Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES-06/03/2003-RegularJune 3, 2003 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, June 3, 2003, 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, Hamrick, Kastein, Martinez, Roy, Tharp and Weitkunat. Staff Members Present: Fischbach, Krajicek, Roy. Citizen Participation David Hancock, CSU senior, spoke in favor of a bike helmet law. Indira Gujral, graduate student and employee of the Colorado Injury Control Research Center at CSU, spokeregarding the need for more bicycle helmet use and financial, educational and legislative components of bike helmet programs. Jerry Deffenbacher, 6504 Jackpine Drive, spoke regarding bicycle helmet safety from the parent's perspective. Karla Jilcke spoke in favor of removing fluoride from the City's drinking water and described the dental benefit programs available to low income people. Edward Carr, 2878 Southmoor Drive, spoke against the use of fluoride in drinking water and asked that Council solicit more public input on the issue. Paul Sherick, president of the Latimer County Dental Society, presented a petition signed by 2,500 people urging the continuation of water fluoridation. Greg Evans, pediatric dentist, chairman of the ad hoc committee on community water fluoridation, spoke regarding a survey he did regarding cavity rates in his patients. He spoke regarding the cost to taxpayers of a 25% increase in cavities for low income patients if community water fluoridation was to be stopped. Patty Caputo, clinical nutritionist at the Mountain Center for Healing and member of the clean water group Fluoride Facts, asked that the use of fluoride in drinking water be put to a public vote. She 436 June 3, 2003 stated her group would go forward with a ballot initiative and was considering a law suit because fluoridation presented an extreme threat to personal choice. Citizen Participation Follow-up Mayor Martinez thanked those who spoke under Citizen Participation. He stated there were at least three Councilmembers who wanted to bring the fluoridation issue to a vote and that this issue would likely be discussed at the July 15 Council meeting. Agenda Review City Manager Fischbach stated item #16 First Reading of Ordinance No. 090, 2003, Making Various Amendments to the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code would be moved to the discussion agenda at Councilmember Kastein's request. CONSENT CALENDAR 7. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 075 2003 Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the General Fund for Police Services DUI Sobriety Checkpoints This Ordinance, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on May 20, 2003, appropriates funds provided to Fort Collins Police Services by the Office of Transportation Safety, Colorado Department of Transportation. 8. Items Relating to Appropriation of Grant Revenues for Police Services A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 076, 2003, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the General Fund for Police Services for the Larimer County Multi -Jurisdictional Drug Task Force. This Ordinance, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on May 20, 2003, appropriates funds to be used for the operating costs associated with the Larimer County Multi -Jurisdictional Drug Task Force. B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 077, 2003, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue in the General Fund for Police Services for the Larimer County Multi - Jurisdictional Drug Task Force. Ordinance No. 077, 2003, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on May 20, 2003, appropriates unanticipated grant revenue for the purchase of equipment which allows 437 June 3, 2003 unit members to communicate on a common police radio channel and the cameras will provide another method of evidence collection. 9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 078 2003 Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the General Fund for Climate Protection Education and Outreach This Ordinance, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on May 20, 2003, appropriates a total of $36,500 in the General Fund — Natural Resources Department. The funding source is the Utilities' Customer Service and Administration Fund. 10. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 079 2003 Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the General Fund for Cultural Development and Programming Activities This Ordinance, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on May 20, 3003, appropriates unexpended 2002 appropriations for Cultural Development and Programming and Visitor Events. 11. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 080 2003 Amending Subsection 2-31(a)(3) of the City Code Pertaining to Executive Sessions Convened for the Purpose of Considering Water and Real Property Acquisitions and Sales. Ordinance No. 080, 2003, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on May 20, 2003, amends the provisions of the City Code pertaining to executive sessions that are held for the purpose of considering water and real property acquisitions and sales by the City. The amendment would eliminate Code language which presently restricts such discussions to the consideration of appraisals and other value of estimates and the consideration of strategy for the acquisition or sale of such property. 12. Items Relating to the Completion of the Spring Cycle of the Competitive Process for Allocating City Financial Resources to Affordable Housing Proi ects/Pro grams and Community Development Activities: the City's Fiscal Year 2003-2004 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Home Investment Partnerships (HOME) Programs and Affordable Housing Funds. A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 081, 2003, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue and Authorizing the Transfer of Appropriations Between Program Years in the Community Development Block Grant Fund. B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 082, 2003, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue and Authorizing the Transfer of Appropriations Between Program Years in the Home Investment Partnerships Fund. June 3, 2003 On May 20, 2003, Council unanimously adopted Ordinance No. 081, 2003, which appropriates and transfers unanticipated revenue appropriations for the Community Development Block Grant Fund. Also on May 20, 2003, Council unanimously adopted Ordinance No. 082, 2003, appropriating unanticipated revenue and authorizing the transfer of appropriations between program years in the Home Investment Partnerships Fund. 13. First Reading of Ordinance No. 087 2003 Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the General Fund for a Poudre School District Buildiny Survey and Historic Schools Context This agreement will address such historic preservation concerns as the designation of additional significant properties; the role of City staff and the Landmark Preservation Commission in design and development review; and will present the opportunity to develop standards and guidelines addressing historically appropriate designs, materials, and methods consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards. 14. First Reading of Ordinance No. 088 2003 Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the Capital Projects Fund Building Community Choices - Community Horticulture Center Capital Proiect to be Used for Design and Construction of the Education Room In 1997,the voters approved Ordinance No. 29, 1997, which provided funding for the establishment of the Community Horticulture Center (now referred to as the Gardens on 'Spring Creek), as part of the Building Community Choices capital improvement program. A private 501(0)(3) fundraising group, Friends of the Gardens on Spring Creek, was established to assist City staff with membership development and private fundraising. Their efforts were successful in raising $80,000 in private donations, to be used for the design and construction of a 900 square foot Education Room. This room is currently being designed, and will be completed as part of the first phase of construction for the Gardens on Spring Creek, scheduled to open in late fall this year. 15. First Reading of Ordinance No. 089 2003 Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue and Prior Year Reserves in the General Fund for the Purchase of a Computer Aided Dispatch System Records Management System, a Corrections Management System and an Automatic Vehicle Locating System. This Ordinance appropriates funds to purchase and jointly operate with Latimer County an Emergency Services dispatch, records and correction system that will serve Fort Collins Police Services, the Larimer County Sheriff's Office, Poudre Fire Authority, Poudre Valley Health Care Ambulances, CSU Police Department, Estes Park Police Department and 439 June 3, 2003 Berthoud Police Department. The City and Larimer County currently have an intergovernmental agreement dated April 7, 2003 defining the structure of the purchase agreement which involves the City paying two-thirds of the purchase price and Larimer County paying one-third. This payment structure is predicated on system use and the joint purchase of a CAD/RMS/CMS system by the City and Larimer County is financially beneficial for both agencies. The City and County may also allow additional Emergency Services agencies access to the system at a later date. 16. First Reading of Ordinance No. 090 2003 Making Various Amendments to the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code. Staff has identified a variety of proposed changes, additions and clarifications in the Spring biannual update of the Land Use Code. On May 15, 2003, the Planning and Zoning Board voted 6-0 to recommend approval of the proposed changes to City Council. 17. Resolution 2003-073 Approving Expenditures from the Art in Public Places Reserve Account in the Cultural Services and Facilities Fund to Commission an Artist to Create a Sculptural Entry Piece for the Gardens on Spring Creek Project This Resolution would approve expenditures of$21,980 for design, fabrication, installation and contingency for this project. Barry Rose will create a sculptural entry art piece. 18. Resolution 2003-074 Authorizing the Lease of a Residence at Reservoir Ridge Natural Area City Council approved Resolution 2001-95 on July 17, 2001 authorizing the acceptance of a donation from the Estate of Robert H. Udall of 20.133 acres of land as an addition to the Reservoir Ridge Natural Area. The donation reserved a life estate on part or all of the property for Mr. Udall's widow, Mary Michie Udall. Mrs. Udall decided not to remain on the property but requested that the Natural Areas Program permit the current caretaker, Tim LeBau, to remain on the property. Staff has enjoyed and appreciated Mr. LeBau's residency on the site since Mrs. Udall moved in September 2002. Mr. LeBau has been acting in many ways as a caretaker for the property. He has consistently been a responsible tenant. He appreciates the intent of the Natural Areas program to restore the area, decline public access for the time, and eventually develop an educational center on the site. Entering into the following lease with Mr. LeBau will act as a benefit for the Natural Area. Mr. LeBau will be the only tenant on the site and will continue to expel trespassers, keep the gate leading to the Udall Addition closed and generally watch over the property. June 3, 2003 19. Resolution 2003-075 Reappointing Gordon F. Esplin as Temporary ludpe and Authorizing the Execution of an Employment Agreement Council originally appointed Gordon F. Esplin as Temporary judge (Assistant Municipal Judge) in 1989, and has reappointed him every two years thereafter. His current appointment terminates on June 30, 2003. Municipal Judge Kathleen M. Lane recommends that Mr. Esplin be reappointed for another two-year term. Mr. Esplin is currently paid $85 per hour for his services. That rate is well below the going rate for legal fees in Fort Collins and is at or below the amount paid to other Assistant Municipal Judges in Colorado who serve only occasionally. However, due to budgetary constraints, staff is not recommending an increase in the compensation paid to Mr. Esplin at this time. Mr. Esplin has agreed to continue in this position at the current pay rate. 20. Resolution 2003-076 Appointing a Representative to the Latimer County Open Lands Advisory Board. In the November 1995 election, the voters of Latimer County approved the "Help Preserve Open Spaces" initiative for a county -wide 1/4-cent sales and use tax specifically earmarked for open space, natural areas, wildlife habitat, regional parks and trails. The initiative requires the Latimer County Board of Commissioners to create an Open Lands Advisory Board to make recommendations regarding the County's share of the sales and use tax. The initiative stipulates that the Advisory Board "at a minimum shall consist of one (1) elected official or appointee from the municipalities of Berthoud, Estes Park, Fort Collins, and Loveland; one (1) member from the Latimer County Planning Commission; and four (4) citizens appointed at large". On June 19, 2001 Council adopted Resolution 2001-76 appointing Councilmember Eric Hamrick as the City's representative until June 30, 2003. Councilmember Hamrick wishes to be reappointed to the Open Lands Advisory Board with a term to expire on June 30, 2006 or until Council may reconsider such appointment. This Resolution reappoints Councilmember Eric Hamrick as the City's representative on the Latimer County Open Lands Advisory Board. ***END CONSENT*** Ordinances on Second Reading were read by title by City Clerk Krajicek. 7. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 075 2003 Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the General Fund for Police Services DUI Sobriety Checkpoints :!F June 3, 2003 8. Items Relating to Appropriation of Grant Revenues for Police Services A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 076, 2003, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the General Fund for Police Services for the Latimer County Multi -Jurisdictional Drug Task Force. B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 077, 2003, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue in the General Fund for Police Services for the Latimer County Multi - Jurisdictional Drug Task Force. 9. Second Reading of Ordinance No 078 2003 Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the General Fund for Climate Protection Education and Outreach 10. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 079 2003 Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the General Fund for Cultural Development and Programming Activities 11. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 080 2003 Amending Subsection 2-31(a)(3) ofthe City Code Pertaining to Executive Sessions Convened for the Purpose of Considering Water and Real Property Acquisitions and Sales 12. Items Relating to the Completion of the Spring Cycle of the Competitive Process for Allocatin City Financial Resources to Affordable Housing Proiects/Programs and Community Development Activities: the Citv's Fiscal Year 2003-2004 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), Home Investment Partnerships (HOME) Programs and Affordable Housing Funds. A. Second Reading ofOrdinance No. 081, 2003, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue and Authorizing the Transfer of Appropriations Between Program Years in the Community Development Block Grant Fund. B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 082, 2003, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue and Authorizing the Transfer of Appropriations Between Program Years in the Home Investment Partnerships Fund. 24. Second Reading of Ordinance No 086 2003 Authorizing the Appropriation of Funds for Expenditures for Capital Improvements and Operating Expenses to Improve the Fort Collins Loveland Airmort Terminal Building Facilities and for Funds to Promote Scheduled Service into the Airport. 442 June 3, 2003 25. Second Reading of Ordinance No 083 2003 Amending Chanter 12 of the City Code to Nullify All Covenant Restrictions on Certain Resource Conserving Activities and Eliminating a Similar Provision of the Land Use Code. 26. Items Relating to Requirements for Soil Amendments A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 084, 2003, Amending Chapter 12 of the City Code to Add Requirements for Soil Amendments and Amending a Similar Provision of the Land Use Code (Option A or Option B). B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 085, 2003, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the Water Fund to Initiate a Soil Amendment Inspection Program. Ordinances on First Reading were read by title by City Clerk Krajicek, 13. First Reading of Ordinance No 087 2003 Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the General Fund for a Poudre School District Building Survey and Historic Schools Context 14. First Readinji of Ordinance No. 088 2003 Al2propriating Unanticipated Revenue in the Capital Proiects Fund Building Community Choices - Community Horticulture Center Capital Project to be Used for Design and Construction of the Education Room 15. First Reading of Ordinance No 089 2003 Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue and Prior Year Reserves in the General Fund for the Purchase of a Computer Aided Dispatch System Records Management System, a Corrections Management System and an Automatic Vehicle Locating System. 16. First Reading of Ordinance No 090 2003 Making Various Amendments to the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code, Councilmember Weitkunat made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Roy, to adopt and approve all items not withdrawn from the Consent Calendar. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Bertschy, Hamrick, Kastejn, Martinez, Roy, Tharp and Weitkunat. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED City Manager Fischbach recognized the efforts of the Friends of the Gardens on Spring Creek and one special citizen who raised $80,000 for the Gardens through private fund raising and membership development. He spoke regarding how the funds would be used. He stated one generous donation of $60,000 was given by Francis Clark in memory of his wife Evelyn Clark and that the Education Room would be named in Evelyn Clark's honor. He stated Barbara Brown was at the meeting representing the 443 June 3, 2003 Friends of the Gardens on Spring Creek. Mayor Martinez presented a Certificate of Recognition to Francis Clark for his generous donation. Councilmember Tharp spoke regarding the work of the Friends of the Gardens on Spring Creek. She stated the Gardens were a small beginning of important work and that she would like to see the City revisit the project periodically for expansion to meet the original vision. Consent Calendar Follow-up Councilmember Kastein spoke regarding item #15 First Reading of Ordinance No. 089, 2003, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue and Prior Year Reserves in the General Fund for the Purchase ofa Computer Aided Dispatch System, Records Management System, a Corrections Management System and an Automatic Vehicle Locating System. He spoke regarding item #20 Resolution 2003-076 Appointing a Representative to the Larimer County Open Lands Advisory Board and noted that Councilmember Hamrick had been reappointed to the Larimer County Open Lands Advisory Board. Staff Reports City Manager Fischbach stated Joanne Sizemore, Information Services at Fort Collins Police Services, would give a presentation regarding the CAD system in response to questions from Councilmember Kastein. Sizemore stated the current Computer Aided Dispatch and Records Management System (CAD/RMS) was upgraded in 1992 and that the system had already exceeded the average seven year server life expectancy. She stated repairs were difficult because components were no longer being manufactured and that support for the software had been discontinued. She stated the system was unstable due to the age of the hardware and software and the number of users on the system. She stated any repairs to the old system would involve considerable downtime and expense using refurbished equipment. She stated the system made it possible for FCPS to provide law enforcement services to the community and described the uses of the technology. She spoke regarding the benefits of acquiring the new system in a cooperative way with other County emergency services agencies (with the exception of the City of Loveland). Councilmember Hamrick asked why the vehicle locating system was necessary. Sizemore stated FCPS had not elected to purchase that system at this point and that Poudre Valley Hospital EMS and Poudre Fire Authority were going to purchase that system to facilitate response to emergency situations. Councilmember Kastein thanked staff for answering his questions and noted that it was important in these economic times to find out why major purchases were important. He stated public safety was a high priority and that he would fully support the money that was being allocated for this purpose. June 3, 2003 Councilmember Tharp asked why Loveland was not participating in the cooperative effort. Sizemore stated Loveland purchased a CAD system in 1999 and had not yet realized the full benefit of that system. She stated she believed that Loveland would eventually join the cooperative venture. Councilmember Tharp asked if the money was going to come from Reserves. City Manager Fischbach spoke regarding the funding mechanism. City Manager Fischbach stated Ron Phillips, Transportation Services Director, would make a presentation to the Mayor on behalf of the City. Phillips introduced Dan Grunig, Executive Director of Bicycle Colorado, representing the League of American Bicyclists to present an award to the City. Mr. Grunig stated the League of American Bicyclists had designated the City of Fort Collins as one of 14 nation-wide recipients of the Bicycle Friendly Community Award. Phillips expressed appreciation for the award and spoke regarding the City Service Areas that contributed to the Citybeing a bicycle friendly community. Nancy Hunter, Director of Constituent Services for Congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave, presented the award to Mayor Martinez. City Manager Fischbach stated he had given Council and updated status report on staffs responses to Council requests. He reported that 14 new volunteer master naturalists completed training in May. He also reported on calls on the pothole hotline. Councilmember Reports Councilmember Bertschy reported on the dedication of the new City Park pool and the tripling of admissions. He also reported on the Lincoln Center Volunteer Appreciation Reception. Councilmember Weitkunat reported that the Lincoln Center was celebrating its 251h anniversary and that many of the volunteers had been participating for over 20 years. Ordinance No. 086, 2003 Authorizing the Appropriation of Funds for Expenditures for Capital Improvements and Operating Expenses to Improve the Fort Collins -Loveland Airport Terminal Building Facilities and for Funds to Promote Scheduled Service into the Airport, Adopted on Second Reading The following is staffs memorandum on this item. 445 June 3, 2003 "Executive Summary This Ordinance, which was adopted 5-2 (Nays: Councilmembers Hamrick and Roy) on First Reading on May 20, 2003, appropriates Fort Collins'share of the funds needed to meet the City's obligations under the proposed agreement. " City Manager Fischbach stated this item was on the discussion agenda due to the split vote on First Reading. Councilmember Kastein made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Weitkunat, to adopt Ordinance No. 086, 2003 on Second Reading. Councilmember Kastein asked why Councilmembers Hamrick and Roy opposed the ordinance. Councilmember Hamrick stated he had concerns regarding subsidies for this particular function for an airline that had experienced financial difficulties. Councilmember Hamrick stated promoting an airline's service to Las Vegas did not seem like a top priority for the use of City funds. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Bertschy, Kastein, Martinez, Tharp and Weitkunat. Nays: Councilmembers Hamrick and Roy. THE MOTION CARRIED Ordinance No. 083, 2003 Amending Chapter 12 of the City Code to Nullify All Covenant Restrictions on Certain Resource Conserving Activities and Eliminating a Similar Provision of the Land Use Code Option A Adopted on Second Reading, The following is staffs memorandum on this item. "Executive Summary This Ordinance was unanimously adopted on First Reading on May 20, 2003. It proposes anew Section 12-120 in Chapter 12 of the City Code (Health and Safety) that nullifies any private property covenant, regardless ofwhen made or recorded, which prohibitsxeriscape (water -conserving) landscaping, solar collectors, clothes lines, compost bins, or mandating turf grass landscaping. It also adds language nulling covenants which mandate that a portion of any individual lot be planted in turfgrass. r.e June 3, 2003 After discussion at the May 20,2003, Council meeting, two definitions have been added to the Ordinance. The first defines "restrictive covenant. " The second defines 'Wriscape landscaping. " The effect of the second definition would be to more clearly specify the kind of landscaping that cannot be prohibited by restrictive covenants. Under this definition, a restrictive covenant could not prohibit any of the following: • grouping plants with similar water requirements together on the same irrigation zones; • limiting high -irrigation turfand plantings to appropriate high -use areas with high visibility and functional needs; • use of low-water demanding plants and turf • use of efficient irrigation systems; • incorporation ofsoil improvements; and/or • use of mulches. However, a restrictive covenant could still prohibit the installation ofartificial turf or plants; mulched (including gravel) beds or areas without landscape plant material; paving of areas not required for walkways, patios, or plazas of parking areas; bare ground; or weed covered or infested surfaces. Additionally, an Option B has been added for Council's consideration. The difference between Option A and Option B is that Option A simply nullifies the kinds ofrestrictive covenants that are referenced in the Ordinance, while Option B would make it a violation of the City Code for any person (including a homeowner's association) to create or enforce such a covenant. As a practical matter, Option A would provide a legal defense to a homeowner who was threatened with enforcement ofa prohibited restrictive covenant, while Option B would enable the City to actively investigate allegations that a homeowner's association has created or enforced such a covenant and, if a violation was found to exist, to issue a citation to the offending homeowner's association or individual seeking to enforce the covenant. " City Manager Fischbach introduced the agenda item. City Attorney Roy explained the changes made to the Ordinance since First Reading. He stated definitions had been added for "restrictive covenant" and "xeriscape landscaping." He stated an alternative (Option B) was offered for Council's consideration in response to feedback received under Other Business at the last meeting. He stated Option A would essentially nullify restrictive covenants that run afoul of the Ordinance, which would mean that such covenants would be of no effect and that a property owner threatened with the enforcement of such a covenant could hold up the City Code provision in defense of the position that the covenant was unenforceable. He stated the City would not be directly involved in the action between the private property owner and the homeowners' association attempting to enforce the covenant. He stated Option B would state that "no person shall create, cause 447 June 3. 2003 to be created, enforce or seek to enforce any such covenant" He stated this would make it a violation of the City Code for any person (including a homeowners' association) to do any of those things. Kelly Ohlson, 2040 Bennington Circle, supported adoption of Option B. He stated homeowners' associations should not be allowed to continue to write covenants to prohibit xeriscaping, clotheslines, etc. because the public would have no way of knowing that they can challenge the covenants. He stated Option B would provide the force of law against such prohibitions in covenants. He stated Option B would allow more people to do xeriscaping. Councilmember Tharp asked how Option B would be enforced and if the City was already involved in reviewing homeowners' association covenants. City Attorney Roy stated the City did not review such covenants at this time. He stated there was a provision in the Land Use Code (which would have narrower application) under which covenants would be nullified and under which the issue would be between the property owner and the association. He stated under Option B that if there were a complaint the City would review the covenants and the circumstances under which they were created or enforced to determine if there was probable cause to issue a citation under the City Code. Councilmember Tharp asked if enforcement would be in response to complaints. City Attorney Roy replied in the affirmative. CouncilmemberTharp asked if enforcement would be burdensome for the staff. City Attorney Roy stated from a prosecution standpoint he did not expect the staff to devote a lot of time to this. Mike Smith, Utilities Director, stated he did not envision enforcement requiring a lot of staff time. He stated staff was interested in getting the word out to the general public and the homeowners' associations regardless of which option was adopted. Councilmember Kastein asked if the provision would cause homeowners' association to rewrite their covenants. City Attorney Roy stated would be up to the association and that the Ordinance would not require rewriting covenants. He stated the change would be in the ability of the homeowners' association to enforce its existing covenants and in the ability of associations to create new covenants prohibiting xeriscaping. Councilmember Kastein asked about the definition of xeriscaping and whether it would include gravel or flagstone. Gale McGaha-Miller, Regulatory and Government Affairs Manager, stated the intent was to allow homeowners' associations to mandate some form of landscaping with some sort of living plant. Councilmember Weitkunat asked ifhomeowners' association covenants were automatically done as part ofthe development process. City Attorney Roy stated typically the homeowners'association was put into existence and covenants running with the property were established prior to the sale of lots. Councilmember Weitkunat asked if this was done by the developer. City Attorney Roy stated homeowners' associations often included the developer as one of the primary officers. June 3. 2003 Councilmember Weitkunat asked if information about this Ordinance could be provided to the developer at the time of the Certificate of Occupancy. Smith replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Weitkunat asked if Option B would present more enforcement issues for the City. City Attorney Roy stated the City would be more involved with Option B than with Option A. Councilmember Tharp asked for clarification regarding the existing Ordinance and the houses affected. McGaha-Miller stated it affected houses built after July of 2001. City Attorney Roy stated the current Ordinance was similar to Option A. Councilmember Roy made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Tharp, to adopt Ordinance No. 083, 2003 (Option B) on Second Reading. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Bertschy, Hamrick, Kastein, Martinez, Roy, Tharp and Weitkunat. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED Items Relating to Requirements for Soil Amendments; Ordinance No. 084, 2003, Amending Chapter 12 of the City Code to Add Requirements for Soil Amendments and Amending a Similar Provision of the Land Use Code (Option A), Adopted on Second Reading and Ordinance No. 085, 2003, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the Water Fund to Initiate a Soil Amendment Inspection Program, Failed to Pass on Second Readin . The following is staffs memorandum on this item. "Executive Summary A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 084, 2003, Amending Chapter 12 of the City Code to Add Requirements for Soil Amendments and Amending a Similar Provision of the Land Use Code (Option A or Option B). B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 085, 2003, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the Water Fund to Initiate a Soil Amendment Inspection Program. Ordinance No. 084, 2003, was adopted 5-2 (Nays: Councilmembers Kastein and Weitkunat) on First Reading on May 20, 2003. It proposes changes to the City Land Use Code and additions to the City Code toprovide clarity on soil loosening requirements; to allow the use ofmore types ofsoil amendments and topsoil, and to permit for discretion to temporarily suspend or waive soil amendment requirements EI June 3, 2003 if compliance is unreasonably difficult due to weather or site conditions, or is not reasonably possible due to physical constraints in a particular area of a property. Following Council discussion on First Reading and pursuant to direction received at the Leadership Planning Team meeting, staff has included an optional section of the Ordinance which would enable builders to comply with the requirements of the Ordinance either by completing the soil amendments prior to the issuance ofa certificate ofoccupancy or by entering into a binding agreement with a third party (presumably, either the property owner or landscaper) to complete the soil improvements before any landscaping is installed. Under either option, the builder would need to f le a certification with the Director of Building and Zoning evidencing compliance. A corresponding optional version of Section 2 of the Ordinance, which modifies the Land Use Code, is also presented. Ordinance No. 085, 2003, was adopted 4-3 (Nays: Councilmembers Kastein, Martinez and Weitkunat) on First Reading on May 20, 2003. Because the proposals only require spot inspections, additional staffing is not needed at this time. Staff recommends no action be taken on the Second Reading of Ordinance No. 085, 2003. " City Manager Fischbach introduced the agenda item. He stated staff was recommending that Council the Ordinance No. 084, 2003 be adopted and that the Ordinance No. 085, 2003 not be acted upon because spot checks would be done in lieu of adding new staff. City Attorney Roy explained the two options relating to Ordinance No. 084, 2003 and described other changes that had been made to the Ordinance since adoption on First Reading. He stated Option A of the Ordinance will leave the responsibility for soil amendment with the builder and that Option B will allow the responsibility for soil amendments to be transferred by agreement to a third party. Jim Drop, Vice President of Construction for US Home, urged the Council to consider Option B. He spoke regarding the impact of the other option on housing prices and affordable housing. Michelle Jacobs, Director of Community Affairs for the Homebuilders' Association of Northern Colorado, urged Council to vote for Option B and asked that the responsibility for soil amendments not be tied to the certificate of occupancy. Kelly Ohlson, 2040 Bennington Circle, spoke regarding the importance of soil preparation in this area. He suggested eliminating the entire program if funding for inspections and enforcement was not to be approved. He noted that the proposed Ordinance would make minimal "rock bottom" requirements for soil amendments and that the program would not be onerous. He asked for funding of an enforcement program to do 100% of the needed inspections. John Woodham, Eagle Homes, stated there were still a number of "hazy areas" on which the builders would like clarification and more definition. 450 June 3, 2003 Councilmember Tharp expressed concerns regarding the spot check process and asked if there was any way of knowing under the present system, how many recently built homes had had the soil amended before landscaping. Bob Zakely, Watershed/Environmental Specialist, stated there was no data to indicate what percentage of homes had had the soil amended. Councilmember Tharp stated she had asked about the possibility of spot checks being connected with other required inspections for drainage, etc. She stated if the soil was not being amended that there needed to be a tight spot inspection program to ensure compliance. She asked if staff had considered combining inspections with other required inspections. Smith stated staff had given this idea some consideration and that there was some potential to combine some inspections, even under a spot inspection program. City Manager Fischbach stated spot checks could be done "multitasking" and that to inspect every house would require the appropriation ordinance. Councilmember Hamrick noted that Option A appeared to be straightforward because the soil amendment was tied to the Certificate of Occupancy and that Option B appeared to be more convoluted and would require more City resources. He asked which option would require more effort on the part of the City administration for enforcement. Smith replied that Option B would require more effort. Councilmember Kastein referenced a study prepared by Jim Clark from March 31, 1995 presented to Council in the "read before the meeting packet." He noted that the study concluded that although there was still undisputed horticultural benefit from amending soils with organic materials, it was uncertain whether amending soils saves water. He requested that staff comment on the study's conclusions. Smith stated the study found that the homes that used soil amendments ended up using more water and that raised questions about water conservation benefits. He stated it was difficult to make any firm conclusions regarding water conservation benefits. He stated individuals who own homes obviously have the most impact on how much water was used, and their habits would determine water savings. He stated soil amendments would provide an opportunity to use less water and that actual water savings would depend on people's habits and whether or not they choose to use less water. Councilmember Kastein asked if there were any more recent studies that would refute the conclusions from the 1995 study. Smith stated no other studies had been done. He stated he could not say how much water would be saved through soil amendments but that soil amendments would support better plant growth. Councilmember Kastein stated water conservation was the whole rationale for this Ordinance and that if water would not be saved that there would be no point in addressing the issue. Smith stated even if soil amendments are mandated, there needs to be an education program to show people how to properly take care of their lawns and not over water. Councilmember Kastein asked if the 30% figure that had been discussed was empirically based from evidence across the country. Zakely stated there were a wide range of soil amendments and soils and that 451 June 3, 2003 the City's requirements regarding composting, etc. would be at the bottom range of what was recommended. He noted that more composting would mean soil with greater water holding capacity. He stated it would be impossible to determine how much water would be saved. Councilmember Kastein asked if the water holding capacity ofthe soil would increase by as much as 30% with the full extent of soil amendments. Zakely replied in the affirmative and stated less water would be needed if soil amendments are made. He stated compacted clay soils would not absorb water. Councilmember Kastein asked if the builder would have any responsibility for any future improvements the homeowner might make. City Attorney Roy stated future improvements would be the homeowner's responsibility. Councilmember Kastein asked why the person who ultimately does the landscaping would not be the one responsible for soil amendments. Smith stated the issue was ensuring compliance by making a connection to the builder and the Certificate of Occupancy. Councilmember Bertschy asked about language that was left out of the second option and was in the first option. City Attorney Roy stated the language in question was as follows: "In the event the Manager determines compliance is rendered unreasonably difficult." He stated the paragraph would give the Manager the ability to waive the requirement of amending the soil before the Certificate of Occupancy under certain circumstances. He stated this language was not necessary in Option B because if there was such a circumstance the builder would have the option of passing the obligation on to the purchaser or the landscaper and there would be no need to request a waiver. Councilmember Roy asked how many people who purchase homes were infirm or physically unable to till their own lots. Smith stated he was not aware of any available information on this. Councilmember Roy asked if the inspection program would be self-sustaining at $42 per inspection, if implemented. Smith stated was the figure determined to be needed to keep the program going. City Manager Fischbach stated would be at the current rate of building houses. Councilmember Roy asked why staff was recommending no action on Ordinance No. 085, 2003 when it was adopted 4-3 on First Reading. City Manager Fischbach stated some of the Councilmembers who were in the majority had indicated that they would prefer to see an affidavit or certificate type of approach. He stated staff could accomplish spot checks without an appropriation. Councilmember Roy referenced materials submitted by staff to the Council that addressed water savings from soil amendments. Gale McGaha-Miller, Regulatory and Government Affairs Manager, stated water savings hinged on individual behavior and that less water would be needed for landscaping if soil amendments were done. 452 June 3, 2003 Councihnember Weitkunat asked if Option B would allow receipt of the Certificate of Occupancy with a certification and written agreement that soil preparation would be done with landscaping. CityAttomey Roy stated it would be tied to the Certificate of Occupancy in the sense that the builder would be required to file a certification stating that the soil had been amended or that an agreement was in place for the purchaser or a landscaping contractor to do the soil amendments. Councilmember Weitkunat asked if the required certification would be a legally binding document. City Attorney Roy stated falsification of certification (statement) would be a violation of the State's criminal laws. He stated it would not cant' the same penalties as a false affidavit but that it would be a binding document. Councilmember Hamrick asked how many lots had not met the current requirements. Zakely stated inspections are done on a dailybasis by staff in connection with stormwater certification and management and that violations are discovered daily. Smith stated there had been no soil amendment spot checks in the past year. Zakely stated there was no enforcement through inspections with regard to soil amendments prior to March of 2003. Councilmember Kastein asked how and when the spot inspections would work under Option B. Smith stated certifications will be submitted to the Utilities and that staff will develop a system of randomly selecting some lots to check. Councilmember Kastein asked if the same spot checking will occur if the responsibility was on the homeowner for soil amendments. Smith stated the City would have no way of knowing if and when the homeowner would do the soil amendments. Councilmember Weitkunat asked if the certification could carry with it a notice stating that the City would be notified at the time of the landscaping. Smith stated if the builder had an agreement with the homeowner, it would be helpful if the homeowner was required to notify the City before landscaping. Mayor Martinez asked about a letter received from Linda Hopkins regarding the required depth of tilling. Zakely stated an "arbitrary" 12 inch depth was initially proposed to the Planning and Zoning Board. Mayor Martinez asked about Ms. Hopkins' statement that most builders void their warranties if anything is planted within five feet of foundation walls. Zakely stated if soils were compacted correctly that there should be no problem. He stated it was his understanding that some builders would put in a stipulation that warranties would be voided if anything was planted within five feet of the foundation walls. McGaha-Miller stated the language in both options of the Ordinance would take that into account. Mayor Martinez asked if an education program was in place or if one would have to be created. Smith stated an education and information program will be developed once Council gives direction regarding the Ordinance. 453 June 3, 2003 Mayor Martinez asked if staff had talked with Colorado State University experts about the issue since First Reading. Smith stated the Council packet provided some information from CSU. McGaha-Miller stated CSU experts agreed that more composting and tilling would benefit plants and would enable the soils to hold more water. Mayor Martinez asked what minimum tilling depth CSU experts recommended. Zakely stated the individuals he spoke with from Colorado State University, Front Range Community College and Norther Colorado Water Conservancy District, indicated that a 12-inch tilling depth would be good and that the deeper the tilling the better. He stated those individuals recommended that the tilling depth not be less than eight inches. Councilmember Weitkunat made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Tharp, to adopt Ordinance No. 084, 2003 (Option B) on Second Reading as amended in Subparagraph (b)(2) to have the last sentence read as follows: "Any agreement submitted for the purpose of compliance with this Section shall specifically provide for 10 DAYS WRITTEN NOTICE TO THE GENERAL MANAGER PRIOR TO THE INSTALLATION OF ANY PLANT MATERIALS ON THE PROPERTY and for enforcement of its terms by the City as a third party beneficiary." Councilmember Kastein asked if the homeowner would have to submit the written notice to the City if the homeowner was to be responsible for the landscaping. City Attorney Roy stated the notice would be submitted by the person installing plant materials (the homeowner or the landscaper). Councilmember Bertschy spoke against Option B because he felt that it was a convoluted process. He stated this was the antithesis of what was intended. He stated Option B would ultimately be more difficult and expensive for the homeowner. He stated if soil amendments were required of the builder, the costs could be covered as part of the financing for the house and the City would have the ability to inspect the soil amendments. He stated the water savings would help the homeowner recover some of the original expense. He stated Option B would not accomplish the real objective and would lack the teeth to ensure compliance. He asked that Council consider Option A as the preferable option. Councilmember Hamrick stated Option A would be simpler and that there would be more accountability. He stated Option B would leave it up to the landscaper to provide notice to the City regarding soil amendments. He stated Option A would be much "cleaner" and that Option B would be much more convoluted. ("Secretary's Note: The Council took a brief recess at this point.) Councilmember Roy stated he was more supportive of Option A and that he had concerns about Option B. He noted that the City had problems with people requesting backflow device inspections after installation of sprinkler systems and there could be similar problems with soil amendment inspections under Option B. He stated the responsibility was unclear in Option B and that the system would be 454 June 3, 2003 complex and difficult to verify. He stated all agreed that soil amendments were valuable and that this could save water and a lot of money for the community. He stated having soil amendments done upfront would save water and money for homeowners who buy the house after the first homebuyer. He stated Option A was preferable because it could be enforced. Councilmember Weitkunat stated the current soil amendment program had never been enforced and it was unknown whether the program actually worked. She stated augmented soil produced better results in landscaping and would result in water savings. She stated the disagreement was on how the Ordinance should be enforced and whether the City should be heavy handed. She stated the homebuyer does not currently pay for landscaping before the Certificate of Occupancy and that the homebuyer had the choice of when and where to do soil amendments. She stated Option B would still leave that choice and that she believed that people would submit the required notice. She stated she would like to try Option B and noted that it could be changed if it did not work. Councilmember Kastein stated the argument had been made that Option A would save money as compared to Option B. He stated he did not believe that Option A would save money as compared to Option B at all because the soil amendments will not match the landscaping plan. He stated soil amendments will have to be done by the builder when he does not know how the yard will be landscaped. He stated soil amendments beyond those required by the landscaping plan would be a waste of money and that it would make sense to tie the soil amendments to the landscaping plan. He stated Option A was not efficient, fair or cost effective. He stated Option B would tie the landscaping plan to the soil amendments, and he acknowledged that it would be more complicated for the City. He stated there were problems with both options of the Ordinance. He stated he would rather see an Ordinance requiring whoever was ultimately responsible (the homeowner or the landscaper) to prepare the soils properly. He equated this to unfinished basements and requiring the person who would ultimately finish the basement to have all required permits in place. Councilmember Tharp agreed that the issue was confusing. She stated she had been prepared to support having spot checks and monitoring for a pattern of noncompliance. She stated she had even asked staff why a rebate could not be given to the builders on their upfront costs if soil amendments were really going to save water. She stated she had changed her mind because the builder is the one who moved around the topsoil in the first place and that this was a good time to amend the soil. She stated she was also persuaded by the figures on how many people actuallydo the backflow certifications and inspections. She stated she was disappointed that staff had not followed through on tracking compliance with the affidavit approach when it was first put into effect. She stated it appeared to her that if soil amendments were done by the builder, landscaping could be done by the homebuyer or a landscaper. She stated she would support Option A. Mayor Martinez stated the City did spot inspections in connection with various programs because it was impossible to inspect everything. He stated he would like to see the City trust citizens to be honest and to do spot checks for a time. 455 June 3, 2003 The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Martinez and Weitkunat. Nays: Councilmembers Bertschy, Hamrick, Kastein, Roy and Tharp. THE MOTION FAILED TO PASS Councilmember Bertschy made amotion, seconded by Councilmember Hamrick, to adopt Ordinance No. 084, 2003 (Option A) on Second Reading. Councilmember Weitkunat stated she believed that Option A was very heavy handed and unproven. She stated she would prefer to see a less heavy handed approach that would monitor compliance for a period of time. Councilmember Kastein stated the goal was good but that he could not support this solution. He stated this Ordinance does not match the problem with the solution. Councilmember Bertschy stated the other option would be heavy handed toward the landscapers. He stated the ultimate goal was to save water and help citizens save money. He stated this would be no more restrictive than many other Code provisions and that there would be many positive results. Mayor Martinez stated this was an issue of trust and that it was not a good time to be hiring additional staff. Councilmember Tharp questioned whether staff was still recommending that additional staffnotbe hired. Councilmember Bertschy stated would be the next item on the agenda. Mayor Martinez stated he was concerned that adoption of Option A would mean a staff recommendation for hiring of additional staff to do the required inspections. City Attorney Roy read some proposed changes to the Ordinance that had not been on file for 48 hours. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Bertschy, Hamrick, Roy and Tharp. Nays: Councilmembers Kastein, Martinez and Weitkunat. THE MOTION CARRIED Councilmember Hamrick made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Roy, to adopt Ordinance No. 085, 2003 on Second Reading. Councilmember Tharp asked about the staff recommendation about the necessity of additional staffing. City Manager Fischbach stated if Council was willing to accept a spot check program for a year that 456 June 3, 2003 additional staffing would not be required. He stated if Council wanted all of the inspections to be done that staff would recommend approval of the Ordinance. Councilmember Hamrick asked if any of these funds would be coming out of the General Fund. City Manager Fischbach replied in the negative. Councilmember Hamrick asked if this would be a self -funding program. City Manager Fischbach stated it would be a self -funding program and that this money was needed to "kick start" the program. Councilmember Weitkunat stated Council had talked about the importance ofnot hiring more people and that this would fly in the face of that decision. She stated she would like to see a spot check program and utilization of existing resources for the first year. Councilmember Bertschy asked if one out of three inspections could be accomplished without additional staff. Smith stated staff could accomplish approximately one out of 10 inspections with existing staff. He stated priorities could be changed if that was Council's direction. City Manager Fischbach stated an effort could be made and staff could report back to Council. Councilmember Kastein suggested that staff report back to Council regarding the percentage of compliance as determined from the spot checks. Councilmember Roy asked if the proposed inspection fee was $42. McGaha-Miller replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Roy asked if the inspection fee would make this program self-sustaining. McGaha- Miller replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Tharp asked if an inspection fee for spot checks must be added if additional staff is not needed. Smith stated if existing resources were used there may be no need for an inspection fee. Councilmember Tharp stated her preference would be that spot checks would not require an inspection fee. Councilmember Hamrick asked how many new homes could be inspected under the spot check program with existing staff. Smith stated staff could attempt to spot check one in five (about 20%) new homes. Councilmember Hamrick asked how many could be inspected with the addition of new staff. Smith stated 100% could be inspected. 457 June 3, 2003 Councilmember Hamrick stated to have a valid program that funds needed to be designated for inspections. He noted that the money would not come from the General Fund and that the program would be self -funded. Councilmember Roy stated this would be an unfunded mandate. He stated this was a laudable idea and that there should be a mechanism in place to make it possible. He stated this would be a self -funded program and would not jeopardize other programs already in place. Councilmember Tharp stated the program should be given a chance to work and that if spot checks showed a low compliance rate that an inspection program could be funded. She stated she was reluctant to add additional staffing costs at this time. Councilmember Weitkunat stated she would not support funding an inspection program. Mayor Martinez stated this was not the time to be adding staff. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Bertschy, Hamrick, and Roy. Nays: Councilmembers Kastein, Martinez, Tharp and Weitkunat. THE MOTION FAILED TO PASS Resolution 2003-077 Making an Appointment to the Planning and Zoning Board, Adopted. The following is staffs memorandum on this item. "Executive Summary Vacancies exist on the Affordable Housing Board due to the resignations of Mary Glode and Kathleen Cheroff Applications were solicited and after conducting interviews, Councilmembers Tharp and Roy are recommending Adrienne Pic and Peter Tippett to fill two of the vacancies with terms to begin immediately and set to expire on December 31, 2005. A vacancy exists on the Building Review Board due to the resignation ofJim Packard. Councilmembers Weitkunat and Kastein reviewed the applications on file and are recommending David Carr to fill the vacancy with a term to begin immediately and set to expire on December 31, 2005. Vacancies exist on the Commission on Disability due to the resignations of Ruth Bell Skogerboe and Elizabeth Kelly. Applications were solicited and interviews were conducted. Councilmembers Tharp and Weitkunat are recommending Melinda Suits to fill one vacancy with a term to begin immediately and 5„ June 3. 2003 set to expire on December 31, 2006 Sufficient applications were not received to fill both vacancies. Applications are still being accepted and interviews will take place later this month. A vacancy exists on the Downtown Development Authority due to the resignation of Rick Goodale. Applications were solicitedand interviews were conducted. After the interviewprocess, Councilmember Bertschy and Mayor Martinez are recommending Bill Sears to fill the vacancy with a term to begin immediately and set to expire on December 31, 2004. A vacancy exists on the Housing Authority due to the resignation of Lucia Liley. Applications were solicited and after conducting interviews, Councilmembers Tharp and Bertschy are recommending Mary Davis to fill the vacancy with a term to begin immediately and set to expire on December 31, 2007. A vacancy exists on the Human Relations Commission due to the resignation of Richard Miller. Councilmembers Roy and Bertschy reviewed the applications on file and are recommending Elaine Boni to fill the vacancy with a term to begin immediately and set to expire on December 31, 2004 A vacancy exists on the Natural Resources Board due to the resignation of Don Rodriguez. Councilmember Hamrick and Mayor Martinez interviewed the applicants onfile and are recommending Ryan Staychock to fill the vacancy with a term to begin immediately and set to expire on December 31, 2005. A vacancy currently exists on the Planning and Zoning Board due to the resignation of Daniel Bernth. Applications were solicited and Councilmembers Weitkunat and Hamrick interviewed the applicants. Councilmembers Weitkunat and Hamrick did not reach an agreement for the vacancy on the Planning andZoning Board. The Council interview team wishes to submit two namesfor Council's consideration for that position. " City Manager Fischbach stated all recommended appointments were recommended for approval with the exception of the Planning and Zoning Board, which was subject to Council discussion. Councilmember Weitkunat made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kastein, to adopt Resolution 2003-077, inserting the name David Lingle for the Planning and Zoning Board appointment. Councilmember Weitkunat stated she and Councilmember Hamrick interviewed eight candidates for the Planning and Zoning Board position and came up with two choices. She spoke in support of the appointment of David Lingle. Councilmember Hamrick spoke in support of the appointment of Brigitte Schmidt to the Planning and Zoning Board. 459 June 3, 2003 Mayor Martinez asked if a person could serve on more than one board. City Manager Fischbach stated the individual would have to resign from the other board if appointed. Councilmember Kastein asked if Ms. Schmidt was still the Executive Director of Citizen Planners. Councilmember Hamrick stated Ms. Schmidt was the President of Citizen Planners and that this was a volunteer, unpaid position. He stated he felt that it was inappropriate to make an appointment or not based on any affiliations that an applicant might have. He stated both applicants were activists and involved in the community. Councilmember Kastein stated Ms. Schmidt's leadership position in Citizen Planners would place a lot of pressure on her with regard to Board decisions. He stated he would prefer to see the appointment of an "independent thinker" who would not represent an organization pushing for certain decisions. Councilmember Hamrick stated there are no criteria preventing the appointment of a person in such a leadership capacity. Councilmember Bertschy stated affiliations should have no bearing on an appointment. He spoke in favor of the appointment of Ms. Schmidt. Councilmember Roy stated both applicants were outstanding and spoke in favor of the appointment of Ms. Schmidt. Councilmember Weitkunat spoke in favor of the appointment of Mr. Lingle. Councilmember Tharp spoke in favor of appointing Ms. Schmidt. The vote on the motion for appointment of Mr. Lingle was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Kastein, Martinez and Weitkunat. Nays: Councilmembers Bertschy, Hamrick, Roy and Tharp. THE MOTION FAILED TO PASS Councilmember Hamrick made amotion, seconded by Councilmember Tharp, to adopt Resolution 2003- 077, inserting the name Brigitte Schmidt for appointment to the Planning and Zoning Board. The vote on the motion to appoint Brigitte Schmidt was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Bertschy, Hamrick, Roy and Tharp. Nays: Councilmembers Kastein, Martinez and Weitkunat. THE MOTION CARRIED 'Tort, June 3, 2003 Ordinance No. 090, 2003 Making Various Amendments to the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code, Adopted on First Reading The following is staffs memorandum on this item. "Executive Summary Staff has identified a variety of proposed changes, additions and clarifications in the Spring biannual update of the Land Use Code. On May 15, 2003, the Planning and Zoning Board voted 6-0 to recommend approval of the proposed changes to City Council. BACKGROUND: The Land Use Code was first adopted in March of 1997. Subsequent revisions have been recommended on a biannual basis to make changes, additions, deletions and clarifications that have been identified in the preceding six months. The proposed changes are offered in order to resolve implementation issues and to continuously improve both the overall quality and "user -friendliness " of the Code. " City Manager Fischbach stated staff would discuss items 457, 570 and 581 at Councilmember Kastein's request. Greg Byme, CPES Director, introduced the agenda item. Cameron Gloss, Current Planning Director, stated item 457 would amend the Code to reduce the minimum rear yard setback for a detached garage in the L-M-N and M-M-N Districts. He stated the purpose of this change was to bring into alignment the requirement for a rear setback for a detached garage whether it would loaded from the front or loaded from the alley. He stated the intent was to maximize the limited private open space on narrow lots by pushing the garage toward the rear portion of the lot. Clark Mapes, City Planner, spoke regarding item 570 relating to parking standards for multifamily developments. He stated this change would allow some of the pavement formerly configured as parking lots to be configured and counted as streets. Peter Barnes, Zoning Code Administrator, spoke regarding item 581 relating to a housekeeping change to the transition zoning requirements in Article 4 of the Land Use Code. He stated previously the only way to build or add -on to a building in the T-zone was to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals for permission, and that the "equal to or better than" standard of consideration would not apply. He stated the purpose of this change was to clarify that it would not be possible to pursue an "equal to or better 461 June 3, 2003 than" argument before the Zoning Board of Appeals because a variance was not being requested to any specific standard. Councilmember Bertschy asked if item 457 would be a problem when areas that are new become the older part of town. He asked if turning radius issues would become a problem in the future. Gloss stated the standard will only apply to front access garages that cannot be alley accessed. Councilmember Bertschy asked about item 582 and the definition of"carriage house." He asked if the primary purpose was to prohibit the subdivision of that lot. Barnes stated the definition of "carriage house" was being added to Article 5 to clarify what a carriage house was for purposes of the land Use Code. Councilmember Bertschy asked about the relationship of this provision with the number of water taps. Barnes stated the Water Utility could potentially allow a second home on a lot to be served by the same water tap as the principal home. He stated the requirement was for attachment of the dwelling unit to the garage of the main house. Councilmember Bertschy asked if this was tied to the parking requirements. Barnes replied in the negative. Councilmember Bertschy asked about item 570 relating to internal on -street parking and whether allowing on -street parking to count could create parking problems because guests and visitors would be required to park further out. Mapes stated it would not create any additional problems or new deficiency in the total amount of parking. Councilmember Tharp asked if a developer could consider the internal streets to fulfill the requirement for parking. Mapes stated this would allow all of the pavement inside the project to count toward the parking requirements so that there would not be net effect of simply adding more pavement. Councilmember Roy asked about the terms "carriage house" and "alley homes." Barnes stated under the Land Use Code they would be a detached single-family dwelling. He stated an alley house would be totally independent from the main house and that there would be an ownership link between the carriage house and main house. Councilmember Roy asked if there would be instances of alley homes that would not be single-family dwellings behind single-family dwelling lots. Barnes stated if there was one dwelling unit in a building that was not attached to any other dwelling unit it would be by definition a detached single-family home. Councilmember Roy asked if there would be no regard for the character of the neighborhood or if the back dwellings would have to match the existing character of the neighborhood. Barnes stated in the Old Town areas the zones required certain minimal building character regulations. ELMS June 3, 2003 Councilmember Hamrick asked about the internal street parking requirement and whether it applied only to multifamily. Mapes replied in the affirmative and stated prior to the Land Use Code there was no requirement for streets in multifamily developments. He stated this change would allow the parking on the required streets to be counted toward the parking requirements. He stated the intent was for it to apply to an internal street built by the developer. Councilmember Kastein asked about item 457 and the impact of an 8-foot setback on an adjacent property. Mapes stated the garage would be closer to the neighboring property and that the requirement would provide more usable open space for both lots. Councilmember Kastein asked about item 581 and uses allowed in the Transition Zone. Barnes stated the uses would be those uses that existed on the property on the time of placement in the Transition Zone. Councilmember Kastein asked if there were standards for those allowable uses. Barnes stated there were no standards for those uses in the T-zone. Councilmember Kastein made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Hamrick, to adopt Ordinance No. 090, 2003 on First Reading. Councilmember Kastein stated he brought this up for discussion because he thought that it was important for the Council to look at the larger implications and unintended consequences of the Land Use Code. He stated the fall Land Use Code changes should also come before the Council for discussion. Councilmember Bertschy agreed with Councilmember Kastein's comments. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Bertschy, Hamrick, Kastein, Martinez, Roy, Tharp and Weitkunat. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED The meeting adjourned at 9:55 p.m Adiournment 463 Hay r