Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 07/06/2004 - CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE COUNCIL MEETING ITEM NUMBER: 7 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY DATE: July6, 2004 FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL STAFF: John Fischbach SUBJECT Consideration and approval of the Council meeting minutes of June 1, 2004. June 1, 2004 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, June 1, 2004, 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: Bertschy, Hamrick, Kastein, Martinez, Roy and Weitkunat. Councilmembers Absent: Tharp. Staff Members Present: Jones, Krajicek, Roy. Agenda Review Deputy City Manager Jones stated item #15 First Reading of Ordinance No, 083, 2004, Amending Various Sections of Chapter 4 of the City Code Pertaining to Animals would be rescheduled to a later meeting, that item#16 First Reading of Ordinance No. 090, 2004, Amending Section 2-29 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins Relating to Special Meetings included a revised version of the Ordinance and that item#27 Second Reading of Ordinance No. 075, 2004, Amending Article III of Chapter 20 of the City Code Pertaining to the Outdoor Storage of Materials included a revised version of the Ordinance. CONSENT CALENDAR 7. Consideration and approval of the Council meeting minutes of April 6, 2004. 8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 057, 2004, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code to Reflect the Adoption of Updated Master Drainage Plans And to Revise the Official Repository of Plan Documents. This Ordinance, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on April 6, 2004, modifies City Code Section 26-543(b),in order to adopt updated drainage master plans. The Ordinance also provides that the drainage master plans and updates to those plans will be maintained on file in the office of the Utilities,rather than the office of the City Clerk. This change was made to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the use and maintenance of those records. 316 June 1, 2004 9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 080, 2004, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the General Fund for Cultural Development and Programming Activities and for Tourism Capital. This Ordinance, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on May 18, 2004, accomplishes two tasks. First, lodging tax revenues that were in excess of 2003 budgeted lodging tax receipts are appropriated to the Convention and Visitors Bureau ("CVB"), Cultural Development and Programming("CDP"),Visitor Events,and Tourism Capital fund accounts. In addition, it appropriates unexpended funds for CDP and Visitor Events for 2003. 10. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 081,2004, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the General Fund to be Returned to the Fort Collins Housing Authority to Fund Affordable Housing Related Activities. The Fort Collins Housing Authority("Authority")made a payment to the City from its 2004 budget for the sum of $10,682 as a "Payment in Lieu of Taxes" ("PILOT") for public services and facilities. The Authority annually requests that the City refund the money to fund sorely needed affordable housing related activities and to attend to the low-income housing needs of Fort Collins residents. Ordinance No.081,2004,was unanimously adopted on First Reading on May 18, 2004. 11. Second Reading of Ordinance No.082,2004,Authorizing the Long-Term Lease of Property at the Fort Collins-Loveland Municipal Airport to Russ Kamtz for the Construction of an Aircraft Hangar. This Ordinance, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on May 18, 2004, authorizes the long-term lease of property for the purpose of constructing a 60 foot by 64 foot hangar for Mr. Katz's personal aircraft storage. The land lease includes additional land around the hangar for use by the tenant. 12. Items Related to the City's Fiscal Year 2004-2005 Community Development Block Grant and HOME Investment Partnership Program Funds. A. Second Reading of Ordinance No.084,2004,Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue and Authorizing the Transfer of Appropriations Between Program Years in the Community Development Block Grant Fund. B. Second Reading of Ordinance No.085,2004,Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the HOME Investment Partnership Fund. 317 June 1, 2004 The Community Development Block Grant (`CDBG") Program and HOME Investment Partnership Program("HOME")provide Federal funds from the Department of Housing and Urban Development("HUD")to the City of Fort Collins which can be allocated to housing and community development related programs and projects, thereby reducing the demand on the City's General Fund Budget to address such needs. The City Council is being asked to consider the adoption of two resolutions related to funding under the CDBG and HOME Programs. Ordinance No. 084, 2004 and Ordinance No. 085, 2004, were unanimously adopted on First Reading on May 18, 2004. 13. Items Relating to a Citizen-Initiated Ordinance Relatine to Collective Bar ag ining for Police Employees. A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 087, 2004, Calling a Special Municipal Election to be held in Conjunction with the August 10, 2004 Latimer County Primary Election. B. Resolution 2004-066 Submitting a Citizen-initiated Ordinance to a Vote of the Registered Electors of the City at the Special Municipal Election of August 10,2004. The City Clerk's Office received an initiative petition on April 29, 2004, which was determined to contain a sufficient number of signatures to place the initiated measure on a special election ballot. Ordinance No. 087,2004,which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on May 18, 2004,calls a Special Municipal Election to be held in conjunction with the August 10, 2004 Larimer County Primary Election. The City Clerk certified the sufficiency of the initiative petition to Council on May 18,2004. Generally,upon presentation of an initiative petition certified as sufficient by the City Clerk, the Council must either adopted the proposed ordinance without alteration or submit the proposed measure, in the form petitioned for, to the registered electors of the city. Resolution 2004-066 submits the citizen-initiated ordinance to the voters at the August 10, 2004 Special Election,and sets the ballot title and submission clause. Any registered elector desiring to protest the proposed ballot title and/or submission clause pursuant to Section 7- 156 of the City Code,may do so by filing a written protest in the office of the City Clerk no later than 12:00 p.m. (noon) on Tuesday, June 1, 2004. 14. Items Related to the Issuance of City of Fort Collins Downtown Development Authority Subordinate Tax Increment Revenue Bonds, Series 2004A. A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 088, 2004, Authorizing the Issuance of City of Fort Collins Downtown Development Authority Subordinate Tax Increment Revenue 318 June 1, 2004 Bonds Series 2004A in the Amount of $6,235,000 for the Purpose of Financing Certain Capital Improvements and Capital Projects. B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 089, 2004, Appropriating the Proceeds of the Subordinate Tax Increment Revenue Bonds in the DDA Operating Fund. The City of Fort Collins created the Downtown Development Authority (DDA)to make desired improvements in the downtown area. Through tax increment financing, the DDA has made significant contributions to the redevelopment and improvement of the downtown area. These two Ordinances,which were unanimously adopted on First Reading on May 18, 2004, provide funding from future tax increment in the DDA Debt Service Fund to make additional improvements in the downtown area. 15. First Reading of Ordinance No. 083 2004 Amending Various Sections of Chapter 4 of the City Code Pertaining to Animals. Staff has performed a comprehensive review of Chapter 4 of the City Code pertaining to animals in an effort refine and update the animal code. This process began in early 2002 and has culminated in the proposed amendments in the Ordinance. 16. First Reading of Ordinance No. 090, 2004,Amending Section 2-29 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins Relating to Special Meetings. This Ordinance amends Section 2-29 of the City Code relating to the calling of special meetings and the notice requirements for said meetings. Specifically,the amendments allow delivery of notice of a special meeting to the Council by mail, fax, or e-mail, in addition to personal delivery. In addition, if delivery is made in some manner other than in person,the City Clerk is required to request acknowledgment of receipt by each Councilmember, and if such acknowledgment is not received at least 48 hours prior to the meeting, the Clerk is required to deliver another notice in person. 17. Resolution 2004-067 Finding Substantial Compliance and Initiating Annexation Proceedings for the Mulberry East First Annexation. This is a voluntary annexation.The area to be annexed is unincorporated municipally-owned land. 18. Resolution 2004-068 Approving the Design Cost and Scheduling of the East Prospect Road Improvements Project. 319 June 1, 2004 The East Prospect Road Improvements Project is part of the voter-approved "Building Community Choices Program" (BCC) funding package. The main goals of the project are to improve safety for all modes of transportation along East Prospect Road from the Poudre River to Summit View Drive. The project elements identified by the approved ballot language include widening East Prospect Road to provide two travel lanes, bicycle lanes, turn lanes, a sidewalk, raising the roadway section to protect it from major floods, and to provide an additional bridge east of the Poudre River to pass 100 year flood flows. 19. Resolution 2004-069 Authorizing the Lease of City-Owned Property at 200 West Mountain Avenue, Suite C. With support from the City of Fort Collins,Colorado State University,and Fort Collins Inc., the Fort Collins Virtual Business Incubator was created in 1998. The program was charged with providing critical business assistance to the most promising high tech startup companies in the community. To date the Incubator has assisted 15 companies. In the aggregate these firms have created 65 full time jobs with an average annual salary of$70,420 and they have raised in excess of$32 million in equity capital. The "bottom line" of this program is the creation of good paying jobs from within the community. The program achieves its success through services such as entrepreneurial advisory boards, discounted professional service providers, access to a multitude of CSU resources, internal resource sharing, counseling, training and networking. In concert with the High Tech Network, the Fort Collins Business Incubator would like to bring the current level of service to their client companies up significantly by offering below market lease space. An "Incubator with Walls"program would not only help to mitigate the very tight cash flow situation encountered by most startups, but it would also provide a synergistic, collaborative environment in which the talented young companies could thrive. 20. Resolution 2004-070 Making Various Board and Commission Appointments A vacancy currently exist on the Community Development Block Grant Commission due to the resignation of Bruce Croissant. Applications were solicited and Councilmembers Bertschy and Tharp reviewed the applications. The Council interview team is recommending Eric Berglund to fill said vacancy with a term to begin immediately and set to expire December 31, 2007. A vacancy currently exists on the Electric Board due to the resignation of Jassen Bowman. Councilmembers Martinez and Kastein reviewed the applications on file and are recommending John Morris to fill said vacancy with a term to begin immediately and set to expire on December 31, 2006. 320 June 1, 2004 A vacancy currently exists on the Natural Resources Advisory Board. Due to residency requirements to live within the Growth Management Area, Arvind Panjabi resigned his position. Councilmembers Hamrick and Roy interviewed applicants and reviewed applications on file. The Council interview team is recommending Robert Petterson to fill said vacancy with a term to begin immediately and set to expire on December 31, 2007. 21. Routine Easements. A. Easement for Construction and MaintenanceofPublicUtilities from Allen and Lynne Dunton, to underground electrical service, located at 1406 Ash Drive. Monetary consideration: $200. B. Easement for Construction and Maintenance of Public Utilities from Mark and Jane Johnson, to underground electrical service, located at 1200 Ash Drive. Monetary consideration: $200. C. Easement for Construction and Maintenance of Public Utilities from George and Darlene Vorce,to underground electrical service, located at 1120 Ponderosa Drive. Monetary consideration: $200. ***END CONSENT*** Ordinances on Second Reading were read by title by City Clerk Krajicek. 8. Second Reading of Ordinance No 057 2004 Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code to Reflect the Adoption of Updated Master Drainage Plans And to Revise the Official Repository of Plan Documents. 9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 080, 2004, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the General Fund for Cultural Development and Programming Activities and for Tourism Capital. 10. Second Reading of Ordinance No 081 2004 Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the General Fund to be Returned to the Fort Collins Housing Authority to Fund Affordable Housing Related Activities. 11. Second Reading of Ordinance No.082,2004,Authorizing the Long-Term Lease of Property at the Fort Collins-Loveland Municipal Airport to Russ Kamtz for the Construction of an Aircraft Hangar. 12. Items Related to the City's Fiscal Year 2004-2005 Community Development Block Grant and HOME Investment Partnership Program Funds. 321 June 1, 2004 A. Second Reading of Ordinance No.084,2004,Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue and Authorizing the Transfer of Appropriations Between Program Years in the Community Development Block Grant Fund. B. Second Reading ofOrdinance No.085,2004,Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the HOME Investment Partnership Fund. 13. Items Relating to a Citizen-Initiated Ordinance Relating to Collective Bargaining for Police Employees. ees. A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 087, 2004, Calling a Special Municipal Election to be held in Conjunction with the August 10, 2004 Larimer County Primary Election. 14. Items Related to the Issuance of City of Fort Collins Downtown Development Authority Subordinate Tax Increment Revenue Bonds, Series 2004A. A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 088, 2004, Authorizing the Issuance of City of Fort Collins Downtown Development Authority Subordinate Tax Increment Revenue Bonds Series 2004A in the Amount of$6,235,000 for the Purpose of Financing Certain Capital Improvements and Capital Projects. B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 089, 2004, Appropriating the Proceeds of the Subordinate Tax Increment Revenue Bonds in the DDA Operating Fund. 27. Second Reading of Ordinance No 075 2004 Amending Article III of Chapter20of the City Code Pertaining to the Outdoor Storage of Materials. Ordinances on First Reading were read by title by City Clerk Krajicek. 16. First Reading of Ordinance No. 090, 2004, Amending Section 2-29 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins Relating to Special Meetings. 25. First Reading of Ordinance No. 091,2004,Making Various Amendments to the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code. 26. Items Relating to the Trailhead Annexation. B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 092, 2004, Annexing Property Known as the Trailhead Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado. 322 June 1, 2004 C. First Reading of Ordinance No. 093,2004,Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the Trailhead Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado. ***END CONSENT*** Councilmember Bertschy made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kastein, to adopt and approve all items not withdrawn from the Consent Calendar. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas Councilmembers Bertschy, Hamrick, Kastein, Martinez, Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED Consent Calendar Follow-up Mayor Martinez spoke regarding item #19 Resolution 2004-069 Authorizing the Lease of City- Owned Property at 200 West Mountain Avenue, Suite C. Deputy City Manager Jones presented an explanation of the virtual business incubator and spoke regarding the benefit of job creation. Councilmember Weitkunat spoke regarding item #19 Resolution 2004-069 Authorizing the Lease of City-Owned Property at 200 West Mountain Avenue, Suite C. She stated the City's work with the virtual business incubator was a positive action with regard to the economy. Staff Reports Deputy City Manager Jones reported on bike month activities and the secure tracking website, progress on completion of North College Avenue/Riverside/Jefferson improvements, and the publication and content of the 2003 Natural Areas Report. Ordinance No. 091, 2004 Making Various Amendments to the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code, Adopted on First Reading The following is staffs memorandum on this item. "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Staff has identified a variety ofproposed changes, additions and clarifications in the Spring 2004 biannual update of the Land Use Code. On May 20, 2004, the Planning and Zoning Board considered the proposed changes and took specific action on one individual item. The Board voted 323 June 1, 2004 5-1 to recommend approval ofltem Number 545. This is the change related to adjusting the buffer distance for raptors, with the provision.for mitigation. The Board then voted 6-0 to recommend approval of the balance of the proposed changes to City Council Minutes to the Planning and Zoning Board's May 20, 2004 meeting are attached as well as the Board's Staff Report, background memo on Item Number 545 and summary reports of the 18 proposed changes. BACKGROUND The Land Use Code was first adopted in March of 1997. Subsequent revisions have been recommended on a biannual basis to make changes, additions,deletions and clarifications that have been identified in the preceding six months. The proposed changes are offered in order to resolve implementation issues and to continuously improve both the overall quality and "user-friendliness" of the Code. Attachments include a summary of the Planning and Zoning Board's action, a summary of all the issues and the draft Ordinance itself In addition,packet materials include the letters from interested parties commenting on the proposed changes to Section 3.4.1, Natural Habitats and Features. " Deputy City Manager Jones introduced the agenda item. Ted Shepard,Chief Planner,stated there were 18 items for the Land Use Code update. He stated 17 of those items were considered to be routine. He stated the Planning and Zoning Board voted 6-0 to approve those 17 items and that the other item(#545)was substantive. He stated the Board voted 5-1 on that item. He stated the Board minutes were included in the Council packet. He stated staff had provided a one-page memo to the Council responding to a question at the Study Session regarding the effect of that item not being passed. He stated the substantive item was the Raptor Standard Buffer which was the result of a two-year effort to fix a problem with the current standard in the Land Use Code. He stated there were process issues and technical buffer distance standard issues. He stated the approach that had been followed was to fix the process and to work with the environmental community on the buffer distance. He stated a working group was established and that the group had arrived at a decision by consensus on how to fix the problem. He stated staff was recommending that the actual buffer distance for raptors be reduced. He stated the group discussed at length two competing objectives i.e. (1) the Structure Plan Map and City Plan called for intense urban development in activity centers on South College Avenue and some of those new urbanism principles required density to support transit, while(2)there was also an objective to enjoy wildlife (raptors in particular)in the urban environment. He stated the standards set out in the Code did not 324 June 1, 2004 help with integrating the two competing objectives. He stated an attempt was being made to integrate the objectives in a way that would represent compromise and conciliation and that would be workable. He stated work had been done with the DOW biologist and that there was a degree of confidence that the resource could be protected where protection was desired,while allowing urban development at the new urbanism scale to occur. He presented visual information that showed the areas where the full extent of the revised standard would be enacted and those areas where intense urban activity was expected to occur (i.e. South College Avenue, North College Avenue, activity centers located either one or two miles off of College Avenue, and areas on Mountain Vista and I- 25). He stated the standard would be allowed to be reduced in those areas from 900 to 450 with mitigation and from 450 to zero provided the tree was preserved. He stated the key was that intense urban development would be allowed to occur while protecting the resource in the areas of the City where protection was possible. He stated there would be a process change that would do away with the automatic 20% reduction that was often invoked by applicants. He stated there would be a clearer path to the Planning and Zoning Board without having to go back through the charts and end up as a modification. He stated this was a conciliatory and compromise driven solution. He spoke regarding the public outreach on this issue. He stated there would be a reduced overall standard in an attempt to balance the competing objectives in the Structure Plan,City Plan and the Natural Areas Policy Plan. Michelle Jacobs, Homebuilders Association of Northern Colorado,read a position paper regarding the protection of raptor habitats. She stated staff was proposing a partial solution. She stated rigid buffer standards were encouraging property owners to eliminate possible habitat sites prior to annexation. She stated it would make more sense to allow staff to work through raptor habitat protection issues during initial planning phases of a development application. She stated Section 3.4.1 (the automatic call up provision) appeared nowhere but in buffer zone protection standards. She stated this was inconsistent with the rest of the Land Use Code. She stated it would be a reasonable approach to allow flexibility in buffer zone standards. She stated the call up provision was frustrating for staff and time consuming and costly for developers. She stated costs were reflected in the lot prices for homes. She stated the only alternative currently was to go through a modification process. She stated removal of the automatic call up provision would provide flexibility for staff to bring forth better conservation projects and for developers to offer better projects at lower land costs. She stated a price tag of$10,000 per acre to protect raptor habitat was unrealistic. She stated the Land Use Code change that would seek to impose a$10,000 per acre fee was premature. She stated potentially the cost of mitigating any encroachment could cost up to $438,000. She stated if raptor nest sites were deemed to be important to quality of life that the City should purchase the sites. She stated requiring developers to pay the City for the right to develop their own land encroached on property rights and would be an onerous imposition for developers. She stated these excessive amounts would further the problem of private landowners destroying habitats. She asked the Council to use a more balanced approach between the need to grow and the desire to protect raptor habitats. 325 June 1, 2004 Kent Bucksford,Jim Sell Design,stated raptor nest buffer standards had been extremely problematic for some of the company's clients. He stated much of the science that underscored the need for a buffer standard around raptor nests was based on a flushing distance. He stated the DOW and City staff had indicated that there were 10 raptor nests located within the City limits. He highlighted two that were in highly urbanized areas (the CSU campus within a block of the Oval and in the Wagonwheel Subdivision within several blocks of the intersection of Shields and Horsetooth). He stated raptors were highly adaptable within the urban environment and that the requirements for a 900 foot buffer(a 58 acre no-build zone) was problematic in terms of conflicting with policies for a compact land form and affordable housing. He urged the Council to consider a pause in the proposed regulation until after further study. Kelly Ohlson,2040 Bennington Circle, stated he was part of the work group on this issue. He stated he viewed the effort not so much as a compromise but as a "weakening of the regulations." He stated he supported the Ordinance but that he was concerned that it might be viewed as a compromise. He stated the reduction in the buffer zone was a"huge weakening"of the regulation and that he was supportive of the change. He stated the mitigation option would not take effect until the buffer was further reduced. He stated mitigation was not required by this regulation. He stated the City's consultant recommended twice the existing buffer. He stated the work on the issue was not about compromise but was about trying to craft a more workable and rational solution. He stated the change would be easier and more fair for developers. He stated habitat protection for over a decade had always been a combination of regulation and purchase of property. Scott Nelson, 1621 Charleston Way, stated the raptors were highly adaptable and that they would buffer themselves from urbanization. He stated there was no clear resolution or understanding of facts about flushing distances and other data. He stated this was a habitat rather than raptor issue and that the trees needed to be protected. Bill Miller,322 Scott Avenue,president of the Fort Collins Audubon Society,stated adaptability did not apply to 100%of birds. He stated birds of prey needed appropriate habitat,hunting territory and prey base. He stated $10,000 was not adequate for mitigation and urged raising that amount to $15,000. Randy Fischer,3007 Moore Lane, stated he was speaking for himself rather than as a member of the Natural Resources Advisory Board. He stated he worked with staff on crafting the revisions. He stated the Natural Features and Habitats Land Use Code was a progressive document. He stated he supported the changes to the Land Use Code. He expressed a concern about the uncertainty of the actions being taken ("experimenting with nature"). He stated this was a major concession by environmental conservationists. He stated he supported the changes as presented and urged the Council not to further weaken the provisions. He stated there would be four options for applicants with problems with raptor nests: (1) comply with the regulation; (2) encroach on the buffer and mitigate by providing some equal habitat;(3)work with staff to adjust performance standards;or(3) 326 June 1, 2004 go through a modification process. He stated there would be flexibility in the process. He stated there should be a tree protection ordinance. Councilmember Kastein stated this had been discussed at a study session and that he was unhappy that the Ordinance was being presented as it was at the time of the study session. He suggested that the Council direction was unclear. He asked if there were federal laws that prohibited cutting down trees with raptor nests. John Stokes, Natural Resources Director, stated federal law protected migratory birds on nesting sites and prohibited harassment or killing of migratory birds. Councilmember Kastein asked if the proposed $10,000 fee for mitigation was legal. City Attorney Roy stated the fee was optional and would be in lieu of providing land. He stated legal staff believed that the fee was legally defensible and that it was permissible for the City to protect natural habitat of raptors. Councilmember Kastein asked how such a standard was set. City Attorney Roy stated there was no clear line regarding what was permissible and what was not permissible as a legitimate exercise of the police power. He stated a Home Rule City was empowered to protect the health, safety and welfare of its inhabitants. He stated the courts had traditionally shown a lot of deference to a legislative determination of what was valuable and that the Council took action at every Council meeting to decide what community values were worth protecting. He stated he was confident that the kind of value being protected in this case was within the legitimate exercise of the police power. Councilmember Kastein asked if there was a requirement for a particular amount of open space in a PUD. Shepard stated there was no blanket minimum percentage. He stated there were buffers for specific things such as neighborhood compatibility or buffering for dissimilar land uses. He stated the buffering was usually worked out on a case by case basis based on the customized needs of the site. Councilmember Kastein asked for confirmation that there was no minimum requirement for open space or unused land. Shepard stated there was no minimum requirement except for what was needed for utilities, stormwater, parks and recreation, etc. Councilmember Weitkunat asked what happened to the money collected for mitigation. Stokes stated the intention was to use the money to acquire additional habitat for raptors. Councilmember W eitkunat asked why the City would not just buy the land for the raptor rather than requiring mitigation. Stokes stated the purpose of mitigation was to provide additional habitat in exchange for the habitat that would be lost to development and to act as a disincentive to the developer to reducing the buffer. 327 June I, 2004 Councilmember Weitkunat asked why the City would not buy the land rather than using the mitigation money to buy other land. She asked why this would not fall under natural areas land acquisition ifthis was valuable raptor land. Tom Vosburg,Assistant City Manager,stated there were two"tools"at play: the Code included various standards for natural features,and there was a natural areas land acquisition program. He stated the proposal was to modify one of the "tools" in a way that would be acceptable to as many people as possible. Councilmember Weitkunat expressed a concern that an imbalance was occurring between the various City programs(land use development,conservation and protecting natural areas,species and habitat). She stated examples had been cited to show that raptors adjust to urban environments. She stated she had a concern that the change would include areas along North College Avenue and that there was new language that could work to"stifle"North College Avenue. She stated she was concerned about whether the fee was a fair way to accomplish the goal. She stated the language relating to "species of concern in the sensitive natural community"went above and beyond language relating to endangered species. She asked what would keep this from being"arbitrary." Stokes stated the zone districts coded red on the map(identified for intense urban development) would be excluded from the proposed Code modification i.e.there would be no 450 foot buffer in those areas. He stated mitigation would be required if the buffer went from 900 feet to zero. Councilmember Weitkunat asked if the language relating to"species of concern"was new language. Stokes replied in the affirmative and stated the intent was to clarify the Code language to make it parallel the nomenclature used by the Division of Wildlife. Councilmember Weitkunat asked if the inclusion of this language in the Code would add another level. Stokes stated the language relating to "species of concern" was simply a clarification. He stated the language relating to "sensitive natural communities"could be viewed as an addition. He stated the intent was to use a system used by the statewide Natural Heritage Program to identify any globally rare natural communities that might occur in Fort Collins. Councilmember Weitkunat stated her concern was going from "threatened and endangered" to "sensitive natural communities" and who would identify those and have the authority to require mitigation. Doug Moore, Natural Resources Department, stated he did not feel that including the language relating to"sensitive natural communities"was additive. He stated the updated City Plan and Natural Areas Policy Plan addressed protection of species that had special sensitivity. He stated the language was simply being refined to better fit with the State wording and to make it clearer to everyone. Councilmember Bertschy asked about the process to be followed if a raptor nest was found. Shepard stated staff was attempting to integrate performance standards into the quantitative analysis from the buffer standards. He stated this meant that if a site had unique characteristics, the applicants, consultants and staff would be able to discuss the particular site, what needed to be protected, and 328 June I, 2004 how to craft the best possible conservation outcome using the performance standards. He stated this could result in a buffer distance that might be less than the prescribed minimum. Councilmember Bertschy asked if this would eliminate the need for any fee for mitigation. Shepard stated a determination could be made that the standard was being met and why it was being met. Councilmember Bertschy asked if this meant that there would be more flexibility. Shepard replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Bertschy asked if there would be an appeal process. Shepard replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Bertschy asked how many sites were involved. Stokes stated there were about six sites in the City that could be affected by future development and 26 territories in the Growth Management Area. Mayor Martinez asked if there was money in the natural areas fund to buy the property why that could not be done. He also asked if the mitigation fee money could be used toward a special fund for low income housing or other purposes since there was already a lot of other funding in place for natural area purchases. City Attorney Roy stated this could not be done legally. He stated the exaction(in the case the land or the money)must be for the purpose of solving the problem created by the development. He stated the"problem"in this case was the elimination of habitat and that the fee money needed to be used to solve that problem. Mayor Martinez asked if made a difference that there were already adequate funds to solve that problem. City Attorney Roy stated this would apply regardless of whether or not there were adequate funds already available to solve the problem. Mayor Martinez asked why there should be a mitigation fee charged when the money was already available to buy natural areas. City Attorney Roy stated from a legal standpoint that the Council could choose to fund natural areas or replacement natural areas from any legally available source. He stated if the mitigation fee was chosen as a source that the money obtained would have to be used solely for that purpose. Mayor Martinez asked why the City would need to charge a fee when it can afford to replace raptor habitat. He stated this could be perceived as a"form of punishment'for development or a"form of extortion." Stokes stated the underlying assumption was that there were two conservation mechanisms: (1) regulatory,through the Land Use Code, and (2) acquisition of habitat through the natural areas program. He stated the intent was to modify the existing regulatory approach to make it more flexible. He stated making it more flexible made it easier for developers to reduce the buffer and that it would be appropriate to require replacement habitat paid for by the developer. 329 June 1, 2004 Mayor Martinez stated this confirmed for him that this was a "form of punishment' since the City already had the money but was to require the developer to pay for it. He asked why the voter approved tax money would not be used instead and questioned the need to"hammer the developer" resulting in increasing the cost of housing. Shepard stated one of the Planning and Zoning Board members believed that this would be analogous to the stormwater provisions relating to general improvements and on-site improvements needed as a result of specific development. Mayor Martinez asked if that was also a way to "punish"the developers. Shepard stated the intent was to balance out the impact so that growth would pay its own way. Vosburg stated the discussion was regarding what areas were in the public versus private interest. He stated the development/natural resource conservation balance was defined through a policy development process. He stated there had been a series of planning processes reaching back as far the original Natural Resources Policy Plan which established a clear strategy to make land conservation a priority. He stated a variety of tools were established, including utilization of appropriate balanced legal land regulation and an active land conservation program. He stated historically it had been recognized that both tools(regulation and active land conservation)could be used to conserve natural areas. He stated this current discussion was drawing the line between the two. He stated there was a tradition of applying measures on a site specific basis to protect features on the site. He stated this was manifested as the existing habitat protection standards for buffers. He stated the current buffers were so large that they placed an extraordinary burden on development and were unworkable. He stated the intent was to reduce the overall size and scope and still remain within the framework of the existing policies and strategies. Mayor Martinez stated he recognized the intent of the change. He asked why the City would not just buy the land if the raptors on these sites were so valuable. Vosburg stated the primary buffer distance being recommended was 900 feet(a change from 1,300 feet). He stated one problem with the 1,300 foot buffer was that it was rigidly stated in the Code and that there was no ability to adjust it. He stated the intent of providing a voluntary means of allowing further encroachment was to give development the opportunity for more flexibility. He stated the fee was optional and created an incentive for the developer to try to come up with a design respecting the 900 foot buffer. He stated the 900 foot buffer would not be respected at all if there was no incentive. Mayor Martinez asked why the City would not simply purchase the land. Vosburg stated it would be a policy decision for the Council to determine if that was a priority for the use of natural areas dollars. Vosburg stated the City would not want land that had been developed. Mayor Martinez asked what the buffer would be if this Ordinance did not pass. Vosburg stated it would remain at 1,320 feet. Shepard stated a modification process was available under the existing provision and under the proposed Code revision. He stated one criteria for granting a modification was undue hardship. 330 June 1, 2004 Mayor Martinez asked for an example of an"undue hardship." Shepard stated the Zoning Board of Appeals regularly dealt with parcels that had irregular shapes, unique situations, etc. He stated a hardship would have to be found by the Planning and Zoning Board based on the evidence and the specific site before a modification could be granted. Councilmember Roy asked about the "science" relating to the buffer distances. Stokes stated a consultant was hired to look at the scientific literature on flushing distances from nesting sites. He stated this was determined to be in excess of 1,500 feet. He stated if this was to be used as a benchmark that the buffers would be much larger. He stated such large buffers were untenable in an urban environment and that the intent of the change was to add flexibility while respecting conservation principles relating to raptors. Councilmember Roy asked what range of protection the consultant recommended. Stokes stated the consultant indicated that the buffer in the scientific literature would probably be in excess of 1,500 feet. He stated there was a paucity of data from urban environments. Councilmember Roy asked how many acres of land would be affected if developers would choose to encroach to the 450 foot buffer distance. Stokes stated there were about six nests in the City limits and that if the buffer was reduced to 450 feet in each case that there could be about 258 acres affected. Councilmember Hamrick asked if there were requirements for development other than environmental requirements. Shepard stated were requirements for sidewalks, streets, stormwater ponds, riparian area buffers, landscaping, etc. Councilmember Hamrick asked if there other payment-in-lieu-of fees (i.e. raw water acquisition fees). Shepard replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Hamrick asked why the City would not buy everything that the developer was required to pay for. Shepard stated there was an impact created by the development proposal that would not otherwise be created. Councilmember Hamrick asked why there were land use regulations. Shepard stated one of the attractions of Fort Collins was the attractive built environment and a high level of service for intersection improvements, connectivity with bike trails, connections between neighborhoods, etc. Councilmember Hamrick stated land use regulations were intended to provide a higher quality of life for the citizens of Fort Collins. He stated certain members of the Council would attack certain environmental impacts and assessments and would not question other issues. 331 June 1, 2004 Mayor Martinez stated he did not favor any fees. He asked Mr.Miller how raptors were able to live in some urban environments. Mr. Miller stated there were always exceptions. He stated if specific animals did not have what they needed for survival that they would disappear. He stated individual birds could adapt but that this did not apply broadly to the whole species. He stated the natural areas program operated on a willing seller/willing buyer basis and that developers invested thousands of dollars for development. He stated it was not a good use of natural areas money to pay development prices for land to save a small amount of habitat. Mayor Martinez asked if raptors would survive if they were relocated. Mr. Miller stated raptors could not be moved. He stated there were carrying capacities for any type of species and that birds could often not move to other territories occupied by other raptors. He stated if a raptor did not have a breeding territory due to competition with other raptors that the raptor would not reproduce and the total number would decrease due to mortality. Mayor Martinez asked if the $10,000 fee would change anything. Mr. Miller stated the fee would be used to buy land that hopefully had suitable raptor habitat. He stated it was increasingly difficult to buy suitable habitat. Mayor Martinez asked what would be gained by collecting the $10,000 fee. Mr. Miller stated an attempt could be made to buy suitable habitat. Vosburg stated restoration of existing City-owned natural area lands could be one of the uses of the fee. He stated the City owned land that did not support the prey base and that the strategy could be to preserve land to be used as a prey base. Mayor Martinez stated there was no guarantee that a specific raptor would move to the new site. Councilmember Bertschy made a motion,seconded by Councilmember Hamrick,to adopt Ordinance No. 091, 2004 on First Reading. Councilmember Kastein stated there was a difference between infrastructure needs and a hawk's nest. He questioned whether a hawk's nest was part of the infrastructure. He stated the average person on the street might say that the City ought to buy the property rather than making a developer pay a fee to buy land elsewhere. He stated there were "different levels of natural features" i.e. the buffer zones for the river might be different because the river was more systemic. He stated there was not the same impact for an individual bird's nest on a piece of property. He stated the real question was who should pay to replace land that the City was effectively taking. He stated the proposed Ordinance was a better solution than the existing Ordinance. He stated he would therefore support adoption and recommended that the Council send staff back for additional work on a better solution. He stated the issues were whether the buffers were infrastructure, whether they were systemic or individual,and how much money was available in programs such as natural areas to pay the cost. He stated the urban growth boundary had been frozen by the Council and that urban development could take place only within that boundary. He stated there was money available for 332 June 1, 2004 natural areas and that people were questioning the purchase of a ranch at the Wyoming state border rather than applying the money within the City limits. Councilmember Hamrick stated he regarded natural areas and open space as infrastructure and part of what created a livable community. He stated the City's established policy was to direct development away from natural habitats and features and use innovative planning design, management practices and mitigation when it was not possible to direct development away from natural habitats and features. He stated this was integrated into the overall fabric of the community. Councilmember Kastein stated mitigation was a viable alternative and that the question was who should pay for the mitigation. Councilmember Bertschy stated he understood staff to say that there could be performance standards that would be acceptable in lieu of any kind of mitigation fee. He stated each site was different and that this would give the City the flexibility to work with the developers to help them mitigate. He stated the fee was an option the developer could choose. He stated this was an improvement over the old standard and that too much emphasis was being placed on the fee. Mayor Martinez stated if the developer chose to pay the fee that the cost would be passed along to home buyers. He stated this would raise the cost of housing. He stated the City was"fee oriented" and that each new fee made housing less affordable. Councilmember Roy stated staff had indicated that about 250 acres and six sites would be involved. He stated such sites contributed to property values and that such sites were assets to developments rather than something onerous to bear. Councilmember Kastein stated since these sites were so valuable that it would make sense for the City to buy them. Councilmember Hamrick stated the City charged development fees for certain amenities and questioned why natural areas and protection of habitat were being singled out. He stated there were many other items that someone could argue should be paid from the General Fund rather than paid by development. He stated fees helped maintain a healthy community and economic climate. Councilmember Weitkunat expressed concern with pitting environmental issues against development. She stated the issue was preserving what was good and mitigating it in a fair and reasonable way. She stated the existing Code provision was not reasonable and did not work well. She stated the issues that were being discussed had not been resolved in previous discussions. She stated she viewed the proposed changes as an attempt to move forward with a benefit for everyone. She stated the question was whether the fee would solve the problem. She stated she favored taking a look at the direction. She stated when fees were placed on development for sidewalks,landscaping 333 June 1, 2004 or stormwater improvements that the land could still be used. She stated she had concerns with taking the fee money"outside"of the development. She asked that the Council focus on what was to be accomplished and stated this was not just an environmental issue. She stated she would like to see better direction to staff for the future. Councilmember Kastein stated he would like to offer a friendly amendment to have staff, prior to Second Reading, to work on the issue of how parkland fees were collected and small neighborhood parks were created in residential areas. He stated he would like to see staff work on waiving that requirement in lieu of a buffer zone that may remain in the long term. Shepard stated staff could look at that issue. Councilmember Roy requested clarification of the friendly amendment. Councilmember Kastein stated the question was having staff look at, prior to Second Reading, developing this Ordinance so that where there was a buffer zone in a development and where a park would have to be created as required by the Code that the requirement for the park could be waived if the buffer was to be required. City Attorney Roy stated if the Council wanted to have that done, the direction could be added through an amendment to the motion to adopt. Mayor Martinez asked if there was support for the friendly amendment. Councilmember Bertschy stated research would have to be done and that he was not willing to add this as a friendly amendment. Councilmember Kastein asked that staff look at the question of whether this would be feasible or not. City Attorney Roy asked if the intent was that this be done prior to Second Reading and noted that this could delay Second Reading. Greg Byrne,CPES Director, stated staff looked at this as one of the options over two years ago. He stated if this option was of interest to the Council that staff would like to hear that. He stated the option considered by the staff would have been to place a ceiling on the percentage of a piece of property that could be regulated into the public interest(right- of-way,retention area,wetland protection,habitat buffer,etc.). He stated staff worked with the first consultant on options regarding how to deal with the current Ordinance. He stated there was one example of that in use. He stated staff understood that the recommendation did not please anyone and that the Council believed that direction had been given at the study session. He stated staff had reviewed the tapes of the study session and that there was no direction other than some expressions of support. He stated there was not a Council majority indicating that mitigation should not be brought forward. He asked for additional Council direction. Mayor Martinez asked if there was support for giving that direction. 334 June 1, 2004 Councilmember Weitkunat stated she would like to look into the option of placing a ceiling on the percentage. Councilmember Bertschy stated was a broader issue. Mayor Martinez stated this was a separate topic and that the discussion should focus on the motion. Councilmember Kastein asked if staff would like direction from the Council on the issue or whether it could be discussed separately. Byrne stated if the Council wanted the research to be done by Second Reading, the Second Reading would have to be delayed to allow time for processing the issue through the public process. Councilmember Kastein stated he would like to see staff look at the ceiling percentage issue in the long term and that Council could adopt the current version of the Ordinance because it was better than the old Ordinance. Byrne stated there were protections built into the Ordinance to address undue hardships. Councilmember Hamrick stated he supported the Ordinance as presented. He stated he did not like the overall reduction in the buffer standards. He stated he was willing to see if the new Ordinance would work. Councilmember Roy stated the direction reflected the continuing status of Fort Collins as an urban center that was losing natural amenities within the City proper. He stated he felt that Natural Areas money should not be used to help fund"speculative investments"and the community value was the ability to observe wildlife in an urban setting. He stated some of the ability to do that was lost with the direction being taken. Councilmember Weitkunat stated she would support the motion. She stated this was a community of people and that issues affecting the people of the community were a priority. She stated the environment had a lot to do with quality of life and that it was important to remember the people who live here. She stated Land Use Code changes affected people and that the changes should not be unreasonable or extreme. Councilmember Bertschy noted that the change that received the most discussion was one of 18 Land Use Code changes. He stated Land Use Code changes were made twice a year to ensure that it remained a"living document'that would continue to meet the needs of the community in a variety of ways. He stated he appreciated the efforts staff made to obtain citizen input. He stated the performance standards would allow a way to mitigate a piece of property while enforcing the standards to protect the habitat to the greatest extent possible. 335 June 1, 2004 Councilmember Kastein stated the direction to staff had been unclear. He stated he would support the Ordinance because it was better than what existed. He stated he would be asking that the Council give staff direction to reevaluate cases in which City money should be spent in place of private dollars on these types of issues. He stated the issue was who should pay and that he would support the Ordinance with the understanding that he would ask Council to provide direction to staff either after the vote on the motion or under Other Business. Mayor Martinez stated this Ordinance was an improvement. He stated he did not want to see the City become a"land baron." He expressed a concern about affordable housing for those who worked low paid jobs. He stated there must be a"balancing act"to ensure that people(the elderly, etc.)did not become an "endangered species." The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Bertschy, Hamrick, Kastein, Martinez, Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Mayor Martinez stated he would like to have Council affirm the direction to have staff look into the trade off of buffer zones versus parkland fees. Jones asked if the intent was to direct staff to reevaluate places where the City could or should spend money in place of private dollars. She stated staff needed additional direction regarding points of research that Council would like to have staff do. Councilmember Kastein stated he would like to have staff look at the Ordinance that had just been adopted on First Reading to make modifications at some time in the future to establish limitations on the amount of land that would be required to be donated to the public interest. He stated he would like to also see a more far reaching evaluation of buffer standards in general. He stated he would like to have staff prepare a resolution in a couple of weeks to direct staff to work on helping Council craft policy differentiating various types of buffer standards (for rivers, raptors, wetlands, etc.)and who should pay for them. He stated there should be buy-in from the whole Council before staff was asked to work on the idea. Mayor Martinez asked if there was any support for bringing back such a resolution for Council consideration. He stated he would support that. Councilmember Bertschy stated he could not support that until the questions were refined. He stated this was a "huge issue." Councilmember Kastein made a motion to direct staff to prepare a resolution stating the Council's desire that a comprehensive review of buffer standards take place and that the review would focus 336 June 1, 2004 on identifying buffers that would protect a resource considered valuable for the public good and the various means of protection that could be applied. Councilmember Hamrick asked why Councilmember Kastein was looking only at buffer fees instead of all types of fees charged to development. Councilmember Kastein stated would be a much larger task and that the Council was asked to approve or disapprove various fees one at a time. Councilmember Hamrick asked if this would include fees set by the City Manager. Councilmember Kastein stated would be something to review if they related to buffer standards. Councilmember Weitkunat asked if a buffer was undevelopable land. Shepard stated some things were allowed in the buffer zone (stormwater detention ponds, passive recreation, etc.). Councilmember Weitkunat asked if such uses were allowed in all buffers. Moore stated it depended on the habitat or the feature being buffered and whether the impacts could be supported. He stated things allowed in buffers included stormwater detention ponds,recreational trails,emergency access, etc. Councilmember Weitkunat stated Council had been hearing recently from a variety of people impacted by buffers. She stated this would be another buffer zone for animal habitat that could potentially affect people. She asked if the point had been reached when the City should take a look at how much property could be designated for buffers. She asked if there was another way to mitigate or compensate or utilize i.e. whether there was a need to take a look at the program in general. Councilmember Roy stated the tracts of land that would have buffers or need mitigation in an urban setting had great value. He stated he would not support helping people be "speculative" with taxpayer dollars. He stated he was hearing Councilmember Kastein say that he wanted to use City funds to help reduce the financial requirement for developers that owned land with natural features. Councilmember Kastein stated there was support from three Councilmembers to ask staff to bring back a resolution for Council consideration. Deputy City Manager Jones stated it was her understanding that three Councilmembers wanted to have a resolution prepared for consideration. Councilmember Roy asked for clarification regarding the resolution to be brought back for Council consideration. 337 June 1, 2004 Councilmember Kastein stated he wanted to direct staff to prepare a resolution stating the Council's desire that a comprehensive review of buffer standards take place and that the review would focus on identifying buffers that would protect a resource considered valuable for the public good and the various means of protection that could be applied. Councilmember Roy asked about staff s understanding of the language"protect a resource"and how many resources buffer zones protected. Stokes stated buffers protected wetlands,rookeries,raptors, riparian areas,the Poudre River corridor,etc. He stated there were 34 features protected by buffers. Councilmember Roy stated it would be unreasonable to expect the resolution at the next Council meeting if there was to be a comprehensive review of each feature. Councilmember Kastein stated he was not asking for a comprehensive review within that time frame and that he was asking for a resolution to give direction to staff to begin summarizing what might be addressed. He stated the intent was to determine if there were four Councilmembers in favor of having staff undertake the work. Vosburg stated there had been discussion about bringing wetland buffers forward for Council discussion during the next round of land use changes. Byrne asked if Council would like the review to include whether or not a buffer could be adequately dealt with on a relatively small development and whether or not species were threatened or endangered or local choice. He asked if Council had suggestions on how to structure the discussion. Councilmember Kastein stated he was interested in those types of questions. Councilmember Bertschy stated he was not interested in a wholesale discussion about buffer standards. He stated it took months to arrive at the compromise on the one buffer Council just approved. He stated he did not favor creating an insurmountable task. He stated there were buffer standards for a number of reasons and that he would not like to open a full scale discussion on the issue. Mayor Martinez suggested delaying this discussion until the resolution came forward for Council consideration. ("Secretary's Note: The Council took a brief recess at this point.) Items Relating to the Trailhead Annexation, Adopted as Amended. The following is staff s memorandum on this item. 338 June 1, 2004 `EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A. Resolution 2004-070 Setting Forth Findings of Fact and Determinations Regarding the Trailhead Annexation. B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 092, 2004, Annexing Property Known as the Trailhead Annexation to the City ofFort Collins, Colorado. C. First Reading of Ordinance No. 093, 2004, Amending the Zoning Map of the City ofFort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the Trailhead Annexation to the City ofFort Collins, Colorado. The Trailhead Annexation, Zoning and Structure Plan Amendment was presented to the Planning and Zoning Board on April 15, 2004. The Planning and Zoning Board recommends adoption of the Annexation Resolution and Ordinance on First Reading, with initial zoning to the E—Employment zone district, and subsequent denial of the requested amendment to the City ofFort Collins Structure Plan from the Employment District to Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood District. This is a request to annex and zone approximately 91.25 acres of land located along the north side of East Vine Drive, south of the Burlington Northern Railroad, west of the Waterglen Subdivision. Theproject is located within the Mountain Vista Sub-Area Plan. The proposed zoning is LMN—Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood. The Mountain Vista Sub-Area Plan and the City ofFort Collins Structure Plan designate this property as E—Employment.An amendment to the Mountain Vista Sub Area Plan and Structure Plan is accompanying the annexation and zoning request. The requested plan amendment would designate this property as Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood. The anticipated land use would be single and multi family residential, consistent with the standards in the LAIN zone district. 1. The annexation of this area is consistent with the policies and agreements between Larimer County and the City ofFort Collins as contained in the Intergovernmental Agreement for the Fort Collins Urban Growth Area. Theproperty is located within theFort Collins Growth ManagementArea(GMA).According to policies and agreements between the City ofFort Collins and Larimer County, contained in the Intergovernmental Agreement for the Fort Collins Urban Growth Area(last amended November 2000), the City will pursue the annexation of land into the City ofFort Collins when such lands are eligible for annexation according to Colorado Revised Statutes(CRS). 2. The area meets all criteria included in Colorado Revised Statutes to qualify for a voluntary annexation to the City ofFort Collins. 339 June 1, 2004 This property is eligible for annexation according to the Colorado Annexation Act, which requires 116 contiguity to the existing city limits. The Trailhead Annexation complies with this standard since the property has 5,116feet of its total boundary of approximately 9,084 feet is contiguous to the existing city limits. This meets the minimum 1,524 feet required to achieve 116 contiguity. This contiguity occurs through a common boundary with the property to the north, east, west and south of the parcel. 3. Requested Structure Plan: The removal of the Employment designation from the Trailhead property would represent a loss of 90 acres within the City's vacant Employment designated land inventory. A recent study completed for the Harmony Corridor Plan Amendment concluded that the current supply of Employment - designated land is adequate; however, any future removal of Employment lands will begin to create a shortfall in the City's inventory. With the most recent proposal, the applicant and the City have re-entered into negotiations for the property north and west of the Trailhead site for use as a regional detention pond. This concept would relocate a portion of the water ponding on adjacent Anheuser-Busch property (estimated to be approximately 90 acres) to this adjacent property. Preliminary grading plans have been completed by the applicant which will determine the capacity of the new detention pond. With the most recent design, it is estimated that approximately 30 acres of the 90 acres of area encumbered by floodwater on the adjacent Anheuser-Busch property would be removed from flooding. The 30 acres would be available for future development. Anheuser-Busch has expressed potential interest in developing their land in the future with non-residential uses, such as Employment. Even with the 30 acres removed from the flooding area, there still remains a net loss of Employment land of 60 acres with this proposal. Additional improvements could be made on Anheuser-Busch property to further reduce the ponding area; however, without the consent of Anheuser-Busch to proceed with such plans, staff can not evaluate what impact this may have. Staff maintains the position that this loss is too great to justify the zoning of the Trailhead property to LMN without additional Employment land dedicated elsewhere. Storm drainage issues on the Anheuser-Busch property have been an obstacle in the adoption of the staff initiated amendments to the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan. This purchase of the property by the City for a regional detention pond could be the catalyst to re-enter into negotiations with Anheuser-Busch and continue the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan amendment. The amended plan relocates Employment uses off of the Trailhead property and onto adjacent Anheuser-Busch property. The resulting designation on the Trailhead property is LMN. 340 June 1, 2004 The negotiations have been completed for the 30 acres on the northwestern portion of the Trailhead property. Stormwater would like to acquire the property, since it is a key piece in the drainage improvements necessary to serve this portion ofMountain Vista.Staff,however, contends that the purchase will not justify the zoning of the Trailhead property to LMN, without the furthersupport ofAnheuser-Busch to assume additional Employment uses lost from the Trailhead property. FINDINGS and ANALYSIS: 1. Back rY ound: The surrounding zoning and land uses are as,follows: N: FAI(County) Undeveloped S: LMN Proposed Witham Farms ODP E: LMN Single Family Residential W.• FAI(County) Undeveloped 2. Structure Plan Amendment The City of Fort Collins Comprehensive Plan, City Plan, may be amended pursuant to Appendix C of City Plan.All City Plan amendments shall be considered by the City Council, after recommendation by the Planning and Zoning Board and City staff Such amendment shall demonstrate compliance with the following criteria: 3. The existing City Plan and/or related element thereofis in need ojthe proposed amendment. The existing land use designation for this parcel was assigned during the development of the Mountain Vista Sub Area Plan. Several factors were present which led to the Employment designation, which still exist today. The property is directly adjacent to Vine Drive, a four lane arterial street, with close by access to 1-25 via a proposed interchange at I-25 and Vine Drive. The site also has truck access to two existing interchanges at Mulberry and Mountain Vista Drives via the existing frontage road system. There are existing and future residential areas and shopping opportunities to support future employment uses on the property. Some conditions have changed since adoption of the Plan.For instance, Vine Drive had once been considered to be a viable "truck bypass"route; that is no longer considered a viable option. Also, the Burlington Northern Railroad line is directly west of this site. It was originally thought that the Employment uses could take advantage of this line by adding spurs off the main line for railcar deliveries. However, since the adoption of the Mountain 341 June 1, 2004 Vista Plan, the Larimer and Weld Ditch has been relocated from its previous location, which bisected the property, to the edge of the property adjacent to the railroad tracks. This new location has effectively eliminated the possibility of tying into the existing rail lines. 4. The proposed 121an amendment will promote the public welfare and will be consistent with the vision goals,principles and policies of City Plan and the elements thereof One of the key goals of the Mountain Vista Sub Area Plan amendment is to maintain a balance of land available forEmployment and residential uses in the northeast part of town and community-wide. The City is currently in the process of looking at some possible amendments to the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan and Structure Plan that may permit shifting of land uses, while maintaining the current balance of land uses. These amendments affect several property owners in the area, particularly Anheuser-Busch. There are issues yet to be resolved in the plan amendment. Staff expects that the subarea plan amendment will be broughtforward within 2004. Until the location ofthe Employment land can be resolved, the Structure Plan amendment is not supported by City Plan policies, including ECON-1.3 Infrastructure and Capitol Facilities and ECON-1.4 Jobs/Housing Balance. 5. Neighborhood Response: A neighborhood meeting was not held for this application.A formal neighborhood meeting will be held for the Trailhead project when a Project Development Plan application is filed with the City. FINDINGS OF FACT/CONCLUSIONS After reviewing the Trailhead Annexation and Zoning, File #43-02, staff makes the following findings offact and conclusions as explained above: 1. The annexation of this area is consistent with the policies and agreements between Larimer Countyand the City ofFort Collins as contained in the IntergovernmentalAgreement, or the Fort Collins Urban Growth Area. 2. The area meets all criteria included in Colorado Revised Statutes to qualify for a voluntary annexation to the City of Fort Collins. 3. The requested zoning by the applicant of Low Density Mixed Use Residential (LMN) is inconsistent with the adopted Mountain Vista Sub Area Plan and the City of Fort Collins Structure Plan. 342 June 1, 2004 4. The Employment zoning recommended by staffis consistentwith theadoptedMountain Vista Sub-area Plan and the Structure Plan. RECOMMENDATION Staffrecommends that the City Council approve the Trailhead Annexation and Zoning#43-02 with initial zoning to the Employment(E)Zone District and deny the requested Mountain Vista Subarea and Structure Plan Amendments. " Deputy City Manager Jones introduced the agenda item. Bob Barkeen,City Planner,stated this was an annexation request for 90 acres of land,an amendment to the Structure Plan and the initial zoning of the property to LMN (as requested by the applicant). He stated the annexation was located north of East Vine Drive immediately west of the Waterglen Subdivision. He presented visual information regarding the site and the surrounding area. He stated the site was located within the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan. He stated the Planning and Zoning Board(4-3 vote)and staff were recommending that the property be zoned E-Employment consistent with the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan. He stated staff was working on an amendment to the Subarea Plan that would support the LMN zoning based on proposed changes within the area of the Subarea Plan. He stated the primary reason for the recommendation of staff and the Planning Board for E- Employment zoning was the net loss of employment land within the City's inventory. He stated the amendment to the Subarea Plan would relocated employment land within the Mountain Vista subarea and that there would be no net loss of employment land in the area. Rick Zier, attorney representing the applicant, 322 East Oak Street, stated LMN zoning would be beneficial to everyone. He stated the site was originally designated to be LMN and that was the intended designation at the time the current owner purchased the site. He stated in 1999 the proposed designation for the property was changed to E. He stated in 2003 the subarea plan was proposed to return the property to LMN zoning. He stated the property was appropriate for LMN zoning. He stated assumptions made with regard to transportation that had not been home out and that it consequently made no sense to wait in this case for a return to a zoning designation that had always been appropriate. He stated a "temporary blip" had designated this property for E zoning. He stated the 90 acres comprising this property was never an appropriate fit for E zoning. He stated the changed conditions that contributed to the E zoning included a physical connection to the railroad that was now impossible due to the realigned ditch. He stated Vine Drive was no longer being considered as a truck route and that CDOT no longer had plans for a new interchange at Vine Drive and I-25. He stated those were the major assumptions that allowed for this property to be zoned E. He stated staff and the applicant agreed that the best and most logical use was no longer E. He stated the there had been changed conditions that warranted LMN zoning and that the E zoning was an error. He stated it made no sense to wait in this case. He stated the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan amendment was a separate issue. He stated rezonings on individual pieces of property were often 343 June 1, 2004 ahead of changes to area plans and comprehensive plans and that rezonings often prompted such changes. He stated the changed conditions and the mistaken E zoning prompted the applicant to request LMN zoning. Linda Ripley,planner and landscape architect with VF Ripley Associates,representing the applicant, stated the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan and the Structure Plan were in the process of changing. She asked that the Council set aside those issues and consider other City policies that would be supported by allowing the Trailhead project to move forward. She stated the Council recently adopted the City Plan update, which reaffirmed many City planning policies that were part of the original City Plan as well as the goals of the City for the past 20 years. She asked that Council keep some of those policies in mind as it made a decision. She stated there were policies that addressed appropriate land use patterns; promoted the viability of the central business district and core downtown; promoted a mix of housing types, densities and price ranges;promoted a balance of housing and employment opportunities enabling people to live close to where they work in order to use alternative modes of transportation; encouraged developers to create day care centers close to work places; and encouraged affordable housing for people with low or moderate incomes. She stated the need for affordable housing in the community had been rising for many years and that this Council had made that issue a priority. She stated the Trailhead project could move forward in the City process as soon as the property would be zoned LMN. She stated the Trailhead project would be a model City Plan project appropriately located within the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan and within the City. She presented visual information illustrating the balanceofhousing and employment opportunities in the northeast. She stated if there was a problem with balance in the northeast that the problem was a lack of adequate housing near employment areas. She stated the site also illustrated the classic pattern of land use transition promoted by the land use policies: a central urban core surrounded by medium mixed use density transitioning to low density mixed use neighborhoods. She stated the proposed Trailhead zoning would support this classic development pattern. She stated Trailhead would be a little more than three miles from downtown Fort Collins. She stated moving the project forward would be a way to support the continued vitality of the central business district. She stated the project would provide a mix ofhousing types,would include a daycare center and would provide affordable housing for low to moderate income families. She stated the project would mix housing types to encourage neighborhood diversity. She stated the centrally located neighborhood center would include a recreation center with a pool adjacent to a child care center and a park. She stated the neighborhood center would be connected to dwellings via interconnected greenways. She stated all virtually all of the dwelling units would be priced at the lower end of the market,making housing available to those currently priced out of the Fort Collins market. She stated the applicant would like to continue a partnership with Habitat for Humanity as soon as the project was allowed to move forward. She stated other benefits would include the extension of City trails,the extension of City infrastructure, a regional stormwater solution, and associated permanent open space. She stated Greenfields Drive was proposed to extend from Mulberry to Mountain Vista Drive and that a significant portion of the street was proposed to be constructed with this project. She stated the applicant had been working with City staff on the extension of City trails in this area and that the 344 June 1, 2004 applicant was proposing to sell the City approximately 36 acres to help address stormwater problems. Tom Peterson, planner representing the applicant, stated this property was acquired in 1999 at the same time as the Waterglen property. He stated within a month after closing that the City changed the Structure Plan in that area. He stated City staff bad asked the applicant to wait on this annexation and zoning until the Structure Plan was amended. He stated the draft Structure Plan was no different than the 1997 Structure Plan and that the zoning should be LMN. He stated he had not heard any disagreement from staff that the property was suitable for residential. He stated this property had not been allowed to "come into play at all' since February of 1999. He stated the absorption issue was"kind of a mystery"and that he had done two studies in recent years that indicated that the City had historically absorbed about 20 acres of industrial,commercial and office development per year. He stated there were approximately 3,300 acres and that at that rate the absorption rate for employment ground was about 166 years and if there was consideration that about 1,000 acres would not usable in floodplains,etc. that the City would still have 100 years of absorption for employment ground. He stated there would be less than 12 years of absorption for housing according to the study. He stated this property was 3.3 miles from downtown and less than a mile from most of the major employment opportunities in the State Highway 14 corridor. He stated the Council had the potential to consider the annexation request and that this annexation was a discretionary act. He stated the landowner had been waiting since 1999 for the Structure Plan to change back to what was originally there. He stated the owner would prefer not to wait another 4-8+months. He stated City staff was hopeful that the Structure Plan would be adopted by the end of the year and that there was no guarantee that would happen. He stated the issue on this property was straightforward. He stated the plan met or exceeded all City Plan standards, including the recent amendments; that it agreed with the Structure Plan; and that it was an opportunity to provide affordable entry level housing in an area close to employment and downtown. He stated in 1997 this was okay for residential and that it was okay in the draft plan. He asked that the Council look at the big picture i.e.,why the developer should wait to bring this particular piece into City development. Kevin Westhuis, 2944 Telluride Court, stated the adjacent Waterglen Subdivision had been a huge success. He stated he had concerns with taking property at Prospect and I-25 (the old sludge farm) out of Employment zoning and putting it into Public Open Lands on the Consent Agenda a few weeks ago. He stated this was some of the most prime E land in Fort Collins. He stated one of the reasons for the recommendation for denial on Trailhead was to avoid losing E land. He stated it was "hypocritical"to rezone 156 acres of E land to open space with little or no discussion and then to zone Trailhead E-Employment. He asked if the City was concerned about losing usable land or not. He stated the Trailhead project would give Fort Collins a fresh stock of affordable housing. He stated he understood that Waterglen was a proposed prototype for Trailhead. He stated the average cost for a new construction home in Fort Collins in 2004 was $278,166. He stated the cost to build in Waterglen was $174,900. He stated these were the homes in which many local workers lived. He asked if the Council was serious about affordable housing and, if so, that this project would be 345 June 1, 2004 a perfect opportunity for the City in a perfect location. He stated time was critical and that the affordability index would continue to be reduced as costs went up each day. He stated the applicant bought this land when it was zoned LMN,that the zoning was changed to E when it looked like Vine would be a truck route and there might be an interchange at Vine and I-25, and that conditions had changed. He stated those changed conditions were recognized in staff s proposal to amend the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan to reflect LMN zoning for this property. He questioned why the applicant was being delayed when LMN zoning was inevitable. He asked that the Council vote for a fresh stock of affordable housing. Mayor Martinez asked about the statistics regarding available acres. Mr. Peterson stated the visual information presented reflected the figures from a recent City study regarding available acres in E, C and Industrial zones. Mayor Martinez asked if staff was familiar with the study. Cameron Gloss, Director of Current Planning, stated the most recent buildable lands inventory (February 2, 2004) indicated that there were slightly more than 1,000 acres of buildable vacant lands in E-Employment, about 890 acres in Industrial,and about 523 acres in Harmony Corridor. He stated with the update of City Plan that the inventories showed build-out of approximately 20-25 years. Mayor Martinez noted that it appeared that staff s figures differed from Mr. Peterson's figures. He asked how Mr. Peterson arrived at his figures. Mr. Peterson stated he reviewed a study referred to by the Planning and Zoning Board hearings on this application that indicated that there were 3,300 acres in those zones. Gloss stated the 3,300 acres included all types of Commercial zoning and that the study referenced was the Lifestyle Center Impact Analysis done in June of 2003. Mayor Martinez asked if the City absorbed an average of about 20 acres per year. Gloss stated staff had looked at the overall inventory in the growth area and believed that there was an inventory of Employment lands for approximately 20 years. He stated many factors would influence that. He stated there were about 450 acres of Employment lands in the Mountain Vista Subarea. Mayor Martinez asked if staff believed that the property should be E because the inventory was too small. Pete Wray, City Planner, stated Mr. Peterson's figures were reflective of past trends. Mayor Martinez asked if staff agreed with 20 acres per year. Wray stated he agreed with approximately 20 acres per year. He stated there had been no significant large projects coming forward for industrial and employment. Mayor Martinez asked how many years build-out would be with 20 acres per year. Wray stated build-out would take longer at 20 acres per year. 346 June 1, 2004 Mayor Martinez stated it appeared that there was plenty of E land for many years. Wray stated there were approximately 52 parcels that were over 10 acres in size within the inventory. He noted that the Anheuser-Busch brewery site was about 121 acres. Councilmember Weitkunat stated the issue was annexation and zoning. She noted that E- Employment was the current zoning and that the applicant wanted LMN zoning, which would require a Structure Plan amendment. She asked if the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan would have to be amended. Wray replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Weitkunat asked if the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan was currently undergoing change. Wray stated staff was in the process of trying to move forward with amendments to the Subarea Plan. Councilmember Weitkunat asked if the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan was looking at changing this property to LMN. Wray stated the current proposed Framework Plan showed LMN zoning for this property. He stated staff understood the reasons for the applicant's proposal and that the conditions had changed. He stated staff believed that this triggered a larger look at the entire Subarea along with other items such as the realignment of East Vine Drive and land use assessments. Councilmember Weitkunat asked for confirmation that staff was looking at this to possibly change the zoning to LMN in the future when the Subarea Plan was completed. Wray replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Weitkunat asked whether the E zoning designation had a lot to do with the conditions on Vine Drive. Wray stated staff did not feel that it was mistake to designate the property for E zoning. He stated there was an extensive two-year process involved with investigating the truck route along Vine Drive (an expressway with limited access) and the proposed interchange improvements on Vine Drive. He stated the policy direction was to try to maintain a balance of residential and nonresidential in the Subarea. Councilmember Weitkunat asked if staff supported the logic behind LMN zoning and why there was controversy about doing the LMN zoning now. Wray stated staffs assessment was that it was premature to support the change because the City was behind on the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan until completion of the public process and work with other property owners on the potential impacts of the change. He stated Anheuser-Busch was a key stakeholder in this area and that discussions had not been concluded. Councilmember Weitkunat asked if it was a matter of timing and using a more appropriate process even though LMN would be appropriate zoning for all of the reasons cited. Wray replied in the affirmative. 347 June 1, 2004 Councilmember Hamrick asked ifthe reason staffwould not support LMN zoning at the current time was because of the balance of Employment acres within the Growth Management Area. Gloss stated staff felt that there was a need to maintain the inventory in the northeast area. He stated staff believed that through the amendment process it might be possible not to lose any Employment and perhaps possible to gain some Employment. He stated the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan was a long term 20-year plan and that markets could change. He stated it was unknown whether the market would support Employment in the area. Councilmember Hamrick asked if there were any other reasons why this would not make a good Employment site. He asked if there was a roadway capacity for both residential and Employment. Gloss stated there were other examples in the City where there was an Employment designation adjacent to an arterial. He stated there was a future four-lane arterial designated for Vine Drive. He stated the timing for frontage road access was unknown and that it would be key for Employment uses to have one arterial with relatively close access to the Interstate. Councilmember Hamrick stated it appeared that Employment depended heavily on Anheuser-Busch. He asked if there was any guarantee that Anheuser-Busch would let the uncommitted property develop as Employment. Wray stated approximately 47%of the Employment inventory was within the Anheuser-Busch property. He stated staff had discussions with Anheuser-Busch and that the company indicated that they would consider future development if the right players came forward. He stated there was no guarantee. Councilmember Hamrick stated this appeared to be a key issue identified by the Planning and Zoning Board. He asked how staff determined how much Employment was needed versus residential LMN. Wray stated staff did not set out a goal to have a 50/50 mix of residential/nonresidential. He stated there was slightly more residential in the existing adopted plan(1,400 acres of LMN and 160 acres of MMN). He stated with the proposed amendments that staff believed that additional Employment would not be lost and that there could be opportunities to potentially gain some additional Employment lands. He stated staff was working on the proposed amendments with the other property owners. Councilmember Hamrick stated the applicant spoke about the proposed project and asked if there were any guarantees that the project as outlined would happen. Barkeen stated consistent with State law that the City had already accepted an application for a project development plan after the City Council had initiated annexation proceedings. He stated staff had been reviewing the development plans. He stated the illustration presented by the applicant had been proceeding through the process. Councilmember Hamrick asked how much of the development would be affordable housing. Barkeen stated the project was not submitted as an affordable housing project. He stated the applicant had stated it was his intent to develop the project as an affordable housing project. 348 June 1, 2004 Councilmember Bertschy asked when the amendments were anticipated to becoming forward. Wray stated the amendments were in a"holding pattern." He stated there had been discussions between the stormwater staff and representatives of Anheuser-Busch regarding regional storm drainage issues and clarifications to the language of the original agreement with Anheuser-Busch. He stated those discussions were ongoing. He stated staff hoped to get back to land use discussions relating to the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan with Anheuser-Busch sometime this year. Councilmember Bertschy asked why the storm drainage discussion would hold up the amendments. Wray stated the discussions included regional storm drainage coordination within the Subarea and specific on-site and off-site local storm drainage issues with Anheuser-Busch. He stated the discussions affected the land use inventory within the Subarea. He stated a few of the regional detention ponds identified were sizable and would affect the inventory. He stated there were also discussions to coordinate regional storm drainage on the north property owned by a partnership that involved the applicant for Trailhead. Councilmember Bertschy asked if moving the stormwater detention to the partnership's land would free up land for development on the Anheuser-Busch property. Wray stated was the original intent and that the hope was to gain back most of the 90 acres by shifting the regional detention further to the south. He stated further analysis had shown that perhaps 30 acres of potential Employment would be gained. Jim Hibbard, Water Operations and Planning Manager, stated this was a large basin and that the location of detention facilities was under discussion. He stated the location could have a significant impact on land use and that efforts were being made for focused stormwater planning prior to making land use decisions. He stated additional work was needed to determine if there would be regional or distributed detention facilities to handle stormwater before land use decisions would be made. He stated these were key decisions because of the size of the basin and the amount of water to be handled. He stated Anheuser-Busch was a key stakeholder in this basin and the making of decisions that would work for everyone. Gloss stated staff had hoped to have the storm drainage and land use discussions simultaneously and that Anheuser-Busch had indicated a preference to focus on the storm drainage discussions at this time. Councilmember Bertschy asked why this went to the Planning and Zoning Board twice. Barkeen stated the first time focused on the Structure Plan amendment and that staff worked with the applicant further when that was defeated by the Board. He stated the focus of the discussions was the stormwater detention location and freeing up acreage for Employment. Councilmember Bertschy asked if the Planning and Zoning Board considered the potential future amendments to the Structure Plan. Barkeen stated this was part of the staff presentation. He stated the Board felt that it was appropriate for the Mountain Vista Structure Plan to run its course and for the Board to consider it before any decisions were made to change the designation on the Trailhead property. 349 June 1, 2004 Councilmember Kastein stated a land use decision would be made by the Council at this time. He asked if Council made the decision to zone LMN whether that would be helpful in moving some of the discussions forward with regard to retention ponds, transportation infrastructure, etc. Wray stated staff understood the reasons for the applicant's proposal. He stated Council could approve the change if it was confident that the public process could be concluded on the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan and that the goal ofmaintaining(or even gaining)Employment lands could be reached. He stated the discussions and process had been going on for some time. Councilmember Kastein asked if there would be any "fatal flaw" in LMN zoning. Greg Byrne, CPES Director, replied in the negative and stated staff had been persuaded in its recommendation by several other items acted upon by the Council (the resource recovery farm, the Lifestyle Center, etc.) and discussions regarding the loss of Employment land. He stated this would be a judgment call on Council's part. He stated zoning the property LMN at this time could be done and that it was possible that an equal amount of Employment might not be delivered in the Mountain Vista Subarea in the future. He stated staff had intended to bring this forward as a package in order to maintain the balance in response to Council's expressions of concern. He stated staff could not guarantee that the balance would be maintained. Councilmember Kastein asked if staff could verify Mr. Westhuis' point about the average cost of housing in the City and in Waterglen. Gloss stated staff had no figures to verify or refute the statement. Mr.Westhuis stated he obtained the information from the internal real estate information website (IRIS). Councilmember Weitkunat asked about the criteria for Council to consider in amending the Structure Plan map and whether this project met the criteria. Wray stated the criteria included maintaining a balance of residential and nonresidential and compatibility of land uses. He stated the proposed LMN zoning would satisfy the compatibility criteria and would provide a variety of housing. Councilmember Weitkunat asked if changing conditions was one of the criteria. Barkeen replied in the affirmative. He stated Council would need to make two findings in order to approve a Structure Plan amendment, and that one of those was a change within the area. Councilmember Weitkunat made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Hamrick, to adopt Resolution 2004-070. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Bertschy, Hamrick, Kastein, Martinez, Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED Councilmember Weitkunat made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Hamrick, to adopt Ordinance No. 092, 2004 on First Reading. 350 June 1, 2004 Councilmember Kastein asked for confirmation that this did not address the zoning. Mayor Martinez stated this Ordinance did not address the zoning. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Bertschy, Hamrick, Kastein, Martinez, Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED Councilmember Weitkunat made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kastein, to adopt Ordinance No. 093, 2004 on First Reading with LMN zoning. City Attorney Roy stated LMN zoning would call for a Structure Plan amendment and that would be brought forward with Second Reading of the zoning ordinance. Councilmember Roy stated he would like to have as much information as possible about the City's dealings with Anheuser-Busch in relation to this property. He stated the information received indicated that it was a proper direction to zone the property LMN. He stated he believed that there were "subplots" which he was not aware of and that he would like further information prior to Second Reading. City Attorney Roy stated the Council could set over the zoning ordinance until the information was received or adopt the zoning ordinance on First Reading, with a request that additional information be provided prior to Second Reading. Councilmember Roy stated he was requesting additional information prior to Second Reading. Councilmember Weitkunat stated part of the problem was that these issues were under in-depth complex discussion and that this was taking so long. Councilmember Hamrick stated he was concerned about a change to LMN because the issue of how much Employment land there should be would still be an issue. He stated staff was uncomfortable making this change to LMN at this time and that he was also uncomfortable with this. He stated there was no guarantee that additional Employment land would be accomplished. He stated he had repeatedly heard Council support for high tech industry, employment-based industry and ensuring land for that. He stated this would take land out of that inventory. He expressed a concern that this would be a shortsighted decision until there was some sort of confirmation from Anheuser-Busch regarding whether or not it would dedicate lands for development. Councilmember Weitkunat stated Employment land was an issue for the economic vitality group. She questioned whether it was a significant issue since 150 acres of Employment lands were dropped for open lands recently. She stated this property would be 60 acres and that shifting was sometimes necessary in the Structure Plan. She stated Employment land might be more appropriate at a 351 June 1, 2004 different location. She stated the housing aspects of this site were important with regard to fulfilling the goals for the northeast. She stated the lesser evil was losing the Employment. Councilmember Kastein stated leaving the property with E zoning was no guarantee that such Employment development would occur there. He stated if the property was not zoned LMN that an opportunity would be lost for housing that would be$100,000 cheaper than average new housing in Fort Collins. He stated there was no need to hold to the ideal when there was an opportunity for something good. He stated he would support LMN zoning and letting the houses go in. He stated this would allow staff to go ahead with plans based on the LMN zoning for this property. Councilmember Hamrick asked if this property was zoned LMN, where the detention pond would be located and how the negotiations with Anheuser-Busch would go. Hibbard stated staff had negotiated an option to purchase land at a low spot behind the railroad tracks for possible inclusion in a future detention pond. He stated any plan developed would probably have some sort of detention pond at that location. He stated staff was in the final stages of negotiating the option to purchase that property for inclusion of a detention pond. He stated if the Master Plan indicated that there was to be a detention pond at that location that the City would exercise the option. Councilmember Hamrick asked if the development would require the detention pond. Hibbard stated the Trailhead development would have stormwater detention on its development site on the other side of the railroad track to detain water from the development. He stated the other site would be needed for regional stormwater improvements for all water above the railroad track in that basin. Councilmember Bertschy stated the Council had heard concerns about the proportion of housing and Employment. He stated at some point there could be a shortage of Employment land. He stated he was convinced that this was an opportunity for workforce housing and that was a priority for the Council. He stated he was frustrated that the Subarea Plan was delayed over the issue of stormwater detention. He stated he would vote for the Ordinance with LMN on First Reading and that he wanted to see some more information about the Structure Plan amendment prior to Second Reading. Councilmember Roy stated he would like staff to ask if Anheuser-Busch staff would be willing to share some of the company's views at the time of Second Reading. He stated he would like Council and staff to take a look at taking advantage of the clustering of development(such as Waterglen and Trailhead)and extend the transit service to such areas. He stated he would vote for this Ordinance on First Reading and that he wanted to receive additional information prior to Second Reading. Councilmember Hamrick stated he would not support the motion. He stated this was a"dominos" game in which property would be "bumped" within the Structure Plan. He stated the City should stick to the Structure Plan. He stated this could jeopardize the existing Employment inventory within the Growth Management Area. 352 June I, 2004 Councilmember Weitkunat stated she would support the motion. She stated the Structure Plan and City Plan were dynamic documents. She stated there had been changing circumstances in the area and that it was important to have housing in the area. She stated Trailhead met the criteria for compatibility. Mayor Martinez stated he believed that this was a good idea. He stated other Employment sites could hopefully be found. He stated there appeared to be an adequate Employment inventory for 100 years. He stated he would support the Ordinance because it was important to have affordable housing in areas where people worked. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Bertschy, Kastein, Martinez, Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: Councilmember Hamrick. THE MOTION CARRIED Ordinance No. 075, 2004 Amending Article III of Chapter 20 of the City Code Pertaining to the Outdoor Storage of Materials, Adopted on Second Reading. The following is staff s memorandum on this item. "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Ordinance, which was adopted 6-I, (Councilmember Kastein opposed) on First Reading on May 4, 2004, amends the Code adding a provision addressing outdoor storage of materials in residential neighborhoods. " Deputy City Manager Jones introduced the agenda item. City Attorney Roy summarized the changes that had been made to the Ordinance on Second Reading and read the new version into the record. Councilmember Bertschy made a motion,seconded by Councilmember Roy,to adopt Ordinance No. 075, 2004 on Second Reading. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Bertschy, Hamrick, Kastein, Martinez, Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED 353 June 1, 2004 Other Business Councilmember Hamrick stated the Council had discussed at the last retreat having timers with lights. He stated he thought that there would be a benefit to having lights to indicate the cumulative time that each Councilmember spoke. Deputy City Manager Jones stated she would determine the status of reviewing alternate technologies. Mayor Martinez asked that staff develop a timetable for the timers. Councilmember Kastein requested a one-page memo on the time line for evaluation of wage and benefit adjustments for City employees. Executive Session Authorized Councilmember Bertschy made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kastein, to adjourn into Executive Session pursuant to Section 2-31(a)(3)of the City Code to discuss the possible acquisition of real property. The vote on the motion was as follows:Yeas:Councilmembers Bertschy,Hamrick, Kastein, Martinez, Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED ("Secretary's Note: The Council adjourned into Executive Session at 9:55 p.m. and reconvened following the Executive Session at 10:25 p.m.) Adjournment Councilmember Bertschy made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Hamrick, to adjourn the meeting to 6:00 p.m.on June 8,2004 for the purpose of conducting midyear performance evaluations of the City Attorney and Municipal Judge. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Bertschy, Hamrick, Kastein, Martinez, Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED The meeting adjourned at 10:26 p.m. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk 354