HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES-02/04/2014-RegularFebruary 4, 2014
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, February 4, 2014, 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: Campana, Cunniff, Horak, Overbeck, Poppaw, Troxell and Weitkunat.. I
Staff Members Present: Atteberry, Nelson, Roy.
Agenda Review
City Manager Attebeny stated there were no changes to the published agenda.
Citizen Participation
Marge Griffin, 3245 Honeysuckle Court, stated she has never received an offer from anyone to purchase her
property, which she stated is proposed to be condemned by the Boxelder Stormwater Authority.
Mel Hilgenberg, 172 North College, announced community events and opposed Council visits to other
municipalities with on -campus stadiums. He stated the City should hold community meetings regarding the
stadium and opposed tax payer funding of the project. He provided a positive update on the recovery of Jack
Daniels.
Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, opposed the Boxelder Stormwater Authority and stated City staff has
presented misinformation to Council. He opposed the use of tax increment financing in Timnath.
Linda Vrooman, Fort Collins resident, questioned the locations chosen for on -campus stadium site visits. She
requested that the City and CSU engage in a meaningful community dialogue regarding the impacts of the
proposed stadium on the safety, culture, and priorities of Fort Collins.
Stacy Lynne, 305 West Magnolia, discussed lawsuits she has filed and claimed fraud in Larimer County courts.
Doug Brobst, 1625 Independence Road, opposed the process regarding the on -campus stadium and requested an
estimate regarding the cost of the necessary City infrastructure changes and an independent environmental
impact study regarding the project.
John Prouty, 725 Sandpiper, discussed.the Willow Street improvements and presented a letter from affected
property owners requesting the City commit funds for the construction of the improvements.
Citizen Participation Follow-up
Councilmember Conniff requested a prioritized list of street improvements. He requested Council support for
obtaining an environmental impact study and cost estimates regarding the stadium.
Councilmember Troxell reiterated his suggestion for the creation of a subarea plan related to the stadium area.
He stated the community visits are designed to research transportation systems and neighborhood concerns.
February 4, 2014
Councilmember Overbeck supported the request of Councilmember Conniff and supported conference calls as
opposed to community visits. He asked why the University of Minnesota was not included on the list.
Mayor Pro Tern Horak replied the University of Minnesota is in a much larger city than Fort Collins and noted
the research is necessary to determine impacts and the facilitation of those impacts, as well as to calculate costs.
He also noted Council is not the authority making the decision regarding the stadium.
Councilmember Conniff agreed with Councilmember Overbeck's suggestion regarding conference calls.
City Manager Atteberry indicated the three issues facing Council and the City are the future of the proposed on -
campus stadium, the possibility of 5,000-10,000 more students at CSU, and the West Central Subarea Plan. He
recommended Councilmembers participate in the site visits in order to discuss the issues with affected citizens.
He discussed the reasons for selecting the proposed sites and stated conference calls are an option if Council
prefers that option.
Councilmember Campana noted the importance of CSU in the community and stated the City needs to enable
its growth. He supported the idea of site visits to other on -campus stadium communities.
Mayor Pro Tem Horak discussed his experience with Dr. Frank and members of his administration.
Mayor Weitkunat stated the fact that CSU and the City are having communications is positive.
CONSENT CALENDAR
1. Consideration and Approval of the Minutes of the January 7, 2014 Regular Council Meeting and the
January 14, 2014 Adjourned Council Meeting.
The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the January 7, 2014 Regular Council Meeting and
the January 14, 2014 Adjourned Council Meeting.
2. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 010, 2014, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the General Fund
for the Exterior Preservation and Reconstruction of the Avery Building at the Intersection of College and
Mountain Avenues.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on January 21, 2014, appropriates unanticipated
revenues in the amount of $19,839, received in excess of previously appropriated funds, for the Avery
Building Restoration project.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on January 21, 2014, appropriates grant funds in
the amount of $32,000 received from the Eighth Judicial District Victim Assistance and Law Enforcement
Board to help fund services provided by the Victim Services Unit of Fort Collins Police Services for victim
advocacy services under the Colorado Victim Rights Amendment for victims of crime and their family
members.
35
February 4, 2014
4. Items Relating to Bobcat Ridge Natural Area.
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 012, 2014, Authorizing the City Manager to Enter into a Grant
Contract with History Colorado, the Colorado Historical Society for Funds to Restore Two Historic
Structures at Bobcat Ridge Natural Area.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 013, 2014, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the Natural
Areas Fund Project to Restore Two Historic Structures at Bobcat Ridge Natural Area.
These Ordinances, unanimously adopted on First Reading on January 21, 2014, approve a grant contract
with History Colorado and appropriate unanticipated revenue in the Natural Areas Fund for historic
building restoration. The State of Colorado awarded the City a grant of $141,877 from the State Historical
Fund to fund 71% of the estimated cost of $199,827 to restore two historic structures at Bobcat Ridge
Natural Area: the Poultry Shed and the Equipment Shed. The City also received a $43,000 grant from the
Pulliam Charitable Trust to provide most of the 29% in funds necessary to match the State funding. Natural
Areas fund monies will be used to fund the remaining $14,950 necessary for the project. Information
requested at First Reading regarding the use of Natural Areas Funds for historic preservation has been
provided.
5. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 014, 2014, Waiving Certain Fees for Fort Collins Housing Authority's
Redtail Ponds Permanent Supportive Housing Project and Appropriating General Fund Reserves to Pay
Specified Fees.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on January 21, 2014, authorizes certain
development and capital improvement expansion fee waivers to be provided to the Fort Collins Housing
Authority (FCHA) for the Redtail Ponds permanent supportive housing project. In March 2013, City
Council limited the types of projects for which the FCHA could request fee waivers and made these
waivers discretionary. Eligible projects are those constructed for homeless or disabled persons, or for
persons whose income falls at or below 30% of the adjusted median income of all City residents. FCHA is
requesting fee waivers in the amount of $274,199 for this housing project. This is a permissible type of
project for a fee waiver request.
Changes to the Ordinance on Second Reading are to fix an error in Section 3 that referred to the funds
being appropriated rather than the fees being waived, and to clarify that the appropriated funds are to
replace the waived Capital Improvement Expansion Fees. Additional information about the ownership
structure of Redtail Ponds was requested at First Reading and has been provided.
6. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 016, 2014, Authorizing the Conveyance of a Temporary Construction
Easement and Right -of -Way on Long View Farm Open Space to the Colorado Department of
Transportation.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on January 21, 2014, conveys a right-of-way and
temporary construction easement to the Colorado Department of Transportation. The Colorado Department
of Transportation has requested to acquire in fee approximately 0.07 acres of right-of-way along with a
temporary construction easement on Long View Farm Open Space, as part of the Hwy 392/US 287
Intersection project. The easement and right-of-way acquisition is needed to replace an existing stormwater
36
February 4, 2014
pipe with a large box culvert. The project will impact a small section of a low value wetland on the
property that will be mitigated through the Natural Areas wetland mitigation fund.
On January 23, 2014, the Latimer County Open Lands Advisory Board voted unanimously to approve this
easement. At its December 11, 2013, regular meeting the Land Conservation and Stewardship Board
unanimously voted to recommend adoption of the ordinance.
7. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 017, 2014, Amending Chapter 26, Section 26-712, of the City Code
Relating to Utility Manual Meter Reading Charges.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on January 21, 2014, amends City Code
concerning monthly billing charges for a site visit to obtain metering data for water and/or electric
service consumption for monthly billing of utility services. The existing descriptor in the table of
utility bill and account charges in Section 26-712 of City Code mistakenly references mechanical
electric meters which have not been purchased by Light & Power since 2009. The use of this
descriptor has created unnecessary confusion about the intent of this provision. The recommended
change is to provide greater clarity.
8. Items Relating to the Adoption of the 2012 International Codes.
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 018, 2014, Amending Chapter 5, Article 11, Division 2, of the City
Code for the Purpose of Repealing the 2009 International Building Code (IBC) and Adopting the 2012
International Building Code, with Amendments.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 019, 2014, Amending Chapter 5, Article 11, Division 2, of the City
Code for the Purpose of Repealing the 2009 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) and
Adopting the 2012 International Energy Conservation Code, with Amendments.
C. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 020, 2014, Amending Chapter 5, Article 11, Division 2, of the City
Code for the Purpose of Repealing the 2009 International Residential Code (IRC) and Adopting the
2012 International Residential Code, with Amendments.
D. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 021, 2014, Amending Chapter 5, Article IV of the City Code for the
Purpose of Repealing the 2009 International Mechanical Code (IMC), and adopting the 2012
International Mechanical Code, with Amendments.
E. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 022, 2014, Amending Chapter 5, Article IV of the City Code for the
Purpose Repealing the 2009 International Fuel Gas Code (IFGC), and Adopting the 2012 International
Fuel Gas Code, with Amendments.
These Ordinances, unanimously adopted on First Reading on January 21, 2014, adopt the 2012 International
Codes (I -Codes). The 2012 I -Codes represent the most up-to-date construction standards establishing
minimum requirements to safeguard the public health, safety, and general welfare from hazards attributed to
the built environment within the City of Fort Collins.
37
February 4, 2014
Ordinance Nos. 018, 2014 (IBC) and 019, 2014 (IECC) have been amended to include a reference the
International Green Construction Code among the referenced standards listed. Ordinance No. 020, 2014,
International Residential Code, has been revised on Second Reading to correct Code section numbering of
Item numbers (64) and (65) that were incorrectly labeled (see.page 21 of Ordinance). Section R313.2 (page
14 of the Ordinance) has been revised to delete single-family dwellings from the fire -sprinkler requirement,
which were not intended to be sprinkled.
9. First Reading of Ordinance No. 023, 2014 Vacating a Portion of the Fossil Boulevard Right -of -Way as
Dedicated on the Plat of Redtail.
The purpose of this item is to vacate a portion of the Fossil Boulevard right-of-way that is no longer
necessary or desirable to retain for public street purposes. The property owner adjacent to this portion of
right-of-way is requesting the vacation. This location will be the future site of the Redtail Ponds Permanent
Supportive Housing project (Redtail Second Filing) which was approved at the Planning and Zoning Board
Public Hearing,on November 21, 2013.
10. Resolution 2014-010 Authorizing the Initiation of Exclusion Proceedings of Annexed Pronerties Within the
Territory of the Poudre Valley Fire Protection District.
The purpose of this item is to authorize the City Attorney to file a petition in Larimer County District Court
to exclude properties annexed into the City in 2013 from the Poudre Valley Fire Protection District (the
"District") in accordance with state law. The properties will continue to receive fire protection services
from the Poudre Fire Authority.
***END CONSENT***
Mayor Pro Tem Horak withdrew Item No. 7, Second Reading of Ordinance No. 017, 2014, Amending Chapter
26, Section 26-712, of the City Code Relating to Utility Manual Meter Reading Charges, from the Consent
Calendar.
Mayor Pro Tern Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Troxell, to adopt all items not withdrawn
from the Consent Calendar. Yeas: Poppaw, Horak, Weitkunat, Troxell, Campana, Conniff and Overbeck.
Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Staff Reports
City Attorney Roy provided an update on the lawsuit filed by the Colorado Oil and Gas Association against the
City challenging the validity of ballot measure 2A, which imposed a five year moratorium on hydraulic
fracturing and the storage of its waste in the City. He stated the Court has issued a case management order.
M
February 4, 2014
Councilmember Reports
Mayor Pro Tent Horak reported on Chief Hutto's public meeting regarding body -worn cameras. He also
reported on the unsheltered population point in time count completed by Homeward 2020.
Councilmember Troxell reported on the Legislative Review Committee meeting.
Councilmember Campana reported on the Let's Move campaign and stated the City is currently undergoing the
registration process.
Mayor Weitkunat reported on the Presidential Task Force and stated she is a co-chair of the Disaster Recovery
and Resilience subgroup.
Ordinance No. 017, 2014,
Amending Chapter 26, Section 26-712, of the City Code Relating to
Utility Manual Meter Reading Charges, Adopted on Second Reading
The following is the staff memorandum for this item.
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on January 21, 2014, amends City Code
concerning monthly billing charges for a site visit to obtain metering data for water and/or electric
service consumption for monthly billing of utility services. The existing descriptor in the table of utility
bill and account charges in Section 26-712 of City Code mistakenly references mechanical electric
meters which have not been purchased by Light & Power since 2009. The use of this descriptor has
created unnecessary confusion about the intent of this provision. The recommended change is to provide
greater clarity. "
Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, stated bad decisions are made when inaccurate information is presented.
.He suggested better options than Smart Meters could have been put in place to achieve the City's goals.
Councilmember Troxell made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Campana, to adopt Ordinance No. 017,
2014, on Second Reading.
Councilmember Troxell noted this item allows for manual meter reading.
The vote on the motion was as follows:
Overbeck. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Yeas: Poppaw, Horak, Weitkunat, Troxell, Campana, Conniff and
39
February 4, 2014
Ordinance No. 015, 2014,
Authorizing the Acquisition by Eminent Domain Proceedings of Certain Land Necessary for the
Construction of the West Vine Basin Outfall Project, Adopted on Second Reading
The following is the staff memorandum for this item.
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Ordinance, adopted on First Reading by a vote of 6-0 (Campana recused) authorizes the use of eminent
domain to acquire property interests.for the West Vine Basin Outfall project. In assembling property interests
for the West Vine Basin Outfall Project, the City has encountered two properties with complicated lending
situations. Due to the degree of complication and the properties' keystone importance, staff proposes the use of
eminent domain as the most cost effective and efficient approach to complete the City' s desired acquisition of
12.841 acres if all the necessary lender consents cannot be obtained in a timely way. The City has been working
with the landowners and they are agreeable to this approach. "
Councilmember Campana withdrew from the discussion of this item due to a conflict of interest.
Mayor Pro Tern Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Troxell, to adopt Ordinance No. 015,
2014, on Second Reading.
Councilmember Conniff stated this is an unusual situation in that the property owners are willing recipients of
potential eminent domain action. He asked who would be negatively impacted by the use of eminent domain in
this case. Helen Matson, Real Estate Services; replied the banks would need to declare their interest in court.
Tawyna Ernst, Real Estate specialist, stated this is a last resort action and the intent is to move forward without
eminent domain; this action would occur if the last bank is unwilling to sign off on approvals.
Councilmember Overbeck requested information regarding the reference to eminent domain as being a
convenience and timely. Matt Fater, Project Manager, replied the concern is related to a construction deadline
due to irrigation season and spring runoff.
Mayor Pro Tern Horak noted this item does not mean eminent domain will necessarily occur.
Councilmember Conniff stated he would not support the motion despite the fact this is a usual proceeding.
Mayor Pro Tem Horak stated this action could be used to get the one remaining lender to respond.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Weitkunat, Troxell, Poppaw and Horak. Nays: Conniff and
Overbeck.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
(Secretary's note: The Council took a brief recess at this point in the meeting.)
ELI
February 4, 2014
Consideration of the Appeal of the Administrative Hearing Officer Decision
to Approve the Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment,
Administrative Hearing Officer Decision Overturned
The following is the staff memorandum for this item.
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On December 31, 2013 an appeal was filed concerning the Administrative Hearing Officers decision regarding
a proposed Major Amendment to the building elevations and building footprint for Lot 2 of the Stoner
Subdivision, 1017 West Magnolia Street.
The Appeal asserts that the Hearing Officer failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the
Land use Code, specifically:
1. Article 3, Section 3.5.1 - Building and Project Compatibility
2. Article 4, Neighborhood Conservation, Low Density District (N-C-L), Section 4.7(A) - Purpose.
BACKGROUND /DISCUSSION
The Stoner Subdivision was originally approved through a Type 1 public hearing held May 30, 2013, to
subdivide an existing single --family residence into two new lots, creating a new lot in the rear portion of the
existing lot. The new lot is known as "Lot 2" and is east of the existing single-family residence. The existing
single-family residence remains on a portion of the original lot, which is renamed `Lot L". The two lots are
located at the southeast corner of Wayne Street and West Magnolia Street in the Neighborhood Conservation,
Low -Density Zone District (N-C-L).
Building elevations and a building footprint were approved for Lot 2 as part of the original Stoner Subdivision
approval. The Major Amendment proposes amended building footprint and building elevations for the approved
single-family detached dwelling on Lot 2.
ASSERSIONS OF APPEAL
The Appellant asserts that the Hearing Officerfailed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the
Land Use Code.
The Appellant states:
"The appellants agree with the Staff Report that the project fails to comply with Article 3 Section
3.5.1 Building and Project Compatibility and Article 4, Section 4.7(A) Purpose because the design of
the home is incompatible in mass, bulk, and scale with homes in the surrounding area. The basis for
the City staffs conclusion is that the design contains a significant amount of competing building
forms, causing the overall bulk and massing to be inconsistent with the character of nearby homes.
Pursuant to Section 3.5.1(B), architectural compatibility 'shall be derived from the neighboring
41
February 4, 2014
context.' The appellants agree that the architecture of the homes in the surrounding area varies
greatly, but believe there is a predominant architectural feature or characteristic that is shared
amongst the homes in the surrounding neighborhoods. "
"The photographs presented by both the applicant and the City staff provide visual evidence that the
predominant feature of homes in the neighborhood is simple, geometric roof lines that are triangular
or rectangular and limited in number. Where there are multiple roof lines, they are typically smaller
than the dominant roof and the dormers are small in scale and limited in number. Overall, the
neighborhood's predominant architectural style is of a simpler form/shape with minimal extra
appurtenances (rooms, balconies, large dormers) sticking out. "
"The staff, Meg Dunn and Michelle Haefele testified at.the hearing that the proposed building is
incompatible to the neighborhood context because the neighboring (rouses have simple geometric
shaped roof lines with several triangular, sloped roofs and a simpler, basically rectangular or
square building form. A review of the following photos included in the presentations by the applicant
and City staff show the contrast between the neighborhoods' simpler, rooflines and geometric
housing shapes and the proposed building. The visual effect of the proposed projects architectural
style with its multiple massive dormers and large, popped out roorns on the top of the building is that
it appears asymmetrical, significantly larger in bulk, mass and scale, and out of character with the
predominant architecture of the neighboring homes. "
"Additionally, the appellants support the Staff Report when it states that another predominant
characteristic of the architecture of the surrounding area is second storyfloor area contained within
the roof line. The staff, and applicant alike, both provided photographic evidence that the common
architectural feature of the neighborhood's diverse housing styles is that the second storyfloor area
is basically contained within the roof line. The photographic evidence clearly supports this
conclusion. The proposed project is not compatible with the dominant character of nearby homes
because the three large dormered rooms and balcony on the second floor are not contained within
the roof line but appear as a large, asymmetrical, unplanned add-ons to an existing structure. "
"Finally, the appellants also disagree with the hearing officer's interpretation of Section 3.5.1(B)
when she decided that the existing architectural character is not clearly defined. The photos of
houses in the area presented by both the applicant and staff showed that the common, simple sloped
roof lines with second story floor area contained within the roof line are established architectural
characteristics of this neighborhood The project just doesn't meet this established common
architectural feature. In fact, the Hearing Officer personally agreed with the City that the style of the
home proposed in the MJA is `too busy, with too many competing building forms and roof lines,'
providing additional evidence that the proposed building is not in context with the character of
neighboring houses. The photos show that where there are additional dormers or roofs, they are
smaller, secondary and minimal in number. ''
Tire appellant provides photographic illustrations with the Notice of Appeal, stating that:
"Following are photos of neighborhood houses that clearly illustrate the commonality of the roof
designs, slopes, and simple geometry building forms that are predominant in this neighborhood and
42
February 4, 2014
provide common architectural features. All photos are taken from the applicant's. Powerpoint
presentation and are highlighted to emphasize the second story architectural features that face the
street. The proposed house is also shown with similar highlighting. "
HEARING OFFICER FINDINGS AND DECISION
1. The Hearing Officer's Findings,for the Major Amendment are located on page 2, 3, and 4 of the Hearing
Officer's decision letter. For the Appellant's assertion regarding Land Use Code Section 3.5.1 —'Building
and Project Compatibility, the Hearing Officer states on page 2 of the Findings and Decision:
"The Staff Report contends that the MJA fails to comply with Section 3.5.1, Building and Project
Compatibility, because the design of the home is incompatible in mass, bulk, and scale with homes in
the surrounding area. The basis for the City's conclusion is that the design contains a significant
amount of competing building forms, causing the overall bulk and massing to be inconsistent with
the character of nearby homes., Pursuant to Section 3.5.1(B), architectural compatibility "shall be
derived from the neighboring context. " At the hearing, both the applicant and the City presented
photographs and testimony that the architecture of the homes in the surrounding area varies greatly.
The photographs presented at the hearing show one-story homes, two-story homes, split-level
homes, modern homes, traditional homes, homes with one primary roof element, homes with more
than one primary roof element, bungalows, cottages, mid-century ranch homes, Colonial homes,
Craftsman -style homes and Tudor -style homes. The Staff Report states that the predominant
characteristic of the architecture of the surrounding area is second storyfloor area contained within
the roof line. However, the evidence presented diming the hearing by both the applicant and the City
simply does not support this conclusion. Pursuant to Section 3.5.1(B): "In areas where the existing
architectural character is not definitively established ... the architecture of new development shall
set all enhanced standard of qualityfor fiaure projects or redevelopment in the area. " The Hearing
Officer funds that the existing architectural character in this area is not clearly defined.
Unfortunately, the phrase "enhanced standard of quality" is undefined, ambiguous and impossible to
apply. While the Hearing Of personally agrees with the City that the style of the home proposed
in the MJA is too busy, with too many competing building forms and roof lines, that personal
opinion does not render the MJA noncompliant with Section 3.5.1. The majority of the, public
comments at the. hearing, including those from adjacent property owners, supported the
architectural style of the home, and there is nothing in the record to indicate that the quality of the
home is suspect. As such, the Hearing Officer funds that the MJA complies with Section 3.5.1. "
2. For the Appellant's assertion regarding Land Use Code Section 4.7(A) — Purpose for the Neighborhood
Conservation, Low Density District (N-C-L), the Hearing Officer states on page 3 of. the Findings and
Decision:
"The Staff Report contends that the MJA fails to comply with Section 4.7(A), Purpose, because
elements of the building design are not arranged to control the height, scale, mass and bulk in a way
that is compatible with architecture in the surrounding area, resulting in incompatible design which
does not preserve the character of developed single family dwellings in the N-C-L district. As
discussed above, however, both the applicant and the City presented testimony and photographs
demonstrating that the architecture of the surrounding area varies greatly. It was undisputed at the
43
February 4, 2014
hearing that the MJA proposes a single-family dwelling in compliance with all applicable size and
height restrictions for the N-C-L district. In light of the variety in architecture, mass and height of
homes in the surrounding area, it would be impossible for the Hearing Officer to determine that the
proposed architecture of the home proposed in the MJA is incompatible with the surrounding area.
As such, the Hearing Officer finds that the MJA complies with .Section 4.7(A). "
SUMMARY
Building plans for Lot 2 are the subject of this appeal. Building elevations and a building footprint were
approved for Lot 2 as part of the original Stoner Subdivision approval. The Major Amendment proposes
amended building footprint and building elevations. The Hearing Officer issued a written decision on
December 17, 2013 to approve the proposed Major Amendment.
On December 31, 2013, an Appeal to the Hearing Officer's Decision was submitted, asserting that the Hearing
Of failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Land use Code, specifically:
1. Article 3, Section 3.5.1 — Building and Project Compatibility
2. Article 4, Neighborhood Conservation, Low Density District (N-C-L), Section 4.7(A) — Purpose.
City Attorney Roy reviewed the process for the hearing of appeals by City Council. He stated Council can
uphold, overturn, or modify the decision of the hearing officer and detailed the circumstances under which the
item could be remanded.
Cameron Gloss, Planning Manager, discussed the site, located at the comer of Wayne and Magnolia Streets. He
stated the original application was approved by the Hearing Officer in May with footprints and plans of
representative architecture. In the fall, an amended plan was received, which included a larger building
footprint and revised architecture. Staff concluded this amendment could be considered a change in character,
which is the threshold for a minor amendment to become a major amendment; therefore requiring the plan to go
before the original decision maker, the Hearing Officer in this case. • Gloss stated the Major Amendment was
approved by the Hearing Officer and the appeal of that decision relates to two specific items: Land Use Code
Section 3.5.1, relating to building and project compatibility, and the purpose, statement of the NCL Zone. He
reviewed the assertions of the appeal and summarized the findings of the Hearing Officer. Gloss went on to
respond to Councilmember Campana's request for contextual information regarding the history and age of
nearby homes.
Mayor Weitkunat asked Councilmembers to explain any observations made or conversations held at the site
visit which may be relevant to their determination on the appeal.
Councilmember Cunniff stated he had a discussion with staff regarding the layout of the property and observed
the surrounding neighborhood.
Councilmember Campana stated he tried to evaluate the surrounding homes for common architectural details
and came to the conclusion the area is quite varied in terms of architecture, lot size, and home size to lot size
ratios.
M
Fehrtuiry 4, 1014
Councilmember Overbeck stated he looked at the character of the neighborhood.
Mayor Pro Tern Horak stated he was present at the site visit.
Mayor Weitkunat stated she examined the site and the,character of the neighborhood.
APPELLANT PRESENTATION
Michelle Haefele, Protect Our Old Town Homes, discussed the original lot subdivision and original home plans.
She stated this project does not meet the purpose of the Neighborhood Conservation Low Density zone district,
which is to preserve the character of the existing neighborhood. She stated this project is not compatible with
the neighborhood due to its architectural incompatibility and noted staff agreed in its staff report for the Hearing
Officer.
Meg Dunn, Protect Our Old Town Homes, showed slides of homes in the neighborhood and described the
simplicity of their architecture. She stated the architecture of the proposed home is too complex to be
compatible with the neighborhood.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Steve Whittall, By Design Homes, stated the NCL zone is quite diverse and stated the proposed plan fits well
within the zone.
Berin Wachsmann stated he was the original applicant for the lot subdivision and noted a single -story home was
never proposed, despite the fact a letter went out from the City indicating a single -story home was proposed.
He discussed the fact the original drawings were submitted as prototypes only and were never approved as what
would be built. He discussed the variety in Old Town and the fact the proposed home was designed specifically
for the lot. Additionally, he noted there are no adjacent neighbors in opposition to the project and two adjacent
neighbors have submitted letters.of support.
Laura Olive, 1500 Quail Hollow, discussed the site and stated the proposed home was designed specifically for
the lot.
Aubrey Carson, architect, showed slides of the proposed home and discussed its architectural details. He
argued the home is compatible in its style, character, mass and bulk.
Greg Obermann, property owner, stated character is not uniformity and discussed his reasons for desiring the
proposed home.
Councilmember Campana stated one of the individuals who spoke has real estate listings with him and stated he
would recuse himself from the discussion should the appellants desire.
City Attorney Roy recommended all parties be given an opportunity to speak to the issue. He stated this is not
likely a conflict of interest given the Councilmember would need to be the recipient of a substantial benefit or
45
February 4, 2014
detriment differing from that of the general public. However, the parties need to be assured a fair hearing and
his relationship to one of the parties -in -interest may create a bias.
Ms. Dunn stated she is fine with Councilmember Campana's participation.'
Gina Jannett, appellant, requested Councilmember Campana's recusal.
Councilmember Campana noted he was unaware of the fact the party -in -interest was going to be speaking but
stated he would recuse himself from the remainder of,the deliberations.
APPELLANT REBUTTAL
Ms. Dunn agreed the neighborhood is diverse but noted there are some similarities in architecture. She
discussed the distinct context of the immediate area.
Ms. Haefele stated the original application submitted to the City in February 2013 indicated a one-story house
would be built. She also stated the.lot subdivision approval was based on the fact the submitted prototype
drawing was found to be compatible by the Hearing Officer.
Ms. Dunn stated the appellants are not requesting that no home be built; they are requesting the home be
compatible with the context of the neighborhood.
APPLICANT REBUTTAL
Sean Dougherty, 1344 Catalpa, noted the Hearing Officer found the proposed design does not violate the Land
Use Code.
Mr. Whittall stated this design is the culmination of a long and thoughtful process and noted eight people,
including the adjacent neighbors, spoke in favor of this design at the Major Amendment hearing. He stated
denying this project will lead to uncertainty in the process and will undermine the confidence of the building
community. He requested the decision of the Hearing Officer be upheld.
Mayor Weitkunat noted the purpose statements of zone districts are general and are not regulatory in nature.
Councilmember Cunniff requested information regarding the staff statements that the project complies with the
City's process and that it does not comply with the applicable requirements of the Land Use Code.
Jason Holland, Project Planner, replied staff was referencing Land Use Code Section 3.5.1, which states
"architectural compatibility shall be derived from the neighboring context, that some elements affecting
compatibility include height, scale, mass and bulk of structures, and that compatibility shall be achieved through
techniques such as repetition of roof lines and the use of similar proportions in building mass and outdoor
spaces". Staff made the finding that the proposed architecture is not consistent with the neighborhood when
looking at this Code section.
k7
February 4, 2014
Councilmember Troxell asked how much of Old Town is zoned NCL. Holland provided a zoning map of the
area and stated there is a large portion of NCL zoning surrounding the project site.
Mayor Weitkunat asked if the zone district is referenced when considering compatibility. Gloss replied the
zone district is examined broadly; however, the immediate context is examined specifically.
Mayor Pro Tern Horak requested clarification regarding statements made by Holland at the Major Amendment
hearing. Holland replied the Land Use Code indicates compatibility shall be achieved through certain
techniques, including repetition of roof lines and the use of similar proportions in building mass and outdoor
spaces. He also noted the definition of compatibility in the Land Use Code speaks to the fact that architectural
compatibility shall be derived from the neighboring context and that some elements affecting compatibility
include height, scale, mass and bulk of surrounding structures, and that compatibility refers to the sensitivity of
development proposals maintaining the character of the existing development.
Mayor Pro Tern Horak asked how the determination was reached, given the statement by the Hearing Officer
regarding subjectivity. Holland replied it is a fair assessment that Section 3.5.1 is subjective, which is why staff
completed the detailed analysis of the character of homes on the block and in the neighborhood. That analysis
found varying architectural styles; however, the common theme is simple roof forms.
Mayor Pro Tern Horak asked how the common theme was derived. Holland replied the examination of all the
homes indicated the common theme of repetition of roof lines and similar proportions in building forms.
Mayor Pro Tern Horak asked if this technique is used on similar projects throughout the City. Gloss replied in
the affirmative.
Mayor Pro Tern Horak asked if examples exist of staff recommending approval and denial based on that
standard. Gloss replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Troxell noted the proposed plan depicts elements that break up massing in order to
accommodate one of the main intentions of the Eastside/Westside Plan. He requested an explanation of why
this project is at odds with the Eastside/Westside Plan. Gloss replied this application is not subject to the
Eastside/Westside design standards as the application was submitted prior to the adoption of those standards.
However, he stated the Neighborhood Character Design Guidelines for the East and Westside Neighborhoods
were examined in order to provide some guidance as one element of the analysis.
Councilmember Troxell stated the proposed project has a great deal of design detail. Gloss replied the "pattern
book" project is on the work plan; however, other projects are a higher priority at this point.
Councilmember Troxell asked if the proposed project has too much design detail. Gloss replied the design
detail was not the major thrust of staffs position on the project; it was based on the bulk, mass and scale of the
building. The architectural renderings are not compliant with Section 3.5.1 based on the massing of the home in
that it has more mass, particularly relative to the lot size, than surrounding properties.
Councilmember Cunniff asked how staff interprets "immediate area of the proposed infill development." Gloss
replied the block face was considered to be the most immediate context.
47
February 4, 2014
Mayor Weitkunat asked.if the primary incompatibility issue is related to the bulk of the second story. Gloss
replied in the affirmative and stated the complexity of the roof forms and the relative size of those forms to the
main primary roof form are at issue.
Mayor Weitkunat asked if it is basically a design issue. Gloss replied in the affirmative
Mayor Pro Tem Horak made a motion, seconded by Comicilmember Cunniff, to overturn the decision of the
Hearing Officer because the Hearing Officer failed to properly interpret and apply Land Use Code Section
3.1(b) and 4.7(a).
Mayor Pro Tem Horak stated he is satisfied with staffs analysis^and agreed the proposed design is not
compatible with the neighborhood.
Councilmember Troxell stated he would not support the motion as the applicant attempted to comply with the
intent of the Eastside/Westside Plan in its design features. He stated the City is at fault for not providing design
standards for the area and the proposed project meets the enhanced and approved criteria for Old Town.
Councilmember Cunniff agreed with Mayor Pro Tem Horak and staffs assessment of the project.
Mayor Weitkunat stated she would support the motion given the dominance of the second story; however, she
stated she is in favor of the design in general.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Cunniff, Overbeck, Poppaw, Horak and Weitkunat. Nays:
Troxell.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Other Business
Mayor Pro Tem Horak requested the status of the design "pattern books." Gloss replied the specific project is
on the Planning staff work plan; however, there are several other planning initiatives which are higher on the
priority list. He stated staff is currently working on a design manual which will touch on some aspects but will
not be as specific as what was mentioned.
Mayor Pro Tem Horak requested additional information regarding the prioritization issue.
M
February 4, 2014
Adiournment
The meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m
rvyayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk SEAL
CC