Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout450 N. COLLEGE REZONING - 34-01 - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTESPlanning and Zoning Board Meeting of September 17, 2001 Page 29 Member Torgerson concurred with other Board members and felt that it was a fabulous historic resource and it is great that it is owned by the city because we can control what it becomes. He would be supporting the motion. The motion was approved 6-0. Member Meyer was absent. There was no other business. The meeting was adjourned at 11:15 p.m. Planning and Zoning Board Meeting of September 17, 2001 Page 28 the triangle, and we are trying to design a site that does not have the space we need for it. Member Craig also commented that we have very few historical sites in Fort Collins, so many of them have been mitigated. She referenced Rigden Farm, Preston Farm, and even though it was saved, would we want to put a homeless shelter in its front yard. It would totally ruin the site itself it we did that. This is one piece of history that we actually own as a city and she would like us to keep it in tact and she would like to give direction to Council that they continue to look, but this is not the site. If CSU does decide to do an expansion, we need to bring that onto the table and there is a chance we might also see at this as a historic site and if they can work within our guidelines, it is hard for her to see us mitigate this away and expect to get any kind of respect from developers or anyone else when it comes to a historic site. She is against us changing the zoning. Member Carpenter seconded the motion. Member Carpenter concurred with Member Craig. She felt this is a very significant historic site. It is historically open and park like and that is the way it has been since it was put there. It is one of the most beautiful things on North College, and next to the river. Why we would want to change that, fence it, add a building and also open up all the other uses under RDR that are possible does not make sense. She does not even believe for a minute that we would have entertained this had this been a private owner and she does not think for a minute that we should entertain it as a city. She believes that POL is the correct zoning for this property and that it needs to stay that way. She thinks that we may need to find a place for a day shelter, but feels that we need to work with some of the other day shelters that are already out there. She felt that it would be less expensive and she feels so strongly that this is an important historic site for us and it needs to stay that way. Member Colton also concurred with the previous comments and he felt that we need to seriously take a look a CSU if they want to expand. He does not support the request to rezone the property. Chairperson Gavaldon stated he would support the motion. He viewed this as a part of a large parcel that is a continuation from Martinez Park all the way along the Poudre River, which is shown on the zoning map and the Structure map. Breaking up this site and giving it another designation is a bad precedent. He also felt that the city should be working with other organizations that are already helping the homeless and expanding existing services. He felt the site should be maintained as public open lands. Planning and Zoning Board Meeting of September 17, 2001 Page 27 would probably not affect the historic eligibility to the site because that area is located against the railroad tracks. Member Craig asked if the homeless shelter is put in on the site, would it make it impossible for her to get a state designation. Ms. McWilliams answered that any new construction would have an impact on the State's review and actually this would be National Register designation and that is easier to get than State designation. Any new construction would be part of their review. If the building were to be done in a way that is wonderfully compatible with the existing structures and in a location that has the least amount of impact, it is still possible to get a National Register Designation. It is less likely. Member Torgerson asked that at this time full movement is being allowed at that intersection. Kathleen Reavis, Transportation Planning replied that the short-term access management program for North College does show a full movement, non - signalized intersection at that site. That determination was based on a site that generated a low amount of turning movements. She also pointed out that the fencing requirement has been talked about and the access road. The Colorado Department of Transportation would also approve any changes to the access road, because North College is a State Highway. Also the fence requirements would probably be dictated, in large part, by the railroad and not by the city in terms of what we would like it to look like. Ms. Reavis informed the Board that the long-term plan for North College does show a change to a right-in/right-out movement at that site. She also complimented the North College Business Association for all their help in helping develop the Access Management Plan and their efforts and visions for that corridor. Member Craig moved to recommend to Council to deny the request for a change in zoning for 450 North College. She did not see any justification for the change. She referred to the Visitors Center and its zoning of POL and she felt that public facilities can be put on Public Open Lands, they don't have to be parks. She felt the whole reasoning behind this, is that this is a historic site and we want to preserve the building and we want to keep it under city ownership and the area around it. We still don't know how important that piece is and we should keep it open until we know for sure. By the time we get the river buffer, there is not a lot of room left in Planning and Zoning Board Meeting of September 17, 2001 Page 26 within the Poudre River Corridor District that are compatible with the scenic natural, recreational and historic values of the river. Mr. Wilder talked about the zoning and how it changed from IG to it's current zoning. The Plan had a strategic action chart, which does not say a whole lot, but talks about eliminating the existing conventional zoning designations. It asked for a mixed -use zoning district based on the Downtown Plan. Under Special Land Use Opportunity, it talks about "encourage the development of the special river front area that mixes hospitality, hotel, recreation, entertainment, culture and some limited retail land uses in the Poudre River Corridor District being especially sensitive to the natural features of the river." "Specific activities that should be encouraged in this area include a performing arts theatre, an open area amphitheater, botanical gardens, preservation of important wetlands and vegetation, and water related recreation." More significant for this site is the policy that talks about the site "actively support and encourage the appropriate redevelopment of our architecturally or historically significant and under utilized buildings in the downtown". The most significant policy, in terms of this particular site, "was to encourage the redevelopment and adaptive reuse of historically significant and architecturally important structures, including but not limited to the Trolley Barn, the Power Plant and other sites". In terms of the implementation program, is that it did not have a specific recommendation for that site. However, staff did talk about this site in context of the entire River Corridor. One of the things within the program itself that they developed was "themed areas", and these were general types of uses or activities that staff felt was appropriate for various areas along the river. Not all these were developed into recommendations. The theme for the power plant was to retain the existing public use, they felt that there could be additional recreational opportunities on the site, which refers to the buildings on the site. There should be a natural area buffer, and enhanced wildlife corridor in that area. There could be additional site restoration and revitalization, recognizing that it is within part of the natural area buffer. There could be potential new minor public uses behind the main power plant building, referring to those structures specifically, and conscience stewardship of the site. Member Carpenter asked about the proposed fence along the south side of the property. She asked what Ms. McWilliams take was on what that would do to the National Register eligibility and to the integrity of the historic site. Ms. McWilliams replied that a fence running along the area that Heather had shown, had indicated, pending on the fencing materials, would be allowed and Planning and Zoning Board Meeting of September 17, 2001 Page 25 the right answer. Also, when you are providing funding, there is an expectation that the books will be completely open and there is an accounting of where the money is going. It has been questioned whether there could be that openness with that organization and the accountability that is needed. Chairperson Gavaldon commented that he was struggling with this process because why put another layer on top of something that we should be expanding and utilizing. Chairperson Gavaldon asked if the power plant is rezoned to RDR, would Heritage Park remain POL. Director Gloss replied that it would. Chairperson Gavaldon asked about the out buildings on the site and were they part of the historical significance on the site. Ms. McWilliams replied that a preliminary assessment of the building is that they were built approximately the same time as the power plan building. Probably in the early 1940's. One of them was built with log pole construction and very early concrete work. The other one seems to be a little later. They have a Historic Preservation Consultant who is going to look at those two buildings and do a formal survey with a recommendation of whether they would be eligible. At this point we don't have concrete information. Member Colton asked about the extensive review of the Downtown River Corridor and looked at parcel by parcel on what we thought the proposed uses should be. It did not come up at that time that there was any problem with the zoning or the use. He asked what the findings were on this parcel in the Downtown River Corridor. Timothy Wilder, Advanced Planning Department responded that he would also review the Downtown Plan for the Board because he felt as though it was more relevant than the River Corridor Plan. He pointed out that City Plan talks about this area as being part of the Poudre River Corridor Sub -District of the downtown area, and there are a variety of land uses. Talking about new uses throughout that area is also echoed in the Historic and Cultural Core segment of the Poudre River Corridor section of City Plan talking also about preserving historic resources also allowing redevelopment opportunities. In terms of the Downtown Plan, there are a number of items that he has identified that are relevant to this particular site. One is the concept plan that discusses this area as a special river area and that is further described in the document in the Poudre River Corridor Land Use section. It talks about permitting destination retail uses, light manufacturing, research and scientific laboratories, and similar uses in locations Planning and Zoning Board Meeting of September 17, 2001 Page 24 structures that come in and propose new construction on designated landmarks. That means that they would need to build an addition that was compatible with the building. It would need to be subservient and be placed on the back of the building and have many of the design elements of the existing building. Given the significance of the building, we would review very carefully any addition to the building itself. If CSU came in and proposed a new structure that did not actually attach to the building, but was located on the site, it would go through the same review process. A new building that does not attach to the structure, would be preferable and face fewer of the restrictions and obstacles than something that was attached to the building. Ms. Williams went on to say that if CSU were to go away, at this point it is a large building and did stand empty for quite a long time because there wasn't a really good appropriate use for that structure. There has been a lot of discussion of the significance of the site and the site itself is eligible for the National Register as a planned historic landscape. How new construction or a change of use would affect that would be totally up to what that proposed use would be. It could be anywhere from a trailhead, which she heard at the worksession, to some other public use, to some other commercial enterprise, depending on the zoning. Chairperson Gavaldon questioned why we were not utilizing current resources like the Open Door Mission and working along side them. Ms. Brooks replied that the broad answer is that a comprehensive approach to dealing with the homeless does not exist in Fort Collins. It did not exist at New Bridges, this is a completely new idea. What we mean by a comprehensive approach is that currently we do have all the facilities, mental health services, drug and alcohol counseling, preparation for GED testing, job bank, hope counseling; which in their own part make a person whole and help them overcome the homelessness. What does not exist in Fort Collins is a facility where these people can go and get case management. When referring to the Open Door Mission, they are doing a wonderful job for part of the population that are closer to escaping homelessness. They have opened up a day shelter, however, the resources are limited in providing the comprehensive approach. They do not provide the comprehensive case management approach. Chairperson Gavaldon asked why the United Way or the city has not worked with other organizations to get the expansion they may need to get the comprehensive case management. Ms. Brooks replied that information that has come to her from other organizations is that some of the processes they have ownership over them and they do not necessarily want to work with other groups on what everyone feels is Planning and Zoning Board Meeting of September 17. 2001 Page 23 Director Gloss replied that was more of an accessory use, the predominant use of the site is a park for active or passive recreation. This site is not for active or passive recreation. Member Carpenter asked to speak to the representative from CSU. She asked for their take on this, and how it would affect their operation there and how it would affect them staying in that location. Brian Wilson, Professor of Mechanical Engineering at CSU and Research Director at the Engines and Energy Conversion Laboratory, stated that the designation does not really affect them immediately because they are grandfathered in with the current zoning. However, in the future, there is a good chance that they would want to expand operations on this site in some compatible way. It is their understanding, that if they were to seek an expansion of this site, then the zoning change would support that. The zoning change does facilitate plans that they may have in the future. Right now that is only on the zoning change itself. On the issue of the homeless shelter, there is a lot of unknowns, they have not seen a comprehensive plan that shows a 4,000 s.f. building put somewhere with some amount of fencing. It is very ambiguous right now. They have not seen an operational plan for some things, to them, are very important before they can make a decision on whether they would be comfortable with the shelter on site. In terms of the zoning issue itself, it is something that they are neutral to positive on. Member Carpenter asked how far in the future were their plans. Mr. Wilson replied that a lot of the work they do now, is to try and develop new types of engines that will run with much lower levels of pollution and are much more energy efficient. That is something they have been working on for many years. but all of a sudden is becoming important again, and they have seen an increase in the demand on what they do. It is conceivable to say that it could be in the next couple of years. Member Colton wanted to talk about Historic Preservation. He was trying to figure out which is coming first, the chicken or the egg. CSU is in there, and we like them there because it is compatible with the historic site. If they want to add an addition on the back, would we like that from a historical perspective anymore that if they added on a day shelter. He also asked that if CSU did not want to use this facility anymore, what would be done with this site. Karen McWilliams, Historic Preservation Department responded that CSU is a very compatible use for that building. It is a perfect fit for the use and the building was made for this type of use. If CSU wanted to build an addition onto the building itself, they would need to meet the same guidelines that all other Planning and Zoning Board Meeting of September 17, 2001 Page 22 property. Obviously that brings them back to the one and only possibility, so the city and CSU are still pending on that discussion. With the building being forced back, there may not be a comfort level that can be met with CSU, and thus the facility would not be able to go on that site. Additionally, if the storage building is deemed to be non -historic, and it can be moved to a different location, the storage building could be torn down to improve the site. Member Craig asked about the fence, and how much along the railroad would have to be fenced. Ms. Brooks assumed, that for safety reasons, which also may include hedges in the buffer area, the fence would go up to the access point outside the buffer area. She visually showed the board on the site shot. They would want to build something with a historical look and meet the buffer regulations that would control the foot traffic. It would not necessarily be a chain link fence. Member Torgerson read that the criteria states, "we should only recommend zoning changes for approval if the proposed amendment is warranted by changed conditions within the neighborhood surrounding and included in the subject property". He asked Ms. Brooks to address that. Ms. Brooks replied that what drew their attention to this site initially was the homeless shelter. That is when they began to look at the zoning and other issues. After much staff analysis, it was determined that this site may have been zoned POL in error to begin with. Ms. Brooks asked Director Gloss to continue. Director Gloss clarified that there are two criteria that we use and it is an and/or condition. It is that you meet the Comprehensive Plan and/or warranted by changed conditions. That is very specific in the Code. Member Torgerson asked if he felt that this was warranted by changed conditions. Director Gloss replied that he did not feel that the change in conditions were applicable, but from staffs perspective, the POL district probably was the wrong designation because the intent of the POL district is for publicly owned open lands. Discussing this with the Advance Planning staff, they concurred that POL was not a good fit and it was not understood why that change was made in 1997 when the Structure Plan was adopted and the zoning occurred. Member Torgerson commented that Lee Martinez Park has some large buildings that are operating as an industrial use and there is also some open space. Planning and Zoning Board Meeting of September 17, 2001 Page 21 Mern Watrus, 723 West Olive, member of the City of Fort Collins Landmark Preservation Commission commented on the rezoning. As was pointed out some time ago, the buildings on this site were locally designated. Earlier this year, the Landmark Preservation Commission gave a loan to CSU amounting to over $4,000 for the reconstruction of the art -deco fountain. She questioned what would happen if we would have a going fountain there and a homeless shelter within walking distance. She also pointed out that the site itself, with the big lawn around it was not designated, only the buildings. However, if you start putting more buildings on that particular site, obviously the historic value of those particular designations will be greatly diminished. On North College, there are moderately priced lodging for tourists. We would certainly like to present an attractive face to Fort Collins to the tourists who come here. She is not trying to diminish the homeless problem, it is a great problem. She has volunteered for many years at the Mission and has seen it up close and personal. She suggested that this is a problem that requires a community consensus, which is not in place at this time. It is going to take more that just a little tweaking of the zoning and putting up a building. It is going to require a great deal of funding. She urged the Board to not change the zoning on this site. She felt that there were compelling reasons not to change the zoning. Don Butler, has a business at Cottonwood Plaza and was concerned about this rezoning. He asked where the people go at night if the shelter would only be open in the daytime? Will they roam the streets of north Fort Collins? His concerns are also the trail, Northside Atzalan and felt that the city would have a lot of liability by having this built on this site. He felt the site should remain the same and that the United Way would better spend their money by helping the existing groups that are working with the homeless, instead of building a place that would cause a lot of trouble and hurt the beauty of the plant. PUBLIC INPUT CLOSED Member Craig asked where on the site was the proposed shelter going to be put. Heather Brooks replied that the entire site is leased to CSU and one of the first things was to have discussions with CSU to find out how this would fit in with them still existing at the power plant and not impact their operations. She stated that they are still in those discussions. She visually showed on the site where the proposed building would go, a one-story, 4,000 s.f. building. After their initial discussions with CSU, they felt very uncomfortable with that location for several reasons. They wanted the city to move the access road and place the facility in the northwest corner of the site. Staff analysis concludes that if the shelter was built there, then that would significantly hurt the historic significance of the Planning and Zoning Board Meeting of September 17, 2001 Page 20 know how they would cross in addition to the railroad crossing in the area, which is a very significant issue for pedestrian traffic. The location presents some significant problems from the perspective of the pedestrian traffic. Lastly, this is a historic site, putting a building anywhere on this site would detract from what it is as a historic site. Dean Hoag, has a business at 1475 North College, concurred with the previous applicant. He stated that back in the 1990's he served on a committee that developed a plan on North College. It took a long time to go through the process. From his viewpoint, he did not think the vision was, at this site anyway, was to put a shelter. He believes this site is historical and according to the plan, if something is done on a site on North College, it needs to be pulled up to the street, which on this site is not feasible. Obviously, with this plan, the building would have to go in the back towards the river, which to him is an injustice to this site. He believes this site should be left alone because it is a beautiful site and could be used as a park or something. He did not think a shelter was their vision, and they have worked so hard in trying to take positive steps on North College and this is definitely a step backwards. Henry Hersh, has a business at 202 East Vine Drive stated that he was at the neighborhood meeting. He stated that Thursday night was the first he had heard of this proposal. It was brought up before on the proposal for 308 North Howes, how it was not a feasible site because of St. Joseph School with all the kids running around. At 202 East Vine, they are close to the river and they see the homeless down there all the time. They are trying to get the Poudre Trail cleaned up all the time because of the homeless because it is a safety concern. They have moved off of the trail area and are now on the north side of Vine Drive and are back there constantly all the time. They have had trouble with them at their business. His question is if the site at 308 Howes is not good enough because of the kids, why is it o.k. to put it down by the Atzalan Center where the kids are constantly doing soccer and other sports. Peggy Skibo, has a business at 1008 North College voiced her concerns. She spoke about the problems she has had at her business with the homeless. (Recording tape had trouble) Gordon Thibeadeau, Director of United Way in Fort Collins — (only a portion, recording tape had trouble) He felt that no one would vote, given a choice, to have some sort of homeless population in their neighborhood. Nobody is suggesting any location, every location that we have looked at has had its difficulties in that there are people that would prefer it to be anyplace but there. He felt that as a community we simply have to say that these are our least fortunate of our community with the least voice, and we do need to provide that basic level of dignity, safety and service to that population. Planning and Zoning Board Meeting of September 17. 2001 Page 19 PUBLIC INPUT Dwight Whitney, 1901 Pawnee, stated he has a business at 1642 North College. He presented a petition with approximately 160 names in opposition. He stated that 1642 is at the corner of Willox and North College. He stated that the homeless move up and down North College. When new bridges closed in March, he could not say that because New Bridges closed, that there was a decrease in the homeless problems in the shopping center. There was an interesting coincidence, which was brought to their attention by the police department, that their problems this year are less than they have been in the past. He thinks, in part, that it is because New Bridges closed. New Bridges is 1112 to 2 miles south of his business. What he is alluding to is the homeless problem, he is talking about how problem homeless are an issue all along North College. His association, which begins roughly at Cherry Street and goes all the way out to Country General. All of them have problems with the homeless. Mr. Whitney stated that what they are opposed to is the rezoning for the specific purpose of a day shelter. That is the only reason this rezoning is coming before the Board. The City Manager's office wants to present a rezoning so they can put a day shelter on this property. If this use goes in, and this was presented to them at the neighborhood meeting, the problem homeless (which consists of the people who are on the street panhandling, drunks, people who bother people trying to go about their day to day activities in shopping centers, etc.) will be increased in the area. Heather Brooks stated at the neighborhood meeting that if this shelter goes in, there would be an increase in the "problem homeless" in the area. There will be a problem with the trail, children of all ages and adults use the trail and the problem will increase in that area. There is already a problem at the Aztalan Center and that will also increase. The North College Business Association has been working for the past two years with the city Planning Department, city Transportation Department and CDOT to upgrade North College. There are very good cooperative efforts with the city. Putting this in is taking a step backward and it makes it more difficult for them. Mr. Whitney went on to say that the cost of the facility will be $300,000 and it would appear to him, that those monies could be better spent in renting other existing facilities or at least looking at getting a better coordination in working with other entities that supply aid to the homeless. He felt that efforts are being duplicated. With the increase in police protection, do you add more staff to the Police Department? Or do we call the Police Department and pull them from somewhere else where they are already needed? There is a cost factor here. It was brought out that there is a pedestrian problem in the area, which they hope will be improved in the future. North College traffic flow is such that he did not Planning and Zoning Board Meeting of September 17, 2001 Page 18 the river, but the RDR district between the two was the better fit. Staff is making the recommendation that the zoning request be approved. Heather Brooks, City Manager's Office spoke to the board. She gave a historic look at how it was arrived at in looking at this site and some of the operational issues that is being looked at for the homeless facility. How this began was with the closure of New Bridges at the end of March this year. Before it closed, the City Manager, United Way and other service providers began looking at whether there was going to be a problem or not and really looked at the issue. An intersection in north Fort Collins was looked at with a'h mile radius around it and determined what would be within walking distance of the other services that are provided to the homeless population. If this facility were created, we would want it in northern Fort Collins because all the other services they use are in northern Fort Collins and they would have to be within walking distance. That is what narrowed the search of all Fort Collins down to this area. The second step in the process was to take out those areas zoned residential, that are pure neighborhood and those that are zoned Downtown Business Area. Direction provided by City Council was that they do think that there is a need for this type of service in the community. However, they are not willing to take the next step saying that this is something that the city necessarily has to address completely. The direction from Council was that if there is city owned land that would work with this type of facility, then it might be something that they would want to pursue and work out an agreement with United Way. The city would provide the land at a low lease rate and then the United Way would do a fund raising campaign to raise funds not only for the construction of the building, but also for the operations. The city's participation would only be for the land. There is not very much land in northern Fort Collins for this type of facility when you take out all the other zoned areas that should be avoided. Ms. Brooks stated that in the pictures that were shown, there is not a barrier along the railroad. That is a significant safety risk. If some facility that created foot traffic were built on this property, considering that it is city owned land, we would want to abide by all the restrictions, including any safety risks that might occur. Some sort of fence or barrier would be constructed so foot traffic would be directed in a manner that would be the safest manner possible. Additionally, the city has no interest in participating in something that was similar to New Bridges. Where there is loitering that occurred outside that was uncontrolled and had a large impact on the surrounding areas. For outside uses some sort of fenced structure, hedges, or some sort of barrier would be constructed that would constrain the foot movement on the property to either inside the building or within the enclosed area. She stated that the city is very interested in the historic significance of this site and would not want to harm any designation of historical significance at this site. Planning and Zoning Board Meeting of September 17, 2001 Page 17 Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence: Cameron Gloss, Director of Current Planning gave the staff presentation. He stated that the request was to rezone property at 450 North College from POL, Public Open Lands to RDR, River Downtown Redevelopment District. He introduced the staff present and also indicated that the Police Department was not available to attend the hearing to speak on safety issues. Director Gloss introduced a letter for the record submitted today from Gerry Bomotti, Director of Administrative Services for CSU. In the letter he states his support for the rezoning application. Also at the request of the Board, Director Gloss supplied for the Board a summary of permitted uses for the POL District, RDR District and as a point of comparison, a number of other zoning districts that staff had potentially considered for this property. Director Gloss reviewed site shots of the property. He stated that the grotto, the fountain and the building itself are local landmarks and are also eligible for the National Register and the State Register. He stated that there are very poor pedestrian facilities along North College Avenue, but there is a project that is being pursued to do those improvements. The city did conduct a neighborhood meeting that was held on September 12, 2001. A summary was submitted at the worksession. There were several issues that came up during that meeting and the main issue was the proposed day shelter for the homeless on this site. With this rezoning request, it would allow the shelter as a permitted use within that zoning district. Other issues were the consistency of the day shelter with existing plans that are in place, the public review process, the zoning district designations that were applied to this site before, other shelter locations within the community, public safety and the preservation issues with putting another structure or another use on this property in a way that is compatible with the historic character of the site. Director Gloss discussed the zoning designations and the permitted uses. He reviewed the matrix for the Board. He stated that there is almost nothing that is permitted in the POL district. The uses are very limited like public facilities (utility lines, substations), golf courses, cemeteries and parks. Given the allowed districts, it was narrowed down to some other districts; RC, River Conservation, RDR, River Downtown Redevelopment District, CCR, Community Commercial Center, C, Commercial and CN, Commercial North College District. On the zoning map, the properties that are east of College are zoned RDR, and from staff's perspective, it made sense to continue that zoning district. Also, in respecting the existing use, research laboratories are permitted in the RDR zoning district, but they are not permitted in the other zoning districts. The RDR and the CCR zone districts were the two that were in the running as far as designations and between the two, staff's perspective is that they both protected Planning and Zoning Board Meeting of September 17, 2001 Page 16 the same. Mr. Bernth noted that the zoning would result in people living in ery ensive houses and exposed to odors, as opposed to people in -level hou s exposed to odors. The houses being next to a wastewater )ant is a matter fK the buyer rather than the Board. Moved by M .Colton, seconded by Ms. Craig: To recom end approval of the Structure P as redrawn, i.e., Scenario B, with In stria) in the upper left-hand corner a er the current Structure Plan. I response to questions, Mr. Eckman: stated th4t4indings are not needed on t Structure Plan. Mr. Gavaldon stated that thi 's not the best plarh that can be developed but the one that results from the timXre. o meet the applicant's right to be heard at this meeting. Mr. Torgerson stated that heor otion because there is a concern about supporting the public w Motion approved unanh iously. Moved by Mr. ton, seconded by Ms. Craig: To ma the zoning to the approved St cture Plan; further, to adopt Staff Findings os. 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 1 r. Eckman noted the clarification that the motio ecomm .ends adoptiOl of the zoning plan to match to the Structure Plan a mended, cogsistent with the comprehensive plan, if adopted by Council. Motion approved unanimously. Project: 450 North College Rezoning, #34-01 Project Description: Request to rezone the former Light and Power Plant at 450 North College Avenue from Public Open Lands (POL) to River Downtown Redevelopment District (RDR). The subject site consists of 6.91 acres located east of College Avenue and south of the Poudre River. Recommendation: Approval Chairperson Gavaldon called the meeting to order at 6:34 p.m. Roll Call: Craig, Torgerson, Bernth, Carpenter, Colton and Gavaldon. Member Meyer was absent. Staff Present: Gloss, Eckman, Olt, Jones, Barkeen, Wamhoff, K. Moore, Virata, McWilliams, Brooks, Reavis, D. Moore, Wilder, and Deines. Agenda Review: Director of Current Planning Cameron Gloss reviewed the Consent and Discussion Agendas: Consent Agenda: 1. Minutes of the November 16, 2000 (Continued), June 21, and July 19, 2001 Planning and Zoning Board Hearings. 2. Resolution PZ01-06 — Easement Vacation. 3. #7-820 Collindale Business Park, 61h Filing, Lot 1, GK Gymnastics — Project Development Plan. 4. #26-97A Pedersen Auto Plaza Expansion — Major Amendment. 5. #19-01 Westchase No. 1 — Annexation & Zoning 6. #19-01A Westchase No. 2 — Annexation & Zoning Discussion Agenda: 7. #32-01 Johnson Property Rezoning & Structure Plan Amendment 8. #34-01 450 North College Rezoning Moved by Mr. Bernth, seconded by Mr. Colton: To approve Items 1, 2, 3, 4 on the consent agenda, excepting the minutes of 11/16/00, and including items 5 and 6. Motion approved unanimously.