Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES-08/03/1993-Regularl ' August 3, 1993 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLOR ADO Council -Manager Form of Government Regular Meeting - 6:30 p.m. A regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins was held on Tuesday August 3, 1993, at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll call was answered by the following Councilmembers: Apt, Azari, Horak, Janett, Kneeland and Winokur. Councilmembers Absent: Councilmember McCluskey. Staff Members Present: Burkett, Krajicek, Roy. Citizen Participation Mary Humstone, 2220 North Overland Trail, representing the National Trust for Historic Preservation, spoke of a recent training event. She thanked staff and Council for their support in hosting the event. She expressed concerns regarding the Linden Hotel and noted she has made individual video tapes for Councilmembers regarding the Linden Hotel discussion. Agenda Review City Manager Steve Burkett stated there were no changes to the agenda as published. Consent Calendar This Calendar is intended to allow the City Council to spend its time and energy on the important items on a lengthy agenda. Staff recommends approval of the Consent Calendar. Anyone may request an item on this calendar to be "pulled" off the Consent Calendar and considered separately. Agenda items pulled from the Consent Calendar will be considered separately under Agenda Item #21, Pulled Consent Items. 7. 8. Items Pertaining to the Frame Annexation and Zoning. A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 75, 1993, Annexing Property Known as the Frame Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado. B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 76, 1993, Amending the Zoning District Map Contained in Chapter 29 of the Code of the City of Fort 1 185 August 3, 1993 ' Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the Frame Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado, with two conditions attached: 1) All development requests be processed as a Planned Unit Development (P.U.D.). The P.U.D. zoning condition requires that all development proposals be reviewed against the goals and objectives of the City's Comprehensive Plan and the criteria of the Land Development Guidance System. 2) The property known as the Frame Annexation be placed in the Residential Neighborhood Sign District and be subject to all limitations and requirements of the district as defined in Sections 29-593 and 29-593.1 of the City Code. The property being considered for annexation has, for a period of not less than. three (3) years, been completely surrounded by property contained within the boundaries of the City of Fort Collins. On July 20, 1993, Council unanimously adopted Ordinance No. 75, 1993 and Ordinance No. 76, 1993, which annex and zone property which is approximately 1.7424 acres in size and is located at the southwest corner of South Taft Hill Road and West Drake Road. The property is currently in residential use. There are several ' structures on the property. The surrounding properties are zoned RP, RL, and BP. Staff is recommending that this property be placed in RP, Planned Residential Zoning District with a planned unit development condition attached. Staff is also recommending a condition that the property be placed in the Residential Neighborhood Sign District that was approved by City Council and put into effect on January 15, 1993. Items Pertaining to the Karl Peterson Annexation and Zoning. A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 77, 1993, Annexing Property Known as the Karl Peterson Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 78, 1993, Amending the Zoning District Map Contained in Chapter 29 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the Karl Peterson Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado, with two conditions attached: 1) All development requests be processed as a Planned Unit Development (P.U.D.). The P.U.D. zoning condition requires that all development proposals be reviewed against the goals and objectives of the City's Comprehensive Plan and the criteria of the Land Development Guidance System. 186 ' August 3, 1993 10. 11. 2) The property known as the Karl Peterson Annexation be placed in the Residential Neighborhood Sign District and be subject to all limitations and requirements of the district as defined in Sections 29-593 and 29-593.1 of the City Code. On July 20, 1993, Council unanimously adopted Ordinance No. 77, 1993 and Ordinance No. 78, 1993, which annex and zone 3.0259 acres located south of West Drake Road approximately 1/2 mile west of South Taft Hill Road. The requested zoning is the RLP, Low Density Planned Residential District (with a P.U.D. condition) and staff is recommending that this property be placed in the Residential Neighborhood Sign District. The property is in residential use. The property is currently zoned FA-1, Farming in the County. This is a voluntary annexation. Under Chapter 22 of the Code, the City is authorized to sell property at the annual tax sale conducted by the Larimer County Treasurer if special assessments levied against the property have not been paid. The property was sold at the 1989 tax sale and a tax certificate of purchase was issued to the City as there were no interested private investors. The owner of the property conveyed title to the City through a deed in lieu of foreclosure. Last May, the City Council adopted Resolution 92-91 establishing policies for the sale of such property and on July 20, 1993, Council unanimously adopted this Ordinance on First Reading. The Water Utility Department owns a site on Ridgelawn Drive adjacent to Dean Acres Subdivision which was used for a water transmission line and standpipe. The water line was abandoned in 1990 and the standpipe several years before that. Since the site is no longer required by the Water Utility Department, it was offered to all other City departments. No other department had a need for the property. The parcel is a non -buildable site as it is encumbered with existing underground utilities and a Public Service overhead powerline. Therefore, the site was divided and each parcel was offered to the adjacent property owners - Diana Short/Alexander McEwan and David Kent - for $2,000 each ($4,000 total) this equates to $11,754/acre. The Agreement of Sale and Purchase is contingent on City Council approval. 187 12. 13. 14. August 3, 1993 ' This Ordinance, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on July 20, 1993, would authorize the Mayor to execute a Deed of Conveyance for the sale of the easterly parcel to Ms. Short and Mr. Alexander and for the sale of the westerly parcel to Mr. Kent. The Parkland Fund receives a fee from developers for each new dwelling unit established within the Urban Growth Area. This. Ordinance, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on July 20, appropriates these fees to be used primarily for the acquisition and development of neighborhood parks in newly developing residential areas of the city. Recent analysis has indicated a need for an increase of the fee. The North Front Range Transportation and Air Quality Planning Council approved the expenditure of STP funds, that are available in 1993, for a ' Transportation Corridor Project along US 287/Colorado 14 between I-25 on the east and the interchange with the Laporte Bypass on the west. This project is proposed to be a cooperative effort among the City of Fort Collins, the Colorado Department of Transportation, and the North Front Range Transportation and Air Quality Planning Council to address the City Council's direction as it relates to the Northeast Area Transportation Study Findings of December of 1992. The City Council at that time adopted Resolution 92-189, which included a variety of transportation elements. City Council unanimously adopted this Ordinance on First Reading on July 20, 1993. Municipal Services Group Inc. has an existing lease purchase agreement with the City entered into within the last year and is currently the only firm known to do municipal leases in Colorado. The firm is willing to add this equipment to the City's existing lease. Section 8-160(e) of the City Code authorizes the Purchasing Agent to procure additional services from a successful bidder who was awarded a contract by the City within the preceding 24 months without an additional competitive bidding process, provided the price of the service does not increase. This Ordinance authorizes the lease/purchase financing of a Kodak 2110 I copier for three years. 188 August 3, 1993 15. First Read_inq of Ordinance No.. 87, 1993, Authorizing_ a Revocable Permit IN This ordinance authorizes the City Manager to sign a Revocable Permit Agreement with Outdoor Buddies, Inc., a non-profit organization that organizes hunting experiences for physically handicapped individuals. The Agreement grants Outdoor Buddies the exclusive right to hunt pronghorn antelope on the Meadow Springs Ranch site, north of Fort Collins. Hunting rights which were previously granted to the grazing lease holder have been relinquished. The Colorado Division of Wildlife has recommended continuation of pronghorn hunting on the property, in order to prevent overpopulation and excessive natural resource damage. The Agreement establishes a three tiered system of hunter preference, with handicapped hunters receiving first preference, bona -fide customers of the Fort Collins Wastewater Utility receiving second preference, and other interested hunters receiving third preference. Nauta and Connie L. Nauta. The City has been negotiating with Charles and Connie Nauta for several years regarding their claims that construction at the City's Wood Street facility has damaged their property. The Nautas have developed a lake setting on their property immediately north of the Service Center. In general, they've been unhappy with the continued growth of the Service Center over the years. In 1992, the City repaved the north end of the Service Center property and constructed a new fence. The property drops off approximately five (5) feet between the Service Center parking lot and the Nauta's property. It is a relatively steep slope. The City installed the fence at the top of the slope, while the property line is at the bottom of the slope. Mr. Nauta indicated that he did not want the City to flatten the slope by putting additional fill dirt onto his property. As a result, the strip of land has become difficult to stabilize and maintain. Consequently, erosion from the slope runs onto their property. A variety of corrective measures have been considered. Examples include: a) the City could attempt to reseed the site, using stabilization fabric; b) construction of a retaining wall; and c) convey title of this strip of property to the Nautas plus pay them approximately Eight Thousand Seven Hundred Dollars (E8,700) which the Nautas could choose to apply to any form of re -vegetation or stabilization of the slope that they believe is appropriate. ' The strip of land is approximately 13' wide and 340' long for a total of 4407 square feet. Eight Thousand Seven Hundred Dollars (f8,700) is 189 17. 18. August 3, 1993 ' considered a reasonable amount of money to perform some form of effective stabilization for that amount of ground. Conveyance of the property to the Nautas in these circumstances is warranted for the primary reason that regardless of what type of remedy is used to stabilize the slope of the property, it is likely to continue to be a difficult maintenance problem. Therefore, the conveyance of this property to the Nautas eliminates these future maintenance and liability problems for the City. This small piece of property is not needed, nor anticipated to be needed in the future, by the City for any reason. In addition, deeding the property to the Nautas will straighten the boundary line between the City's Utility Service Center and the Nauta's property, to the north, resulting in a boundary line corresponding to the City's fence now located at the south edge of the property to be conveyed. The Airport Manager has negotiated a lease of property to FNL Hangar Association, Inc. for the construction and sublease of aircraft hangar space. The lease includes all that portion of the northeast one -quarter of Section 33, Township 6 North, Range 68 West, of the 6th P.M., Larimer ' County. FNL Hangar Association Inc. intends to construct a ten (10) unit T-Hangar which will be subleased to Association members for the storage of their personal aircraft. The hangar will provide 10,848 square feet of aircraft storage space, and will generate a maximum of $1,085 in land rent annually. Hangar space will be sublet to aircraft owners/operators by FNL Hangar Association, Inc. with the Airport receiving one percent (1%) of the rents. This is a twenty-five year lease, with three five-year extension options, bringing the total maximum length of the lease to forty years (40). At the expiration of the lease, the improvements revert to the ownership of the Cities. The construction and sublease of hangar space will generate new revenue for the Airport and will help meet the aircraft storage needs of local aircraft owners/operators. There are two separate legislative components of the cash management and investments program: Ordinance No. 108, 1988, and the Cash Management and Investment Policies adopted in 1990. The ordinance controls what the City may invest in and the policy deals with how the investments are made. Staff is proposing changes to both areas. The items that impact the , ordinance are presented here for first reading. Changes to the Cash 190 19. U11 August 3, 1993 Management and Investment Policies can be accomplished by Resolution and these changes will be presented to Council after second reading of the ordinance occurs. ISTEA requires that all transportation projects that will be utilizing Federal funds be programmed in the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Transportation Improvement Program. The MPO for the region is the North Front Range Transportation & Air Quality Planning Council (NFRT & AQPC). During the summer of 1992, a comprehensive list of transportation projects for the Fort Collins area were derived and approved by the City Council on. August 18, 1992. The projects that are being submitted for inclusion into the TIP for the years 1994-1996 are part of that process. All of these projects have been reviewed by the Transportation Board and the Air Quality Task Force. Routine Deeds and Easements. a. Powerline Easement from Kenneth V. and Maxine L. Yankey, 812 Colorado, needed to install secondary vault to underground electric services. Monetary consideration: $10. b. Powerline Easement from Paula Jann Benson, 816 E. Elizabeth, needed to underground existing overhead electric services. Monetary consideration: $10. C. Powerline Easement from Judy M. Heath, 628 Cowan, needed to install electric vault to underground overhead system. Monetary consideration: $60. d. Powerline Easement from Barry B. Baker, J. Karyl Ting, Jerry Sik Vung Ting and Mary Kathryn Ting, 720 Peterson, needed to underground existing overhead electric services. Monetary consideration: $10. e. Powerline Easement from Jed Schlosberg, 409 Linden, needed to install pad mount transformer to underground existing overhead electric services. Monetary consideration: $54. 191 August 3, 1993 Items on Second Reading were read by title by City Clerk Wanda Krajicek. 8. Items Pertaining to the Frame Annexation and Zoning. A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 75, 1993, Annexing Property Known as the Frame Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado. B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 76, 1993, Amending the Zoning District Map Contained in Chapter 29 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the Frame Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado. 9. Items Pertaining to the Karl Peterson Annexation and Zoning. A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 77, 1993, Annexing Property Known as the Karl Peterson Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado. B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 78, 1993, Amending the Zoning District Map Contained in Chapter 29 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the Karl Peterson Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado. 10. 11. 12. 13. 27. Items on First Reading were read by title by City Clerk Wanda Krajicek. 14. is. 192 1 August 3, 1993 16. 17. i" 26. Items Relating to Ballot Issues for a November 2. 1993 Special Municipal Election. A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 91, 1993, Calling a Special Election to Be Held in Conjunction with the November 2, 1993 Coordinated Election and Submitting to the Registered Electors a Proposed Ordinance Concerning Expenditure of Excess Revenues and Spending Limits. B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 92, 1993, Submitting Registered Electors a Proposed 'Amendment to the City to the Charter ' Pertaining to Penalties for Violations of the Charter. C. First Reading of Ordinance No. 93, 1993, Submitting to the Registered Electors a Proposed Amendment to the City Charter Pertaining to Intergovernmental.Agreements. D. First Reading Ordinance No. 94, 1993, Adopting the Uniform .of Election Code of 1992 for the Conduct of Special Municipal Elections Held in Conjunction with Coordinated November Elections. Councilmember Kneeland made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Apt, to adopt and approve all items not removed from the Consent Agenda. The vote on Councilmember Kneeland's motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Apt, Azari, Horak, Janett, Kneeland and Winokur. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Staff Reports Mayor Azari reported she had recently met with the Superintendent for Burlington Northern Railroad, and commented that she will be meeting with a representative of the Union Pacific Railroad in the near future. Their discussion center on ' possible relocation of the railroad tracks. 193 August 3, 1993 ' Appeal of the June 28, 1993 Decision of the Planning and Zoning Board Approving a Residential Development Project Known as the Lindimer Preliminary Subdivision. Decision Upheld. The following is staff's memorandum on this item. °EXECUTIVE SUMMARY On June 28, 1993, the Planning and Zoning Board approved the Lindimer Preliminary Subdivision. This subdivision consists of 15 single family lots located on 4.3 acres located at the east terminus of Birmingham Drive and adjacent to Rossborough Third Filing. The site is located approximately 665 feet north of West Horsetooth Road. On. July 12, 1993, an appeal of the Board's decision was received by the City Clerk's office. The appeal alleges that: The P & Z Board did not properly interpret and apply relevant laws; and The P & Z Board failed to hold a fair hearing by considering substantially false or grossly misleading evidence. ' The attached documents include the appeal, the Planning Department response to the appeal and the information packet that was received by the Planning and Zoning Board for the June 28, 1993 meeting. The procedures for deciding the appeal is described in Chapter 2, Article If, Division 3 of the City Code." City Attorney Steve Roy spoke of how the appeal process is conducted. He stated verbatim transcripts were not available for this appeal and outlined the difference between a Subdivision Code Appeal and the usual Land Development Guidance System Appeal. Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Apt, that the grounds of the appeal are sufficient for hearing. The vote on Councilmember Horak's motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Apt, Azari, Horak, Janett, Kneeland and Winokur. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Planning Director Tom Peterson gave a brief presentation on this item. Susanne Bassinger, 1506 W. Horsetooth Road, expressed her disappointment and discouragement with the process. She gave,a slide presentation and stressed that modification of her business to accommodate a new housing development would cause I extreme hardship. She urged Council to allow her to continue to be a good neighbor by allowing a setback of at least 100 feet. 194 August 3, 1993 1 Charlie Tidd, 1506 W. Horsetooth Road and Owner of Horsetooth Stables, opposed the Lindimer Subdivision stating it would hamper his ability to conduct business as usual. He spoke of health and safety concerns and stated he would need a high solid privacy fence in addition to a 100-foot setback in order to minimize safety concerns. Mark Linder, Developer, representing himself and Brett Larimer, reported 'a neighborhood meeting was held to discuss the proposed development. He stated he had spoken with the appellants regarding the configuration of the proposed homes. He stated language had been added to the covenants informing potential buyers of the possible disadvantages of living near Horsetooth Stables. He spoke of his reasons for not conceding to the request for a 100-foot setback. He reported that he offered to construct a fence separating the development site from the Tidd property. Susanne Bassinger, stated she was afraid that use of the property would be constrained in the future and requested that Council review the subdivision regulations to allow both uses to co -exist. Charlie Tidd, spoke of land -use issues and of disruptions noise interference would have on his horse training business. ' Mark Linder, stated a permanent land -use decision should not be made on "what ifs". He clarified allowing a 100-foot setback would make the project infeasible and urged Council to deny the appeal. Councilmember Apt asked if the parties could reach a compromise on the setback. He suggested something less than 100 feet. Susanne Bassinger stated a buffering zone would interfere with space which is currently being utilized. She responded to Council questions regarding a recent meeting with staff. City Attorney Steve Roy stated he did not believe that the "Use by Right" provision allows the Planning and Zoning Board or the Council the flexibility to require mitigation available under the PUD system. Councilmember Winokur questioned the decision to waive the solar orientation requirements and provide the variance. Lloyd Walker, Chair of the Planning and Zoning Board, stated the site configurations did not meet City requirements for solar orientation. Planning Director Tom Peterson clarified unique topographical configurations constitute reasons for granting variances but financial hardships do not enter into the Planning and Zoning Boards' decision. ' Ms. Bassinger clarified the issue of solar orientation was not addressed in the appeal. 195 August 3, 1993 ' Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kneeland, to uphold the decision of the Planning and Zoning Board. Councilmember Apt asked if certain conditions could be attached to the approval based on health and safety concerns. City Attorney Steve Roy stated it was the developer's option to accept conditions from Council. Councilmember Apt asked Mr. Linder if he would consider providing additional setback aside from what is currently planned. Mr. Linder stated he would not provide additional setback distance. Councilmember Horak stated he is upholding the decision because he believed the Board acted within its authority. Councilmember Apt spoke of his frustration with the issue, noting subdivision codes do not outline health and safety issues. Councilmember Apt offered a friendly amendment to the previous motion, directing staff to work with the developer to mitigate the impact of the position of the house closest to the stable. ' Councilmembers Horak and Kneeland accepted the amendment as a friendly amendment to their previous motion. The vote on Councilmember Horak's motion as amended was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Apt, Azari, Horak, Janett, Kneeland and Winokur. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Appeal of the June 28, 1993 Final Decision of the Planning and Zoning Board Approval of the Preserve PUD-Final, Decision Overturned, The following is staff's memorandum on this item. 'EXECUTIVE SUMMARY On May 3, 1993 the Planning and Zoning Board voted 6-0 to approve the Preserve PUD- Preliminary. On June 28, 1993 the Board voted 5-2 to approve the Preserve PUD- Final (with a separate 4-3 vote for the height variance). On July 12, 1993 an appeal of the final decision was made by Nancy and Jim Pieper and Mary Ellen Keen, residents of Newport Court, to the west of the subject property. On July 19, 1993 an amended appeal was made by the same individuals. ' 196 August 3, 1993 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT The Preserve PUD is a proposal for 276 apartment units and a clubhouse/swimming pool complex on 18.18 acres located at the northwest corner of Drake Road and Raintree Drive. The project includes 14 two and three-story buildings, one recreation building, and structured parking in both detached and attached garages. The architectural design of the apartment buildings, clubhouse, and garages provides a unified, cohesive, and residential character for the site. A two acre tract adjacent to the New Mercer Canal and Ross Open Space is being dedicated as open space. Approximately 55 new trees and 46 shrubs are proposed to enhance these open space and buffer areas. Extensive street trees and shrubs are proposed along Drake Road and Raintree Drive. BACKGROUND: Conditions of preliminary approval related to foundation plantings, streetscape landscaping along Drake Road, and bicycle parking were addressed with the final plans. A variance to the 40' height limitation, for the middle sections of the buildings to a11ow a steeper pitched residential character roof, as shown on the plans, was approved by the Board at the time of final approval. The traffic impact study has been reviewed and approved by the Transportation ' Department. When warranted, the Raintree/Drake intersection will be signalized. A pedestrian circulation system is proposed, including: a bike path connection to the Senior Center, to a pedestrian bridge over New Mercer canal, a detached 5' sidewalk along Drake and Raintree, and an interconnected system of paths throughout the development. The proposed PUD was evaluated against the Residential Density Point Chart of the Land Development Guidance System, at the time of preliminary approval, and the A17 Development Chart of the Land Development Guidance System, at the time of preliminary and final. The PUD achieves a score of 120% on the Residential Point Chart. A minimum score of 100% is required to exceed a density of 10 dwelling units per acre. Points. were awarded for proximity to shopping, mass transit, a community park, employment, for contiguity to existing urban development and services, for providing 16% of the site in active recreation uses, for installation of automatic fire sprinkler systems in each unit, and for providing over 50% of the required parking in garages. Planning staff found that the proposed PUD addressed applicable criteria of the All Development Chart of the LDGS. including an analysis of the impacts of the height variance. Furthermore, concerns raised by the neighborhood at a Neighborhood Information Meeting held on December 9, 1992, including: traffic impacts, treatment/development of the natural area along New Mercer Canal, how the ' building relates to the Senior Center, the character of the Drake Road frontage, management practices, fire access, and the profile of typical renters were addressed by the applicants. On this basis, staff recommended approval of the 197 August 3, 1993 , Final PUD with one condition related to completion and execution of the Utility Plans and Development Agreement. The Planning and Zoning Board voted 6-0 to approve the Preserve PUD-Preliminary with conditions related to landscaping, streetscape along Drake Road, and bicycle parking. The Planning and Zoning Board voted 4-3 to approve the height variance and later voted 5-2 to approve the Preserve PUD-Final with a condition related to completion and execution of the development agreement and final utility plans. This condition has been placed on previous PUD's to ensure that all utility plans are finalized and approved prior to filing of the subdivision piat and issuance of building permits. In voting to approve this proposal, the Planning and Zoning Board concurred with staff findings and recommendations and believed that the applicants had addressed both staff and neighborhood concerns about compatibility and design. THE APPEAL The appellant has filed the appeal on the following grounds: 1. The Planning and Zoning Board abused its discretion in that its decision ' was arbitrary and without the support of competent evidence in the record. 2. The Board failed to conduct a fair hearing in that the board substantially ignored its previously established rules of procedure. 3. The Board considered evidence to its findings which was substantially false or grossly misleading. These grounds of appeal are valid as set forth in Section 2-48 of the Code. SCOPE OF COUNCIL CONSIDERATION The issues that Council must resolve in this appeal are as follows: 1. Did the Board abuse its discretion in that its decision was arbitrary and without support of competent evidence in the record. 2. Did the Board fail to conduct a fair hearing in that the Board ignored its previously established rules of procedure. 3. Did the Board consider evidence related to its findings which was substantially false or grossly misleading." City Attorney Steve Roy outlined the appeal process. ' 198 August 3, 1993 Lucia Li 1 ey, attorney for the applicant, spoke of a letter she had sent to Council regarding procedural issues and requested that Council rule on these issues. She noted unless Council had questions for the applicant regarding the nature of the objections, she did not wish to reiterate what had already been submitted in writing. Jim Pieper, appellant residing at 2424 Newport Court, spoke of the appeal process and disagreed with the applicants allegations. Mayor Azari ruled on procedural issues, noting that the Notice of Appeal was accepted as written and would not be revised. She stated there would be no ruling in advance as to what presentations Council would receive or what grounds would be used to decide the appeal, accept for what is provided by the Code. She confirmed that density layouts would not be considered, and the May 3 transcript would be accepted as part of the record on the appeal unless objected to by the appellants or opponents. Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kneeland, that there were sufficient grounds to hear the appeal. The vote on Councilmember Horak's motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Apt, Azari, Horak, Janett, Kneeland and Winokur. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. City Planner and project planner, Kirsten Whetstone briefly summarized the project. Bill Neal, President of Wheeler Realty, stated his property was 500' from the proposed project and asked about his standing as a party in interest. He stated he only had a lease/hold interest as he did not own the building. City Attorney Steve Roy spoke of the circumstances that qualify individuals to be considered as a party of interest. Jim Pieper, 2424 Newport Court, spoke of traffic concerns and spoke of the height variance, he reported the developer had never shown what the building would look like at a 40' height level. He questioned the Planning Department's approval of the height variance without seeing the blueprints. He stated he believed that the project planners do everything possible to assist developers to expedite projects. He requested denial of the project and that the 45' variance be overturned. Mary Ellen Keen, 2436 Newport -Court, spoke of her frustration with the appeal process. She suggested that information regarding how to file an appeal be made available at neighborhood or Planning and Zoning Board meetings. 199 August 3, 1993 ' Shirley Reichenbach, 1313 Glenhaven Drive, spoke of traffic concerns at the intersection. She noted she was a member of the Commission on Disability and stated the plans do not meet handicap codes. Nancy Pieper, 2424 Newport Court, questioned the need for the project stating it was extremely dense, overly tall and massive in proportion to surrounding businesses. She stated it would adversely affect traffic on Drake and Shields and requested Council review the proposal and make a better choice for use of the property. Dave Sawyer, 2436 Newport Court, opposed the apartment complex stating it was not an appropriate use of the space. Judy Siefke, 1436 Glenhaven Drive, spoke of her concerns regarding the height of the proposed project and traffic issues. Shirley Reichenbach, 1313 Glenhaven Drive, stated if the project is completed it will obstruct the view for citizens and motorists traveling west on Drake Road. Lucia Liley, Attorney representing the Cumberland Companies, spoke of the allegations in the appeal and of the height of the project. She stated the developer is willing to change the variance to 40'. She noted it was an infill ' project and a traffic analysis was completed at the time of the preliminary plan submittal and believed there was adequate information in the record regarding traffic concerns. She clarified the three story design was shown on the preliminary site plan. She stated the project has been approved as a Final PUD and stated it exceeds the LDGS requirements. She urged Council to uphold the Planning and Zoning Board vote to approve the project and to consider whether or not upholding the request for the height variance would produce a better project. Steve Hegge, Developer, representing the Cumberland Companies, spoke of the background of the Preserve project. He believed the design standards, including the higher roofline, are very desirable. He stated he would be willing to rescind the height variance and conform to the 40' standard if recommended by Council. Ronn Frank, 3008 Phoenix Drive and partner of Raintree Associates, spoke in support of the project. Dave Veldman, agent for the owner of Raintree Village Shopping Centers, supported the project as approved by the Planning and Zoning Board. He stated the slight height variance would add to its architectural diversity. Tom Smith, Housing Helpers, spoke of the need for affordable housing and supported the project. Lucia Liley submitted construction drawings into the record. ' Jim Pieper, 2424 Newport Court, reiterated his concerns regarding traffic, 200 ' August 3, 1993 Jim Pieper, 2424 Newport Court, reiterated his concerns regarding traffic, stating a traffic study performed at the intersection since 1980 and before the Raintree Shopping Center was constructed. He spoke of various possible uses for the site. Mary Ellen Keen, 2436 Newport Court, stated the height variance was not a small peak, but rather 86% of the building along the park would be over 40' high. She stated the density of the area contributes to significant traffic problems. Nancy Pieper, 2424 Newport Court, questioned why the developer is continually changing the plans. Lucia Liley, addressed traffic concerns and stated there was a lot of discussion at the preliminary hearing regarding the Drake and Shield intersection, and beleived the last traffic study was performed in conjunction with construction of the Raintree Shopping Center. City Attorney Steve Roy spoke of the exhibits and stated there was an allegation that the Planning and Zoning Board decision in granting the variance was based upon misleading representations. He stated the neighborhood was under the impression that the number of buildings exceeding 40' would be limited to a maximum of 40%. He stated the evidence received should show what was reported to the Planning and Zoning Board was either true or false. He stated both parties would have an opportunity to object to the receipt of Exhibit "A" into evidence. Mr. Pieper stated he would like an opportunity to review the plans. After review of the plan, Mr. Pieper objected stating it was not a finished product and it was something that was not voted on or introduced into evidence. Ms. Liley clarified that the plans were not introduced at the hearing, noting construction drawings are generally not submitted. She stated the Board voted on the plan showing the final elevations and the 45' maximum height variance which had not changed. Mr. Hegge stated it was his understanding that height concerns only pertained to particular building design. He stated he did not make a clear concession to change the roofline height at the neighborhood meeting. He spoke of his reasons for not considering garden level apartments and responded to Council questions regarding handicap accessibility. Mr. Pieper clarified he had not been notified of the 1992 neighborhood meeting pertaining to the project. Assistant City Attorney Paul Eckman stated that the approved existing PUD on the ' site has no bearing on whether this project should or should not be approved under the Land Development Guidance System. 201 August 3, 1993 City Attorney Steve Roy clarified the decision from Council regarding wheterh the Board held a fair hearing must be considered before Council can consider the height variance issue. He stated the height variance issue could be considered separately. Mr. Hegge clarified comparative drawings showing 40' buildings were not submittal requirements of the variance procedures and were not provided. Councilmember Janett questioned if at the time the traffic study was conducted, the same proposed land -uses being considered. Transportation Planner Eric Bracke stated the Shields and Drake intersection has been studied several times in the past five years and he did not believe another study needed to be conducted. He spoke of how the number of trip generations are determined and reported the project would add an additional 1200-1300 vehicles per day at the intersection and would still maintain the traffic standard. Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kneeland, that the Planning and Zoning Board conducted a fair hearing. Councilmember Apt stated he did not believe the Planning and Zoning Board or the neighborhood received adequate drawings comparing building heights at the final hearing. ' The vote on Councilmember Horak's motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Azari, Horak, Kneeland and Winokur. Nays: Councilmembers Apt and Janett. THE MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Apt, to overturn the June 28, 1993 decision of the Planning and Zoning Board. Councilmember Horak stated he was not convinced that criteria on the height variance was met and due to the height and mass of the project he supported overturning the decision of the Planning and Zoning Board. He spoke of neighborhood notification possibilities relating to the size and scale of future projects. Councilmember Kneeland stated she supported remanding the issue to the Planning and Zoning Board and supported overturning the Board's decision regarding the height variance. Councilmember Horak clarified his motion was to overturn the final decision, not the preliminary plan. City Attorney Steve Roy clarified passing the motion would deny the final plan as presented to the Planning and Zoning Board and the preliminary plan approval would remain in effect. He commented that in order for the project to proceed I a different final plan would need to be approved. 202 August 3, 1993 Councilmember Janett spoke of the positive aspects of the project but stated she did not feel the bulk and scale of the project was appropriate. She expressed concerns regarding traffic issues. Councilmember Apt concurred with Councilmember Janett stating the developer has done a good job with compatibility of the project and landscaping issues, but stated the height variance was not appropriate. Councilmember Kneeland supported the motion, and emphasized she supported the project but stated additional information needs to be provided to the Planning and Zoning Board for final approval. She spoke in support of staff, stating projects are evaluated based on set policies. Mayor Azari stated she did not support the motion stating it only continues the communication problem regarding the project. She stated she would prefer a motion addressing the height variance. City Attorney Steve Roy clarified the order in which the issues were voted on did not matter, but stated it was important that the height variance be voted on. The vote on Councilmember Horak's motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Apt, Horak, Janett, Kneeland and Winokur. Nays: Councilmember Azari. ' THE MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Apt, to overturn the decision of the Planning and Zoning Board on the height variance. The vote on Councilmember Horak's motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Apt, Azari, Horak, Janett, Kneeland and Winokur. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kneeland, that on. final approval from the Planning and Zoning Board, the Board consider the height, mass, bulk and size of the project and how it conforms to the area. Councilmember Apt emphasized the need to keep the neighborhood advised of the process. The vote on Councilmember Horak's motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Apt, Azari, Horak, Janett, Kneeland and Winokur. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. 203 August 3, 1993 , Items Relating to Ballot Issues for a November 2. 1993 Special Municipal Election, Not Considered. The following is staff's memorandum on this item. °EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 91, 1993, Calling a Special Election to Be Held in Conjunction with the November 2, 1993 Coordinated Election and Submitting to the Registered Electors a Proposed Ordinance Concerning Expenditure of Excess Revenues and Spending Limits. B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 92, 1993, Submitting to the Registered Electors a Proposed Amendment to the City Charter Pertaining to Penalties for Violations of the Charter. First Reading of Ordinance No. 93, 1993, Submitting to the Registered Electors a Proposed Amendment to the City Charter. Pertaining to Intergovernmental Agreements. D. First Reading of Ordinance No. 94, 1993, Adopting the Uniform Election Code of 1992 for the Conduct of Special Municipal Elections Held in Conjunction with Coordinated November Elections. ' In June, Council established a Governance Committee for the purpose of reviewing the Charter and other governance matters on an on -going basis and making recommendations to the Council regarding proposed amendments to the City Charter and the adoption of ordinances related to the governance process. At a meeting held on July 15, the Council Governance Committee (Azari, McCluskey, and Winokur) recommended that staff draft language for Council consideration for placing two Charter amendments and one proposed ordinance on a November 2 special election ballot. At the July 27 work session, Council reviewed drafts of the ordinances submitting the three issues to the ballot and gave direction to staff to schedule the three submission ordinances for discussion at the August 3 Councii meeting. With respect to the agenda item for the August 3 discussion regarding the retention of revenues that may exceed the spending and revenue limits imposed by Article X, Section 20, of the Colorado Constitution, Council requested that staff outline the range of options available to Council. Several Councilmembers expressed concerns about placing this item on the November ballot without more time for analysis, discussion and public input. Some also felt that it would be preferable to submit the measure to the voters, if at all, in November 1994, when actual audited figures would be available for fiscal year 1993, so that the amount of any excess could be specified in the proposed ordinance. Section 20 of Article X provides that revenues received that exceed the allowable ' revenue and spending limit are to be refunded by the end of the next fiscal year. If the City has revenue in excess of the limit in 1993, the refunds need to be 204 August 3, 1993 completed before the end of 1994. Section 20 also allows the voters to approve revenue changes as an offset to the excess revenues that would otherwise be .refunded. Section 20 of Article X also outlines the requirements for elections regarding financial matters. Approval of excess revenue as an offset may only be done at the annual November election dates and at regularly scheduled local municipal elections held in April of odd -numbered years. A ballot measure to retain 1993 excess revenue could have been submitted to the voters in April of 1993. It may be submitted to the ballot in November of 1993 or November of 1994. The options available to Council are as follows: 1) Council could decide that excess revenues should be refunded. This direction could be provided by resolution or perhaps by a motion at the August 3 meeting or at a future Council meeting. 2) Council could give direction to the Governance Committee and the Finance Committee to study the issue further and to gather community views and perceptions before the measure is submitted to the electorate. This could be done between now and August 17, or the measure could be delayed for one year and submitted at the November 1994 election. If a November ' 1993 election is preferred, under this option, an election would still need to be called by Ordinance on August 3. 3) Council could adopt the ordinance calling an election and submitting the proposed measure to the ballot in November of 1993. The ordinance would need to be passed on first reading on August 3. 4) Council could adopt an ordinance that would allow the City to retain the excess revenue until the Council decides on specific proposed uses for the revenue and voter approval could be received for these purposes. 5) Council could adopt a resolution that specifies the type of process for public comment needed prior to considering a ballot measure for retention of excess revenue. 6) Council could decide to postpone these items with direction that staff bring these ordinances back to Council well in advance of the 1994 November election (early 1994). BACKGROUND: City -initiated Charter amendments must be placed on the ballot by ordinance, and proposed ordinances may be submitted to the ballot by resolution or ordinance. Amendment 1, which was approved by Colorado voters last November, provides for ' the placement of ballot issues such as Charter amendments and other referred P111l,.1 August 3, 1993 ' measures on the Coordinated Election ballot. Therefore, a special city election could be held on November 2 in conjunction with the County's coordinated election. To meet the state law requirement that the ballot language be submitted to the County Clerk no later than 55 days prior to the November election (before September 81, the ordinance calling the election and ordinances submitting proposed Charter amendments to the ballot must be considered by Council on August 3, with second reading on August 17 if Council decides to proceed with calling, the election. Staff has prepared ordinances calling a special election and submitting a proposed ordinance and two proposed Charter Amendments to the November 2 ballot. In addition, an ordinance has been prepared to adopt the Uniform Election Code of 1992 for the conduct of coordinated November elections. Following is background information concerning the three issues that were identified as priority topics by the Governance Committee and which were discussed at the July 27 Council work session, and information concerning adoption of the Uniform Election Code: A. ORDINANCE CALLING SPECIAL ELECTION FOR NOVEMBER 2. 1993 AND SUBMITTING TO THE REGISTERED ELECTORS A PROPOSED ORDINANCE CONCERNING EXPENDITURE OF EXCESS , REVENUES AND SPENDING LIMITS. The Governance Committee discussed the various options and policy issues associated with the issue of what could be submitted to the ballot in connection with retaining excess revenues. The recommendation of the Governance Committee was that any measure submitted to the ballot should contain a realistic time limit similar to what has been done in the past for sales tax increases above the City's 2.25% base. The time limit should be 3-5 years. In addition, the consensus was that staff prepare language for voter approval to retain excess revenues not to exceed $2.5 million annually, with 50% used to pay off existing debt early, 50% used for specific other municipal uses approved by City Council, and any amount in excess of the dollar limit to be refunded. (Specific examples of "other municipal purposes" should be included.) Based on the Governance Committee's discussion, staff prepared a draft of a proposed ordinance for Council discussion at the July 27 work session. The main policy questions related to this issue are: 1) How much of any excess revenue above the limit should the City retain? 2) For what period of time should the revenue retention measure be applied? 3) Should there be specific purposes for which to use the revenue that I exceeds the growth limits? 206 ' August 3, 1993 4) Should specific types of revenue be treated differently than others? Staff's recommendation is that the City try to maintain as much revenue flexibility as possible. This would mean that any ballot measure have all City revenues included and have as broad a list of uses as possible. Pursuant to Council's discussion at the work session, Ordinance No. 91, 1993, is being presented for consideration and public input at the August 3 meeting. The ordinance would call a special municipal election to be held in conjunction with the November 2 Coordinated Election and would submit a proposed ordinance to the Ci ty's voters. B. CONFLICT OF INTEREST The Charter rules pertaining to conflict of interest are more stringent than those of most. other municipalities or the State law. The constraining effect of the current Charter regulations is compounded by the fact that any violation of the Charter is considered to be a misdemeanor criminal offense and no culpable mental state (e.g. knowingly, willfully, intentionally) is explicitly required (though one may be implied). Staff has previously recommended that Council consider a Charter amendment that ' would eliminate personal conflict of interest provisions, while leaving financial conflict of interest provisions in place, or, in the alternative, repeal the entire conflict of interest section and rely on the State law. Another approach would be to leave the conflict of interest provisions intact, but to either decriminalize such violations of the Charter (in which case there would be no apparent remedy for such violations) or to amend the violation provisions to clearly state that a violation must be intentional or willful before it would be considered to be criminal in nature. Staff continues to recommend that, at the very least, the violation provision of the Charter should be amended to explicitly state that only a willful violation of the Charter should constitute a crime. However, the City Manager still recommends that if possible, the personal conflict of interest provisions should be repealed in favor of the State statute. The Governance Committee requested that staff prepare additional information pertaining to a limited amendment to the Charter section pertaining to penalties for violation of the Charter. Based on this direction and further Council direction received at the July 27 work session, Ordinance No. 92, 1993 is submitted for Council's consideration. With voter approval, the language of the proposed measure would amend the Charter provision concerning Charter violations to explicitly state that only a willful and knowing violation of the Charter should constitute a crime. 207 August 3, 1993 ' C. INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENTS The Charter provision which authorizes intergovernmental agreements may be read as requiring all cooperative or joint activities with other governmental bodies to be authorized by such agreements and approved by the City Council. if interpreted in this fashion, the provision sets up administrative hurdles which impede the efficient exchange of services among governmental agencies. The State statute governing this subject is more flexible insofar as it clearly permits intergovernmental agreements to be approved by the legislative bodies of the contracting entities "or other authority having the power to so approve." The Ad Hoc Charter Review Committee reviewed this issue in early 1993 and concluded that staff should explore other ways of facilitating the execution of intergovernmental agreements without a Charter amendment. For example, it may be appropriate to consider "master agreements" between the City and the various other governmental entities with which the City contracts. These master agreements could specify the kinds of subordinate agreements which could be administratively executed, as well as the kinds of ministerial activities that could be undertaken without additional formal agreements. On July 20, Council adopted an ordinance on Second Reading to authorize the City Manager or designee to execute certain intergovernmental agreements. At the July 15 meeting, the Governance Committee recommended that the issue be ' discussed at the July 27 work session and that Council consider placing a Charter amendment before the voters in November to further address this issue. Based on Council's direction at the July 27 work session, staff has prepared Ordinance No. 93, 1993, which would submit a proposed Charter amendment to the City voters at a November 2 special election. D. ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE UNIFORM ELECTION CODE OF 1992 HB 1063, which took effect on July 1, 1993, allows a municipality to provide by ordinance or resolution that it will utilize the regulations and procedures of the Uniform Election Code (Title 1, CRS) instead of the Colorado Municipal Election Code (Title 31, CRS) with respect to any election. Amendment 1, which was approved by Colorado voters last November, clearly provides for the conduct of simultaneous elections by multiple jurisdictions in November of each year. Subsequently, the enactment of N.B. 93-1255 by the State legislature implemented changes to the Uniform Election Code to synchronize the timelines and deadlines for all districts and political subdivisions placing ballot issues on a coordinated November ballot conducted by the County Clerk and Recorder. There are a number of election deadlines set out in the Colorado Municipal ' Election Code that conflict with the deadlines set out in the Uniform Election Code. Therefore, staff is recommending that if Council calls an election for 208 August 3, 1993 November 2 that Council approve an ordinance to adopt the Uniform Election Code for the conduct of any special municipal election conducted in conjunction with a coordinated election. The Colorado Municipal Election Code will still apply to the City's April biennial regular election and any special municipal elections held at any time except in November. Overall Recommendation: Staff recommends that Council not place an excess revenues measure on the ballot in November and that an election not be called for other purposes." City Manager Steve Burkett gave a brief introduction and stated staff recommends the ordinances not be adopted. City Clerk Wanda Krajicek stated the election expense was not warranted unless the issue of excess revenues is considered. Councilmember Winokur spoke in support of the staff recommendation. ITEM FAILED DUE TO LACK OF A MOTION. Items Relating to an ' Affordable Housing Board, Adopted. The following is staff's memorandum on this item. 'EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 84, 1993, Amending Chapter 2 of the City Code Creating an Affordable Housing Board. In October of 1992, the City Council adopted an "Affordable Housing Policy". On June 22, 1993, Council conducted a work session to review a variety of implementation strategies for the policy. One of the recommendations was the creation of an Affordable Housing Board. On July 20, 1993, Council unanimously adopted Ordinance No. 84, 1993 on First Reading. B. Resolution 93-116 Assigning a Councilmember as Liaison to the Affordable Housing Board. This Resolution appoints a Councilmember to act as the liaison to the Affordable Housing Board. Council will need to select a Councilmember prior to adoption of the Resolution." Councilmember Apt made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Janett, to adopt Ordinance No. 84, 1993 on Second Reading. rTE August 3, 1993 The vote on Councilmember Apt's motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Apt, Azari, Horak, Janett, Kneeland and Winokur. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Janett made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Winokur, to adopt Resolution 93-116 inserting the name of Councilmember Janett. The vote on Councilmember Janett's motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Apt, Azari, Horak, Janett, Kneeland and Winokur. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Horak volunteered to serve as an interview partner with Councilmember Janett. Other Business Councilmember Winokur spoke of a recent Platte River Power Authority (PRPA) Board meeting in which the issue of surplus water was discussed. He suggested staff and the Leadership Team review the issue of surplus water and advise Council of the situation and plans to process the issue. He spoke of the need to increase citizen participation and awareness in PRPA meetings. He stated he would see that minutes, quarterly calendars and agendas were distributed to Council for its review. Mayor Azari stated she sent correspondence to the City of Loveland and Larimer County expressing the City's interest in beginning the meetings with the three working groups formed at the joint meeting. Councilmember Apt spoke of the use by right subdivision regulation problems. He stated he would like to be able to review health and safety issues and suggested requiring LOGS review or PUD's on all future developments within the City. Adof -----` The meeting adjourned at 11:35 p.m. ATTEST: 1 210