Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES-01/04/2011-RegularJanuary 4, 2011 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, January 4, 2011, 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: Hutchinson, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, and Troxell. Councilmembers Absent: Kottwitz, Roy Staff Members Present: Atteberry, Krajicek, Eckman. Citizen Participation Barbara Albert, 603 Gilgalad Way, expressed concern City staff appears to support developers rather than citizens in the development review process. Gear Fisher, 608 Gilgalad Way, expressed concern about the development review process with regard to The Grove project. Heather Stickler, 633 Gilgalad Way, Wind Trail on Spring Creek HOA Treasurer, discussed crime related concerns with other Grove projects nationwide and stated she has not received a response from City staff regarding her submitted concerns. Terry Podmore, 733 Gilgalad Way, requested a schedule for processing of The Grove applications which would allow neighborhood input to be formulated and considered. Sarah Burnett, 714 Gilgalad Way, expressed concern that past history of a developer could not be considered at any point during the development review process. Merry Hummel, 814 Maple, Women'_s Commission member, expressed concern about potential Poudre School District school closures and asked that Council make a public statement regarding the potential closures. ' Cheryl Distaso, 135 Sunset, Center for Justice, Peace, and Environment, expressed concern about potential Poudre School District school closures. Chase Eckert, ASCSU Community Affairs Director, stated The Grove project has extremely high demand for its units. Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, discussed an open records request he had submitted regarding utility debt. January 4, 2011 Citizen Participation Follow-up Mayor Hutchinson asked for an update regarding Council meeting with the School Board. City Manager Atteberry replied Council will hold a joint work session with the Poudre School District Board of Education at 5:30 p.m., January 19, 2011, at Fossil Ridge High School. Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson agreed with the citizens who expressed concern about the development review process and stated the neighborhood input process needs to be improved. Councilmember Troxell stated the development review process should be reviewed and asked for an update regarding The Grove project. Steve Olt, City Planner, replied a project development plan was submitted for The Grove on December 8, 2010 and has been through one round of development review. The applicant intends to submit a revised overall development plan which will meet the Land Use Code criteria. A conceptual review of that plan is scheduled for January 10, 2011. A neighborhood meeting has been scheduled for January 18, 2011. Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson asked for clarification regarding the redevelopment of the former Toys `R `Us building. City Manager Atteberry replied the current hold is due to negotiations between private interests and is not related to City process. Councilmember Manvel agreed the development review process needs to be reviewed and asked for legal responses to citizen questions. City Manager Atteberry stated he did receive Ms. Stickler's letter and apologized for not responding more quickly. He stated Steve Dush, Planning Director, has been asked to provide a written response to some of the development review concerns and agreed the process should be reviewed. He stated planning staff is professional and competent and most have been with the City for many years. Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson stated several former planning directors have left the City for positions in private development. CONSENT CALENDAR 6. Consideration and Approval of the Minutes of the December 7, 2010, Regular Meeting, and the December 14, 2010 Adjourned Meetin- 7. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 125, 2010, Amending the City Code to Increase the Amounts of the Capital Improvement Expansion Fees Contained in Chapter 7.5 of the Code so as to Reflect Inflation in Associated Costs of Services. The City Code requires annual adjustments to the City's impact fees. The Capital Improvement Expansion fees and Neighborhood Parkland fee are to follow the changes in the Denver -Boulder -Greeley Consumer Price Index (CPI). Street Oversizing fees are 95 January 4, 2011 adjusted by the changes posted in the Engineering News Record (ENR). Since the last adjustment in 2009, the CPI has increased 1.1% and the ENR has increased 5.48%. This Ordinance was unanimously adopted on First Reading on December 7, 2010. Second Reading of this Ordinance was postponed on December 21, 2010, to address several questions raised. First, Councilmembers inquired about whether the process followed for updating the Capital Expansion Fees was consistent with the City's practices. City Code Sec. 7.5-18 dictates that, "The amount of the fee will be increased annually according to the Denver -Boulder Consumer Price Index for Urban Consumers, as published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics." The proposed Ordinance is consistent with this Code provision. Second, Council and a member of the public inquired about the use of the Denver -Boulder CPI as the appropriate index for these fees. This index was included in the Code adopted in 1997, as the most appropriate, least volatile index for accounting for cost changes over time. As staff noted at the December 21, 2010 meeting, Council is scheduled to review two'groups of development related fees in depth during 2011. A work session is scheduled for April 26, 2011, to review proposed changes to Development Review and Building Permit Fees. Staff is currently conducting a detailed analysis of these fees and will propose adjustments. Council action on this item is tentatively scheduled for June 2011. The second phase of the Fee Study includes a detailed review and recalculation of Capital Expansion Fees. This portion of the Study is slated for the 3rd and 4th quarter of 2011. Based on Council's discussion of this Ordinance on December 21, 2010, the review of the Capital Expansion Fees will also include further review of which index is appropriate for annual adjustments, and language which allows for both increases and decreases to fees and regionally comparative fee data. 8. First Reading of Ordinance No. 001, 2011, Amending Section 2-168 of the City Code Regarding the Functions of the Women's Commission. This Ordinance will amend Section 2-168 of the City Code regarding the functions of the Women's Commission. Specifically, this change clarifies the role of the Women's Commission as it relates to reviewing legislation and making recommendations to City Council. 9. Resolution 2011-001 Making Findings of Fact Regarding the Appeal of the Planning and Zoning Board Approvals of the CSURF Center for Advanced Technology, Amended Overall Development Plan, Modification of Standards of Section 3.2.2(L) Parking Stall Dimensions, and Section 3.5.2(D)(2) Setback from Nonarterial Streets. On November 26, 2010, an appeal of the October 21, 2010 decisions of the Planning and Zoning Board to approve the CSURF Centre for Advanced Technology, Amended Overall Development Plan, the request for Modification of Standard in Section 3.2.2(L) Parking Stall Dimensions, and the request for Modification of Standard in Section 3.5.2(D)(2) Setback from Nonarterial Streets was filed by the Appellants Windtrail on Spring Creek HOA (Kevin Barrier, President) and Hillpond on Spring Creek HOA (Gail Dethloff, President). January 4, 2011 On December 21, 2010, City Council voted to overturn the decision of the Planning and Zoning Board. In order to complete the record regarding this appeal, the Council should adopt a Resolution making findings of fact and finalizing its decision on the appeal. ***END CONSENT*** Ordinances on Second Reading were read by title by City Clerk Krajicek. 7. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 125, 2010, Amending the City Code to Increase the Amounts of the Capital Improvement Expansion Fees Contained in Chapter 7.5 of the Code so as to Reflect Inflation in Associated Costs of Services. Ordinances on First Reading were read by title by City Clerk Krajicek. 8. First Reading of Ordinance No. 001, 2011, Amending Section 2-168 of the City Code Regarding the Functions of the Women's Commission. 13. Items Relating to the East and West Side Neighborhoods Design Standards Study. A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 002, 2011, Increasing the Membership of the Landmark Preservation Commission and Expanding Its Functions to Include Establishing an Advisory Committee. B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 003, 2011, Making Amendments to the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code Pertaining to East Side and West Side Neighborhood Design Standards (Option A or B). Jeff Schneider, 755 Peregrine Run, withdrew Item No. 7, Second Reading of Ordinance No. 125, 2010, Amending the City Code to Increase the Amounts of the Capital Improvement Expansion Fees Contained in Chapter 7.5 of the Code so as to Reflect Inflation in Associated Costs of Services. Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, withdrew Item No. 9, Resolution 2011-001 Making Findings of Fact Regarding the Appeal of the Planning and Zoning Board Approvals of the CSURF Center for Advanced Technology, Amended Overall Development Plan, Modification of Standards of Section 3.2.2(L) Parking Stall Dimensions, and Section 3.5.2(D) (2) Setback -from Nonarterial Streets from the Consent Agenda. Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to adopt and approve all items not withdrawn from the Consent Calendar. Yeas: Hutchinson, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw and Troxell. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. January 4, 2011 Items Relating to the East and West Side Neighborhoods Design Standards StudAdopted on First Readin; The following is staffs memorandum for this item "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 002, 2011, Increasing the Membership of the Landmark Preservation Commission and Expanding Its Functions to Include Establishing an Advisory Committee. B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 003, 2011, Making Amendments to the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code Pertaining to East Side and West Side Neighborhood Design Standards (Option A or B). The East and West Side Neighborhoods Design Standards Study began in January 2010 to explore concerns that new houses and additions are not compatible with the established character found in these core, older neighborhoods. The fundamental question is whether the City's current regulations warrant revision to better reflect adopted policies of protecting established, neighborhood character. City Council confirmed that changes are necessary, and directed staff to proceed with the implementation of items that would address the size and design of new construction. These options would: 1. Allow the Landmark Preservation Commission to offer voluntary design consultation. 2. Revise house size limits in the Neighborhood Conservation Low Density (NCL) and Neighborhood Conservation Medium Density (NCA11) zoning districts. BA CKGR O UND/DISCUSSION Staff, at the direction of City Council, initiated a study in January 2010 to explore concerns related to the compatibility ofnew singlefamily houses and additions in Fort Collins ' oldest neighborhoods. Some are concerned that a portion of the new construction is not compatible with established neighborhood character. Of particular concern is that small, older houses are being removed and replaced with larger new construction. The fundamental question is whether the City's current zoning regulations warrant revision to better reflect adopted polices of protecting established neighborhood character. The Study explored these concerns and clarified the issues through a public process. In February 2010, staff presented an initial project scope and schedule at a Council work session. The scope outlined the process and methodology for the Study, which Council supported and directed staff to proceed. (See Attachment 1, a summary of the February 23, 2010 Council work session) After numerous meetings with a Citizen Advisory Committee, and two public meetings with. neighborhood residents, a second Council work session was held in August to present the results of the Study. (See Attachment 2, the Study's final report). Staff asked Council whether changes to regulations were M January 4, 2011 warranted to address the size and design of new construction, and several potential options were presented. (See Attachment 3, a summary of the August 24, 2010 Council work session) Council confirmed that changes were necessary and, at a third work session in November, directed staff to bring forward three options for formal Council consideration. (See Attachment 4, a summary of the November 23, 2010 Council work session) The three options are: 1. Allocate funding for a Design Assistance Program. 2. Allow the Landmark Preservation Commission to offer voluntary design consultation. 3. Revise house size limits. Staff has worked to take the necessary steps towards implementation of each item. The Design Assistance Program was submitted as a budget request, and the other options were developed into Ordinances. Each is discussed in detail below. Design Assistance Program The purpose of the Design Assistance Program (DAP) is to address concerns about compatible design, and provide f nancial assistance for professional design consultation and drawings.. The process would be similar to the previous DAP that was available to owners of historic landmark structures. The new DAP would be offered annually to approximately 20property owners proposing additions to existingstructures or construction ofnew structures, within the East Side and West Side Neighborhoods, regardless of whether or not they are a historic landmark. On December 21, 2010, City Council approved, on Second Reading, an Ordinance adopting the Budget for 2011 and 2012, including $40,000 each year for the Design Assistance Program "pending decision about the East Side/West Side design standards". Once the Council has enacted Option A or B of Ordinance No. 003, 2011, no further Council action will be needed to authorize the funding for the DAP. . ORDINANCE NO. 002, 2011- Voluntary Design Consultation Ordinance No. 002, 2011, amends City Code to add a function allowing the Landmark Preservation Commission (LPC) to offer voluntary design consultation for interested property owners, and to increase the membership of the LPC from seven to nine members. Currently the City does not review the design of new houses and additions, and the LPC is interested and willing to provide this service in order to foster compatibility. A sub -committee of the LPC would be formed to provide this service. Because some property owners receiving design assistance may also conceivably be applicants to the LPC at some point, members of the sub -committee would have to recuse themselves from such decision -making. Therefore, LPC membership should be increased in order to avoid problems meeting a quorum as necessary to take formal action. The policies and procedures for design consultation would be prepared by City staff in consultation with the LPC. C• January 4, 2011 House Size Limits Regulating House Size The issue that led to potential Land Use Code revisions is the size of larger new houses/additions in the older, core neighborhoods. The options presented below focus on amendments to the Neighborhood Conservation Low Density (NCL) and Neighborhood Conservation Medium Density (NCM) zoning districts. This topic of regulating house size received considerable attention throughout the study process, and led to ideas for options to lower existing size limits. The fundamental question for this Study was whether the City's existing zoning regulations warrant revision to better implement adopted policy ofprotecting established neighborhood character. City policy defines character to include size (i.e., scale, mass, building separation; building placement, and building height), in addition to design aspects such as building materials, and architectural _style. Therefore, in examining current size regulations, the Study considered the established development pattern and the adequacy of existing zoning regulations to protect the character created by that pattern. Existing Size Limit Regulations The City currently regulates house size in the two zone districts by limiting the ratio of total building floor area to lot size, commonly referred to as Floor Area Ratio (FAR). In the NCL zone, the ratio is .40, or 40% of lot size, and in the NCM zone it is .50, or 50% of lot size. The table below illustrates the current size limits using the example of a house and a 500 square foot garage. Table 1: Potential House Sizes by Lot Size and FAR NCL (40 FAR) NCM (50 FAR) 4, 000 sq ft lot 1,100 sq ft house + 500 sq ft garage 1, 500 sq ft house + 500 sq ft garage 9, 500 sq ft lot 3,300 sq ft house + 500 sq ft garage 4,250 sq ft house + 500 sq ft garage Existing Development Pattern The existing size limits noted above do not reflect prevailing established development patterns in the neighborhoods. Prevailing FARs most commonly average about .15-.25, and original house sizes most commonly average about 800-1500 sq. ft. There are larger house size and FAR exceptions, typically involving larger, recent new construction, and/or small lots such as those created by subdivision of original corner lots, which result in higher FARs. Difference Between Existing Development Pattern and Existing Size Limit Regulations The difference between current FAR limits in the zoning regulations (40 and .50) and the existing . development pattern (about .15-.25 FAR) clearly illustrates the issue that this Study has tried to address. 100 January 4, 2011 The difference is clear even where larger, recent construction has now become part of the existing pattern on many blocks. Although many recent house expansions are significantly larger than the original housing stock,. veryfew have approached the upper limits of .40 or .50 FARs. Veryfew of the expanded houses exceed 3, 000 sq. ft., and veryfew exceed a FAR of .33. While there are wide differences in interpretation, there is little or no disagreement that the .40 and .50FARs allow new construction that does not reflect existing developmentpatterns in terms ofsize. In response, two main approaches were identified and explored to address this issue: (1) take a more tailored, contextual approach using averages found in existing development; or (2) lower the FARs. Additional details and the merits of each option are discussed below. ORDINANCE NO. 003, 2011 - Option A: Average -Plus Concept This option would limit house size to the average size house on the same block face plus an additional 50percent, or2,000sq.ft., whichever is greater. Basements and detachedgarages would not be included in these figures. Also, the current limits of total floor area on a lot (40 and .50), including garages and other accessory buildings, would remain in place. Applicants wanting to expand/rebuild would use the County Assessor's data to find the average existing house size and calculate the 50 percent increase. If the established pattern is one where lot sizes vary considerably, but house sizes remain -'fairly consistent, it seemed logical to derive a standard for allowable house size, based on the more consistent variable... The average plus concept establishes a house size standard based on the context of the block face, and allows for an additional increase in size in order to accommodate contemporary living (509yo). A 2,000 sq. ft. allowance was added as a compromise to reflect concerns that the average plus 50% was overly restrictive for those block faces with small houses. Pros • Reflects, to a certain degree, the existing development pattern (at the block face level) • Reduces the most dramatic potential increases in house size • Allows for long term evolution in house size, • The minimum allowance provides for new construction to accommodate contemporary living Cons • New, untested method and may result in undesirable and/or unintended consequences • "Micro -manages "incremental house sizes in the 2, 000-3,200 square foot range (e.g., 2, 000 sq. ft. allowed on one block face, vs. 2,400 on another, vs. 2,600 on another, etc) 0 Contention that these increments of size limits do not address character issues, i. e., the difference between a 2, 000 and 2,500 sq. ft. house may not matter as much as the design; design can completely mask the size difference, so the result may not be worth the complexity 101 January 4, 2011 • Once the 2, 000 sq. ft. allowance is included for small block faces, the contextual approach is diminished • The concept is diluted by some blocks that have existing size ranges of double to quadruple from the smallest to the largest, which weakens the concept of averaging • Technical calculation questions, i.e., volume, is a key concept of the whole Study, -but the existing house size data from the Assessor's office does not capture the volume of any one- story houses that may contain space that would be counted as second floor area in the proposed "loophole "fix (explained below) • Concern that the block face is not adequate to represent neighborhood character, because it gives undue influence to a few houses that happen to be nearby • Contention that lot size should be taken into account, i.e., larger lots should be allowed to contain larger size houses • Penalizes the "first -one -in ", because the average plus increases as more property owners on the block face expand • Debate that a different limit on different blocks due to different house sizes is unfair ORDINANCE NO. 003, 2011- Option B: Lower the FARs This option would lower the FAR limits in the NCL and NCM zones for single family detached homes to :27. Basements and detached garages would not count toward the limit. Table 2 provides a comparison of the house sizes allowed with a .27, .40, or .50 FAR based on varying lot sizes. Attachment 5 provides a more extensive comparison of FARs ranging from .10-.50. Table 2: Allowed House Size Comparison Lot Size S FAR 10,000 9,500 19,000 18,500 8,000 7,500 7,000 6,500 6,000 5,500 5,000 .27 2,700 2,565 2,430 2,295 2,160 2,025 1,890 1,755 1,620 1,485 1,350 .40 4,000 3,800 3,600 3,400 3,200 3,000 2,800 2,600 2,400 2,200 2,000 1.50 1 5,600 4,750 4,500 4,250 4,000 1 3,750, 3,500, 3,250, 3,000 2,750 2,500 Considering that prevailing FARs in these two neighborhoods are between .15-.25, lowering the standard to .27 is better aligned with the existing development pattern, and still allows for houses to reasonably expand to meet the needs of contemporary households. Pros • Reduces the most dramatic potential increases in house size • Provides a predictable standard • Limits floor area in relation to lot size • Lowering FARs comes closer to reflecting the established character of the neighborhoods 102 Cons January 4, 2011 Smaller lots are more limited than larger lots in terms ofpotential expansion District -wide FAR standards do not necessarily reflect the unique character of individual areas within the neighborhoods Other Land Use Code Revisions Regardless of which option to limit house size is preferred, staff recommends that two minor, technical clarifications to the Land Use Code be adopted, along with some minor text edits. The technical clarifications are related to the relevant zoning standards, and would revise the way that house size is measured as described below: 1. Address the "volume loophole" by counting upper building space as a second floor, regardless of whether the floor is built, where the volume exceeds the typical volume associated with a one-story house. 2. Change the point of measurement for side wall height to be at the property line rather than at the base of the side wall at finished grade. These changes are imbedded in both Land Use Code Ordinance options. In addition, in order to help ensure that any variance of the new standards adopted by Ordinance No. 003, 2011, does not result in new construction or additions that are incompatible with existing structures in the City's residential neighborhoods, the Ordinance also amends Section 2.10.2(H) of the Land Use Code, pertaining to variances, to require that any application for a variance of these new standards be accompanied by a written recommendation from a. committee of the Landmark Preservation Commission, as authorized under Section 2-278(b)(5) of the City Code. Two-year review Both Options A and B include a provision directing the City Manager to submit a report and recommendation to the City Council no later than January 31, 2013, regarding the implementation of the provisions of this Ordinance and, in particular, whether such implementation has achieved the stated purposes ofensuring the compatibility ofadditions, alterations and new construction with existing structures in residential neighborhoods of the City without working an undue hardship on affected property owners. FINANCIAUECONOMIC IMPACTS Economic Planning Systems (EPS) has been contracted to analyze the economic impacts ofrevising house size limits. The final report will be presented to Council at the meeting on January 4, 2011. 103 January 4, 2011 Staff has been asked about the financial/economic impacts with regard to historic value. See Attachment 6 for a compilation of existing research and data from an architectural -level survey completed for the East and West Side Neighborhoods. ENVIRONIIIENTAL LVIPACTS Staff finds no direct or definable impact on environmental resources with any of these items. One concern that was raised in the process was the protection of solar access. After careful analysis, staff determined that there is no reasonable new standard for defining or controlling property owners ' rights to solar access due to the established pattern of development. " Deputy City Attorney Eckman discussed and clarified changes in the Ordinances. Megan Bolin, City Planner, stated the East Side West Side Design Standards address the compatibility of new single family homes and additions in the East and West Side Neighborhoods. Council had requested a study relating to the compatibility issue and this included extensive public outreach. Bolin discussed Options A and B of Ordinance No. 003, 2011, noting Option A would revise single family house size limits by using the average plus concept, which would determine the amount of house floor area allowed on a lot by finding the average size house on the block face plus an additional 50% or allow 2,000 square feet, whichever is greater. Basements and detached garages would not be included in this calculation and the floor area ratios of .40 and .50 for the NCL and NCM zone districts would remain the same. Option B would lower the floor area ratios to 0.27 for both the NCL and NCM zone districts, excluding basements and .detached garages. Staff recommends adoption of Ordinance No. 002, 2011 and Option B of Ordinance No. 003, 2011. Dan Guimond, Economic and Planning Systems, discussed the results of a limited Economic Impact Analysis relating to the East and West Side Neighborhoods. Al Kulenski, 939 West Oak, expressed concern about changing the existing building permit process as restrictions may lead to homeowners making fewer improvements. Jill Kuch, 709 Stover, expressed concern about the proposed restrictions. Jennifer Carpenter, 848 Sandy Cove, expressed concern about the late addition of Option B which has yet to be fully vetted. She suggested postponing the item until the Planning and Zoning Board could consider it. Dian Sparling, 324 Jackson, expressed concern about recent development of larger homes in the West Side area and supported Option B. Jeff Wolf, 2009 Linden Lake Road, disagreed with changes in regulations citing infringements on the rights of property owners. He asked that the .27 floor area ratio in Option B be increased to .35. Gina Janett, 730 West Oak, expressed concern about the elimination ofhistoric homes and supported the staff recommendation. 104 January 4, 2011 Lara Williams, 3000 Phoenix, realtor, stated home buyers often move to the downtown areabecause of its location, not the quality of homes. She expressed concern about the proposed regulations and asked how the .27 floor area ratio was derived. Brad Kuch, 709 Stover, stated Option A would prohibit a planned addition for his family's home and Option B would penalize residents living in NCM zones to a greater extent than residents living in NCL zones by decreasing the floor area ratio to a greater extent. He stated the new regulations would have a negative impact on residents. Eric Smith, 1216 West Mountain, expressed support for the staff recommendation. Jeff Schneider, 755 Peregrine Run, expressed concern regarding a lack of a master drainage plan for the downtown area and stated rebuilds can enhance property values. Jacob Lees, Fort Collins resident, expressed concern regarding the timing of new information presented from consultants and suggested the item be postponed for further consideration. Andre Mouton, 119 North Loomis, opposed changing regulations. Heather Landenpera; 280 Circle Drive, opposed changing regulations. Chris Galan, Fort Collins resident, asked about the source of the proposed .27 floor area ratio in Option B and encouraged further consideration of the item by Council. Randy Shortridge, 280 Circle Drive, encouraged postponement of the item for further consideration. Laura Olive, 231 South Grant, encouraged postponement of the item for further consideration. J.J. Hannah, 601 East Elizabeth, encouraged postponement of the item for further consideration. Tom Tucker, 3019 Stanford, opposed changes to regulations. Leslie Lees, Fort Collins resident, asked what types of variances these regulations might encourage and how the variance process would occur. Chris Marshall, 926 West Mountain, opposed Option A, stating it is difficult to enforce and suggested the .27 floor area ratio should be greater. He opposed Landmark Preservation Commission assistance. Steve Laposa, 1103 Honhotlz Drive, Colorado State University Real Estate Professor, encouraged Council to research potential impacts on home values and other unintended consequences. Michael Doddridge,1725 Trailwood, stated most residents buying homes in Old Town plan to make improvements and may opt not to buy should guidelines be too strict. He suggested postponing a decision on the item. 10161 January 4, 2011 Sean Dougherty, Fort Collins Board of Realtors President, supported Option B but asked that more time be given for consideration of the option. Clint Skutchan, Fort Collins Board of Realtors Executive Vice -President, suggested the proposed .27 floor area ratio may be a bit low and asked that a decision on the item be postponed until the correct number is determined. Lynne Stutheit, 508 East Plum, supported regulations limiting home sizes. Joe Guido, 313 Wood Street, supported raising the .27 floor area ratio proposal. Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, stated the development review process needs to assure regulations are followed. Nancy York, 130 S. Whitcomb, opposed postponement of the item and supported a floor area ratio lower than .27. Kurt Schrieber, 4021 Yellowstone Circle, Realtor, supported postponement of the item for further consideration. Travis Schmidt, 220 North Shields, supported certain regulations but opposed using floor area ratio as a guideline. ("Secretary's note: The Council took a brief recess at this point in the meeting.) Councilmember Poppaw asked when the Planning and Zoning Board would have an opportunity to review the item should Council move forward with a decision. City Clerk Krajicek replied the Planning and Zoning Board will have work sessions at which the item could possibly be discussed, on January 7 and 14, and a regular meeting on January 20. Second Reading could be postponed to February 1. Councilmember Troxell asked about the origin of the .27 floor area ratio proposal. Joe Frank, Advance Planning Director, replied Council's direction was to deal with the large houses with respect to context while allowing for appropriate neighborhood change. The .27 floor area ratio would allow approximately a 2,400 square foot house on an average sized lot. Councilmember Manvel asked about the inclusion of garages in floor area ratio calculations. Bolin replied detached garages are excluded and attached garages are included if more than half of the houses on the block have attached garages. Councilmember Manvel asked for the approximate number of block faces with attached garages. Bolin replied there are few. Councilmember Manvel asked about garage size limits. Bolin replied garages are limited to 600 square feet. 106 January 4, 2011 Councilmember Manvel asked what constitutes a basement. Clark Mapes, City Planner, replied 50% of the basement can be above grade. Councilmember Manvel asked about variance requirements. Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator, replied the Zoning Board of Appeals deals with these types of variances and it must make a finding that one of three criteria are met by the applicant in order to obtain a variance: that a hardship exists in terms of lot size or shape, that the request deviates from the Code standards in a nominal, inconsequential manner when considered in the context of the neighborhood, or that the proposal satisfies the purpose of the standard equally well or better than a compliant plan. The proposal in both Options A and B would require the applicant to approach the Landmark Preservation Commission to seek a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mapes stated the main result of the data collected is that a policy question exists as to whether the objective should be to keep new house sizes reflective of existing house sizes or should be more weighted toward owners' abilities to expand and renovate their homes. Councilmember Troxell asked about economic impacts and potential economic analyses. Mr. Guimond replied the study examined possibilities for the future rather than quantifying tax implications of additions or rebuilds. Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson noted floor area ratio measurements have been used in Fort Collins for several decades and asked about the net result of the floor area ratio change if garages are excluded Mapes replied the .27 floor area ratio on an 8,000 square foot lot would allow for a 2,160 square foot house, plus a 600 square foot garage. Currently, in the NCL zone, an 8,000 square foot lot with a 600 square foot garage could have a 2,600 square foot house at a floor area ratio of .34, because the garage is not counted in the square footage. Mayor Pro Tern Ohlson asked about the discrepancy between the square footage of houses built and the square footage of houses desired by home buyers. Mr. Guimond replied some of the square footage measurements do not count finished raised basements, though they are used as living space. The average market demand is 2,000-2,500 square feet. Councilmember Troxell asked about floor area ratios for other zone districts. Mapes replied the new residential zones do not have a floor area ratio. These zones do have a floor area ratio because of the existing established pattern. Councilmember Troxell made a motion, seconded by Mayor Hutchinson, to postpone the item until February 1, 2011. Mayor Pro Tern Ohlson stated he would not support the motion. Mayor Hutchinson stated the First Reading should be as complete as possible and he would support the motion to postpone. 107 January 4, 2011 The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Hutchinson and Troxell. Nays: Manvel, Ohlson and Poppaw. THE MOTION FAILED. Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Mayor Pro Tern Ohlson, to adopt Ordinance No. 002, 2011, on First Reading with Second Reading to be considered on February 1, 2011. Mayor Pro Tern Ohlson asked that staff provide additional information regarding a true comparison of floor area ratios. Councilmember Manvel asked why the Landmark Preservation Commission membership is to be increased. Bolin replied the increase will allow for a subcommittee to be established to offer voluntary design consultation. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Hutchinson, Manvel, Ohlson and Poppaw. Nays: Troxell. THE MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Mayor Pro Tern Ohlson to adopt Option B of Ordinance No. 003, 2011, on First Reading. Councilmember Manvel stated Council should receive more input regarding the proposed 0.27 floor area ratio prior to Second Reading. Councilmember Poppaw made a friendly amendment to postpone the Second Reading of Ordinance No. 003, 2011 to February 1, 2011. The amendment was accepted by Councilmember Manvel and Mayor Pro Tern Ohlson. Councilmember Troxell expressed concern the neighborhood character issue is not being addressed and stated he would not support the motion. Councilmember Manvel stated a problem does exist in these neighborhoods and noted there is a provision to revisit the regulations in two years. Mayor Pro Tern Ohlson asked that staff prepare information regarding regulation changes with respect to small lots. Councilmember Troxell asked that staff prepare a plan for evaluation and desired outcomes for the review in two years. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Manvel, Ohlson and Poppaw. Nays: Hutchinson and Troxell. THE MOTION CARRIED. 108 January 4, 2011 Ordinance No. 125, 2010, Amending the City Code to Increase the Amounts of the Capital Improvement Expansion Fees Contained in Chapter 7.5 of the Code so as to Reflect Inflation in Associated Costs of Services, Adopted on Second Reading The following is staffs memorandum for this item. "EXECUTIVE SUNIvi IARY The City Code requires annual adjustments to the City's impact fees. The Capital Improvement Expansion fees and Neighborhood Parkland fee are to follow the changes in the Denver -Boulder - Greeley Consumer Price Index (CPI). Street Oversi=ing fees are adjusted by the changes posted in the Engineering News Record (ENR). Since the last adjustment in 2009, the CPI has increased 1.1 % and the ENT has increased 5.48%. This Ordinance was unanimously adopted on First Reading on December 7, 2010. Second Reading of this Ordinance was postponed on December 21, 2010, to address several questions raised. First, Councilmembers inquired about whether the process followed for updating the Capital Expansion Fees was consistent with the City's practices. City Code Sec. 7.5-18 dictates that, "The amount of the fee will be increased annually according to the Denver -Boulder Consumer Price Index for Urban Consumers, as published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. " The proposed Ordinance is consistent with this Code provision. Second, Council and a member of the public inquired about the use of the Denver -Boulder CPI as the appropriate index for these fees. This index was included in the Code adopted in 1997, as the most appropriate, least volatile index for accounting for cost changes over time. As staff noted at the December 21, 2010 meeting, Council is scheduled to review two groups of development related fees in depth during 2011. A work session is scheduled for April 26, 2011, to review proposed changes to Development Review and Building Permit Fees. Staff is currently conducting a detailed analysis of these fees and will propose adjustments. Council action on this item is tentatively scheduled for June 2011. The second phase of the Fee Study includes a detailed review and recalculation of Capital Expansion Fees. This portion of the Study is slated for the 3rd and 4th quarter of 2011. Based on Council's discussion of this Ordinance on December 21, 2010, the review of the Capital Expansion Fees will also include further review of which index is appropriate for annual adjustments, and language which allows for both increases and decreases to fees and regionally comparative fee data. " Jeff Schneider, 755 Peregrine Run, asked for clarification regarding process issues and encouraged postponement of the item. Michael Doddridge, 1725 Trailwood, stated the best index needs to be used when examining fees ZD and he encouraged postponement of the item. Mayor Pro Tern Ohlson asked about the possibility of averaging the indexes. 109 January 4, 2011 Mayor Hutchinson asked about the Council policy regarding fee increases. Deputy City Attorney Eckman replied the referenced Resolution is from 2006 and authorizes the City Manager to establish some fees. Capital Improvement Expansion Fees, per City Code, are to be considered by Council annually, based upon the Denver -Boulder Consumer Price Index. Changing that Index reference would require a Code change. City Manager Atteberry stated the Resolution could be updated and revised and noted Fort Collins fees need to be based on community need and costs as well as Consumer Price Indexes. Mayor Hutchinson noted comparison to other communities is also important. Councilmember Troxell agreed that comparative analysis is important. Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to adopt Ordinance No. 125, 2010, on Second Reading. Councilmember Manvel stated comparative analysis is important; however, fees are also related to services provided. Councilmember Poppaw thanked citizens for discussion of the issue. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Hutchinson, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw and Troxell. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. Resolution 2011-001 Making Findings of Fact Regarding the Appeal of the Planning and Zoning Board Approvals of the CSURF Center for Advanced Technology, Amended Overall Development Plan, Modification of Standards of Section 3.2.2(L) Parking Stall Dimensions, and Section 3.5.2(D)(2) Setback from Nonarterial Streets, Adopted The following is staff's memorandum for this item. "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY On November 26, 2010, an appeal of the October 21, 2010 decisions of the Planning and Zoning Board to approve the CSURF Centre for Advanced Technology, Amended Overall Development Plan, the request for Modification of Standard in Section 3.2.2(L) Parking Stall Dimensions, and the request for Modification of Standard in Section 3.5.2(D)(2) Setback from Nonarterial Streets was filed by theAppellants Windtrail on Spring CreekHOA (Kevin Barrier, President) and Hillpond on Spring Creek HOA (Gail Dethloff, President). On December 21, 2010, City Council voted to overturn the decision of the Planning and Zoning Board. In order to complete the record regarding this appeal, the Council should adopt a Resolution making findings of fact and finalizing its decision on the appeal. 110 January 4, 2011 BA CKGR O UND/DIS C USSION The Appellants notice of appeal was based on the allegations that: The Planning and Zoning Board did not properly interpret and apply relevant portions of the Code and Charter. The Planning and Zoning Board failed to conduct a fair hearing because it: o ignored previously established rules ofprocedure; o considered evidence relevant to its findings which was grossly misleading evidence; and, o failed to receive all relevant evidence offered by the appellant. At the December 21, 2010 hearing on this matter, Council considered the testimony of City staff, the Appellants, and the Opponents to the Appeal. In subsequent discussion at this hearing, Council determined that the Planning and Zoning Board did not fail to conduct a fair hearing with respect to its consideration of the relocation of Rolland Moore Drive and approval of the Overall Development Plan #16-10. However, Council overturned the decision of the Planning and Zoning Board on the grounds that the Board failed to properly interpret and apply the Land Use Code requirement that the Overall Development Plan be consistent with the blockstandards requirements in the M-M-Nzone district. " Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, expressed concern about the wording of the Resolution and suggested there were process defects. Mayor Hutchinson asked for clarification regarding the intent of Resolution 2011-001. Deputy City Attorney Eckman replied the Resolution is written sufficiently and discusses the Planning and Zoning Board approved modifications of standard. Councilmember Manvel noted the Resolution discusses the fact that the modifications of standard have been rendered moot. Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to adopt Resolution 2011-001. Yeas: Hutchinson, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw and Troxell. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. ill Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m. ATTEST: . 6 City Clerk January 4, 2011 112