Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 09/07/2004 - CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE COUNCIL MEETING ITEM NUMBER: 7 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY DATE: September7, 2004 FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL STAFF: Darin Atteberry SUBJECT Consideration and approval of the Council meeting minutes of July 20, 2004. July 20, 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, July 20, 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, Martinez, Roy, Tharp and Weitkunat. Councilmembers Absent: Kastein. Staff Members Present: Atteberry, Krajicek, Roy. Citizen Participation Mayor Martinez stated each participant would have three minutes to speak. Brian Schumm, 5948 Colby Street, spoke regarding concerns relating to property in the Growth Management Area at 209 East Skyway. He questioned the decision made by the City not to bring the property into the City for rezoning consideration. He stated he had been told by staff that the matter was quasi-judicial and that he was presenting a letter to the Council that did not relate to any quasi-judicial issue. He stated he could speak to the Council individually or as a group about an issue that was not quasi-judicial. He stated he was asking for the Council's help because he disagreed with the staff He stated Greg Byrne had written a letter relinquishing the City's powers under the GMA, Structure Plan and Intergovernmental Agreement with Larimer County that would allow the City to process a rezoning request for the property outside of the City. He stated the letter was improper and that he would like it to be rescinded. He requested a response from the Council regarding the issue. He presented his letter to the City Clerk to be distributed to the Council. Richard Lee, owner of multiple rental properties in Fort Collins, spoke in opposition to a proposed rental licensing Ordinance and stated it would impact property rights. Rick Zier,attorney representing the owner of the property referenced by Mr. Schumm(the Whitman family), stated that in reliance on the letter written by Greg Byrne,his client had been going through the County development process. He stated it would be highly inappropriate and unfair at this point to rescind the letter. Bruce Lockhart, 2500 East Harmony Road, stated the process for adoption of a rental licensing Ordinance was flawed. He stated the major stakeholders who would be impacted were the students since they would be the ones who would actually pay the fee as part of their rent. He stated there 459 July 20, 2004 was only a two-week period for public comment and that most students were not in town at this time. He suggested reopening the comment period in the fall. Joe Zito, 1900 Bronson Street, stated he had complaints with excess gravel on the street, sidewalks and driveways from slurry seal that was done a year ago on his street. He stated taxpayer dollars were used for inferior materials. He stated he had received a letter from the City's project manager giving technical information and that after a year, nothing had been done about the mess. He stated he would like to have the situation remedied. Cody Fullmer, 3909 Mesa Verde Street, president of the Woodland Park Estates Homeowner's Association, stated he had a Powerpoint presentation to make on Ordinance No. 056, 2004. He stated 88 out of 108 homeowners opposed the Ordinance. He asked the Council to correct misleading facts that were used to approve the Ordinance amending the Urban Estates Land Use Code. He stated failures in the City process enabled the Ordinance to be adopted in April. He stated the Ordinance allowed previously prohibited businesses(auditoriums,ballrooms,and reception halls that could hold up to 800 people) in the U-E zone. He stated many of the events that would be allowed included outdoor activities, music and celebrations. Al Baccili,520 Galaxy Court,expressed concerns about the money to be spent on the City Manager search. He stated Darin Atteberry should be kept as the City Manager. He also expressed a concern that the firehouse on Timberline was not yet staffed. He also spoke in opposition to the sales tax vendor fee and the sales tax on food. Chuck Seest, 3127 Grand Teton Place, past president and treasurer of the Woodland Park Estates Homeowner's Association, spoke regarding Ordinance No. 056, 2004 relating to small scale reception centers. He stated there would be no limit on the number of people allowed at such reception centers. He stated 15,000 square feet would be allowed and that functions for up to 800 people would now be allowed within residential neighborhoods. Thomas Welch,4033 Mesa Verde Street,stated staffhad committed to providing written notification to all affected property owners regarding Ordinance No.056,2004 and that was not done. He stated staff missed continuing opportunities to solicit input from potentially affected properties. He stated two private parties worked with staff to ensure"neighborhood compatibility. He stated those with a financial interest in the development were "writing the rules" to set compliance measures. He presented examples of what he considered to be misrepresentations made during discussions of the Land Use Code changes. Susan Pawlak,4014 Mesa Verde Street,past president of the Woodland Park Estates Homeowner's Association,spoke regarding Ordinance No.056,2004 and asked the Council to uphold the interests of the landowners and residents of Fort Collins. She stated biased information was presented to the Council when the Ordinance was considered. She stated commercial sized reception businesses 460 July 20, 2004 would be allowed to expand out of the commercial area and into residential neighborhoods. She stated the Ordinance was created using inaccurate, biased and potentially unfair information. She stated staff did not notify potentially affected homeowners as promised. She asked that the Ordinance be repealed. Jerry Roselle, 3314 Grand Canyon Court, stated he was not part of the Woodlands Park Estates Homeowner's Association and asked that Council not be misled to believe that all of the homeowners in that neighborhood were opposed to Feather Ridge. He stated he strongly favored that project and that his property and the Shields property had the longest contiguous property line with the project site. He stated the work that had been done was an improvement to the property and that he also spoke for Mr. Shields in supporting the project. Bruce Hams,3120 Mesa Verde Street,Woodland Park Estates Homeowner's Association member, stated the Association did not represent all members on this issue. He stated his views were different than the views of the Association. He stated the Association's letter to the City contained misleading information. He stated the letter was an attempt to block the development of the property through the legislative process rather than through the development process. He stated rescinding the ordinance could set a precedent for other similar requests to block developments. He urged the Council to retain the Ordinance and allow the concerns of the Association to be heard during the development process. Staci Richter stated Ordinance No. 056, 2004 should stay as written to allow small scale reception centers to be a defined use in the Urban Estates zone. She stated the parties interested in this use in the U-E zone had worked closely with the City and had been through reviews by the Planning and Zoning Board and the City Council. She stated intensive research had gone into the ordinance. She asked that the Council not overturn the ordinance because of neighborhood problems with one specific project. She stated the ordinance would enhance Fort Collins and help meet the needs of many citizens. Jim Martell, attorney representing Mr. and Mrs. Baker and Wendy Meyer (owners of the Feather Ridge property), stated this was a legislative matter,that the City Council had conducted two study sessions on the ordinance, and that the Planning and Zoning Board heard the item twice. He stated notice provisions were not applicable in this situation. He stated notice of the Planning and Zoning Board hearing was given in accordance with Section 2-72 of the City Code. He stated staff did not make a commitment to send notices to all affected property owners. He presented a tape recording containing a statement made by Greg Byrne and stated there was no direction from the Council to send a notice and no commitment made by staff to send a notice. He stated the practice had not been to send notices in other legislative matters that had substantial impact on property owners (notably the alley house issue). He asked that Council not reconsider the ordinance. 461 July 20, 2004 Koichi Matsumura, 4021 Mesa Verde, stated Ordinance No. 056, 2004 was incompatible with the Land Use Code and could be detrimental to neighboring properties. He stated the ordinance was self-contradicting to the spirit of compatibility with adjacent land uses and neighboring properties. He stated it would enable reception centers that could disrupt the neighbors. He stated the City was misled into passing the Ordinance. He asked that the Council repeal the ordinance to better protect the neighborhoods and serve the needs of the public. Mayor Martinez asked if the Council wished to consider extending the time for Citizen Participation. Julie Baker,representing Feather Ridge, stated there were gross inaccuracies in reports of what had been said in previous hearings. She stated the Urban-Estates zone allowed golf courses, long term care facilities, day care centers,bed and breakfasts, and public and private schools. She stated this type of reception business did coincide with the uses allowed in the U-E zone. She stated 15,000 square feet would include all buildings on the premises of a reception center (a barn, a garage, a house built in 1890, etc.). She stated the 15,000 square feet would also include the kitchen, the bride's room, the lobby, the office, and board rooms. She stated it was an exaggeration to say that there would be 15,000 square feet for parties for 800 people. She stated there was notification given to the public. She stated there were very few U-E sites that could be used for small scale reception centers. Bob Powlak,4014 Mesa Verde Street,board member of the Woodland Park Estates Neighborhood Association,stated the group had met with the Mayor and that he had indicated that comments about any one specific project would not be allowed. He stated people had been allowed to address specific projects(Feather Ridge). He stated the group's presentation had been tailored to generalities and that he would like to know why Mr. Roselle and others from Feather Ridge were allowed to make specific comments about that development. Citizen Participation Follow-up Mayor Martinez stated he had indicated in the meeting with the Woodland Park Estates Neighborhood Association that he would not address specific development issues at that meeting because the matter could come to the Council on appeal. He stated he did not indicate that individuals could not address such matters under Citizen Participation. Mayor Martinez also asked about the schedule for the rental licensing ordinance. Interim City Manager Atteberry stated the matter was tentatively scheduled for a study session in early October to allow time for CSU students to provide input. Mayor Martinez asked that staff look into the matter of excess slurry seal in Mr. Zito's neighborhood. Interim City Manager Atteberry stated he would contact Mr.Zito and report back to the Council. 462 July 20, 2004 Mayor Martinez stated he had urged the Council to move forward with funding for Fire Station#14 and that options were being considered. Interim City Manager Atteberry stated the matter was discussed at last Tuesday's Study Session and that the next step would be to prepare an item for the 2005 budget exceptions process for Council consideration in October. Councilmember Tharp asked that the 2005 budget anticipated moving back into the Fire Department budget for Station #14 if money would be available. Interim City Manager Atteberry stated the request from the Poudre Fire Authority was for money above and beyond that anticipated amount. Councilmember Tharp asked for an update on the issue relating to 209 Skyway. Interim City Manager Atteberry stated he would work with the City Attorney to prepare a two-page memo. Councilmember Hamrick stated he would have several questions under Other Business relating to the issue brought forward by Mr. Schumm. Councilmember Hamrick also stated he would make a motion under Other Business to repeal the Ordinance that added small events centers to the U-E zone. City Attorney Roy stated it would not be possible to repeal the Ordinance at this meeting and that such repeal would need to be considered through another Ordinance. He stated the motion would need to be to direct staff to bring forward an Ordinance to accomplish the repeal. Councilmember Roy stated every neighborhood and citizen,including the CSU students,were equal stakeholders in the rental licensing issue. He stated there would be opportunities for continued input from many people. Councilmember Roy also stated it was time to find a way to open Fire Station #14. He stated the grocery tax generated$6 million for the community and that there would be more difficult choices if that tax was repealed. Mayor Martinez stated there would be no rebate to the indigent if the food sales tax was abolished. He stated the rebate was more than people would save if the tax was eliminated. Councilmember Bertschy stated the Poudre Fire Authority held a study session on the opening of Fire Station #14. He stated the tape was available to view on request. He stated one of the top priorities for the PFA was to open the station and that everything possible was being done to accomplish that. Citizen Participation Follow-up: West Nile Virus Spraying Discussed Councilmember Roy requested a change in the rules for the meeting to allow him to introduce two Resolutions to City Council pertaining to Resolution 2004-82 establishing guidelines for taking measures to help control the West Nile Virus. He stated he would like the Council to consider a Resolution to clarify language in the Resolution that was adopted. He stated it appeared that the City Council voted on the adopted Resolution based on the West Nile Risk Index as the single criterion 463 July 20, 2004 for instituting spraying. He requested the creation of a Resolution that would clearly speak to other criteria for instituting spraying. City Attorney Roy stated it would not be possible to pass such a Resolution at this meeting. He stated if Council wanted to take action that it would be in the form of a motion. He stated his understanding of the intent was to direct the City Manager to not commence the spraying. He stated if that was correct that the motion would be to direct the City Manager not to commence the spraying because it was not presently authorized under the Resolution and perhaps to bring back another Resolution at a future time to clarify the criterion or criteria under which spraying should occur. Councilmember Roy stated he wanted language that would allow the City to acknowledge the ambiguity in the language of the adopted Resolution and to clarify that. He asked if that would be possible at this meeting. City Attorney Roy stated a Resolution could not be amended except by a subsequent Resolution. He stated the immediate question was whether spraying should be conducted under the authority of the adopted Resolution. He stated majority support could be sought to not spray because the adopted Resolution was being mistakenly interpreted. Councilmember Roy stated he believed that the adopted Resolution indicated only one criterion for spraying. He asked for Council support to say that at this point the threshold necessary for spraying based on the adopted Resolution had not been reached and that spraying should not be allowed to go forward at this time. Mayor Martinez asked if Councilmember Roy was making a motion. Councilmember Roy made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Hamrick, to delay spraying for West Nile Virus until the West Nile Virus Mosquito Risk Index reached a level of above .75 as indicated in Resolution 2004-082. Nancy York, Fort Collins resident, asked if the Risk Index factor had reached .75. She stated there were some adverse medical consequences for spraying. George Hoffman, 1101 Valley Oak Court, suggested (facetiously) seeing "how many citizens fall over before we start spraying." Nancy Lee, 5222 Apple Drive, stated she signed up for e-mail notification regarding when spraying was going to occur and that she understood that there would be spraying at 8:30 p.m. tonight. Councilmember Roy asked what the mosquito risk index was at this time. Tom Vosburg,Assistant City Manager, stated the mosquito risk index was a measure of the total amount of mosquitos that could carry West Nile Virus as measured through the mosquito trapping and testing system. He stated to date no infected mosquitos had been trapped and that this had raised concerns that the trapping and testing protocol was not sensitive enough to determine the incidence of infection that 464 July 20, 2004 was known to exist because of instances of infection of birds and seven human cases in Larimer County. Councilmember Roy asked about the precautions that should be taken due to the hazards that existed during spraying. Vosburg stated the City was recommending that people close their doors and windows and turn off air conditioning while fogging was taking place in the immediate area, especially if people had any concerns about respiratory problems such as asthma. Interim City Manager Atteber y stated the City also recommended that people stay indoors during spraying. He stated spraying was scheduled to begin this evening at approximately 8:40 p.m. Mayor Martinez asked about the agreed upon criteria for spraying had been met. Vosburg stated his intent in drafting the Resolution was to reflect the Study Session discussion about the four criteria recommended by the County Board of Health. He stated the intent was that if any of the four criteria were met that the "trigger criteria" would be satisfied. He stated the majority of the discussion focused on the risk index. Mayor Martinez asked if the criteria had been met. Vosburg replied in the affirmative. City Attorney Roy stated it was his understanding that one of the four criteria (the incidence of human infection) had been met. Mayor Martinez stated the Council had a letter from the County Health Department that indicated that any of the four criteria could trigger the recommendation to spray. Interim City Manager Atteberry stated he interpreted the direction of the Council at the study session to be that any one of the four criteria would trigger spraying. He stated his authorization of the spraying was specifically based on Council direction that spraying would take place when any one of the criteria was met. Councilmember Weitkunat stated this issue had been discussed at length and that the majority of staff and the majority of Councilmembers believed that the established criteria had been met. She suggested moving forward with the spraying and called for the question. Councilmember Hamrick stated he had some questions. Mayor Martinez asked if there was consensus with regard to calling the question. Councilmember Bertschy stated Councilmember Hamrick could ask his questions but that he was ready to move forward. Councilmember Tharp agreed that Councilmember Hamrick could ask his questions. She stated she agreed that this had already been discussed in some detail. 465 July 20, 2004 Councilmember Hamrick stated there were no criteria listed in Resolution 2004-082. He suggested that the Resolution be modified to include all of the criteria. He stated the criteria were listed only in the agenda item summary and that they should be listed in the Resolution to avoid any confusion. Mayor Martinez referenced language in the Resolution and letter from the Health Department that clearly indicated the criteria for spraying. He stated he would vote against the motion. Councilmember Roy stated the risk index was the main topic of Council's discussions and referenced a local newspaper article that indicated that there could be confusion about the criteria. Councilmember Hamrick stated the language of the Resolution was vague and that the criteria should be specifically referenced in the Resolution. He expressed a concern about comments made by the County regarding whether some of the triggers were meaningful or not. He stated the City could spray when it was not necessary to do so or could miss spraying when it was necessary. He stated it was important to have "valid triggers and criteria" listed in the Resolution. Mayor Martinez stated he would base his decision on the letter from the Health Department rather than on what the newspaper said. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Hamrick and Roy. Nays: Councilmembers Bertschy, Martinez, Tharp and Weitkunat. THE MOTION FAILED Councilmember Roy asked that the Council consider giving direction to staff to use the reverse 9-1-1 system for notification of spraying. He stated there were 12,500 households that would be affected by the spraying and that it would cost 30¢ per household (about $3,500) to tell people to stay indoors,shut their doors and windows,and turn off their air conditioning during spraying. He stated it was important to inform people about the health hazards of spraying. Mayor Martinez asked how effective the use of reverse 9-1-1 would be. Interim City Manager Atteberry stated the success rate was estimated to be in the 50-60% range due to blocked phone numbers, unlisted phone numbers, and the use of cell phones as the primary residential phone. He stated it would cost about 300 per call for a 30 second message. Councilmember Tharp asked if a motion would be required to give the direction. She stated it would be reasonable to use reverse 9-1-1 because of the level of concern that had been shown in the community. Councilmember Hamrick supported using reverse 9-1-1 for notification of spraying. 466 July 20, 2004 Councilmember Weitkunat asked if reverse 9-1-1 could be site or area specific. Interim City Manager Atteberry replied in the affirmative. Mayor Martinez asked how long the message would be. Interim City Manager Atteberry stated staff would attempt to keep the length of the message under 30 seconds and that it could be as long as 60 seconds if it was detailed. Councilmember Bertschy stated the use of reverse 9-1-1 would be beneficial and that he would like to see the message kept under 30 seconds. Councilmember Weitkunat stated she would prefer that the message be kept to 15 or 20 seconds. Mayor Martinez asked for a show of hands from audience members regarding whether they would like to see reverse 9-1-1 used. He stated staff had direction from the majority of Council to use reverse 9-1-1. Interim City Manager Atteberry stated reverse 9-1-1 could probably not be used for the spraying that would take place this evening. Agenda Review Interim City Manager Atteberry stated the agenda would stand as printed. Mark Brophy, 1109 West Harmony Road, withdrew item #19 Second Reading of Ordinance No. 115, 2004,Authorizing the Acquisition by Eminent Domain Proceedings of Certain Lands Necessary for the Construction of Public Improvements in Connection with the Street Oversizing Drake and Ziegler Road Realignment Project and item #21 Second Reading of Ordinance No. 120, 2004, Appropriating Proceeds from the Lease Purchase Certificates of Participation of the City of Fort Collins, Colorado, Series 2004A for the Purpose of Making Certain Capital Improvements (The Police Building and the Streets Deicing Facility Projects), the Acquisition and Conservation of Natural Areas, and for Costs of Issuance of the Lease Certificates Transaction from the Consent Calendar. CONSENT CALENDAR 7. Second 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 to refine and update the animal code. This process began in early 2002 and amends various sections of Chapter 4 of the Code. 467 July 20, 2004 Ordinance No.083,2004,was adopted 5-0(Councilmembers Hamrick and Roy were absent) on First Reading on July 6, 2004. 8. Second Reading of Ordinance No 102 2004 Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue in the General Fund for the Operation of the Fort Collins Welcome Center. The Colorado legislature created the Colorado Tourism Board("Board")and authorized the Board to operate State Welcome Centers. The Board determined that the State Welcome Center for Fort Collins would be more efficiently and effectively operated by the City of Fort Collins. In August of 2000, the Colorado Tourism Office was created and was authorized to operate State Welcome Centers. This Ordinance, which was adopted 5-0 (Councilmembers Hamrick and Roy were absent) on First Reading on July 6, 2004, appropriates grant revenue for the operation of the Fort Collins Welcome Center. 9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 103 2004 Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the General Fund and Authorizing the Transfer ofAppropriated Amounts Between Accounts and Projects for the Multi-Jurisdictional Drug Task Force Fort Collins Police Services applied to the Office of Drug Control and System Improvement (Byrne Grant) on behalf of the Task Force for federal grant monies to help fund the investigation of illegal narcotics activities in Larimer County. These funds will be used to match personnel costs related to the assigned Colorado State University Detective,rental and operational costs at the Task Force off-site location, overtime funding to help offset the overtime costs of each participating agency, and confidential funds to be used for the purchase of narcotics from drug dealers by undercover police officers. This Ordinance, which was adopted 5-0 (Councilmembers Hamrick and Roy were absent) on First Reading on July 6,2004,appropriates the$250,000 in new federal grant money and $5,000 to be received from Colorado State University. 10. Second Reading of Ordinance No 105 2004 Amending Section 20 22 of the City Code Relating to Unreasonable Noise. In October 2003 at the request of City Councilmembers, a cross section of City agencies formed a committee to look into the City's current noise ordinances dealing with motor vehicle loud muffler noise and motorcycle noise specifically. After discussion and review of ordinances around the country, the committee made recommendations for changes to the City Code in an effort to reduce the problems with motor vehicle noise which were adopted on First Reading,March 2,2004,by adoption of Ordinance No.033,2004. However,in May 2004,by the adoption of Ordinance No. 071,2004, the noise ordinance was again amended 468 July 20, 2004 and language previously approved by Ordinance No. 033,2004 pertaining to motor vehicle noise was inadvertently omitted Ordinance No. 105,2004,was adopted 5-0(Councilmembers Hamrick and Roy were absent) on First Reading on July 6,2004,restating the omitted section regarding motor vehicle noise. 11. Second Reading of Ordinance No 106 2004 Amending the Code of the City by the Addition of a New Section 23-115 Pertaining to Vacating Public Right-of-Way. Requests for the City to vacate portions of its public right-of-way(ROW) are received with regular frequency. These requests are normally from private property owners or developers who want to convert portions of the public ROW to private use. An informal process has been in place to deal with such requests,but the increasing frequency(now averaging 1-2 per month) has prompted staff to create policy and procedure language to insure consistent responses to these requests. At present, the City Code is silent on this issue, and ROW vacations are handled in accordance with state law. This Ordinance,which was adopted 5-0 (Councilmembers Hamrick and Roy were absent) on First Reading on July 6, 2004, adds language to the City Code to clarify local policy and procedures, as well as reinforce state law (CRS 43-2-302). 12. Second Reading of Ordinance No 107 2004 Authorizing the Conveyance of Certain Real Property at the City Park Nine Golf Course Thomas C. Lloyd has been an adjoining property owner of the City Park Nine Golf Course for many years. His property is at 1611 West Mulberry and is adjacent to the renovated 6th Green area and the 7th Fairway Tee Boxes. Mr. Lloyd proposed to purchase this strip for S 14,200, utilizing comparable square footage values as the City used for the Sheldon Lake Drainage Improvements, which impacted both Mr. Lloyd's property and the Golf Course. This Ordinance, which was adopted 5-0 (Councilmembers Hamrick and Roy were absent) on First Reading on July 6, 2004, authorizes the conveyance of certain real property at the City Park Nine Golf Course to Mr. Lloyd. 13. Items Relating to the Mulberry East First Annexation and Zoning A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 108, 2004, Annexing Property Known as the Mulberry East First Annexation. B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 109, 2004, Amending the Zoning Map and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the Mulberry East First Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado. 469 July 20, 2004 On July 6, 2004, Council adopted 5-0 (Councilmembers Hamrick and Roy were absent) Resolution 2004-078 Setting Forth Findings of Fact and Determinations Regarding the Mulberry East First Annexation. Also on July 6,2004,Council adopted 5-0(Councilmembers Hamrick and Roywere absent), Ordinance No. 108, 2004 and Ordinance No. 109, 2004, annexing and zoning 3.04 acres located on the south side of East Mulberry Street and west of Timberline Road. The property is developed. It includes a stone water drainageway and streets. It is in the FA -Farming Zoning District in Larimer County. This is a voluntary annexation of City-owned property. 14. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 110 2004 Amending Section 17-141 of the City Code Relating to the Carrying of Liquor or Other Fermented Beverages in Certain Places ("Open Container"). In the latest legislative session,the General Assemblypassed a law allowing hotel/restaurant licensed patrons to re-cork an unfinished bottle of wine to take home. The City's current open container ordinance prohibits the carrying of a re-corked or resealed bottle of alcohol in any public place or automobile. Liquor licensing and distribution are matters of statewide concern. Ordinance No. 110, 2004,which was adopted 5-0(Councilmembers Hamrick and Roy were absent)on First Reading on July 6,2004, amends Section 17-141 to be consistent with the state law. Additionally, this amendment prohibits the presence of a "re-corked" bottle of wine in the front passenger or driver area of a vehicle. 15. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 111 2004 Amending Chawer 15 Article VIII of the City Code Relating to Pawnbrokers. Chapter 15,Article VIII ofthe City Code contains various provisions regulating the operation of pawnbrokers in the City in the interest of the public health,safety and welfare. In the most recent legislative session,the General Assembly amended the state statutes pertaining to the regulation of pawnbrokers by deleting the maximum "fixed period of time"for contracts for purchase and imposed a minimum period of time. The City may enact ordinances more restrictive than state law regulating pawnbrokers. However,to eliminate potential confusion among pawnbrokers regarding their legal obligations,Ordinance No. 111,2004,was adopted 5-0 (Councilmembers Hamrick and Roy were absent), on First Reading on July 6, 2004, amending Sections 15-261 and 15-269 to be consistent with state law. 470 July 20, 2004 16. Second Reading of Ordinance No 112 2004 Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the General Fund for the School Resource Officer Program The contract is the third renewal of this partnership. The majority of changes in this version are of a routine housekeeping nature. However, as Poudre School District prepares to open its newest high school, Fossil Ridge High School, this contract also expands the School Resource Officer Program by one additional officer to staff that school. Ordinance No. 112, 2004, was adopted 5-0 (Councilmembers Hamrick and Roy were absent) on First Reading on July 6, 2004, appropriating unanticipated revenue for the School Resource Officer program. 17. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 113 2004 Amending Various Sections ofthe Fort Collins Traffic Code. This legislative session the Colorado General Assembly amended certain statutory provisions relating to seat belt use, license plates, interference with traffic control devices, red light camera use, spilling loads on highways and compulsory insurance. At the time of the adoption of the Traffic Code, it was the understanding of staff and Council that the Traffic Code would most likely be subject to future amendments, not only for the purpose of clarification and correction of errors, but also for the purpose of ensuring that the Traffic Code remains consistent with state traffic laws. This Ordinance, which was adopted 5-0 (Councilmembers Hamrick and Roy were absent)on First Reading on July 6,2004,amends various sections of the Fort Collins Traffic Code. 18. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 114 2004 Authorizing the Long-Term Lease of Property at the Fort Collins-Loveland Municipal Airport to Robert and Linda Eggleston for the Construction of an Aircraft Hangar. This Ordinance, which was adopted 5-0 (Councilmembers Hamrick and Roy were absent) on First Reading on July 6, 2004, approves the ground lease allowing the Eggelstons to construct a 54 foot by 48 foot hangar for personal aircraft storage. The land lease includes additional land around the hangar for use by the tenant 19. Second Reading of Ordinance No 115 2004 Authorizing the Acquisition by Eminent Domain Proceedings of Certain Lands Necessary for the Construction of Public Improvements in Connection with the Street Oversizing Drake and Ziegler Road Realignment Project. A slope easement and construction easement are required for the construction of improvements to Drake Road east of Timberline, across property owned by the Cargill Corporation ("Cargill'). This property is currently used for seed research and is an 471 July 20, 2004 agricultural operation. This property was annexed into the city as an enclave. The property is now surrounded by the active developments of Rigden Farm and Sidehill. The Street Oversizing Program has been working with the development projects to obtain the right of way necessary to construct improvements to Drake Road from Timberline to Ziegler and construct improvements on Ziegler Road to Horsetooth. This will complete a critical transportation link in the area.These new roadways will meet minor arterial standards and eliminate the current substandard roadway(CR13)with sharp curves and three narrow one lane bridges. Two fatal accidents have occurred on this portion of Ziegler Road. Ordinance No. 115,2004,was unanimously adopted 5-0(Councilmembers Hamrick and Roy were absent) on First Reading on July 6, 2004. 20. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 116 2004 Authorizing the Acquisition by Eminent Domain Proceedings of Certain Lands Necessary for the Construction of Public Improvements in Connection with the Dry Creek Drainage Improvements Project This Ordinance, which was adopted 5-0 (Councilmembers Hamrick and Roy were absent) on First Reading on July 6, 2004, does not automatically result in the filing of a petition in eminent domain; it simply allows staff to use the process if good faith negotiations fail to result in an agreement between the City and affected property owners. 21. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 120 2004 Appropriating Proceeds from the Lease Purchase Certificates of Participation ofthe City ofFort Collins Colorado Series 2004A for the Purpose of Making Certain Capital Improvements (The Police Building and the Streets Deicing Facility Proiects) the Acquisition and Conservation of Natural Areas and for Costs of Issuance of the Lease Certificates Transaction This Ordinance, which was adopted 5-0 (Councilmembers Hamrick and Roy were absent) on First Reading on July 6, 2004, appropriates the proceeds from the transaction in the Capital Projects Fund and the Open Lands Fund. 22. First Reading of Ordinance No. 121 2004 Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue in the General Fund for the Poudre Valley Health System Reduce Intoxicated Driving Program Poudre Valley Health System ("PVHS") developed a comprehensive prevention program called Reduce Intoxicated Driving("RID")to minimize the number of individuals who drive while intoxicated. RID collaborates with local government, businesses, law enforcement, health care providers, Colorado State University, Poudre School District, and other community sectors to reduce the number of individuals who drive intoxicated. The program uses many strategies to decrease the number of people who drive intoxicated such as public 472 July 20, 2004 education and dissemination of information about the hazards of driving while intoxicated to youth in the community. PVHS requested that the City serve as the local public procurement unit and a pass-through recipient of the grant proceeds. This Ordinance will allow the City to disburse the grant funds to PVHS (via the Hospital Foundation) upon completion of any grant-related documents and a subgrant agreement between the City and PVHS. 23. First Reading of Ordinance No. 122, 2004 Authorizing the Lease of City-Owned Property at 400 Wood Street for Un to Five Years The building and lot at 400 Wood Street were acquired by the City of Fort Collins in 1980. The building was formerly the St. Joseph's rectory. Community Development Block Grant ("CDBG") funding was used to purchase the lot and move the building to its present location. Due to the restrictions on use of CDBG funds, all tenants of this building must meet the criteria of the national CDBG objective by serving a majority (51% or more) of low-moderate income clients below 80% of Area Median Income (AMI). 24. First Reading of Ordinance No. 123,2004 Authorizing the Amendment of the Lease ofCity- owned Property at 430 North College Avenue Fort Collins Colorado to Colorado State University. The City is the owner of the"Old Power Plant Site"located at 430 North College Avenue. CSU leases the facility from the City for use as an engine research laboratory. The Lease Agreement between the City of Fort Collins and CSU dated February 15, 1994 had an original term of ten years with three successive five-year renewal terms. Each renewal is automatic,unless CSU gives notice of its intent not to renew two years in advance. The City is currently in the first of the three five- year extension periods. The Lease Agreement also allows either party to terminate the lease at any time with two years notice. 25. First Reading of Ordinance No. 124 2004 Authorizing the Acquisition by Eminent Domain Proceedings of Certain Lands Necessary for the Construction of Public Improvements in Connection with the Manhattan Regional Detention Pond and the Mason Transportation Corridor Bike/Pedestrian Trail. The Manhattan Regional Detention Pond Project will provide needed stormwater detention in a predominately mature and built-out residential and business area which is at risk in a 100 year flood. In addition,the Mason Transportation Corridor Bike/Pedestrian trail can be built concurrently with a berm for the Manhattan Regional Detention Pond. Although negotiations are continuing and expected to be successful,eminent domain proceedings must begin in order to assure all necessary property interests are obtained in a timely manner. 473 July 20, 2004 26. Resolution 2004-086 Submitting Comments to the North Front Range Transportation and Air Quality Planning Council on its Draft 2030 Regional Transportation Plan The North Front Range Transportation and Air Quality Planning Council(also known as the North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization, or MPO) is preparing the 2030 Regional Transportation Plan(RTP). This RTP,required by Federal and State transportation planning regulations, will be the guiding document for the next three years in facilitating transportation system development for this region. The 2030 RTP will be incorporated into CDOT's statewide plan. To be eligible for Federal or State funding,transportation projects must be included in the RTP. 27. Resolution 2004-087 Authorizing the Execution by the Mayor of a GOCO Grant Agreement for Reservoir Ridge Trail and Approving its Terms and Conditions Application was submitted and approved for a GOCO and Colorado State Trails program grant of $11,400. The proposed project is, working with the Larimer County Youth Conservation Corps., to re-route approximately % mile of the Foothills Trail at Reservoir Ridge Natural Area and reclaim the abandoned section. 28. Resolution 2004-088 Adopting the Recommendations of the Cultural Resources Board Regarding Fort Fund Disbursements. The guidelines for the Cultural Development and Programming and Tourism Programming accounts (Fort Fund) provide a three-tiered funding system. Organizations may apply for grants from these accounts to fund community events. 29. Resolution 2004-089 Authorizing the Execution of a Grant Contract with the Colorado Council on the Arts for Funding of the Winter Wishes Ice Show. The City Recreation Division was recently awarded a matching grant from the Colorado Council on the Arts in the amount of$14,400 to provide performances of the Fort Collins Symphony at the annual Winter Wishes Ice Show at Edora Pool Ice Center (EPIC) in December,2004. The Colorado Council on the Arts requires that the City Council obligate the local match funding, as well as authorize the City Manager to execute the contract and bind the City to its terms. Match funding was appropriated in the Recreation Division budget by Ordinance No. 156, 2003, which authorized the 2004 City expenditure budget. 30. Resolution 2004-090 Adopting the Priority Affordable Housing Needs and Strategies R2Rort. The goal of the"Priority Affordable Housing Needs and Strategies"Report is to help the City be more strategic in getting housing assistance to the people who need it most. It is also 474 July 20, 2004 about using City resources smarter, to get the most housing production from our resources. The Report begins with an investigation of what kind of affordable housing exist in this community, what kinds are needed, and what the most urgent need is. It includes an assessment of existing financial resources that support affordable housing, both public and private. The Report also contains a description of the roles of various players in the affordable housing community within Fort Collins, including a comprehensive analysis of current City roles,responsibilities and programs. Finally,it presents recommendations from staff and the Affordable Housing Board for the City's future role, responsibilities and programs,including specific and measurable goals,objectives and strategies for meeting its affordable housing needs. 31. Resolution 2004-091 Supporting the Effort to Encourage the Construction of Housing with Features That Provide Basic Access and Functionality to All Occupants and Visitors The proposed Resolution officially recognizes and endorses the expanded"Practical Housing for All (PHA)"program that includes additional universal design criteria for the benefit of home occupants as well as visitors. Council Resolution 2002-098, adopted unanimously on October 15, 2002, was intended to encourage home builders to include features during construction that make a home more usable and practical primarily for visitors. 32. Resolution 2004-092 Adopting the Land Conservation and Stewardship Master Plan The Natural Areas Program is I 1 years old, yet it is still very much in its infancy. The Natural Areas Policy Plan (NAPP), adopted by the Fort Collins City Council in 1992, established the vision and policies for much of the first 11 years. The Natural Areas Program has outgrown the NAPP. The Land Conservation and Stewardship Master Plan replaces the NAPP, establishing a vision for the new era 2004-2013, providing updated policies, and documenting the accomplishments of the Natural Areas Program's first 11 years. (Historical information in this document is through the end of 2003.) ***END CONSENT*** Ordinances on Second Reading were read by title by City Clerk Krajicek. 7. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 083 2004 Amending Various Sections of Chapter 4 of the City Code Pertaining to Animals. 8. Second Reading of Ordinance No 102 2004 Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue in the General Fund for the Operation of the Fort Collins Welcome Center. 475 July 20, 2004 9. Second Reading of Ordinance No 103 2004 Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the General Fund and Authorizing the Transfer ofAppropriated Amounts Between Accounts and Projects for the Multi-Jurisdictional Drug Task Force 10. Second Reading of Ordinance No 105 2004 Amending Section 20-22 of the City Code Relating to Unreasonable Noise 11. Second Reading of Ordinance No 106 2004 Amending the Code of the City by the Addition of a New Section 23-115 Pertaining to Vacating Public Right-of-Way. 12. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 107 2004 Authorizing the Conveyance of Certain Real Property at the City Park Nine Golf Course 13. Items Relating to the Mulberry East First Annexation and Zoning A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 108, 2004, Annexing Property Known as the Mulberry East First Annexation. B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 109, 2004, Amending the Zoning Map and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the Mulberry East First Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado. 14. Second Reading of Ordinance No 110 2004 Amending Section 17-141 of the City Code Relating to the Carrying of Liquor or Other Fermented Beverages in Certain Places ("Open Container"). 15. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 111 2004 Amending Chapter 15 Article VIII of the City Code Relating to Pawnbrokers. 16. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 112 2004 Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the General Fund for the School Resource Officer Program 17. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 113 2004 Amending Various Sections ofthe Fort Collins Traffic Code. 18. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 114 2004 Authorizing the Long-Term Lease of Property at the Fort Collins-Loveland Municipal Airport to Robert and Linda Eggleston for the Construction of an Aircraft Hangar. 476 July 20, 2004 19. Second Reading of Ordinance No 115 2004 Authorizing the Acquisition by Eminent Domain Proceedings of Certain Lands Necessary for the Construction of Public Improvements in Connection with the Street Oversizing Drake and Ziegler Road Realignment Project. 20. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 116 2004 Authorizing the Acquisition by Eminent Domain Proceedings of Certain Lands Necessary for the Construction of Public Improvements in Connection with the Dry Creek Drainage Improvements Project 21. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 120 2004 Appropriating Proceeds from the Lease Purchase Certificates of Participation of the City ofFort Collins Colorado Series 2004A for the Pose of Making Certain Capital Improvements (The Police Building and the Streets Deicing Facility Projects),the Acquisition and Conservation ofNatural Areas and for Costs of Issuance of the Lease Certificates Transaction Ordinances on First Reading were read by title by City Clerk Krajicek. 22. First Reading of Ordinance No. 121 2004 Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue in the General Fund for the Poudre Valley Health System Reduce Intoxicated Driving Program 23. First Reading of Ordinance No. 122 2004 Authorizing the Lease of City-Owned Property at 400 Wood Street for Up to Five Years 24. First Reading of Ordinance No. 123,2004 Authorizing the Amendment of the Lease of City- owned Property at 430 North College Avenue Fort Collins Colorado to Colorado State University. 25. First Reading of Ordinance No. 124 2004 Authorizing the Acquisition by Eminent Domain Proceedings of Certain Lands Necessary for the Construction of Public Improvements in Connection with the Manhattan Regional Detention Pond and the Mason Transportation Corridor Bike/Pedestrian Trail 37. Items Relating to the Adoption of the Changes and Amendments to the 2003 International Residential Code® 2003 International Mechanical Code® and the 2003 International Fuel Gas Codeg. A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 125,2004,Amending Chapter 5,Article 2,Division 2, of the City Code for the Purpose of Making Certain Amendments to the 1997Uniform Building Coder" 477 July 20, 2004 B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 126,2004,Amending Chapter 5,Article 2,Division 2, of the City Code for the Purpose of Adopting the 2003 International Residential Code (IRQ9 with Amendments. C. First Reading of Ordinance No. 127, 2004, Amending Chapter 5, Article 4, of the City Code for the Purpose of Repealing the 1991 Uniform Mechanical Coder" Adopting the 2003 International Mechanical Code' with Amendments, and Adopting the 2003 International Fuel Gas Code®with Amendments. Councilmember Tharp made a motion,seconded by Councilmember Bertschy,to adopt and approve all items not withdrawn from the Consent Calendar. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Bertschy, Hamrick, Martinez, Roy, Tharp and Weitkunat. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED Consent Calendar Follow-up Councilmember Bertschy spoke regarding item #32 Resolution 2004-092 Adopting the Land Conservation and Stewardship Master Plan. Councilmember Tharp spoke regarding item #30 Resolution 2004-090 Adopting the Priority Affordable Housing Needs and Strategies Report and item #28 Resolution 2004-088 Adopting the Recommendations of the Cultural Resources Board Regarding Fort Fund Disbursements. Councilmember Weitkunat spoke regarding item #32 Resolution 2004-092 Adopting the Land Conservation and Stewardship Master Plan and item #28 Resolution 2004-088 Adopting the Recommendations of the Cultural Resources Board Regarding Fort Fund Disbursements. Mayor Martinez spoke regarding item#31 Resolution 2004-091 Supporting the Effort to Encourage the Construction of Housing with Features That Provide Basic Access and Functionality to All Occupants and Visitors. Staff Reports Interim City Manager Atteberry reported that reverse 9-1-1 had been scheduled to notify the area that would be sprayed this evening. Councilmember Reports Councilmember Weitkunat reported that she and Councilmember Tharp attended the Colorado Aeronautical Board meeting at the Fort Collins-Loveland Airport. She stated the Board issued a 478 July 20, 2004 report on the economic impact of Colorado airports and that 619 jobs and an economic impact of$37 million were associated with the Fort Collins-Loveland Airport. She stated the Board had noted that some upgrades were needed at the airport. Councilmember Tharp stated the airport was jointly owned by the Cities of Fort Collins and Loveland and that the intergovernmental agreement needed to monitored to ensure that the long term future of the airport was preserved. Consideration of an Appeal of the May 12, 2004 Landmark Preservation Commission Decision to Deny, In Part, a Request for Waiver of Conditions of the Requirements Contained in Section 14-72 of the Municipal Code; or Permission to Relocate or Demolish the Rule Farm Structures Located at 4824 South Lemay Avenue; Decision Overturned The following is staffs memorandum on this item. "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY On April 28, 2004, the Landmark Preservation Commission held a public hearing to consider a request by Dick andDianne Rule for Waiver of Conditions ofthe Requirements Contained in Section 14-72 of the Municipal Code, or Permission to Relocate or Demolish the Structures Located at 4824 South Lemay Avenue. The Commission voted 4-1 to deny, in part, this request. On May 12, 2004, the Commission adopted its Findings and Resolution regarding its decision. The basis of the appeal is that the Commission, in denying the request,failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Code. " Mayor Martinez recused himself from participation on this agenda item due to previous discussions he had with the Rules and positions he had taken regarding the issue, and he left the room at this point in the meeting. ("Secretary's Note: Mayor Pro Tern Bertschy chaired this portion of the meeting.) Mayor Pro Tern Bertschy introduced the agenda item. City Attorney Roy explained the quasi-judicial appeal process and the options available to Council. He stated impartiality was important to a fair hearing. He stated the rules of due process and the City Code required that the decision made by the Council be based upon the evidence in the record and the law that applied to the facts as they have come into the record. He stated the Council had been provided with the record on appeal consisting of the exhibits presented to or received by the Landmark Preservation Commission at its hearing as well as a verbatim transcript and summary 479 July 20, 2004 minutes of the proceedings. He stated the record on appeal and the presentations heard from the parties-in-interest would serve as the basis for the Council decision. He stated new evidence was admissible only in response to questions from Councilmembers to parties-in-interest. He stated the people entitled to speak at the proceedings were those immediately affected by the decision i.e. parties-in-interest holding a possessory or proprietary interest in the subject property, those who attended the Landmark Preservation Commission hearing, those who sent written comments to the Landmark Preservation Commission prior to the hearing, or those to whom notice was sent before the Commission hearing. He stated the general rule regarding written material from parties-in- interest submitted to the Council on an appeal must have been filed with the City Clerk by the deadline(last Wednesday)to be included in the Council agenda packet. He stated written material submitted since the deadline had been compiled and would become part of the record in the event that there was any court appeal. He stated the Mayor Pro Tern would establish time frames for the presentation of arguments. He stated there would be a presentation by City staff to explain the nature of the appeal and to give staff s recommendations, a presentation by parties-in-interest in support and a presentation by parties-in-interest opposed, then rebuttal by both sides. He stated there was one evidentiary issue to be decided. He stated Mrs. Rule brought to his attention before the hearing the fact that she had a written summary of their position and response to the staff statement that was issued. He stated it was his understanding that this was not on file with the City Clerk by last Wednesday. He stated if it was not received into evidence for that reason that he would recommend that it be marked as an Exhibit and retained as part of the record in the event of any court appeal. He stated the Mayor Pro Tern would decide whether or not to receive the material into evidence prior to the 20 minute time period for presentations by parties-in-interest. Mayor Pro Tem Bertschy asked Mrs. Rule for confirmation that the staff report was received on Thursday and that the written response was prepared by the Rules after that. Dianne Rule, 4824 South Lemay Avenue, replied in the affirmative. Mayor Pro Tern Bertschy ruled that the Rules' written statement and response could be submitted as evidence. ("Secretary's Note: The City Clerk distributed copies to each Councilmember.) Interim City Manager Atteberry introduced the staff members who would make the presentation regarding the appeal. Karen McWilliams,Historic Preservation Planner,presented background information regarding the agenda item. She stated the Rule farm was located about one-half mile south of Harmony Road on the western edge of the Oakridge development. She stated the site contained a residence,barn and several agriculture-related farm buildings. She stated the land was currently under contract for redevelopment as an extended care facility. She stated the Rules purchased the property in 1975; that the farm and the surrounding land were annexed in 1980 and in that year the City adopted the Land Development Guidance System (LDGS) containing more stringent provisions regarding retaining historic buildings than the current Land Use Code;that in 1994,the property was surveyed 480 July 20, 2004 during the City's Agricultural Survey, resulting in a field determination that the property was individually eligible for the National Register of Historic Places as well as Fort Collins landmark designation; that in 1997, the City adopted the Land Use Code; that in 1998, there was a proposed adaptive reuse of the property and that because of that the property was formally determined to be eligible for landmark designation;that in late 2003,the Rules accepted a contract for a nursing home; and that in March of 2004 the eligibility of the farm was reconfirmed by Advance Planning Director Joe Frank and Landmark Preservation Commission Chairman Bud Frick. She stated the Rules expressed concern that Mr. Frick had a conflict of interest because he had been hired to work on the earlier adaptive reuse of the buildings. She stated the City Attorney's Office determined that Mr. Frick did not have a conflict of interest and that, to avoid any suggestion of impropriety, Mr. Frick chose to recuse himself from the proceedings. She stated Vice Chair Angie Aguilera also recused herself from the proceedings because her firm was trying to purchase the property. She stated Per Hogestad was selected as Acting Chair and that he also determined that the property was individually eligible for landmark designation. She stated the Landmark Preservation Commission conducted a hearing on April 28,2004 on the request for a waiver of conditions or the relocation or demolition of the buildings. She stated on May 12, 2004 the Commission adopted its findings and that on June 8, 2004 the Rules filed an amended appeal. She stated the main issues discussed at the Landmark Preservation Commission hearing were the eligibility of the property, granting of the waiver due to a substantial hardship, and relocation or demolition of the buildings. She stated to be eligible for landmark designation a property must have both significance and integrity. She stated there were four standards of significance: (1) association for events that make contributions to the broad patterns of history (historical importance); (2) association with the lives of people significant in history; (3)architectural significance; or(4)the property yields archaeological artifacts(prehistoric or historic). She stated based on these standards the Rule property met landmark standards(])and (3). She stated the Commission found that the farm had historical importance for its significant contributions to understanding the agricultural heritage and urban development. She stated the Commission also found the faun to be significant due to its outstanding architecture. She stated the farmhouse was the only representation in the area of the Dutch Colonial Revival architectural style associated with an agricultural property. She stated the barn also had architectural significance. She stated to qualify for designation a property also had to have integrity. She stated the standards for integrity were the same as those adopted for the National Register program: location,design,setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association. She stated to qualify a property needed a preponderance of integrity. She stated the Commission found that the property did have both significance and integrity and was individually eligible for designation as a Fort Collins landmark. She stated also discussed relocation or demolition of the buildings. She stated the applicants presented letters from three historians and that all three agreed that a reasonable solution was relocation of the buildings to a more appropriate setting to retain the architectural significance of the buildings while allowing the Rules to proceed with their contract. She stated the Commission agreed with the compromise that the architecturally significant house and barn should not be demolished and should be relocated. She stated the remaining buildings and structures were approved for demolition. She stated the Rules requested a waiver of conditions due to substantial hardship and 481 July 20, 2004 that staff s recommendation to the Commission was to deny the request for a waiver of conditions based on the argument that requiring the Rules to comply with the process would not be a substantial hardship, that a waiver would not protect against an arbitrary result, and that a waiver would erode the spirit and purpose of Chapter 14 of the City Code. She stated the Commission found that the City would not be depriving the applicants of all reasonable economic use of the property. She stated the Commission also found that these circumstances did not meet the standards present in the Code and that granting a waiver would erode Chapter 14. She stated the fundamental question for the Council was whether or not to expand the permission granted by the Landmark Preservation Commission to Dick and Dianne Rule to include not only permission to relocate the structures but also permission to demolish the structures. Mayor Pro Tern Bertschy stated each side would have 20 minutes for a presentation. Rick Zier, attorney representing appellants Dick and Dianne Rule, stated the assumption was that Council had reviewed the record and knew the issues. He stated the appellants appreciated the permission to submit the written detailed information that was a point-by-point refutation of the staff s points. He stated the record already contained ample refutation of each one of the points made by the staff in the agenda and in the staff presentation since the appellants could not receive the agenda material until last Thursday. He stated the appellants wanted to emphasize some of the important aspects of this request for permission to demolish the buildings in place if within a reasonable period of time it proved to be infeasible and unaffordable to relocate them. He stated this request was made under either Part 4, IV of Chapter 14 allowing relocation and demolition or pursuant to Section 14-53 which provided that if what was asked of the appellant by the staff or the Landmark Preservation Commission worked a substantial hardship and/or an arbitrary result that all conditions and all requirements of the entire Chapter may be waived. He stated the Rules believed in rational and reasonable historic preservation, regulations and enforcement. He stated the appellants had experienced neither. He stated staff was placing a "rational sounding gloss on a process of Code interpretation and application"when the process had been "highly irrational' and "extremely cruel and costly to the Rules." He stated it was not rational that a historical event be defined as being the conduct of common agriculture for 50 or 60 years. He stated it was irrational to ignore eminent historians and a local architect who said that this was not significant in the ways that staff had indicated. He stated it was irrational not to regard this as an arbitrary result when other similar structures in Fort Collins not far from the Rule property(which had never been a farm since the Rules owned it)had been allowed to be demolished. He stated it was irrational not to consider this a substantial hardship. He stated the Code had provisions for substantial hardship. He stated this was not a"taking"analysis. He stated the Landmark Preservation Commission found that there was no hardship and that this was "insane" because the appellants would lose over $500,000 in equity in their home and that would be a substantial hardship. He stated a"taking standard" could not be used in this case as the LPC and staff did. He stated this would be a"grievous hardship." He stated it was irrational to say that the granting of a waiver for substantial hardship and arbitrary result would erode the spirit and purpose of the Chapter because demolition was expressly allowed by 482 July 20, 2004 Chapter 14. He stated it was irrational to try to apply the criteria required by Part 4 of Chapter 14 to demolition. He stated there were set written criteria for either demolition of relocation and that none were rationally applicable to demolition. He stated it was irrational to say that because the Landmark Preservation Commission did not grant demolition that if the appellants wanted permission to demolish, they did not have to go to a final LPC hearing. He stated Chapter 14 required a final hearing unless the appellants were granted reliefby the City Council. He stated there was a"Catch-22"because if the appellants went to a final hearing they were mandated to go through the Land Use Code process for the proposed use on the property. He stated the Land Use Code said that you must preserve historically eligible buildings in place,so the appellants would never be able to do what they were doing. He stated this would be a substantial hardship. He stated it was irrational for the LPC to say that the appellants could not demolish in situ but could relocate anywhere and demolish there. He stated it was irrational to consider changing the Codes but not to afford the Rules relief under the arduous existing Code. He stated the Rules had spent over$20,000 getting to this point and had played by the rules. He asked that they be granted some"sane relief." He stated the "Rule farm" was a "bootstrapped unreality." He stated the solution offered by the Rules was rational. He stated they believed in looking earnestly for a relocation possibility. He stated the Rules offered a six-month period of time to the LPC and subsequently extended that to 12 months. He stated relocation efforts were continuing and that the Rules were sincere in those efforts. He stated relocation must be feasible and affordable. He stated the Rules needed "certainty and a finite time line." He stated the process so far had been"chaotic and capricious and costly"and had resulted in"manifest despair" for the Rules. He asked the Council to "remedy a terrible wrong for the Rules," fix the Code and direct staff to "administer it "humanely and with empathy." Dick Rule, appellant, 4824 South Lemay Avenue, addressed the issue of substantial hardship and historical significance of the architecture. He stated at the LPC hearing on April 28, one of the arguments presented to obtain a demolition permit if relocation was not feasible after 12 months was that leaving the buildings on-site would create a substantial hardship. He stated the members of the LPC disagreed that a hardship was being imposed by their actions. He stated the LPC Code did not define"substantial hardship"and that it was his understanding that where it was not spelled out that it was presumed that the definition would be what a reasonable and prudent person would consider substantial hardship to be. He stated the appellant was being forced to incur a substantial hardship by the LPC's action if the buildings could not be moved because: (1) Since the appellants first appeared before the Council in March,they had spent over$20,000 just to get to this point;(2)They had obtained a commercial appraisal from Shannon and Associates that detailed a loss of$550,000 based on the contract on the property and as much as $700,000 based on the highest and best use of the property if the buildings could not be removed;and(3)While the appellants now had permission to move only the house and barn,if nonprofit or individual was not located that could economically relocate them 10 months from now there would be significant added expense (which could be as much as$50,000)for the appellants to relocate the buildings. He stated staff insists that the building significance was in the architecture. He stated a letter had been provided from local architect Don Bundy stating: "The house and outbuildings were not architecturally significant or particularly 483 July 20, 2004 unique when built." He stated the appellants had pictures of 19 other houses and eight barns, two of which had already been designated as landmarks, with gamble roofs in and around Fort Collins. He stated the architecture was therefore not unique. He stated the appellants wanted to preserve the house and barn by donating them to a nonprofit for community purposes and to help the appellants obtain a tax deduction to help them offset some of their expenses. He stated if a nonprofit could not economically relocate the buildings that the appellants would turn to the private sector for anyone who would be interested in the buildings. He stated the appellants were asking for a simple solution to this issue. He stated they would do everything they could between now and next May to have the buildings relocated but if for any reason the buildings could not be moved by next May that they needed Council's permission to demolish the buildings on-site. Jim Tanner,215 Park Street,former LPC member,stated the Commission had done good work with few resources. He stated the current activities of the Commission "resemble a Marx brothers routine." He highlighted some of the "absurdities" found in the latest LPC response to the Rules. He stated the appeal was about what would best contribute to the long term interest of landmark preservation in Fort Collins and whether "reason would prevail." He asked that the landmark preservation program be given new direction. Dianne Rule, appellant, 4824 South Lemay Avenue, stated the LPC had been knowingly operating under conflicting Codes and utilizing whatever sections seemed advantageous at any given time. She stated the LPC used the"intended delay"language of Chapter 14,Article 4 to forbid demolition and knowingly used the Land Use Code to force preservation at the expense of property owners. She stated the appellants were attempting to relocate the buildings but would suffer a substantial hardship of at least $550,000 if they were unable to close on the current contract. She stated three independent historians had disputed the LPC's findings. She stated the appellants were being impacted emotionally and financially. She stated they were attempting to relocate the structures for use by a nonprofit but that this could prove to be impossible. She stated the appellants would do their best to secure a backup offer from an individual if a nonprofit could not be found. She stated relocation was a questionable and expensive endeavor and that under the current LPC ruling the appellants would be forced to move structures that were not designated landmarks to the County or to the landfill for demolition at enormous expense to the appellants. She asked that the Council reverse the unreasonable ruling and requested that the appeal to demolish the structures be approved. She stated Code revisions were sorely needed and asked that any revisions be approved after the appellants' request for demolition had been approved. ("Secretary's Note: The Council took a brief recess at this point.) York(full name),2001 Creekwood Drive,stated he was a party-in-interest because he spoke against the Rules'petition at the Landmark Preservation Commission meeting. He stated the property was significant for agricultural commerce. He stated the Rules had never spoken to the LPC before the hearing. He congratulated the Rules on their publicity campaign. He stated they were trying to use 484 July 20, 2004 the "sledgehammer of public opinion"to demolish the buildings. He stated the Commission gave the Rules permission to move the buildings. He stated the appeal indicated the intent of the Rules to demolish the buildings. He urged the Council to ask the Rules if they had received any offers for the buildings, how much they had been offered and why they had not accepted any offers. He encouraged the Council to find that the Landmark Preservation Commission did act appropriately in their rulings and that there were no grounds for an appeal. He encouraged the Rules to work on options other than the destruction of these historical structures. Mayor Pro Tern Bertschy stated each side would have 10 minutes for rebuttal. Mr.Rule stated the LPC decision regarding allowing relocation did not indicate that the property was significant because of the agricultural setting. He stated the LPC was only saying that the property had significance because of the architecture. He stated the appellants had at least two meetings with Karen McWilliams and Joe Frank prior to the LPC meeting on April 28. He stated the appellants were told that there were no options except for the buildings to remain on-site and for development to occur around them. He stated the people who were at the meeting were not present due to any publicity but because they knew what was right. He stated the appellants were interested in relocating the structures. He stated they had talked to several nonprofits that were interested but did not have the money or the land available to commence relocation. He stated one offer had been received from the head of the Planning and Zoning Commission for the appellants to pay him $10,000 to move the buildings and that the offer expired on October 1. He stated by next May or June the purchaser of the property would have his plan approved by the City. He stated the timing would not work to accept the offer to move the buildings when the appellants still would need a place to live. He asked for permission to demolish in the event that the buildings could not be relocated. York asked if that was the only offer that had been received regarding the buildings. He stated the appellants admitted at the Landmark Preservation Commission meeting that they had received and rejected an offer from a restaurant in the past. He stated he would like to know how many offers the appellants had received. He stated the issue was whether the LPC made any errors in the process and ruling and that he did not believe that any errors were made. He stated the buildings had historical significance. Councilmember W eitkunat asked for information regarding determination of eligibility for landmark designation. She noted that the agenda material indicated that the property was determined to be eligible in 1994. McWilliams stated the first determination of eligibility was part of the agricultural survey done by her husband's firm(Cultural Resource Historians)in 1994 prior to her employment with the City. Councilmember Weitkunat asked if the survey determined that any building connected with agriculture was eligible. McWilliams stated the survey looked at every structure related to 485 July 20, 2004 agriculture in the Fort Collins Urban Growth Area that still retained significance and integrity. She stated the determination of eligibility meant that the structure could be designated. Councilmember Weitkunat asked if people who owned property determined to be eligible for designation were notified about the eligibility. Joe Frank, Advance Planning Director, stated the report was reviewed and accepted by the staff and the Landmark Preservation Commission. He stated such surveys were used to respond to requests for landmark designation or requests for demolition. He stated no notification was given to the property owners. Councilmember Weitkunat asked how a property would be designated as a landmark. McWilliams stated typically the property owner would come forward and staff would explain the financial benefits to designation. She stated the property owner would submit a notarized request for designation, that the Landmark Preservation Commission would consider the request and make recommendations to the City Council, and that the City Council would make the ultimate decision regarding designation. Councilmember Weitkunat asked if designation implied a willingness by the property owner. McWilliams stated in every case except for the old Post Office building the property owner had expressed a willingness. Councilmember Weitkunat asked if there was therefore a conflict between eligibility and designation when the property owner was unwilling to participate. McWilliams stated eligibility was an "identification tag"that indicated that the property had the requisite integrity and significance and could qualify for designation. Frank stated the implication of a determination of eligibility was that the Land Use Code relating to demolition review would apply. Councilmember Weitkunat asked if the property would then move from coverage under historic preservation to development under the Land Use Code. Frank stated the property had moved to protection under the Land Use Code and demolition delay ordinance. Councilmember Weitkunat asked why the Landmark Preservation Commission would make the determination that the property fell under the Land Use Code. McWilliams stated Chapter 14 of the City Code required determination of eligibility and administered the landmark preservation program and review mechanisms. She stated there was a provision in the Land Use Code that dealt with historic structures which provided that if a property was eligible for designation under the provisions of the City Code that certain criteria would fall into place under the land use review process. She stated the"determination of eligibility"was defined in the City Code as being done by the Landmark Preservation Commission or City staff in conjunction with the chair of the LPC. Councilmember Weitkunat stated "eligibility" and "designation" were two different things. She asked if the property must be designated if it was eligible. McWilliams stated the City Code did not 486 July 20, 2004 require this but that the Land Use Code said that if a building was individually eligible(the highest level) that properties slated for redevelopment would need to meet Land Use Code criteria. She stated the City Code defined eligibility but did not set out restrictions for redevelopment. Councilmember Weitkunat asked how many properties were determined in the survey to fall into this category. McWilliams stated the other structures referred to by the appellants were not in an agrarian setting within the Growth Management Area. She stated there were isolated instances of other houses or barns in Fort Collins but that these did not meet the standards and qualifications as this property did. Councilmember Hamrick asked if the structures were relocated to an area outside of the Growth Management Area if they could be demolished. McWilliams stated the Code affected only things that occurred within the City limits. Councilmember Hamrick asked if the criteria for designation included the setting of the land. McWilliams stated there were seven elements of integrity and that the setting of the land was one of those. She stated at the Landmark Preservation Commission hearing that was noted as being the one aspect that had been compromised by redevelopment. She stated the other six aspects of integrity were intact. Councilmember Hamrick asked about the "spirit and purpose" of Chapter 14 that had been referenced a number of times. McWilliams stated the spirit and purpose of Chapter 14 of the City Code was set out in Section 14-2 as the protection,enhancement and perpetuation of sites,structures, objects and districts of historical,architectural,or geographical significance located within the City. She also cited the provisions of Section 14-3 of the City Code. Councilmember Hamrick stated it appeared that the spirit and purpose of Chapter 14 was broad and asked why demolition was allowed in certain cases. McWilliams stated automatic demolition was allowed when a property did not meet the integrity and significance standards. She stated the LPC could allow demolition after a hearing process if they believed that the demolition met the spirit of the Code. She stated in many cases demolition was the last resort. Frank stated the Historic Resources Preservation Program Plan adopted by the Council in 1994 as an element of the Comprehensive Plan addressed the tools that the City should use to preserve historic structures. He stated relocation was one tool to be used after other efforts had been made to preserve the structures on the site. Councilmember Hamrick asked if there was any difference in demolition for a structure that was eligible or designated. McWilliams stated different sections of the City Code would apply in the two cases. 487 July 20, 2004 Councilmember Tharp asked if the City had considered the possibility of relocating the buildings to a City site. McWilliams stated the City had preliminarily investigated a few City-owned sites. She stated moving and storage of a building was always detrimental to the building and that it would be preferable to move the buildings only once. She stated no final location had been identified. She stated the other issue was that there were private sector individuals interested in purchasing the buildings. Councilmember Tharp asked the appellant if such offers had been made and why they had not been accepted. Mr. Rule stated the appellants had received one offer from the private sector to relocate the buildings if the appellants would pay$10,000. Councilmember Tharp asked who the offer was from. Mr. Rule stated it was the Planning and Zoning Commission Chair, Mika] Torgerson. Councilmember Tharp questioned whether that was a conflict of interest. Mr. Rule stated the only other offer heard about (from a Coloradoan reporter) was from the Vice Chair of the LPC and that nobody had contacted the appellants about such an offer. He stated the appellants were entertaining offers and that one difficulty was that they needed a place to live until next May. Councilmember Tharp stated if this was a benefit to the City that it would make sense for the City to pursue locating the buildings on City property. She asked why that had not been a prime focus. McWilliams stated there was not much City-owned property that would appropriate as a location for the buildings in terms of context or a sense of agricultural history. Councilmember Tharp spoke regarding the Nix farm which had been turned into a significant use for the City. McWilliams stated funding for some cities for historic buildings came from grants from the State Historical Society. She stated the criteria for those grants were the National Register criteria,which were strict with regard to actions diluting the historical significance of buildings such as the Nix farm by locating unrelated buildings on that site. She stated such an action could jeopardize grants for the Nix farm. Councilmember Roy asked about the basis for the determination that this was the only property like this and why some people believed that there were other similar properties. McWilliams stated this was the only farm complex with a Dutch Colonial gamble roof and barn as well as outbuildings. She stated it was unique at the time the agricultural survey was done in 1994. She stated there were other residential properties within the City limits in an urban context that were Dutch Colonial gamble. She stated there were a few otherbarns in Fort Collins that had Dutch Colonial gamble roofs and that none of those were associated with a home. She stated the farmhouse was the most significant building. 488 July 20, 2004 Mayor Pro Tern Bertschy asked for confirmation that permission was given in 1998 for the outbuildings to be demolished. McWilliams stated two of the outbuildings were approved for demolition to facilitate an adaptive reuse. Mayor Pro Tern Bertschy asked how many buildings would be allowed to be demolished under the current request. McWilliams stated all four outbuildings would be allowed to be demolished and that the house and the barn were approved for relocation rather than demolition. Mayor Pro Tern Bertschy asked if all of the buildings would need to be retained to preserve the historic (farm) character of the property. McWilliams replied in the affirmative and stated the Commission was looking at achieving a compromise with the Rules and believed that the house and barn had architectural significance in addition to agricultural heritage value. Mayor Pro Tern Bertschy asked if the basis of the LPC decision was the architectural significance and not the agricultural significance. McWilliams stated it was her understanding of the discussion that this was the case. Mayor Pro Tern Bertschy stated this appeared to be contradictory because there were other examples of the architecture in Fort Collins. McWilliams stated the LPC was trying to be flexible and to achieve a resolution with the Rules and felt that the Rules would still be able to redevelop their property,that the buildings would not be totally lost,and that the house and barn could be relocated to an agrarian setting. She stated the outbuildings could be relocated rather than demolished. Mayor Pro Tern Bertschy asked the appellants about the State Historical Society historic building inventory records contained in the material received. Mr. Rule stated the document was prepared as part of the paperwork on an offer received in 1998 and was part of the historical profile on the property that was required by the City. He stated the 1998 contract was terminated prior to any feasibility determination or appraisal regarding a readapted use on the property. He stated the appraisal received from Shannon and Associates specifically stated there was no marketability for the property in retaining the buildings on-site as part of a redevelopment. Councilmember Tharp made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Hamrick, to grant the appeal of the Landmark Preservation Commission decision and to find that the Commission failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the City Code (Section 14-53). City Attorney Roy stated a resolution would be prepared for the next meeting to formalize the decision and make findings. Councilmember Tharp stated she believed that the purpose of Chapter 14 of the City Code was to protect structures that had been designated as landmarks and not to protect undesignated structures when it would work a particular hardship on the owner. She stated it was disturbing to hear that 489 July 20, 2004 eligibility for designation could be determined without the property owner's approval or participation in that process. She stated the decision of the LPC should be overturned. Councilmember Hamrick stated he viewed the spirit and purpose of Chapter 14 as preserving historic properties. He stated could be accomplished by allowing demolition of certain properties. He stated there seemed to be conflicting Code provisions. He stated it did not make sense to allow historic structures to be relocated outside of the City and demolished. He stated he fully supported granting the appeal. Councilmember Roy stated he would support the motion. He stated this house was surrounded by commercial development and that any context that existed previously was long gone. He stated he hoped that the appellants would continue to work with nonprofits or other partnerships to relocate the structures. He stated he did not believe that the Rule property had the same level of integrity as the old Post Office. He stated he hoped that a way could be found to preserve the buildings within some sort of appropriate context. Councilmember Weitkunat stated she would support the motion and that she believed that the Commission failed to properly interpret and apply Section 14-53 of the City Code. She stated the eligibility requirements were too broad and that a"hardship"should never be considered to be"total deprivation." Councilmember Hamrick stated the City should get involved to work with the appellants to attempt to relocate the buildings since they were determined to be historically significant. He stated he would be interested in hearing from staff about whether some type of financial assistance was warranted. Councilmember Tharp commented that it was difficult to deal with the conflicting reports on how significant or unique this property was. She stated it was difficult to see the property as agriculturally significant due to the proximity of commercial and other development. She stated moving the structures would make the land more valuable and that it would therefore seem to be a good investment for the Rules to invest money in moving the structures. She stated there should be some kind of compromise in the cost of moving the structures because the relocation would enhance the value of the property. She stated she hoped that the structures would be relocated and that the question would be who should pay for that. She questioned the City making any kind of investment in the relocation to add to the profit that the Rules would realize. Mayor Pro Tem Bertschy stated he would support the motion. He stated he believed that there was a misinterpretation of the Code. He stated the Landmark Preservation Commission and the staff were committed to historic preservation and did an outstanding job in some difficult circumstances. He stated historic preservation was important to the community. He stated he believed that the 490 July 20, 2004 context had been lost on this particular piece of property due to surrounding urban development. He stated he would like to see the structures moved. Councilmember Tharp stated if there were conflicts between the City Code and the Land Use Code that she would like those brought to Council's attention. Mayor Pro Tern Bertschy stated a Study Session was scheduled on the issue. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Bertschy,Hamrick,Roy,Tharp and Weitkunat. Nays: None. (Mayor Martinez absent) THE MOTION CARRIED Interim City Manager Atteberry stated the Study Session was scheduled for August 24 and was specifically intended to discuss and reconcile the City Code and the Land Use Code and to identify any changes that the Council would like to see in Chapter 14. ("Secretary's Note: Mayor Martinez returned to the meeting at this point.) Items Relating to the Adoption of the Changes and Amendments to the 2003 International Residential Code®, 2003 International Mechanical Code®, and the 2003 International Fuel Gas Code® Adopted The following is staff's memorandum on this item. "FINANCIAL IMPACT Fees The amendments relocate building permit and plan review fees from the building code to the City Code, Chapter 7.5, "Administrative Fees", which is administered by the City Manager. The change provides greater responsiveness and,Jlexibility to adapt to changing economic conditions and service demands. No changes in fee amounts are proposed at this time. Construction Costs Some provisions of the 2003 INTERNATIONAL RESIDENTIAL CODE (IRC)® and proposed amendments will impact the cost of new housing construction. (See attached summary) 491 July 20, 2004 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A. First Reading of OrdinanceNo. 125, 2004,AmendingChapterS,Article2,Division2, ofthe City Code for the Purpose of Making Certain Amendments to the 1997Uniform Building Coder" B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 126, 2004,AmendingChapterS,Article2,Division2, ofthe City Code for the Purpose ofAdopting the 2003 InternationalResidential Code(IRC)V with Amendments. C. First Reading of Ordinance No. 127, 2004,AmendingChapterS, Article4, oftheCityCode for the Purpose of Repealing the 1991 Uniform Mechanical Coder"`,Adopting the 2003 International Mechanical Code® with Amendments, and Adopting the 2003 International Fuel Gas Code®with Amendments. The 2003 International Residential Code(IRC)O 2003 International Mechanical Code 20030and the International Fuel Gas Code®(the latest version of the nationally-recognized "model"building codes) and proposed Amendments have undergone an extensive sixteen-month review by staff and a local representative task group. These latest building codes are already in effect in much of the country. Closer to home, over 90jurisdictions in Colorado have adopted the "I-Codes", including the State of Colorado, the City and County of Denver, Colorado Springs,Aurora, and several other cities and counties in the Metro-Denver area. The new codes are the replacementfor the "Uniform" code series, which are being phased-out and no longer supported by the model code organization. The proposed(IRC)®and Amendments specifically cover onlv new one-and two-family dwellings and new additions thereto. The new code package contains some of the most significant potential changes to the Fort Collins Building Code in many years. New provisions include: • Indoor Air Quality: Radon-reduction venting systems; interior moisture control; and protection of exposed interior fiberglass insulation. • Energy Conservation: Updated energy-conservation construction standards that provide increased energy- conservation and performance, and a new optional simplified compliance table. • Architectural Features: Safer, less steep stair geometry with lower risers and greater step depth. • Structural and Exterior Elements: 492 July 20, 2004 Structural connection from foundation to roof, and, weather-resistant membrane backing behind lap siding. BACKGROUND (A) TASK GROUP The local volunteer group, made up of building code officials from Fort Collins and Larimer County, City board members, builders, private building specialists, and representatives from the Home Builders Association ofNorthern Colorado, met for 16 months examining the model codeplus local amendments. Seethe attachment for a list of individual participants. Although the Task Group's purpose is to represent a range of perspectives and not to achieve consensus, general agreement was achieved on many issues. Members were encouraged to, and often did, express opinions/suggestions on the draft code update, some of which are in opposition to the proposed package as noted previously in this document. (B) SIGNIFICANT CHANGES • Model Code Reorganization The Uniform Building Code(UBC)development and publishing entity has merged with the two other prominent national model code organizations to form the International Code Council (ICC). The result is that the 'Uniform' codes have been replaced by the "International"codes and are now virtually 'extinct'at the national publication level. The International Residential Code(IRCO)replaces UBCprovisions relating to construction of single and two-family dwelling units, and townhouses. It contains all regulations to build homes, including structural, mechanical, electrical,plumbing and energy in ONE book. The last(1997) UBC to be published will continue to apply to all other buildings in Fort Collins until being replaced by the International Building Code (IBC®), scheduled for late 2005. The 2003International Mechanical Code(IMCC)and the 2003International Fuel Gas Code (IFGCO) replace the long-defunct 1991 Uniform Mechanical Code, still in effect locally. • Major Changes Stairs: The modest cost for actual stairway construction is not the significant issue. More important are the constraints associated with compact home designs and the greater floor opening dimensions created by the added 20 inches of horizontal stair length. This requirement would have the greatest effect on newer higher-density developments containing 493 July 20, 2004 homes with compact floor plans on smaller lots, where a two foot increase in stair length can affect the entire exteriorfootprint. Under floor moisture control: A vapor retarder is now required on any exposed interior ground surfaces. The proposed amendments would require sealing and attaching the membrane to the foundation wall. Additionally, to compensate for expansive soils, 10010 - 15%ofnew homes will have structural basement floor systems that are suspended above the ground surface. The new provisions offer a prescriptive standard, avoiding specialized engineering. Also, the proposed amendments specify a continuously operating moisture ventilation system under the subfloor. To reduce the possibility of "down-drafting" combustion products into the living space, enclosed-combustion or power-vented heating and water-heating appliances are required. Conventionally-vented appliances may also be used,provided the appliances are tested to insure combustion products are vented properly. Radon-resistant construction: The IRC®does not mandate radon systems, but provides an optional appendix to do so. In addition to the no-change option of retaining the current mandatory standards for voluntarily-installed passive radon-reduction systems, one of two mandatory proposed radon systems in new construction is offered for Council's consideration: either "A'; a "Passive" system or ""B", a continuously-operating fan "Active"system. Siding Weather Backing: The IRC®specifies water-resistant membrane ("house wrap') attached to exterior sheathing behind fiber board or hardboard lap siding. Energy Conservation: a) Wall insulation:IRC®increases wall insulation performance from R-13 to R-18.A local amendment allows R-15 for homes 1,600 square feet or less. b) Windows: IRC®increases windows thermal performance from U-0.5 (R-2) to U-0.35 (R-3) and specifies solar filtering factor(SHGC) of 0.4. c) HVAC • IRC®requires sealing all ductwork. • Amendment requires frame cavities used as ducts be tested for leakage. • Amendment requires testfor manufacturer's specification andfor combustion safety. • Amendment specifies new AC equipment to meet the 2007 Federal standard. (C) PUBLIC MEETINGS Various boards have reviewed and made recommendations on the proposed IRC®and Amendments package. City Council held a Public Hearing, December 16, 2003, and a Study Session, February 10, 2003 on the proposed IRC® and Amendments package. See attached minutes and recommendations. 494 July 20, 2004 (D) TRANSITION PERIOD Given the changes contained in the proposed Ordinances, staff recommends that the effective date of the regulations begins on January 1, 2005. This interim period allows code compliance staff to put new procedures in place,provide training for builders and staff alike. It also gives builders a date-certain for redesign work and implementing new production methods and scheduling. Additionally,with respect to implementing the new stair provisions,staffrecommends that approved development projects be handled on an individual basis to allow a phased-in IRC compliance period over several months, depending on specific circumstances of those existing affected developments that designed following the compact urban concepts emphasized under City Plan. " Interim City Manager Attebeny introduced the agenda item. Greg Byrne, CPES Director, stated this was a legislative milestone with the adoption on First Reading of three new building codes. He summarized the 20 months of work leading up to consideration of the Ordinances adopting the codes. He stated the proposed new International Residential Code would provide all of the standards needed for the construction of one and two family dwellings, including townhouses. He stated the International Mechanical Code and International Fuel Gas Code would cover heating, ventilating, cooling, gas piping and related appliances for all other buildings. He stated the International Codes were replacements for the Uniform Codes, which were no longer published, and were in effect in over 90 other Colorado jurisdictions. Felix Lee,Building and Zoning Director,thanked the volunteer task group participants and support staff for their work on this effort. He stated the proposed new code provisions affecting new residential construction were among the most significant in two decades. He stated the major changes related to interior moisture control,testing of gas fired heating equipment,improved interior wall insulation from R-13 to R-18, solar screening to make windows R-3, proper sizing of new HVAC systems,testing of duct work,and requiring all new air conditioning systems to meet federal 2007 standards. He stated the most significant architectural category was the revised stair profile that would add nearly two feet of horizontal run for a flight of stair. He stated there had been concern about reducing the minimum ceiling height and that staff was recommending retaining the current minimum ceiling height of 7'/z feet. He stated the IRC requirements specified continuous structural connection from the foundation to roof frame. He stated the IRC would also mandate a water drainage plane to protect interior systems. He stated there were no anticipated fee changes and that the building fees would be moved from the building code to City Code Chapter 7.5. He stated some materia] costs had increased sharply in recent months and that the basic IRC home(two-story 2,000 square feet with R-11 basement walls and R-18 exterior walls) would cost about $10,000 above the current UBC home price. He stated a 1,600 square foot compact one-story IRC home with basement would cost about$5,000 more than a UBC home. He stated using some of the alternatives, such as a high efficiency furnace, would reduce the cost. He stated energy savings estimates had been revised with assistance from E-Star Colorado. He stated reduced greenhouse gas savings would 495 July 20, 2004 be 2 tons per year per home. He stated the builder would have options for multiple substitutions of features at the most cost effective price. He stated the basic home with the energy features built in the Code would have energy savings of about 11%. He stated Alternative A would be no insulation on the basement with a high efficiency furnace and savings of about 12%. He stated Alternative B would be substituting exterior wall insulation for a high efficiency furnace would save about $30. He stated a compact home would use less energy due to its size and would use about 7%less energy. He stated staff supported the proposed codes,including the energy provisions and passive radon,and summarized the recommendations of the reviewing boards and builders' groups based on the new price information. He stated the National Association of Homebuilders supported the IRC as written. He stated staff was recommending a transition period, with the exception of the proposed stair provisions, and was suggesting an effective date of January 1, 2005. He stated staff was recommending with regard to the new stair provisions that development projects be handled on an individual basis due to potential"ripple impacts"on compact houses following the City's standards. Brian Woodruff, Environmental Planner, Natural Resources Department, presented information regarding the radon cost benefit. He outlined the staff recommendation and some of the key comments that had been heard on radon. He described the operation of a passive radon system and an active radon system. He stated staff calculated the lifetime risk of getting lung cancer from radon. He stated if neither the passive or active radon system options were adopted that there would be about 311 cancers among people living in about 14,000 new homes that would be built in Fort Collins. He stated if the passive system option was adopted that about 146 of those cancers could be avoided at a total outlay of about $99,000 apiece. He stated if the active system option was adopted that a total of 270 cancers could be avoided at a cost of$317,000 each. He stated the Poudre Health Services District staff also analyzed passive and active radon systems and concluded that the cost of passive systems was a reasonable value compared with other methods of preventing disease and premature death. He stated active systems could save more lives at about three times the cost. He stated the Health District Board voted to recommend requiring passive systems in new construction. He stated the staff recommendation was to require passive systems because they were made using common building materials,would reduce radon by about half without any action on the part of the homeowner, could be easily upgraded if needed, would provide energy savings and control basement moisture, and would harmonize City and County requirements. He stated many people had asked why the radon problem could not be fixed after the home was finished. He stated a retrofit radon system was always an active system. He stated a passive system would cost about $1,000 during construction and that a retrofit system would cost between$800 and$2,500 plus about $62 per year for electricity. He stated a passive vent pipe could be hidden to improve the home's appearance. He stated many had asked why active radon systems would not be required. He stated staff believed that approach would go too far and that the building code should require the parts of the system that could not be added after the home was finished. He stated the passive radon option would strike the proper balance. He stated some people had commented that cancer risks were overblown. He stated staff was persuaded by the many health authorities that said that radon was the second leading cause of lung cancer. He stated radon risks could and should be reduced. He 496 July 20, 2004 stated some people had commented that the City should not regulate radon at all and should let the marketplace determine whether people wanted radon systems or not. He stated staff was guided by the purpose of building codes,which was to protect the health, safety and property of City residents and to address regional risks. He stated indoor levels of radon(a Class A known human carcinogen) were several times the national average. He stated Latimer County had been designated Zone 1 for radon, which meant that high radon levels were likely and that passive systems were recommended in new construction. He stated active systems were recommended by the Air Quality Advisory Board and the National Environmental Health Association and that passive systems were recommended by the City staff, Poudre Health Services District Board, the Fort Collins Board of Realtors, the Coloradoan Editorial Board, the Colorado Department of Health, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,and the Natural Resources Advisory Board. He stated the status quo was recommended by the Affordable Housing Board, the Affordable Housing Coalition, the Building Review Board, and the Homebuilders of Northern Colorado. Lee stated adoption of the three Ordinances would be required to adopt the three model codes. He stated Ordinance No. 125, 2004 would amend the current building code and allow the retention of current standards for buildings other than those covered by the proposed IRC, which applied exclusively to one and two family dwellings and townhouses. He stated it would also enact the administrative regulations that would integrate the two codes. He stated Ordinance No. 126, 2004 would enact the amendments and adopt by reference the 2002 International Residential Code to become effective January 1,2005. He stated the Ordinance would also replace the UBC provisions that overlapped the scope of the IRC and would adopt new amendments to the IRC. He summarized the provisions of the IRC and local amendments and concerns that had been raised by the building community and others relating to the stairway geometry, the additional cost ($1,000 to $1,500) of a weather barrier over exterior wall sheeting, interior moisture control under floor spaces, a permanent wall covering over exposed fiberglass insulation, the energy conservation measures, sealed forced air heating ducts, safety testing of gas fired heating equipment, and air conditioning efficiency standards. He stated the range of costs would be from$3,500 to$6,500 depending on the selected approach. He stated the mandatory radon system in a new home for a fully sealed passive system would add an estimated $1,000 to $1,600 to the price of the home and that activating an active system would add about$200 to$300 at the time of construction. He stated the International Mechanical Code and International Fuel Gas Code would replace the current 1991 Uniform Mechanical Code. Mayor Martinez stated each audience participant would have three minutes to speak. Kenneth Moore,2901 Pleasant Acres Drive,Air Quality Advisory Board member, stated the Board had taken a position in support of active radon mitigation. He asked on behalf of the Board that the Council support active radon mitigation in new residential construction to protect the health and lifestyles of the citizens of Fort Collins. 497 July 20, 2004 Robert Howe,incoming President of the Fort Collins Board of Realtors,stated the Board of Realtors supported the passive radon component of the new code. He stated additional cost would be added to new home construction and that there would be nothing required for existing homes. Linda Stanley,2040 Bennington Circle,Air Quality Advisory Board member,urged adoption of the amended energy conservation requirements of the proposed International Residential Code. She stated builders would have flexibility and alternatives under the new provisions; that the new requirements for air conditioning would help lower peak demand for electricity; that prices for energy continued to rise faster than inflation and that consumers would save money; that the amendments supported the energy supply policy and air quality policies; and that there would be increased comfort, safety and increased value enjoyed by residents because of better energy use. Michelle Jacobs, Director of Community Affairs for the Homebuilders Association, stated the Association supported consistency in building codes in northern Colorado and the original purpose of the International Residential Code(minimum requirements to safeguard the public safety,health and general welfare through affordability, structural strength, sanitation, etc.). She stated the proposed amendments would impact the affordability of housing and that Fort Collins would be going beyond what other communities in northern Colorado were doing with the energy code. She stated the homebuilders were concerned about the extreme cost of the code changes, which would average $8,750 for a new home, while other communities were estimating $3,000 cost for their changes. She asked that Council adopt a building code that would address the original intent of the IRC and set minimums for compliance,rather than a building code that would dictate costly lifestyle choices. She stated the industry suggested lowering the frame wall R value from 18 to 15,the floor R value from 30 to 25, the mass wall R value from 13 to 11 and the crawl space R value from 19 to 11 in continual insulation and to 13 in framed cavities. She stated the current City ordinance that called upon the real estate community to provide the EPA's guide on radon to buyers and sellers met the need to inform the public of possible problems with radon in basements. She stated the Building Review Board also recommended no changes in this City policy. Eric Levine, 145 North Meldrum Street, stated the radon mitigation code was needed due to health risks. He stated radon was the most serious indoor health problem in Fort Collins and that the problem was getting worse. He stated active radon systems would save lives and would not require any testing. He stated the only way to solve the problem was to require the solution. Bruce Lockhart, 2500 East Harmony Road, stated there would be only small energy savings after increasing the price of the house. He stated people would tend to set their thermostats higher if they had an energy efficient house. He expressed concerns that adding costs to housing would work against affordable housing. He stated more expensive homes in Fort Collins would add to the problem of people moving to other communities and driving to Fort Collins to work. He stated would add more greenhouse gases. 498 July 20, 2004 Carl Glaser, local builder,recommended that Council adopt something between the status quo and a passive radon system. He stated not all residences needed radon mitigation and that could not be determined until the home was built. He stated the least expensive part of a passive mitigation system (a pipe and the gravel underneath the concrete) was the most difficult and expensive to retrofit. He asked that the Council require that a modified passive system be installed to include the gravel under the slab, the pipe through the roof, and an outlet in the attic. He stated the most expensive part of a passive system was the labor intensive caulking in the joints and the sealing of the crawl spaces. He stated this caulking could be done after occupancy and after testing. He stated testing could be part of a warranty program. He stated there should be some responsibility on the buyer to have testing done. He stated testing should be required before a permit would be issued for a basement to be finished. He stated there was a three to five times difference of the caulking and sealing versus the aggregate under the slab and the pipe through the roof. Gil Paveman, Aspen Construction, stated his firm performed radon mitigation. He stated fans had a five-year warranty and were known to last 11 to 12 years. He stated 70-75%of the houses in Fort Collins had radon above the 4 pCi/L guideline. He stated it was unfair to require the other 25% install the radon systems. He stated homebuyers could spend the money on something else. He stated the only way to determine radon levels would be to have testing done after living in the conditions. He stated activating a passive system would not guarantee radon levels below 4 and that testing would have to be done. He stated the average cost for a radon retrofit cost about $820 and that the average cost for a passive radon system without a fan was about $1,390. He asked the Council to consider fairness, saving people money and letting people make their own decision. Todd Gimbel, 1013 Wind Trail,stated he had served on some of the International Code committees. He stated there were no cases of anyone dying from radon pollution from a basement. He stated the science was somewhat unfounded and that acceptable levels ranged from 4 pCi/L to 16 pCi/L. He stated most of the lives lost were documented in initial studies of coal miners who smoked. He stated the energy levels that were recommended were not unreasonable. He stated there was some personal responsibility for radon testing in residences. He stated opening a window would automatically mitigate potential radon problems. He stated radon testing was done in a sealed house with the furnace off. He stated this did not reflect the true living situation. He stated the numbers were unfounded and that it was a gross overstatement to say that every home in Colorado was affected by radon. He stated additional cost to all homebuyers should not be mandated. He stated it was more difficult to sell old homes when they were compared to new homes. He stated most radon scares were created by people who were ignorant about the situation and building processes. Vicki Wagner,local builder,stated housing was becoming less affordable in Fort Collins. She stated this was one more example of increased costs that were not needed. She stated many builders already offered energy efficiency and radon mitigation upgrade options. She stated buyers were very aware of such issues and that the choice should be left up to the buyers rather than mandated by the City. 499 July 20, 2004 Steve Andrews,Denver resident,residential energy consultant to the non-profit organization E-Star Colorado, stated the proposed Energy Code with amendments was technically sound and cost effective. He stated very high performance homes built way above the proposed energy code typically cost about $5,000 more than a home built under prior practice and that such homes would save enough in monthly energy bills to offset the higher mortgage payment. He stated the changes relating to design and testing of heating systems addressed problems identified during a 2000 study. He stated one-third of new homes in that study were at risk of backdrafting combustion gases into the home and carbon monoxide poisoning. He stated natural gas prices would remain high and volatile. He stated the National Association of Homebuilders supported the adoption of the IRC nationwide and that the energy code was part of the IRC. He stated the minimum standard of the voluntary built-green program was being raised because so many builders around the state had adopted the Energy Code. Thomas Borak,CSU faculty,spoke regarding radon research and stated it was difficult to determine a specific cause for lung cancer and that many factors had to be taken into account. He stated the risks from radon would continue to exist and that implementing some sort of system to prepare the house for a cost effective way to prepare for radon mitigation without the need for a retrofit made sense. He stated the passive system might be an appropriate way to do that and allow the homeowner to take more active measures if desired. Becky Baker, Building Official for Jefferson County, representing the Colorado Chapter of the International Code Council, stated more than 100 jurisdictions had adopted the IRC and that about 153 jurisdictions had adopted one or more of the International Codes. She stated adoption of the energy code in Jefferson County was a"non-event." She stated builders and residents could access ResCheck on-line to look at energy options. She stated the National Association of Homebuilders had endorsed the IRC and that there had also been other national level endorsement of the International Codes. She stated Jefferson County users and permit holders had embraced the International Codes. Kelly Ohlson, 2040 Bennington Circle, stated the Energy Code was "mainstream" and had been approved by 90 communities in Colorado. He asked that the Council support staffs recommendation. He stated the insulation requirements were waived for a 1,600 square foot or smaller home and that would affect the affordability issue. He stated there had been 16 months of work on this and that Council should act. He stated radon had been discussed for the last 19 years and that it was time to act on the issue. He asked that Council support staffs rational and appropriate recommendation regarding passive radon systems. Chris McElroy, 5707 Sandbar Court,National Association of Realtors, stated there would be some unintended consequences if there were more regulatory barriers. He stated increasing the cost of building would increase the cost of every house in the City. He asked that the Council consider the compromise brought forward by the Homebuilders Association to reconcile the City Code with the 500 July 20, 2004 County Codes to allow Fort Collins to compete with other communities. Bob Peters, local builder, Colorado Association of Homebuilders, stated the National Association of Homebuilders did endorse the IRC but did not endorse the Energy Code amendments. He stated the Colorado Association of Homebuilders had done extensive research in Colorado and that 90 jurisdictions had adopted the IRC while only 8-10 had adopted the Energy Code. ("Secretary's Note: The Council took a brief recess at this point.) Councilmember Weitkunat asked about the recommendation of the Affordable Housing Board regarding radon systems. Lee stated the Board was recommending a minimal approach i.e.sub-slab aggregate under the basement floor system. Councilmember Weitkunat asked about the costs for caulking the basement for a passive system. Woodruff stated the estimated cost for sealing and caulking for a home with 1,000 square feet in the basement was $315. Councilmember Weitkunat asked about other costs for a passive system. Lee stated many builders used gravel anyway and that the estimated cost for importing and delivering gravel for a 4,000 square foot slab was $400-500. Councilmember Weitkunat asked for clarification regarding the local amendments to the IRC. Lee stated the model IRC included radon as an option in a separate chapter,that increased wall insulation was in the IRC, and that the features proposed in the local amendments related primarily to the heating system(combustion safety testing,air duct sealing and testing,and increased air conditioner efficiency). Councilmember Weitkunat asked where the local amendments were listed. Lee stated the amendments were embedded in the 100 page document. Councilmember Weitkunat noted that the Council could simply adopt the IRC or adopted it with amendments. She stated it was difficult to single out the amendments for individual consideration. Lee stated the significant amendments were specifically mentioned. Councilmember Weitkunat stated the amendments included many changes. Lee stated most of the proposed changes were included in the language of the model IRC. Councilmember Weitkunat stated it was difficult to find some of the changes. Lee stated the IRC was a separate book. Councilmember Weitkunat asked about the numbers referenced in the information provided by Ms. 501 July 20, 2004 Jacobs and whether the City was being too stringent. She asked if lesser numbers might be more affordable and more acceptable. Lee stated he had not had an opportunity to review the information and that many of the referenced R ratings were set forth in the 1RC rather than in a local amendment. He stated some of the County requirements were less than the existing City requirements and that the main differences were in the exterior wall R rating. Councilmember Bertschy asked if adoption of staff s recommendation would essentially be to adopt the three Ordinances. Lee replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Bertschy asked which of the Ordinances were the least controversial. Lee stated the least controversial Ordinance related to the Mechanical and Fuel Gas Codes(Ordinance No. 127, 2004). Councilmember Bertschy asked if Ordinance No. 125, 2004 and Ordinance No. 126, 2004 went together. Lee stated the two Ordinances worked in tandem. Councilmember Bertschy asked how the recommendations of the various Boards related to the Ordinances before Council for consideration. Lee stated as an example that following the recommendation of the Affordable Housing Board would mean that the radon chapter would have to be changed in Ordinance No. 126, 2004. Councilmember Roy asked if there would be 11% energy savings with the adoption of the Energy Code. Lee stated there would be an 11% savings for a basic house. Councilmember Roy asked how people would utilize the range of available options. Lee stated people were already using the options. He stated about 50% of new homes were using the rating system provided by E-Star Colorado and that gave builders more flexibility. He stated the difference when this code would go into effect would be that the minimum score would increase from 80 to about 84. He stated the scoring would take many variables into account. He stated the City would also accept the on-line ResCheck rating calculations to shift various components to comply. He stated the compliance level would be different under the International Code and that the new code would be simpler in some respects. Councilmember Roy asked how staff would characterize these amendments as being beneficial to the building industry and the citizens of Fort Collins. Lee stated affordability of housing was an issue and that his job was foremost health,safety and welfare. He stated in his professional capacity he had to look at the long tern and the homes that would be built under the new provisions. He stated in the long term energy costs would likely go up and energy savings would become much greater. He stated it was his professional opinion that this was the wise and prudent thing to do for the community. Byrne stated affordability was under his umbrella and that there were trade-offs. He stated the costs that were projected were at the high end and that since many of the builders 502 July 20, 2004 already did many of these things that there not be an added cost. He stated there had been testimony that houses built along the Front Range enjoyed more energy savings than those projected using the DOE model. He stated the projects of costs and savings were conservative. Councilmember Weitkunat stated the Council had community responsibilities and that the Council needed to decide on the direction. She stated the codes needed to be updated and that the discussion on radon was long overdue. She stated the question was the addition of the energy amendments and that Council needed to consider both sides of the issue. She asked if there would be another mechanism besides compulsory regulation to achieve the energy goals. She noted that builders were already voluntarily putting in the features. She asked why this would need to be forced on the builders and if there was another way to achieve this without adding $10,000 to the cost of a new home. Mayor Martinez asked about research done by a leading scientist in Grand Junction about radon exposure. He stated this research was contrary to what was heard at this meeting. He stated there was also a study in Finland that concluded that there was no important public health impact for indoor radon exposure. He stated another study indicated that radon probably harmed no one at the household level. Byrne stated there were different opinions in the scientific community. Woodruff stated the mainstream view was supported by the National Academy of Sciences research and that staff was persuaded by the many health authorities and the EPA conclusion that radon was a significant public health issue. Interim City Manager Atteberry stated the Poudre Health Services Board, the Colorado Department of Health and the EPA had taken the same position. Mayor Martinez stated the mainstream recommendation was contrary to the recommendations of other leading scientists. He questioned which research should be believed and viewed as conclusive. He asked what would go wrong in the community if the codes were not adopted (excluding radon). Byrne stated the current building codes were obsolete. He stated they were no longer being published or supported by the original publishing organization. He stated the City must move on to the new codes. He stated there was greater simplicity in the International Codes since all codes were incorporated into a single book. Mayor Martinez asked if the Council wanted to continue the meeting. Councilmember Tharp made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Hamrick,to suspend the rules and continue the discussion on this item. ("Secretary's Note:The motion was made at 11:00 p.m.) The vote on the motion was as follows:Yeas: Councilmembers Bertschy,Hamrick,Martinez,Roy, Tharp and Weitkunat. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED 503 July 20, 2004 Mayor Martinez asked what would go wrong in the community if the codes were not modernized. Lee stated construction methods and technologies had changed and that the old code was obsolete. Councilmember Hamrick made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Tharp, to adopt Ordinance No. 125, 2004 on First Reading. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Bertschy, Hamrick, Roy, Tharp and Weitkunat. Nays: Mayor Martinez. THE MOTION CARRIED Councilmember Hamrick made a motion,seconded by Councilmember Roy,to adopt Ordinance No. 126, 2004 (Option A passive radon mitigation) on First Reading. Councilmember Weitkunat made a motion to strike the Energy Code amendments from the Code. THE MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND Councilmember Roy stated he would support the motion even though supporting passive radon mitigation was like "installing yellow lights where red stop lights should be." He stated passive radon mitigation would save lives although this was not the best the City could do. He noted that the strongest community support was for passive radon mitigation. He stated there were many alternative views but that when the health and safety of the citizens were involved that it was best to go with the"trustworthy" work on the issue. Councilmember Weitkunat stated she would not support the motion. She stated she did support the passive system. She stated there was no advantage to an active system unless it was known in advance that there was a radon problem. She stated installation of a system where there was no radon problem had no value. She stated the passive system would be more than adequate to meet the health, safety and welfare needs of the citizens. She stated she did not support the motion because she felt that the energy code amendments were the wrong direction. She stated other methods had not been explored. She stated adding $10,000 minimum to the cost of a house was extreme and would work against affordable housing. She stated forcing energy conservation through the Code was wrong. Councilmember Hamrick stated it was"ironic'that millions of dollars of taxpayer money could be spent to protect property from flooding based on a cost/benefit analysis that indicated that property (rather than lives)would be saved. He questioned why a fraction of that money could not be spent for health and safety. Councilmember Tharp stated she would support the motion. She expressed concerns about passive radon and stated she preferred the minimum slab requirement. She stated there was agreement that passive was"acceptable." She stated the purpose was to add value to homes. She stated the energy 504 July 20, 2004 code changes were easy to defend because of rising energy costs and the inherent savings that would occur due to the code changes. She stated excluding the smaller homes from the requirements would mean that those people would not have the benefit of the energy savings throughout the life of their homes. She stated she was very much aware of the affordable housing issue. She stated less than 8% of the cost of houses was related to City regulations and that the cost was market driven. Councilmember Bertschy stated he would support the motion. He stated a number of speakers spoke about energy savings and related costs. He noted that staff had indicated that their energy savings and cost estimates were conservative. He stated he believed that there was a health risk from radon and that requiring passive radon systems would mean that retrofits would not be needed in the future. He noted that the Board of Realtors supported passive radon and that this was indicative that buyers wanted such systems. Mayor Martinez stated he would not support the motion. He asked if the ceiling height issue had been resolved. Lee stated the current minimum ceiling height requirement of 7'/z feet was being retained as a local amendment to the IRC's requirement of 7 feet. Mayor Martinez expressed concerns about forcing people to save energy through the new energy codes and about adding $10,000 to the cost of homes. He stated City utility bills were also going up. He stated the average home price in Fort Collins in 2002 was $159,000 and that it was now $247,000. He stated he saw no need for the Fort Collins Code to be like everyone else's Code. He questioned the need for radon mitigation and noted that the cancer rate had gone down according to American Cancer Society statistics. The vote on the Councilmember Hamrick's motion was as follows:Yeas:Councilmembers Bertschy, Hamrick, Roy and Tharp. Nays: Councilmembers Martinez and Weitkunat. THE MOTION CARRIED Councilmember Hamrick made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Tharp,to adopt Ordinance No. 127, 2004 on First Reading. Councilmember Weitkunat stated Councilmember Hamrick had cited the dollars spent for stormwater mitigation solely to protect property. She stated was an erroneous statement and that five people died during the Spring Creek flood. She stated stormwater improvements were also to protect lives. Councilmember Hamrick stated he had asked how many lives would be saved by the stormwater projects and that the answer he received was that saving lives was not a factor. He stated there was a cost/benefit analysis based on the price of the property. He noted that cost of a home did not equal the price and that accounted for some of the rapid growth in the cost of housing in Fort Collins. He 505 July 20, 2004 stated pressure from growth put pressure on prices. Mayor Martinez stated the price of land had gone up because of the"green wall"that had been put around Fort Collins due to the fixed boundary of the Growth Management Area. The vote on the motion was as follows:Yeas: Councilmembers Bertschy,Hamrick,Martinez,Roy, Tharp and Weitkunat. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED Resolution 2004-080 Finding Substantial Compliance and Initiating Annexation Proceedines for the Feather Ridge Annexation Adopted The following is staff s memorandum on this item. "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Feather Ridge Annexation is 15.46 acres in size. The site is located approximately 1,200 feet east of Ziegler Road, north of Hewlett-Packard, and approximately 2,144 feet north of East Harmony Road. Contiguity with the existing municipal boundary is gained along the southern boundary which is shared with the north property line of the Preston —Kelley Second Subdivision (Hewlett-Packard andAgilent Technologies). Contiguity is also gained along the western boundary which is shared with the east property line of Woodland Park Estates P.U.D. and along the north boundary which is shared with the Robert Shields Subdivision. The recommended zoning is U-E, Urban Estate. This zoning complies with the recently amended Structure Plan Map. The proposed Resolution states that it is the City's intent to annex this property and directs that the published notice required by State law be given of the Council's hearing to consider the needed annexation ordinance. Notice of the hearing must be given at least 30 days prior to the hearing. The hearing will be held at the time of First Reading of the annexation and zoning ordinances on September 7, 2004. BACKGROUND This is a 100%voluntary annexation for a property located within the Growth Management Area. The property satisfies the requirement that no less than one-sixth of the perimeter boundary be contiguous to the existing city boundary. " 506 July 20, 2004 Ted Shepard, Chief Planner, stated this was an initiating Resolution for the Feather Ridge annexation. Mayor Martinez stated citizens would have three minutes to speak. Jim Martell,attorney representing the applicants, stated this was primarily an administrative matter and that the purpose was to verify that the petition met the statutory criteria,was signed by 100%of the property owners, and had 61% contiguity. He stated the Resolution would indicate an intent to annex the property and would request the publication of notice of the hearing on the annexation. He stated the City had an intergovernmental agreement with the County that provided that the City would expeditiously consider annexations that were eligible. He stated this property was clearly within the Growth Management Area and eligible for annexation. He stated the State statute provided that the annexation would be considered without undue delay. He asked that the Council adopt the Resolution and proceed with the annexation to allow the applicant to submit a PDP for the Feather Ridge development. He stated the citizen input that had been heard by the Council related to the development and that there would be opportunities to further discuss the issues during the development review process. Julie Baker, applicant representing Feather Ridge, stated the applicant had been forthright and vigilant in following the City process precisely. She stated the applicant had struggled for at least two years trying to identify a way to get the proposed use added into the City Code. She stated the development could not proceed in the County because the property was in the City's Growth Management Area. Mayor Martinez asked the speaker to address only the annexation. Ms. Baker stated the applicant had followed the rules, and the annexation had been delayed. She stated the applicant had taken many steps toward addressing the performance standards that would deal with the Ordinance. She stated the applicant had spent considerable time and money since Council's previous approval. She asked that the annexation be allowed to proceed without further delay. She stated property or site specific issues would be addressed during the development review process. Larry Arave, 3121 Yellowstone Circle, stated his neighborhood was faced with a problem of a quarter mile of road passing 14 homes. Mayor Martinez asked the speaker to address the annexation and not the development issues. Mr. Arave stated he opposed the annexation because of details such as the right-of-way to the property. 507 July 20, 2004 Debra Becker, 3133 Yellowstone Circle, opposed the annexation of this property due to the access road 10 yards away from her home. Councilmember W eitkunat made a motion,seconded by Councilmember Tharp,to adopt Resolution 2004-080. Councilmember Tharp stated this met all of the requirements for annexation to the City and that the City's policy was to move ahead expeditiously if a voluntary annexation in the Growth Management Area came forward. She stated this action would simply begin the annexation process. Councilmember Hamrick stated there would be a process through the Planning and Zoning Board and that there would be two readings of an annexation and zoning ordinance, at which time the issues relating to would be discussed. He stated development would be a separate issue. The vote on the motion was as follows:Yeas: Councilmembers Bertschy,Hamrick,Martinez,Roy, Tharp and Weitkunat. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED Ordinance No. 115, 2004, Authorizing the Acquisition by Eminent Domain Proceedings of Certain Lands Necessary for the Construction of Public Improvements in Connection with the Street Oversizing Drake and Ziegler Road Realignment Project, Adopted on Second Reading The following is staff s memorandum on this item. "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Feather Ridge Annexation is 15.46 acres in size. The site is located approximately 1,200 feet east of Ziegler Road, north of Hewlett-Packard, and approximately 2,144 feet north of East Harmony Road. Contiguity with the existing municipal boundary is gained along the southern boundary which is shared with the north property line of the Preston—Kelley Second Subdivision (Hewlett-Packard andAgilentTechnologies). Contiguity is also gained along the western boundary which is shared with the east property line of Woodland Park Estates P.U.D. and along the north boundary which is shared with the Robert Shields Subdivision. The recommended zoning is U-E, Urban Estate. This zoning complies with the recently amended Structure Plan Map. The proposed Resolution states that it is the City's intent to annex this property and directs that the published notice required by State law be given of the Council's hearing to consider the needed 508 July 20, 2004 annexation ordinance. Notice of the hearing must be given at least 30 days prior to the hearing. The hearing will be held at the time of First Reading of the annexation and zoning ordinances on September 7, 2004. BACKGROUND This is a 100%voluntary annexation for a property located within the Growth Management Area. The property satisfies the requirement that no less than one-sixth of the perimeter boundary be contiguous to the existing city boundary. " Interim City Manager Atteberry stated staff would be available to answer any questions. Mark Brophy, 1109 West Harmony Road, stated eminent domain should be used sparingly and should be used only after the City had negotiated in good faith with the property owner. He stated the property owner had indicated that he was not informed about the eminent domain. Mayor Martinez asked for confirmation that the City traditionally negotiated with property owners before using eminent domain. Interim City Manager Atteberry stated was the City's practice. City Attorney Roy stated it was statutorily required that negotiations take place before an eminent domain action was commenced. He stated because of time constraints that staff needed the authority to condemn if it became necessary. Councilmember Hamrick asked how Council would know that the power of eminent domain was not being abused. Don Bockman, Transportation Services, stated the property owner was not objecting to the taking in this case. He stated this was a matter of compensation and process and that staff had been in contact with the property owner. He stated there had been no progress regarding the negotiations and that the project schedule would be negatively impacted if that continued. He stated this action would allow the project to go forward while the compensation discussions continued. Councilmember Hamrick asked what happen if there was no agreement on the price of the property. Buckman stated if there was an impasse the matter would go to court, the experts would all provide their information, and a judgement would be entered by the court. Councilmember Hamrick asked if the property owner was aware of these proceedings. Matt Baker, Street Oversizing Coordinator, stated negotiations had taken place for over a year. Councilmember Bertschy made a motion,seconded by Councilmember Roy,to adopt Ordinance No. 115, 2004 on Second Reading. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Bertschy, Hamrick, Martinez, Roy, Tharp and Weitkunat. Nays: None. 509 July 20, 2004 THE MOTION CARRIED Ordinance No. 120, 2004, Appropriating Proceeds from the Lease Purchase Certificates of Participation of the City of Fort Collins, Colorado, Series 2004A for the Purpose of Making Certain Capital Improvements (The Police Building and the Streets Deicing Facility Projects), the Acquisition and Conservation of Natural Areas, and for Costs of Issuance of the Lease Certificates Transaction.Adopted on Second Reading The following is staffs memorandum on this item. "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Ordinance, which was adopted 5-0(Councilmembers Hamrick and Roy were absent) on First Reading on July 6, 2004, appropriates the proceeds from the transaction in the Capital Projects Fund and the Open Lands Fund. Interim City Manager Atteberry stated staff would be available to answer any questions. Bruce Lockhart,2500 East Harmony Road,objected to the Ordinance. He stated it would create$50 million in debt and that the City Charter prohibited the City from going into debt without permission of the voters. He stated these were "underhanded" financing methods and that the voters would never approve funding for these projects. He stated it would cost $2.4 million a year to cover the debt. He stated the Soapstone project was not been fully funded and that this was one of the reasons the police building was being brought forward. He stated the voters needed to have a say on this, and that the Ordinance was subject to referendum. He stated consideration was being given to bringing this to a referendum so that the voters would have a chance to say whether they want to have a $33 million police facility built and a $15 million open space purchase in Wyoming. Mark Brophy, 1109 West Harmony Road, stated $50 million was a huge amount of money. He stated this should have been brought to the voters. He stated a certificate of participation was a "tricky kind of financing"that allowed governments to"evade restrictions on the amount of debt that they can incur. He stated it was"dishonest government"not to allow the voters to have their say on this. Councilmember Hamrick asked staff to comment on Mr. Brophy's comment about certificates of participation. Alan Krcmarik, Finance Director, stated certificates of participation under Colorado State law did not require a vote of the electorate because each year the Council would be asked to 510 July 20, 2004 make the annual appropriation on the lease payments. He stated if the Council did not appropriate the lease payments that the facilities that were bought would be sold. He stated the Council had developed a funding plan for the police building and that the acquisition of the land was approved during the last capital projects process. He stated money was set aside and would be used to payoff some of the lease certificates of participation. He stated the Soapstone project would be eligible for reimbursements from the proceeds of the certificates of participation. He stated the concept behind using a financing tool to acquire open space was that in the long run it would save the City money because a dedicated revenue source (the sales tax) earmarked for open space acquisition would go much further by buying property now before the price appreciated. He stated in northern Colorado property was appreciating at a much faster rate than inflation or the rates of interest that would be on the lease certificates of participation. He stated this process had not been hidden from the public and that there had been continuing discussions about the police building and open space. He stated a reimbursement resolution had been brought to Council earlier in the year. He stated the process had been aboveboard and up-front from the beginning. He stated staff was trying to save money across the board on this transaction. Councilmember Hamrick asked for similarities and differences between this and bonding. Krcmarik stated bonds were secured by a dedicated revenue source of the City. He stated the annual appropriation was not an issue on a bond and that it would carry a slightly lower interest rate. He stated the law that supported bonds versus certificates of participation was different. He stated both were tax exempt financing. He stated both required the same type of legal and financial analysis. Councilmember Hamrick asked if bonding would require a vote of the people. Krcmarik stated under ArticleX,Section 20 of the State Constitution a government financing using tax dollars would require voter approval. He stated revenue bonds were proprietary or enterprises and did not require an election. Councilmember Bertschy asked if the voters approved the police building as part of an initiative. City Attorney Roy stated the voters approved a tax to be imposed for the land acquisition for the building. Councilmember Bertschy asked if part of the natural areas tax allowed for bonding. City Attorney Roy stated he did not believe that there was any such language. Councilmember Roy asked whether the open space proposal that went to the voters included language that specified that only land in the urban growth area would be purchased. Greg Byrne, CPES Director, stated there was specific language that anticipated spending money on community separators and regional purchases. Councilmember Roy asked for confirmation that the margin of approval was about 65% to 35%. Byrne replied in the affirmative. 511 July 20, 2004 Councilmember Roy asked who wrote that ordinance. Byrne replied that it was written by the citizens who brought it forward as an initiated measure. Councilmember Tharp stated she had concerns about paying debt service cost. She noted that the Finance Director had explained that the investment of the money that was already collected for the police building would be invested and would earn the equivalent amount of money. Krcmarik stated was correct. He stated this had been a multiple year approach to building the police building. He stated money had been set aside each year for the last several years in the base budget for the General Fund to build $1.6 million to make the majority payment on the lease. He stated money had also been set aside from voter-approved capital projects. He stated there was about$10 million set aside to be put into an investment account. He stated would gain a rate of interest slightly higher than the rate paid on the bonds. He stated eventually the City would make a little bit of money on the transaction. He stated there would be an opportunity to refinance the certificates of participation in 10 years to get a lower rate. He stated the financing would allow the City to build a police building that was long overdue and would help the City save money for open space by locking in prices now that would be much higher in the future. Councilmember Tharp made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Roy, to adopt Ordinance No. 120, 2004 on Second Reading. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Bertschy, Hamrick, Martinez, Roy, Tharp and Weitkunat. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED Other Business Councilmember Hamrick stated he had concerns about the adoption of Ordinance No. 118,2004 and that the decision to adopt was made when he was not present. Councilmember Hamrick made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Roy, to rescind Council's decision to use Affordable Housing Fund monies as matching funds and to return Ordinance No. 118, 2004 (Option 2) to the Council for reconsideration. Councilmember Tharp stated she had concerns about taking the money out of the Housing Trust Fund when the money had all been allocated for approved projects. Diane Jones, Deputy City Manager,stated this was a staggered program and that on average there were commitments for about 75% of the money in any fiscal year. She stated the issue was the cash flow. Councilmember Tharp asked if the money was already designated for other projects even if they might not come due for payment during the fiscal year. Jones stated the money may be designated but was not fully expended. She stated the money shown as cash reserves was still in cash reserves. She stated staff could prepare additional information for the Council. 512 July 20, 2004 Councilmember Bertschy asked if the grant would be lost if the matching funds were delayed. Jones stated she would have to determine if any funds had been transacted as the match for the grant since the Council's approval. Councilmember Weitkunat stated she would not support the motion. She stated the Council adopted the Ordinance two weeks ago and that there was discussion about whether the money should come from the Affordable Housing Fund or from reserves. She stated it would be"bad politics"to adopt the motion and reverse normal procedure. Mayor Martinez stated there were designated funds for affordable housing and that those funds should be used for this match. He stated Council should not be making "line item" decisions regarding the budget. The vote on the motion was as follows:Yeas: Councilmembers Bertschy,Hamrick,Roy and Tharp. Nays: Councilmembers Martinez and Weitkunat. THE MOTION CARRIED Councilmember Hamrick requested a two-page memo relating to Mr. Schumm's presentation under Citizen Participation. He asked that the focus be on the implementation of the Intergovernmental Agreement. Interim City Manager Attebeny stated staff had been working with Mr. Schumm regarding the issue and that there had been no satisfactory resolution. City Attorney Roy stated staff would put together a memo relating to whether annexation should always be a Council decision or whether it could be a staff decision in some instances. Councilmember Hamrick stated the property referred to by Mr. Schumm was part of an enclave that was under the three-year period review. He asked if the property could be annexed before the three years had passed. City Attorney Roy stated the Intergovernmental Agreement and State statute had different provisions. He stated enclaves were not eligible for annexation until they had been surrounded by the City for three years. He stated there was another provision that talked about parcels contiguous to the City limits regardless of whether or not they were contained within an enclave. He stated the IGA provided that the City would consider annexation of such parcels rather than having them develop in the County. Councilmember Hamrick stated it was his understanding that this would not be a voluntary annexation. City Attorney Roy stated staff rejected the annexation because there was an illegal use on the property at the time and that under the Land Use Code provisions the City could not have annexed the property. He stated the broader policy question (absent the illegal use)was how those kinds of annexations should be considered (by staff or Council). 513 July 20, 2004 Councilmember Hamrick made a motion,seconded by Councilmember Roy,to direct staff to prepare for Council's consideration on August 17, 2004 a new ordinance that would repeal the text of the amendment that added small event centers to the U-E zone district. Mayor Martinez asked that those who had already spoken to this issue refrain from speaking again. He stated two minutes would be allowed for each speaker. Linda Ripley,representing the Feather Ridge applicants,stated her clients had been dealing with the City process for more than a year. Councilmember Hamrick stated the issue was the ordinance rather than any particular development. Ms. Ripley stated Ordinance No. 056, 2004 was on the books and had been approved after a long process that took more than a year. Mayor Martinez asked if the speaker's points should be heard. City Attorney Roy stated the history of the zoning change, the period of time involved and the public process involved was relevant. Ms. Ripley stated when Council approved the ordinance that her client relied on it to continue through the PDP process. She stated her client had played by the rules to bring her development proposal forward. She stated reconsidering the ordinance at this point would be unfair. She stated the performance standards in the ordinance were extensive and gave a huge amount of protection to any neighborhood that would be affected by the ordinance in the future. George Harms, 3145 Yellowstone Circle, stated Ordinance No. 056, 2004 enabled large scale reception businesses that would be the size and magnitude hosted by the largest commercial reception enterprises in Fort Collins. He stated the staff commitment given to City Council to provide written notification to all affected property owners prior to the Spring review was not done. He stated throughout the process City staff missed opportunities to include input from potentially impacted neighborhoods. He stated the ordinance allowed for a use that was incompatible to residential neighborhoods. He asked the Council to reconsider the ordinance. Herman Pang, 3139 Yellowstone Circle, supported repeal of the ordinance and stated he opposed activity and noise so near his property. Carrie Arave,3121 Yellowstone Circle, asked the Council to reconsider the ordinance and consider more public input into an Ordinance that would be more conducive to Urban Estate districts. Chris Becker,Woodland Park Estates Homeowner's Association,stated there were no limits placed on the number of people or the capacity for reception centers. He stated the ordinance allowed more people than would be allowed at large facilities. He stated operations would be allowed between 514 July 20, 2004 8:00 a.m. and midnight and that traffic and noise impacts to residential neighborhoods were not considered. He stated modifications to the Land Use Code should be made after proper scrutiny and review. He stated the business applicants should not be"empowered to write the rules." He asked that the Ordinance be reconsidered. Councilmember Bertschy made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Tharp, to adjourn into Executive Session as provided in Section 2-31(a)(2) of the City Code for the purpose of receiving legal advice. Councilmember Hamrick asked how the motion to adjourn into Executive Session would affect the original motion. City Attorney Roy stated the original motion would be held in abeyance pending the Council reconvening the meeting following the Executive Session. The vote on the motion to adjourn into Executive Session was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Bertschy, Hamrick, Martinez, Roy and Tharp. Nays: Councilmember Weitkunat. THE MOTION CARRIED ("Secretary's Note: The Council adjourned into Executive Session at 12:14 a.m. and reconvened following the Executive Session at 12:35 a.m.) Councilmember Hamrick stated he would support the motion to reconsider the Ordinance. He stated he had reservations about the process used and the use of small scale event centers in the U-E zone. He stated he did not believe that the use was compatible with residential zoning and would create nuisance problems. He stated he would like the issue to be revisited City-wide. Councilmember Weitkunat stated she would not support the motion. She stated it was important to look at Land Use Code changes separately from the PDP process. She stated the Land Use Code amendments were adopted following an arduous and lengthy process. She stated there was a public process with multiple meetings. She stated she saw no reason to revisit the Ordinance. Councilmember Tharp stated she had been assured that the City followed its process and allowed for participation in making the Land Use Code changes. She stated the neighborhood concerns should be addressed during the development review process. The vote on the motion to reconsider Ordinance No. 056, 2004 was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Bertschy and Hamrick. Nays Councilmembers Martinez, Roy, Tharp and Weitkunat. THE MOTION FAILED 515 July 20, 2004 Adjournment Councilmember Bertschy made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Tharp, to adjourn the meeting to 6:00 p.m. on July 27, 2004 to consider any business that may come before the Council. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Bertschy,Hamrick,Martinez,Roy, Tharp and Weitkunat. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED The meeting adjourned at 12:40 a.m. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk 516