? It seems like if it appears in one document it's going to have equal weight. Wilder said, to take a step back, we're basing the Framework Plan on the general idea of the Structure Plan where you have general land uses and general indication of where certain uses might occur. It's used as a guiding document to making zoning map decisions but in and of itself it is not the regulatory document that you use for making those decisions. Framework Plan works the same way —it helps to inform that decision. Wilder said the image that you see is an image of what's possible out there. That's why we label it as "potential center" —it may or may not occur. This is a location that has been discussed but it's not the policy itself. The policy is based on the possibility of it occurring somewhere in the neighborhood but it doesn't have to happen there. Lingle said it's important to understand how the City looks at a development proposal and if it is in compliance with certain plans. If Mr. Veio (or anyone else) wanted to propose something that wasn't specifically shown on the Framework; would the fact that it's not on the Framework Plan be a detriment? Wilder said it really depends on what's submitted. Obviously a neighborhood center, as defined in the Code, can occur in a low density mixed use neighborhood district but there are size limitations. What Mr. Veio's proposing is larger than a neighborhood center but the kind of center is not one that we clearly defined anywhere in the LUC. The Plan itself is an attempt to clarify that issue. It simply suggests a different type of center may be appropriate. ,How it gets implemented is a separate question and we didn't want to resolve that question until we understood more about whether or not that concept was going to be possible for that area. Eckman said our zoning is required to conform to the Comprehensive Plan and that's where the vagueness comes. The Comp Plan includes all the pros as well as the graphics. Eckman's experience has been when we go to zone property; we are generally guided by the Structure Plan Map as the document that trumps everything else in terms of zoning. If we find that the Structure Plan Map does not comport with the intention of the zoning either we don't do the zoning or we amend the Structure Plan Map so they march along in unison. If necessary, we'll also change the pros as needed in the rest of the Comprehensive Plan. He's thinking the most important graphic document to look at is the Structure Plan Map —more important than the Framework Plan Map. Wilder said the Plan itself was not recommending that we support the concept that Mr. Veio has brought up. Staff is recommending that it be studied and understood better before it is included in a Framework or Structure Plan Map. The language is designed around that. Member Lingle asked, as a follow up, to help him understand the distinction that staff is making between that proposal and it's level of specifics with the Vineyard site where we're even doing a Code amendment to specifically allow something on that particular property. Is it further along so you understand their proposal more? Planning & Zoning Board January 15, 2009 Page 18 Wilder said the distinctions are'the sites themselves versus any particular proposal. In the Vineyard church site, the site itself that has more significant constraints --it's on a slope. A significant portion of the site is a natural feature which will need to be protected with some buffering. It overlooks the Fossil Creek areas so there's additional buffering to the north which takes up quite a bit of the site. It's a prominent location in the corridor. Staff believes. providing additional flexibility to the mixed use site and neighborhood district is important for that site. In his analysis, Wilder believes the sites are completely different. On the LMN site that Mr..Veio owns there's a larger area to work with. The Vineyard church site is much smaller so it's critical to get that particular site right and to allow for flexibility. The secondary uses have lesser impact on the adjacent natural features. EDAW Consultant Call said the central question that requires further evaluation with the Veio site is the need for the new traffic signal whereas at the Vineyard site it's already recommended a traffic signal would be feasible in the Access Control Plan. Chair Schmidt noted on the proposed zoning map, some of Mr. Vieo's property is annexed in the LMN but a larger portion isn't. —shown with red stripes. Maybe that's what he's referring to. Schmidt says the map indicates its part of Phase III. The portion of the site that is mentioned is a future phase of the Southwest Enclave Annexation. The frontage and the City owned property are already in the city limits. The bulk of the property, however, is outside the city limits. It would not be annexed unless there is a development proposalprior to that until the year 2010. Schmidt asked about the east side of College and Carpenter --it doesn't show a date when it would come in the City. Is that further down than the enclave annexation? Wilder said, yes —that's correct. Wilder said the parcel (corner parcel on the east side of College and Carpenter) is not a part of the enclave annexation so there is no definitive date. Member Lingle asked in the order of the actions the Board needs to take, where does the Framework Plan fall? Is it considered part of the amendment to City Plan? Schmidt said, she believes, its part of the basic corridor plan. Lingle asked if it was being considered a change to the Structure Plan. Eckman said no —the Structure Plan Map is a separate document. Eckman said the order is the. SCCP, the Structure Plan Map, LUC text changes and finally rezoning. Eckman said the adoption of the Corridor Plan as an element of the Comprehensive Plan. Motions: South College Corridor Plan Member Stockover moved to recommend to City Council the adoption of the South College Corridor Plan. Member Campana seconded the motion. Member Lingle said he has some reservations but overall he thinks it's a very good Plan. He had hoped throughout the process that we'd take a more proactive stance in terms of ways to encourage redevelopment as opposed to just saying these are existing properties and they're going to stay this way forever. He thinks that's basically a mistake but it may be an economic reality as well. It's not a fatal flaw for him. Chair Schmidt said that some of the guidelines at the end with hope that they establish a business network in that area, may h lead to more redevelopment initiative. The motion was approved 7:0. Planning & Zoning Board January 15, 2009 Page 19 Structure Plan Map Member Stockover moved to recommend to City Council the approval of proposed amendments to the City Structure Plan Map related to the South College Corridor Plan referred to as Areas A-E on the staff report. Member Smith seconded the motion. The motion was approved 7:0. Chair Schmidt said the reason she went along with changing the UE to CL Commercial is Wilder's comment that some aspects of commercial zoning can be less invasive on the natural areas than Urban Estate. She agrees with that so probably any development proposals we look at in those areas will be considered in light of their impacts on the natural areas. Land Use Code Text Amendments Chair Schmidt asked if the motion should include all text amendments combined. Eckman said yes, unless the Board wanted to debate them individually. Lingle said he supported 4 of 6 of the proposed changes and they pull only those where there's a wish to debate and lump and approve the others. Chair Schmidt asked which amendments should be pulled for individual consideration. Lingle asked that Amendment adding Division 3.11 (Development Standards for the South College Gateway Area) be pulled. Division 3.11 Chair Schmidt made a motion to make a recommendation to City Council approval of the Land Use Code Changes providing for a new Division 3.1.1 Development Standards for the South College Gateway as presented in the staff report pages 1 through 7. Recommended revisions are: 3.11.4 (A) should be under the first section --moved to 3.11.3 (Site Planning). It would have A 1, 2, and 3 and 3.11.4 (Character and Image) what is now B would be A. Member Stockover seconded the motion. Member Lingle said his objection is what he stated earlier —Sections 3.11.3 (A) (1) and 3.11.4 are, in his opinion, overly restrictive and unnecessary. He won't be supporting it. Member Stockover said he would be supporting the motion. He thinks it'll work. Chair Schmidt said the concept is admirable and she agrees with Member Lingle's concerns that some of the things are difficult. She asked Lingle if he has concerns about the roof pitches as well. Lingle said it's the same debate when we considered the code changes related to canopies (mandating a sloped roof on a canopy is unnecessary). There are plenty of good looking examples of flat roof canopies and there's absolutely nothing wrong with a flat roofed building. Member Rollins agreed with Lingle on the intersection reference. Lingle said he agreed with what Schmidt said relative to it being a nice goal, is it really fair to one land owner to the hamstrung with what happens across the street if he happens to the second party to develop. Member Campana said he did not have an issue with it and he probably should. He thinks it's visionary, unique. It'll be a little harder to design around but he likes the idea of doing something unique at our gateway. With regards to the flat roof versus the sloped and arch roofs, he agreed with Lingle, you can design nice buildings with flat roofs. Chair Schmidt asked about the coordinated overall appearance. Is that something complimentary, similar so they would not have to be exactly identical? Wilder said they'd like to have some flexibility Planning & Zoning Board January 15, 2009 Page 20 that's why they didn't say they'd have to have the same materials and the same design. Staff felt that having a building on each side to define the intersection was very important to this concept and does affect just those two buildings. The idea of having similar buildings basically oriented in a similar direction toward the intersection is very important. Wilder said relative to roofs, that they were trying to be somewhat flexible —other architectural distinctive forms —that's why that caveat is in there. They did not want to mandate a barrel roof or a pitch roof if they can do something that is distinctive. Member Campana said it may require a little more clarity as he understood it as the gateway area but what he's hearing now is just the first two buildings. The image has the flat roof beyond those first two buildings. Wilder agrees, he thinks section A should be clarified to perhaps being just those two buildings. Stockover asked for clarification. Campana said 3.11.4 (A) should be under the first section. Schmidt said it would be moved to 3.11.3 (Site Planning) —it would have A 1,2,3 and 3.11.4 Character and Image what is now B would be A. Wilder agreed. Member Smith said that normally through our review criteria, compatibility with properties nearby often captures the intent. Thinking of the time delay that might occur between development of one of the buildings to the other, if the first one in is a good building we're okay. Staff is stating that a simple compatibility test isn't enough to make sure the gateway has some punch to it. Wilder said staff doesn't believe it does. The text amendment enables them to frame the intersection. Wilder didn't think the compatibility criteria would allow us to do that today with the buildings across the intersection. It goes an additional step to make sure that those buildings are cohesive without being . the same. Member Smith asked if elements in the streetscape (so that's it not necessarily in the built environment by the private section) could work. You could use stone, brick, and landmarks to be able to define the gateway. Smith said, given Lingle's concerns, would that be a reasonable compromise -- delineate it but not rely on the two buildings to create it. Wilder said he thinks it would help define the overall character. There is some language about coordinating the landscaping in that setback area which would help but in and of itself, staff doesn't believe it goes far enough. When driving north, the buildings are going to be pretty apparent and going to help define your image of the rest of the corridor. He believes those buildings are the most critical in this gateway area of any of the building because it's the first appearances. Member Smith asked if there are any plans to compliment the buildings with landmark features. Wilder said they did say under 3.11.2 Setback Area it does speak to landscaping with groups of trees across the intersection so it's more of a naturalized not the typical street tree patterns. They did not want to dictate the specific landscaping at the entry as being the same. They think the pattern could look differently from one intersection to the other. It does include a "community identity features such as entry monuments, retaining walls, welcome signs, and public art." The motion was approved 4:3 with Members Rollins, Lingle & Smith dissenting. Chair Schmidt asked if the Board wanted to pull any other amendments for consideration. Lingle asked that Amendment 4.6 be pulled. Divisions: 4.22, 4.23, 4.24, and 5.1 Chair Schmidt made a motion to recommend to City Council changes to the Land Use Code for .Division 4.23 (Neighborhood Commercial District), Division 4.24 (Limited Commercial District), Division 5.1 Definitions, and Division 4.22 (North College District to CS Zone). Member Campana seconded the motion. The motion was approved 7:0. Planning &Zoning Board January 15, 2009 Page 21 Division 4.6 Chair Schmidt made a motion to recommend to City Council changes to the Land Use Code for Division 4.23 (Mixed —Use Neighborhood District (M-M-N) to remove the 15% limitation on secondary uses for the Vineyard Church site on South College Avenue. Member Stockover seconded the motion. Member Lingle said his objection is codifying a site specific exemption where other methods are available like Modification of Standards if there're problems with topography, etc. particularly in light of our discussion considering Mr. Veio's property. He's not comfortable doing that in the Land Use Code. Chair Schmidt would agree with that. She thought there is also a Permitted Use option. If they go past 15% especially because of their hardships, there are other ways to address it. She hates to see us get into the habit of rewriting the Code for specific parcels. Member Rollins concurs with Lingle & Schmidt. Member Wetzler said he agreed. There could likely be some unintended consequences. The motion failed 4:3 with Members Lingle, Rollins, Schmidt, and Wetzler dissenting. Chair Schmidt said that Council would need to review these comments since we adopted the overall Plan if they feel the same way about this particular amendment, there would have to be some Plan changes. Rezoning Member Stockover moved to recommend to City Council approval of six rezonings containing approximately 104 acres located within the South College Corridor related to the South College Corridor Plan. Member Smith seconded the motion. The motion passed 7:0. Chair Schmidt thanked Timothy Wilder and the whole team for all their work —it was a very detailed effort. Other Business: Director Dush said as he noted earlier, the Downtown Cultural District Noise Ordinance would be in a cultural district —not a specific site. There are a lot of components. Staff will be preparing a FAQ (frequently asked questions) sheet to identify the questions that you have raised to indicate what the cultural district is and is not, what the parameters are, and to drill down into exactly what some of the sound levels are. Meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m. Steve Dus , Current Planning Director Brig ittl Schmidt, Chair 9