Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 05/17/2005 - CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE REGULAR COUNCIL ITEM NUMBER: 6 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY DATE: May 17, Zoos FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL STAFF: Wanda Krajicek SUBJECT Consideration and approval of the regular Council meeting minutes of April 19, 2005, and the adjourned Council meeting minutes of April 26, 2005. April 19, 2005 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,April 19, 2005, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll Call was answered by the following Councilmembers: Bertschy, Hamrick, Kastein, Martinez, Roy and Weitkunat. Councilmembers Absent: Tharp. Staff Members Present: Atteberry, Krajicek, Roy. Organizational Meeting City Clerk Krajicek administered the oaths of office for newly elected Mayor Doug Hutchinson and Councilmembers Ben Manvel, Diggs Brown and Kelly Ohlson. The outgoing Mayor and Councilmembers stepped down and the newly constituted Council was seated. Resolutions 2005-030, 2005-031, 2005-032 and 2005-033 Expressing Gratitude and Appreciation to Outgoing Mayor Ray Martinez and Outgoing Councilmembers Bill Bertschy, Eric Hamrick and Marty Tharp, Adopted Mayor Hutchinson read Resolution 2005-030 in full, commending outgoing Mayor Martinez. Councilmember Kastein made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Brown, to adopt Resolution 2005-030. Rev. Thebo, homeless shelter, thanked Ray Martinez for his service on the shelter's committee. Councilmember Weitkunat stated she had served with Ray Martinez for the last six years and that he had been"one of the finest ambassadors of this community." She stated he was well respected throughout the state and the community and at the national level. Councilmember Roy thanked Ray Martinez for his many years of hard work and dedication to the citizens of Fort Collins. Councilmember Kastein stated Ray Martinez' leadership would be missed. 35 April 19, 2005 Mayor Hutchinson expressed admiration for the work done by Ray Martinez as Mayor and presented a parchment copy of the Resolution to Mr. Martinez. Outgoing Mayor Martinez congratulated the new Council and thanked the Council for the Resolution. He stated he had worked hard for the community and that he would continue to be involved in his home town. Mayor Hutchinson read Resolution 2005-031 in full, commending outgoing Councilmember Bill Bertschy. Councilmember Roy made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Weitkunat,to adopt Resolution 2005-031. Councilmember Weitkunat stated Bill Bertschy had been a strong supporter of the community and an advocate for its relationship with the university. Councilmember Roy thanked Bill Bertschy for his contributions and insights as a Councilmember. Councilmember Kastein stated Bill Bertschy for his service as a "humble public servant." Mayor Hutchinson stated Bill Bertschy had given Fort Collins eight years of"distinguished public service"and had conducted an election campaign that focused on the issues and the good of the City. He presented a parchment copy of the Resolution to Mr. Bertschy. Outgoing Councilmember Bertschy stated he had been privileged to serve for the last eight years. He stated the City had a dedicated staff that worked with the Council and wished the new Council the best. Mayor Hutchinson read Resolution 2005-32 in full, commending outgoing Councilmember Eric Hamrick. Eric Kronwall, 1119 Monticello Court, stated Eric Hamrick had always made himself available to his constituents and had been willing to talk with any citizen on any issue. Gina Janett, former Councilmember, commended Eric Hamrick for his work on the City Council. She stated he"did his homework and knew the issues" and held numerous meetings in his District to talk with citizens. She stated he also supported conducting business in open session rather than Executive Session. K-Lynn Cameron, Latimer County Open Lands Manager, thanked Eric Hamrick for his service as the Fort Collins representative on the Open Lands Advisory Board. Deb McKee, Fort Collins citizen, stated Eric Hamrick cared and worked for the people. 36 April 19, 2005 Councilmember Roy made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Brown, to adopt Resolution 2005-032. Councilmember Roy spoke regarding Eric Hamrick's beliefs in "accessibility, transparency in government and dedication." Councilmember Weitkunat stated the job of a public servant was a difficult one and that she appreciated Eric Hamrick's work on the City Council. Councilmember Kastein thanked Eric Hamrick for his service on the City Council. Mayor Hutchinson stated Eric Hamrick made a"sacrifice of time"to serve on the City Council for four years and presented him with a parchment copy of the Resolution. Outgoing Councilmember Eric Hamrick stated it had been a privilege to serve on the City Council representing the citizens of the City. He stated he had enjoyed working with a"talented staff' for the past four years. Mayor Hutchinson read Resolution 2005-033 in full,commending outgoing Councilmember Marty Tharp. An unidentified female speaker thanked Marty Tharp for her"dedication, sincerity, openness and focus." Outgoing Mayor Martinez thanked Marty Tharp for her hard work as a Councilmember and noted that she was "fully engaged and fully involved." He also thanked outgoing Councilmembers Bertschy and Hamrick for their service and thanked the family members who supported the Councilmembers during their tenure. Councilmember Weitkunat made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Ohlson, to adopt Resolution 2005-033. Councilmember Weitkunat stated Marty Tharp was a "remarkable woman" and that she "worked diligently for the people of Fort Collins" with "incredible energy and insight." Councilmember Roy stated Marty Tharp expressed a willingness to look"deeper"at the issues and "search for the truth." Councilmember Ohlson stated Marty Tharp was"strong, independent, fair and hard working"and served"honorably" for four years. Councilmember Kastein stated Marty Tharp did an "excellent job" as a"tireless"Councilmember. Mayor Hutchinson expressed appreciation for Marty Tharp's work as a Councilmember. 37 April 19, 2005 Mayor Hutchinson stated he would entertain a motion to vote on the motions with one vote. Councilmember Kastein made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Roy, to adopt the four Resolutions with one vote. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein, Manvel, Roy, Ohlson and Weitkunat. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Presentation to City Council, by Former Mayor Arvid Bloom, of a historical journal of documents, dated 1872, of the Cache la Poudre Valley Improvement Company Arvid Bloom, former Mayor, stated Fort Collins was founded as a military fort in 1864 and was incorporated as a City in 1873. He stated he had acquired a number of old books, records and documents, including a handwritten journal relating to the Cache la Poudre Valley Improvement Company that he found in Reno, Nevada in an antique store. He described some of the entries in the journal and stated it had been authenticated by local historians. He stated he was donating the journal to the City of Fort Collins. Rheba Massey,Local History Librarian, stated the journal covered a piece of local history that had been lost. Mayor Hutchinson thanked former Mayor Bloom for his generous donation. (Secretary's Note: The Council took a brief recess at this point for a reception for the new Council.) Election of Mayor Pro Tem Mayor Hutchinson stated the Council would select the Mayor Pro Tem and that it was his intent to ask the new Mayor Pro Tem where appropriate to assume some ceremonial duties of the office of Mayor. He stated it was his intent to spend more of his time on policy issues and other challenges. He stated the election of the Mayor Pro Tem would be an entirely open and public process. He proposed that there be an initial discussion in which the Councilmembers could indicate any interest in serving as Mayor Pro Tem or make any comments about this office. He stated he would then entertain a motion to place a Councilmember's name before the Council for election. He stated he understood that no second would be required for that. He stated there would then be an opportunity for comments by the public, Council discussion of the motion, and a vote on the motion. Councilmember Weitkunat stated she was interested in serving as the Mayor Pro Tem and would be able to commit the necessary time. She stated she felt that it would be helpful to have the only female Councilmember serving in the role of Mayor Pro Tem. 38 4-ri119, 2005 Councilmember Ohlson stated he would support either Councilmember Kastein or Councilmember Weitkunat because they had both served six years on the Council. Councilmember Kastein made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Ohlson, to nominate Councilmember Weitkunat as Mayor Pro Tem for a two-year term. Councilmember Kastein stated Councilmember Weitkunat would serve well in a leadership role because of her experience on Council and the Planning and Zoning Board. He stated she also had the time to serve as Mayor Pro Tem. Councilmember Roy stated he would not support the nomination of Councilmember Weitkunat as Mayor Pro Tem because of a need to have more "balance" in philosophies to represent the entire community. Councilmember Manvel stated there had previously been a "balance"between the Mayor and the Mayor Pro Tem and that this was important because the Leadership Team helped set the Council agendas. He stated it was important to have a variety of points of view on the Leadership Team. He stated Councilmember Weitkunat had"paid her dues"and would bring a great deal of experience and knowledge to the role of Mayor Pro Tem. He stated he would support the nomination and that he would look to the Leadership Team to lead the Council on a"central path" to reach agreement to satisfy all sides on many issues. He stated he would like to see"balanced leadership." Mayor Hutchinson stated he believed that it was important that the Council overall be a"balanced body" that would"embrace" different views. The following individuals spoke in support of the election of Councilmember Weitkunat as Mayor Pro Tem: Jim Wetzler, property owner and Fort Collins native. Don Butler, 1415 North College Avenue. Jerry Gavaldon, 413 North Grant Avenue. Theresa Ramos-Garcia, Fort Collins Board of Realtors. Barbara Duff, Commission on the Status of Women. Greg Snyder, 619 Bear Creek Drive. Ray Martinez, 4121 Stoneridge Court. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein, Manvel, Ohlson and Weitkunat. Nays: Councilmember Roy. THE MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Weitkunat thanked those who spoke in support of her election as Mayor Pro Tem. 39 April19, 2005 Citizen Participation W.C.Wayker,Avery Park neighborhood,stated her neighborhood was almost 80%rentals and that the houses and landscapes had deteriorated and"civility has diminished." She stated the City and CSU had provided little support and few solutions with regard to preserving the quality of the neighborhood. She stated homeowners were being displaced by "irresponsible landlords" and investors who were buying up properties that had been "devalued" below market value and then were renting at "exorbitant rates"to as many renters as could be crowded into the house. Parker Preble, 5000 Boardwalk, Human Relations Commission chairman, described an attack of vandalism on the Muslim Prayer Center. He stated he had written a letter to be sent to the news media deploring the act of vandalism and urging respect for diversity. Audrey Wayker,Avery Park Neighborhood,proposed that CSU,the City and the State government partner to establish a"student village"west of campus. She stated she envisioned this as an"upscale neighborhood"that would be maintained by the City,CSU,property owners and property managers. Elaine Bonney, Human Relations Commission, stated the mission of the Commission was to encourage respect for diversity. She stated the Commission had adopted a "not in our town" resolution declaring Fort Collins to be a"hate free"City with a"zero tolerance"policy relating to hate crimes or incidents. Greg Snyder, 619 Bear Creek Drive, stated he would like to see the Council address the mail ballot voting process to make the ballots inaccessible to voters once deposited in the mail or the return ballot box. He stated if the return envelope was not properly signed that the voter should not get a "second chance." He stated he would also like the Council to address the"inbred rotation"of boards and commissions members. He stated there should be at least a two year "hiatus" between terms of service on different boards. He asked the Council to"depoliticize"the boards and commissions selection process. Paul Anderson,Fort Collins Bioscience Initiative member, spoke regarding housing and economic growth. He stated the task force would be publishing its finds and recommendations that would show that Colorado State University was the key driver for the future of bioscience in northern Colorado. He stated the Advance Center for Technology would continue to create good paying jobs, that the CSU Vet School would be expanding, and that the Biocontainment Lab at the Foothills Campus would have a "huge" future impact with regard to new jobs. He stated it was critical to maintain the neighborhoods for young professionals and families in the "Fort Collins research circle." He stated companies would be reluctant to move to the Foothills Campus if the bulk of their employees would need to find housing on the other side of town. He stated there must be a"check on the illegal and overcrowded rentals"in this area. He stated housing must be maintained to house future workers or the City would be committing "economic suicide." Pete Seel, 1837 Scarborough Drive,Rolland Moore West Neighborhood Network, stated a healthy city required a"healthy core." He stated lack of enforcement of the"three unrelated"ordinance in single-family zoned areas had effectively "rezoned the neighborhoods." He stated illegal rentals 40 April 19, 2005 "created a distorted and unfair market" and disincentives to legitimate property owners investing in rental units. He stated overcrowded rentals diminished property values and that the rental industry was being"subsidized." He stated a"collaborative effort"was needed to preserve single- family neighborhoods. Kathy Bauer, 2009 Huntington Circle, spoke in favor of the retaining the "three unrelated" ordinance. Ruth Davies,2072 Bennington Circle, spoke regarding the need for the"three unrelated"ordinance and addressed the problems of overcrowded rentals. David May, Fort Collins Chamber of Commerce, invited Councilmembers to a briefing about the economy and stated the Chamber looked forward to working with the new Council. Citizen Participation Follow-up Mayor Hutchinson thanked those who spoke during Citizen Participation. Councilmember Ohlson stated he would support some kind of a change in policy relating to a "hiatus" between boards and commissions terms provided there were other qualified applicants. Mayor Hutchinson stated there would be a study session on the"three unrelated"ordinance on April 26. He stated there would be a 20 minute summary of all of the different pieces that had been considered with regard to the complicated problem of rental housing. He stated the intent was to work on the immediate problems while looking at the long range view. Councilmember Roy thanked the Human Relations Commission and the Not In Our Town Alliance for the show of solidarity in response to the vandalism at the Islamic Center. He also commented on Mr. Anderson's comments and stated the Council had been talking about"niche marketing and branding." He thanked those who spoke about the"three unrelated"ordinance and commented on the importance of preserving core neighborhoods. Councilmember Kastein stated it was important for the Council to hear from the citizens during the time in which the Council Policy Agenda was being set. He encouraged Councilmembers to set District meetings with constituents. City Manager Atteberry stated he had spoken with the Police Chief about the recent vandalism incident at the Islamic Center and noted that Police Services was actively investigating the incident. Agenda Review City Manager Atteberry stated there were no changes to the printed agenda. 41 April 19, 2005 CONSENT CALENDAR 15. Consideration and approval of the regular Council meeting minutes of February 15, March 1, and March 15, 2005, and the adjourned Council meeting minutes of March 8, 2005. 16. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 038, 2005,Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the Equipment Fund and Authorizing the Transfer of Existing Appropriations in the Equipment Fund for Construction and Installation of a Compressed Natural Gas Backup Compressor at the Transfort Alternative Fueling Station. These actions are necessary to move forward with the installation of a backup Compressed Natural Gas facility which will provide additional fast fueling capability and a redundancy system in the event of a main compressor malfunction. This system will be critical in Transfort's fueling capability, as Transfort continues to acquire additional Natural Gas buses. Ordinance No. 038, 2005, was unanimously adopted on First Reading on March 15, 2005. 17. First Reading of Ordinance No. 039, 2005,Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue in the Capital Projects Fund - Nix Barn Restoration Capital Project and Authorizing the Transfer of Appropriations Between Funds for the Purnose of Restoring the Exterior of the Nix Barn at the Nix Farm Natural Area, 1745 Hoffman Mill Road. This item requests the appropriation of unanticipated grant revenue in the amount of $97,500, and authorizes the transfer of$54,000 from the Natural Areas Fund to be used for stabilization and restoration of the Nix Barn at the Nix Farm, 1745 Hoffman Mill Road. The Colorado Historical Society awarded the City of Fort Collins a State Historical Fund grant to cover structural analysis and building stabilization, window inventory and restoration,chimney,doors,and siding restoration,replace the rusted leaking roof,and paint the historic barn at the Nix Farm. State Historical Fund grants are available to public entities as applicants for the purpose of historic preservation of their public buildings. The grant is designed to help applicants use historic-type materials and craftsmanship that may cost more than modern ones. 18. First Reading of Ordinance No.040,Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the General Fund for Police Seizure Activity. Nearly 100 years ago, the Colorado Legislature passed legislation allowing for the seizure of illegal contraband used in or gained from criminal activity. The intent is to deter crime and to recover proceeds gained through criminal conduct and apply those assets to defraying the costs of law enforcement. Asset seizure and forfeiture actions are civil cases in Larimer County that have been reviewed, filed, and pursued by the District Attorney's asset forfeiture specialist, and in Larimer County they are always accompanied by a parallel criminal prosecution. The 42 Apri119, 2005 defendant is served with a written summons, an affidavit detailing probable cause, and an advisement of legal rights and procedures for exercising due process. The defendant is entitled to a civil trial. 19. First Reading of Ordinance No. 041, 2005, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the Street Oversizing Fund for Transfer to the Capital Project Fund - Drake and Ziegler Road Improvements Project, Phase 1. The developer of the new King Soopers at the intersection of Drake and Timberline Roads needs to construct improvements to Drake Road to support their truck access and delivery to the site. These improvements are adjacent to and overlap the City's Drake and Ziegler Roadway Project ("Roadway Project"), Timberline to Rigden Parkway. Staff and the developer are coordinating the construction of these improvements for King Soopers with the City's Roadway Project. The coordinated effort will avoid a joint or patch in a new asphalt roadway, and minimize the impact of two separate construction projects to the traveling public. Since these improvements are for the special use and benefit of the King Soopers site, the developer is contributing the estimated cost, $135,000. This ordinance would appropriate the unanticipated revenue into the project. 20. First Reading of Ordinance No.042,2005,Amending the Rules and Regulations Governing Grandview and Roselawn Cemeteries to Allow the Placement of Monuments on Burial Spaces by Persons Other than the Owner. Cemetery staff have recently received inquiries from several people who want to place monuments on burial spaces where their relatives are interred, and for which the record owners cannot be located. These people are upset by the fact that their relatives'graves have no markers, but currently the rules and regulations do not allow anyone except the record owner of a burial space to have a marker or monument placed upon the space. Cemetery staff and the City Attorney's office have developed a procedure under which a person who is not the owner of a burial space could have a monument placed on the space, provided that he or she is related to the person buried in the space; that the record owner cannot be located;and that the person making the request agrees to bear any associated costs, comply with all applicable Cemetery rules and regulations,and hold the City harmless from any claims arising out of the placement of the monument without the record owner's consent. This Ordinance will authorize amendments to Section 14 of the Cemetery rules and regulations to implement this new procedure. 43 April 19, 2005 21. First Reading of Ordinance No. 043, 2005, Amending Section 2-353(4) of the City Code Pertaining to the Plannine and ZoningBoard. oard. Section 2-353(4) provides that "all" planning items shall be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Board in accordance with the Code. The Land Use Code,which is a part of the City Code, provides that certain planning items are to be reviewed not by the Planning and Zoning Board,but by the Director in an administrative hearing. This Ordinance is necessary to bring Section 2-353(4) into harmony with the provisions of the Land Use Code and the established practices arising therefrom. 22. First Reading of Ordinance No. 044, 2005, Authorizing the Conveyance of City-Owned Property, Located in the Coventry Subdivision Filing No. 1, Fort Collins, Colorado, to Coventry Home Owners'Association,in Exchange for a Conservation Easement Preserving the Property. This Ordinance authorizes the conveyance of a 2.197 acre tract, referred to as Hidden Cattails Natural Area, to Coventry Home Owners' Association ("HOA"). As part of the proposed transaction the HOA would convey to the City a conservation easement agreement that would give the City the right to preserve and protect the conservation values of the property in perpetuity. The conservation values include viewshed,natural area,and wetland and stream habitat values. 23. First Reading of Ordinance No. 045, 2005, Desi ne ating the Remington House, 124 North Sherwood Street, Fort Collins, Colorado, as a Fort Collins Landmark Pursuant to Chanter 14 of the City Code. The owners of the property, Mark and Elizabeth Knapp, are initiating this request for Fort Collins Landmark designation for the Remington House. The home retains excellent physical integrity and is judged to be architecturally significant to our community under Fort Collins Landmark Standard (3). It is a minimally altered, well-preserved, vernacular example of the side-gabled variant of the Prairie style. 24. First Reading of Ordinance No. 046, 2005, Vacating Two Portions of Right-of-Way as Dedicated on the Plat of Side Hill, Filine One. The Side Hill development site is located north of Drake Road and east of Timberline Road. As a part of Side Hill, Filing One, it was anticipated that an unnamed street would extend northeasterly beyond Katandin Drive and that Trestle Road would extend westerly beyond Windrow Drive. Street stubs for both of these anticipated streets were dedicated with Side Hill,Filing One. In Side Hill,Filing Two,for which an Administrative Hearing was held on December 16, 2004, the street stubs are no longer needed and the streets are not planned to extend beyond Windrow Drive. Therefore, the right-of-way for the two street stubs is no longer necessary and is proposed for vacation at this time. As there are currently utilities within the right-of-way, the area will be retained as a utility easement. 44 April 19, 2005 25. Items Pertaining to the Crawford Annexation and Zoning_ A. Resolution 2005-034 Setting Forth Findings of Fact and Determinations Regarding the Crawford Annexation. B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 047, 2005, Annexing Property Known as the Crawford Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado. C. First Reading of Ordinance No. 048, 2005, Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the Crawford Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado. This is a 100%voluntary annexation and zoning of a property approximately 30.04 acres in size. The site is located approximately one-half mile west of North College Avenue on the south side of West Willox Lane. Contiguity is gained along the eastern boundary which is shared with Hickory Village Mobile Home Park. Contiguity is also gained along a portion of the south property line which is shared with the City of Fort Collins Soft Gold Neighborhood Park. The recommended zoning is U-E,Urban Estate. This zoning complies with the Structure Plan Map. 26. Resolution 2005-035 Finding Substantial Compliance and Initiating Annexation Proceedings for the Sunrise Ridge Annexation. The Sunrise Ridge Annexation is 10.34 acres in size. The site is located at 5101 South Strauss Cabin Road, approximately one-half mile south of East Harmony Road on the west side of Strauss Cabin Road. Contiguity with the existing municipal boundary is gained along the entire eastern boundary which is shared with the west property line of the Willow Brook Subdivision (Observatory Village). Contiguity is also gained along the entire northern boundary which is shared with the south property line of Brookfield Subdivision (Morningside Townhomes). 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. The hearing will be held at the time of First Reading of the annexation and zoning ordinances on June 7, 2005. Not less than 30 days prior, published notice is required by State law. 27. Resolution 2005-036 Establishing Fee Increases Charged by Fort Collins Police Services Relating to Release of Criminal Justice Records. The Records Division of Fort Collins Police Services receives numerous requests on a daily basis for copies of police reports. The highest percentage of these requests comes from insurance companies for copies of accident reports. Records Division staff recommends adjusting the current rates. This adjustment more accurately reflects the cost of providing this service. 45 April 19, 2005 Secondly, during the last few years, the volume of requests for `special services' of the Police Services computer system database has increased dramatically. These special searches range from crimes at a specific location to the number of crimes by day of week and require much more sophisticated expertise and time to accomplish. The requested increase more closely reflects the overall cost of complete these searches. 28. Resolution 2005-037 Authorizing the Lease of City-Owned Agricultural Property at 1425 Overland Trail for Up to Two Years. Pursuant to the City of Fort Collins Land Conservation and Stewardship Master Plan, the Andrijeski Farm was purchased on September 1,2004. The 153-acre farm is located within the City's Growth Management Area at 1425 North Overland Trail. A portion of the property was leased by the previous owner to Roger and Keith Amey for several years for crop and grazing purposes, and it is the intent of City Natural Area staff to extend the lease for a one or two year period, at the option of both parties, subject to management direction from the staff. 29. Resolution 2005-038 Authorizing a Revocable Permit to the Colorado Department of Transportation for a Period of up to Two Years to Enter on Property Owned by the City for the Purpose of Environmental Cleanup and Monitoring_ The City of Fort Collins and the Colorado Department of Transportation ("CDOT") began negotiations in 1997 to exchange properties on East Vine Street. These negotiations were completed with a closing held on April 26,2000,at which CDOT deeded to the City a parcel of land containing 0.82 acres and the City deeded a parcel of land to CDOT containing 2.5 acres of land. Along with the transfer of the property, CDOT also paid the City approximately $90,000 for the difference in value between the two properties. Prior to the City's purchase of the land from CDOT,CDOT had been working with the State on an environmental contamination on a portion of the site. At the time of closing,all parties understood that the State was issuing a Letter of No Further Action. During CDOT's occupation of the site, they continued to monitor wells that they had installed on the site. These tests did not give a completely clean reading; therefore, the State is requiring that CDOT remove the contaminated soil and replace it with new soil. Excavation of the soil will also remove the existing monitoring wells on site. These wells will need to be replaced on site and CDOT will need to continue monitoring these wells for up to two years. Issuing this Permit to CDOT allows them to proceed to clean up the City property at their expense and monitor it as required by the State. 30. Resolution 2005-039 Further Extending the Term of the Ad Hoc Compensation and Benefits Committee. The Committee has recommended that the Council further extend its existence in order to allow the City Manager to communicate with City employees regarding the Committee's recommendations. The extension would be through June 30, 2005. 46 April 19, 2005 31. Resolution 2005-040 Making an Appointment to the Golf Board. Currently a vacancy exists on the Golf Board due to the resignation of Mindy Markley. Councilmembers Bertschy and Hamrick reviewed the applications on file and are recommending Shane Houska to fill the vacancy with a term to begin immediately and set to expire on December 31, 2006. 32. Routine Easements. A. Deed of Easement Dedication from Lake Sherwood Home Owners Association,for sidewalk improvements and for pedestrian use thereof by the general public,located on East Drake Road. Monetary consideration: $0. ***END CONSENT*** Ordinances on Second Reading were read by title by City Clerk Krajicek. 16. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 038,2005,Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the Equipment Fund and Authorizing the Transfer of Existing Appropriations in the Equipment Fund for Construction and Installation of a Compressed Natural Gas Backup Compressor at the Transfort Alternative Fueling Station. Ordinances on First Reading were read by title by City Clerk Krajicek. 17. First Reading of Ordinance No. 039, 2005,Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue in the Capital Projects Fund - Nix Barn Restoration Capital Project and Authorizing the Transfer of Appropriations Between Funds for the Purpose of Restoring the Exterior of the Nix Barn at the Nix Farm Natural Area, 1745 Hoffinan Mill Road. 18. First Reading of Ordinance No.040,Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the General Fund for Police Seizure Activity. 19. First Reading of Ordinance No. 041, 2005, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the Street Oversizing Fund for Transfer to the Capital Project Fund - Drake and Ziegler Road Improvements Project, Phase I. 20. First Reading of Ordinance No.042,2005,Amending the Rules and Regulations Governing Grandview and Roselawn Cemeteries to Allow the Placement of Monuments on Burial Spaces by Persons Other than the Owner. 21. First Reading of Ordinance No. 043, 2005, Amending Section 2-353(4) of the City Code Pertaining to the Planning and Zoning Board. 47 April 19, 2005 22. First Reading of Ordinance No. 044, 2005, Authorizing the Conveyance of City-Owned Property, Located in the Coventry Subdivision Filing No. 1, Fort Collins, Colorado, to Coventry Home Owners'Association,in Exchange for a Conservation Easement Preserving the Property. 23. First Reading of Ordinance No. 045, 2005, Designating the Remington House, 124 North Sherwood Street, Fort Collins. Colorado, as a Fort Collins Landmark Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the City Code. 24. First Reading of Ordinance No. 046, 2005, Vacating Two Portions of Right-of-Way as Dedicated on the Plat of Side Hill, Filing One. 25. Items Pertaining to the Crawford Annexation and Zoning_ B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 047, 2005, Annexing Property Known as the Crawford Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado. C. First Reading of Ordinance No. 048, 2005, Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the Crawford Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado. Councilmember Weitkunat made a motion,seconded by Councilmember Roy,to adopt and approve all items on the Consent Calendar. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein, Manvel, Roy, Ohlson and Weitkunat. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Staff Reports City Manager Atteberry congratulated the newly elected Mayor and Councilmembers. He stated the City staff was committed to helping the Council complete its policy objectives. City Manager Atteberry reported on the April 13th Harmony Road closure by the Union Pacific Railroad. He stated the City and the Colorado Department of Transportation had no advance notice of the closure and that there were insufficient signage and traffic control measures in place. He stated approximately 40,000 vehicles were negatively affected by this action. He stated the Transportation Department and Police Services reacted to the situation as quickly as possible. He stated Harmony Road reopened at 10:30 p.m. in the evening. He stated the Union Pacific Railroad indicated that the traffic controller contractor was responsible for notifying the City and that notification was inadequate. He stated the Railroad had sent an apology letter to the City and the community. He stated CDOT and the Public Utilities Commission did not believe that they or the City had any jurisdiction over railroad crossings. He stated the City had an excellent relationship with the Railroad for the last 10 years and that this situation had been an "anomoly." He stated the City incurred costs relating to traffic control, complaints to his office and other departments, and 48 Apri119, 2005 disrupted City services. He stated the Police Department incurred close to $2,000 in overtime officers, that the Traffic Department incurred over $3,500 in expenses, and that there were other miscellaneous administration expenses. He stated the incident cost the City about $6,000 and that there was a significant impact to the community. He apologized to the Council and the community for the incident and stated he would be sending a letter to the Railroad about the costs to the City. City Manager Atteberry stated North College Avenue would be closed April 23-26 at Cherry Street by the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad to replace the railroad crossing. He stated this closure had been coordinated with the Railroad and affected businesses for the past few months. Councilmember Roy suggested a public letter from the City organization to the residents of the City regarding the Harmony Road closure incident. City Manager Atteberry stated a news release was issued on the day of the incident and that he would provide a public explanation of the April 13th incident. City Manager Atteberry stated the Magellan Center,a non-partisan non-profit"think tank"dedicated to entrepreneurship, had announced that an award was given to Fort Collins as the number one community in the United States for entrepreneurship and innovation. He stated the criteria for the award included employment growth,productivity increases, wage increases, and new firm births. Mayor Hutchinson stated that was a"good news" item and requested additional information on the award criteria. Councilmember Reports Councilmember Weitkunat reported that the Poudre School District/Larimer County/City of Fort Collins Liaison Committee discussed the expansion of the committee to include Timnath and Wellington. She stated the Committee also discussed a cooperative venture between the School District and the City to work on transportation issues relating to students and schools. She stated the Committee also discussed the issue of determining locations for future schools and the sharing information about "cone zones." Councilmember Kastein reported on an emergency meeting of the MPO to discuss the State Legislature's consideration of a ballot measure to change the State Constitution to forego the TABOR refund to taxpayers for the next five years. He stated the MPO's discussion related to how the money could be spent for infrastructure improvements over five years if the voters would approve the measure. (Secretary's Note: The Council took a brief recess at this point.) 49 April 19, 2005 Consideration of An Appeal of the Feather Ridge Modification of Standard, Decision of the Planning and Zoning Board Upheld The following is staffs memorandum on this item. "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY On February 1, 2005, the City Council overturned a recent Planning and Zoning Board denial of the proposed Feather Ridge Project Development Plan (PDP) application for a small scale reception center located on 15 acres of land north of Hewlett-Packard and east of the Woodland Park Estates Subdivision. In addition to approving the PDP application, Council's action included the remand of one aspect of the application, a request for a modification to the separation requirements between the events center and adjacent residences, back to the Planning and Zoning Boardfor reconsideration. The Planning and Zoning Board subsequently reviewed and denied the modification request. City Council is being asked to hear an appeal of the Planning and Zoning Board's denial of the requested modification. Development actions to date associated with the proposed Feather Ridge PDP/Modification application, include: • The PDP application was presented to the Planning and Zoning Board for consideration on December 2, 2004. The application included a request to modify the required separation from the existing farmhouse and adjacent residences. At this hearing, the Planning and Zoning Board denied the project and modification request by a 3— 3 vote. • The action of the Planning and Zoning Board was appealed to City Council by a representative of the project applicant. • City Council overturned the Planning and Zoning Board's action at its February 1, 2005 hearing based on the findings that the Board conducted a fair hearing, but failed to interpret and apply Section 3.8.27(F) of the Land Use Code because vehicle access to the reception center would be provided directly from a public street. In addition, City Council remanded to the Planning and Zoning Board the applicant's request to modify the separation requirements. • The Planning and Zoning Board reviewed the remanded modifcationrequest at a public hearing on February 17, 2005. At the hearing, the Planning and Zoning Board denied the modification by a vote of 3-2 (Member Lingle- conflict of interest, Member Torgerson- absent). An appeal of the Planning and Zoning Board's denial of the modification request was filed in the City Clerks Office on March 3, 2005 by a representative of the applicant, James Martell. 50 April 19, 2005 The Appeal is based on Section 2-48(b)(1)and Section 2-48(b)(2) of the City Code which states the Planning and Zoning Board improperly denied the Feather Ridge Project Development Plan by: 1. Failure to conduct a fair hearing in that: a. The board or commission substantially ignored its previous established rules ofprocedure; and b. The board or commission considered evidence relevant to its findings which were not relevant to the issue or grossly misleading." Mayor Hutchinson introduced the agenda item. (Secretary's Note: City Manager Atteberry left the room at this point due to a perceived conflict of interest.) City Attorney Roy explained the appeal process and the options available to the Council at the conclusion of the appeal hearing. He stated the Council could remand the matter to the Board if there was a finding that the appellant was denied a fair hearing before the Planning and Zoning Board. Mayor Hutchinson stated each side would have 20 minutes for the presentation of arguments and 10 minutes for rebuttal. Diane Jones, Deputy City Manager,stated staff would provide background information and review the particulars of the appeal. Cameron Gloss, Director of Current Planning, stated the Planning and Zoning Board reviewed the remanded modification on February 17, 2005 and denied the application. He presented visual information regarding the proposed Feather Ridge project and gave background information on the project and Code changes that had taken place that related to the requested modification. He stated after several individuals came forward with inquiries regarding a proposed small scale event center that a change was made to the Land Use Code to define small scale event centers, to determine the appropriate zone (the U-E zone) for such a use and to establish performance standards for small scale event centers. He stated the performance standards were approved by the City Council and that the standards required direct access to an arterial street, a seven acre minimum lot size, maximum size for individual buildings of 7,500 square feet and aggregate building size for the entire site of 15,000 square feet, and a separation between the small scale event center and nearby residences. He stated in this case there was a 300 foot minimum separation. He stated the standards also required separation of the outdoor space from the primary building. He stated there were also specific buffer standards and limitations on the hours of operation. He noted that the City also had noise and lighting standards that applied City-wide and would relate specifically to this kind of use. He stated the property was located north of Harmony Road and east of Ziegler Road and was 51 April 19, 2005 approximately 15 acres. He stated the zoning immediately to the south was Harmony Corridor and that the Woodland Park Estates neighborhood was immediately abutting to the west. He presented visual information regarding the site and its surroundings and showed an aerial photograph of the site layout. He stated there was an existing farmhouse and that a larger facility would be built later to the north and east. He presented a site plan showing an access drive and the existing and proposed vegetation along the new drive. He stated the farmhouse was built in the 1890s and that the barn would be maintained as part of the development. He presented images looking out from the proposed development to the surrounding areas, including the Woodland Park Estates neighborhood. He described the separation between the development and the neighborhood and stated the separation was a minimum distance of 300 feet. He stated the closest house on Lot 15 was approximately 220 feet and that other houses were located 257 feet and 262 feet from the proposed development. He stated the question for the Planning and Zoning Board was whether the modification was warranted based on the criteria of whether it was equal to or better than a compliant plan and whether or not there was a physical hardship. He stated the staffs recommendation to the Planning and Zoning Board was to approve the request. He stated the Board denied the application on a 3-2 vote. He stated there was a denial of the Project Development Plan, which included the modification, at the December 2 Planning and Zoning Board hearing; that an appeal was brought to the City Council on February 1; that the Council approved the Project Development Plan but remanded the modification back to the Planning and Zoning Board; that the Board denied the modification request; and that an appeal of that denial was being brought back to the Council. He stated this appeal therefore related only to the modification. He stated the Resolution adopted on February 15 by the Council essentially stated the Planning and Zoning Board conducted a fair hearing;that the Board improperly interpreted the Land Use Code when the Board denied the project, particularly with respect to one aspect; that the Land Use Code was being met as far as the design standards;and that the modification was being remanded to the Board. He stated if appellant's modification request was withdrawn or the Council upheld the Planning and Board's denial of the modification, the Project Development Plan would still be considered approved. He stated the staff report presented an analysis based on the allegations made by the appellant. He stated the staff was supportive of the modification request at the Planning and Zoning Board hearing. He stated based on the notice of appeal the staff did not support the appeal because staff believed that the Planning and Zoning Board conducted a fair hearing in making its decision. Mayor Hutchinson stated the appellants and any other parties-in-interest in support of the appeal would have 20 minutes for a presentation. Julie Baker,applicant,spoke regarding the history of the project. She stated the farm was purchased in January 2004 and that the neglected farm site was cleaned up. She stated the vision for the site was that it be used for"small gatherings." She presented visual information showing the overall site plan, existing vegetation and a service drive. She stated there would be approximately two service vehicles using the drive for each banquet. She stated the neighborhood expressed concerns about the service drive and that a decision was made to move it. She stated the activity site(to be used for weddings and small gatherings) had been moved at the neighborhood's request. She stated the existing canopy of elm trees would be kept as a buffer. She stated on the west side of the property line a number of pine trees had been planted. She stated the garage was being kept to answer the neighborhood's concerns about seeing vehicles. She stated the service drive that was a concern to 52 April 19, 2005 the neighborhood had been "looped into the circle drive off of the new large facility." She stated there were three neighborhood meetings and two private meetings with some of the residents west of the property and that an effort had been made to"communicate openly" about options that would work for the neighborhood. She stated a decision was made to plant tall junipers along the west side of the fence line to add additional screening. She showed photos of the site,the buffering to the west and the separation between the site and the neighborhood. She stated the chicken coop was moved at the request of the neighborhood and that sound studies were done at the request of the neighbors. She stated the 7,500 square foot small scale reception center had been approved and was in the final stages to prepare for building. She stated the applicant wanted the farmhouse to be used as the focus of the property at its current location. She stated someone on the Planning and Zoning Board suggested moving the house and that this would be difficult because of the soft brick,because it had been built in three stages over 115 years and because moving it would alter its historic eligibility. She stated the applicant was working toward historic designation and was designing the new building so that it would be in character with the farmhouse. She stated the applicant would like to "share" the farmhouse with others as part of the small scale reception center. She stated there had never been more than three "no" votes from the Planning and Zoning Board. She stated a modification was needed to allow the historic farmhouse to be used. She stated extensive additional buffering had been done because of the proposed modification. She stated the modification would be for a "public good" due to the historic nature of the farmhouse. She asked that the Council look at the "track record" of the applicant's treatment of the farm to date. She stated it had been made "more beautiful" through improvements and that it would be an "asset" to Fort Collins. She asked that Council approve the modification. Jim Martell,attorney representing the applicant, stated he would address the issue of the fairness of the Planning and Zoning Board hearing. He stated the vote was 3-2 and the only issue was "air conditioning and closing the windows." He stated the motion by Mr. Stockover was that he would support the modification only if the house would be air conditioned. He stated the Board required that it be kept air conditioned and that the windows be kept closed at all times to minimize any possibility of noise emanating from the house to the neighboring property. He stated it appeared that Mr. Stockover "got what he believed was necessary in the motion" to minimize any possibility of sound, yet voted against the motion. He stated Mr. Stockover talked on page 54 of the transcript about "how passionate" both sides were. He stated there was "significant evidence" presented by the neighborhood on issues that were not relevant i.e.discussion of alcohol problems,drunk driving, causing accidents harmful to neighborhood children. He stated those issues were not pertinent to the setback of the house. He stated Mr. Stockover was new to the Board and had not heard all of the testimony previously. He stated Ms. Craig and Ms. Schmidt had been opposed to the project from the beginning. He stated the transcript showed that there was evidence presented that was not appropriate to this type of hearing and that Mr. Stockover was swayed by that evidence. He asked that the Council overturn the Board's decision. Mayor Hutchinson stated those opposed to the appeal would have 20 minutes for a presentation. Kim Welch, 4033 Mesa Verde Street, asked the Council to enforce the performance standards for reception centers in the residential zone. She stated the standards replaced the previous laws and were created to give a minimal amount of protection to neighborhoods. She showed a video of 53 April 19, 2005 Linda Ripley indicating that the developer could accept the performance standards as written. She stated the "non-ambiguous" standards required a minimum separation distance of 300 feet and at least 250 feet to any vacant property. She stated Ms. Ripley indicated to the Planning and Zoning Board that the applicant understood that the existing home did not comply with the performance standards and could not be used to host receptions. She stated Feather Ridge had been granted approval to build a reception center business in a high density residential zone and was looking for approval of a modification for a second reception center building to allow even more concurrent parties. She questioned how this could be a hardship for Feather Ridge when the applicant "knew the rules"and"helped write the rules." She stated the minimum separation distance of 300 feet was "clear and unambiguous." She stated the applicant understood that the house did not meet the standards and "to get their business approved" agreed to accept all of the rules. She stated additional building could host outside events,outside weddings or partiers on the porch. She stated the modification would create more parties,more multiple events and increase the amount of traffic and noise next to the homes. She stated it would hurt the neighborhood. She asked the Council to enforce the codes and standards written by the City to serve the public. She asked that the Council uphold the Planning and Zoning Board decision. Koichi Matsumara,4021 Mesa Verde Street,urged the Council to uphold the Planning and Zoning Board hearing. He stated the grounds for appeal were misleading and the developer's plan should be changed if it was in conflict with the law. He stated Board member Stockover was right to be concerned about noise problems because that was the "crux of the problem." He stated it was impractical to require that doors and windows be kept shut. He stated the appeal grounds were "misleading and inappropriate." He stated the developer's plan was 80 feet short of the requirement and in clear violation of the ordinance. He asked that the Council uphold the Board's decision. Susan Baylor,4020 Mesa Verde Street, stated her home was closer than 300 feet to the farmhouse. She asked that the Council deny the request for modification and uphold the two decisions already made by the Planning and Zoning Board. She stated the fence constructed by the applicant did not act as a barrier because of the elevations of the homes. She stated the farmhouse was too close to the homes and that the"burden"of this business would be on the homeowners. She stated approval of the modification would guarantee "continual friction" between Feather Ridge and the neighborhood. She stated the modification would"grossly intrude"upon the"security and privacy" of the neighborhood. Logan Baylor, 4020 Mesa Verde Street, stated the applicant's request had already been rejected by the Planning and Zoning Board twice. He stated the applicant was requesting a change to the ordinance rather than ensuring that the project conformed to existing ordinances. He stated the 300 foot requirement was intended to protect homeowners from offensive noise and light pollution and exhaust emissions caused by adjacent businesses in residential areas. He stated the requested variance would in no way meet the requirements of Section 2.8 Modification of Standards Requirements. He stated this request would have a negative impact on the quality of life in the neighborhood. He asked that the City Council protect the rights of the homeowners and uphold the recommendations of the City staff and Planning and Zoning Board by voting no on the reduction of the 300 foot requirement. 54 April 19, 2005 Janet Zuniga, 4026 Mesa Verde Street, stated her property abutted 240 feet of the Feather Ridge property line. She stated her home was the closest to the farmhouse and that the farmhouse was 80 feet too close to her home. She stated the performance standards required the placement of buildings a minimum of 300 feet from the nearest dwelling and at least 250 from the nearest vacant lot property line. She stated the applicant was requesting to be 220 feet from a house with a family living in it and that the farmhouse would be only 122 feet from her lot line. She stated the new fence would do nothing to mitigate the sound, lighting, traffic, activity or lack of privacy that would be forced on the neighborhood every weekend. She stated there would be "no escaping the commotion." She stated nothing could effectively mitigate the effects of constant activity. She asked that a second set of activities not be allowed. She asked that the City Council stand up for her rights and follow the performance standards. She stated the farmhouse could be moved and that the applicants did receive a fair hearing and therefore had no grounds for an appeal. Jim Hurlihey, 3138 Grand Teton Place, Woodland Park Homeowners Association Board member, stated the 80+ families represented by the association opposed the project because it would bring unwarranted traffic, dangers, late night noise, and light pollution into a quiet neighborhood. He stated the wishes of the neighborhood had been "overridden" and that the project was proceeding. He stated that the developer now wanted two small scale event centers to hold simultaneous events closer to the homes of neighbors than was reasonable. He stated the developer was counting on the City to make yet another concession regardless of the problems created for the neighbors. He stated the only relevant issue was the 300 foot minimum distance to the nearest homes. He stated the facility would have an economic impact on the homes amounting to a 10-15%loss in property value of the adjoining homes. He stated the farmhouse could be moved and that such a move would not destroy the historic character of the building any more than the improvements that had already been made. He stated the Feather Ridge project did not qualify for any additional special treatment or concessions because there were no unique conditions for the property, the developers had already won the right to build one small scale event center on the property, there was no hardship for the developers and that there would be a hardship for the homeowners,and granting a further exception to the developer would be detrimental to the public good. He asked that the City Council vote against the modification. Mayor Hutchinson stated the appellants and other parties-in-interest in support of the appeal would have 10 minutes for rebuttal. Jim Martell, attorney, stated Linda Ripley's statement in response to the showing of the videotape at the Planning and Zoning Board hearing was: "I'll stand by that statement. I think the performance standards are good ones. When I said we could live with those I said we could live with those because I knew we would have to request a modification to use a historic house. I was also confident that given the amount of buffering that we had that we would probably get it. I could be totally wrong, and I certainly don't want to predict your vote tonight. But the reason I said that the performance standards were good ones was that when there is a structure that is closer than 300 feet I think it should be looked at very closely, and that is what you are required to do if a modification is needed. Then you have to look at the situation a little closer than you might ordinarily look at it. But a modification request is part of the system. It is, and was always intended to be. That is why 55 April 19, 2005 the performance standards are modifiable." He stated Ms. Baker could speak to the buffering referenced by Ms. Ripley. Julie Baker, applicant, stated the buffering exceeded expectations and that the fence would help to mitigate some of the problems foreseen by the neighborhood. She stated nothing done in this process had been "capricious." She stated the applicants respected the privacy and concerns of the neighborhood. She stated there was one comment about hiring "big guns" and responded that expertise was needed to help guide her through the process. She stated the number of people in the farmhouse would be limited to 45 and that this would mean about 15 additional cars and that this would be minimal compared with the large facility which had been approved for 450 people. She stated the applicant had asked for the official appraisal that had been done for the homeowners and had been told that it was given to the City. She noted that the applicant had also had discussions with an appraiser who felt that the neighborhood's summation was"bogus." She stated the appraisal had never been found. She stated the applicant wanted to be "good neighbors" and keep the lines of communication open to address any issues that might arise. Bruce Harris,3120 Mesa Verde Street,stated the only issues that were germane to this were the use of the farmhouse and the distance between the farmhouse and the nearest residences. He stated the church behind his house was in essence a small scale reception center that could have the same types of events that would be held at Feather Ridge. He stated the distance between the Feather Ridge farmhouse and the closest neighbor was 220 feet and that the distance between his house and the church was 224 feet. He stated the playground at the day care center run by the church was 191 feet and that the parking lot was 125 feet from his house. He stated the only thing that could be heard at that distance was an occassional diesel truck. He stated Feather Ridge had put up a more effective fence and treeline than what existed between his house and the church. He stated he believed that the noise generated by Feather Ridge would be inconsequential. He urged the Council to uphold the appeal. Mayor Hutchinson stated those parties-in-interest opposed to the appeal would have 10 minutes for rebuttal. Chris Baker, 3103 Zion Court, stated with 220 feet building-to-building 100 feet surrounding the event center could be used for a party. He stated there was no guarantee that people could be kept on the east side of the property. He stated if the party could extend for 100 feet from the building that the party could extend to within 22 feet away from Ms. Zuniga's fenceline. He stated the planted trees would grow at about a foot a year. He asked that the City Council "throw the neighborhood a bone"by not allowing the use of the farmhouse for a party. He stated the farmhouse could be moved. He asked that the Council reject the use of the farmhouse as a party center. He noted that Ms. Ripley's statements on the videotape indicated that the developer found the criteria to be acceptable at a time of a critical vote on the process. Jim Hurlihey, 3138 Grand Teton Place, stated it was unrealistic to compare a church with a preschool facility to an event center that would be running seven evenings each week until 11:00 p.m. 56 April 19, 2005 Janet Zuniga,4026 Mesa Verde Street, stated alcohol consumption was pertinent to the issue of the proximity of the farmhouse because of its impact on the noise and activity level. She stated Ms. Baker entered new evidence with her slide of the new fence and asked if she would be permitted to show a new slide of the fence to show that it was a"useless mitigation"and"last ditch effort"to win over the City Council. Mayor Hutchinson stated Ms. Zuniga could show her new slide. Ms. Zuniga showed a slide of the original four-foot high fence and stated the fence did nothing to mitigate sound. She stated the farmhouse was 80 feet too close to her home. Jen McKee stated allowing another modification would immediately turn many childrens'play areas and backyards into "caution zones." City Attorney Roy suggested that the slides or pictures not already in the record that had been offered and received as new evidence should be"preserved"as part of the record of the proceedings in the event of any court appeal. He asked those who had those slides or pictures to work with the City Clerk on that at the conclusion of the hearing. Mayor Hutchinson stated there had been a broad range of issues presented and that the Council was limited in what it was allowed to consider. City Attorney Roy stated the grounds for appeal in the notice of appeal were the denial of a fair hearing. He stated the Code provided that the Council could uphold the appeal, in which case the Council would find that the applicant was in fact denied a fair hearing, either because the Board ignored its previously established rules of procedure or because it considered evidence relevant to its findings that was substantially false and grossly misleading. He stated in this case the only alternative available to the Council would be to remand the matter back to the Board so that the Board could conduct a fair hearing and make its decision after any errors that had occurred had been remedied. He stated the other alternative available to the Council was to find that the applicant was not denied a fair hearing for either of the reasons stated in the notice of appeal, in which case the decision of the Board would be upheld by the Council. He stated this would conclude the matter in terms of Planning and Zoning Board and City Council's decisions. He stated once a decision was made by the Council that at the next Council meeting a Resolution would be considered by the Council setting forth the Council's findings and decision. Councilmember Weitkunat stated modifications were allowed in the land use planning process based on particular rules. She asked if staff considered impacts in looking at the issue of whether the modification would be detrimental to the public good. Gloss stated the motion of the Planning and Zoning Board was to make a finding that it was detrimental to the public good to reduce the distance due to the perceived impacts. Councilmember Weitkunat asked if the perceived impacts included noise. Gloss replied in the affirmative. 57 April19, 2005 Councilmember Weitkunat asked if there were mitigation elements to deal with noise. Gloss stated the City had enforcement provisions relating to noise and that there were standards relating to hours of operation. He stated the City had the ability to ensure that the conditions of approval of a project were being followed by methods such as measuring noise and light to determine compliance. Councilmember Weitkunat asked for confirmation that there was a process in place in the planning process to mitigate noise or to disallow it. She noted that"detrimental'noise would not be allowed in the first place. Gloss referenced the transcript and noted that the appellant and others testified that there was considerable discussion about noise impacts if windows were allowed to be open in the farmhouse during events. He stated some Board members discussed a requirement that windows be left shut and that this would have been a potential mitigation measure. Councilmember Weitkunat stated she was interested in the process followed by the Planning and Zoning Board in making a determination that the modification would be "detrimental to the public good." She asked for confirmation that the second point made at the Board meeting had to do with septic systems. Gloss replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Weitkunat stated she did not understand the logic of the argument that septic systems would be "detrimental to the public good." She asked if the other element considered by the Board dealt with hardship relating to the historical aspect of the building. Gloss replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Weitkunat noted that the Planning and Zoning Board discussion evolved into a discussion of moving the building. She stated it was significant that Boardmember Carpenter addressed the issue of integrity of historical buildings. Gloss stated Boardmember Carpenter commented on the impact on its historical significance of moving the farmhouse. Councilmember Weitkunat asked if moving the house and the impact on historic preservation was an element in the determination of hardship. Gloss replied in the affirmative. Deputy City Attorney Eckman stated the Land Use Code required that in order to grant a modification of the standard that the Board must make a finding that the granting of the modification will not be detrimental to the public good. He stated the Board was not required to make a finding that the granting of the modification would be detrimental to the public good in denying a modification. He stated this was only a finding that was required in order to approve the modification. He stated Ms. Carpenter made the motion to approve the modification and that the motion stated she did not believe that it would be detrimental to the public good to approve it. He stated Boardmember Craig stated she felt that it would be detrimental to the public good. He stated the Board did have a discussion about the issue of whether the modification would be detrimental to the public good. Councilmember Ohlson stated he did not believe that the Council should be"redoing"the Planning and Zoning Board hearing on the noise and septic system issues. He stated it was his understanding that the Council needed to determine if there was a fair hearing. 58 Apri119, 2005 Councilmember Weitkunat stated she was addressing the Board's role and the process followed by the Planning and Zoning Board in addressing the modification. She stated she was looking at the "process" of making a determination on the modification rather than the individual issues. Mayor Hutchinson asked for confirmation that the Council was looking at the question of whether or not the Board failed to conduct a fair hearing by substantially ignoring its previously established rules of procedures. He stated the septic system was an example of issues that were discussed by the Board. City Attorney Roy stated the fair hearing issue was whether the Board did not follow the rules of procedure in the way it conducted the hearing. He stated he understood Councilmember Weitkunat's comments to mean that the Board may not have properly understood how to apply the standard of "detrimental to the public good." He stated there was a "fine distinction" between "properly interpreting" and"following the rules." He stated this kind of appeal focused on the issue of whether the Board followed the rules rather than whether the Board understood and properly applied the criteria. He stated an appeal on proper interpretation and application of the criteria would mean a "broader inquiry." Councilmember Roy made a motion,seconded by Councilmember Manvel,to find that the Planning and Zoning Board did conduct a fair hearing and to deny the modification of standard. Councilmember Manvel stated he agreed with an earlier comment that much"convincing"evidence had been heard and that much of the evidence was not relevant to the question that was under consideration by the Council. He stated little testimony was presented with regard to the question of whether there was a fair hearing. He stated he believed that the hearing was conducted fairly and that he would support the motion. Councilmember Weitkunat stated she would not support the motion. She stated she believed that the Board failed to conduct a fair hearing by considering evidence relevant to its findings that was substantially false or grossly misleading. She stated in looking at the transcript there was considerable testimony and discussion about loud noise, septic systems, cooking of food and catering. She stated she found some of the testimony to be grossly misleading and irrelevant to the discussion. She stated she was concerned that the Board did not work on the issue of historic significance of the farmhouse. She stated the following final comment by Ms. Schmidt was "inappropriate" and contributed to the lack of fairness: "This whole discussion that we are trying to put a square facility into a round hole, and it never should have been approved to start with . . ." She stated this comment was not fair and immediately preceded the vote. Councilmember Roy stated Mr. Martell had indicated that Mr. Stockover was new to the Board and "did not know what he was doing." He stated it was not unusual for someone to offer an amendment to make something less than ideal better. He noted that Mr. Martell had also noted that Ms. Craig and Ms. Schmidt were opposed to the project from the beginning, yet on page 58 line 18 of the transcript Ms. Schmidt seconded the motion to place the discussion on the table. He stated Ms. Carpenter brought up the septic system issue on page 46,yet supported the modification. He stated a Boardmember believed that the septic system was a major issue for the modification. He noted that Ms. Meyer kept bringing the discussion back to the modification and that the Board should not be held to the same standards as an "attorney speaking on behalf of the client professionally." He 59 April 19, 2005 asked for clarification regarding the requirement for a "minimum" of 300 feet. City Attorney Roy stated "minimum" was not defined in the Code and meant "no less than." Councilmember Kastein stated there were good arguments about the modification on both sides. He stated Council was to make a decision on the fair hearing, and that it was a"stretch" to say that the hearing was not fair. He stated there was "some meandering" but that overall the hearing was fair. He stated he believed that the hearing was fair. Councilmember Brown stated he saw a great deal of"emotion" in the transcript and the video of the hearing i.e. pictures of kids in backyards, discussion of drunk drivers, etc. He asked if such testimony would fall under"substantially false or grossly misleading"evidence. City Attorney Roy stated the term was "intentionally somewhat elastic" to accommodate different fact situations. He stated it was conceivable that evidence could be so "inflammatory and off the point" that it could mislead a decision maker. He stated the Council had to make a judgement call about whether this was the case in this situation or whether despite the "extraneous evidence" the Board was able to "stay on track," consider what was relevant and make a"reasoned decision based upon the criteria." He stated he would like to comment on the effect of adoption of the motion. He stated if this motion would pass that the appeal would be denied,the modification of standards would be denied,and the development would be denied unless the request for modification of standards was withdrawn. Gloss agreed with the City Attorney's statement regarding the effect of the motion. Councilmember Manvel asked if the farmhouse could be included in the project if it was moved. City Attorney Roy stated it was his understanding that if the farmhouse was moved to a location more than 300 feet from the homes that no modification would be required. He stated the Council might want to express its position on that issue and that this could then be included in the Resolution setting forth findings. Gloss stated the Land Use Code had criteria that would allow amendments to approved development plans. He stated staff would have to determine whether this would be a minor amendment to be decided administratively or a major amendment that would require a Planning and Zoning Board hearing. City Attorney Roy stated he would suggest drafting the Resolution to indicate that the Director of Current Planning would need to make a determination about the approval process for an amendment to the plan in the event the applicants chose to move the farmhouse. Mayor Hutchinson stated one of the elements being considered by the Council was whether the Board considered evidence relevant to its findings which was substantially false or grossly misleading. He stated there were several instances in which he believed that this did occur. He stated it was not a "fine legal point" to say whether or not the farmhouse could be moved. He noted that Mr. Gloss testified at the Board hearing that it was possible to move the house but that it was difficult to determine whether that particular house could be moved. He stated Ms.Craig,who voted no, on page 59 stated: "Of course the house can be moved." He stated this was a piece of evidence that should not have been considered to be "concrete" at that point. He stated there was discussion that moving the house would cause some difficulties and changes in values and grants. He stated this part of the hearing was not fair. He stated there was some "sloppiness" with inclusion of evidence that should not have been included,and that this could be"cleaned up by remanding it back 60 April 19, 2005 for rehearing"to clarify the questions relating to air conditioning and other issues. He stated he did not believe there was a fair hearing. Councilmember Roy requested that the motion be clarified for the record. City Clerk Kraj icek stated she understood the motion to be that the Planning and Zoning Board did conduct a fair hearing and that the appeal would be denied. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Kastein, Manvel, Ohlson and Roy. Nays: Councilmembers Hutchinson and Weitkunat. THE MOTION CARRIED. Adjournment Councilmember Weitkunat made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Manvel, to adjourn the meeting to April 26,2005 at 6:00 p.m.for consideration of a possible Executive Session or any other business that might come before the Council. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Brown,Hutchinson,Kastein,Manvel,Ohlson,Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. The meeting adjourned at 10:20 p.m. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk 61 April 26, 2005 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO Council-Manager Form of Government Adjourned Meeting- 6:00 p.m. An adjourned meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins was held on Tuesday, April 26, 2005, 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:Brown,Kastein,Weitkunat,Ohlson,Hutchinson,Roy, and Manvel. Staff Members Present: Atteberry, Krajicek, Roy. Executive Session Authorized Councilmember Weitkunat made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Roy,to go into Executive Session under Subsection 2-3 1(a)(1)(d) of the City Code for the purpose of considering personnel matters and to meet with the City Attorney to discuss legal issues and potential litigation under Section 2-31(a)(2) of the City Code. Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Kastein, Weitkunat, Ohlson, Hutchinson, Roy, and Manvel. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk 62