Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES-04/04/2000-RegularApril 4, 2000 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO Council -Manager Form of Government Regular Meeting - 6:00 p.m. A regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins was held on Tuesday, April 4, 2000, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll Call was answered by the following Councilmembers: Bertschy, Byrne, Kastein, Martinez, Mason, Wanner and Weitkunat. Staff Members Present: Fischbach, Krajicek, Roy. Agenda Review City Manager Fischbach stated that the agenda is as printed. CONSENT CALENDAR Second Reading of Ordinance No. 26, 2000 Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the General Fund and Unanticipated Revenue in the Cultural Services and Facilities Fund for the Franz -Smith Cabin Relocation Proiect Ordinance No. 26, 2000, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on March 21, 2000, appropriates funds needed for the relocation of the Franz -Smith Cabin. 8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 27 2000 Authorizing the Conveyance of Temporary Construction Easement and Non -Exclusive Easement for Storm Drainage for ReRistry Ridge P.U.D. in the Colina Mariposa Natural Area Ordinance No. 27, 2000, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on March 21, 2000, grants to DALCO Land Limited Liability Company ("DALCO") a temporary access and construction easement on 3.933 acres and a permanent drainage easement on 9.320 acres of land previously donated by DALCO to the City of Fort Collins as part of the Colina Mariposa Natural Area. 245 Apri14, 2000 9. First Reading of Ordinance No. 30.2000 AppropriatingUnanticipatedRevenueintheStorm Drainage Fund and Authorizing the Transfer of Existing Appropriations in the Storm Drainage Fund. The City has received approval from the State Office of Emergency Management for two grants funded by FEMA's Unmet Needs Grant Program. The City plans to utilize these funds for the expansion of the Flood Warning System and continuation of the Floodproofing Program. An objective of the Fort Collins Utilities is the mitigation of losses to life and property due to flooding emergencies. There are twelve stormwater basins within the City that have the potential for flash flooding with typical reaction times of less than one hour before major damages are sustained. The Flood Warning Program consists of streamflow and precipitation monitoring equipment to provide maximum warning time in the event of a flooding emergency. In 1998, the City received $150,000 of funds from FEMA to institute a Floodproofing Program. The purpose of the Program is to mitigate repetitive losses from shallow flooding. The Program utilizes grants to encourage construction of cost-effective floodproofing measures. Through the Unmet Needs Floodproofing Grant, the City will continue the Program in 2000. 10. First Reading of Ordinance No. 31, 2000 Designating the Fort Collins National Guard Armory, 314 East Mountain Avenue, as a Local Landmark Pursuant to Chanter 14 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins. The owner of the property, Terry Hamilton, is initiating this request for Local Landmark designation for the Fort Collins National Guard Armory. The building is significant for its architectural importance to Fort Collins, as a good example of vernacular masonry civic architecture and as an example of the work of noted Fort Collins architect Arthur M. Garbutt. The building also has historical significance to the City, as the oldest, and only remaining National Guard Armory in Fort Collins. 11. First Reading of Ordinance No. 32, 2000, Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to Enter into an Agreement for the Financing by Lease -Purchase of Vehicles and Equipment. This Ordinance authorizes the Purchasing Agent to enter into a lease -purchase financing agreement with Safeco Credit Company at 5.85 percent interest rate. The agreement shall be for an original term from the execution date of the agreements to the end of the current fiscal year. The agreement shall provide for renewable one-year terms thereafter, to a total term of seven (7) years, subject to annual appropriation of funds needed for lease payments. The total lease terms, including the original and all renewal terms, will not exceed the useful 246 April 4, 2000 life of the property. This lease -purchase financing is consistent with the financial policies of the City of Fort Collins. 12. Items Relating to Interstate Lands Rezoning. A. Resolution 2000-52 Amending the City Structure Plan Map. B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 33, 2000, Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins by Changing the Zoning Classification for That Certain Property Known as the Interstate Lands Rezoning. The parcels affecting the Structure Plan Amendments and Rezone request are known as the Interstate Lands project. This item has three parts: Request to amend the City Structure Plan as follows: (a) Expand the Low -Density Mixed -Use Residential designation into the current Employment designation. (b) Expand the Urban Estate designation into the current Low -Density Mixed - Use Residential designation. (c) Designate a section of Prospect Road from the existing corridor further west to County Road 5, then north to State Highway 14 (Mulberry Street) to the Interstate 25 (I-25) interchange into the transit corridor. 2. Request to rezone five (5) parcels totaling 65.322 acres within an approximate 155.57 acre site as follows: (a) Rezone property from Employment District (E) to Low Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood District (LMN) consistent with 1 (a) above. (b) Rezone property from Commercial District © to Employment District (E). 3. Make technical corrections to update the legal descriptions of zoning districts to ensure the descriptions match the districts as shown on the zoning map. 13. First Reading of Ordinance No. 34, 2000 Amending the Zoning Man of the City of Fort Collins by Changing the Zoning Classification for that Certain Property Known as the Country Club Corners Rezoning_ This is a recommendation to change the zoning designation of 19 parcels totaling approximately 23 acres located at the southeast comer of Willox Lane and North College Avenue. Collectively, the parcels are known as the Country Club Corners shopping center. 247 April 4, 2000 The proposed change is from the NC, Neighborhood Commercial zone district to the CN, Commercial -North College zone district. APPLICANT: The City of Fort Collins, Colorado OWNERS: First National Bank, Fort Collins Union Colony Bank, Fort Collins Lukas Family LTD Ptnshp LP, Zephyr Norbert J, Lukas Columbine Convenience Inc, Albertsons Dierenfield Grease Monkey LLC,RHLXTL Poudre Valley Health Care Poudre Health Services Country Club Corners Shopping Center Rezone, file #55-95D is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and the North College Avenue Corridor Plan. The proposed rezoning to CN — Commercial, North College District is appropriate for this property and is compatible with existing and proposed uses surrounding the subject land. The proposed rezoning will not result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment. The proposed rezoning results in a logical and orderly development pattern. 14. First Reading of Ordinance No. 35, 2000 Amending the Zoning Man of the City of Fort Collins by Changing the Zoning Classification for that Certain Property Known as the Willow Springs Fifth Filing Rezoning_ Willow Springs Fifth Filing consists of 1.39 acres located between Timberline Road and White Willow Way, south of Battlecreek Drive and north of C.R. #36. The site is currently divided into two tracts. Tract C is an existing private neighborhood pool and clubhouse. Tract D is an existing but unoccupied historic farmhouse with associated outbuildings. In March of 1997, the parcel now platted as Willow Springs Fifth Filing was part of the larger First Filing that was an approved single family detached P.U.D. As such, in conjunction with the city-wide rezoning to implement City Plan, these 1.39 acres were rezoned to R-L. This was inadvertent. Since the parcel was vacant (Tract C) and the historic farmhouse (Tract D) was unoccupied, the parcel has development and re -development potential and should have be rezoned to L-M-N. This rezoning request to L-M-N corrects this oversight. '3 April 4, 2000 15. First Reading of Ordinance No. 36, 2000, Vacating Portions of the Right -of -Way for Roma Valley Drive, Dedicated on the Miramont Valley P.U.D. This Ordinance vacates a portion of cul-de-sac right-of-way for Roma Valley Drive in order to eliminate the dedicated cul-de-sac at the present terminus of Roma Valley Drive and connect Roma Valley Drive to Mail Creek Lane. A portion of the Roma Valley Drive cul- de-sac bulb would be considered excess with the street now connecting to Mail Creek Lane. A replat of a portion of Miramont Valley P.U.D. was approved through a Type I review on December 22, 1999, reflecting the elimination of the cul-de-sac and the connection of the roadway to Mail Creek Lane. The approval of the replat allows the dedication of right-of- way for Roma Valley Drive necessary to connect to Mail Creek Lane. In addition, the connection of Roma Valley Drive to Mail Creek Lane was approved as an amendment to the City of Fort Collins Master Street Plan by City Council on May 18, 1999. 16. Resolution 2000-53 Adopting the US287/SH14 Access Management Plan and Authorizing the Execution of Related Intergovernmental Agreements Between the City of Fort Collins LarimerCountvand the Colorado DenartmentofTransportation, and Making Corresponding Amendments to the Master Street Plan. The purpose of this project is to develop an Access Management Plan for North College Avenue (US287), Jefferson Street/Riverside Avenue (SH14), and Mulberry Street (SH14). This is a joint project among the City of Fort Collins, Larimer County, and the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). We are using the consulting services of Felsburg, Holt, & Ullevig, Balloffet & Associates, and Sherry Albertson -Clark to assist with the preparation of the Access Management Plan. 17. Resolution 2000-54 Authorizing the Mayor to Execute an Intergovernmental Agreement with the North Weld County Water District, the North Weld County Water District EnteMrise. the Soldier Canyon Filter Plant and the City Water Utility Enterprise for the Delivery of Potable Water. The proposed intergovernmental agreement is the result of continued cooperative efforts between the City and neighboring water districts. The agreement would enable the exchange of treated water between the City and North Weld County Water District. The proposed agreement calls for the City to receive treated Soldier Canyon water into its distribution system at the treatment plant on west LaPorte Avenue and North Weld to take an equal amount out of the City's transmission main at Summit View Road north of Vine Drive. North Weld benefits by delaying construction of a transmission line for 10 to 15 years. The City gains a return on capital investment in its transmission line from the rental of transmission line capacity. Both entities gain from the increased flexibility in the event of an emergency or during capital construction. The proposed agreement is modeled after an existing agreement between the City and the Fort Collins - Loveland Water District. 249 April 4, 2000 18. Resolution 2000-55 Authorizingthe he City Manager to Provide a Staff Support Person for the Council Representative to the Cache La Poudre Commission In August 1999, the City Council adopted Resolution 99-105 authorizing the Mayor to execute an intergovernmental agreement between Larimer County, Weld County, and the Cities of Fort Collins, Loveland, and Greeley, concerning the Cache La Poudre River Corridor Citizen Commission. The intergovernmental agreement recommended various individuals to be representatives on the Commission. Mayor Pro Tem Chuck Wanner was recommended as the representative for the City of Fort Collins. The Commission is charged with carrying out the mandate of the Cache La Poudre Corridor Act, Public Law 104-323, which was enacted by Congress in 1996. The mandate is to develop an interpretive plan for the River corridor. The City Manager will appoint a staff support person to assist the City's representative with his work on the Commission. 19. Resolution 2000-56 Making Findings of Fact and Conclusions Regardingthe he Appeal of a Decision of the Planning and Zoning Board Relating to the Mulberrv-Lemay Crossing Appeal. On March 28, 2000, Council voted 6-0 to make the finding that the Planning and Zoning Board did not fail to properly interpret and apply the relevant provision of the Code and Charter and that the board did not fail to conduct a fair hearing by considering evidence relevant to its findings which was substantially false or grossly misleading. In order to complete the record regarding the appeal, Council should adopt a Resolution making findings of fact and finalizing its decision on the appeal. On February 3, 2000, Notice of Appeal was filed by a party -in -interest with respect to the January 20, 2000 decision of the Planning and Zoning Board approving Mulberry-Lemay Crossings, Lot One, Filing One, Final P.U.D. At the March 28, 2000 hearing on this matter, Council considered testimony of the Planning and Zoning Board record, staff and the appellants. In subsequent discussion at this hearing, Council took the following actions: Council determined that the Planning and Zoning Board did not fail to properly interpret and apply the relevant provisions of the Code and Charter. Council determined that the Planning and Zoning Board did not fail to conduct a fair hearing in that it considered evidence relevant to its findings which was substantially false or grossly misleading. 250 April 4, 2000 Consequently, the January 20, 2000 decision of the Planning and Zoning Board approving Mulberry-Lemay Crossings, Lot One, Final P.U.D. was upheld. 20. Routine Easement. A. Easement for construction and maintenance of electric utilities from Poudre School District, located at Whedbee and Garfield Streets, to allow adjacent property to connect to existing underground electric system. Monetary consideration: $100. Ordinances on Second Reading were read by title by City Clerk Wanda Krajicek. 7. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 26, 2000 Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the General Fund and Unanticipated Revenue in the Cultural Services and Facilities Fund for the Franz -Smith Cabin Relocation Project. 8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 27, 2000, Authorizing the Conveyance of Temporary Construction Easement and Non -Exclusive Easement for Storm Drainage for Registry Ridge P.U.D. in the Colina Mariposa Natural Area. 24. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 28, 2000, Amending Chanter 20 of the City Code Relating to Public Nuisance Violations. 26. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 29, 2000 Authorizing the Transfer of Funds from the Northeast Truck Route Project Account into a New Account Entitled the Truck Route Relocation Proiect account and Appropriatingthe he Expenditure of Funds from Said Account to Meet the Requirements of Ballot Issue 200. Ordinances on First Reading were read by title by City Clerk Wanda Krajicek. 9. First Reading of Ordinance No. 30.2000 AppronriatingUnanticipated Revenue in the Storm Drainage Fund and Authorizing the Transfer of Existing Appropriations in the Storm Drainage Fund. 10. First Reading of Ordinance No. 31, 2000 Designating the Fort Collins National Guard Armory. 314 East Mountain Avenue, as a Local Landmark Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins. 11. First Reading of Ordinance No. 32, 2000 Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to Enter into an Agreement for the Financing by Lease -Purchase of Vehicles and Equipment. 251 April4, 2000 12. First Reading of Ordinance No. 33, 2000 Amending the Zoning Man of the City of Fort Collins by Changing the Zoning Classification for That Certain Property Known as the Interstate Lands Rezoning. 13. First Reading of Ordinance No 34, 2000 Amending the Zoning Man of the City of Fort Collins by Changing the Zoning Classification for that Certain Property Known as the Country Club Corners Rezoning. 14. First Reading of Ordinance No. 35, 2000, Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins by Changing the Zoning Classification for that Certain Property Known as the Willow Springs Fifth Filing Rezoning. 15. First Reading of Ordinance No 36, 2000 Vacating Portions of the Right -of -Way for Roma Valley Drive. Dedicated on the Miramont Valley P.U.D. 28. First Reading of Ordinance No. 37, 2000 Amending Article 2 8 2(h)(2) of the Land Use Code With Regard to Modifications of Standards. Councilmember Bertschy withdrew from discussion and voting on the Consent Calendar due to a perceived conflict of interest on item #19 Resolution 2000-56 Making Findings of Fact and Conclusions Regarding the Appeal of a Decision of the Planning and Zoning Board Relating to the Mulberry-Lemay Crossings Appeal. ("Secretary's Note: Councilmember Bertschy out of room.) Councilmember Wanner made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Mason, to adopt and approve all items on the Consent Calendar. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Byme, Kastein, Martinez, Mason, Wanner and Weitkunat. Nays: None. (Councilmember Bertschy out of room.) THE MOTION CARRIED ("Secretary's Note: Councilmember Bertschy returned to the meeting at this point.) Consent Calendar Follow-up Councilmember Weitkunat commented regarding CityPlan updates represented by item #12 First Reading of Ordinance No. 33, 2000, Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins by Changing the Zoning Classification for That Certain Property Known as the Interstate Lands Rezoning, item #13 First Reading of Ordinance No. 34, 2000, Amending the Zoning Map ofthe City of Fort Collins by Changing the Zoning Classification for that Certain Property Known as the Country Club Corners Rezoning, and item # 14 First Reading of Ordinance No. 35, 2000, Amending 252 April4, 2000 the Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins by Changing the Zoning Classification for that Certain Property Known as the Willow Springs Fifth Filing Rezoning. She also spoke regarding corrections to the Master Street Plan included in item #16 Resolution 2000-53 Adopting the US2871SH14Access Management Plan and Authorizing the Execution ofRelated Intergovernmental Agreements Between the City of Fort Collins, Larimer County and the Colorado Department of Transportation, and Making Corresponding Amendments to the Master Street Plan. Councilmember Kastein spoke regarding item # 19 Resolution 2000-56MakingFindings ofFact and Conclusions Regarding the Appeal of a Decision of the Planning and Zoning Board Relating to the Mulberry-Lemay Crossings Appeal and asked about the next step for the P.U.D. Councilmember Reports Councilmember Bertschy reported on Governance Committee discussions relating to the evaluation process for the City Manager, City Attorney and Municipal Judge; Charter amendments scheduled for study session discussion on June 13; and petition forms for recall, initiative and referendum. Councilmember Weitkunat reported on Legislative Review Committee discussion on bills relating to growth management, internet taxation and rural transportation authorities. Councilmember Bertschy reported on the Poudre Fire Authority strategic planning meeting with the Poudre Fire District Board. Ordinance No. 28, 2000 Amending Chapter 20 of the City Code Relating to Public Nuisance Violations. Adopted on Second Reading The following is staff s memorandum on this item "Executive Summary Over the past few years, many people have contacted the City because of nuisance properties in their neighborhoods. These houses are usually described as chronic problems, creating an eyesore and, in many cases, disturbing the peace of others who live nearby. The public nuisance ordinance would add a tool to the City's resources for dealing with these problems. Though the City has existing laws to deal with many ofthe individual issues which neighbors complain about, it currently has no effective way of dealing with these chronic problems if the occupants of the properties fail to respond to enforcement efforts. The Council Health and Safety Committee has worked with staff and the community over the past nine months to develop and refine a proposed public nuisance ordinance. Input has been received from more than 500 people via community meetings, e-mail, letters and phone calls. 253 Apri14, 2000 Staff believes this Ordinance accomplishes the goals of the Health and Safety Committee while addressing many ofthe concerns expressed by members ofthe public. Ordinance No. 28, 2000, was adopted on First Reading on March 21, 2000 by a vote of 4-3." City Manager Fischbach noted that this is Second Reading of the ordinance. Frank Goss, 1621 Leesdale Court, spoke in support of the ordinance. Rhonda Burry, 1713 Effingham, opposed the ordinance and asked that Councilmember Mason withdraw from voting on the issue. Valerie Hunter-Goss,1621 Leesdale Court, supported the ordinance and stated that Mayor Martinez should withdraw from voting on the issue because he owns rental housing. Councilmember Byrne made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Bertschy, to adopt Ordinance No. 28, 2000 on Second Reading. Councilmember Mason spoke regarding the importance of issues dealing with neighborhoods. Mayor Martinez noted that a number of Councilmembers own rental housing. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Bertschy, Byrne, Mason and Wanner. Nays: Councilmembers Kastein, Martinez and Weitkunat. THE MOTION CARRIED Consideration of the Appeal of the December 16,1999, Determination of the Planning and Zoning Board to Deny a Major Amendment to the South Glen PUD, Second Filing - Final, Consisting of a Request to Eliminate the Existing Swimming Pool and Bath House Facility at the east end of the 40 Dwelling Unit Multi -Family Residential Development, Board Decision Overturned The following is staffs memorandum on this item. "Executive Summary This appeal was originally scheduled for the February 1, 2000 Council meeting, but was postponed to this date at the request of the appellant. 254 April 4, 2000 BACKGROUND: On December 16, 1999, the Planning and Zoning Board denied a Major Amendment to the South Glen PUD, Second Filing — Final, consisting of a request to eliminate the existing swimming pool and bath house facility at the east end of the 40 dwelling unit multi family residential development. The property is zoned LMN — Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhood (as of the effective date of March 28, 1997 for the new Land Use Code). The property is located on the west side of Albion Way, east of Manhattan Avenue, west of the New Mercer Canal and Burlington Northern Railroad tracks, and approximately ''/z mile south of West Horsetooth Road. On December 30, 1999, a Notice of Appeal was received by the City Clerk's office regarding the decision of the Planning and Zoning Board. In the Notice of Appeal from the Appellant Southglen Partnership, LLC, it is alleged that: ♦ The Planning and Zoning Board failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Code and Charter. ♦ The Planning and Zoning Board failed to conduct a fair hearing in that it exceeded its authority or jurisdiction as contained in the Code or Charter. " City Attorney Roy reviewed and explained the appeal process and the options available to the Council. Steve Olt, City Planner, presented background information regarding the appeal Mayor Martinez established time limits for each portion of the appeal hearing. Rick Zier, attorney representing the appellant, stated that the technical grounds for the appeal are set out in the notice of appeal. He spoke regarding the proposed project intended to remove a dangerous situation. He stated that the Planning and Zoning Board discussion focused on development possibilities rather than the issue that was before it for discussion i.e. should an unwanted swimming pool remain. He stated that the Board exceeded its jurisdiction by considering matters that were not the subject of the application. He asked that the Council reverse the denial to enable the removal of the pool which is no longer wanted. Jim Sell, Jim Sell Design, spoke regarding the context and the history of the project. He spoke regarding the open space requirements at the time the project was approved and stated that removal of the pool would not reduce the amount of open space below the minimum that was required at the time the project was approved. 255 April4, 2000 Ed Stoner, 2236 Apache Court, spoke regarding the history of the project and pool safety and nuisance issues. Councilmember Mason asked about ownership of the land on which the pool is situated and pool maintenance responsibilities. Mr. Stoner spoke regarding ownership of the property and stated that the partnership is responsible for maintenance. Councilmember Kastein asked about pool use and open space requirements for a recreational facility. Mr. Stoner stated that the pool was used between 1980 and 1998. Mr. Sell spoke regarding his research on open space requirements. Olt stated that the open space requirement at the time of project approval was 30%. Councilmember Weitkunat asked about the requirements for recreational facilities at the time of project approval. Olt stated that there was no specific requirement for a pool and that the current request constitutes a major amendment to the approved project. He stated that without the pool the project would have exceeded the open space requirements that were in effect. Councilmember Weitkunat asked if the project must now adhere to current standards. Bob Blanchard, Director of Current Planning, spoke regarding the amendment process included in the Land Use Code and stated that projects approved under earlier Codes must comply with the Land Use Code when they are amended. Councilmember Weitkunat asked for clarification regarding the issue to be decided. Olt stated that the issue is the elimination of the pool. Councilmember Bertschy asked why staff referred the issue to the Planning and Zoning Board. Blanchard spoke regarding the referral process. City Attorney Roy spoke regarding requirements that developers comply with approved plans unless approval is received to make amendments. Councilmember Mason asked what determines a major amendment requiring Board approval. City Attorney Roy stated that the Current Planning Director has the authority to determine whether an amendment is minor or major and that removal of any amenities shown on an approved plan would generally be determined to be a major amendment subject to City approval. Mayor Martinez asked about the appellant's concern regarding conditions included in the Planning and Zoning Board's motion. Mr. Zier spoke regarding the conditions included in the motion for denial. Brian Hogge, 331 Mapleton Court, spoke regarding the congregation problems in the pool area. Mayor Martinez commented regarding the public nuisance aspects of the pool. Mr. Stoner spoke regarding the inconvenient location of the pool for residents and nuisance problems. 256 April4, 2000 Councilmember Kastein asked about the 30% open space and recreational use requirements. Olt stated that the information is included in the staff report that was submitted to the Planning and Zoning Board. Paul Eckman, Deputy City Attorney, read the Code provision in question. Councilmember Bertschy asked for clarification regarding how the remaining open space will meet the Code requirement. Olt spoke regarding the Code requirements and stated that the remaining open space will exceed the Code requirement. Blanchard stated that any redevelopment proposal would be handled under the provisions of the Land Use Code. Mayor Martinez asked for clarification regarding the questions to be considered by the Council. City Attorney Roy spoke regarding the options available to the Council and noted that a finding that the Board failed to conduct a fair hearing would require that the matter be remanded to the Board. Mr. Zier stated that the appellant is requesting reversal of the Board's decision and withdrew the allegation that the Board failed to conduct a fair hearing. Councilmember Byrne made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Weitkunat, to find that the Planning and Zoning Board failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Land Use Code and to overturn the decision of the Board and grant the amendment of the P.U.D. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Bertschy, Byrne, Kastein, Martinez, Mason, Wanner and Weitkunat. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED Items Relating to the State Highway 14 Truck Route Relocation Project, Including Strategies for Conforming to Ballot Initiative Mandates, Preliminary Project Structure, and Projected Timelines Adopted The following is staffs memorandum on this item. "Executive Summary A. Resolution 2000-51 Approving a Project Description, Process and Time Frame for Compliance with Ballot Issue 200 Pertaining to the Relocation ofthe Colorado Highway 14 Truck Route. This Resolution will approve the various planning phases of the project. B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 29, 2000, Authorizing the Transfer of Funds from the Northeast Truck Route Project Account into a New Account Entitled the Truck Route 257 April 4, 2000 Relocation ProjectAccount and Appropriating the Expenditure ofFunds from Said Account to Meet the Requirements of Ballot Issue 200. Ordinance No. 29, 2000, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on March 21, 2000, transfers funds remaining in the Building Community Choices Northeast Truck Route account to a new account earmarked for the purposes specified in the Initiated Ordinance. " City Manager Fischbach stated that he has met with Swede Anderson, Kathy and David Dwyer, and Transportation Services Director Phillips regarding the issue. Kathy Dwyer, 1725 Linden Lake Road, Citizens for a True Bypass, stated that the process has been reviewed and a productive meeting was held during the time since the vote to delay the Resolution. She spoke regarding the challenges of the project. Councilmember Byrne read selected portions of the Resolution and excerpts from the information included in the packet and noted that the questions that arise are where the bypass will be located, when it will be built and who will pay for it. He spoke regarding the need to address strategic transportation corridors within the region and future transportation planning, and noted that a northern bypass would create anew strategic corridor. He asked if the discussion of funding sources and strategies for the project is separate from the discussion on funding for other strategic corridors. Mark Jackson, Transportation Planner, spoke regarding preliminary discussions regarding funding mechanisms. Councilmember Byrne noted that a letter has been received from the Congressional delegation indicating that additional dollars for funding of projects will flow through the Transportation Commission, and he suggested that the Commission will look at priorities regionally. He asked how much will be spent for the bypass study. City Manager Fischbach spoke regarding estimated costs. Jackson stated that preliminary estimates are approximately $400,000. Councilmember Kastein asked about the timeframe for decisions regarding transportation priorities and the commitment of resources for other projects. Jackson spoke regarding the preliminary strategy for the project. Ron Phillips, Transportation Services Director, spoke regarding regional transportation planning and allocation of funding to planning regions. Councilmember Byrne asked about the criteria following in ranking projects and whether the voter - approved project would automatically be ranked higher in priority than other projects. Phillips spoke regarding the prioritization process. City Manager Fischbach stated that the Council would make decisions regarding priorities. Councilmember Weitkunat made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Bertschy, to adopt Resolution 2000-51. 258 April4, 2000 Councilmember Weitkunat spoke regarding the need to move ahead in response to the ballot initiative. Councilmember Bertschy asked that Council be kept up to date regarding the project and meetings that are held. Councilmember Byrne stated that he would support the motion because of the direction given by the voters but expressed concerns regarding wasting money. Councilmember Kastein stated that he would support the motion to bring closure to the issue and spoke regarding the work to be done on the project. Councilmember Mason stated that this is the first step in the project and supported the focus to keep trucks on the interstate. Mayor Martinez spoke in support of the motion. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Bertschy, Byrne, Kastein, Martinez, Mason, Wanner and Weitkunat. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED City Manager Fischbach stated that he and Transportation Services Director will be meeting with Ray Chamberlain. Councilmember Weitkunat made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Bertschy, to adopt Ordinance No. 29, 2000 on Second Reading. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Bertschy, Byrne, Kastein, Martinez, Mason, Wanner and Weitkunat. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED Resolution 2000-57 Adopting the Transit Alternative for the Mason Street Transportation Corridor Adopted The following is staff s memorandum on this item. "Financial Impact Estimates for the three proposed transit alternatives range from $40-$305 million for capital including supporting infrastructure, rollingstock, stations, parkand ride and maintenancefacilities. The cost will be refined once the preferred alternative is selected and conceptual design work is 259 April4, 2000 completed. The total cost of the Mason Street Transportation Corridor and a financing plan will be part of the Master Plan that will be adopted by Council in the Fall of 2000. Executive Summary This Resolution formally adopts the transit alternative for the conceptual design oftheMason Street Transportation Corridor. The options for consideration are: at -grade rubber tire, light rail, and elevated transit. The Mason Street Lead Team, a group of twenty citizen volunteers, assessed fourteen evaluation criteria and created a "weight "factor that was then applied to the rating given to each transit option. This analysis was the basis for the recommendation that City Council adopt at -grade rubber -tire transit for the conceptual design ofthe Mason Street Transportation Corridor. The Transportation Board, Planning and Zoning Board, Air Quality Board, and Council Growth Management Committee support the recommendation of the Mason Street Lead Team. BACKGROUND: The voters as part of the Building Community Choices capital improvement package approved the Mason Street Transportation Corridor project. This is a transportation corridor that extends for nearly five miles, from Cherry Street on the north to Harmony Road on the south, centered along the Burlington Northern Santa Fe railroad tracks. The corridor is intended to enhance opportunities for pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit riders along its length, to encourage development and to provide for economic opportunities. It will create a direct north/south route for bicyclists and offer a faster passenger trip time using transit rather than the auto on a congested College Avenue corridor. It also presents the future possibility of rail service from Fort Collins to destinations throughout the region. The project will not remove vehicular traff c from Mason and McClelland where streets already exist. Funding is available through FY 2005 for Phase 1 — Planning and Design, and Phase 2—Bike/Pedestrian facilityfrom Prospect Road to Harmony Road. The Planning and Design phase began in December of 1998. The citizens of Fort Collins provided input as to the design of the corridor through surveys, public meetings, and a design workshop. Staff, the consultant team, and the Mason Street Lead Team subsequently worked on the following design components over a ten-month period: data collection survey of existing conditions D definition of issues and objectives conceptual development and refinements D three travel behavior surveys On October 26,1999, City Council reviewed the project work to date and provided direction to staff to continue developing design elements and evaluation criteria for three transit options: at -grade rubber -tire, at -grade light rail, and grade -separated transit. 260 April4, 2000 There are fourteen evaluation criteria defined by the staff and consultant team which are used to judge the three transit options. 1. Project Person -Carrying Capacity 2. Potential Ridership 3. Mobility 4. Change in Vehicle Miles Traveled 5. Impact to East/West Arterial Travel Time 6. Travel Time 7. Capital Cost 8. Annualized Capital Cost 9. Annualized Capital Cost per Transit User 10. Impact to Air Quality 11. Residence and Business Displacement 12. Noise 13. Visual Impact 14. Lighting Impact The criteria are in three general categories ofperformance, cost-effectiveness, and impacts. The Mason Street Lead Team assessed each criterion and created a "weight" factor that was then applied to the rating given to each transit option. This rating is based primarily on the results of the surveys conducted in September of 1999, the 1998 Mobility Report Card, and the recently enhanced and validated North Front Range Transportation Model. The model was used to establish the year 2020 baseline ofperson trips, the speed of each transit mode, potential transit ridership, impact to east/west arterial travel, and change in vehicle miles traveled. Each transit option was designed to the level necessary to provide reasonable estimates of cost and impact. The conclusion of the Mason Street Lead Team was that the at grade rubber -tire option is the best choice for the initial design of the Mason Street Transportation Corridor. It should be noted that this option does not preclude an evolution to light rail or commuter rail in the future. The recommendation of the Mason Street Lead Team was reviewed and endorsed by the Transportation Board, the Planning and Zoning Board, the Air Quality Board, and the Council Growth Management Committee. Adoption ofthe Resolution establishes at grade rubber -tire as the transit mode for the Mason Street Transportation Corridor. Next Steps: Staff, consultants, and the Mason Street Lead Team will proceed with the conceptual design of the corridor and completion ofthe remaining elements ofthe Master Plan: Prioritization ofPhases and the Action Plan. Elements ofthe Action Plan are incentives, land acquisition, financing, marketing, implementation framework, and implementation regulations. Citizen input will be a sought to select 261 April 4, 2000 some of the final design elements of the corridor. Adoption of the Corridor Master Plan by City Council is scheduled for September of 2000." City Manager Fischbach noted that residents of the condominium complex canceled the scheduled meeting. Susanne Durkin, Transportation Planning and Parking Manager, presented background information regarding the agenda item. She presented artists' renderings for three transit alternatives: (1) a dedicated bus way; (2) a rail option; and (3) an elevated concept. She stated that the recommendation is that conceptual planning continue for an at -grade bus system in the corridor. City Manager Fischbach noted that the issue has been reviewed by the Transportation Board, the Planning and Zoning Board, the Air Quality Advisory Board, and the Council Growth Management Committee. Rita Steving, 4540 Larkbunting Drive, Flagstone Patio Homes Secretary, objected to the proximity of the project to the homes in Flagstone Patio Homes. She expressed concerns regarding vandalism traffic, noise pollution, animal residue and the impact of lighting. Councilmember Mason asked about traffic on South Mason and the location of the bus lane. Durkin stated that Mason is designated as a collector and that the bus lane would be on the east side. She stated that the bicycle/pedestrian facility would be approximately 30-35 feet from the back fences in the neighborhood. Councilmember Mason asked about the planned use of nonpolluting buses and the frequency of buses. Durkin spoke regarding alternative fueling options and the ten-minute schedule planned for the small buses. Councilmember Mason asked if there would be less traffic as a result of the project. Durkin stated that the project would not add vehicular traffic. Councilmember Bertschy asked about phasing of the project. Durkin spoke regarding the two phases approved as part of the ballot package. Councilmember Weitkunat asked about the concerns expressed by the Flagstone neighborhood. Durkin noted that businesses in the area support the project as a means of addressing vandalism in the area and that staff will continue to gather information regarding the impact of such facilities on neighborhoods. She spoke regarding plans for noninvasive lighting and train safety options and stated that the next phase will look in greater detail at such issues. Councilmember Bertschymade a motion, seconded by Councilmember Wanner, to adopt Resolution 2000-57. 262 April4, 2000 Councilmember Byrne spoke regarding the potential benefits of the project. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Bertschy, Byrne, Kastein, Martinez, Mason, Wanner and Weitkunat. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED Mayor Martinez asked that staff take a look at the issue of a traffic light at Larkbunting and Harmony and requested that the Police Department be notified of the neighborhood complaint regarding transients. Ordinance No. 37, 2000, Amending Article 2.8.2(h)(2) of the Land Use Code With Renard to Modifications of Standards. Adopted The following is staff s memorandum on this item. "Executive Summary This Ordinance would make two changes. The first change would clarify that, when a modification ofstandards is requested under the Land Use Code, and thejustification is based upon a substantial benefit that the development will provide to the City, the mere fact that the project will constitute an affordable housing project within the meaning of the Code should not necessarily justify the granting ofthe modification ofstandard. The second change wouldstate that, when a modification ofstandards is requested under the Land Use Code, findings should always be made in support of the decision on the application. At present, findings are required only when the modification of standards is approved. BACKGROUND: During recent appeals to the City Council, certain issues have arisen with regard to the Land Use Codeprovisions relating to the modification ofstandards. In one appeal, the applicant for approval of an affordable housing project sought a modification of a certain standard under the Land Use Code on the basis that the affordable housingproject would provide a substantial benefit to the City. One of the justifications that can be offered in support of a request for a modification ofstandards under Article 2.8.2(H)(2) of the Land Use Code is that the proposed project will result in a substantial benefit to the City, that is, the proposed project will substantially address an important community need specif cally and expressly defined and described in the City's comprehensive plan, or in an adopted policy, ordinance or resolution of the City Council. When the benefit to be provided to the City is the provision of affordable housing, the Code is somewhat unclear as to whether that "substantial benefit" requirement will be satisfied merely by reason of the fact that the proposed project will meet the definition ofan affordable housing project under the Code. (In order 263 April 4, 2000 to be recognized as an affordable housingproject for certain other benefits under the Code, at least ten percent (10%) of the dwelling units in a project must qualify.) Section 5.1.2 of the Land Use Code defines an affordable housing project as follows: Affordable housing project shall mean a development project in which: (1) at least seventy-five (75) percent of the gross acreage to be developed under the plan is to be developed as residential dwelling units or mobile home park spaces; (2) at least ten (10) percent of said dwelling units or spaces (the "affordable housing units') are to be available for rent or purchase on the terms described in the definitions of affordable housing unit for rent or affordable housing unit for sale (as applicable); (3) the construction of the dwelling units or spaces is to occur as part of the initial phase of the project and (I) prior to the construction of the market rate units or (ii) on a proportional basis, according to the same ratio as the number of affordable units bears to the number of the market rate units; and (4) the units will be required by binding legal instrument acceptable to the city and duly recorded with the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder, to be occupied by and affordable to low-income households for at least twenty (20) years. For the purposes of considering a request for modification ofstandards, staffbelieves that the mere fact that a proposed project will constitute an affordable housingproject does not necessarilyjustify the granting of a modification of standards. Instead, a greater percentage of affordable housing might be necessary in order to provide a substantial benefit to the City that would justify such modification. The proposed ordinance would clarify the distinction between an affordable housing project for other purposes under the Code and one which would provide a substantial benefit sufficient to justify the granting of a modification of standards. In another appeal, the Planning and Zoning Board denied a requested modification of standards for a storage facility and was not required to make any findings in support of that decision because such findings are required only when a modification ofstandards request is ap rn oved by the Board. The proposed amendment would require such findings whether an application for modification of standards is approved or denied. Finally, the Council Growth Management Committee has requested the deletion of the present language of the Code which gives "examples" of urban blight and traffic congestion as city-wide concerns and of historic preservation and affordable housing as important community needs. 264 April4, 2000 Planning and Zoning Board Recommendation The Planning and Zoning Board reviewed the proposed Land Use Code amendments relating to modifications ofstandards on Thursday, March 2, 2000. The Board discussed and voted on each proposed amendment individually. Regarding the proposed changes contained in Section 2.8.2 (H) (2), the Board, by a unanimous vote of 7-0, recommended that Council delete the last underlined sentence relating to affordable housing. Boardmembers felt that the first part of the paragraph refers to items which address a community needspecifically described in CityPlan or in adopted Councilpolicy and ordinances, ofwhich there maybe many, yet the last sentence singles out affordable housing without mentioning others. It was the Board's belief that this may cast a shadow over affordable housing that may result in developers being less inclined to provide for this need. Regarding the proposed changes contained in Section 2.8.2 (H), the last paragraph requires that the Board make specific findings regarding a modification whether they approve or deny a modification request. Again, by a unanimous vote of 7-0, the Board recommended that Council not approve the proposed amendment. It was a consensus opinion that a burden of proof exists if they elect to grant a modification to an adopted standard. However, the Board does not believe it should be required to justify why an applicant should comply with adopted law. " Bob Blanchard, Director of Current Planning, presented background information regarding the agenda item and summarized the proposed Land Use Code changes. He outlined the recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Board. Mayor Martinez asked why the Planning and Zoning Board does not want to make findings regarding a modification whether they approve or deny a modification request. Blanchard spoke regarding the Board's discussion of the proposed change. City Attorney Roy spoke regarding the views of the Board. Councilmember Weitkunat stated that the Planning and Zoning Board's position is clearer on appeal if findings are made. Mayor Martinez spoke in support of the change to require the Planning and Zoning Board to make findings regarding modifications. Councilmember Kastein suggested that findings be made only when a modification is denied. City Attorney Roy recommended that findings of fact also be required on approvals. Councilmember Weitkunat suggested that when a modification is denied that a simple statement be made by the Board. 265 April4, 2000 Councilmember Mason noted that on appeal the Council receives the transcript and tape of the proceedings. Councilmember Bertschy made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Mason, to divide the question and to adopt Ordinance No. 37, 2000, on First Reading with the amendment proposed for Subsection 2.8.2(H)(2), excluding the following language in subparagraph (2): "The fact that a project development plan would constitute an 'affordable housing project' within the meaning of Article 5 of this Code shall not necessarily constitute substantial benefit to the city to warrant approval of the modification of a standard..." The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Bertschy, Byrne, Kastein, Martinez, Mason, Wanner and Weitkunat. THE MOTION CARRIED Councilmember Weitkunat asked about legal reasons for requiring findings. Councilmember Weitkunat made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Wanner to further amend Subsection 2.8.2(H) by including the second proposed amendment dealing with the findings to be made by the Board. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Martinez, Wanner and Weitkunat. Nays: Councilmembers Bertschy, Byrne, Kastein and Mason. THE MOTION FAILED Other Business Councilmember Mason requested discussion at the study session on growth and development issues relating to defining a UGA and the extent of subsidies to new growth and development in terms of impact fees. Councilmember Kastein spoke regarding the monitoring process that is in place and the need to discuss additional issues. He suggested the possibility of holding an open forum on the issues. Councilmember Mason supported soliciting community input. City Manager Fischbach suggested that Councilmembers e-mail their ideas regarding the forum. Councilmember Mason suggested using a fifth Tuesday City Dialogue for such a forum. Councilmember Bertschy requested a progress report regarding Building Community Choices tax receipts. �I The meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m. ATTEST: Adjournment 267 Mayor a April4, 2000