HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 10/21/2004Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
October 21, 2004
6:00 p.m.
Council Liaison: Karen Weitkunat Staff Liaison: Cameron Gloss
Chairperson: Mikal Torgerson Phone: (W) 416-7435
Vice Chair: Judy Meyer Phone: (W) 490-2172
Chairperson Torgerson called the meeting to order at 6:03 p.m.
Roll Call: Lingle, Craig, Schmidt, Gavaldon and Torgerson. Members Carpenter
and Meyer were absent.
Staff Present: Gloss, Eckman Waido, Mapes, Wamhoff, Virata, Buffington,
Vosburg and Deines.
Director of Current Planning Cameron Gloss reviewed the Consent and Discussion
Agendas:
Consent Agenda:
1. Minutes of the September 16, 2004 Planning and Zoning Board
Hearing.
2. Resolution PZ04-28, Easement Dedication.
3. Resolution PZ04-29, Easement Dedication.
4. #11-04 Liebl, Annexation and Zoning.
5. Recommendation to the General Manager of Utility Services for the
Center for Disease Control – Out of City Utility Request.
Discussion Agenda:
6. #36-04 North College Urban Renewal Plan.
7. #56-98Y Rigden Farm, Spectrum Retirement, Modification of Standard.
The Board was in consensus to move Item 7 moved to the Consent Agenda.
There was no public input on the Consent Agenda.
Member Schmidt pulled Item 5 off of the Consent Agenda.
Member Gavaldon moved approve Consent Agenda Items 1 through 4 and Item 7.
Member Schmidt seconded the motion. The motion was approved 5-2, with
Members Carpenter and Meyer absent.
Approved 1/20/05
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
October 21, 2004
Page 2
Project: Recommendation to the General Manager of Utility
Services for the Center for Disease Control – Out of
City Utility Request.
Project Description: Request for water and sanitary sewer service for the
proposed Center for Disease Control (CDC)
Laboratory on the CSU Foothills Campus.
Recommendation: Approval
Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence:
Roger Buffington, Water Utilities Department gave the staff presentation. He stated that
the CDC was in the process of building a new building in Fort Collins. They currently
have a laboratory on the CSU Foothills Campus, which is outdated and over crowded
and would like to move forward with another facility. In terms of water and wastewater
service, they have a couple of options. One, CSU owns and operates their own water
distribution, wastewater collections systems on the Foothills Campus and that is where
the current CDC laboratory is served from. In planning for the new facility, CDC
indicated that they had a preference of getting service directly from the utility that treats
the water and wastewater; therefore they would like to get their services from the city of
Fort Collins. This facility is located within the Foothills Campus which is currently
outside of the Growth Management Area. It was an area that was identified during the
recent City Plan update as an area that would possibly be included in the GMA at some
future date.
Staff has reviewed their application and the city does have adequate water and
wastewater capacity for the water usage and wastewater discharges from that
laboratory. They also meet all other criteria for an out of city service request that is
listed in the Code.
Member Schmidt wanted to make sure that the city was getting the best use for the
lines that will be put out there.
Mr. Buffington replied that the points that would connect to the city system are from the
standpoint of water; there is a 24” water main that runs along the foothills just either
east or west of the proposed site. That would be a fairly short connection. They would
connect to out wastewater collection system at the intersection of Overland Trail and
Mulberry Street. That would be their service line from the laboratory to that point where
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
October 21, 2004
Page 3
they connect into out system. In terms of water, we have more than adequate capacity
in that 24” main and in terms of sewer they are connecting into a 12” sewer and again
there is excess capacity in that line.
Member Schmidt asked if the Foothills Campus develops more, that all the continuing
hook ups will be connected to the city. Was that the goal for the area?
Mr. Buffington replied he did not believe so. He thought that this was unusual in that
CDC made this specific request and that was their preferred business practice to deal
directly with the utility as opposed to going through a third party.
There was not public input.
Member Gavaldon asked if there was any documentation as to a capacity model of
what the current usage is and what the surplus is that is available. He also asked for a
projection of future needs.
Mr. Buffington replied that he raised that question with the department within the utility
that manages the water treatment plant and the wastewater treatment plant. They
assured him that there was adequate capacity there now. The water plant currently has
capacity for what they believe will be the build out of our service area and that the
usage within Foothills Campus was considered when they made projections for those
future demands. In terms of wastewater, in the future there will be a need for a plant
expansion just for regular growth. This facility will be paying plant investment fees for
both the water plant and wastewater plant; therefore they will be providing funds that will
be available for the next plant expansion at the wastewater treatment facility.
Member Schmidt was just wondering why when we have two separate utilities in the
same area, why would you choose one over the other. She thought that in the long run,
especially if the area gets annexed, the goal would be eventually that it would all be city
utilities.
Mr. Buffington replied that the university it different in that even on the main campus,
they have their own water distribution and wastewater collection system and it is the
same on the Foothills Campus; as they have over the past few years added buildings
they buildings have connected into their system, therefore we really don’t have review
over those things when they come up.
Member Schmidt asked if they were at capacity and why the city did not say to stick with
the CSU system that is serving the present facility.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
October 21, 2004
Page 4
Mr. Buffington replied that it was CDC’s preference to deal with the city and facilities
were available in terms of water mains and sanitary sewers.
Member Gavaldon moved to recommend approval to the General Manager of
Utilities for the request for out of city service for the Center for Disease Control
based on the finding of facts and conclusion on page 2 of the staff report.
Member Lingle seconded the motion. The motion was approved 5-2.
Project: Colorado Statutes 31-25-107 (2) requires the
City Council to formally submit the North
College Avenue Urban Renewal Plan to the
Planning and Zoning Board for its review and
recommendation as to the Urban Renewal
Plan’s conformity with City Plan, the City’s
Comprehensive Plan. The Planning and
Zoning Board needs to submit a written
recommendation to the City Council.
Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence:
Ken Waido, Chief Planner gave the staff presentation. He stated that all of the steps,
requirements, notifications and timing for the city of Fort Collins to develop an Urban
Renewal Plan for a portion of the community is governed by the State Statutes
contained in the Urban Renewal Law. The particular statute as to why we were here
tonight 31-25-107 (2) says that “before the City Council can approve an Urban Renewal
Plan, that plan needs to be referred to the Planning and Zoning Board” and asks the
Planning and Zoning Board for a recommendation as to whether or not the plan is
consistent or not with City Plan or the general Comprehensive Plan for the community.
It all boils down to a question of whether the North College Avenue Urban Renewal Plan
conforms to City Plan, the City’s Comprehensive Plan. That is why we are here tonight.
Planner Waido went on to say that they have indicated within the plan itself, that the
North College Urban Renewal Plan will derive it’s policy guidance from City Plan and
the North College Avenue Corridor Plan, which is a sub area plan element of City Plan,
and that the regulations of the city’s Land Use Code are the governing document and
standards for any development or redevelopment project that would happen within the
plans boundaries. The Urban Renewal Plan develops no new policies, no new land use
designations, no new development regulations and no new design standards. All the
policy guidance is in City Plan and the Sub Area Plan and all the development
standards and regulations are contained in the Land Use Code and all its component
parts.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
October 21, 2004
Page 5
Staff’s recommendation is that the Planning and Zoning Board recommend to the City
Council that the Urban Renewal Plan is in conformance with City Plan.
Public Input
David Wasson, General Manager of Valley Steel and Wire Company spoke to the
Board. He stated that as he reviewed the plan, he was concerned about the future
street layout in the North College area. Valley Steel and Wire is about a 14 million
dollar company in annual sales and they employ 16 people. It is a growing business
and they are in the midst of looking at an expansion and the land they purchased 6
years ago and adjoins their existing property would contain an 80 foot by 200 foot
building and overhead cranes that handle the steel that they move through and
distribute in a three state area. They would grow the business and have additional
employees and more taxes to the city of Fort Collins and the State of Colorado.
This proposal has two separate streets running through their property. One of the
proposed streets would go through the existing building and the other street is at the far
end of their five acres. The two streets would make it impossible for them to do
business not only at the present, much less with the additional building being planned
on the adjoining lot. The requirements in the proposal would require the removal of the
current warehouse in addition to the taking of the land at the far end, which would mean
a big loss of business because they would certainly have to relocate. The concern is
what they do in the immediate future. This building was being looked at getting through
the city process starting in the winter months which are coming up immediately.
Public input closed.
Chairperson Torgerson asked Mr. Waido to address the concern that was just raised.
He deferred to Clark Mapes, City Planner with Advanced Planning and co-project
manager.
Planner Mapes replied that the map in the plan is in the existing condition study, which
identifies the conditions in the area that represent evidence of certain “blight” factors in
the Urban Renewal Law. The map does indicate the kind of street system that is
needed in the area for more complete development and to address a whole bunch of
existing conditions there that create deficiencies, inadequacies, inadequate
infrastructure, lack of access, etc. These street segments come out of the Master
Street Plan and the North College Avenue Corridor Plan. They are intended to be a
guide for future development as it occurs. We don’t yet know exactly how or when we
would implement these. They are shown in here simply as an illustration of the
deficiency of streets. Normal and typical city development usually consists of 25%
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
October 21, 2004
Page 6
streets. This area consists of 10% streets. The deficiencies in the street system are
explained all throughout the existing conditions study. This is showing the vision for the
future and it would only happen as development occurs. It is not just Valley Steel
affected, these streets run across all different kinds of properties, some with buildings.
Chairperson Torgerson asked if the street system shown here is already part of existing
plans and is not being introduced as a part of this question.
Planner Mapes replied that was true. He stated that he really should talk to this
gentleman soon, and start a dialogue. There is nothing imminent; this may not even
happen in our lifetime.
Member Schmidt appreciated Planner Waido’s discussion on what the Urban Renewal
Plan does not do, so could he discuss what it does do and what the goals are.
Planner Waido replied that the bottom line is that it is an implementation device that will
help achieve the policies in these plans both City Plan and the North College Avenue
Corridor Plan that talk about encouraging redevelopment and infill development. In City
Plan, particularly the targeted redevelopment areas are about nine in which North
College is one of them. Some of the tools that are critical or come into being with an
Urban Renewal Plan is the ability to use tax increment financing to help support funding
for infrastructure improvements like the deficiencies in street systems and storm
drainage systems. Tax increment financing is a way to capture taxes in the area to be
applied to capital improvements in the area. The second key tool within the Urban
Renewal Plan is the ability to use imminent domain for the acquisition of privately
owned property for the transfer of that property to a private developer. It will assist
developers, if they need it, in assembling and consolidating sufficient property to go
forth with development or a redevelopment plan. Those are the two key points that the
Urban Renewal Plan brings forth that we currently don’t have in our arsenal.
Member Gavaldon asked if the streets of concern by Valley Steel were part of the
Master Street Plan now.
Planner Mapes replied that they are part of the North College Access Management Plan
and the North College Avenue Corridor Plan. There are a couple segments that are
collector streets and are on the Master Street Plan, the rest are local and are not on the
Master Street Plan.
Member Gavaldon asked if Valley Steel will they be able to expand.
Planner Mapes replied that this would not prevent them from expanding. We would look
at how they want to expand and try to negotiate so that the most critical buildings or
facilities – so there is an open yard or something where these streets can go. If push
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
October 21, 2004
Page 7
comes to shove and they want to expand in the area where the streets are shown, he
was not exactly sure what we would do. We would try and negotiate with them, but if
push came to shove we would not stop their expansion based on this map. It could be
a tremendous loss of opportunity, which we are trying to prevent.
Member Gavaldon asked if this plan, in any way, is taking land and forcing owners to
give up land.
Planner Waido replied the plan itself, no.
Member Gavaldon commented that these folks that come in down the road asking to
expand will have to adjust their plans or they won’t be able to expand and if they don’t
develop, the roads won’t get built.
Planner Mapes replied that is kind of how the area got to be the way it is. Today the
development that is out there was all done prior to any planning or requirements for
streets, pipes, sidewalks or infrastructure. This plan is just an implementation of some
other discussions that have been in the works for along time. He wanted to be clear
that they were asked to do this by the North College Business Association that wants to
see improvements made somehow in the area.
Member Gavaldon asked about outreach.
Planner Waido responded that they mailed notifications to all business and property
owners, all which are requirements in the State law regarding notification of the Plan.
They mailed letters, there was an add run in the Coloradoan newspaper. It has been on
their website and they have followed everything that is normally required of notification.
Chairperson Torgerson wanted everyone to be clear that what they were entertaining
tonight does not institute any new land use patterns or plans of any kind.
Member Gavaldon asked Mr. Wasson from Valley Steel if he new of any of his
neighbors that are not aware of this plan and it’s impacts.
Mr. Wasson could not answer that and he is not aware of any neighbors that are
unaware of it and is not aware of any neighbors that are except maybe Ken’s Muffler.
Mr. Wasson agreed wholeheartedly that North College needs vast improvements and in
reading the document through, he was excited to see a lot of the steps that are talked
about in this plan. It is good for Fort Collins and is good for the neighborhoods around
North College. In looking at the details he got concerned when he saw the two streets
and being cut off at both ends which is half of the old land that they own and a third of
the new land that they purchased. That would hamstring them in the future planning.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
October 21, 2004
Page 8
Member Craig asked about a question that she had asked at worksession, “Why are
City Ordinances not being enforced that allows the area to deteriorate and exhibit this
slum and blight condition.” Several of these are as simple as open dumping, which is
what was put down as one reason why the area is being declared “blight” and some
others. She asked Planner Waido to address that.
Planner Waido deferred to Planner Mapes. He stated that the response that is in the
memo came from two sources, Felix Lee, Department Head for the Building Inspection
Department who deals with the Code and the Building Code. Clark sent to him
paragraphs that deal with viewing “blight” as an accumulative effect.
Planner Mapes thought the question seemed to be getting at why don’t we just go out
and fix the broken windows and pick up the trash, etc.
Member Craig asked why it has come to this. She stated that she has a rental in town
and if she even gets a weed in the alleyway and she has a letter saying you clean up
that weed or the city is going to come in and clean it up and bill you. Yet you get out to
North College and we are talking about people openly dumping and work our way
through this list. She is asking why hasn’t this been enforced to where it is not a blight
condition and why can’t we go further with that?
Planner Mapes wanted to give the larger perspective on the whole thing. The statute
clearly in listing these factors or conditions that together cumulative represent evidence
of blight as it is defined in that law. “Work together, work cumulatively and deal with
general language. Deal with general deficiencies such as inadequate infrastructure,
which is represented in some cases by the lack of street access into pretty significant
areas of land behind North College, which then end up being hidden from view with no
police surveillance, no other natural surveillance by people being back there. It is the
neglected rear areas in a lot of cases where you find dumping, camping and so forth.
Some of those things may be violating specific ordinances. The general deficiency and
infrastructure is not a violation of a city ordinance that any inspector can go out and
correct. He did not think that very many of the conditions that are shown in the study
are the kind of conditions that lend themselves to just simple enforcement by code
inspectors. One other part of the answer is that some of that code enforcement is done
on a complaint basis. When they first put this study together, he talked to the Building
Inspection Department and asked if they had been out looking at some of the things that
are in the study and they simply have not. They have not had complaints or a reason to
go back there.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
October 21, 2004
Page 9
Member Craig asked if Planner Mapes was saying that because they are back and out
of view, the inspectors have not been back there and required the landowners to clean
them up, and therefore we are calling this “blight”.
Planner Mapes replied that the way to call this area blighted is to look at all of the
factors that are shown in this study. This is just a sampling of the most visible and most
apparent. That just does not sound right that the inspectors did not go back there and
see the broken window and tell the owner to fix the broken window, so now there is
blight. The inadequate infrastructure generally the deficiencies out there are beyond
that.
Member Craig stated that all she had to work off of was the matrix she was given and
some of those strike her as an enforcement issue. Some of them strike her as these
are all over the city. For us to think that a TIF is going to be our panacea for everything
in the city that has a bit of a problem. She has to come up with justification for why we
are even implementing a plan that has this TIF and blighted as part of it and she was
not getting that feeling here. She was asking for clarification.
Planner Mapes thought that this was trying to provide something – he did not know if
this tool is going to generate enough financing to really transform the area at least very
quickly. It is intended to get at the reasons why people are dumping in places, why
there are camps, why there are dilapidated buildings out there. The goal of this was
never a blight study, the goal was never to go out and find those items and then send
inspectors out and make people fix their broken windows and fix all the building
deterioration that you see. The goal is to address the underlying overall conditions.
Member Craig stated that we also have to justify it if we are going to create a TIF. We
also have to say “this is the blight conditions, this is how the TIF is going to help those
blight conditions”. She was not getting a sense of that either.
Planner Mapes replied by supporting the plan clearly says that one of the main
objectives is to facilitate redevelopment projects that remedy the blight conditions. The
TIF is a way to provide some funding, whether it is a reimbursement to developers, or
whether it is a way to pay for some public improvements such as infrastructure. That is
the goal and that is how it is getting at the blight conditions.
Member Craig asked about the parallel streets that go through these properties, how
does the Urban Renewal Plan expect to accomplish this when it is going over so many
pieces of property? Is staff looking at imminent domain to accomplish this?
Planner Mapes replied no, negotiations as change occurs and dealing with development
as it occurs. Those lines on that map are going to take negotiations, consensus and
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
October 21, 2004
Page 10
participation by those owners. This was talked about in 1994, about 10 years ago, that
is why it is the way it is now and has sat for the past 10 years. If there is no initiative
forthcoming for private development he believed it would be another 10 years before
any of those lines on the map get acted upon. When we go to act in the case of Valley
Steel, he sees there that he already has an answer for that particular case. He already
sees something that might come up in a negotiation that might work as an interim
solution. Interim on North College might mean as long as any of us are alive.
Member Lingle said that he thought he understood the intent of paragraph 5,
Development Standards and Procedures in the Plan relative to the Fort Collins Land
Use Code and all of the city standard development review procedures would govern the
implementation of the Urban Renewal Plan. A comment that came out of their task
force was that the Urban Renewal Plan, once in place, would trump all other zoning and
development standards. He wanted on the record a comfort level that this will protect
us from whatever statutory provisions that the Urban Renewal Authority would have and
that we don’t trump other standards.
Planner Mapes replied that this plan could have been written describing a vision for
buildings and land uses and streets and design. It could have contained new standards
for how to achieve that, but it does not. It only refers back to the Land Use Code
standards. The statue allows an Urban Renewal Plan like this to do that, but we are not
doing that. This plan is intended to state that development will occur under all the
existing policies and standards.
Member Lingle said that one power that the Urban Renewal Authority would have would
be to demolish blighted buildings. What we are saying is that the city’s Landmark
Preservation Commission and their historic designations, all those things would still
govern that kind of application.
Member Lingle asked if what they are being asked to consider is that the Urban
Renewal Plan is in conformance with both City Plan and the North College Avenue
Corridor Plan, and his understanding is that North College Avenue Corridor Plan is
considered a Sub Area Plan, and would the Board’s finding have to be that things are
not violated in either document.
Planner Mapes replied that the Sub Area Plan is considered part of City Plan.
Planner Waido added that in theory and technically the documents are consistent. The
purpose of the Sub Area Plan is to lend greater detail, maybe more specific
development standards, set the policy basis for new zoning districts to be applied to just
that Sub Area Plan area.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
October 21, 2004
Page 11
Deputy City Attorney Eckman added that he thought both plans – you need to measure
this Urban Renewal Area Plan against both the City Plan general document as well as
the Sub Area Plan. If you see conflicts between the Sub Area Plan and City Plan itself,
he would think that the more specific would control over the more general. You would
want to try and give meaning to both policies, both the City Plan policy and the allegedly
conflicting Sub Area policy if at all possible. But if not, you should give credence to the
more specific provision.
Member Lingle stated that he reviewed both documents and he did not find conflicts
between City Plan and the North College Avenue Corridor Plan necessarily, but he does
find conflicts between the Urban Renewal Plan and the North College Avenue Corridor
Plan. In terms of discussions at the Advisory Committee level, it has become clear that
the kinds of projects that are going to be needed in this area to generate the kind of
money to get anything done, tends to be large scale retail and those kinds of
developments. Some of the listed goals in the North College Avenue Corridor Plan
include “an increase in residential development, a preservation of the existing small
local business character of the area and the continuation of the incubator area”. The
whole visioning of that plan was to be an incubator of small business and things like
that. He was asking how to bridge that conflict.
Planner Waido responded that part of it is dealing with a timing issue. The North
College Avenue Corridor Plan was done 10 years ago and City Plan recognizes that the
plan needs to be updated. That is on their “to do” list. He does not know when that will
start, but they recognize that the plan is outdated and will need to be reviewed. Some
of the other things staff is going to do in relationship to the Renewal Plan is a market
study to see exactly what is the best potential uses are for the North College area and
then based on the summation of the market study, use that in looking at revising the
North College Avenue Corridor Plan.
He thought that what Member Lingle mentioned is not totally inconsistent with what the
Urban Renewal Plan says is predicting in some of the big developments we are talking
about. That will also depend on what the market study says. In some of the context in
which we were saying that some of those big projects were needed, was in the context
of that $73,000,000 price tag that the infill development team looked at the whole list of
wishes and wants for improvements on North College. He did not think that anyone
was thinking that all of this was going to come to fruition anytime in the very near future.
We hope that over the life of this plan, it depends on how you define success, success
might be finding a way to put in the top priority capital needs within the area over a
period of time and using the increment financing from the smaller businesses and
improvements that will go in and the utilization of vacant properties to create the money.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
October 21, 2004
Page 12
There are other tools available. Special Improvement Districts, General Improvement
Districts that are other financing mechanisms and just draw a parallel in what happened
in the downtown. They did not just use tax increment financing they set up districts and
set up a mill levy. All of those things are available and some may or may not be used in
the future.
Planner Mapes added that essentially this plan says that the Urban Renewal Authority
will do what the Urban Renewal law allows. Furthermore it says we are going to follow
City Plan and the North College Avenue Plan for guidance. This plan does not say that
we need three big new shopping centers to pay for the three projects that the committee
has talked about. That’s conversation that they have been having, but it is not clear to
any of them, just how far they are going to be able to go. That was just conversation as
to the type of numbers it would take to build out the street network which is essentially
the backbone of everything that needs to be done out there. This plan does not say that
incubator businesses are out.
Member Schmidt asked about the public open houses and that there had been a
number of iterations of the plan, especially the eminent domain section had changed
substantially since those first plans, what was available to the people who came to the
open houses. Were they reviewing the plan on the assumption that the eminent domain
was not going to be used for private development and now we have substantially
changed that?
Planner Waido stated that he spent a lot of time at the open houses talking about
eminent domain to the people that attended the open houses. He cannot specifically
answer the question of what the plan specifically said about that. In all of their
notifications it directed the people to the web site or to call them to get a copy of the
plan. They definitely had access to the wording that is before them tonight.
Planner Mapes added that he remembers that the language was limiting on the use of
it.
Deputy City Attorney Eckman added that he did not think that they had changed the
substance of it much at all. It was more a matter of setting things out with bullets and
making things easier to read.
Planner Mapes said that they had almost place holder language that said something
about using it as a last resort, whereas we now have 5 conditions.
Member Schmidt read that this Plan could run for 25 years, so why if things are up in
the air with the market study and the need to redo the North College Avenue Corridor
Plan are we starting the clock ticking now. She may only live 25 more years, but for
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
October 21, 2004
Page 13
some people hopefully their businesses will be there longer than that. You are saying
that we are going to establish this TIF and we are going to start the clock ticking and
they may see no benefit from it what so ever, especially if we are only going to support
incubator businesses that are bringing in a very low amount of tax increment. She
thought that was the whole benefit of the plan was so that you could use eminent
domain to acquire parcels that would then lend themselves to larger development
proposals that would bring in some money.
Planner Mapes replied that was not the main benefit. This eminent domain thing may
never get used and should be used very limited and as a last resort. The main reason
is the tax increment financing.
Planner Waido added that we started this process at the request of the North Fort
Collins Business Association and one of the steps in this process was to go and visit
some Urban Renewal Authorities in the Denver Metro Area. Staff saw things different
than what was anticipating happening here with the way they operated. One of the
things they came back with and talked to the Advisory Committee about was, do we
want to start the clock now, or should we wait until there is a project to begin the clock
ticking. He received several calls from Advisory Committee members and what he
heard from them was we don’t care about losing a year or two; we want to get this in
place as quickly as we can. When the next meeting was held, it was reported back to
the committee that staff had changed our minds and did a one eighty from what was
said the previous meeting and staff was going to pursue adopting the plan whether or
not there was a development or redevelopment project in the works. That was pretty
unanimously accepted by the Advisory Committee.
Member Schmidt stated that her concern was, and Member Lingle raised this at this
morning’s Advisory Committee meeting is that she was hearing a lot of different things
from the members. The whole issue of the sales tax increment, wanting that included
the change in the boundary, wanting that included, and then the eminent domain issue.
They were still talking about still getting this rewritten before it goes to Council. She
takes it that the view point of staff was that none of that will happen and staff is going to
stick with what the writing is now, so that is what they should vote on tonight. If the
people from the North College business corridor want to disagree with that then they
can go to Council.
Planner Mapes agreed.
Chairperson Torgerson wondered why it would take a very large project to make this
work. What is the difference between this and the DDA? Smaller projects in the DDA
boundary seems to generate enough tax increment to really make it worth while.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
October 21, 2004
Page 14
Planner Mapes replied that it does not have to be. There are authorities that deal with
very modest, a few thousand bucks and there are authorities that go out and build big
new shopping centers.
Chairperson Torgerson asked whether it works under the same central rules as the
DDA, which seems to him that this could be the impetus for lots of smaller projects. He
is trying to understand why everyone is saying that it is going to take three large
projects to really make this relevant.
Planner Mapes replied that they have some estimates of the infrastructure deficiencies
and you can imagine there are stacked layers as to high, medium and low. Funded,
partially funded and so forth. The high end is up in the millions. Then the question is
raised “what will it take” and that is where the three shopping centers comes in. We are
still discussing what kind of authority this is going to be. We have had the conversation,
but we have not finished it yet, but he feels that it does not necessarily have to be big
projects.
Chairperson Torgerson said that it would take a few big projects to solve the major
infrastructure deficiencies, but he thought that it was also true that this could be the
impetus for smaller redevelopment.
Member Craig stated that if she understood correctly, the DDA after it was established,
the very next year, the people in the DDA district voted to bond so they could borrow
money to get things going. Her impression was that this plan was not looking at
bonding; she has heard nothing about it. She thinks that is the difference between DDA
and this.
Planner Waido replied that she was right about the DDA, but bonding is borrowing
money and when you borrow money from someone, they are going to wonder how you
are going to pay back that money. There has to be development or redevelopment
projects somewhere along the line that is going to generate tax increment financing that
is going to pay back the bonds. If this gets adopted on November 16th, on November
17th we are not going to be out there trying to float a bond for North College Avenue
because nobody is going to want to buy that bond.
Member Craig said that is exactly why she brought that up. That is the difference
between this being just a TIF and the DDA as far as small projects and big projects and
how do you fill the pot.
Planner Mapes replied that the DDA has done some big projects. The DDA now will
take a property owner that wants to get a new awning on their building and work with
them on that.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
October 21, 2004
Page 15
Member Craig replied that is because DDA has filled the pot, and how they got the pot
filled in the first place is they threw some money into it. Was that not the purpose of
bonding and the loan to get money, to oil the machine so to speak?
Planner Mapes replied that usually the bonding is done to pay for some specific
improvement, in case of the DDA, the parking structure and Old Town Square.
Chairperson Torgerson stated that if you were to look at the opportunity for tax
increment, DELTA and you looked at Old Town, he sees a lot more redevelopment area
in North College that he ever would have seen in Old Town. If he is looking at the
DELTA in terms of how the property taxes would change, he would see North College
as a lot bigger opportunity and therefore a better bonding situation.
Planner Mapes replied that there are more acres there. The existing valuation is much
less on North College than the value of the downtown area, but he thought you could
look at it that way. The potential is a lot of vacant property, 237 out of 527 acres is
vacant.
Member Lingle said when the Advisory Committee was having their discussions, it
wasn’t that small incremental projects were not important and would not generate TIF,
but the impetus behind doing it was to get all of the 50 to 70 million dollars worth of back
log completed, so we were on a more even keel with South College and other areas in
terms of attractiveness of their properties and businesses. He thought that it was a slow
realization through a series of meetings that a bunch of small projects were not going to
generate enough money to dent it. It was going to take some big projects before
millions of dollars in increment financing was generated to actually accomplish anything.
Chairperson Torgerson’s thought was that each redevelopment project has to bring
adequate public facilities and current standards adjacent to its project anyway, so if TIF
spurs redevelopment, incrementally that will occur throughout the entire district. It has
taken the DDA along time to make a difference in Old Town.
Planner Mapes thought that there was no harm in putting this in place and start having a
pool of tax increment financing accumulating. Maybe it would be little and maybe
something would come in to generate a lot, but either way, there is no harm.
Member Craig asked about when they went to Denver and looked at the Urban
Renewal Authorities that have been set up, were they looking at areas that were really
blighted; or more like our Old Town than a bunch a green fields like we are talking about
on North College.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
October 21, 2004
Page 16
Planner Waido replied that Arvada is very similar. Our discussions with Boulder were
about Crossroads and Boulder’s new downtown hotel with public parking.
Member Craig replied that they were not just looking at a bunch of empty fields that they
were hoping to bring in development to help create money for a TIF.
Planner Mapes replied no, there is one that is a little close to that in Arvada. They did
not see anything quite like North College. Again these are real “no brainers” if you have
an aggressive city that wants to go out and lure shopping centers in and make new
shopping centers happen.
Member Craig asked why staff wanted to put the Urban Renewal Plan in place before a
market analysis is done.
Planner Waido replied that we have an existing plan that sets the stage. He thought the
market analysis would help us determine if that plan is still valid, or if there needs to be
adjustments made. It would also help determine whether we are going to use a bond to
help a redevelopment or development project. Is it the type of use we want to have and
help “subsidize” into the North College Avenue area?
Planner Mapes said that the question takes us back to an earlier one of why put this in
place now, why not wait until we know everything about what we are going to do. We
could have done it that way, the risk is, you do the market analysis later, you update the
North College Plan later, a project comes in later and now again, conditions have
changed, mainly political conditions and consensus among the people in the area and
consensus among City Council which is very strong right now. We are going to just let
the wheels keep turning and put it place and then follow up. It is more a matter of there
is no harm in it.
Member Craig was concerned with putting the TIF in the plan in hopes that we will start
doing something with it. We start doing something with it and yet we are two years out
of really doing a market analysis and we might even change zoning out there after we
have done a market analysis. Look at the East Mulberry Plan and quite a few changes
from what it originally looked like. It concerns her that development may occur because
of the TIF and yet it will not follow the market analysis for what the future plan is. She
was disappointed in the original North College Plan that no market analysis was done.
It was more of staff and stakeholders sat down and said what they thought. She did not
think the theory had even been looked at to solve that.
Planner Mapes thought that if any development comes in, it would be a coffee shop,
and there are rumors of a King Soopers. If this is in place and if any further
development does occur, then there would be small amounts of money accumulating
from the TIF. He really did not think we would be out enticing development.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
October 21, 2004
Page 17
Member Craig asked if this area was in an enterprise zone or not. In the North College
Plan, it says it is in an enterprise zone and wants to use that to promote business.
Obviously if staff did not even remember that it was in there, nobody has been
promoting it for the last 10 years. She was curious if it was still a possibility and how
that fits in.
Planner Waido replied that he did not know where the boundaries were. He did know
that we are currently working with a property owner to extend the enterprise zone to
incorporate his particular development proposal. He thought that the enterprise zone
does exist, but it is not in the boundaries of this Urban Renewal Plan area.
Director Gloss added that the enterprise zone program is run through the State,
facilitated by the County, and they have an enterprise zone manager that works with
businesses that would like to expand or move into a particular area. The growth of jobs
is really the key factor so a coffee shop would not have a significant gain by going into
an enterprise zone area, whereas some other type of employment where there are clear
creation of jobs, that has a great benefit to the enterprise zone and they receive certain
breaks.
Member Craig did notice from the North College Plan that it showed quite a bit of area
that is light industrial and industrial. Trying to bring jobs into this area is why she felt it
was appropriate that we know whether it has the ability to be an enterprise zone. Her
impression is that the State has already designated certain areas and that is why she is
checking into this. It strikes her as a pretty strong tool because when you bring jobs, it
is those jobs that will service the coffee shops and the little businesses that we want on
North College. The reason the downtown is so viable is that the city and government
has helped it by putting jobs downtown so they have people who will go to those
restaurants and coffee shops. She thought this was a very important issue for this area.
Member Craig said she hears staff, but the TIF is not going to solve the problem and if
we really feel like it is a problem that we want to address and we want to solve, she
thought there were a lot of tools that are not being used and it bothers her. One, that
we are saying that the TIF is going to be the answer or we are selling it to these
stakeholders that this is going to be the answer when she doesn’t even think it is going
to come close. Two, she does not like the feeling of “what is it going to hurt”, well pretty
soon we are going to start to TIF everything from the Foothills Fashion Mall to out by the
Interstate and she did not think that TIF should be used that way.
Member Schmidt stated that when she was reading the North College Plan it talks about
some of the main detriments to development in that area being the truck traffic and the
train problems. She was concerned that we are developing this TIF and it will not
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
October 21, 2004
Page 18
address those problems so we still may not see any real changes in the development of
that area.
Member Schmidt asked what the benefits were to having this Urban Renewal Plan
versus dealing with situations the way we did with the Lifestyle Center. Basically they
came in and said that they were going to do this great wondrous thing for you and now
we want some TIF or whatever they were able to get. What is the difference between
doing it on a case by case development basis versus having this Urban Renewal Plan?
Planner Mapes replied the big difference is property tax TIF. The concept behind this is
that the increased value of property after it redevelops creates an increased property
tax. That increase is reimbursed back into to help pay for the project on the theory that
it help make the project happen in the first place. It is tailored specifically to areas such
as North College where there is a wide spread agreement that the area is stagnant and
it is not happening. Taking this increased value of property tax and putting it back into
the project that generated it in the first place.
Chairperson Torgerson thought that it was totally inappropriate to single out large
businesses that bring in large amounts of sales tax and negate a steel factory that
wants to expand or a coffee shop that wants to expand. He thought it was more fair to
spread it evenly and fairly across the district that needs improvements amongst
anybody that wants to redevelop in that area rather than picking a King Sooper’s or a
Lifestyle Center.
Member Schmidt was concerned about existing businesses that are currently there and
are now designated in a “blighted area” that their property values would be less.
Member Craig asked about a previous consideration by the DDA to annex this area.
She wondered why staff and Council are not considering that because the DDA would
already have money to invest in the area.
Planner Waido replied that the DDA Board does not want the area. It was a
consideration to them and they said no.
Member Craig asked if they said no because it was not a Wal-Mart that would bring in 4
million dollars or did they say no because, what?
Planner Waido replied he did not know, he was not there and Wal-Mart went to DDA not
the other way around.
Planner Mapes did not have written documentation of this but his understanding is that
the DDA is focused on Downtown; they have a number of issues they are dealing with.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
October 21, 2004
Page 19
Very difficult issues of trade-offs and priorities and they don’t have the capacity to take
this area in.
Chairperson Torgerson stated that he was a party to those meetings and it was
discussed and studied at length. When the DDA was getting close to the end of their
Charter before the State extended their Charter, discussions were going on for weeks to
expand the boundary. Not just to the north, but they looked at all the boundary and they
decided that they have a lot of ongoing major redevelopment areas such as the river
and the Civic Center that they needed to focus their resources on those things to
accomplish their goals. It would dilute their cause to be expanding their boundary.
Member Craig asked then why were they willing to flagpole and expand it out to
Mulberry to a business that really should be helping the Mulberry Corridor.
Chairperson Torgerson replied he did not know.
Member Gavaldon asked about enforcement and why were citations not being written
for weeds and so forth. He thought that blight could have been prevented in many ways
and felt that enforcement was not consistent.
Planner Mapes replied that he did not know.
Chairperson Torgerson thought that this area developed before building codes, zoning
codes were enforcing things like street connectivity, storm water infrastructure and
buildings and areas have a life span that a lot of these buildings and blocks are coming
to the end of. Inherently as they degrade there is not a monetary incentive for people to
reinvest. He thought that was really the bottom line. He did not think that if we had
people up there giving out tickets every other day that it would improve the problem
areas.
Deputy City Attorney Eckman clarified that Section 3 and Section 6 of the Plan are
instructive in terms of what its purpose is and whether or not it is designed to promote
the Comprehensive Plan and the Corridor Area Plan. The document that we are
looking at is the written plan itself. In Section 3, it gives a list of the various elements of
the Comprehensive Plan that seem to be applicable here and it indicates that its
purpose is to implement those. All of Section 6 deals with City Plan. He stated that
before City Council some specific policies and principles of the City Plan that may be
promoted by this may be added.
Mr. Eckman informed the Board that at the City Council Study Session they indicated a
favorable attitude towards the sales tax increment. There is nothing in this plan that
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
October 21, 2004
Page 20
mentions that, so we will be adding some language that deals with the sales tax
increment before the plan is adopted.
Mr. Eckman advised the Board that what they should be voting on tonight is whether
this plan meets the state statute requirement of whether this plan conforms to the
Comprehensive Plan or not.
Member Lingle was struggling because he thinks that this complies with City Plan but
not the current writing of the North College Corridor Plan.
Mr. Eckman asked where in the Plan did he see a conflict with the North College
Corridor Plan.
Member Lingle replied the section that is titled Goals.
Member Schmidt added that in the Urban Plan it says, “the intent and purpose of this
Plan is to remedy blight and prevent the spread of blight by insisting implementation of
relevant provisions contained in these documents.” Again she asks how this plan deals
with the trains on North College or the truck traffic on North College that were outlined
as detriments to the development of the North College area. That to her is a big “riff”
and in dealing with the basic City Plan, especially now if we are going to include sales
tax, she has a problem with Member Craig’s idea of TIFing everywhere. If we are
looking at the well being of the whole city that is to maintain and expand the city
revenue base, then actually this is compartmentalizing the city’s revenue base by
allowing these districts to each keep their own buckets of tax money.
Planner Waido replied that it was up to Council, but her concern about TIFing
everywhere is why the sales tax on a case by case basis is the one that is more critical
versus the property tax. What the property tax increment allows us to do is the city gets
the increased tax to itself versus sharing it with the other taxing entities like the School
District and the County. If you don’t have the Urban Renewal Plan in the area and an
assessment on a property doubles, the city could only get 9 mills of that doubling value
and the School District and County would get whatever those taxes are. The property
tax TIF we get all of. The sales tax is another issue and that is why we are saying it is
on a case by case basis because sales tax is a city wide tax that the General Fund is so
reliant on and it would need to be a Council decision on a case by case bases if the
project is asking for a sales tax TIF.
Planner Mapes asked what in the Urban Renewal Plan did Member Lingle think did not
comply with in the North College Corridor Plan.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
October 21, 2004
Page 21
Member Lingle replied that its not that there is anything that is written in the Plan that
says it can’t happen this way, but from the discussions in the Advisory Committee, he is
convinced that that the only way to make this successful is to promote larger scale
redevelopment, primarily retail. The first one of those developments that comes in the
door and displaces 4 or 5 locally owned businesses that the North College Avenue
Corridor Plan says is a goal to preserve, and then he knows who is going to win that
battle. He was wondering if there was a way that we could say that the Plan is in
compliance with the general concepts of City Plan, but admits that the Plan may not be
in conformance with the current writing of the Corridor Plan.
Planner Mapes asked Member Lingle if he thought that we would get three large
shopping centers under this Plan.
Member Lingle replied he thought that once the authority is created it is empowered to
do that and City Councils will change and staff will change and who knows 10 years
from now there may be people very aggressively going after things that would clearly be
in conflict with current goals of the Corridor Plan.
Deputy City Attorney Eckman added that since the written Plan has as one of its
objectives to implement the Comprehensive Plan and its related elements and lists
some of them, if we find ourselves promoting a large shopping center that actually
eliminates some of the small businesses as Member Lingle was concerned about, that
may be a problem and we may need to go into the North College Avenue Corridor Plan
before anything happens and take a look at whether it needs to be considered for
amendment.
Member Schmidt commented that went back to her original point that we are putting the
cart before the horse. To her even if Chairperson Torgerson doesn’t think a market
study is required, she does because she did not think that three retail centers would
make it on North College. As they talked about on the Committee, there are some other
things that would be beneficial to have in the area. That could provide some focus and
rewriting of the whole North College Plan so we have an agreement. She thought that
right now on the Citizens Advisory Committee there are a lot of different feelings about
how things should go and what the future should look like, but at least have a clearer
path on where we want to go and then possibly put something together when we have
the steps in place. Instead of saying that we have something here that gives these
broad powers because frankly she is still worried about the eminent domain issue, and
let it sit there. It could be sitting there for 10 years and a lot of things could have
changed.
Planner Mapes replied that he fully understands what she is getting at there. In fact she
is getting into contradictions that are reflected in the existing plan that says that the area
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
October 21, 2004
Page 22
will retain its small business character. There have been contradictions out there since
before we did the North College Plan which was also done in response to a request by
people in the area. If you talk to the group up there, you will hear that they have been
neglected, the area has been neglected, the area has remained stagnant, we have
been ignored, we are not getting our fair share of growth and we are not getting
upgraded development as you see everywhere else in the city. We want to see
improvement and we can accept change. Then you start talking about what that would
look like and eventually it comes down to change. A building gets replaced or a street
gets punched through where there wasn’t one. There is a contradiction there and he
hears what they were saying that they would like to resolve all of the issues and then
put the Plan in place. We will continue to pursue this, the people in the area have gone
from an absolute rejection of an Urban Renewal Authority in 1994 to asking staff to do
this now with some of the contradictions still lingering.
Member Schmidt reminded Planner Mapes people came forth with going into this Urban
Renewal Plan on miss information that they received from the previous City Manager.
That is why we have gone through the lengthy process of starting down the road of
finding out what the correct information is and what implications it really is going to
have.
Member Gavaldon moved that the Board send a recommendation to City Council
to not adopt the Urban Renewal Plan based on the fact that it is not in compliance
or consistent with the North College Avenue Corridor Plan as written, the City of
Fort Collins Master Street Plan because it is missing components and City Plan
as it is interpreted.
Member Craig asked staff if the only missing components are local streets and local
streets are not usually put on the Master Street Plan.
Planner Mapes replied that the map that illustrates the needed street network contains a
couple of segments which are shown on the Master Street Plan, the collectors, it also
contains additional segments, illustrative only, that are local streets and yes, they would
never be put on the Master Street Plan.
Member Gavaldon removed the part of the motion regarding the Master Street
Plan.
Member Gavaldon added to the motion that the Resolution be changed to read
that the Plan has been determine to not be in conformance with the general plan
for the development of the City, which is the City’s Comprehensive Plan,
commonly known as “City Plan”.
Member Craig seconded the motion with the amendments.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
October 21, 2004
Page 23
Member Lingle would not be supporting the motion as worded because he really wants
to support the Urban Renewal Plan in concept. He was having a hard time coming to
grips with how he could do that with some of the things not being up to where it should
be in terms of needing adjustment. He wanted to explore it more on the positive side.
Member Craig commented that if the motion were would Council consider continuing
this and look at some of these concerns then she could understand not wanting to
support the motion. The fact is that it either is or is not going.
Member Lingle stated that if the motion were to recommend that City Council delay their
decision until these things are done that would be different than the motion on the table.
Member Lingle stated that at the last Council Study Session, there was a general
consensus among the Council that they were in favor of the concept of the Plan.
Planner Waido stated that a week ago, there was a study session with the Council and
we went a specific direction on four issues that were still hanging out there through
staffs work with the Citizen Advisory Committee. The Council dealt with whether or not
the plan should address sales tax, whether or not a boundary amendment should be
made, whether or not there is an Advisory Committee and whether or not eminent
domain wording was appropriate the way it was drafted in the plan. Staff got positive
direction from Council on all of those issues. The boundary issue dealt with whether or
not to delay the plan in order to consider a boundary amendment or did Council want to
continue on with the process and adopt this plan by the end of the year. The Council
wanted to adopt the plan and look at the boundary amendment as a plan amendment at
some point in the future.
Planner Waido stated that the only other comment he wanted to make related to the
Board being uncomfortable with the North College Corridor Plan and City Plan
recognizes that the Plan needs to be updated.
Member Schmidt commented that in City Plan it just says that existing Sub Area plans
will be reviewed and be made consistent with City Plan as needed for plans or plans to
be updated. It sounds like it is only going to “tweak” it as far as keeping it in line with
City Plan, which possibly the issue with the bike lanes be one of those areas. As far as
changing the Vision and Goals, it may not change. Her feeling is it needs to be revisited
from the standpoint of what is the commitment of the community out there and then she
would rather see a more specific Urban Renewal Plan rather than just leave this very
general open plan. She just feels that there is still just too much frustration on the
Citizen Advisory Committee and lack of connection with the other two plans; she doesn’t
feel comfortable forwarding this lan at this time.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
October 21, 2004
Page 24
Member Craig commented that it was stated that the purpose of the Urban Renewal
Plan was to create a TIF and the use of eminent domain. She did not see anything in
the North College Plan that led her to the conclusion that that’s what their intent was.
She saw where they said at a grocery store because that would facilitate growth. She
saw where one of the main constraints was Dry Creek and she did not think that the TIF
would address that and she would hate to see eminent domain to address that. She
worries that Council will think that they have solved that problem. They have sat on a
plan for 10 years and it does not strike her as any aggression on their part to try and
solve the problems that have been brought up in that plan.
Member Craig went on to say that Council has not even looked at the enterprise zone
and see what they could do with that and possibly make some zone changes to
promote the kind of growth they are looking for. She does think that it has been growing
there over the last ten years, maybe not as much as the stakeholders would like. She
really feels that if Council wants to solve the problems on North College, they need to
become aggressive and they need to get the market analysis, they need to possibly put
on the Council Policy Agenda how we can get funding, how we can try and solve some
of these problems. Staff, themselves have said that this Urban Renewal Plan is not
going to solve the problems.
Planner Waido responded that we can look at it as one tool, and Dry Creek was
mentioned in which a capital project is online to deal with the Dry Creek and essentially
eliminate the floodplain through the North College Corridor area. The new BOB
currently has a project, which is not on the final list to go onto the ballet to improve
College Avenue from existing Vine up to Conifer. There are capital projects, potential
use of TIF money or a Special Improvement District. We are just adding another tool
into the tool box.
Member Gavaldon did not feel this was a good tool to put into the toolbox and would not
be supporting the motion.
Chairperson Torgerson would not be supporting the motion. He thought that this is the
best chance North College has to start renewing itself in the near future. The relevant
thing about property tax increment is that the only part that goes back into the area is
that increment that is created by redevelopment. If redevelopment does not occur, then
that increment never occurred. You are not really taking taxes from anyone; you are
taking tax that never would have occurred unless they had an incentive to redevelop.
The motion was approved 3-2 with Members Lingle and Torgerson voting in the
negative. Member Carpenter and Meyer were absent.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
October 21, 2004
Page 25
Other Business
Chairperson Torgerson announced that the Board would have a discussion on the
expanded duties of Board’s and Commissions, which is a recommendation to the City
Council.
Tom Vosburg, Director of Administrative Services gave the staff presentation. He
stated that next Tuesday night there would be a discussion with City Council at study
session regarding consideration of a proposal to expand the role of the city’s various
Policy Advisory Boards to provide the Board’s with the opportunity to play some role in
the Development Review process. He stated that he was talking with the Planning and
Zoning Board tonight to give them an opportunity to discuss this issue and consider the
alternatives that will be taken to City Council; and if the Board feels they are in the
position to make a recommendation to Council to give them the opportunity.
Mr. Vosburg gave some background stating that Council had directed staff to frame
some alternatives for how Board’s might be provided an expanded role in the
Development Review Process. He thought that this process is related in some way to
past interest expressed by the Natural Resources Advisory Board and the Air Quality
Board in having some kind of a role in the Development Review Process. It also relates
to some recommendations that have been made in the Zucker Report where Paul
Zucker did make comments that it may be appropriate to provide some kind of limited
role to those two Board’s to participate in development review provided that their
participation did not add cost or time to the process. At Council’s direction staff has
undertaken a process to better frame what kind of options might be available for
administering the city’s various Policy Board’s in development review.
He stated that in giving this thought there are various administrative models that can be
used to provide an avenue for other Policy Board’s to be involved and the complexion
and character of their involvement and the implications for the development review
process are significantly depending on which of those administrative models are
contemplated. There are two questions that would be proposed to Council. The first is
should the city’s other advisory boards be involved in the development review process
at all; and the second is if so, what would be the appropriate model?
Mr. Vosburg gave a brief overview of the different administrative models that are being
contemplated. He stated that four different administrative models and then the fifth
option was always no change fro status quo.
• Where Board’s could be involved within the development review process similar
to the way neighborhood groups are now involved in the development process.
That is that we would provide a general notice to Board’s and then allow Board’s
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
October 21, 2004
Page 26
to self select projects that they have an interest in; then voluntarily engage in
neighborhood meetings or any other public meetings that are scheduled as a
normal part of the review process, or to come down to the Current Planning office
and ask for information about the project from the Planning Staff in the same
manner that any citizen or neighborhood representative would. Those aspects of
the administrative parts of the development review process would require no
change from current practices since we are already doing all those same
procedures to accommodate the general public.
The one significant difference is under this option Board Members could
ultimately, when it comes to the hearing, they could step up to the microphone
and state an opinion and comments about the project and frame it as the
recommendation of whatever Policy Board they represented. Under our current
practices, Board Members can view all that he has outlined and they can step up
to the podium and identify themselves and even identify that they are members
of a city board, but they need to add the caveat that they are speaking as a
citizen as opposed to representing the board. Under this model we would make
changes to the Board’s basic scope of duties that would permit them to weigh in
as a Board in that capacity.
• Option two would treat the Board’s more like a staff review agency. In this model
staff would route submittal application materials directly to the Board and the
Board would study the submittal application materials and generate detailed
comments and log them into the staffs commenting tracking system the same
way as a staff review agency. He thought that if we were consistently following
that model it would contemplate that the Board’s could be involved in an iterative
review process and see several times and continue to follow issues through to
their closure prior to the project being ready to proceed in the review process.
• Option three would treat the Board’s like an advisory board to the Planning and
Zoning Board or Hearing Officer. In this model the development review process
would not be changed at all from its current administration. Everything would
take place exactly as it does now, but when the staff report is complete, rather
than it coming directly to P & Z or the Hearing Officer, it would first go to the
advisory boards for a review and then a recommendation would come to the
decision maker together with the staff recommendation.
• Option four would be a model of complementary review. It is modeled after the
practice that we have with the Landmark Preservation Committee. In this model
the LPC will provide to either staff or the applicant a complementary review. The
LPC does not make recommendations or advise the development review process
decision maker in any way. LPC does not provide direct input to P & Z or the
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
October 21, 2004
Page 27
Hearing Officer. The complementary review model provides some insulation
between the Policy Boards and the development review process directly and that
insulation is either the staff or the applicant. The idea is that it is initiated by the
applicant or staff and the applicant or staff are free to take the advise of the
Board or leave the advise of the Board at their discretion.
Those are the four options that staff is reviewing with stake holder groups and again
Option five would be no change to the existing practice. In this model the Policy
Advisory Boards advise Council on the development of policy and legislation, but we do
not involve those Board’s in the application of policy to individual projects. That
maintains a separation between legislative processes and our quasi-judicial
development review process. That is common practice in local government.
There was no public input.
Member Lingle asked about Option two and the statement regarding the additional staff
support time would be provided to the Board to accommodate presentation of the
project. It seemed that this option would add time by virtue of the fact to act as a staff
review agency; the staff is there every business day and these boards would act maybe
once a month. It would seem like it would not occur in the same timely that staff
reviews normally would. Was that the case?
Mr. Vosburg replied that was the case. Option two would be very difficult to administer.
The awkward from the perspective of routing the materials and staff anticipates the
need to present and explain the project materials to the board and then the frequency in
which the boards meet would really make it difficult for them to stay on the same kind of
comment/submittal schedule that staff is held to in order to maintain the timeline
commitments that the city has made for the development review process. Unless
Boards were willing to dramatically alter the way they meet, Option two would be a fairly
cumbersome and unworkable option.
Member Schmidt asked what scenario might fit in the situation where the reverse might
be for a Planning and Zoning Board Member to ask if a particular Board has had a
chance to review the application and what were their comments.
Mr. Vosburg replied that there is a distinction between our legislative processes and our
quasi-judicial that is our processes for developing policy are very different than applying
policy. Developing rules as opposed to applying them to specific projects and the
Planning and Zoning Board plays roles in both processes.
Mr. Vosburg added that each of the proposed options would envision expanding the
other Board’s roles so they could give the Planning and Zoning Board advise. They
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
October 21, 2004
Page 28
could actively solicit their advice. Under our current practices the Board could not ask
for their advice. Any one of the options would enable the Board to ask for advice.
Member Lingle asked if there was an Option 6, where the role and authority of the P & Z
Board could be modified such that they would have the authority at their discretion to
request direct input from those Board’s that might affect a particular development
proposal.
Mr. Vosburg replied as long as we were talking legislative ideas, there is always room
for Option 6. He thought that the comment he would have is that staff was attempting to
frame options that might fit within the scope of not extending or delaying the process.
His understanding of the review process was in order for the Board to ask for another
Board to comment, and the Board would have to see the project and recognize that
there is a gap in the information and then have to continue the item, which would slow
the process down. There may situations where that may be appropriate.
Deputy City Attorney Eckman added that we have informally that kind of Option 6 now.
Sometimes a matter will come before the Board that is quasi-judicial like a PDP and
there would be natural resources criteria to evaluate. If the Board does not feel they
have adequate information to decide whether that criteria has been met, or not met, it is
not inappropriate for the Board to continue the item to get more information, whether it
be from the staff and he did not think that we have ever asked for a Natural Resources
Advisory Board comment, but quite often staff is asked to come back with better or
more information so a fully informed decision could be made.
Member Schmidt wondered what the difficulty is in applying it to a quasi judicial is
because often times we have a specific project come in and then we say well “is this
meeting the goals of the policy”, is this what they were looking for when they set this
policy. That is why she is thinking that going back to a Board that was influential in that
policy would be helpful to get their input. She does not see that happening very often,
but that is the kind of thing where she thought that it might apply in a quasi-judicial
setting. It would certainly be the case, often times of controversial projects that go a few
months because there is a lot of information gathering. She did not think that in
actuality the project would be delayed because those are the projects that have frequent
delays any how.
Chairperson Torgerson said that Options 1, 3 and 4 were characterized as not adding to
the length of development review. He asked if that was correct.
Mr. Vosburg replied that Option 2 has the potential to add to the length of the
development review process considerably. Option 3, which would require at least one
more step after staff review also by necessity add some time. Options 2 and 3 would
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
October 21, 2004
Page 29
add some time and he thought that there was the potential for both Options 1 and 4 to
be administered without providing direct staff support costs or significant changes in the
basic timeline.
Chairperson Torgerson stated that the way the development review process works is
that applicants submit their plans, they are reviewed by the city and sometimes outside
agencies and they all refer comments back. The applicant then responds to those
comments and makes corrections. In Option 1 and 4 that critique would not come until
the end of the process. It would be like an 11th hour comment.
Director Gloss replied not necessarily, it could be that structured that after the project is
submitted it could be during the initial round of review.
Member Craig asked if it could be as soon after as conceptual review.
Director Gloss brought that point up with the NRAB at a recent meeting and he did not
get a definitive answer on that. As a general rule, bad news is better to get sooner
rather than later. Often times we have problems and if those are encountered early on,
then someone could respond to them and continue through the process quite smoothly
if they know early enough. The difficulty with conceptual review is that a project is
brought in and it is just that, conceptual, a schematic design. As they are preparing the
application, changes are made before the application is submitted.
Mr. Vosburg expanded on that and stated that he thought the “spirit” of Option 1 in
treating the Policy Boards like a neighborhood group and in dealing with neighborhood
groups are that the responsibility lies with the neighborhood to stay engaged in the
process and have their own relationship with the applicant and with the project planner.
When neighborhoods are effective, they come to the first neighborhood meeting and are
tuned into the project in the early stages. They then monitor and follow the process and
are involved in an ongoing relationship with the developer as the projects proceeds
through the development review process. There are models for how Option 1 could
work and allow early participation with the Board. The difficulty with Option 1, the way
we are conceptualizing its path is that the Board would be on their own, we would not
be providing the staff support that the Board traditionally enjoys. That might be sort of a
cultural difficulty for folks that are used to having staff support.
If we solve that, Option 4, or if there was an Option 4 with a direct relationship to
recommending to the decision maker, then we come into the problem of being involved
early and staying involved often because projects do evolve as they go through the
process. Meaningful involvement does not mean just a single review, it means an
ongoing engagement.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
October 21, 2004
Page 30
Member Craig asked if other agencies would be able to determine whether a
neighborhood meeting would be required on projects.
Director Gloss replied that Type II projects have a mandatory requirement; Type 1 we
can actually request that the neighborhood meeting be conducted.
Member Craig asked what usually warrants that.
Director Gloss replied known controversy.
Member Craig asked if Option 1 were picked and the agency called and said because
this project has some issued that can be interpreted from the standard, they would like
to have a neighborhood meeting and that meeting would be with the neighborhood
meeting would be with that agency, which would then include the agency, staff and the
agency instead of the neighborhood.
Director Gloss replied that could be one possible outcome, staff has not discussed that
option, but that would be something that could be considered.
Chairperson Torgerson asked if the NRAB and Air Quality Review Board are the two
that requested this change.
Mr. Vosburg replied historically it has been those two boards, although we have tried to
frame the discussions here more broadly because conceptually there is no difference
between those two boards and a variety of boards. There are 30 city Boards and
Commissions, but some of them have no relationship to the physical development of the
city. The key Boards that have relationship to the physical development of the city are
P & Z, Transportation Board, Water Board, Air Quality Board, NRAB and LPC.
Chairperson Torgerson replied that they all offer a great deal of important information to
development of code and policy, but he was trying to think of what section of the code,
for instance the Air Quality Board, would look at because that is really how projects are
reviewed.
Mr. Vosburg replied that was a good point. The legislative process establishes both
general policy and specific regulations. The Air Quality Advisory Board indicated a real
interest in participating in the development review process, but in the course of their
discussions, they also recognize that there are no projects with specific air quality
regulations by which to evaluate a project. In their discussions with him, they
acknowledged that it was probably impractical for the Air Quality Board to have a
meaningful role in development review at this point in time. They did have a discussion
that perhaps it is appropriate to put some energy to put some energy in developing
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
October 21, 2004
Page 31
some project specific air quality standards in which case there would be an ability to
evaluate projects.
Chairperson Torgerson responded that that was true for almost all the Boards. The
NRAB would have the most code items that would relate to them and in that cause they
are fairly prescriptive and we have ample staff to make sure a project is meeting those.
Member Craig stated that one of the things as a P & Z Member that she has
appreciated on some projects is some of our code is interpreted and she knows we
have tried to make it prescriptive, but especially when you get into the natural resource
area, they have to be interpreted because if they are completely prescriptive then
sometimes we are not coming up with the best end product. Even though we have a
chart that says the buffer is “X”, we don’t always don’t come up with the buffer being “X”
because sometimes that is not the best thing for that project. Then you take the
performance standards and in the performance standards you are allowed to work with
those numbers in a way that you see appropriate. The policy makers made the policy
and they did give back some room so it is not quite as prescriptive.
Chairperson Torgerson replied that we got rid of that aspect of the code and it is not
quite prescriptive now.
Mr. Vosburg replied that what Member Craig was speaking to is the Natural Habitat and
Features Protection Standards in Section 3.4.1 which is commonly known as the Buffer
Standards. Those Buffer Standards are key pieces to the regulatory mechanism. First
there is a general standard which articulates that the purpose of the whole set of
standards is to protect the natural habitat and features as best possible while the area
develops and to integrate those features into the development. There is a table of
specific distances, but there are also a set of specific performance standards that
basically says “we know that those buffer distances are O.K. when we have a site plan
that performs in the following way.” There are six or seven criteria that are prescriptive
in how well the natural features actually in terms of being natural habitat. The
presumption is that if you have met the objectives standard that that will probably take
care of meeting all the performance standards. The specific language says that you
start with the number in the table and you shall adjust it back and forth in order to
ensure that the performance standards are met, which means the buffer could get
bigger or smaller.
Member Gavaldon asked if there were notes from what was presented a year ago.
Director Gloss replied that what he presented was right out of Paul Zucker’s study.
There are really a couple of components, one of the roles of Boards and Commissions
would be limited in their scope, but not all projects would go before them. Specifically,
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
October 21, 2004
Page 32
projects that would require modifications and secondly that no time would be added to
the review process. That was the two conditions that he placed on the
recommendation. That is what he presented to the Board and there was a general
discussion and it seemed to him that there was some support with those caveats that
were mentioned in the report, but it did not get to any specifics like we are going through
now with these different options.
Member Gavaldon moved that the Planning and Zoning Board recommend that
various city Policy Advisory Board’s not be expanded to included the ability to
comment on the development review projects.
Chairperson Torgerson stated that would be Option 5.
Member Lingle seconded the motion.
Member Craig would not be supporting the motion. At this time, she really could not
send forward a recommendation of whether it should be Option 1, 2, 3 or 4 because she
did not really feel like they were able to dissect each one. She saw things she like in
Option 1 and things she liked in Option 4 and she would have like to come up with
another option. Having said that, since time is important here and she does want this to
move forward is what she would have liked to have seen is the Planning and Zoning
Board put forth a recommendation that there be an option, that there be a expansion of
Advisory Board’s with the caveat that it would only be the Advisory Boards that, within
their bylaws they have been given the authority to provide advise in issues that relate to
land development where there is specific code standards that exist so we would not say
that every Board could do this.
Member Craig appreciated back before Steve Roy began worrying about law suits when
some of these Boards, be it Affordable Housing, be it P & Z, be it even Landmark
Preservation either sent the Board a memo, which was in their packets, or were able to
come before the Board and say that was not their intent as a policy or we don’t interpret
that policy that way. The purpose of those Boards is to look at these issues in depth,
where Council does not have time to do it and P & Z does not have time to do it. There
area a lot of issues that get sent to the Board that are expected a great wise decision on
and the Board does not have the background to make those decisions. The memos
were really helpful.
Member Schmidt feel in a similar fashion and she could not support this motion. She
thought that they need some sort of option that keeps that avenue open that there can
be communication if it is necessary. Not having been on the Board that long and not
knowing what has been done in the past with memos, but she feels that there are times
when you would like to be able to ask for some input from a different Board. If it is not
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
October 21, 2004
Page 33
even possible to get that at this time, she thought was a hole in the system. She does
not know any exact steps or procedures to fill in that, but that would be her desire to
have that as an option. She felt the same way as Member Craig and that not all Boards
would have to have that, but at least the ones that are connected through land use
policies to what we would need input for.
Member Gavaldon has been on the Board for almost 10 years and has seen some of
these memos come across. He has seen individuals come in and tout their title as
Chairperson to make their point known. Some of those folks crossed the line.
Secondly, he saw folks come in as citizens with good sound data. They do have the
ability and the right to voice individually; we are not cutting anyone out. The Boards and
Commissions rules are policies to Council that is what they were set up for. He
appreciated the point about limiting some of them, but he could not see how you could
do that. He felt that we were going to run people out because the development review
process is going to take longer. He appreciated staffs support on Option 5 and he feels
that would be the right thing to do. The Board is also missing two Board members
tonight that weighed in on this a year ago and he wished there was a whole Board here
tonight to comment on this.
Member Lingle did not see the inherent benefit right now of opening the entire
development review process to other Boards on a completely open basis. He would
really floor more their ability to be able to engage them at their discretion as the Board
needs their input and their technical advise, which we don’t seem to be able to have that
through informal memos or any other avenues at this point. Given the options before
them tonight, he would support Option 5.
Member Craig commented that if we look at an option that waits for the Board to say
there is a problem here and the Board is not comfortable with it, that it will slow down
the process a lot more than two or three options here. These options are saying that
they show up at Conceptual Review or they look the project and they ask to be included
in a neighborhood meeting so they are involved at the beginning of the project.
Member Lingle stated that he would have to agree with the earlier comment of not
seeing this happen very often, maybe two or three a year.
Chairperson Torgerson commented that separation of the legislative and quasi-judicial
aspects of government is a long standing tradition and in a way it mimics our Federal
Government in the sense that it separates the judicial and the legislative branches. He
thought that there was good logic for that and he thought that this was analogous to that
and he thought that the other Boards and Commissions do an excellent job of creating
code and staff does an excellent job of interpreting and enforcing that code and the
Board is like the last check and balance. He thought we have an excellent process that
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
October 21, 2004
Page 34
does not need to be fixed in that regard. The other aspect is that he cannot look at any
of these and conceive of an equitable process that would not lengthen the development
review process dramatically. As a Planner in private practice he would increase his
fees dramatically because he could not just bring a project to the NRAB at a conceptual
level, have them say that “looks great” and leave it at that. As a professional he would
have to take it back to them every time he changed it, which plans always change and
would have to go back through the NRAB every time he went through a round of review
with the city.
The motion was approved 3-2 with Members Craig and Schmidt voting in the
negative and Members Meyer and Carpenter absent.
There was no other business.
The meeting was adjourned at 8:47 p.m.