Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES-04/18/2006-RegularApril 18, 2006 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 18, 2006, 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: Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein, Manvel, Ohlson, Roy and Weitkunat. Staff Members Present: Atteberry, Krajicek, Roy. Citizen Participation Mayor Hutchinson stated each participant would have three minutes to speak. Terri Sullivan, 1649 Shenandoah Circle, stated the library had been able to maintain some services despite funding cuts thanks in part to volunteers and funding from the Friends of the Library. She stated a library district would ensure that library services were maintained, lost services were restored and new services could be provided. Greg Snyder, 619 Bear Creek Drive, stated the federal government required the release of waters to keep the water levels in the Platte River high enough to protect fish and wildlife. He suggested maintaining the water flow by selling water to people to use and sending it downstream after treatment. He stated the choices were "giving it to Nebraska for free" or using it to get revenue and then passing it on to Nebraska after treatment. He stated "punitive water rates" discouraged water use and meant the City could not charge for the water that was going downstream. He asked the Council to consider water that was used added to the downstream water flow and made the whole system work better. Jane Peters, 2807 Whitworth Drive, expressed concerns about the Downtown Airpark and asked for "reassurance" from the Council that the site could remain an airport if the developer decided to leave it an airport regardless of the zoning because it would be "grandfathered." Joe Collins, 839 Langdale Drive, Kel-Mar strip business owner and board member of Citizens Against Forced Annexation, spoke in opposition to the Southwest Enclave Annexation. Lupe Aragon, 1920 Cottonwood Point Drive, supported the creation of a library district to maintain library services. Courtney Przybylski, Director of Community Affairs for ASCSU, spoke regarding Colorado State University events. 456 Apri118, 2006 Deane Burgess, 1732 East Brookhaven Circle, spoke in support of establishment of a library district to ensure adequate library funding. Alexis Maxwell,1216 South Bryan Avenue, supported deferred sentences for violations of the noise ordinance. She stated "tangible" guidelines and clarity were needed for consistent enforcement of the ordinance. Crystal Roybal, 2200 West Orchard Place Apt. D-13, spoke in support of decriminalization of violations of the noise ordinance and consideration of options for community service. Heather Rice, 226B West Laurel Street, urged the implementation of an option for community service for violations of the noise ordinance. She stated the average fine was $375 plus court costs. Josh Disney, 1911 Enfield Court, supported the creation of a library district. Andrew Grosser, 4408 Monaco Place, Poudre High School Junior, spoke in support of a library district. Carrie Gillis, 2213 Timber Creek Drive, stated she would soon become a renter. She asked for Council attention to fair and across-the-board application of the forthcoming "Property Maintenance and RV Standards." She expressed concern that these standards would be applied only to rental properties. Citizen Participation Follow-up Mayor Hutchinson thanked those who spoke during Citizen Participation and asked staff to answer Ms. Peters' question about the Downtown Airpark. City Attorney Roy stated Division 1.5 of the Land Use Code addressed nonconforming uses and structures. He stated the Airpark could continue indefinitely as a nonconforming use under the Land Use Code as long as it was not abandoned for a year. He stated the Code provided for reconstruction after a disaster or enlargement of the buildings on -site up to 25% in accordance with certain criteria. Councilmember Ohlson asked if staff would be bringing forward options for community service for violations of the noise ordinance. He stated he was interested in studying a "hybrid" option of half fine and half community service. City Manager Atteberry stated he would ask the staff team to explore that option if Council would like that to be studied. He stated there would be a work session on the issue on August 22. Councilmember Weitkunat thanked the speakers for their clear and concise requests and well - planned presentations. Councilmember Kastein stated the library district and other budget issues would need a lot of work due to revenue shortfalls and the need for a balanced budget. Council had asked the City Manager to accelerate budget discussions for the 2007 budget. City Manager Atteberry stated there would be a work session on May 9 dealing with budget issues, including the library district issue. 457 April 18, 2006 A2enda Review City Manager Atteberry stated there were no changes to the published agenda. CONSENT CALENDAR 6. Consideration and Approval of the Minutes of the March 7, 2006 Regular Meeting, Second Reading of Ordinance No. 055, 2006, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the General Fund for Police Asset Forfeiture Activity. This Ordinance, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on April 4, 2006, appropriates funds obtained through civil asset seizure and forfeiture actions to be used by Police Services to purchase new equipment, fund additional training, and contribute to partnerships with community groups that seek to promote positive youth activities, anti- violence, anti -drug, and diversity activities. 8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 056, 2006, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the Street Oversizing Fund for Transfer to the Capital Projects Fund - Trilby and Ziegler Road Improvement Project and Authorizing the Transfer of Existing Appropriations from the Street Oversizing Fund to the Capital Project Fund - Trilby and Ziegler Road Improvements Project to be Used to Construct a Roundabout at the Intersection of Ziegler and Kechter Roads. Ordinance No. 056, 2006, unanimously adopted on First Reading on April 4, 2006, appropriates unanticipated revenue in the Street Oversizing Fund for the Ziegler and Kechter Roundabout Project which includes intersection and arterial street improvements for Ziegler Road, from Kechter Road south to Kinard Junior High School. These street improvements include widening Ziegler Road to minor arterial street standards from its existing two-lane configuration and the construction of a modem roundabout at the intersection of Ziegler Road and Kechter Road. The Fort Collins Loveland Water District will install a 24-inch water main prior to roadway paving and is including some of this work in conjunction with the Project. Roadway improvements include the installation of curb -and -gutter, sidewalks, asphalt paving, bike lanes, and storm sewers. Items Relating to the Northside Aztlan Community Center Located at 112 Willow Street. A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 058, 2006, Authorizing the Conveyance of an Exclusive Easement For a High Pressure Natural Gas Line to Public Service Company of Colorado Located at 112 Willow Street. B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 059, 2006, Exempting the Relocation of a High Pressure Gas Line in Connection with the Redevelopment of the Northside Aztlan Community Center From Regulation Under the Land Use Code. IM Apri118, 2006 C. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 060, 2006, Authorizing the Conveyance of a Permanent, Non -Exclusive Easement to Public Service Company of Colorado and the United States Environmental Protection Agency For Environmental Remediation Activities and Facilities On the Northside Aztlan Community Center Property and Gustav Swanson Natural Area. D. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 061, 2006, Vacating an Alley Right-of-way Established as Part of the 1873 Map of the Town of Fort Collins. These Ordinances, which were adopted on First Reading on April 4, 2006, relate to the completion of the plat and preliminary work associated with the construction of the new Northside Aztlan Community Center ("NACU) at 112 Willow Street. Two of the Ordinances relate to the relocation of a high pressure gas line, which will be necessary in order to allow the platting and construction of the NACC to proceed. In addition to a new easement for Public Service Company of Colorado for the gas line, an exemption from the requirements of the Land Use Code is in order to allow the relocation to proceed without separate advance review of the relocation. Ordinance No. 060, 2006, authorizes the grant of an easement to Public Service Company and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for permanent facilities for the environmental work along the Poudre River near the NACC. Ordinance No. 061, 2006, vacates an alley right-of-way that was shown on the original Town Plat and is located on the site of the NACC. 10. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 062, 2006, Authorizing the Conveyance of a Right - of -Way Easement and Temporary Construction Easement for the Construction of a Natural Gas Pipeline on Meadow Springs Ranch. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on April 4, 2006, authorizes conveyance of a right-of-way easement and temporary construction easement for construction of a natural gas pipeline at Meadow Springs Ranch at the northeastern -most corner of the Ranch, in Weld County, Colorado. 11. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 063, 2006, Vacating a Portion of Right-of-way as Dedicated At Book 1174, Page 543 of the Larimer County Records. Ordinance No. 063, 2006, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on April 4, 2006, vacates a 25 foot by 349.70 foot strip of land located south of Plum Street, between Shields Street and City Park Avenue. The owners of the properties at 813 Scott Street, 809 Scott Street and 1201 West Plum Street have requested the City vacate this strip of land as they wish to upgrade, renovate or redevelop their properties and feel this land is needed in order to do so. This area of land is not paved and is not used for access or as a driveway to the properties, nor is it planned as use for public access. It does contain several utilities within the area. The applicants have been notified and are aware the City does not determine who will get the vacated property and that ownership of the vacated property is determined in accordance with state statutes. All public and private utilities have been notified of the proposed vacation and no objections have been stated, provided the area is retained as a 459 April 18, 2006 utility easement. The entire area proposed to be vacated will be retained as a utility easement. 12. First Reading of Ordinance No. 065, 2006, Amending the City of Fort Collins District - Precinct Man. This Ordinance amends the City of Fort Collins District -Precinct Map, which was adopted by Council on November 16, 2004, by adjusting precinct boundaries to correspond with election precincts established by Larimer County. These changes do not affect Council District boundaries. 13. First Reading of Ordinance No. 066 , 2006, Amendinp Section 2-166 of the Code of the Citv of Fort Collins to Change the Name of the Commission on the Status of Women to the Women's Commission. The purpose of the Ordinance is to change the name of the group which advises City Council on issues pertaining to women from the "Commission on the Status of Women" to the "Women's Commission". 14. First Reading of Ordinance No. 067, 2006, Amendin the he Legal Descriptions for Certain Convevances to the Colorado Department ofTransportation Approved in Ordinance No. 007, 2005. Ordinance No. 007, 2005, approved real estate legal descriptions to convey a non-exclusive permanent sewer easement, domestic water and gas easement and a road right-of-way to accommodate the installation of a turn lane from East Prospect Road onto the access road in connection with the Colorado Department of Transportation's development of a new rest area on East Prospect Road near the Welcome and Visitor's Center. These legal descriptions contained typographical errors which rendered the descriptions unclear. This Ordinance amends the legal descriptions to be used in the documents of conveyance by correcting the errors. 15. Items Relating to the Sanctuary Annexation and Zoning, A. Resolution 2006-041 Setting Forth Findings of Fact and Determinations Regarding the Sanctuary Annexation. B. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 068, 2006, Annexing Property Known as the Sanctuary Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado. C. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 069, 2006, Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the Sanctuary Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado. This is a request to annex and zone 15.65 acres located approximately one-half mile south E.1 Apri118, 2006 of Kechter Road and approximately one -quarter to one-half mile east of Ziegler Road. The property is undeveloped and is in the FA-1 Farming District in Larimer County. The requested zoning in the City of Fort Collins is UE — Urban Estate District. Staff recommends that this property be included in the Residential Neighborhood Sign District. A map amendment is necessary to place this property on the Residential Neighborhood Sign District Map. 16. Resolution 2006-042 Finding Substantial Compliance and Initiating Annexation Proceedings for the Johnston Annexation. The Johnston Annexation is 36.82 acres in size. The site is 6111 Timberline Road, located approximately one-half mile south of Kechter Road on the west side of Timberline Road. Contiguity with the existing municipal boundary is gained along the entire southern boundary which is shared with the Keating Annexation and the entire west boundary which is shared with the Union Pacific Railroad Fourth Annexation. The proposed Resolution states that it is the City's intent to annex this property and directs that the published notice required by State law be given of the Council's hearing to consider the needed annexation ordinance. The hearing will be held at the time of First Reading of the annexation and zoning ordinances on June 6, 2006. Not less than 30 days prior, published notice is required by State law. 17. Resolution 2006-043 Renaming a Portion of Cocklebur Drive to Cutting Horse Drive. a Portion of Kerry Hill Drive to Blue Yonder Way and a Portion of Scarecrow Road to Trestle Road. This is a street name change request to rename three segments of roadway dedicated and approved within Filing 2 of the Side Hill development. Side Hill is located northeast of the intersection of Timberline and Drake Roads. This street name change request was initiated by the City of Fort Collins GIS Department in collaboration with the property owner in order to avoid future confusion. The segments to be changed include a segment of Kerry Hill Road northeast of Blackbird Drive, a section of Cocklebur Drive east of Yearling Drive, and a section of Scarecrow Road south of Nancy Gray Avenue. ***END CONSENT*** Ordinances on Second Reading were read by title by City Clerk Krajicek. 7. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 055, 2006, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the General Fund for Police Asset Forfeiture Activity. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 056, 2006, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the Street Oversizing Fund for Transfer to the Capital Projects Fund - Trilby and Ziegler Road Improvement Project and Authorizing the Transfer of Existing Appropriations from the 461 April 18, 2006 Street Oversizing Fund to the Capital Project Fund - Trilby and Ziegler Road Improvements Project to be Used to Construct a Roundabout at the Intersection of Ziegler and Kechter Roads. 9. Items Relating to the Northside Aztlan Community Center Located at 112 Willow Street. A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 058, 2006, Authorizing the Conveyance of an Exclusive Easement For a High Pressure Natural Gas Line to Public Service Company of Colorado Located at 112 Willow Street. B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 059, 2006, Exempting the Relocation of a High Pressure Gas Line in Connection with the Redevelopment of the Northside Aztlan Community Center From Regulation Under the Land Use Code. C. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 060, 2006, Authorizing the Conveyance of a Permanent, Non -Exclusive Easement to Public Service Company of Colorado and the United States Environmental Protection Agency For Environmental Remediation Activities and Facilities On the Northside Aztlan Community Center Property and Gustav Swanson Natural Area. D. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 061, 2006, Vacating an Alley Right-of-way Established as Part of the 1873 Map of the Town of Fort Collins. 10. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 062, 2006, Authorizing the Conveyance of a Right -of - Way Easement and Temporary Construction Easement for the Construction of a Natural Gas Pipeline on Meadow Springs Ranch. 11. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 063, 2006, Vacating a Portion of Right-of-way as Dedicated At Book 1174, Page 543 of the Larimer County Records. 21. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 047, 2006, Authorizing an Addendum to the Existing Intergovernmental Agreement with the Fort Collins -Loveland Water District, Extending for Five Years the Time for Annexations of Subdivisions to be Eligible Under the Agreement. Ordinances on First Reading were read by title by City Clerk Krajicek. 12. First Reading of Ordinance No. 065, 2006, Amending the City of Fort Collins District - Precinct Map. 13. First Reading of Ordinance No. 066, 2006, Amending Section 2-166 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins to Change the Name of the Commission on the Status of Women to the Women's Commission. 462 Apri118, 2006 14. First Reading of Ordinance No. 067, 2006, Amending the Legal Descriptions for Certain Conveyances to the Colorado Department ofTransportation Approved in Ordinance No. 007, 2005. 15. Items Relating to the Sanctuary Annexation and Zoning. B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 068, 2006, Annexing Property Known as the Sanctuary Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado. C. First Reading of Ordinance No. 069, 2006, Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the Sanctuary Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado. 22. First Reading of Ordinance No. 070, 2006, Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins by Changing the Zoning Classification for that Certain Property Known as the Harmony and Shields Rezoning. Councilmember Weitkunat made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Roy, to adopt and approve all items on the Consent Calendar. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein, Manvel, Ohlson, Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED Consent Calendar Follow-up Councilmember Weitkunat spoke regarding item #13 First Reading of Ordinance No. 066, 2006, Amending Section 2-166 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins to Change the Name of the Commission on the Status of Women to the Women's Commission. Staff Reports City Manager Atteberry reported City employee David Yee, Facilities Architect, had become Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certified. He also reported that the recently constructed vehicle service building was awarded a LEED design award. He reported there had been recent train crossing and street construction delays disrupting traffic. Staff was working with Union Pacific Railroad on the train delays and would be working with Great Western. The problem was exacerbated because the train delays were near the intersections impacted by street closures on Timberline and Prospect Roads. Staff was aware of the problem and was working to address it. He had asked the Director of Community Affairs for ASCSU to report on progress made on the "three - unrelated" ordinance. Courtney Przybylski, Director of Community Affairs for ASCSU, reported that ASCSU was working in a number of ways to educate students about the change in laws relating to occupancy limits. 463 April 18, 2006 Councilmember Reports Mayor Hutchinson stated the brochures being circulated by the Fraternal Order of Police to get signatures on a petition to place a measure on the ballot had inaccuracies. He noted the City Council had unanimously adopted a Resolution that asked people not to sign the petition and the cost of a special election would be S100,000. Councilmember Kastein reported on the North Front Range Transportation and Air Quality Advisory Council discussions relating to STP Metro and CDOT funds to be spent in the region for park-n-ride areas and the RTA. Executive Session Authorized Councilmember Weitkunat made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Manvel, to adjourn into Executive Session as permitted by Section 2-31(a)(2) of the City Code to confer with the City Attorney about potential litigation involving the City and related legal issues. Councilmember Ohlson asked if the Executive Session would be held at this point in the meeting or later. Mayor Hutchinson stated it would be held now. Councilmember Ohlson asked for an approximate time to reconvene for the benefit of the audience. City Manager Atteberry stated the Executive Session would take approximately 15 minutes. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein, Manvel, Ohlson and Weitkunat. Nays: Councilmember Roy. THE MOTION CARRIED ("Secretary's Note: The Council adjourned into Executive Session at 7:05 p.m. and reconvened following the Executive Session at 7:30 p.m.) Ordinance No. 047, 2006, Authorizing an Addendum to the Existing Intergovernmental Agreement with the Fort Collins -Loveland Water District, Extending for Five Years the Time for Annexations of Subdivisions to be Eligible Under the Agreement, Adopted on Second Reading. The following is staffs memorandum on this item. "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Ordinance No. 047, 2006, authorizes an addendum to the existing Intergovernmental Agreement aM61 April 18, 2006 with the Fort Collins -Loveland Water District, extending for five years the time for annexations of subdivisions to be eligible under the agreement. The Ordinance was unanimously adopted by Council on First Reading on March 21, 2006 On April 4, Council voted to postpone the consideration ofthe Second Reading of Ordinance No. 047, to the regular meeting ofApril 18. The postponement was the result of questions expressed by Council about the difference between the City's and District's water development fees, the fee the City charges the District for treated water per the IGA, and whether or not the City's fees recover the City's total cost ofproviding service in accordance with the IGA. " City Manager Atteberry introduced the agenda item. Jim Hibbard, Water Engineering Field Services Manager, stated the primary purpose of the Intergovernmental Agreement was to accommodate higher density development required by City Plan and the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan in areas of the City served by the Fort Collins - Loveland Water District. He presented visual information regarding the subject area. He stated extending the Intergovernmental Agreement would allow the remaining properties that had not yet been annexed the same opportunity that had been afforded properties already annexed. The IGA would allow developers in the area the option of meeting the City's water development fees which could be lower than the District's fees for higher density development. Developers who chose this option would turn their water and plant investment fees over to the City and the City would treat that water and sell it back to the District for resale to its customers. For a small lot single-family home, the District development fees in this area were about $10,000 higher per lot and for a multi -family lot the District's development fees were $5,000 to $6,000 higher. The District's development fees were different than the City due to differences in the raw water requirement i.e., the District used a different benchmark (CBT) for its raw water fees. The City's larger water portfolio allowed the City to value water differently because it was cheaper than CBT water. The District had different capital costs than the City and different methodologies to determine the plant investment fee. The City's plant investment fee was up to date and reflected cost recovery. If the City's plant investment fee was increased for the IGA area, the result would be an increase in the cost of development in the area. This would also generate additional income for the City. All customers in the area were City citizens and service was provided by either the City or the District. The City was recovering its costs under the arrangement. Existing Utility customers benefitted positively from the redistribution of fixed costs over a larger customer base. The majority of development in the area would be single- family on small lots and the difference between City and District rates would be only a few dollars a month. Staff recommended adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading due to the benefits to the City, the Utility and the ratepayers. Councilmember Ohlson stated he appreciated the information provided by staff. He noted staff had indicated the existing ratepayers would benefit because of the larger area and more people paying into the system. He asked what would happen if enough units were developed to require expansion of upgrade of the capital facilities i.e., whether that would cost existing ratepayers. Hibbard stated in that case, plant investment fees and raw water requirements would need to be adjusted. He stated the area as envisioned would not require a major capital expenditure and the existing plant investment fees and raw water requirements were, therefore, adequate. 465 April 18, 2006 Councilmember Ohlson asked ifthere would be enough units to require any future capital expansion. Mike Smith, Utilities General Manager, stated the 40-year proj ections included District water service to this area and the City selling water to the District. He stated there was sufficient projected treatment plant capacity to handle this arrangement. Councilmember Ohlson stated many still questioned why the City was charging low water rates and the answer seemed to be because the City had made "good decisions" over the past 40 years and "because the City was not in the business of making money." He stated the City's charge was $10,000 per housing unit less than the District. This low rate was not necessarily a benefit to the existing City citizens. Smith stated the low rate did not cost the citizens any more money. The City's fees were based on cost recovery for capital projects. Staff and the Water Board were comfortable that the City was collecting a fair rate and recovering the City's costs. Councilmember Kastein stated the City had many fees attached to development and those fees were compared to other cities. The City's water fee was lower than most but total fees typically lined up with total fees for other cities. Smith stated the City was the only entity that used water from the southside ditches that previously served farmland. The surrounding Districts were forced to use CBT water and this water was historically more expensive than water from the southside ditches. Councilmember Manvel thanked staff for the clear information on the agenda item. Councilmember Ohlson made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Roy, to adopt Ordinance No. 047, 2006 on Second Reading. Councilmember Weitkunat stated she would support the motion. The customers were citizens of the City regardless of who provided the water service and it was important to be fair to all citizens and to keep costs low. Mayor Hutchinson stated his concern had been whether the City was recovering all of its costs and this concern had been addressed. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein, Manvel, Ohlson, Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED :.. April 18, 2006 Items Relating to the Harmony and Shields Rezoning and Amendment to the Structure Plan, Failed. The following is staff s memorandum on this item. "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A. Resolution 2006-044 Amending the City's Structure Plan Map. B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 070, 2006, Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins by Changing the Zoning Classification for that Certain Property Known as the Harmony and Shields Rezoning. APPLICANT: Michael Markel 5723 Arapahoe Avenue #2B Boulder, CO 80303 OWNER: Darrell Knudson 17731 Irvine Blvd., Suite 202 Tustin, CA 92781 This is a request to amend the Structure Plan map and rezone a 58 acre parcel located on the west side of South Shields Street north of Harmony Road. The rezone would essentially reconfigure the pattern of existing zone districts by moving the 17.9 acre area zoned NC, Neighborhood Commercial, presently located in between the proposed Troutman Parkway extension and Wake Robin Lane, approximately 500 feet to the south. The resulting zone districts would include an NC - zoned parcel at the northwest corner of Harmony and Shields with the balance of the site zoned M- M-N, Medium Density Mixed Use Neighborhood. BACKGROUND The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: N M-M-N Vacant Pine View PUD (expired) R-L, U-E existing single-family residential (Mountain Ridge Farm Subdivision, Skyline Acres); Westfield neighborhood park S: R-L, U-E Existing detached single family residential (Westbury, Ridge, LMN Cottonwood Ridge Subdivisions), Front Range Community College; Harmony Library E: M-M-N, Existing multi family residential (Woodlands Condominiums) R-L detached single family residential (Woodlands) W.- R-L; Existing detached single family residential (Westbrooke, Regency Park 467 April18, 2006 LMN subdivisions); Johnson Elementary, Weber Jr. High School, Dragon's Lair Wetlands; Harmony LDS Church • The property was annexed and zoned on June 3, 1980 as part of a larger parcel of land bounded by Horsetooth, Harmony, Shields and Taft Hill Roads. The initial zoning was conditioned upon the property being developed as a Planned Unit Development (PUD). • The 67 acre Pineview, Master Plan and First Phase Preliminary Development Plan were approved by the Planning and Zoning Board on October 26, 1981. The first phase included approval of 326 multi family units (apartments and condominium units) on 26.9 acres located at the northwest corner of Shields and Harmony Roads. The approved Master Plan included the following programmatic breakdown: Tract A (Phase 1) 326 apartments and condominium units on 26.9 acres Tract B 77 apartment and condominium units on 14 acres Tract C Neighborhood Commercial Center on 16.5 acres with 140,000- 150, 000 square feet of retail and non-residential uses. Tract D 97 townhouses and condominium units on 8.1 acres Tract E 124 townhouses and condominium units on 10.3 acres • Preliminary PUD plans for 80 apartment units (Tract B), a 157,500 square foot neighborhood shopping center ('Tract C), 98 condominium units (Tract D), and 114 condominium units ('Tract E), were approved by Planning and Zoning Board on July 25, 1983. • A one-year extension to the Tract C approval for a neighborhood shopping center approval was granted by Planning and Zoning Board on July 27, 1987. • In 1997, City Plan was adopted and Neighborhood Center (NC) zone applied to that area between Wake Robin Lane and Troutman Parkway (extended) and the remainder of the property was zoned Medium Density Mixed Use Neighborhood (M-M-N). LAND USE CODE The regulations covering rezonings in the City of Fort Collins are contained in Division 2.9 of the Land Use Code. Section 2.9.4 (H) (2) indicates thefollowing: Mandatory Requirements for Quasi -Judicial Rezonings. Any amendment to the Zoning Map involving the zoning or rezoning ofsix hundred forty (640) acres ofland or less (a quasi-judicial rezoning) shall be recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Board or approved by the City Council only if the proposed amendment is: (a) consistent with the City Comprehensive Plan; and/or April18, 2006 (b) warranted by changed conditions within the neighborhood surrounding and including the subject property. Section 2.9.4 (H) (3) of the Land Use Code indicates the following: Additional Considerations for Quasi -Judicial Rezonings. In determining whether to recommend approval of any such proposed amendment, the Planning and Zoning Board and City Council may consider the following additional factors: (a) whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment is compatible with existing and proposed uses surrounding the subject land, and is the appropriate zone district for the land; (b) whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment, including, but not limited to, water, air, noise, stormwater management, wildlife, vegetation, wetlands and natural functioning of the environment; © whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in a logical and orderly development pattern. APPLICANT'S REQUEST AND JUSTIFICATION Michael Markel, an authorized representative of the property owner, has submitted a rezoning petition and corresponding request to amend the Structure Plan. Reason for request: The commercial viability ofthis site and overall neighborhood cohesiveness is better suited by locating the existing NCzoning on the corner of Harmony and Shields and moving the existing MMNzoning toward the middle of the site. Our reasons are as follows: 1. This shift of zones is just a " flip/fop" of existing zoning. The new zoning locations are essentially the same as before, just positioned differently on the site. 2. The existing lower density neighborhoods to the west of the site will enjoy a better transition with adjacent MAN zoning than directly backing to commercial. 3. Existing neighborhoods can easily access the neighborhood from Wake Robin Lane and also through the future Troutman Parkway extension that is part of the Transportation Master Plan. 4. A trail connection along the ditch -way willprovide alternative modes for pedestrians to access the site from adjacent neighborhoods. e April 18, 2006 5. We have had interestfrom a regional grocer for the commercial to be located at the corner and not the center of the site. In addition, the applicant submitted the justification for a corresponding amendment to the Structure Plan in an attached letter. STAFF ANALYSIS City Plan Structure Plan Map Minor Amendment The City Structure Plan, an element of the City's comprehensive plan, is a map that sets forth a basic pattern of development, showing how Fort Collins should grow and evolve over the next 20 years. The map breaks down the subject parcel into three land use designations: Neighborhood Center, Medium Density Mixed Use, and Open Lands, Parks, Stream Corridors (Attachment 3). The applicant's request is to reconfigure the City Structure Plan designations such that the Neighborhood Commercial Center and Medium Density Mixed Use designations are 'flipped". The resulting pattern would then relocate the south boundary of the Neighborhood Commercial Center approximately 500 feet from the present location and replace some of the former commercially - designated property with the residential designation. The applicant contends the City Structure Plan is in need of the proposed amendment because the neighborhood commercial center is not economically viable in its current configuration on the Plan. Market analysis from commercial developers, retail tenants and grocerystore anchors has indicated the commercial center would be better served at a more visible location at the corner of the site. Review Criteria For Structure Plan Minor Amendments Appendix C of City Plan outlines mandatory requirements for public notice, review process ana evaluation criteria for minor amendments to City Plan, including Structure Plan map amendments. The Plan text states: "A plan amendment will be approved if the City Council makes specif c findings that: The existing City Plan and/or related element thereof is in need of the proposed amendment; and The proposed plan amendment will promote the public welfare and will be consistent with the vision, goals, principles andpolicies of CityPlan and the elements thereof. " Relevant Principles and Policies of City Plan PRINCIPLE MMN-2: The layout and design of a Medium Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood will form a transition and a link between surrounding neighborhoods and the Neighborhood Commercial Center, Community Commercial District, 470 April18, 2006 Employment District, or an Industrial District, subject to adjustmentfor site -specific or pre-existing circumstances such as a major street, major drainageway, or existing development. Policy MMN-2.1 Size. A Medium Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood should extend an average of about one -quarter mile from the edge of the adjacent Neighborhood Commercial Center, Community Commercial District, Employment District, or an Industrial District, subject to adjustment for site specific or pre-existing circumstances such as a major street, major drainageway, or existing development. PRINCIPLEMMN--3: ANeighborhood Commercial Center will provide uses to meet consumer demands from surrounding Residential Districts for everyday goods and services, and will be pedestrian -oriented places as a focal point for the surrounding neighborhoods. Policy MMN-3.1 Land Uses/Grocery Store Anchor. A grocery store, supermarket, or other type of anchor (e.g., drugstore) should be the primary fractional offering of these Centers. A mix of retail, professional office, and other services oriented to serve surrounding neighborhoods are the secondary offerings. The Neighborhood Commercial Center will provide locations for some limited auto -related uses. Policy MMN-3.2 Surrounding Neighborhoods. The Neighborhood Commercial Center should be integrated in the surrounding Medium Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood, contributing to the neighborhood's positive identity and image. Residents should be able to easily get to the Center without the need to use an arterial street. The City Structure Plan illustrates a future that uses neighborhoods as the primary building block to the community. Successful residential districts rely on the ability to support and benefit from a grocery store and otherfrequent destinationsfor its residents. These essential services areprovided to residential districts in "Neighborhood Commercial Centers " which are denoted on the Structure Plan as either a red "dot" or polygon. Typically, Neighborhood Commercial Centers are 15-20 acres in size. Such centers are intended to serve as a truefocalpointfor surrounding neighborhoods through not only goods and services but the provision of public gathering spaces and other civic amenities. Neighborhood Commercial centers work in tandem with, and are surrounded by, Medium Density Mixed Use zone districts. The subjectpropertyprovides both the Neighborhood Commercial Center needed to support surrounding neighborhoods as well as the higher density uses found within the medium density mixed use areas that concentrate housing within easy walking distance of services and that provide a transition to the surrounding lower density residential areas. Staff has reviewed the applicant's request for the Structure Plan Amendment and found it consistent with adopted City Planprinciples andpolicies. Relocation ofthe Neighborhood Commercial Center and Medium Density Mixed Use Residential areas still allows both districts to function 471 April 18, 2006 synergistically as envisioned under the Plan. The location of existing and planned future roadways, such as Wake Robin Lane to the west, Westbury Drive to the south, and the future western extension to Troutman Parkway to the north, will allow for direct vehicular, bicycle and pedestrian connections to the center. The size of the Center at 17.9 acres is in keeping with the 15-20 acres targeted for such districts. In many respects, the proposed reconfiguration is an improvement over the present City Structure Plan layout. Commercial uses located closer to the Harmony and Shields corner may provide the visual exposure needed for retailers to be more economically successful. The reconfigured Medium Density Mixed Use District arguably provides an even larger buffer and transition to immediately abutting low -density residential development to the west than the existing location. The applicant has not submitted an amendment to the Open Lands, Parks and Stream Corridors designation that crosses the subject property nor is there a requirement to do so in order for the parcel to be rezoned NC, Neighborhood Commercial. It is acknowledged that the illustration found on the Plan is a very rough approximation of the Mail Creek drainage, and the natural features "on the ground" do not coincide with the generalized pattern shown on the Structure Plan Map. Future development plans on the site will be subject to the requirements of Section 3.4.1 of the Land Use Code protecting significant habitat and natural features. Request to rezone by reconfiguring the Neighborhood Commercial, NC, and Medium Density Mixed Neighborhood, M-M-N, —Section 2.9.4(H) The request to reconfigure the NC and MMN zone districts is considered quasi-judicial (versus legislative) since the parcel is less than 640 acres. There are five standards that may be used in evaluating a request for a quasi-judicial rezoning. These standards, and how the request complies, are summarized below: A. Any amendment to the Zoning Map shall be recommended for approval only if the proposed amendment is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan; and/or. As stated above, under the Structure Plan amendment analysis, staff has concluded that the proposal is consistent with the principles and policies of City Plan, and would be consistent with the Structure Plan if it is amended as proposed. B. Any amendment to the Zoning Map shall be recommended for approval only if the proposed amendment is warranted by changed conditions within the neighborhood surrounding and including the subject property. The rezoning acknowledges the relocation ofthe Neighborhood Commercial district due to a need for greater market exposure. The NC and MMN districts on the subject property have not developed to date under the vision 472 April18, 2006 of City Plan, in part due to the location of the NC district on the subject property. C. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment is compatible with existing and proposed uses surrounding the subject land, and is the appropriate zone district for the land. The amendment will improve the degree of compatibility between potential future commercial and residential uses and surrounding lower density residential areas. The reconfigured Medium Density Mixed Use District provides a larger buffer and transition to immediately abutting residential development to the north and west than the existing location. Rezoning still allows the Neighborhood Commercial district to work in tandem with the Medium Density Mixed Use zone district. The subject property provides both the Neighborhood Commercial Center needed to support surrounding neighborhoods as well as the higher density uses found within the medium density mixed use areas that concentrate housing within easy walking distance of services and that provide a transition to the surrounding lower density residential areas. D. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment, including but not limited to, water, air, noise, stormwater management, wildlife, vegetation, wetlands and the natural functioning of the environment. Immediately abutting the property to the west is a stormwater detention/wetland area referred to as the "Dragon's Lair Wetland " owned by the City of Fort Collins. In the year 2000, a volunteer group, Trees, Water and People, worked cooperatively with the City of Fort Collins to reconstruct the wetland and further enhance it with native vegetation. There is no evidence that the rezoning will result in significant adverse impacts to the natural environment on- or off -site. At such time that detailed development plans are submitted, the applicant will be required to submit an Ecological Characterization Study, identifying wildlife habitat areas, wetland boundaries, wildlife movement corridors and other natural features and how impacts can be avoided or mitigated through buffer zones and other measures. E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in a logical and orderly development pattern. As it is proposed to be amended, the rezoning is consistent with the development pattern envisioned under the City's Structure Plan. The revised 473 April 18, 2006 neighborhood center still focuses the commercial service in a way that best supports neighborhoods as the basic building block to the community. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSION In evaluating the request to amend the Harmony and Shields Structure Plan minor amendment and rezone, staff makes the following findings of fact: A. The proposed amendment to the Structure Plan will promote the public welfare and will be consistent with the vision, goals, principles and policies of City Plan and the elements thereof. B. The rezoning satisfies the criteria of Section 2.9.4 ofthe Land Use Code, assuming that the Structure Plan is amended as proposed. NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING Although quasi-judicial rezone applications are exempt from the neighborhood meeting requirements, the City sponsored a neighborhood meeting on February 27, 2006 at the Harmony Library located cater-cornered to the property. Comments raised at the neighborhood meeting ranged from land use and transportation impacts, environmental impacts andpotential future land development patterns. A detailed meeting summary has been provided as an attachment. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the following: A. Approval of the requested Structure Plan Map amendment, reconfiguring designations for the Subject Area on the Plan, moving the Neighborhood Commercial Center, presently located in between the proposed Troutman Parkway extension and Wake Robin Lane, approximately 500 feet to the south, and designating the balance of the property Medium Density Mixed Use Neighborhood. B. Approval of the requested rezoning, changing the zoning of the subject area, the NC, Neighborhood Commercial zone district, presently located in between the proposed Troutman Parkway extension and Wake Robin Lane, to approximately 500 feet to the south, and zoning the balance of the property M-M-N, Medium Density Mixed Use Neighborhood. PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD RECOMMENDATION The Planning and Zoning Board, at their regular monthly meeting on March 16, 2006, voted 6-0 (Stockover absent) to recommend approval to the City Council of the change to the City Plan Structure Plan map and approval of the requested rezoning. 474 April 18, 2006 During the course of the Planning and Zoning Board hearing, there was substantial public testimony about the perceived impacts, both negative and positive, the rezoning would potentially have on the surrounding area. There was considerable discussion at the hearing regarding projected environmental impacts. Several speakers cited the potential threat that future development would have on natural habitat and features located both on -site and within close proximity. Ofparticular concern was the impact to existing wetlands. Some speakers specifically requested the City purchase the site as a Natural Area. Requests were made to the Planning and Zoning Board by area residents to consider the traffic impacts that might arise due to the relocation of the neighborhood center. In addition to the increased traffic volumes along both Harmony and Shields Street, speakers cited concerns about other perceived traffic impacts to the surrounding area, including: • Increased traffic volumes and speeds along Wake Robin Lane from the site and through the neighborhood. • Traffic volumes along Seneca Street will increase due to the lack of street network accessing the area; this will cause apotentially dangerous condition for pedestrians and motorists accessing the adjacent elementary and junior high schools and Westfield Park. • No sidewalk exists on the southside of Harmony Road near the project site. • The City has not installed traffic calming devices within the neighborhood. Comments were also received aboutpotential diminution ofneighborhoodproperty values, aesthetic degradation, and perceived lack of market for a grocery store, retail or other similar services. Mayor Hutchinson requested the City Attorney explain what the Council was considering and that there were Council "boundaries" for action. City Attorney Roy stated there were two proposed actions: (1) to amend the Structure Plan through a legislative act; and (2) to amend the Zoning Map to change the zoning for the subject property, which would be a quasi-judicial decision. There were different rules that applied to legislative and quasi-judicial decisions. Council was often "lobbied" on legislative decisions and this was appropriate. On quasi-judicial decisions the Council was "acting more like a judge" in applying the established criteria to a particular fact situation (in this case, a small area rezoning). In a quasi- judicial proceeding reasonable notice was provided to the parties who were immediately affected and there would then be an opportunity for those parties to be heard at a public hearing. The Council's responsibility was to remain impartial until the hearing and lobbying was not appropriate. The Council's decision would be based solely on the evidence in the record of the Planning and Zoning Board hearing and the testimony at the Council hearing. The Council decision would be based on what was germane to the criteria under which the decision would be made. 475 Ayri118, 2006 Mayor Hutchinson stated the Council welcomed full public involvement in these processes. Quasi- judicial decision were not "political" decisions because the Council's role was that of a "judge." He felt it was helpful to make these clarifications because of a -mails received. Councilmember Ohlson asked if testimony would be accepted on both the rezoning and Structure Plan change when citizens addressed the issue. Mayor Hutchinson asked if the two issues would be considered and voted upon separately. City Attorney Roy stated there would be separate votes and Council's rules provided that citizen input was entertained once on each agenda item regardless of the number of action items. Mayor Hutchinson stated he would like to have citizens comment only once on both action items. City Manager Atteber y stated there would be a staff presentation. Cameron Gloss, Current Planning Director, stated this was a request to rezone a 58-acre parcel near the northwest comer of Shields and Harmony Roads. In this case there would be a reconfiguration of two existing districts on the property: NC -Neighborhood Commercial and MMN - Medium Density Mixed Use Neighborhood. He described the site's surrounding land uses and transportation system. He presented visual information showing the existing Zoning Map and the proposed zoning. He stated there would be a shift in the NC Zone District about 500 feet to the south and the MMN Zone District would also fully wrap around the NC Zone District. Corresponding Structure Plan maps would also be amended under this request. He presented visual information showing the present configuration and noted on the map a wetlands drainageway designated POL - Public Open Lands on the Structure Plan that would be maintained even if the designation changed for the NC property. He presented visual information showing the Structure Plan and noted the neighborhood commercial centers at many arterial intersections. He presented a hierarchy of commercial centers and stated the Planning and Zoning Board had a lengthy discussion about the various types of commercial development. The commercial center intensity ranged from the MMN Zone District (the lowest intensity), the LMN Zone District, the NC Zone District, and the Harmony Corridor and Commercial North and South College Corridors, and the Downtown (the highest intensity). He presented visual information showing examples of neighborhood centers in different Zone Districts. The LMN neighborhood center would cover a one -quarter mile radius (approximately a five-minute walk from the center to the edge) to serve one neighborhood. In the LMN Zone District the maximum size of the neighborhood center was five acres, buildings could be no larger than 5,000 square feet, and no drive -through facilities were allowed. There was some "confusion" at the Planning and Zoning Board hearing about the location of neighborhood centers. In the LMN neighborhood center, the policy was that the neighborhood center was to be located in the center of the neighborhood. In the NC Zone District, the neighborhood center service area was a one -mile radius serving up to four neighborhoods. The size would range from 15-20 acres, a wide range of retail and service type uses would be allowed, some drive-throughs would be allowed, and there was no policy in City Plan regarding the location of a neighborhood center in the NC Zone District. He stated some point preference was given to NC neighborhood centers under the old Land Development Guidance System if they were located at a collector arterial intersection. Thre was no specific policy in City Plan. He presented an illustration from an area resident, which came directly =0 Apri118, 2006 from City Plan, that was shown to the Planning and Zoning Board. The illustration depicted the LMN neighborhood center in the center of the neighborhood. The graphic showed a community commercial center in the center of the neighborhood, but there was no City Plan policy to require that it must be in the center. There were NC -designated centers throughout the City with a one -mile service area. He presented visual information showing the wildlife movement corridor along the ditch, the stand of trees on the north end of the property considered by many to be "significant" from a visual standpoint, the Dragon's Lair wetland area, the interpretive center, the wetland at the southeast comer of the site at Harmony and Shields, and a tree on the west side of the property abutting the ditch near residences. Much of the Planning and Zoning Board testimony had focused on transportation impacts. There was a potential City capital project along South Shields and Harmony from Seneca to College Avenue. The project would begin in 2007 if funding was approved and would be completed by 2010. Council received information from area residents about transportation impacts and the Traffic Engineer was prepared to respond to some of those allegations and comments. Staff would look closely at traffic impacts during the development review process. Staff believed most of the trips generated by this center would be primarily from Harmony and Shields and not through the adjacent neighborhood to the west. Staff believed the relocated neighborhood center would work "equally well" as the neighborhood center in its present location. Staff was responding to an application from a petitioner and was not in a position to be an "advocate" for this rezoning. Staff believed there was "equal merit" to relocating the center and keeping it at its present location. One of the most positive aspects of relocation would be to have a greater buffer between the neighborhood center and the adjacent neighborhood to the north and west. The project layout and environmental impacts would be looked at closely during any development review process. He wished to respond to an e-mail message he had received about e- mail messages that did not get to Council. Staff went through all of the e-mail messages from December 2005 and found there were three a -mails that should have been included in the Council packet. One was from a neighborhood resident who could not make it to the Planning and Zoning Board hearing and wanted to speak in favor of the application; one was from a resident opposed to the application; and one was a summary from a resident who had testified at the Planning and Zoning Board hearing and was offering a critique of the Board's evaluation of the application. He submitted those three e-mail messages to Council to be included as part of the record. Mayor Hutchinson asked that audience participants address the criteria and why the existing zoning was "superior" to what was proposed. He stated each participant would have three minutes to speak. Councilmember Ohlson stated he did not want the Council to imply that people could not speak about issues other than those suggested by the Mayor. The following individuals spoke in favor of the proposed Resolution and Ordinance: Bob Carnahan, 4325 Westbrooke Court Carrie Gillis, 2213 Timber Creek Drive Matt Pielstick, 4309 Westbrooke Drive 477 April 18, 2006 The following individuals spoke in opposition to the proposed Resolution and Ordinance: Glenn Colton, 625 Hinsdale Drive John Williams, 4331 Mill Creek Court Marty Leeke, 4612 Mariposa Court Desiree Williams, 4331 Mill Creek Court Jane Romero, 1420 Nunn Creek Court Ken Manning, 1219 Mariposa Court Kathy Gargan, 4366 Westbrooke Court Sharon Butler, 1309 West Harmony Road James Newman, 1163 Bordeaux Drive Heather Mischlack, coffee shop owner, 1003 West Horsetooth Road Bill Gargan, 4366 Westbrooke Court Melanie Manning, 1219 Mariposa Court Mary Paule, 1157 Bordeaux Drive Charlotte Demott, 4343 Shadowbrooke Court Lisa Rhoads, 1238 Belleview Drive Nanette McRoberts, 1402 Nunn Creek Court Karen Miller, 4325 Mill Creek Court Deanne Seitz, 4336 Mill Creek Court Elyse Miller, 4325 Mill Creek Court Marilyn Kirchoff, 1403 Nunn Creek Court Marsha Collins, property owner, 4621 South Shields Street Shane Miller, 4325 Mill Creek Court ("Secretary's Note: The Council took a brief recess at this point.) Mayor Hutchinson thanked those who spoke regarding this matter. Councilmember Roy made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Brown, to hold this issue in abeyance and start the process over to ensure proper notice to the citizens concerning this proposal. Councilmember Roy asked if the language of the motion was clear. City Attorney Roy suggested that if the motion was couched in terms of Council's rules, it would be construed as a motion to postpone until the process could be started over and notices could be given and to bring the matter up again after a new recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Board. He asked if that was the intent of the motion. Councilmember Roy stated was the intent of his motion. Mayor Hutchinson asked if staff had questions about the motion. City Manager Attebeny asked Gloss to address the notice requirements. Gloss stated the requirement was that notice of the Planning and Zoning Board hearing be mailed seven days prior to the hearing to persons with properties within 500 feet. In this particular case, comments were received early in the process from citizens claiming that they did not receive notice. Staff checked three times (through the GIS M11 April 18, 2006 Department, a consulting engineering fine and Planning staff) and determined the 500-foot notification standard was met and "slightly exceeded." There was also a requirement to publish a newspaper notice at least seven days prior to the hearing and this requirement was also met. Within 14 days after the development application was submitted a sign must be posted on the property noting that there was a rezoning request. A sign was posted one day prior to the submission of the application after staff learned that an application was to be submitted. Staff determined only one sign was posted although two were required under the Land Use Code. A decision needed to be made as to whether this constituted a "significant impact" on the public notice. There was a requirement to publish a newspaper notice of the City Council hearing at least 15 days prior to the hearing. He stated this requirement was not met. City Attorney Roy stated it was up to the Council to decide if the notice had been adequate. The formal hearing process would be on Second Reading because the notice was not published as required prior to First Reading. City Manager Attebeny stated the posted signage was deficient. The City's intent was to "fully notify" the area of this hearing. He believed that the City did meet the "spirit" of the laws and practice. There should have been a second sign on the site but that he did not believe the lack of a second sign had a significant impact in getting information to the area. Councilmember Manvel stated it was obvious that many people were aware of this issue while others were not until recently. He was "disturbed" the City did not entirely follow the notification process. He did not want to be an "obstructionist" and have this stand or fail on a technicality. He also did not want to have the City "go through the motions" again and have this "wind up at the same outcome." Councilmember Kastein asked that the City Attorney explain First and Second Readings of ordinances. City Attorney Roy stated, if approved by the Council, the zoning ordinance would take effect 10 days after Second Reading. He stated there was an opportunity for public input on both First and Second Readings. Councilmember Kastein asked the City Attorney to comment on the issue of the significance of the signs. City Attorney Roy stated the area of deficiency was in the number of signs posted at the site. The publication requirement would be met by having the public hearing on Second Reading of the Ordinance. The question was how a court would respond to an objection to the Ordinance if it was approved based on the posting of one sign instead of two. There was not a clear answer to this question in the case law. There were two things that were significant to the courts in looking at these kinds of issues: whether or not the deficiency in notice was "misleading" or "inadequate." It was his understanding that the information on the sign was accurate. An argument could be made that the sign was "inadequate" but not "misleading." This would argue in favor of allowing the decision on the Ordinance to stand as long as there was also an indication that the public did receive "reasonable notice." The courts looked to whether there was a "good turnout and active opposition" indicating that the notice was effective. This seemed to be the case at the Planning and Zoning Board hearing and the Council hearing. It was Council's decision whether or not it was "appropriate and necessary" to ensure that all statutory or Code requirements were "absolutely met." There was a "good faith argument" to be made that adequate notice was given. 479 April 18, 2006 Councilmember Kastein asked when this would come back if the process was started over. Gloss stated it would go to the Planning and Zoning Board in May and come back to the Council in June. Mayor Hutchinson stated the agenda item summary pointed out that the quasi-judicial rezone applications were exempt from the neighborhood meeting requirements but the City did sponsor a neighborhood meeting on February 27, 2006. He asked if that neighborhood meeting involved notification. Gloss stated notification of the neighborhood meeting was sent to affected property owners listed on the legal notification list and this meeting was not required as part of the review process. Councilmember Ohlson stated there was "room for improvement" in the City's notification process. He would not support the motion because he did not believe Council decision would be affected one way or the other. There were good arguments on both sides and there were enough people present to represent the viewpoints that Council needed to hear. He believed the Council could make a decision at this time. Councilmember Roy asked the Council to consider that there were rules and regulations in place and a notification system. Many of the citizens who spoke found out about this issue in the last few days. The City did not do what it was supposed to do to give notice and there would be a "better process" if the rules were followed. Councilmember Weitkunat asked Gloss to address the issue of the size of the sign. Gloss stated the Land Use Code addressed the size of signs relating to different types of development applications. This was not a land development proposal and was a rezoning and map amendment. No size was specified for signs relating to this type of application. The minimum size for all posted signs was 5.4 square feet. The posted sign was approximately 5.5 square feet, which complied with the Code requirement. Some residents indicated they measured the sign and that it was undersized. Councilmember Kastein stated he understood the arguments about notification and he saw no benefit to anyone in delaying this for a month. The question for Council was whether the Council had sufficient information to make a decision. He believed Council should move forward and work out a decision at this meeting. He would not support the motion. Mayor Hutchinson stated the issue was whether the notification was adequate. The City did "overkill" in having a meeting that was not required. He believed Council had adequate information to make a decision and noted that there would be a Second Reading of the Ordinance. The vote on Councilmember Roy's motion to hold the issue in abeyance and as clarified by the City Attorney was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Brown and Roy. Nays: Councilmembers Hutchinson, Kastein, Manvel, Ohlson and Weitkunat. THE MOTION FAILED. Councilmember Ohlson asked why the neighborhood commercial center was placed in the center of the development rather than at the corner. Gloss stated the Pine View PUD was approved in 1981 WE April 18, 2006 and the neighborhood commercial center was placed at the current location. When City Plan was reviewed in 1997, the staff evaluated the zoning City-wide and had to make some decisions whether the NC designation was in the correct location. At the time staff concurred that it could remain where it was. From the staff perspective the neighborhood commercial center could function at its existing location (mid -block) or could function just like the newest NC center approved under City Plan (the Shops at Rigden at the southeast corner of the Drake and Timberline arterials). From the staff perspective the neighborhood commercial center could work "equally well" at either location. In the case of the MMN District, City Plan policy was to have the MMN District wrap around the NC center. There would be a "trade-off' with reconfiguration of the zoning districts. Councilmember Ohlson stated the draft minutes from the Planning and Zoning Board indicated that "Director Gloss replied that this was looked at and staff agrees with the original design." The minutes also said that staff weighed the pros and cons after being approached by the applicant and came to the conclusion that staff did not have any opposition to the change. He asked Gloss to comment on the statement in the minutes that staff agreed with the original design. Gloss stated staff believed the original (existing) design was "adequate" from the standpoint of the Structure Plan. It had a MMN buffer around it, it served up to four neighborhoods, it was the same size as the proposal, and it would perform "equally well." Mayor Hutchinson asked if there were Council questions or concerns about the environmental issues. Councilmember Weitkunat noted there was considerable discussion about the wetlands and habitat in this area. She asked that staff address the natural resources perspective. John Stokes, Natural Resources Director, stated the City looked at this property for possible acquisition as a natural area. Staff did not feel it qualified for purchase. One of the requirements was that there be a "willing seller" and he must assume that the landowner was interested in developing this parcel. The City was not typically interested in a "stand-alone" property that was not connected to any of the other natural areas and was not in the foothills zone or river corridor. The Land Conservation and Stewardship Plan adopted in 2004 identified areas of interest and this property was not included. In southwest Fort Collins the City had acquired over 5,000 acres of open space and spent over $14 million on land conservation projects. Some of the City's best natural areas were close to this neighborhood. Councilmember Weitkunat stated this was a rezoning and asked if other concerns would be addressed in the development review process. Doug Moore, Environmental Planner for the Current Planning Department, stated staff did not receive ecological characterization studies on projects until an ODP or PDP phase of development. This was not looked at with a rezoning. He prepared a map from the Natural Habitat and Features Inventory that showed features the City would watch out for and discuss during conceptual review of a project. He had visited the site and there was a fox den in the area. Staff would look at buffer requirements and make official determinations after receiving reports at the time of a development application. Councilmember Ohlson commented that he believed that the property was "eligible" and could qualify for open lands dollars. The ballot language would allow acquisition of this property at both the City and County levels. It would not be a "priority" but would be "eligible." Stokes stated the Gf:3J Apri118, 2006 property would be eligible for acquisition but would not be a priority Councilmember Brown asked about plans for traffic light modifications if this was approved. Eric Bracke, Traffic Engineer, stated there would be a major reconstruction ofthe intersection and rebuild of the traffic signal at Shields Street and Harmony Road. There were plans to make Troutman Parkway a signalized intersection. The Regency and Harmony Road intersection was eligible to receive a traffic signal if warranted by traffic volumes. There was a potential location for a signal between Troutman Parkway and Harmony Road on Shields Street. The City generally tried to keep signals at one -quarter mile spacing and preferred half -mile spacing. Councilmember Brown asked if a traffic signal for this development would be at the option of the developer or the City. Bracke stated it would have to be approved by the City. The intersection of Troutman Parkway and Shields Street would be signalized under the street oversizing program. If a development was proposed on this site that warranted traffic, the access would have to be half way between Troutman Parkway and Harmony Road. Councilmember Manvel asked how far it was from Troutman Parkway to Harmony Road. Bracke stated it was less than one-half mile. Councilmember Kastein asked Bracke to explain how the improvements would differ for the proposed project compared to the City's planned improvements. Bracke stated there would not be much difference regardless of the development. Wakerobin would likely never be signalized because of its proximity to Harmony Road and would likely become right -in, right -out. With a development proposal there would likely have to be a connection from Westbury to Troutman for internal circulation within the development. Councilmember Kastein asked if the Westbury -Troutman connection would likely occur in either scenario. Bracke replied in the affirmative. He stated the access at Westbury and Harmony Road would likely be a right -in, right out and a three-quarter movement to keep traffic off Regency. Councilmember Kastein asked if that would be the case under either scenario. Bracke replied in the affirmative. He noted there was no development plan at this time and traffic improvements would depend on what would be proposed. Councilmember Kastein stated the decision for Council was to decide whether one configuration was worse than the other. There had been much testimony about traffic impacts to the neighborhood. He asked for staff s opinion whether one scenario was better than the other in that regard. Bracke replied in the negative. Councilmember Kastein stated he had not heard about the Westbury to Troutman connection before and it made a lot of sense. Bracke stated the City's requirements for connectivity were stringent. A traffic impact study would look at trip generation, trip distribution, and neighborhood traffic. Grocery stores had a negligible morning peak hour and the peak hours would be with afternoon rush hour and weekends. The peak hours of a grocery store were therefore not the same as a school. M Apri118, 2006 Councilmember Manvel asked about the notation on the existing Pine View Master Plan that indicated that no curb cuts would be permitted onto Harmony Road next to Tract A. Bracke stated the present Code would allow a curb cut. Councilmember Manvel asked about Wakerobin (a residential street) passing through the middle of the shopping center and asked if there was a situation such as that elsewhere. Bracke stated there was a shopping center on Harmony Road with a similar situation. Councilmember Manvel asked if there were pedestrian issues with such a configuration. Bracke stated schoolchildren generally did not walk along Wakerobin to go to school at this time and they generally crossed at Harmony and Shields. He stated it would be pedestrian friendly if the roads were designed properly and there was enough of a setback from the street. Councilmember Manvel asked if there would be a light at Troutman regardless of what happened with this site. Bracke stated there would be a light there when Troutman was put through. Councilmember Manvel asked if there would be another light between there and Harmony. Bracke stated this would depend on what was proposed and staff had not seen a development plan. Councilmember Manvel asked if the commercial area would be accessed from that light. Bracke stated that depended on the development plan. Councilmember Roy asked for confirmation that it was unknown what would go in here if the Structure Plan was changed. Gloss stated there was a list of permitted uses for the MMN District and the NC District. He noted the applicant provided a conceptual development plan at the neighborhood meeting. That was not a requirement for rezoning and the City did not look at rezoning in conjunction with development plans. The applicant's concepts included a commercial center with a grocery store or supermarket near the corner. Councilmember Roy stated the agenda item summary stated: "The applicant contends the City Structure Plan is in need of the proposed amendment because the neighborhood commercial center is not economically viable in its current configuration on the plan." He asked if staff believed that to be true. Gloss stated, based on the information provided by the applicant, staff believed that this was correct. Councilmember Roy asked if staff therefore believed the current location was not economically viable. Gloss stated staff s views were based on the specific information provided by the applicant. Staff was not in the development or marketing business and was relying on that information. Councilmember Roy stated the agenda item summary made it clear the change was based on a market analysis from "commercial developers, retail tenants and grocery store anchors" that indicated that "the commercial center would be better served at a more visible location." Page 5 of the agenda item summary indicated that: "The proposed plan amendment will promote the public welfare." Gloss stated it could be argued that the City should be looking at the viability of business because the City did not want stores that would not be successful. It could be argued that if the Em April18, 2006 rezoning resulted in a location that was more economically viable that would be a positive attribute for the community. More than one speaker mentioned the community did not want "dark stores." Councilmember Brown asked if the MMN zone would allow apartments and what the height limit would be. Gloss stated there was a 3-story height limit. Councilmember Brown asked about the buffer requirement between apartments and the store and apartments and the wetlands. His question was how many apartments could go in between. Gloss stated there was no set development plan at this point. There would be a buffer zone adjacent to the ditch and there would be a study of the significance of the habitat along the ditch. This was one constraint that could pull development away from the ditch. There would be a setback requirement for the MMN center. He would have to do a layout to determine how many units could go in that space. Based on the dimensions it would be possible to accommodate residential buffer in that space. Councilmember Manvel asked how staff viewed its role in this process. The agenda item summary seemed to support one side rather than giving reasons on both sides of the issue. He expected staff to have a recommendation and to give the arguments on both sides. He asked if staff believed the best arguments on both sides had been presented to give the Council an opportunity to make an informed decision. Gloss replied in the affirmative and stated the request was being evaluated based on specific criteria in the Land Use Code. Staff had a petition making this request and it was staff s task to determine whether either configuration would fulfill the goals of City Plan. Staff had done an objective analysis based on the adopted policies of the plan and was making a recommendation. Councilmember Manvel stated City Plan provided that buildings across the street from each other should match up. He stated this seemed to happen on one plan and not on the other. Gloss stated in the NC plan like uses would face like uses and that in the other plan there would be NC on one side of the street and MMN on the other. He stated staff believed the policies would still be met. Councilmember Manvel stated there were trade-offs. He asked if the issue was "predictability." Gloss stated this was what was heard from area residents and many felt they had lost the "predictability" they were counting on. Councilmember Manvel asked about staffs feeling about that argument. Gloss stated there was definitely a case for that argument. Councilmember Manvel stated staff had indicated that: "There are many ways in which the new zoning is advantageous." He stated there were also trade-offs depending on where there would be buffering. Gloss stated some residents would gain from this change and that others would not gain. Councilmember Manvel stated it appeared that this was "picking some winners and some losers instead of leaving the winners and losers the way they were when they purchased their property." Gloss stated was a good way to put it. EFE April18, 2006 Councilmember Manvel questioned whether it was a "correct function" when the City did not feel that the functionality of the site, except for the economic viability, would be improved. Gloss stated a case could be made for that argument. Councilmember Kastein stated he would like to hear from the applicant about any kind of market analysis that showed the need to move the development to the corner. Michael Markel, 5723 Arapahoe Avenue, Boulder, applicant, stated the goal was to have a plan that would be "quality" and "successful." The applicant did not take the rezoning lightly and had conferred with a number of experts before going ahead with the application. Calthorpe and Associates suggested the retail operation would be more viable if placed at the comer. The applicant also approached a major national shopping center developer and the developer expressed interest at this location provided the grocery store would be at the corner. The applicant's decision was based on those discussions. The applicant wanted to work with the neighborhood on issues such as traffic. The applicant felt that the corner would be a better location for the success of the subdivision and that any impacts to the neighborhood could be mitigated. Councilmember Kastein stated "predictability" was the most "salient" issue. He asked if the applicant had any thoughts about buffering between the development and the properties to the south that would be across from the commercial operation. Mr. Markel stated the applicant had some specific ideas to propose, such as a buffer landscape zone on Shields and Harmony. He stated the wetlands would have been protected with the commercial development more than residential development. He stated the applicant was interested in successful planning and felt strongly that the corner location would be the appropriate location for the commercial. Councilmember Weitkunat stated predictability was an important aspect of City Planbut it was only one aspect. The Code did allow rezoning based on the criteria set forth in the Code. The primary issue was consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, and if the consistency remained then that was one criterion for rezoning. She asked staff to address how this particular rezoning would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. One criterion that was not discussed was changing conditions in the surrounding neighborhoods. Most of the homes in the area did not exist prior to the school and there had certainly been a change in the number of people and houses. Gloss stated some of the basic tenets of City Plan were based on neighborhood structure and several of the speakers addressed that issue. The NC District was a focal point for four or five surrounding neighborhoods, there would be street and bike/pedestrian connections to it, and there would be intensity of development near it (in this case a community college, MMN zoned ground, existing apartments in higher density residential across the street). He stated the question was if high density residential development help support and make viable the neighborhood center and if the proposal would fulfill the same policies. The proximity issue was important because City Plan and the Structure Plan were specifically created to reduce trips for essential services. The question was whether the application was less successful in fulfilling the missions of City Plan. Staff believed the application would continue to fulfill those policies. Cf'R Apri118, 2006 Councilmember Weitkunat stated the MMN Zone was medium density up to 12 units per acre. Gloss stated there could be over 12 units in the MMN Zone. Councilmember Weitkunat asked how many residences were planned. Gloss stated the unit counts would be less with the new plan. He stated over 500 units were planned with the original plan and there would not be that many with the MMN District based on the site configuration. Councilmember Weitkunat asked if three stories would be allowed to the east and north as well as the west. Gloss replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Weitkunat asked if the intent was that the neighborhood center use the MMN as a buffer to the lower density neighborhoods. Gloss replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Weitkunat stated the argument could therefore be made that the MMN surrounding the NC would buffer to the lower intensity single-family residences to the west. Gloss stated was correct. Councilmember Manvel stated City Plan provided that: "Existing residential neighborhoods will be protected against development incompatible with community goals and needs. The City will involve citizens in the planning decision -making processes of government." He stated he assumed that this was to involve actually "hearing them." He did not read anything that said the intent was to "maximize visual exposure of commercial areas." He thought the intent may actually be the opposite in light of the sign code and setback and buffering requirements and it appeared the intent was to minimize visibility, especially with a neighborhood commercial center. He asked how staff would respond to his comments. Gloss stated the sign code tried to strike a balance between the interests of the business community to be identified and the protection of the community from visual blight. He stated this was analogous to the siting of this center. The intent was a balance between high quality site design, respect for the natural environment, creating amenities for the community, and economic viability. A number of speakers indicated they wanted something successful to go in at this location so that it would not become a "dark store." People also wanted the natural environment to be protected. This was a "balancing act' and this was part of development review every day. The neighborhood center would have some positive elements, such as providing services, amenities such as a public gathering space, streetscapes, pedestrian amenities, etc. There was a lot of testimony about the negative aspects but there were also positive aspects of commercial development. From staff s perspective it was "part of the mix" and staff was entrusted to do the best possible job in design. Councilmember Manvel stated he was pleased that everyone was saying that this was a "quality developer." He believed this would be a "good product' no matter what the configuration would be. Some neighbors obviously did not want anything here and everyone knew that it would develop. There would be many residences in fairly big buildings. Centering this commercial development within walking distance of the surrounding high density buildings and setting it back rather than having it at the corner would mean that it would not be as visible. It would be "visible enough" that the neighborhood would know it was there. Staying even was not enough to warrant a change and something should be gained if this was approved. EEO April 18, 2006 Councilmember Ohlson questioned when economic viability entered into land use decisions. In the past economic viability, economic health and profit margin were not to be considered in land use decisions. There was no "proof' this needed to be on the corner to be successful and he did not believe this would add "one net penny to the City's coffers." City Attorney Roy stated economic viability was relevant to City Plan and the amendment of the Structure Plan because it was in the principles and policies of the Structure Plan. When development proposals were considered this was not among the criteria to be considered for Project Development Plans. Councilmember Roy stated everyone agreed there should be two signs on a site. He asked for a comment on "mandatory requirements for public notice." Gloss stated there were two different types of notification: notification for the Structure Plan amendment and notification for the rezoning. He stated the Structure Plan amendment required notification to be sent at least 14 days before the hearing to area residents and notification of adjacent jurisdictions. He stated this notification was completed. Councilmember Ohlson made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Manvel, to deny Resolution 2006-044. Councilmember Ohlson stated he did not believe the change would be as consistent with City Plan as the current plan was. He saw no reasons for the change, no changed circumstances, and no compelling reason to change the Structure Plan. He believed the rights of people who bought properties based on the predictability of surrounding zoning outweighed the rights of the developer. He believed that, even if this was defeated, there would still be a quality project with the current Structure Plan and zoning. Councilmember Weitkunat stated she would not support the motion to deny. The Structure Plan was not intended to be "set in stone." Amendments needed to be looked at in light of the City Plan visions, goals, principles and policies and there needed to be consistency. She believed the change to the Structure Map would be consistent and would meet the goals and policies of City Plan. There would therefore be "no harm" in changing the Structure Map. Councilmember Kastein stated he would oppose the motion to denybecause he would like to see the motion stated "positively" so that Councilmembers could vote yes or no. Councilmember Ohlson withdrew the motion. Councilmember Weitkunat made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Brown, to adopt Resolution 2006-044. Councilmember Roy stated the issues included the City "keeping its word" and following its "mandatory" rules. The "values at play" related to people entering into a "social contract" with the community versus the opportunity for a "phantom entity." He was concerned that the City's rules were not followed to a "T." Im A- i118, 2006 pr Councilmember Kastein stated he felt most of the questions had been dealt with and he was "comfortable" with the traffic solutions described by the Traffic Engineer. He believed the right place to address the neighborhood concerns was through the development review process. The commerce element had been addressed. His main question related to "predictability." Council was looking at whether there would be adverse effects on some people rather than whether there would be benefits and the people to the south believed they would be adversely affected. Council had to decide if those fears were "realistic." Westbury would be a connector through the development to Troutman regardless of the zoning and people to the south would be affected by that. He did not know if people were aware of the plans for that connector. The developer had testified about plans to buffer and this would come up in a development review. He asked for Council's thoughts on "predictability." Councilmember Manvel stated he would not support the motion. Council was to approve a plan amendment if the Council made specific findings that the existing City Plan and/or related element was in need of the proposed amendment, the proposed plan amendment will promote the public welfare and it will be consistent with the vision, goals, principles and policies of City Plan. People were opposed to this and the developer was envisioning a very visible commercial center on this corner. The staff argument was that this would promote the public welfare by making the retailers more economically successful. This would not necessarily increase commerce in Fort Collins and sales would be "moved around." This amendment would change this from a "community -oriented center" in the middle of high density housing to a corner community center that would encourage more people to use the arterials. Councilmember Roy stated a number of people chose to move to this area based on their research into the City's future plans and this should mean something. He stated predictability was important. Councilmember Weitkunat stated the "quality" of the community was important and was made possible by City Plan which was "99% about predictability." There was also room for some change through rezonings, revisions to the Transportation Master Plan, and modifications to development by the Planning and Zoning Board. The question was whether the rezoning would be consistent with City Plan. A zone would be shifted 500 feet and the same elements would remain. The proposal would still be consistent with City Plan. The MMN Zone would support this development. She did not see this project as a "monster on the corner" as did some from the neighborhood. This would be "simple flip flopping." The development would still be easily accessible to neighborhoods via trail connections and it would be a better transition to the MMN Zone. Predictability was a "small piece" of City Plan. She believed this would work, it was consistent with City Plan and it was warranted by some changed circumstances. Councilmember Ohlson stated the old Land Development Guidance System was point -based and "terribly manipulated." One of the reasons the system was changed was a demand from the community for "more predictability." People did research this area and were "playing by the rules." They probably knew this would not stay a vacant lot but expected it would develop in accordance with the zoning. M. Apri118, 2006 Councilmember Brown stated something would be built at this location and it could be this center or 12 or more housing units up to three stories tall. The "economics" were clear i.e., if you have a business on two arterials you will do more business. The last thing the City needed was a shopping center that would go out of business and stand empty. The developer had promised buffering and landscaping. City Plan allowed for change and he did not see this project as a "monstrosity." He would vote in favor of the motion. Mayor Hutchinson stated City Plan provided consistency and predictability and a "high level structure." Everyone could predict this would be developed. There was a need to balance predictability and flexibility and rezoning was part of City Plan. All ofhis questions were answered. He believed the predictability test had been met and there was room for flexibility. Councilmember Manvel stated the issue with the Resolution was changing the Structure Plan rather than rezoning. There were criteria for revising the Structure Plan and he did not believe those criteria had been met. Mayor Hutchinson stated, in his opinion, those criteria were met, especially in promoting the public welfare. He stated City Plan intended neighborhood commercial centers to be part of that public welfare. Councilmember Ohlson stated he was giving his comments relating to both issues. Mayor Hutchinson stated the two issues were related. Councilmember Kastein stated it was not practical to support the change to the Structure Plan and oppose the rezoning and his comments addressed both. City Attorney Roy stated the decisions should be made separately. The criteria that applied to the decision on the Resolution were the two that were read by Councilmember Manvel: whether or not the plan is in need of the proposed amendment and whether or not the proposed amendment would promote the public welfare and be consistent with City Plan. The Structure Plan change would bring the requested zoning change into conformity with the Plan and the change did not have to be made just because it would be in conformity with the Plan. He asked Gloss if the proposed amendment to the Plan would bring the existing zoning out of conformity with the Plan. Gloss replied in the affirmative. City Attorney Roy stated he would therefore not recommend approving the Structure Plan change until Councilmembers intend to vote for the rezoning because the two should be consistent. The vote on Councilmember Weitkunut's motion to Adopted on Consent 7-0 Resolution 2006-044 was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson and Weitkunat. Nays: Councilmembers Kastein, Manvel, Ohlson and Roy. THE MOTION FAILED. City Attorney Roy suggested that, although the Resolution failed to pass, the Council should still vote on the rezoning ordinance. Apri118, 2006 Councilmember Weitkunat made amotion, seconded by Councilmember Brown, to adopt Ordinance No. 070, 2006 on First Reading. Councilmember Weitkunat stated she believed there were changed circumstances warranting the rezoning and this would still meet the goals of City Plan. Councilmember Manvel asked Gloss whether new construction had changed the circumstances. Gloss stated it would be difficult to argue that the construction of housing that was part of an adopted plan represented changed conditions. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson and Weitkunat. Nays: Councilmembers Kastein, Manvel, Ohlson and Roy. THE MOTION FAILED. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 11:15 p.m. % aC%i �i90b< Mayor ATTEST: