HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES-11/18/1997-RegularNovember 18, 1997
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, November 18,
1997, 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: Byrne, Kneeland, Mason, Smith and Wanner. Nays:
None.
Councilmembers Absent: Azari and Bertschy.
Staff Members Present: Fischbach, Krajicek, and Roy.
Citizen Participation
Lou Lockman, 1212 Raintree Drive, President of AARP and member of the Senior Center, expressed
concerns regarding the 66.6% rent increases at the Senior Center.
John Meleski, 2619 Featherstar Way and Vice -chair of the Building Review Board, requested that
he be able to speak on an item on the regularly scheduled agenda.
Citizen Participation Follow-up
Councilmember Byrne requested background information on the Center's room rent increase.
City Manager John Fischbach stated he would follow-up and provide Council with that information.
City Manager John Fischbach stated there were no changes to the Agenda as published.
November 18, 1997
CONSENT CALENDAR
The Timberline Road Improvement Project necessitated the purchase of the Colorado State
Patrol Office located at 2412 East Mulberry Street. The Council approved this purchase by
adoption of Resolution 97-136 on October 7, 1997. Staff has determined that the City does
not have an appropriate use for the building. Therefore, the building will need to be
demolished at a cost of approximately $10,000 or moved prior to the road construction. To
eliminate this expense for the City and to possibly generate revenue for the project, staff is
recommending that the City obtain bids for the building, and require that the bids reflect that
the cost associated with moving the building will be borne by the ultimate purchaser.
Ordinance No. 177, 1997, was unanimously adopted on First Reading on November 4, 1997.
8. Second Reading of Ordinance No 178 1997 Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to Enter into
an Agreement for the Financing by Lease -Purchase of Equipment and Appropriating the
Proceeds of Such Financing,
Ordinance No. 178, 1997, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on November
4, 1997, authorizes the Purchasing Agent to enter into a lease -purchase financing agreement
with Safeco Credit Company at 5.04% interest rate. The agreement shall be for an original
term from the execution date of the agreements to the end of the current fiscal year. The
agreement shall provide for renewable one-year terms thereafter, to a total term of seven
years, subject to annual appropriation of funds needed for lease payments. The total lease
terms, including the original and all renewal terms, will not exceed the useful life of the
property. This lease -purchase financing is consistent with the financial policies of the City
of Fort Collins.
two we 100
Ordinance No. 179, 1997, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on November
4, 1997, amends the City Code to add an additional procurement tool recognizing
competitive negotiation as a process to enter into business alliances.
November 18, 1997
10. Second Readiniz of Ordinance No. 180 1997 Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenu
in the General Fund and Authorizing the Transfer of pp•p-d Amounts Betwee
Accounts and '
Ordinance No. 180, 1997, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on November
4, 1997, appropriates unanticipated grant revenue from the Colorado State Historical Society
in the amount of $2,439 and transfers matching funds from the Advance Planning
Department operating budget to the Colorado State Historical Society Grant Project. The
total funds of $4,065 will be used to design, manufacture, and install four cast bronze historic
plaques at the entrances of the historic Old Town Fort Collins.
11. Second Reading of Ordinance No. IS 1, 1997, Adopting the 1998 City of Fort Collins Total
Compensation Plan.
Historically, in conjunction with the annual budget process, the City has made Labor Market
Adjustments effective the beginning of each calendar year. These adjustments are approved
by the City Council based on the adopted Human Resource and Productivity Policy.
Excluding employees in the "Information Systems" occupational group, staff is
recommending that a "Cost of Living" increase be provided to City employees in 1998. Staff
recommends a flat increase of 3% for all employees, except for employees in the Information
Systems occupational group for whom the average increases will exceed 3%.
As discussed with the City Council Finance Committee, staff recommends implementation
of the Compensation and Classification Study results for employees in the Information
Systems occupational group. That study sets new salary ranges for those employees. Salary
adjustments for individual positions within those ranges will be based upon an analysis of
each individual position. This recommendation is made realizing the high turnover
experienced by the organization for employees in this occupational group and with
knowledge that employees who left were paid a significantly higher salary than what was
allowed by our existing pay plan.
All increases, including those made to the Information Systems occupational group, will be
within the 1998 recommended Budget. This Ordinance was unanimously adopted on First
Reading on November 4, 1997.
Section 1.7.1 of the Land Use Code explains that the Land Use Code, even though it is not
a numbered chapter of the Code of the City, is a part of the Code with the same legal
November 18, 1997
significance as though it were a numbered chapter. This ordinance would add a new Chapter
29 of the Code to specifically incorporate the Land Use Code.
First Reading of
Ordinance No.
183. 1997,
Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the Salea
Storm Dra*na2e Fund for Purchase the
and Use Tax Fund
Colorado13.
Old and
for Reimbursement
Southern Freight
to the
Depot
the of
Site.
On December 20, 1994, Council adopted Resolution 94-211 which authorized the purchase
of the Old Colorado and Southern Freight Depot (Old Depot) site located at 135 LaPorte
Avenue. Storm Drainage funds in the amount of $690,000 were used to purchase the Old
Depot site with the intent to restore the building and utilize it for office space for the
Stormwater Utility. Resolution 94-211 also stated that the Storm Drainage Fund would be
reimbursed by January 31, 1997 for the cost, including interest, of acquiring any portion of
the property which, according to the then current plans for the property, will not be used for
Stormwater Utility purposes. Resolution 97-61 extended the time allowed for reimbursement
from January 31, 1997 to December 31, 1997.
In late 1996, it was decided that the Stormwater Utility would relocate to the Utility Services
Center at 700 Wood Street rather than use the Old Depot for office space. The value of the
property at that time plus interest from the purchase date totals $821,363. The Old Town
Drainage Master Plan includes acquisition of drainage easements in Block 32 and Block 33.
Block 32 and Block 33 have been purchased or are under contract by the City with monies
from the General Fund. The amount of credit to the General Fund for the acquisition of
drainage easements by the Stormwater Utility amounts to a total of $246,601, leaving a
balance to be reimbursed to the Storm Drainage Fund of $574,762.
�0111L.*M140i�
A. Resolution 97-151 Setting Forth Findings of Fact and Determinations Regarding the
Spradley-Barr Annexation and Zoning.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No.184, 1997, Annexing 9.39 Acres, Known as the
Spradley-Barr Annexation.
C. First Reading of Ordinance No. 185, 1997, Zoning 9.39 Acres, Known as the
Spradley-Barr Annexation, into the C - Commercial Zoning District.
This is a request to annex and zone 9.39 acres located on the west side of South College
Avenue, south of Harmony Road and the Arbor Plaza Shopping Center, and north of the
former Fossil Creek Nursery. The Burlington Northern Railroad is adjacent along the west
Iwo,
November 18, 1997
property line. The requested zoning is C - Commercial. The property is developed,
containing a large building, having been the headquarters for Poudre Valley REA for many
years. The Spradley-Barr Automobile Dealership that currently operates at the southwest
corner of South College Avenue and Drake Road is developing an automobile sales business
on the site, utilizing almost all of the existing improvements. The property is in the Business
and Commercial Zoning Districts in Latimer County. This is a 100% voluntary annexation.
15. First Reading of Ordinance No 186 1997 Rezoning Approximately 14 35 Acres Known M
the O'Donnell Rezoning from the T Transition Zone to the MMN. Medium -Density Mixed -
Use Neighborhood Zone
On March 18, 1997, the City Council approved Ordinance No. 51, 1997, adopting a new
Land Use Code, and Ordinance No. 52, 1997, adopting a new Zoning Map, which were
designed to help implement the land use policies of City Plan, the update to the City's
Comprehensive Plan. At the time of the adoption of the ordinances, approximately 27
rezoning issue areas had been identified where either the property owner and/or the adjacent
property owners and residents did not agree with staffs recommendation for the zoning of
an area or piece of property. Rather than delay the adoption of the new Land Use Code, the
issue areas were slated for a "follow-up" rezoning process to be completed after adoption
of the ordinances. The process would look again at the City Structure Play: and potential
zoning designation. This property is one such issue area and, thus, should be considered a
continuation of the rezoning process of March 1997, establishing zoning for City Plan. This
O'Donnell Rezoning is a request to rezone approximately 11.96 acres located south of West
Drake Road and east of Taft Hill Road from the T, Transition, Zoning District to the MMN,
Medium -Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood, Zoning District. Staff would like to extend the
rezoning request to include the existing Georgetown Townhomes development which was
also placed into the T Zone in March 1997, to bring the total amount of land to be rezoned
to 14.35 acres.
16. First Reading of Ordinance No 187 1997 Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue from the
Colorado Division of Criminal Justice for the Fort Collins Police Services Larim r County
Multi -Jurisdictional Project
For the past ten years, Fort Collins Police Services has applied to the Colorado Division of
Criminal Justice for federal drug grant monies to help fund investigation of illegal narcotics
activities. This year Fort Collins once again joined with the Loveland Police Department,
Latimer County Sheriff's Department and Colorado State University Police Department in
one application for funding for the multi jurisdictional task force to be administered by the
City of Fort Collins. As administrator of the 1997-1998 grant, Police Services will assure
funding to the other participating agencies for their share of the federal funds. The City has
recently received notification of a grant award in the amount of $209,846. The participating
191
November 18, 1997
agencies will be providing matching funds in the amount of $209,847. Fort Collins' portion
of the match is $100,424, which is met through application of the budgeted salary and fringe
benefits of an existing officer and Secretary III, who are assigned to the drug task force via
the Special Investigations Unit (SIU). Additionally, the Larimer County Sheriffs
Department and Loveland Police Department are each contributing $15,000 to complete the
funding of a Fort Collins Police Lieutenant to manage the project.
Police Services will benefit from grant funds in the areas of overtime monies, confidential
funds, lease expenses associated with the off -site facility and the purchase of necessary
equipment.
• • • • _ • •
r
This Ordinance grants two storm drainage easements and one sanitary sewer line easement
across the Fossil Creek Wetlands Natural Area. The Ordinance also vacates a portion of a
conservation easement in exchange for the acceptance of a parcel of land to be included in
the existing conservation easement. It should be noted that the parcel of land being accepted
as a conservation easement is adjacent to the existing conservation easement and has been
deemed by Natural Resources to be of equal value to the vacated portion. These easements
are required for the Stanton Creek development at the Southeast corner of Lemay Avenue
and Trilby Road, which went to a Type 1 Administrative Hearing on November 3rd.
18. First Reading of Ordinance No. 189- 1997 Granting a Non -Exclusive. Permanent Easeme
and a u.• <• Construction Easementto the Fort• • n. Water District foran
Under2round Waterline Across the Southern Portion of the City's Provincetowne Special
Improvement District Property,
The Fort Collins -Loveland Water District is requesting a permanent, underground waterline
easement totaling 2.367 acres from Highway 287 across the Provincetowne property to
Lemay Avenue. The District is also requesting a temporary construction easement of
approximately 4 acres for the same area. These easements are needed to provide increased
service to the Provincetowne development and other developments in the surrounding area.
They need to be completed so the City's closing on the first parcel to be conveyed to
PrideMark can be completed.
Staff from the Finance Department and Facilities Department have reviewed the proposed
easement locations. The easements head east from Highway 287 to the north edge of Benson
Reservoir, follow the northern edge of the Reservoir and then proceed east -south-east across
192
November 18, 1997
the property. Most of this area will be part of the City's open space once the land
transactions are final. Staff estimates the value of the permanent easement to be
approximately $18,000. The Ordinance authorizes the City Manager to negotiate a price for
the easements, based upon the fair market value of the property, adjusted to reflect the
benefits to be gained by the City, if any, from granting the easements.
19. Routine Deeds and Easements
A. Deed of Easement from First Free Will Baptist Church to install concrete vault,
located at 320 Trilby. Monetary consideration: $1500.
B. Deed of Easement from Shirley Orvis to underground existing overhead electric
services, located at 603 Peterson. Monetary consideration: $10.
C. Deed of Easement from Betty Jean Troyer for storm drainage improvements, located
at 2430 West Prospect. Monetary consideration: $10.
D. Deed of Dedication from HMN Ltd. (donated 50% interest), to permanently preserve
121.8 acres of open space, located west of the Dixon Feeder Canal and the Ponds at
Overland Trail. Monetary consideration: $0.
Items on Second Reading were read by title by City Clerk Wanda Krajieck.
8. Second Reading of Ordinance No 178 1997 Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to Enter into
an Agreement for the Financing by Lease -Purchase of Equipment and Appropriating the
Proceeds of Such Financing,
QM7UTWO MIS
10. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 180 1997- Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue
in the General • and Authorizing the Transfer of •1 •• -1 Amounts Betwee
Accounts and '
r 1. Second Readina of Ordinance No. 181 1997 Adopting the 1998 City of Fort Collins Total
CQmpensation Plan,
193
November 18, 1997
Items on First Reading were read by title by City Clerk Wanda Krajieck.
13. First Reading of Ordinance No 183 1997 Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the Sales
and Use Tax Fund for Reimbursement to the Storm Drainage Fund for the Purchase of the
Old Colorado and Southern Freight Depot Site.
14. Items Relating to the Spradley-Barr Annexation and Zoning (formerly known as the REA
Annexation),
A. First Reading of Ordinance No.184, 1997, Annexing 9.39 Acres, Known as the
Spradley-Barr Annexation.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 185, 1997, Zoning 9.39 Acres, Known as the
Spradley-Barr Annexation, into the C - Commercial Zoning District.
15. First Reading of Ordinance No. 186, 1997, Rezoning Approximately 14 35 Acres Known as
the O'Donnell Rezoning from the T. Transition Zoneto the MMN Medium -Density Mixed -
Use Neighborhood Zone.
16. First Reading of Ordinance No 187, 1997, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue from the
Colorado Division of Criminal Justice for the Fort Collins Police Services Larimer Countv
Multi -Jurisdictional Project.
17. First Reading of Ordinance No 188. 1997 Granting a Sewer Line Easement to the South
Fort Collins Sanitation District. Granting Storm Drainage Easements to the James
Construction Co. Inc. Vacating a Portion of a Grant of Easement for Conservation and
Accepting a New Conservation Easement in Connection with Stanton Creek I st Filing.
lot
MMMKOVIRIWATMItuill•
'll.
1. •!
_ - �- • �-
•■ • l _•
- .�� . .�
i •. a'•
•••
• •.i
24. First Reading of Ordinance No 190 1997 Repealing and Readopting the Land Use Code
25. First Reading of Ordinance No 191 1997 Amending Section 3 5 2 of the Land Use Code
Regarding Residential Building Standards for Garages
194
November 18, 1997
Councilmember Kneeland made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Wanner, to adopt and
approve all items not removed from the Consent Agenda. Yeas: Councilmembers Byrne, Kneeland,
Mason, Smith and Wanner. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Reports
Councilmember Mason reported the Growth Management Committee met and discussed the updated
Intergovernmental Agreement with Larimer County and stated staff has developed a detailed
schedule of items to be heard by the Commissioner's and Council. He reported the 3 Mile Plan was
also reviewed.
Councilmember Byrne reported the Finance Committee met with Watson & Wyatt and reviewed the
pay and classification study. He stated the Committee discussed the City's participation with the
Poudre School District regarding Putnam Gym, stating the cost for the cooperative effort was too
high.
Councilmember Kneeland reported on the Poudre School District Liaison Committee meeting and
discussed the Putnam Gym expansion. She stated the expansion was not a good collaboration
project for the City or the School District and that various other recreational and technology
opportunities would be explored.
Councilmember Mason reported the Legislative Review Committee met and was joined by
Representative Steve Johnson who discussed future bills he would be working on for the upcoming
Legislative Session.
Mayor Pro Tern Smith reported he attended a recent meeting with the Colorado Municipal League
and discussed potential upcoming legislation. He stated the Metropolitan Planning Organization met
and discussed the status of the Regional Plan development and the Corridor Study.
195
November 18, 1997
Consideration of the Appeal of the
Building Review Board's Decision of September 25, 1997,
Granting a Variance to CECO Constructors Regarding the
City Building Code Which Specifies Certain Accessibility
Standards in the Proposed Multi -unit Housing Project, "Willow Springs
North PUD Apartment Community". Remanded to the Building Review Board.
The following is staff memorandum on this item.
"Executive Summary
At its September 25, 1997 meeting, the Building Review Board (on a 4-1 vote) granted to CECO
Constructors a variance from certain accessibility regulations for a proposed 280-unit apartment
complex. Staff present at the hearing believes the Board, in granting a variance in this case, did not
exercise its authority within the special limiting provisions in the City building code for cases
related to the accessibility standards. Under these rules, the applicant must demonstrate to the
Board that an "extraordinary hardship" exists, due to very specific conditions, in order for the
Board to grant a variance. Staff believes the Board erroneously granted the applicant's request
without the applicant meeting the required criteria. Other than staff and the applicant, no other
potential `parties -in -interest" were notified of, or attended the hearing. The definition ofparty-in
interest includes "The City Council as represented by the request of a single member of the City
Council" On October 8, Mayor Azari filed a Notice of Appeal on behalf of the Council appealing
the September 25 decision of the Building Review Board.
In August, Building and Zoning technical staff met with the project representative Bob Campbell of
the Houston, Texas firm, CECO Constructors, to discuss issues related to local building code
requirements. With preliminary plans not yet available, Mr. Campbell submitted a formal request
for a hearing at the August 28 regular meeting of the Building Review Board to appeal the
accessibility requirements of the UMFORMBUILDING CODE, 1991 EDITION as adopted by Fort
Collins. The Uniform Building Codes (UBC) , on which Fort Collins has based its building code
since 1958, are the national model building codes published on three-year intervals by the
International Conference of Building Officials.
A medical emergency prevented the Board chairperson from attending the August hearing.
Coincidently, neither the applicant nor the applicant's representative appeared at the meeting,
which was subsequently postponed due to lack of a quorum. The appeal was rescheduled and heard
at the next regular meeting on September 25. The applicant petitioned the Board and was granted
approval by a vote of 4 to I to apply the accessibility provisions contained in the most recent UBC,
the 1997 UMFORMBUILDING CODE, for the construction of the project even though the City's
more extensive 1991 UBC requirements apply. The 1997 UBC is currently being reviewed for
adoption throughout the Larimer County region by a multi jurisdictional task force. It has been
196
November 18, 1997
revised by the publishing code body (ICBO), for more consistent alignment with the federal "Fair
Housing Act" of 1988 and the "Americans with Disabilities Act" (ADA) of 1991.
On a peripheral issue, the BRB appeal process may be seen by some as being incomplete. Although
the BRB appeal is in compliance with the law for notification requirements, the entity .specifically
charged with a public advisory role regarding accessibility issues, the Commission on Disability,
was inadvertently excludedfrom the hearing. The result is that COD members are legally ineligible
for `party -in- interest " status and were thus preventedfrom fling an appeal to City Council or even
participating in this appeal.
Technical Overview
The principal differences between the UBC codes relate to the extent "accessibility" is required and
the number of units affected. Although both codes generally require that all ground floor units in
multi -unit buildings containing more than three housing units must meet accessibility/adaptability
criteria, the current Fort Collins standards are based on the 1991 edition of the UBC, which
stipulates that all required accessible units comply with the national standard known as,
CABO/ANSI A117.1-1992. The 1997 UBC edition stipulates that 2% of the accessible units meet
this standard and the remaining affected units comply with somewhat less extensive criteria more
closely aligned with the Fair Housing Act.
Architecturally, the specific practical distinctions between the two codes principally are found in
the kitchen and the bathroom. Both codes require an accessible entrance into an affected unit; an
accessible route throughout the unit; light switches, outlets, and similar controls within the same
reach dimensions; the same minimum door widths; the same basic minimum kitchen dimensions; the
same clearances at appliances; the same wall backing for later optional installation bathroom safety
grab bars; and most of the same clearances to bathroom fixtures with the exception of those
prescribed for the placement of the toilet stool.
More specifically, the 1991 UBC requires the stool to be in the copier of the bathroom with a 48-
inch by 48-inch clear space in front of the stool, thus virtually mandating not less than a 72-inch
dimension in all bathrooms of all accessible units. In contrast, the 1997 UBC allows three optional
stool configurations, one of which accommodates a minimum bathroom dimension of 56 inches, in
the remaining 98% of the accessible units. In addition to the general dimensional requirements of
the Fair Housing Act, the 1991 UBC requires removable bathroom lavatory vanity cabinets, a
removable cabinet under the kitchen sink, a 36-inch wide kitchen counter space with removable
cabinet underneath, lower kitchen wall cabinets over counters, and front controls on all major
kitchen and laundry appliances.
The technical differences between the two codes can be summed up as follows: The 1991 code, as
enacted by the City, requires all accessible units to be designed under CABO/ANSI A117.1-1992,
197
November 18, 1997
thus providing housing units which have a higher degree of built-in accessibility, particularly for
wheelchair access, than the 1997 UBC edition. On the other hand, the 1997 UBC mandates this
greater level of accessibility in only 2% of the units. However, the remaining 98% of the required
accessible units would still meet the basic federal accessibility criteria of the Fair Housing Act,
offering designers, builders, and consumers increased design flexibility.
Procedural Issues in Question
Regardless of the case that could be made in support of and in opposition to the use of the 1997
UBC in this matter, the central issue before Council is the question whether the BRB failed "... to
properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Code and Charter" in granting the requested
variance without obtaining the mandated demonstration ofany "extraordinary hardship" that would
otherwise be imposed upon: the applicant.
Staff believes that the BRB failed to properly interpret See. 5-27(47) of the City Code, which imposes
additional limits on the powers of the BRB, specifically when it hears appeals related to the
accessibility provisions in the City building code. This additional limitation of BRB authority was
enacted two years ago following a series of BRB decisions that reduced the numbers of accessible
units in multi -unit housing projects to substantially less than that stipulated in the building code. In
part, this section reads as follows:
.. When the Building Review Board considers granting exceptions or variances to this
chapter pursuant to Section 204 of this code, it shall require the applicant requesting the
exception or variance to demonstrate that the application of a particular standard or
specification would impose an extraordinary hardship oil the subject property, due to unique
conditions resulting from terrain, topography or geology, or f•om other conditions not
typically encountered in the City. Constraints or difficulties associated with compliance with
this chapter andlor with the statutory standards for accessibility shall not be construed as
an extraordinary hardship. "
On two occasions during the hearing, Building and Zoning Director Lee reminded the BRB of its
specific limitations in this case. The applicant offered the argument that the units built to local
accessibility codes would be "less desirable " because of increased bathroom dimensions resulting
in smaller bedrooms, given the compact size of the apartment units; and, that the required front
controls on cooking appliances are a safety concern. Lee responded that an agreement could be
approved at the staff level to allow installation of front -control cooking appliances on demand.
Staff believes that the applicant failed to demonstrate any "extraordinary hardship" due to the
conditions stipulated in the law cited above, and that the appellant's request was based simply on
November 18, 1997
perceived "constraints or difficulties associated with compliance" to the local code, which the
hardship test specifically excludes. Staff concludes that the BRB's decision to grant the variance
in this case was erroneous, citing the grounds and appropriate section of the City Code as follows:
a. Section 2-48(b)(1): The Building Review Board failed "... to properly interpret and apply
relevant provisions of the Code and Charter. "
Additionally, the City Code provides for appeals filed by City Council Members, cited ill Section
2-48(h) asfollows:
"Appeals f led by members of the City Council need not include specific grounds for appeal,
but shall include a general description of the issues to be considered oil appeal. Upon the
filing of any such appeal, the director of the affected city service area shall identify the
specific Code provisions that may pertain to the issues raised by such appeal and shall
provide such information to the City Clerk prior to the date that the notice of hearing on the
appeal is to be mailed by the City Clerk to parties -in -interest under §2-54. Said information
shall then be mailed to the parties -in -interest together with the notice of hearing. "
In her appeal to City Council, Mayor Azari cites the BRB's decision to waive building code
requirements and the fact that the Commission
considered oil appeal ".
Scope of Council Consideration
oil Disability was not notified as "issues to be
Council is empowered to "uphold, overturn, or modify the decision of the (BRB) " or to remand the
case to the BRB for rehearing pursuant to Section 2-56 as follows:
"(a) The City Council shall consider an appeal based upon the record on appeal, the
relevant provisions of the Code and Charter, the grounds for appeal cited in the notice of
appeal and any additional issues identified by a member of the City Council prior to the
hearing. Any such additional issues must be identified in writing and filed with the City Clerk
no later than tern (10) calendar days prior to the date of the hearing.
(b) New evidence shall not be considered on appeal except under the following
circumstances:
(1) When offered in support of or in opposition to an allegation under §2-48(2)c that a
board or commission considered evidence relevant to its findings which was substantially
false or grossly misleading.
199
November 18, 1997
(2) When offered by city staff or parties -in -interest in response to questions presented
by Couneilmembers under §2-55(b).
(c) In considering an allegation that a board or commission failed to properly interpret
and apply the relevant provisions of the Code or Charter asserted under §2-48(1), the City
Council shall determine how such provisions should, in the Council's judgment, be applied
to the evidence contained in the record on appeal.
(d) At the conclusion of such hearing, the City Council shall uphold, overturn or modify
the decision of the board or commission; provided, however, that:
(1) The City Council shall instead remand the matter for rehearing if it finds that the
appellant was denied a fair hearing before the board or commission for any of the reasons
stated in §2-48(2).
(2) The City Council may also remand the matter for rehearing in order for the board
or commission to receive and consider additional information with regard to any issue raised
on appeal. "
Chief Building Inspector Felix Lee gave a staff report on this item and provided Council with
background information on the events that lead to this appeal.
Mayor Pro Tern Smith reported on the sequence and time limitations for hearing the appeal.
Applicant
Bob Campbell, 6405 Westcott, Houston, Texas representing the developer, spoke of the differences
in the definition of accessibility as it relates to the Fair Housing Act and ANSI. He stated the
guidelines for the project were in compliance with Colorado state law and requested Council allow
the project to proceed in complete compliance with state law and federal guidelines. He stated the
project would double the ANSI requirement as dictated in the 1994 and 1997 Uniform Building
Code and the Fair Housing Act. He urged Council to uphold the decision of the Building Review
Board.
Sanford Steinberg, Steinberg Collorative Architects - Project Architect, briefly outlined accessibility
standards.
Director of Building and Zoning Felix Lee stated the City has adopted very stringent requirements
regarding handicap accessibility. He noted those requirements have been in effect since 1994. He
responded to Council questions and stated it was an oversight on his behalf that the Commission on
Disability was not contacted, but reported members of the Building Review Board believed the
FAQ
November 18, 1997
ultimate decision was its responsibility. He spoke of the process and time frame involved in
adopting amendments and additions to the Uniform Building Code and believed the applicants met
the criteria constituting a hardship.
Mr. Campbell stated the plans he submitted to the Building Department are consistent with the
variance granted by the Building Review Board. He further stated all ground floor units would be
Fair Housing accessible and would accommodate different types of disabilities. He stated that the
national average of ANSI accessible units is 2% and he would be providing 5% with this project.
After a brief discussion City Attorney Steve Roy suggested Council adjourn into Executive Session
to consult with the City Attorney regarding alternatives available and legal issues.
Councilmember Byrne made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Wanner, to adjourn into
Executive Session for the purpose of meeting with the City Attorney to discuss the matter in which
particular policies, practices or regulations of the City may be affected by existing or proposed
provisions of federal, state or local law. Yeas: Councilmembers Byrne, Kneeland, Mason and
Wanner. Nays: Mayor Pro Tem Smith.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
(***Secretary's Note: The following persons adjourned into Executive Session: City Clerk Wanda
Krajicek, City Attorney Steve Roy, Assistant City Attorney Paul Eckman, City Manager John
Fischbach, Councilmembers Byrne, Kneeland, Mason, Smith and Wanner.)
THE MEETING RESUMED.
City Attorney Steve Roy clarified alternatives available for Council.
Councilmember Wanner made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Smith, to overturn the
decision of the Building Review Board and require the applicant to meet all applicable current
standards.
Councilmember Byrne opposed the motion stating he believed the decision should be based on the
current Code not what is anticipated in the future.
Councilmember Kneeland opposed the motion and spoke of the need to move forward with making
amendment the Uniform Building Code. She commented on the importance of hearing comments
and recommendations from the Commission on Disability.
The vote on Councilmember motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Smith and Wanner.
Nays: Byrne, Kneeland and Mason.
201
November 18, 1997
THE MOTION FAILED.
Councilmember Kneeland made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Byrne, to remand the matter
to the Building Review Board to receive additional input by the Commission on Disability.
Councilmember Wanner opposed the motion, stating it would prolong the procedure.
The vote on Councilmember Kneeland's motion was as follows: Yeas: Kneeland, Mason and Smith.
Nays: Councilmembers Smith and Wanner.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Consideration of the Appeal of the September 18, 1997,
Determination of the Planning and Zoning Board Regarding
Matters Related to the Continuation of Building Construction on Lots 41 and 42 in the
Fairbrooke Heights P.U.D.. Decision of the Planning and Zoning Board Upheld.
The following is staffs memorandum on this item.
"Executive Summark
On June 25, 1996 the developer, Eric Booton, and the City entered into a development agreement
for the Fairbrooke. Heights P. U.D. development. Included in this development agreement was a
provision that no more than four building permits would be issued until the drainage related
improvements were constructed, certified and accepted by the City. Improvements related to the
provision and to be constructed were the expansion of a detention pond, then east of the Pleasant
Valley and Lake Canal (the "Canal'), relocation of the Canal to the east side of the detention pond,
and the provision of a corridor for the dual drainage channel as identified in the Canal Importation
Basin Master Plan.
During the winter and spring of 1997, construction started on the detention pond and the relocation
of the Canal. With the purpose of certifying the improvements the developer's engineer, Northern
Engineering Inc., discovered that the improvements were not constructed as designed on the
approved utility plans far the development. It was discovered that the Canal bottom was higher than
specified and, also, the height of the east embankment of the Canal was lower than specified. Due
to these discrepancies the City wild not accept the improvements as constructed and as of the date
of the appeal these improvements have not been accepted.
On July 28, 1997 the first four building permits were issued by the Building Department to Seier
Construction for lots 34, 35, 38 and 39. On August 1, 1997 building permits five and six were
issued for lots 41 and 42 to C & MHomes, Inc. When the City experienced the food on July 28,
202
November 18, 1997
1997, the area where the Canal was relocated experienced overtopping and downstream properties
flooded. Due to the fact of the flooding and the issuance of more building permits than the
development agreement allowed, the builder of lots 41 and 42 voluntarily stopped work on the lots
until notified on Augus120, 1997 that the City would allow construction to continue to take place.
The City allowed building construction to continue bared on information at the time that
improvements to stabilize the Canal and control the overtopping could be done without impacting
the building construction on lots 41 and 42.
On September 2, 1997 an appeal of the decision to allow building construction to continue on lots
41 and 42 was filed by property owners downstream of the development. The grounds of the appeal
were based on the fact that relevant laws were not applied when more than four building permits
were issued, and allowed to remain in effect, even though the drainage facilities were not accepted.
On September 18, 1997 the Planning and Zoning Board (the "Board') heard the appeal and acted
on the following related matters:
The Board decided that it had jurisdiction to act on the appeal.
The Board decided that the appeal had been filed in a timely manner.
The Board decided to allow continued building construction on lots 41 and 42.
On October 1, 1997 an appeal of the September 18, 1997 Planning and Zoning Board decision was
filed with the City Clerk by property owners downstream of the development. The grounds of the
appeal were that relevant laws were not interpreted and applied with the allowed continued building
construction on lots 41 and 42; and that the Board failed to conduct a fair hearing by receiving
substantially false or grossly misleading evidence and by failing to receive all relevant evidence
offered by the Appellants.
On October 2, 1997 an appeal of the September 18, 1997 Planning and Zoning Board decision was
filed with the City Clerk by C&MHomes, Inc., the builder of lots 41 and 42. The grounds of said
appeal were that the Board failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Code
and Charter regarding the questions of whether (1) the Board lacked jurisdictions to hear the appeal;
and (2) the appeal was timely filed. "
Councilmember Byrne withdrew from discussion on this item due to a perceived conflict of interest.
City Attorney Steve Roy briefly outlined the appeal process, clarifying the definition of parties -in -
interest and spoke of the appellants allegations.
Stormwater Utility Manager Bob Smith gave a staff presentation on this item and gave a slide
presentation on the location of the development and responded to Council questions regarding
drainage issues.
203
November 18, 1997
Assistant City Attorney Paul Eckman spoke of the legal issues and allegations contained in the
appeals.
Appellants
Patricia Heyse, 1842 Corriedale Drive, reported she was informed, after the flood, that there were
holds on building permits for Lots 41 and 42 and no specific time frame was associated with the
holds. She stated allowing construction to continue on Lots 41 and 42 of Fairbrooke would stop the
opportunity to explore mitigation alternatives to minimize potential property damage in the future.
Don Heyse, 1842 Corriedale Drive, spoke of the property damage he incurred from the July flood
and outlined flaws in the Fairbrooke Heights II dam, showing slides of the dam and channel. He
concurred with comments regarding mitigation alternatives. He spoke of the need to keep
floodwater in the stormwater channels and of the need for assurances that the dam would not fail
again.
Cheyrl Phinney, 2337 Suffolk Street, opposed the continuation of the development stating a safe
stormwater drainage system does not currently exist. She spoke of a preliminary evaluation of the
Fairbrook drainage channel performed in the spring of 1997 by Icon Engineering, that warned of
potential flooding dangers in the neighborhood. She stated the dam was not built to Code
specifications and that would not have been known until or unless flood waters had eroded the soil.
She spoke of her scepticism regarding any new design proposed for the dam and requested Council
revoke the building permits and stop the development on the site until a safe stormwater drainage
system is in place.
Lucia Liley, attorney representing the applicant, C & M Homes, spoke of the responsibilities of the
Planning and Zoning Board and stated it was the Board's duty to determine the appropriateness of
revoking already approved building permits for lots 41 and 42. She stated in addition to the
requirements the builder had to adhere to, the City hired an independent storm drainage consultant
to review the Storm Drainage Plan of the development and requested comments before signing off
on the Plan. She spoke of the financial hardship the builder has experienced and would continue to
do so if not permitted to proceed. She reported the applicant was informed by City officials (City
Manager John Fischbach and Stormwater Director Bob Smith) that he was able to resume building.
Richard L. Meyer, President of C & M Homes, spoke of the difficult situation his project presents,
citing his concern for the appellants regarding storm drainage concerns and the need to protect his
business. He spoke of his close interaction with the City and the need to maintain confidence in the
process, and commented the lots being discussed were the highest lots, in terms of elevation, in the
entire subdivision. He spoke of the financial hardship that suspending the permits would have on
204
November 18, 1997
him. He urged Council to have faith in the recommendation of staff that Lots 41 and 42 would not
be affected by future drainage alternatives and asked that he be allowed to resume construction.
Lucia Liley, attorney for the applicant, spoke of the status of storm drainage improvements for the
development.
Re uttal
Bill Wilson, 1836 Corriedale Drive, stated he has lived in the area for over 20 years and until July
28 the storm drainage system worked well. He believed the problem occurred due to the rerouting
of the storm drainage through the Fairbrooke Channel.
Gary Kietzmann, 1924 Dorset Drive, stated at a recent neighborhood meeting he attended to discuss
drainage issues, he requested construction be halted until alternative storm drainage solutions were
explored. He questioned what information was received by the City to encourage the release of
construction holds. He expressed concerns regarding the size of the detention pond and believed
additional information needed to be reviewed before development continues.
Sur Rebuttal
Lucia Liley, attorney representing the applicant, responded to appellants' comments regarding policy
questions and stated the issue before Council already exists with rules in place and therefore the
concerns of the neighborhood, although valid, have nothing to do with the appeal and the issuance
of building permits for a fully approved final PUD.
Richard L. Meyer, President of C & M Homes, spoke of his need for legal representation to present
the facts to Council to protect his interests.
Stormwater Utility Manager Bob Smith responded to Council questions commenting on alternatives
looked at to reroute storm drainage. He spoke of the requirements for storm drainage improvements
and stated that improvements had not been finished prior to the flood. He commented there was a
hold on the remainder of permits until the facilities are accepted and spoke of the decision to allow
the applicant to resume construction. He spoke of improvements that could be done that would not
preclude development on lots 41 and 42 ie., installation of a spillway, enlarging the Fairbrooke
Channel and raising the canal embankment.
City Manager John Fischbach stated permits were not revoked, based upon the assurance that the
above mentioned improvements could be accomplished without impacting development on lots 41
and 42.
City Attorney Steve Roy reviewed Council's options and stated for an appeal to be sustained, a
majority vote is needed. He suggested addressing the C & M appeal first.
205
November 18, 1997
Councilmember Mason made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Wanner, that the Planning and
Zoning Board did have jurisdiction and that the appeal was timely filed. Yeas: Councilmembers
Kneeland, Mason, Smith and Wanner. Nays: None.
WON i•[IWOM[tl�:�:�tx�7
Councilmember Wanner made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kneeland, that the Planning
and Zoning Board did hold a fair hearing. Yeas: Councilmembers Kneeland, Mason, Smith and
Wanner. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Kneeland made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Wanner, to uphold the
decision of the Planning and Zoning Board.
Councilmember Kneeland spoke in support of the motion and believed the developer had a right to
rely on staffs decision.
Councilmember Wanner spoke of the need to follow-up on this matter and of Council's need to
better understand the project when it nears completion.
Councilmember Mason opposed the motion and spoke of the need to review policy issues.
The vote on Councilmember Kneeland's motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Kneeland,
Smith and Wanner. Nays: Councilmember Mason.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Ordinance No. 190, 1997,
Repealing and Reenacting the Land Use Code. Adopted on First Reading.
The following is staffs memorandum on this item.
"Executive Summary
This Ordinance addresses those issues identified on the Land Use Code Advisory Committee
(LUCAC) Work Plan for which LUCAC has developed consensus recommendations. Numerous
other minor code clarifications and revisions identified by staff are also proposed.
This Ordinance does not include the options relating to the Residential Design standards (garage
standards). Those options are addressed by a separate Council Agenda Item.
206
November 18, 1997
Staff briefly reviewed these issues with the Council Growth Management Committee at its October
20 meeting.
Staff also briefly reviewed these issues with Council at the October 28 Study Session.
COMMENTS:
Major issues addressed in the proposed revisions are outlined below.
LUCAC Work Plan Issues
1. Affordable Housing Density Bonus
The Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhood (LMN) District now contains a maximum density limit
of 8 units per acre for projects. Affordable housing providers have expressed concern that this may
limit the ability to do small infill affordable housing projects.
The LUCAC has recommended that small (raider 10 acres), qualified affordable housing projects
located within the hfll development area be allowed to develop at densities up to 12 units per acre.
This would amount to a density bonus of 4 units per acre.
Additional background information on this issue is contained in the attached memo from Timothy
Wilder dated September 4.
2. Contiguity Standard Refinement
The July Land Use Code revisions included some revisions to the contiguity requirement to allow
limited discontiguuous development of initial phases of ODPs, provided that the ODPs themselves
have contiguity. However, the LUCAC indicated that all issues related to contiguity were not
resolved, and that additional recommendations would be developed after further study.
The LUCAC has recommended that the contiguity requirement be further modified to exempt parcels
that are within the infll development area from the standard. There are some small parcels within
the inf ll develop area that technically lack contiguity to "existing urban development ". Since the
purpose of the contiguity requirement is to encourage inf ll and orderly sequential development, this
change is appropriate.
3. LMN-MMNDensity Gap
The LMN district now has a maximum density limit of 8 units per acre for a total project, but
individual phases of a project may be as high as 12 units per acre. The MAIN district has a
minimum density of 12 units per acre. Developers have raised a concern about the inability to do
207
November 18, 1997
small stand-alone projects in the 8 to 12 unit per acre range. This has been referred to as the
"LMN--MEIN density gap ".
Staff recognizes that theoretically this "density gap" could be a problem for small infill townhome
projects on parcels too small to do in multiple phases. On larger parcels, projects in the 8 to 12 unit
per acre range could be built as phases of ODPs in either the LMN zone or, the MMN zone.
The LUCAC will recommend that the MMNzone be revised to permit a minimum density of 8 units
per acre on parcels smaller than 20 acres within the it f ll development area. From a practical point
of view, there are veryfew developable parcels available that would be affected by this change.
Additional background information on this issue is contained in the attached memo from Timothy
Wilder dated September 25.
Other L UCAC Recommendations
In addition to the Land Use Code recommendations outlined above, the LUCAC also made a general
recommendation to Council that work continue to be done to ensure that institutional barriers do
not become an obstacle to the realization of City Plan. The Committee specifically sought to
reiterate a specific segment of the original CPA recommendation to Council regarding adoption
of the Land Use Code. Attachment 5 contains a memo from Tom Vosburg dated November 6 that
presents and provides context to this recommendation.
Major Issues Identified by Staff
The following issues were not identified as part of the LUCAC Work Plan, but instead have been
identified by staff. These issues have not been processed through the LUCAC.
4. Alternative Compliance for Parking Standards
Recent experiences with applying the new parking standards have highlighted the need to have a
mechanism in place to deal with unusual projects that don't fit the assumptions now contained in
the current Land Use Code. Staff will be recommending that an `Alternative Compliance"
procedure be added to the parking standards section to allow staff to negotiate alternative parking
plans for unusual uses within the Type 1 review process.
5. Maximum Site Lighting Standards
The Code now contains minimum lighting standards, but no maximum lighting limits. Staff will be
recommending maximum lighting standards be added to the Land Use Code in order to be able to
better address potential problems that could be associated with such uses as new car dealerships
or other commercial uses that have the potential to have excessive on -site lighting.
NOR
November 18, 1997
6. Abandonment Provision for Child Care Centers
Staff recommends that abandonment provisions for child care centers be added to the Land Use
Code. There provisions would be modeled on those now contained in the Code for group homes.
These provisions would require that if an approved large (7-12 kids) in -home child care center
discontinued operation for 12 months, then approval of the use for that site would lapse. In order
to resume operation, the center would need to be reviewed and approved again.
7. Require Final Plans Be Approved within 3 years of PDP Approval
Staff recommends that the provisions regarding lapse of PDPs be revised to require that final plans
be approved, not just filed, within 3 years of PDP approval. The proposed revisions would also
allow the Director to grant a single 6 month extension.
8. Allow more flexibility regarding building height in Neighborhood Centers.
Current Code provisions require that buildings in a neighborhood center have a 1. S story building
height "to the maximum extent feasible ". Staff proposed to change the test for this standard to "
the extent reasonably feasible " to allow for more flexibility in this regard
Minor Staff Issues
In addition to the major staff issues identified above, staff will be recommending numerous minor
"housekeeping" revisions to the Code. These minor revisions are briefly described in the index to
the packet of Proposed Land Use Code Text Revisions found as Attachment 1 to this staff report.
Staff will review these minor revisions with the Board at the November 6 work session.
Council Growth Management Committee Review
The Council Growth Management Committee reviewed the development of these proposed Land Use
Code revisions periodically throughout their development.
Affordable Housing Board Review
The Affordable Housing Board reviewed the LUCAC Recommendation regarding the Affordable
Housing density bonus on October 2. The Affordable Housing Board recommended that the
proposed revision to allow the density bonus be adopted as drafted.
Planning and Zoning Board Recommendation to Council
209
November 18, 1997
The Planning and Zoning Board held a public hearing on this proposed Land Use Code revisions
on November 6, 1997.
The Planning and Zoning Board voted unanimously to recommend to Council that all of the
proposed Land Use Code revisions identified here be adopted as drafted, with the exception of the
alternative compliance provisions for the parking standards (recommendation # 4, outlined above).
The Board voted S to 2 to recommend to Council that those code revisions be adopted.
Two board members felt that the parking standards alternative compliance provisions were either
inappropriate or unnecessary. These board members pointed out that any project could request a
modification to the parking standards through the Type 2 review process, if there was a compelling
reason to seek relief from strict compliance with the existing parking standards. The majority of the
Board members felt that parking space ratio issues are fairly technical in nature, and that the
proposed Alternative Compliance review criteria are comprehensive enough to ensure that
appropriate alternative parking ratios will be developed through the process.
Summary of Public Comment Received
Two representatives of non-profit affordable housing agencies testified regarding the proposed
density bones for affordable housing projects. Both representatives stressed the importance of
providing the homes for affordable housing project. One representative asked that the bonus be
revised to allow up to 14 units per acre instead of 12 as the maximum densityfor affordable housing
projects on small infnll parcels. The other representative emphasized the need to permit flexibility
in regard to affordable housing, and asked that the Type I review process be retained for projects
using the proposed density bonus. "
Policy Analyst Tom Vosburg gave the staff presentation on this item.
Councilmember Kneeland reported the Growth Management Committee has reviewed and fully
supports the proposed changes.
Vosburg responded to Council questions regarding the process for reviewing vested rights.
Councilmember Kneeland made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Wanner, to adopt Ordinance
No. 190, 1997 on First Reading.
Sister Mary Alice Murphy, CARE Housing, reported on the increased costs of CARE housing and
spoke of the need for higher density throughout the City not just in the infill areas..
Lou Stitzel, 512 E. Laurel, expressed her concerns regarding affordable housing needs and supported
a Type 1 review for affordable housing projects.
210
November 18, 1997
The vote on Councilmember Kneeland's motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Byrne,
Kneeland, Mason, Smith and Wanner. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Ordinance No, 191, 1997,
Amending Section 3.5.2 of the Land Use Code Regarding
Residential Building Standards for Garages Adopted on First Reading Option 3
The following is stafFs memorandum on this item.
"Executive Summary
The Land Use Code Advisory Committee developed three options for revising the existing garage
standards contained in the Land Use Code. A fourth option available to Council is to retain the
existing garage standards with no revisions (except for .some minor wording changes to add clarity).
Staff briefly reviewed these issues with the Council Growth Management Committee at its October
20 meeting.
Staff also reviewed these options with Council at the October 28 Study Session.
COMMENTS. -
The Land Use Code now contains residential design standards that govern the placement of garages
relative to primary structure of the house and the public street. These particular standards were
identified as top priority for re-evaluation by the Land Use Code Advisory Committee (LUCAC).
The LUCAC could not develop a committee recommendation regarding this issue. Instead the
LUCAC developed 3 new options to be considered, along with a 41h option of simply keeping the
existing Code language with no substantive changes.
Review of Existing Code Requirements
Section 3.5.2 of the Land Use Code contains the existing Residential Building Standards (see the
attached copy of this section). Major sub -sections contain separate provisions relating to the
Detached Housing Model Variety [(3.5.2(B)], the Relationship of Attached and Multi family
Buildings to Streets and Parking [(3.5.2. (C)], Residential Building Setbacks [ (3.5.2(D)] and finally
Garage Doors [(3.5.2 (E)]. The proposed options outlined below address only revisions to 3.5.2
(E) Garage Doors. Staff proposes no changes to the other existing Residential Building Standards
contained in the 3.5.2 of the Land Use Code.
211
November 18, 1997
The existing garage door standards contain several requirements. First, the standards require that
at least 2 out of any 3 houses in a row have a garage that is either recessed from the front face of
the house or is otherwise oriented so that it does not protrude beyond the front of the house. Second,
those houses that do have a protruding garage (the remaining I out of 3 in a row), must include one
feature from a short list of structural elements to mitigate the effect of the protruding garage on the
quality of the public streeiscape. Finally, in order to be able to track and enforce the required 2 out
of 3 ratio of non protruding garages, the type of garage (protruding vs. non protruding) must be
designated on the site plan. These existing Code provisions do not make any exceptions for small
lots.
LUCAC Garage Standard Options
The attached memo from Clark Mapes dated October 15 outlines the 3 new options developed by
the LUCAC. These options can be briefly summarized as follows:
Option 1: Allow Protruding Garages with Mitigating Architectural Elements
This option would allow all garages to protrude beyond the face of the building, but it would require
that any house with a protruding garage inchide in its design at least three mitigating architectural
elements from a defined list of possible mitigating features. On large lots, the amount that the
garage could protrude beyond the front face of the house would be limited to 10 feet. On small lots
(lots smaller that 6000 feet), there would be no limit to the distance the garage could protrude.
Since this option would not reference a minimum ratio of garage types, there would be no need to
designate on the site plan what kind of garage would be allowed on each lot.
Option 2: Keep Existing Standards, with Covered Porch Revision for Small Lots
This option would keep the existing standards for application to lots larger than 5500 square feet.
For smaller lots, all homes could have a garage that protrudes beyond the face of the house, if such
garage was recessed from a front porch by 4 feet. In no case would the garage door be allowed to
protrude beyond the front face of the house more than 8 feet, even with a front porch. Since this
option would continue to include the required ratio of recessed versus protruding garages as
contained in the existing Code, there would continue to be a need to designate what type of garage
is allowed on each lot on the site plan.
Option 3: Allow Protruding Garages that are Recessed From a Covered Porch.
This option would apply the same small lot standard defined in Option 2 to both large and small
lots. Any or all homes could have a garage that protrudes beyond the front face of the house up to
8 feet, if the garage was also recessed from a covered porch by at least 4 feet. Homes that had
recessed or otherwise non protruding garages would not be required to have a covered porch. Since
212
November 18, 1997
this option would not include a required ratio of recessed versus protruding garages, there would
he no need to designate what kind of garage is permitted on each lot on the site plan.
Option q: Retain Existing Regulation (with minor wording changes to add clarity).
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends Option 3 be adopted
One major concern expressed by the development industry representatives on the LUCAC and
shared by staff is that the garage standards should not contain a required ratio of recessed versus
protruding garage types that would need to he designated on the site plan. Both Options 1 and 3
address this concern, but the existing standards and Option 2 do not.
A major concern expressed by other community representatives on the LUCAC and shared by staff
is that the garage standards need to be truly effective at changing the degree to which garage doors
dominate the public streetscape in new developments. Staff is not confident that the various
combinations of mitigating architectural elements that would be required under Option I would be
truly effective at changing the effect of protruding garages on the public streetscape. Staff is
confident, however, that the presence of a covered parch extending beyond any protruding garage,
as required by Option 3, would effectively mitigate the effect of the garage on the public streetscape.
Staff is also concerned that it may be difficult to consistently apply, monitor and enforce the
requirements that would imposed through Option 1, since the possible mitigating architectural
elements are broadly defined and not all of them would be permanent structural elements of the
house. It is clear that the Option 3 requirements could be consistently applied and enforced.
Option 1 &2 Advocacy Reports
At Council's request, staff has asked members of the LUCAC that supported either Option I or
Option 2 to provide Council with written statements summarizing why they favored that particular
option.
A copy of the Option I Advocacy Report dated November 11, 1997 is attached. Members of the
LUCAC Committee support Option 2 and have chosen not to provide an Advocacy Report.
Planning and Zoning Board Recommendation to Council
The Planning and Zoning Board held a public hearing relating to these proposed options on
November 6, 1997.
213
November 18, 1997
The Planning and Zoning Board was unable to develop a majority recommendation to Council
regarding this issue. Three board members favored Option 3. Two board members favored Option
2. Two Board members favored Option].
Summary of Public Comment Received
One citizen attended many LUCAC meetings as an observer. This person consistently advocated
that the LUCAC committee recommend complete elimination of the garage standards. A
representative of the Home Builder's Association of Northern Colorado testified regarding the
garage standards. This representative advocated Option I be recommended to Council. Major
concerns expressed by this representative related to the need to consider the potential impacts on
housing affordability of the various garage standard options, and the need to have standards that
allow the maximum flexibility and creativity in housing design. "
Policy Analyst Tom Vosburg gave the presentation on this item, outlining the options available and
gave a slide presentation illustrating various garage characteristics throughout Fort Collins.
John Meleski, 2619 Featherstar Way, questioned the need for imposing this type of artistic
regulation. He urged Council to oppose the Ordinance in its entirety.
Kimberly Maevers, Director of Local Governmental Affairs Northern Colorado Homebuilders
Association, stated the Planning and Zoning Board and LUCAC Committee could not come. to a
decision and expressed concerns that a full Council was not seated to vote on this item. She urged
adoption of Option 1.
Jennifer Carpenter, LUCAC member, spoke in support of Options 2 or 4.
Aletha Langham-Godwin, President Northern Colorado Homebuilders Association, spoke of the
need for a compromise.
City Planner Clark Mapes reported garage standards are included in City Plan and were a part of the
visual preference survey, stating this was not an artistic regulation but a safety issue.
Councilmember Mason made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Byrne, to adopt Ordinance No.
191, on First Reading Option 3.
Councilmember Mason supported the results of the visual preference survey and stated the design
of the streetscapes and public domain is the responsibility of the City.
214
November 18, 1997
The vote on Councilmember Mason's motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Byrne,
Kneeland, Mason, Smith and Wanner. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
14TUTWOM
Councilmember Byrne requested information regarding the adoption schedule of the new Uniform
Building Code. He suggested a biennial City Plan design competition.
Councilmember Wanner requested a 2 page memo on Type 1 review for low-income housing.
Councilmember Smith spoke of the forum held to discuss the bike lane status in Fort Collins.
Adjournment
Councilmember Byrne made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kneeland, to adjourn to
November 25, 1997 at 3:00 p.m. The vote on Councilmember motion was as follows: Yeas:
Councilmembers Byrne, Kneeland, Mason, Smith and Wanner. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
The meeting adjourned at 12:10 a.m.
ATTEST:
1rg \�i. _
215