Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 12/18/2007 - CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE N ITEM NUMBER: 6 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY DATE: December 18, 2007 FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL STAFF: Wanda Krajicek SUBJECT Consideration and Approval of the Minutes of the November 6, 2007 Regular Meeting and the November 13, 2007 Adjourned Meeting. i November 6, 2007 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, November 6, 2007, 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, Hutchinson, Manvel, Ohlson,Poppaw,Roy, and Troxell. Staff Members Present: Atteberry, Krajicek, Roy. Citizen Participation Gail Marie Kimmel, 331 Park Street, Director of the Local Living Economy Project with Rocky Mountain Sustainable Living Association, thanked Councilmembers, the City and the community for supporting the`Be Local'coupon book which promotes locally-owned,independent businesses. Eric Fellers,3742 Kentford Road,described a dog attack that occurred while he was walking his dog in September. His dog was attacked by another dog not on a leash. Animal Control did not pick up the dog, even though it is a violation of City Code to own a vicious animal. Jenny Merrill, President of the Public Transit Action Group (PTAG), read a proposal from PTAG regarding the Transit Study that encouraged much public involvement in the Transit Study process and suggested forming a strategic operating plan advisory task force. Cheryl Distaso, 135 South Sunset, requested Council support for a resolution calling for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from the war in Iraq. Christopher Hite, 1825 Crestmore Place, supported a resolution that called for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq. George Hoffmann, 1101 Valley Oak Court, stated parks such as Spring Canyon Community Park should not be funded at the expense of police and fire protection. He requested that the fines for speeding be doubled. Nancy York, 130 South Whitcomb, asked that Council consider a resolution calling for the withdrawal of troops from the war in Iraq as it is a local issue and affects the economy of the area. She also stated the City should award all its contracts through a competitive bid process to get the best offer. Michael Devereaux,2150 Maid Marian Court, spoke in support of the formation of a public action group to provide input into the Transit Study to improve public transportation in Fort Collins. 261 November 6, 2007 Rob Stansbury, 1301 Robertson, stated his neighborhood had been "tagged" by gangs in recent weeks. A zero tolerance policy towards tagging should be adopted to control gang activity and tagging should be removed immediately. Bruce Lockhart, 2500 East Harmony, stated he did not support any funding of the Mason Corridor as it was not in the best interest of Fort Collins. He did not support funding for a cultural center. Vivian Armendariz, 820 Merganser, supported greater funding for nighttime Dial-A-Ride service. Citizen Participation Follow-up Councilmember Ohlson requested a response to the dog attack incident and why Animal Control did not pick up an animal that appeared to be vicious. He stated city parks are built through development impact fees which are not funds that can be transferred to the General Fund to pay for police services. The operation and maintenance of parks will be examined in the Parks Master Plan so that parks are operated in the most efficient way possible. Almost$10 million has been cut from the City's budget in the past few years and more income will be necessary to adequately fund police and fire. He stated the City Manager was doing a great job. Councilmember Manvel stated currently there is a surcharge on traffic violations which funds extra patrol officers. He stated graffiti and tagging needed to be addressed immediately. Gang activity in Fort Collins is relatively minor, but does exist. Councilmember Roy stated tagging is addressed immediately when it is reported. City Manager Atteberry stated the City's policy is zero tolerance for graffiti and the City provides a graffiti hotline to report any graffiti found. Councilmember Troxell stated the budgeting process needed a greater level of prioritization and he wanted the next budget cycle to contain more ways to prioritize needs. Mayor Hutchinson asked if a Transfort route would be extended to Spring Canyon Community Park to provide better service to the Park. City Manager Atteberry stated staff was examining the costs and logistics of extending a bus route to the Park. He stated the City routinely bids all contracts for outsourcing or construction projects or for consulting services through a Request for Proposal process and it is only a rare instance when a contract is awarded to a single source without going through the RFP process. There are specific criteria to have a"sole source." Agenda Review City Manager Atteberry stated there were no changes to the published agenda. Councilmember Troxell withdrew Item#11 First Reading of Ordinance No. 130, 2007, Amending Section 25-123(c) of the City Code Relating to the Vendor Fee for Collecting and Remitting Sales Tax and Item#12 First Reading of Ordinance No. 131, 2007, Amending the City Code Regarding Nuisance Abatement Collections and Liens from the Consent Calendar. 262 November 6, 2007 CONSENT CALENDAR 6. Consideration and Approval of the Minutes of the October 2. 2007 and October 16, 2007 Regular Meetings. 7. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 111, 2007,Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue from the Bureau of Justice Assistance in the General Fund for the Larimer County Drug Task Force. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 16, 2007, appropriates grant funds received by the City for the Larimer County Drug Task Force from the Bureau of Justice Assistance. These funds are to be used to fund the investigation of illegal narcotics activities in Larimer County. 8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 112, 2007, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves In the Street Oversizing Fund for Transfer To the Capital Projects Fund - North College Avenue Improvements Project to Be Used for to Acquire Property Necessary for Future Improvements along North College Avenue. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 16, 2007, appropriates funds to be used to acquire a tract of land on the east side of North College Avenue that will be necessary for the realignment of Vine Drive. 9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 113.2007,Authorizing the Lease of City-Owned Property at 211 South Bryan Avenue for Up to Ten Years. The Fort Collins Baseball Club leases a 1,495 square-foot City facility located near the baseball diamonds at City Park. The term of the current lease is expired and the Baseball Club wishes to renew its lease arrangement with the City for up to ten years. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 16, 2007, approves the lease. 10. First Reading of Ordinance No. 129, 2007,Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue in the General Fund for the Operation of the Colorado Welcome Center. The City has been awarded a renewal grant for the Colorado Welcome Center for the year July 1, 2007 to June 30, 2008. Grant funds have been awarded from the Colorado Tourism Office in the amount of$75,726 for the operation of the Colorado Welcome Center. The City has contracted with the Fort Collins Convention and Visitors Bureau to operate this program. Neither City General Funds nor Lodging Tax revenue are included in this project. 263 November 6, 2007 It. First Reading of Ordinance No. 130, 2007, Amending Section 25-123(c) of the City Code Relating to the Vendor Fee for Collecting and Remitting Sales Tax. This Ordinance will modify the formula used to calculate the vendor fee for sales and use tax licensees. The proposed modification will result in$390,000 of ongoing additional revenue beingavailable for General Fund uses. This change will not increase t axes or fees charged, but will lower the amount of City sales and use taxes that vendors are allowed to retain in exchange for the service they provide in collecting City taxes. Currently, vendors are allowed to retain 3%of sales and use taxes collected,up to a maximum of$90 per reporting period. Under the proposed fee, vendors will retain I% of the tax, up to $45 per reporting period. 12. First Reading of Ordinance No. 131, 2007, Amending the City Code Regarding Nuisance Abatement Collections and Liens. The City Code currently permits imposing tax liens on properties for unpaid abatement assessments in three separate sections of the Code. The proposed changes to each section will clarify the process and make each section consistent with the others. Neighborhood and Building Services'(NBS)Director and staff recommend making changes to the Code regarding the procedures for recouping the City's costs of abating nuisances, sidewalk snow removal, and forestry encroachments. These changes will provide the City with an efficient mechanism with which to place liens on properties for unpaid and delinquent abatement charges. 13. Items Relating to Real Property Conveyances for the Benefit of the Willow Street Loft Project. A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 132, 2007,Authorizing the Conveyance of Certain Real Property at the Northside Aztlan Community Center to Lagunitas Giddings, Inc. B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 133, 2007, Authorizing the Conveyance of a Sidewalk Easement, Landscape Easement, Drainage Easement and a Temporary Construction Easement at the Northside Aztlan Community Center to Lagunitas Giddings, Inc. C. First Reading of Ordinance No. 134,2007,Authorizing the Conveyance of a Utility Easement at the Northside Aztlan Community Center to Comcast of California/Colorado LLC and to Qwest Corporation. Lagunitas Giddings, Inc. ("LGI") has been in the planning process for some time for the Willow Street Loft Project("WSLP"). In order for LGI to design the project to the design of its choice, LGI needed to acquire one-half of a vacated alley on City-owned property and also needed to acquire the above described easements. All these property interests are on 264 November 6, 2007 City-owned property known as the Northside Aztlan Community Center("NACC"). Staff from Parks and Real Estate has met numerous times with LGI to discuss the effect on the NACC property in relation to the WSLP. When these discussions were first held, City staff asked LGI to wait on its project until the new NACC was platted and constructed. The project is very near to completion,so staff has agreed to present these requests to Council for its approval. 14. First Reading of Ordinance No. 135,2007,Authorizing the Conveyance of a Portion of Lot 30 in Golding Dwyer Subdivision of Block 275, in the City of Fort Collins. A local real estate broker is attempting to sell the house and lot at 525 North Whitcomb Street,being Lot 31,in Golding-Dwyer Subdivision,of Block 275. Lot 31 is adjacent to the City-owned Lot 30. A two-car garage that is attached to the house on Lot 31 is located on and encroaches upon a portion of City-owned Lot 30. The broker wants to sell Lot 31 and the encroachment area on Lot 30 together,in order for the purchaser to have both house and attached garage on two lots. In 1998, the City acquired this lot along with vacated railroad property from Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railroad. At the time the property was acquired, the encroachment of the garage already existed. The portion of Lot 30 to be conveyed is not suitable for any present or future use by the City. By selling the land, it will be returned to the tax rolls of the City and will be maintained by a new owner according to City standards. ***END CONSENT*** Ordinances on Second Reading were read by title by City Clerk Krajicek. 7. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 111, 2007, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue from the Bureau of Justice Assistance in the General Fund for the Larimer County Drug Task Force. 8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 112, 2007, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves In the Street Oversizing Fund for Transfer To the Capital Projects Fund - North College Avenue Improvements Project to Be Used for to Acquire Property Necessary for Future Improvements along North College Avenue. 9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 113,2007,Authorizing the Lease of City-Owned Property at 211 South Bryan Avenue for Up to Ten Years. 20. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 126,2007,Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins by Changing the Zoning Classifications for That Certain Property Known as the Southwest Corner of East Prospect Road and 1-25 Rezoning. 265 November 6, 2007 21. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 128,2007,Authorizing the Conveyance of 143 Acres of Land to Colorado State University Research Foundation in Exchange for 267 Acres of Land Adjacent to Reservoir Ridge Natural Area. Ordinances on First Reading were read by title by City Clerk Krajicek. 10. First Reading of Ordinance No. 129, 2007,Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue in the General Fund for the Operation of the Colorado Welcome Center. 11. First Reading of Ordinance No. 130, 2007, Amending Section 25-123(c) of the City Code Relating to the Vendor Fee for Collecting and Remitting Sales Tax. 12. First Reading of Ordinance No. 131, 2007, Amending the City Code Regarding Nuisance Abatement Collections and Liens. 13. Items Relating to Real Property Conveyances for the Benefit of the Willow Street Loft Project. A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 132, 2007, Authorizing the Conveyance of Certain Real Property at the Northside Aztlan Community Center to Lagunitas Giddings, Inc. B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 133, 2007, Authorizing the Conveyance of a Sidewalk Easement, Landscape Easement, Drainage Easement and a Temporary Construction Easement at the Northside Aztlan Community Center to Lagunitas Giddings, Inc. C. First Reading of Ordinance No. 134, 2007,Authorizing the Conveyance of a Utility Easement at the Northside Aztlan Community Center to Comcast of California/Colorado LLC and to Qwest Corporation. 14. First Reading of Ordinance No. 135,2007,Authorizing the Conveyance of a Portion of Lot 30 in Golding-Dwyer Subdivision of Block 275, in the City of Fort Collins. 19. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 136,2007,Assessing the Cost of Improvements in the Timberline and Prospect Special Improvement District No. 94 in the City of Fort Collins, Colorado, and Providing for the Payment and Collection Thereof Councilmember Manvel made a motion,seconded by Councilmember Ohlson,to adopt and approve all items not withdrawn from the Consent Calendar. Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Manvel, Poppaw, Roy and Troxell. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. 266 November 6, 2007 p` Staff Reports City Manager Atteberry recognized the Parks and Recreation Department for work done to qualify for a grant from the National Football League Youth Fund and the National Recreation Park Association that will help to fund youth football. City Manager Atteberry noted the Library District has received the 2007 Project of the Year Award from the Colorado Association of Libraries. The Award recognizes the work done by the Friends of the Library to form the Library District. Councilmember Reports Councilmember Ohlson stated he officiated at the Tree-Lighting Ceremony in downtown Fort Collins and he recognized Swingle Tree and Landscape as the company that hung the lights. Councilmember Manvel stated he attended the Regional Air Quality Council in Denver where the discussion was centered on mitigation efforts for next summer to lower ozone levels. He also attended a Metropolitan Planning Organization meeting where the 2035 plan was discussed and the possibility ofmoving forward with regional transportation planning such as a regional transportation authority and seeking modification of state law to allow other methods of funding a RTA. Councilmember Troxell stated he serves as a liaison with CSU and he met with ASCSU representatives to discuss their voter registration drive and the success of RamRide,which provides rides at night for students. Consideration of the Appeal by Representatives of the University Acres Neighborhood of the September 20, 2007 Determination of the Planning and Zoning Board to Approve with Conditions the Poudre Valley Hospital Parking Structure and Medical Office Building, Project Development Plan, Planning and Zoning Board Decision Upheld The following is staff s memorandum on this item. "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY On September 20, 2007, the Planning and Zoning Board conducted a public hearing considering the Poudre Valley Hospital Parking Structure and Medical Office Building P.D.P. The Board considered testimony from the applicant, the public and Staff. The P.D.P. was approved with four conditions. Representatives from University Acres Neighborhood have appealed the Board's decision. The allegations are that relevant laws were not properly interpreted and applied, and the Board failed to hold a fair hearing by consideringsubstantiallyfalse or grossly misleading evidence and improperly failing to receive all relevant evidence offered. 267 November 6, 2007 BACKGROUND The Poudre Valley Hospital Parking Structure and Medical Office Building P.D.P. is a request for two new buildings. The new parking structure would be located at the northwest corner of Lemay Avenue and Garfield Street and be reserved for staff use only. It would replace an existing surface parking lot. The new medical office building would be located at the southwest corner of Lemay Avenue and Garfield Street. It would replace an existing one-story medical office building and surface parking. Theparking structure would befour stories in height and contain 73 7parking spaces. Access would be from Lemay Avenue. A pedestrian bridge, at the third floor, would span Garfield Street to provide safe access to the proposed medical office building to the south. The medical office building (M.O.B.) would contain approximately 60,000 square feet, at four stories in height. A second pedestrian bridge, also at the third floor, would span Lemay Avenue to provide safe access to the hospital to the east. Both properties are zoned E, Employment. The Planning and Zoning Board approved the P.D.P. subject to four conditions. ACTION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD At the September 13, 2007 regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board, the Board made the followingfindings offact and conclusions: A. The land uses,parking structure and medical office building, are allowed as a primary uses in the Employment zone district, subject to review by the Planning and Zoning Board. B. The P.D.P. complies with the applicable standards ofthe Employmentzone district ofArticle Four. C. The P.D.P. complies with the applicable standards of the General Development Standards of Article Three. D. The P.D.P. represents redevelopment and intensification in the Employment zone district that is bordered by the Low Density Residential zone district. The parking garage is separated from the R-L zone by 200 feet while the M.O.B. abuts the R-L zone. The standards relating to development on the edge of the Employment zone district and neighborhood compatibility—Site Design 4.27(E)(1)(b);Building Size,Height, Bulk, Mass Scale 3.5.1(C); Privacy 3.5.1(D,G) and Land Use Transition 3.5.1(H)have been evaluated and the project is found to be in compliance. E. Two neighborhood information meetings have been held. The summaries of these two meetings are attached. 268 November 6, 2007 The Board considered the testimony of the applicant, affected property owners and staff and voted 7—0 to approve the Poudre Valley Hospital Parking Structure and Medical Office Building, #14-07, subject to the following conditions: 1. At the time of submittal for Final Plan, the Final Development Plan shall state that, due to the fact that the design of the parking spaces are long term, parking within the Parking Structure shall be limited to staff,physicians, and all other employees of the Poudre Valley Hospital, the Medical Office Building and other surrounding medical office buildings that are duly authorized by P.V.H.S. And, that the Parking Structure is not available to the general public. 2. At the time of submittal for Final Plan, the Parking Structure access onto Robertson Street shall be restricted for emergency access only and shall not be open on a regular daily basis. 3. At the time of submittal for Final Plan, the applicant shall have provided a glare analysis for the Medical Office Building to reduce potential glare impacts on the adjacent neighborhood. 4. At the time of submittal for Final Plan, the Landscape Plan for the Medical Office Building shall indicate enhanced plant material along the southern property line for purposes of promotingprivacyfor the adjacent residentialproperties. Such enhancement shall include, but not limited to, increased caliper sizes for deciduous trees, increased height sizes for evergreen trees, and increased quantity of materials to the maximum extent feasible. ALLEGATIONS ONAPPEAL On October 4, 2007, a Notice ofAppeal was received by the City Clerk's Ofce from representatives of the University Acres neighborhood. The Appellants allege that: 1. Relevant laws were not properly interpreted and applied. In particular, the Appellants cite Code provisions related to neighborhood compatibility, long term parking,shading and spot zoning. 2. The Board failed to hold a fair hearing by: a. Considering substantially false or grossly misleading evidence. In particular, the Appellants allege that the information contained in the Transportation Impact Study and adequacy of parking for the M.O.B. qualify under this criterion. Also, the allegation that project was for the creation of new areas for the hospital is offered as grounds for appeal. b. Improperly failing to receive all relevant evidence offered. In particular, the Appellants allege that traffic impacts on the Lemay/Doctors intersection were not properly presented to the Board especially in light of the condition that the Robertson access to the Parking Garage be closed. 269 November 6, 2007 QUESTIONS COUNCIL NEEDS TO ANSWER 1. Did the Planning and Zoning Board not properly interpret and apply relevant laws? 2. Did the Planning and Zoning Board fail to hold a fair hearing? Did the Planning and Zoning Board consider substantiallyfalse orgrossly misleading evidence? DidthePlanning and Zoning Board fail to receive all relevant evidence offered? SUMMARY OF RELEVANT ISSUES 1. Emplovment Zone Purpose Statement The Appellants allege that Section 4.27(A) was not properly interpreted and applied. Specifically, the Appellants claim: • The proposed project with its quantified traffic problems violates the purpose statement of the Employment zone. 2. Neighborhood Compatibility The Appellants allege that Section 4.27(E)(1)(b) was not properly interpreted and applied. Specifically, the Appellants claim: • The parking structure holding 737 cars is drastic compared to the two-car garages in the neighborhood and its mass does not properly scale with the adjoining residence. • The medical office building, with its height being greater than 40 feet, will be less than 100 feet from the residences on Robertson and its parking lot will directly abut these single story residences. • These two buildings represent drastic and abrupt changes in height and mass. 3. Spot Zoning The Appellants allege that relevant laws were not properly interpreted and applied because the land area associated with the project is the result of spot zoning. (No code citation is provided.) Specifically, the Appellants claim: • A small area of land within an existing neighborhood was singled out and placed in a different zone from that of neighboring property. 270 November 6, 2007 4. Traffic The Appellants allege that the Board failed to hold a fair hearing by considering the results and conclusions of the Transportation Impact Study (I:IS) as required by Section 3.6.4 which were false or grossly misleading. Specifically, the Appellants allege: • The addition of a new four-story medical office building will bring new traffic to the neighborhood and yet the evidence presented to the Board indicated that the medical office building will simply serve existing physicians, staff and patients that are already using the hospital campus. • The T.I.S. is seriously f awed in that it did not factor in the doctors,staff and patients that will be using the medical office building. • The T.I.S. was conducted when college,secondary and elementary students were not in session. 5. Parkin¢ The Appellants allege that the Board failed to hold a fair hearing by improperly failing to receive all relevant evidence with regard to parking as required by Section 3.2.2(K). Specifically, the Appellants allege: • There is insuff cient parkingfor the medical office building. There should beat least 4.5 spaces per 1,000 s uare eet o ross leaseable area or this building. P P q f fig f g • The dimensions of the parking stalls in the garage are sized for long term parking but will be used on a short term basis. 6. Impact on Lemay/Doctors Intersection The Appellants allege that the Board failed to hold a fair hearing by improperly failing to receive all relevant evidence with regard to the traffic impacts on Lemay Avenue and Doctors Lane intersection, particularly in conjunction with the condition of approval requiring closing of the Robertson Street egress to the parking garage. Specifically, the Appellants allege: • The impact on Lemay Avenue and Doctors Lane never received proper discussion. • There is an inadequate number of entry and exit lanes. • The signal timing at the Lemay/Doctors intersection never received proper consideration. 271 November 6, 2007 7. Shadine The Appellants allege that the Board failed to hold a fair hearing by improperly failing to receive all relevant evidence with regard to the height oftheparkinggarage and theshading impacts on the two properties to the north. A shadow analysis is required for buildings over 40 feet. Specifically, the Appellants allege: • The parking structure achieves a height of 46 feet and yet the applicant, working with Staff, obtained a favorable interpretation where only the average height would be used. Since the average height is below 40 feet, no shading study was required. • The mass of the garage adversely impacts the residential character of the neighborhood, but an averaging o the hei ht revents a shadow study. g g g .[ g P Y • The applicants informed the Planning and Zoning Board that an agreement was reached with an impacted owner to the north of the garage forsnow and ice removal. No such agreement had been reached. STAFF ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Employment Zone Purpose Statement All 25 zone districts are preceded by a purpose statement which states, in general terms, what the land use intentions are for the district. These statements do not convey regulatory code provisions. Rather, the language is deliberately broad in order to describe a context of how each district is distinct from another. According to the Section 1.4.9(I)—Rules of Construction of Text, terms such as "shall, " "will"or "must"are mandatory and yet these words are not included in any ofthe zone district purpose statements. Staff, therefore,finds that the Planning and Zoning Board did not fail to properly interpret and apply the purpose statement to the Employment zone district. 2. Neighborhood Compatibility The Land Use Code requires new projects to comply with a rigorous requirement to be of as high quality aspossible. Compatibility standards arefoundin both Article Four[Section 4.27(E)(1)(b)J and Article Three[Section 3.5.1(B-F)] and are supplemented by the definition of Compatibility. Through a combination ofdistance, landscaping,quality exterior materials and architectural detail, the P.D.P. achieves a sufficient level of quality to meet the applicable criteria within the definition of Compatibility. For example, the distance between the nearest houses in University Acres to the southwest corner of the parking structure is 200 feet. It is at this particular corner where the landscaping is the 272 November 6, 2007 heaviest with cluster of 10 evergreen trees. In addition, street trees will be planted along both Garfield and Robertson Streets. Finally, the use of brick and(other quality materials) contribute to mitigating the height, length, bulk and scale of the structure. Staff finds that the proposed parking structure, at four stories (ranging in height from 39 to 46.5 feet), and the M.O.B. (56 feet) achieve compatibility with University Acres by a combination of distance, landscaping and architectural quality. The relative relationships between height-to-mass and length-to-mass of the parking structure accomplishes a human scale and does not overpower or dominate the neighborhood. Staff finds that the parking garage, while larger than the surrounding buildings to the north and west, is articulated and subdivided into massing that is roughly proportional to the mass and scale of other structures on the same blockface and opposing blockface in accordance with the standard. Theparking structure isfar enough distantfrom UniversityAcres as to not infringe upon the privacy of the residents. It does not abut the single family detached homes. Rather, it abuts one-story medical office buildings. For the M.O.B., however, the standard calls for preserving the privacy of the three abutting lots directly south of the building. In order to provide a more effective landscape screen for Lots 297, 298 and 299 of University Acres Ninth Subdivision, the landscaping along the south property line of the M.O.B. is enhanced to include a concentration of evergreen and deciduous shade trees that will achieve a mature height to provide reasonable screening and privacy. In fact, the Board emphasized enhanced landscaping in this area by adding a condition of approval. Staff, therefore,finds that the Planning and Zoning Board heard considerable evidence and public testimony regarding compatibility issues and that the Board properly interpreted Section 4.27(E)(1)(b) and Sections 3.5.1(B-F). 3. Spot Zoning The area in question was not "spot zoned. " Eversince the platting of UniversityAcres First Filing, 1959, through the Ninth Filing, 1965, the eastern edge of the neighborhood terminated at a point roughly equivalent to today's western edge of the Employment zone. Historic zoning maps going back to the late 1950's confirm that there was a variety of non-residential zoning districts on the west side of Lemay between Elizabeth and Robertson. This pattern was affirmed in two citywide rezonings in 1965 and 1997. Although the Appellants do not cite a specific code section, staff finds that the Board did not fail to properly interpret and apply relevant laws or zoning maps. 273 November 6, 2007 4. Tra fflc It is a requirement that prior to submitting a Transportation Impact Study (T.IS.), that the magnitude and extent of the study be determined in consultation with the City's Traffic Operations Department. The subject T.I.S., and subsequent amendments, were properly scoped and adequately addressed the affected streets and intersections in accordance with standard operatingprocedures. Trip generation rates for existing hospital and proposed medical office building were correctly factored into the analysis. The field data that was gathered was not flawed by the absence of students. The recommendations and conclusions in the T.I.S. were supported by the data. The Planning and Zoning Board considered the T.I.S. and asked questions of staff and the applicant's consultant. Public testimony regarding traffic was generously offered. After considerable testimony, the Board added the condition of approval that the Robertson access to the parking garage be closed except for egress only in emergency situations. Such closure would remove the opportunity to gain access to westbound Garfield Street. Staff finds that the Board did not fail to hold a fair hearing. The evidence presented to the Board in response to traffic issues was not substantially false or grossly misleading. 5. Parking A. Number of Spaces The parking demand for the hospital,parking structure and medical office building was calculated based on two methodologies. Theftrst method was based on total gross square footage. The second method was based on trip generation rates as per the Institute of Traffic Engineers. Both methods factored in the loss of current surface parking and the net gain of both surface and structure parking. Both methods included the new Surgery Center(under construction)and the new medical office building. The result is that the P.D.P.provides 15 more spaces than the average of the two methods. The Appellants'reference to 4.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet is derived from the Land Use Code for the medical office category and represents a maximum number ofallowable spaces. There is no required minimum. Stafffurther informed the Board that this methodology is overly simplistic and better suited for a suburban office park than for a hospital campus. The Board specifically found that the averaging of two models was a valid approach to estimating parking demand for a medical campus that includes a variety of uses. Since the campus includes a medical office building, inpatient beds, emergency room, medical staff, support staff, administration, and support functions such as laundry and food services, there is no one ratio that can logically be assigned to a general land use category such as "hospital" or "medical office building. " 274 November 6, 2007 The Land Use Code provides a degree offlexibility for establishing an appropriate level of parking for non-residential land uses. While there are prescribed maximum parking ratios for 16 broad categories, applicants may avail themselves of the flexibility offered under Alternative Compliance or Exception to the General Office Standard. These provisions allow the Board to evaluate the unique characteristics that may pertain to an individual project and customize the parking that meets both public and private objectives. Staff finds, therefore, that the Board exercised reasonable judgment in evaluating the appropriate number or parking spaces for the mix of uses on the hospital campus, including the medical office building. The Board did not fail to hold a fair hearing. The Board did not consider evidence regarding parking that substantially false or grossly misleading. B. Parking Stall Dimensions Within the Garage With regard to the dimensions of the parking stalls inside the structure, these stalls are allowed by Section 3.2.2(L) to be downsized from 9 feet by 19 feet to 8.5 feet by I8 feet if such stalls are "Long Term. " These are stalls that are designated for employees only and are not available to the public. The parking stalls in the garage will be 9 feet by 18feet and available to staff only. Since the garage is not available to the general public, the stalls qualify as being long term in accordance with the definition. The Board was made aware of the distinction between short and long term parkingstalls. Accordingly, the Board added a condition ofapproval that the Final Plan specifically states that the garage is to be limited to staff only and not the general public. Stafffinds, therefore, that the Board did hold afair hearing and did not consider evidence regarding parking stall dimensions that was substantially false or grossly misleading. 6. Impact on Lemav/Doctors Intersection The Board conditioned its approval on the closure of the Robertson egress to the parking garage. During its deliberation, the Board acknowledged that such closure may have an impact on number of entrance and exit lanes and adequate stacking at the Doctors Lane access. Indirect questioning, the Board asked the applicant's consultant aboutpotential design adjustments that may have to be made to accommodate the Robertson closure. The applicant responded that design modifications would be looked at and considered upon submittal of the Final Compliance Plan. Stafffinds that a condition of approval that causes a design change between Project Development and Final Compliance is not improper. In fact, it is one of the functions of the Board to critique design and operational aspects of a P.D.P. In addition, the signal timing at the Lemay/Doctors Lane intersection is not impacted by the closure of the Robertson egress. Additional exits onto Lemay can be accommodated by the proposed 275 November 6, 2007 left/through and right-turn lanes. As is the case today, medical staff operates on three shifts beginning at 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. whereas administrative staff operates on one shift from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. This means that the traffic at the Lemay/Doctors intersection will be distributed over the course of 24-hours. Staff finds that with the regard to the discussion of the impacts on the Lemay/Doctors Lane intersection,particularly with the closure of the Robertson egress, the Board did not fail to hold a fair hearing. Nor did the Board consider evidence that was substantially false or grossly misleading. 7. Shading A shadow analysis is required for buildings over 40 feet in height. The medical office building is 56 feet in height. The shading on December 21st at 3:00 p.m., will be cast a shadow onto the proposed parking structure and adjacent public streets. At 9:00 a.m., however, shadow will be cast onto a portion of the parking lot of the medical office building at 1053 Robertson Street at the northwest corner of Garfield and Robertson Streets, The Board found that the shadow cast onto 1053 Robertson Street will not be substantially adverse and is acceptable for an urban condition in the Employment zone district. While the stair and elevator towers of the parking structure exceed 40 feet, the top of the upper-most parapet wall does not. The building, therefore, is not considered to be in excess of 40 feet. This interpretation is not due an averaging of the height. Rather, the stair and elevator towers are specifically exempted from overall height by Supplemental Regulation 3.8.17 which addresses how to measure height. Staff, therefore,finds that the Board did not fail to hold a fair hearing and that the Board did not consider evidence that was substantially false or grossly misleading. LIST OF RELEVANT CODE PROVISIONS 1. Employment Zone Purpose Statement Section 4.27(A): "The Employment District is intended to provide locations for a variety of workplaces including light industrial uses, research and development activities, offices and institutions. This District also is intended to accommodate secondary uses that complement or support the primary workplace uses, such as hotels, restaurants, convenience shopping, child care and housing. " "Additionally, the Employment District is intended to encourage the development ofplanned office and businessparks; to promote excellence in the design and construction ofbuildings, 276 November 6, 2007 outdoor spaces, transportation facilities and streetscapes; to direct the development of workplaces consistent with the availability ofpublic facilities and services; and to continue the vitality and quality of life in adjacent residential neighborhoods. " 2. Neighborhood Compatibility Section 4.27(E)(1)(b): "Where an employment or industrial use abuts a residential area, there shall be no drastic and abrupt change in the scale and height of buildings. " Section 3.5.1(H): "When land uses with significantly different visual character are proposed adjacent to each other and where gradual transitions are not possible or not in the best interest of the community, the development plan shall, to the maximum extent feasible, achieve compatibility through compliance with the standards set forth in this Division regarding scale,form, materials and colors and adoption ofoperational standards including limits on hours of operation, lighting, placement of noise-generating activities and similar restrictions. " Section 5.1.2—Definition: "Compatibility shall mean the characteristics ofili ferent uses or activities or design which allow them to be located near or adjacent to each other in harmony.Some elements affecting compatibility include height, scale, mass and bulk of structures. Other characteristics include pedestrian or vehicular traffic, circulation, access and parking impacts. Other important characteristics that affect compatibility are landscaping, lighting, noise,odor and architecture. Compatibility does not mean "the same as."Rather, compatibility refers to the sensitivity of development proposals in maintaining the character of existing development. " 3. Spot Zoning There is no Code citation related to this allegation. 4. Tra :c Section 3.6.4(A)(B)— Transportation Level of Service Requirements: "In order to ensure that the transportation needs of a proposed development can be safely accommodated by the existing transportation system, or that appropriate mitigation of impacts will be provided by the development, the project shall demonstrate that all adopted Level of Service (LOS)standards will be achieved for all modes of transportation. " 277 November 6, 2007 "All developmentplans shall adequatelyprovide vehicular,pedestrian and bicycle facilities necessary to maintain the adopted transportation Level of Service standards contained in Part II of the City of Fort Collins Multi-modal Transportation Level of Service Manual for the following modes of travel: motor vehicle, bicycle and pedestrian. The Transit LOS standards contained in PartHofthe Multi-modal Transportation Manual will not be applied for the purposes of this Section. " 5. Parkin Section 3.2.2(K)(2)(a) —Nonresidential Parking Requirements "Non residential uses will be limited to a maximum number of parking spaces as defined by the standards defined below. " "The table below sets forth the number of allowed parking spaces based on the square footage of the gross leasable area and of the occupancy of specified uses. In the event that on-street or shared parking is not available on land adjacent to the use, then the maximum parking allowed may be increased by twenty (20)percent. " "Medical Office—4.5 spaces/1,000 square feet. " Section 3.2.2(K)(3) —Alternative Compliance "Alternative Compliance. Upon written request by the applicant, the decision maker may approve an alternative parking ratio (as measured by the number ofparking spaces based on the applicable unit of measurement established in the table contained in Section 3.2.2(K)(2)(a)for nonresidential land uses or the number ofparkingspaces based on usefor recreational and institutional land uses) that may be substituted in whole or in part for a ratio meeting the standards of this Section. " Section 3.2.2(L)(3)—Long Term Parking Stalls "Long-Term Parking Stalls. As an option in long-term parking areas, if no compact car stalls are to be included, all long-term parking stalls may be designated using the following stall dimensions:" Parking Angle Stall Width Stall Length 0 8 21 30 8 19 45 8 19 60 8.5 18 90 8.5 18 278 November 6, 2007 Long-term parking shall mean parking which has limited turnover during a normal working weekday. Long-term parking includes employee-type parking or residential-type parking. Short-term parkingshall mean customerparking which has regular turnover.Parking which is intended to serve a retail business and provide access to commercial activity is short-term parking. 6. Shadine Section 3.5.1(G)(1)(a)2. —Light and Shadow "Light and Shadow. Buildings or structures greater than forty (40)feet in height shall be designed so as not to have a substantial adverse impact on the distribution of natural and artificial light on adjacent public and private property.Adverse impacts include, but are not limited to, casting shadows on adjacent property sufficient to preclude the functional use of solar energy technology, creating glare such as reflecting sunlight or artificial lighting at night, contributing to the accumulation of snow and ice during the winter on adjacent property, and shading of windows or gardens for more than three (3) months of the year. Techniques to reduce the shadow impacts of a building may include, but are not limited to, repositioning of a structure on the lot, increasing the setbacks, reducing building or structure mass or redesigning a building or structure's shape. " Section 3.8.17(C)—Exemptions From Building Height Regulations Exemptions From Building HeightRegulations. The followingstructures and features shall be exempt from the height requirements of this Land Use Code: (1) chimneys, smokestacks or flues that cover no more than five (5) percent of the horizontal surface area of the roof,• (2) cooling towers, ventilators and other similar equipment that cover no more than five (5)percent of the horizontal surface area of the roof- (3) elevator bulkheads and stairway enclosures; (4) fire towers; (5) utility poles and support structures; (6) belfries, spires and steeples;" City Attorney Roy stated the City Code describes the process for the conduct of appeals from decisions of certain boards of the City,including the Planning and Zoning Board. Parties-in-interest have standing to appeal a Board's decision and can address Council during the hearing. Parties-in- interest include the applicant, any party holding a proprietary interest in the real property that is the subject of the application, anyone who appeared before the Planning and Zoning Board, anyone to whom notice about the Planning and Zoning Board hearing was mailed,and anyone who submitted written comments. The criteria the Council will use to decide the appeal is based on the record of the proceedings before the Planning and Zoning Board and the Land Use Code. The record consists 279 November 6, 2007 of the verbatim transcript of the Planning and Zoning Board meeting and the written materials presented or received by the Board. The hearing is limited in scope and in terms of who can participate. The Mayor establishes the time limits for presentations and the order of presentations is outlined in the Code. There will be a staff presentation,then an opportunity for the appellants and the parties-in-interest who agree with the appellants to make their presentations and then those opposed to the appeal will make a presentation. After the presentation, there is opportunity for rebuttal by each side. Rebuttal is for the purpose of refuting things that were said during the presentation by the other parties. This appeal is based"on the record"which means there is no new evidence except for two limited exceptions: (1) in response to questions that are asked by Council or (2) if offered to address an allegation made in the appeal that false or misleading evidence was submitted to the Planning and Zoning Board. Facts that are not in the record are,generally speaking, not admissible. After the presentations, Council will be able to ask questions of staff and make motions to address the allegations of error which are that the Board did not hold a fair hearing and that the Board, for various reasons, did not properly interpret and apply the Code. The Council can uphold or overturn the Board's decision or it can remand the matter back to the Board under two circumstances. If Council finds that the Board did not hold a fair hearing,it must remand the matter to the Board to hold a fair hearing. If Council finds that fiirther consideration should be given by the Board to some issue raised in the appeal, it can remand the matter to the Board. Ted Shepard, Chief Planner, stated the matter concerned a request for a new parking structure and new medical office building. The new parking structure would be located at the northwest corner of Lemay and Garfield. The parking structure would be reserved for staff only. The new medical office building would be located at the southwest corner of Lemay and Garfield. The parking structure would be four stories in height and contain 737 parking spaces. Access would be from Lemay Avenue and, as a condition of approval by the Planning and Zoning Board, access will only be from Lemay Avenue. A pedestrian bridge at the third floor would span Garfield Street to connect with the medical office building. The medical office building would have a pedestrian bridge that would span Lemay to the hospital. This would provide safe access for customers of the medical office building and the staff and physicians using the parking structure. Both properties are zoned "E"Employment. The project was approved by the Planning and Zoning Board with the condition that any entrance on Robertson Street be used for emergency access only. The parking structure is 38 feet 8 inches to the top of the fourth-level parapet wall. Elements of the parking structure exceed that height,such as the elevator bulkheads and stairwells,which are specifically exempted from the height impact analysis. The parking structure is considered to be under 40 feet. The medical office building does exceed 40 feet. City Manager Atteberry stated staff recommended approval of this project to the Planning and Zoning Board and continues to support the project. Katrina White-Grayden, 901 Garfield, asked permission to show images as part of her presentation. Mayor Hutchinson asked if the images were new evidence. She answered the images were not new evidence. 280 November 6, 2007 Ms.White-Grayden stated she represented University Acres and asked Council to reject the Planning and Zoning Board's approval of the parking structure and medical office building. The 4-story parking garage would loom above the street lights, which are 28 feet high. The medical office building would also be 4 stories high and contain 60,000 square feet. The Land Use Code Section 4.27(E) specifies"where an employment or industrial use abuts a residential area,there shall be no drastic and abrupt change in the scale and height of buildings." The two 4-story structures violate that section of the Code. The structures will abut the existing one or two-story residences and will create a drastic difference in scale and height. The Planning and Zoning Board did not consider this section of the Code in its decision. The landscaping proposed by PVHS will not be enough to lessen the impact of the 4-story buildings. At least 12 homes will be directly impacted by the project. This is an invasion of an intact,inner-city neighborhood. The hospital should build to the north and east of its current location. The project also violates Section 4.27(A) which specifies"the Employment District is intended to continue the vitality and quality of life in adjacent residential neighborhoods." University Acres, built in the 1960s, consists of 152 homes, zoned Low-Density Residential. Its streets are not designed to be thoroughfares and increased traffic created by this project poses a threat to the safety of the neighborhood residents and to the quality of life in the neighborhood. The Planning and Zoning Board was concerned about the traffic threat to the neighborhood and put in as a condition of approval that the Robertson access to the parking garage be closed, except for emergency access. The medical office building has both its entrance and exit on Garfield and many drivers will choose to avoid Lemay and exit through Garfield or a side street. The Board did not exercise reasonable judgment in evaluating the impact of traffic from both structures. Section 3.6.4(A)(B) of the Land Use Codes states "In order to ensure that the transportation needs of a proposed development can be safely accommodated by the existing transportation system, or that appropriate mitigation of impacts will be provided by the development, the project shall demonstrate that all adopted Level of Service (LOS) standards will be achieved for all modes of transportation." The number of vehicles from these structures will have a large impact on Garfield. The traffic study is flawed as it predicts "no significant increase in traffic on Garfield and adjoining streets from these 4-story buildings." There is no way to mitigate the impact of traffic from these structures. A parking structure built to the east of PVH would have access routes that have no impact on areas zoned Low- Density Residential. PVH has alternative options for the necessary expansion that do not violate City's Land Use Code. The medical office building should be built elsewhere to honor the Land Use Code. The Women's Clinic, a private practice, will be included in the medical office building. Hospital administration will occupy only 10,000 square feet,the Women's Clinic will occupy 20,000 square feet and 30,000 square feet will be empty. This cannot be seen as critical expansion. The Project does not comply with the Land Use Code and residents have a right to expect the Code to be enforced. Individual home owners directly abutting the proposed Project are being violated. Hospital growth should not necessitate the sacrifice of the neighborhood. The neighborhood has modestly-priced, tax-paying homes and the values of these homes will lessen with greater traffic and threatening high-rise structures. PVH should submit a new plan that complies with the Land Use Code and grows to the north and east where access is better and the neighborhood would not be affected. 281 November 6, 2007 Dwight Miles, 1216 Robertson, party-in-interest, stated he did not want to see a 56-foot tall wall outside his property. The zoning language should preclude such a building being placed next to his property. This Project is unfair to at least 12 residences immediately adjacent to the proposed structure. Rob Stansberry, 1301 Robertson, party-in-interest, expressed his concerns that the Project would negatively impact his neighborhood. Jean Yule, 1109 Williams, stated the medical office building is necessary only to support the two pedestrian walkways. PVH only needs 10,000 square feet of office space,not 60,000 as proposed for the medical office building. The Women's Clinic would not be allowed to build such a building based on its need of 20,000 square feet. A parking garage with 737 spaces will only add to traffic congestion already present on Lemay. The Land Use Code must be enforced to protect neighborhoods. She requested Council to honor the Code and stop the PVH Project. Bill Van Eron, 712 Garfield, appellant, stated the scale of the medical office building was being downplayed and it was too tall for Land Use Code standards. It would loom over his property. The quality of the building does not change the qualifications that the building must meet to be seen as "within scale." Jody Eidness, 1108 Morgan,urged Council to reject the proposal from PVH and send it back to the drawing board. John Yule, 1109 Williams, thanked Council for listening to the neighborhood's concerns. Russell Price, 1105 Robertson, stated his property abutted the hospital's property and the Project would devalue his property. Kevin Unger, President and CEO of Poudre Valley Hospital, stated the Project was very important to the hospital. PVH was built on its current location in 1925 and was surrounded by cornfields at that time. The city has grown around the hospital and the hospital has grown, as well. Currently, two hospitals are operated in the health system,Poudre Valley Hospital and Medical Center of the Rockies which opened this year at I-25 and Highway 34. All outpatient care is centralized at the Harmony campus. The vision of the health system is to provide world-class health care. PVH is on its way to achieve that goal. It is regularly recognized as one of the top 100 hospitals in the nation. The goal is to maintain PVH as a regional hospital and to continue the highest quality of medical care, which requires the hospital to adapt to its infill site,now land-locked. The parking garage and the medical office building will help PVH achieve its goal. Repeated surveys show that patients and their families and visitors to PVH need and desire close-in, convenient, surface parking and often have difficulty in finding parking. PVH also receives hundreds of complaints from the surrounding neighbors about PVH-related parking in the neighborhoods. PVH's solution is to maximize use of the existing parking lot just west of Lemay to accommodate more employee parking and then convert employee parking to meet patient and 282 November 6, 2007 visitor needs. PVH has examined all the alternatives and the proposed project is the only feasible one from an operational standpoint. The medical office building is a partnership with the Women's Clinic and the Women's Clinic will own the building which will be a magnet for women's health care. Many other programs will be included with the Women's Clinic in the medical office building that relate to all aspects of women's health. This center will be a magnet for the hospital and the community. Women will travel from Northern Colorado,Wyoming, and Nebraska for the services provided within the facility. This property was zoned "E"Employment by the City over 10 years ago without input from PVH. Before that time, the property was business zoned. This zoning acknowledges that,being adjacent to Lemay and the with the existing PVH facility, it makes sense to expand and grow the area with commercial and employment uses. Since the area was zoned Employment,PVH has spent over$100 million to keep the facility up-to-date. Both the parking structure and the medical office building are permitted uses in this zone. No variance or modifications have been requested or are needed. In the six-month planning process with the City, PVH has tried to be sensitive to the needs of the neighborhood. Extra neighborhood meetings have been held and mitigation measures have been volunteered,such as speed signs and offering snow removal agreements. Every effort has been made to make this Project compatible with the neighborhood through Land Use Code which guides lighting and shielding, architecture, site location, and landscaping. This Project will enhance the neighborhood while ensuring that PVH remains a vital community asset. Angie Milewski, Landscape Architect with BHA Design, stated she has been the project planner throughout the entire process. Planning an infill site is challenging and is good planning for Fort Collins by making efficient use of land and is necessary to fulfill the City Plan goals and the compact Urban Growth Standards of the Land Use Code. The Project is located on Lemay,immediately west of the existing hospital. It includes a 4-story, 60,000 square foot medical office building, to be located at the southwest corner of Lemay and Garfield and its primary focus will be women's health. An enclosed pedestrian walkway over Lemay will allow physicians to connect directly into the hospital's women's clinical services area. Currently, there is a one-story medical office building located on the west edge of the site, with employee parking over the rest of the site. A 4-story parking structure is planned west of Lemay,on the north side of Garfield. The parking structure will be for employees only and will be used by staff and physicians that work at PVH and the new medical office building. An overhead pedestrian walkway will connect the parking structure and the medical office building over Garfield. The sites west of the hospital meet the hospital's needs and are appropriate for these uses. This proposal,approved by the Planning and Zoning Board,does not change the use of the sites. There is hospital parking and a medical office currently on the sites and the properties are close to, but do not immediately abut, residential areas, for the most part. The properties are zoned to allow these uses as primary uses. The properties are in the Employment Zone District, surrounded by Employment Zoning on the north, east and west sides. Only the south side is adjacent to Low Density Residential Zone District and single family homes. There are existing one-story and two-story medical office buildings and commercial uses that provide a buffer to the residences to the west of the site. The Employment Zone District is intended to provide locations for major employment centers in the community. The City Plan Principle regarding Employment District Areas states:"Their attractive appearance should allow them to locate adjacent to residential 283 November 6, 2007 neighborhoods and along primary entryways into the community." The Employment District policies of City Plan regarding transitional land uses state: "the boundaries between residential and the employment land uses should occur at mid-block locations,rather than along streets so that the buildings facing each other are compatible and transitions between uses are gradual." The Project accomplishes this goal. The uses are allowed and are expected to be located at this site. It is not an issue of Employment uses not being compatible with adjacent residential,but a recognition this was envisioned to happen, particularly with infill projects. The issue is one of careful attention to transition techniques. The Land Use Code has rigorous requirements for how these techniques are achieved. Section 4.27(E)(1)(b)states: "Where an employment or industrial use abuts a residential area,there shall be no drastic and abrupt change in the scale and height of buildings." An example of an abrupt change would locating a flat facade, 4-story structure along the property line, adjacent to a one-story residence with no landscape buffer. There are other compatible projects adjacent to residential around the city that have been approved by the City that avoid drastic, abrupt changes with appropriate transition techniques. The Project has been has been carefully evaluated under the Land Use Code Compatibility Standards by staff and has been found compliant. Because the medical office building is over 40 feet in height, an additional level of review was performed, including evaluation of views, light and shadow,privacy and neighborhood scale. The Project is compliant. The medical office building is located as far as possible to the north and east corner of the property, with parking to the south in order to maximize the distance to the adjacent residences. The building is designed to have the appearance of a lower building to achieve transition. The top floor is set back,with a lower-story overhang to minimize its visual impact to the residences to the south. Both the medical office building and the parking structure are designed to be attractive additions to the hospital campus and the overall neighborhood. Landscaping has been deliberately designed to provide buffers to adjacent uses and appropriate transitions. The parking structure will have a large planting area on the west-facing edge of the building. Large trees that exist on the north edge of the parking structure will be left in place to create an immediate buffer to the commercial and medical buildings to the north. The landscaping for the medical office building will be enhanced to provide a greater buffer adjacent to the existing 6-foot privacy fence on the south boundary. The site is surrounded by the 5-story hospital,one and two-story medical office buildings,two-story apartment buildings and one and two-story residences. The Project, with the proposed 4-story buildings,provides a compatible transition from the 5-story hospital to the surrounding one and two- story residences,especially since the parking structure is a compressed,lower 4-story building below the 40-foot maximum. The initial preliminary design meeting occurred in January 2007. A neighborhood meeting was held and preliminary plans were submitted in May. Two additional neighborhood meetings,not required by the City's planning process, were held in July and September. City staff has reviewed the plans and changes have been made to the design to accommodate staff comments and neighborhood concerns. The Planning and Zoning Board unanimously approved this Project. The Project proposes uses that are allowed as primary uses within the zone district and meets all the standards. 284 November 6, 2007 Jim Martell,attorney representing Poudre Valley Health System,stated Council is acting in a quasi- judicial capacity and is reviewing the record of the Planning and Zoning Board. Items presented earlier by the appellants were not made part of that record and should be excluded from Council's consideration. Council's consideration is limited to the issues listed in the appeal. One issue raised was "spot zoning." There is no "spot zoning" as the area has been zoned E Employment for ten years. The bridge was also raised as an issue but it is not part of this Project and will be considered at another time. Negative impacts on the neighborhood was another issue raised and explanation has been given as to how impacts have been mitigated. Another criteria for an appeal is"failure to conduct a fair hearing." The Planning and Zoning Board had authority to rule on this matter and did not ignore its own procedural rules. The appellants have raised the issue that the Board failed to receive evidence. The record does not indicate the Board did not hear any evidence that was presented during its four hour hearing. The issue of ownership of the Women's Clinic was raised by the appellants. The ownership of the Clinic was clearly stated during the Board's hearing. The traffic impact study has also been raised as an issue and that no new trips were considered in terms of the garage. No new trips were considered for the garage because the garage does not generate trips,is consolidating parking from other areas and is for employee parking only. The traffic impact study does consider the trips for the medical office building. The appellants also state that traffic counts for the traffic impact study were taken when CSU students were out of session. That is true but the counts were taken at locations east of the hospital(McHugh and Elizabeth, and Patton and Elizabeth)and the CSU student population impacting this area has no relevance in this appeal. Counts were taken at peak times during the morning and evening. The neighborhood was concerned that the 3:00 p.m. shift would impact it, but the street has adequate capacity to accommodate all the traffic at that time. The size of the entrance on Lemay has been expanded so the issue of the Robertson Street exit has been covered. The appellants were concerned the Lemay intersections would reach a level of"F"due to this Project,but the traffic impact study clearly shows the intersections will eventually reach this level whether or not the Project is constructed. The appellants raised the issue of the height of the structure and shading. City staff has been through a detailed analysis of the height and concluded the Project meets all standards. Proposals were made to neighboring property owners in an effort to mitigate the impacts even though the proposals were not required by the City. Parking in the medical office building lot was another issue raised and staff concluded it would not impact the neighborhood. He asked that Council uphold the Planning and Zoning Board's decision. Dr. Kevin Tool, 931 Fossil Creek Parkway, a physician at the Women's Clinic, stated PVH was an excellent regional center including a Level 3 nursery that allows premature infants of 28 weeks to remain in Northern Colorado and not be moved to Denver. He mentioned a patient seen the day before from Scott's Bluff, Nebraska. John Knezovich,1205 Green Street, appellant,raised an objection that this statement was not heard at the Planning and Zoning Board hearing and could not be included now. 285 November 6, 2007 City Attorney Roy stated two issues regarding procedure were now raised. One is whether people are entitled to speak and that depends on if they are parties-in-interest. An objection has not been raised about the status of any speaker as a party-in-interest. New evidence is admissible only under certain limited exceptions. The Code defines evidence as"information,whether in verbal,written, graphic, or other form, presented at the hearing to support or refute a particular proposition or conclusion." New evidence is "any evidence relating to the proposal or application which was not presented at the hearing." The most common form of evidence is physical exhibits. Council needs to decide what is being objected to and whether it comes in or does not. If there is any new evidence, Council needs to decide if it is in response to a Council question or if it is support of, or intended to refute,an allegation of false or misleading evidence. If the evidence is for either of those purposes, it is allowed. If it is not allowed, then Council needs to disregard the new evidence. The relevance of some comments made by parties-in-interest has also been raised. Argument is not evidence. Council has not prevented parties-in-interest from explaining their position, as long as it is not the introduction of facts not presented to the Board. Council must decide what weight to give to those arguments. This is a quasi-judicial proceeding. The point of an appeal is to afford due process to the people directly affected by a decision and allow them reasonable opportunity to be heard by an impartial group. Mayor Hutchinson stated Dr.Tool could continue to speak,but should confine his comments to what occurred at the Planning and Zoning Board hearing. Mr. Knezovich withdrew his objection. Dr. Tool stated many patients seen at the hospital are from around the region. The emphasis on women's and children's services will benefit from this Project byhaving the Women's Center across the street. Having the office building facility attached directly to the hospital at the labor and delivery area allows more rapid attention to patients. This Project benefits the community. Ralph Waldo, 1115 Parkwood Drive, stated the Land Use Code and City Plan were adopted to prevent urban sprawl. The vision of the City is "to channel growth into positive community development. Therefore, our community will have a compact land use pattern consisting of a primaryvital downtown and other supporting districts that serve focal points and centers of activity." The Land Use Code,Compact Urban Growth Standards,state"the City has adopted a compact urban growth policy that will encourage and direct the development to take place within areas contiguous to existing development in the community." Health care plays a large role in Northern Colorado's economy. Access to quality health care is one of the most important factors in the livability of a geographic area. This Project meets all stated goals standards for infill development and should be allowed to proceed. Mark Driscoll, party-in-interest, read from the City's Economic Policy which states "in general terms,the goal of the City is to encourage and support economic opportunities which provide self- sustaining employment,increase in private investment within the community and improve the quality of life for Fort Collins residents." This Project meets that goal. 286 November 6, 2007 John Knezovich, 1205 Green Street, appellant, stated the appellants believe a fair hearing was held but the wrong conclusions were drawn. Some drawings were presented at this appeal to correct omissions in the evidence presented by the applicant at the time of the hearing. When City Plan was adopted in 1997,he was assured by City staff that since transition was required in an E Employment zone, there would be adequate transition to his neighborhood. The Project does not do that. The proposed transition would turn his house into a"multi-family zone"as that is the natural transition that abuts an Employment zone with lesser intensive residential zones. He objected to this change. Future plans of the hospital include construction of a 6-story medical tower on the southeast corner of Doctors Lane and Lemay. The hospital does not pay property taxes or sales tax. The parking garage will hold 732 vehicles and will cause tremendous traffic problems. Lemay is a landlocked street and PVH needs to grow north and east. If any business other than PVH were proposing this project, it would be denied. He requested that PVH create a master plan that shows the growth to the north and east, which would allow greater access to Riverside. If patients are coming from the region and not just locally,then interstate access is essential and that is achieved through Riverside. The applicant is Poudre Valley Hospital System,yet one-third of the medical office building will be owned by the Women's Clinic. That information was not provided at the Planning and Zoning Board hearing. Katrina White-Graydon,901 Garfield, stated PVH does have a legitimate need for a parking garage but the Project proposed is not the best solution. The Project will have negative impacts on the quality of life in the neighborhood and she requested Council deny PVH's request. Mim Miller, 1317 Luke Street,asked PVH to explain why it could not build this Project to the east. Elizabeth Soth, 1024 Morgan Street,was concerned traffic would be greatly increased by the Project and would affect her property. Brian Hahn, 1019 Garfield,stated his house would be 100 feet from the parking garage. The garage will completely block his view of any type of landscaping. Liz Derbyshire, 709 Garfield, stated the Project does not benefit everyone in the community as it would harm the neighborhood by making it less desirable. Rulon Stacey, President of PVHS,stated PVHS is fortunate to have the neighbors it has and has no argument with the neighborhood. PVHS does not want to grow in a way that annoys the neighbors and if the parking garage could be located on the east side, it would have done so. Locating the parking garage on the east side would increase the safety risk to the employees. It limits PVH's growth in the master plan that has been presented to the community on other occasions. It limits PVHS's ability to grow medical services. If the parking garage is located on the east,then the other part of the hospital would have to be located on the west. It is not feasible to build this Project to the east. This Project will negatively impact a few people,but it is impossible to proceed with this Project and not impact anyone. If it is moved to the east, then it would be in someone else's backyard. The Land Use Code has been followed with great detail. City staff has agreed this Project meets all Code requirements. The Planning and Zoning Board unanimously agreed this Project 287 November 6, 2007 meets all standards. The only other option would be for PVHS to do nothing and that would not meet the needs of the community. The Land Use Code allows PVHS to proceed and grow. The Code has been established to allow just such growth as PVH is proposing. Every part of the Code has been followed,without exception,and no variances have been asked. There is no better direction for PVH to grow than the Project that is proposed. Karen Carlson, 1305 Luke Street, stated she supported the Project as it is a quality project. ("Secretary's note: The Council took a brief recess at this point in the meeting.) Mayor Hutchinson stated since Mr. Martell had raised the issue of new evidence being presented at this time, that issue needed to be dealt with first. Mr. Martell, attorney for PVHS, stated the presentation of slides by the appellants should be considered as new evidence. The slides showing various buildings and housing were not presented at the Planning and Zoning hearing. The slides are significant and,if they are considered,then PVH should be given an opportunity to present similar information to rebut the slides. The slides did not consider some of the other requirements Planning and Zoning had, specifically in relation to landscape buffering. The testimony that accompanied the slides should also be excluded. Mayor Hutchinson noted the appellant had stated the slides were presented at the Planning and Zoning hearing. Mr. Knezovich stated the appellants position was there were many slides and drawings and schematics displayed at the Planning and Zoning hearing. In reviewing the evidence that was presented,the appellants felt the perspective shown in the slides was not presented and the appellants thought the information in the slides was part of a fair presentation. Mayor Hutchinson stated the slides did appear to be new evidence. City Attorney Roy stated since the evidence was not presented in response to any Councilmember question, then the remaining question is whether Mr. Knezovich or others could point to a particular allegation in the Notice of Appeal under the criteria"substantially false or grossing misleading evidence"that these slides were intended to support. Ms. White-Grayden stated all items illustrated in the slides were discussed at the Planning and Zoning hearing or submitted in written form. The appellants were trying to illustrate the information. City Attorney Roy stated since the visual slides were not submitted or received by the Planning and Zoning Board in that form and as it does not pertain to a particular allegation of"substantially false or grossing misleading evidence," it should be disregarded by the Council in making its decision. All information on the subject does not need to be disregarded,only whatever additional information might have been gleaned from the slides. If the issue was addressed by testimony in the record,then the issue and testimony can be considered. Council should not consider the additional new evidence 288 November 6, 2007 of anything depicted on the slides or references made to what was shown in the slides that did not appear in the record of the hearing. Mayor Hutchinson noted Council is acting in a quasi-judicial capacity,sitting in judgment about the facts of the decision. City Attorney Roy noted the Code states"The City Council shall consider an appeal based upon the record on appeal, the relevant provisions of the Code and Charter, and the grounds for appeal cited in the Notice of Appeal. Issues not raised in the Notice of Appeal should not be considered by the Council in deciding the Appeal." Two kinds of grounds are alleged. One is that the Board failed to hold a fair hearing. The other is that certain provisions of the Land Use Code were not properly interpreted and applied. The two grounds should be dealt with separately. The first decision to be made is whether or not the Board failed to conduct a fair hearing,either by considering substantially false or grossly misleading evidence, or by improperly failing to receive all relevant evidence that was offered. If Council finds the Board did not hold a fair hearing, the only remedy is to return the Project to the Planning and Zoning Board so a fair hearing can be held. Mayor Hutchinson stated one issue brought forward was that the traffic impact study was false or misleading evidence presented to the Board. The appellants have alleged the study was flawed and the applicant has denied that allegation. Ward Stanford,Traffic Systems Engineer, stated the Notice of Appeal contained the allegation that the Traffic Impact Study did not take into account all counts or new uses. The Study does go through all uses currently and those proposed for the future. The Study is a significantly conservative study at this point. It was done on a near-term basis of three years out. The parking structure was not considered as creating new trips as it reallocating where current trips occur. The medical office building does create new traffic that is accounted for in the near term in the Study. The Study includes an intermediate projection of about five to six years out,that does take into account all the projected future uses in the area. Mayor Hutchinson asked how a parking garage could not generate new trips,yet vehicles go in and out. Stanford stated the parking garage would be receiving vehicles,but the vehicles are coming to the hospital now for service at the hospital. The vehicles are currently parking in a different location, but the structure brings those vehicles into one area. The structure itself does not generate new trips. Mayor Hutchinson asked if,in staff s opinion,the Traffic Impact Study did properly consider all the relevant factors. Stanford stated staff did not consider the Study to be flawed. Mayor Hutchinson asked if the Robertson exit was considered in the Study. Stanford answered access from the Robertson exit was part of the Study. The experience of staff indicates that the perception from residential areas concerning increases in traffic from nearby large facilities does not materialize. One example is when the Harmony Safeway was opened, the perception of the neighborhood was that traffic would greatly increase through its area,but that has not happened. The 289 November 6, 2007 parking structure shifts the vehicles currently going to the east side of the hospital to the west. The vehicles still come to the hospital from all directions. Councilmember Manvel asked what was the size of the current parking lot and medical facility located at the Project site. Shepard stated the existing parking lot has 200 spaces. The proposed parking lot to the south of Garfield will contain 129 spaces and will replace a parking lot that contains 100 spaces. Councilmember Manvel stated moving the Women's Clinic to the proposed medical office building would seem to increase traffic in the area. He questioned if usage of the current parking lot and medical facility at the site were considered equal to the projected number of vehicles that would be using the lot for the proposed medical office building. Stanford stated the lot currently on the site of the proposed medical office building is heavily used now. When the Women's Clinic locates to the proposed medical office building, it is projected to use less than half the parking spaces. The remaining number of spaces if based on the square footage of the building and should be adequate. Councilmember Manvel noted the Traffic Study did include use of the Robertson exit in the parking garage but that exit has now been designated for emergency use only. He asked if removal of this exit would change any of the numbers in the Study. Stanford stated staff believed the movement of traffic through that exit would have been minimal and would not affect the results of the Study. Councilmember Manvel asked how closure of the Robertson access would remove the opportunity to gain access to westbound Garfield Street. Shepard stated closing the Robertson access removes an opportunity to reach Garfield from Robertson. Councilmember Manvel asked if the west entrance into the garage would be a bicycle entrance and would contain bicycle parking, even though cars will not be allowed to use that entrance. Shepard stated that is unresolved at this point as discussions are ongoing as to how to block an access, yet make it emergency access only. The question of whether bicycles and pedestrians would be allowed to use that access has not been determined yet. Councilmember Manvel encouraged staff to allow bicycles and pedestrians to use that access even though it would not be open to vehicles. Councilmember Troxell stated that a comment was made earlier that the Project would have an impact on neighborhood properties and would "down zone" the properties. He asked about the "down zoning" of the RL zoning in the neighborhood. Shepard stated the neighborhood is zoned RL,which is a low-density zoning. The RL zoning does not allow duplexes or multi-family housing. Councilmember Troxell asked if University Acres had any covenants. Shepard stated that was not known. Councilmember Manvel noted the appellants stated earlier they felt there was fair hearing. Questions were raised about the Traffic Impact Study being misleading or false and the nature of the use of the 290 November 6, 2007 medical office building portrayed as misleading. Shepard stated the use of the medical office building has always been clearly represented as a"medical office building." Representatives of the Women's Clinic were at the neighborhood meetings. It was also stated that hospital administration would move into the medical office building. Councilmember Roy asked if there had been any ex parte communication and if tours of the site by Planning and Zoning Boardmembers impeded the Board from holding a fair hearing. City Attorney Roy stated the Code does not prohibit ex parte contacts, but it does discourage it. This is to allow Council to remain impartial and to base its decision solely upon the evidence in the record and discussion at the time of the appeal hearing. The fact that one or two emails or letters were viewed does not invalidate the proceedings unless the communications result in some obvious bias on the part of Councilmembers. The on-site visit by the Board was appropriate as the Board went as a group to view the site. Councilmember Roy asked if communications with the Planning and Zoning Board prior to its hearing, dealing with the economy of the hospital, could have affected its decision. City Attorney Roy stated anyone who speaks to this issue will say what they think and why. Some subjects are irrelevant to the Land Use Code criteria and it is ultimately up to the decision maker to sort that out. The measure of whether any ex parte contact created a problem is whether any of the boardmembers appeared to have been biased by information that was off the record that parties-in-interest did not have an opportunity to respond to at the hearing. Paul Eckman, Deputy City Attorney, stated the letters the planning staff received prior to the Planning and Zoning Board hearing were provided to all boardmembers in the agenda packets. The Board did not receive any letters about the economy of the hospital, except in its packet for the hearing. Since both the applicant and parties-in-interest had access to the contents of the packet, those communications did not affect the fairness of the hearing. The site visit was an open meeting, done as part of a work session of the Planning and Zoning Board. Anyone could go on the site visitor join the group on the site and some did. There was very little interaction between the applicant and the Board during the site visit. In his opinion, the visit did not affect the fairness of the hearing. Councilmember Troxell made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Manvel, that Council find the Planning and Zoning Board conducted a fair hearing. Mayor Hutchinson stated the criteria to be used to decide if the Board conducted a fair hearing are (1) whether there was substantially false or grossly misleading evidence and (2) did the Board improperly fail to receive all relevant evidence. Yeas: Brown, Hutchinson, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Roy and Troxell. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Mayor Hutchinson noted the next issue to be considered is whether the Planning and Zoning Board properly interpreted the Land Use Code. 291 November 6, 2007 Councilmember Brown stated one allegation was that the Planning and Zoning Board disregarded Section 4.27(E)(1)(b) of the Land Use Code, concerning the height of the structure. He asked if there was any violation of this section. Shepard stated the E zoning was placed on the properties on the east and west side of Lemay in 1997 as a result of City Plan. A 4-story building is permitted in the E zone, so there was no violation. Councilmember Ohlson noted the Code states "where an employment or industrial use abuts a residential area, there shall be no drastic and abrupt changes in scale and height of buildings" and he questioned how this Project met that standard as the Project seems to create an immediate and drastic change with no transition. Shepard stated the Board examined that standard and the compatibility standards listed in Section 3.5.1(A-H). The Board considered the RL zone to the south and the five affected lots in the neighborhood which are one-story homes today but could be expanded to two-story dwellings as allowed in the RL zoning. There is 130 feet of separation between the south property line and the medical office building itself. Within that distance will be a landscaped edge along the south property line. The fourth floor of the medical office building is stepped back and not flush with the first three floors of the building. The Board felt compatibility was achieved with the landscaping and distance and that the high level of architectural design allows pedestrians to experience at the pedestrian's scale and be overwhelmed. Councilmember Ohlson asked how staff reviewed the Traffic Impact Study and if staff checked the data provided. Stanford stated the applicant does pay for the traffic study and the study was provided to City staff for its review. If staff does not agree with any study, it is returned to be corrected or redrafted. The study has to meet staff s criteria and standards. Staff has its own counts and analysis that are compared to those provided in the study. Councilmember Ohlson asked if it were easy for staff to uncover flaws in a traffic study. Stanford stated a traffic study is a fairly rigorous study. Staff uses the same national guidelines as the company who performs the study. The company analyses the project from its perspective as it was hired to so,and staff reviews how the company viewed the study and how the calculations were done to ascertain if there were any flaws in the study. Councilmember Ohlson asked if there were major changes from the original proposal. Shepard stated there were considerable upgrades to the architectural design of both buildings. The parking statistics were refined. Staff instigated many negotiations with abutting property owners regarding snow and ice removal. One condition of approval by the Planning and Zoning Board was closure of the Robertson Street access. The Project has evolved through the planning design process. Councilmember Ohlson requested further clarification about PVH's reasons for not placing this Project to the north and east of the hospital. Mayor Hutchinson asked if the location of the proposed project could be considered as part of the appeal. City Attorney Roy stated Council needs to consider the application on the proposed site and apply the Land Use Code criteria. Council is only to decide if this application on the proposed site meets the Land Use Code criteria. 292 November 6, 2007 Councilmember Poppaw asked for some examples of Section 4.27(E)(1)(b) that could be found around the city. Shepard stated there were many examples of mixed-use neighborhoods where single family homes are located next to high schools and junior high schools with gymnasiums and auditoriums. Woodward Governor,located at Drake and Lemay,has heavy industry. The Miramont Health Club has a large gymnasium across the street from a single-family neighborhood. Other large structures, such as churches with gyms are located next to single-family neighborhoods. Having mixed-use neighborhoods has been a policy of the Land Development Guidance System since 1981. Staff has tried to do as much mitigation as possible in each of these examples. The Planning and Zoning Board asked PVH to maximize the landscaping on this project along the south edge and the southwest corner of the parking structure to mitigate the transition. Councilmember Manvel noted the Code states "some elements affecting compatibility include height, scale, mass, and bulk of structure. Other characteristics include pedestrian and vehicular traffic, circulation, access and parking impacts. Other important characteristics are landscaping, lighting, noise, odor and architecture." To him, the most important items in these characteristics seem to be height,scale,mass and bulk. At 56 feet,the building would create a considerable change in bulk and scale when placed next to a one-story dwelling only 130 feet away. He asked if the 56 feet included an allowance for utilities that are not seen from the ground. Shepard stated the 56 feet goes to the top of the fourth level and does not include any allowance for utilities. The Board struggled with the issue of compatibility and concluded that with 130 feet of distance from the neighboring property,a fourth floor that was stepped back,quality architecture, a generous amount of over-sized landscaping, the Project met the compatibility standard. Councilmember Manvel asked if the Board considered requesting the Project be scaled back to a three-story building. Shepard stated the Board did not consider that. Councilmember Roy asked how this Project would meet the criteria in the Code that one of the purposes of the Employment Zone is "to continue the vitality and quality of life in adjacent residential neighborhoods." Shepard stated the site of the proposed parking garage is presently used as a parking lot. The site of the proposed medical office building is presently a surface parking lot and medical office building. The future uses appear to be the same as the present uses in terms of land use. The current uses would be continued on these sites, although in a more intensified scale. The purpose statement listed in the Land Use Code is not used to critically review projects. The purpose statement is deliberately vague to describe the kinds of land uses that are expected in that zone district. There are many zone districts with many different land uses per zone and the purpose statement just gives an overall umbrella impression of what the zone district is all about. He did not believe the Planning and Zoning Board drilled down to the level of the meaning of"vitality" and "quality of life." Mayor Hutchinson asked for clarification in applying the purpose statements in the Land Use Code. Deputy Attorney Eckman stated the purpose statements,like City Plan,are aspirational in nature and not mandatory. The beginning of every zone district contains one or two paragraphs that state what the zone district is supposed to do. Following those purpose statements are the regulatory provisions that fulfill the aspirations of the purpose statement. 293 November 6, 2007 Councilmember Roy asked for clarification of"drastic and abrupt change in the scale and height of buildings"in Section 4.27(E)(1)(b). Shepard stated staff has to interpret"drastic and abrupt" on a case by case basis. This project,particularly the medical office building,has a relationship to Lemay Avenue, Robertson Street, Garfield Street and to its west property line, which is a medical office building. Lemay is a four-lane arterial and across the street from the property is a 5-story building with helicopters flying over. To the south is Robertson Street, with one-story, single family dwellings. To the north is a surface parking lot. The entire site is zoned E. It was a challenge for staff to decide on this issue but staff advised the Planning and Zoning Board that through distance, landscaping,quality of architecture that is experienced at the pedestrian scale and is not overbearing, the stepped back fourth floor that the standard was met. He stated one Boardmember, struggling with this issue, reached the conclusion that, in his opinion, projects such as this one are a result of the Growth Management Area now having a fixed boundary. The desire of this community, from a City Plan perspective, is to not sprawl eastward, but to build vertically and take advantage of existing infrastructure. Councilmember Roy asked if the Project complied with Section 3.6.4(A)(B) which states ""all development plans shall adequately provide vehicular,pedestrian and bicycle facilities necessary to maintain the adopted transportation Level of Service standards"since the Project seems to preclude expansion of Lemay in the future. Stanford stated the traffic study regulations contain an expected "level of service" that refers to maintenance level that must be met within a zoned area. In this Project, the development of traffic does meet those regulations. Councilmember Poppaw stated one mitigation offered to lessen the abruptness of this Project next to the neighborhood is extra landscaping. She asked if any certain size of vegetation was required. Shepard stated as a condition of approval, the Planning and Zoning Board required the applicant to upgrade the size of all plant material along the south edge. Councilmember Ohlson asked if staff had difficulty in recommending this project to the Planning and Zoning Board. Shepard answered in the affirmative and stated the Planning and Zoning Board struggled with the decision, as well. Councilmember Ohlson asked for a statement from the applicant that would clarify any issues raised by Council. Angie Milewski, BHA Design, stated there was much discussion at the hearing, but the Board did vote unanimously to approve the project. She showed a drawing of the entire Project to illustrate the relationship of the medical office building to the adjacent properties and how the Project meets the standard of"no drastic or abrupt change." Rulon Stacey,CEO of P VHS,stated the intent of the Project is to create a center for women's health. All of those services are located on the west side of the hospital. PVHS wants to create an access for patients and physicians to create a system of providing care. If the Project were located on the east side,it would not be located close to the women's health services in the hospital. If the parking garage were located on the east, the opportunity to grow patient care service with the addition of 294 November 6, 2007 more beds would be lost. Patient care would need to be expanded on the west side, which is functionally impossible. Employees currently park on the west side of Lemay, creating an unsafe situation when they cross Lemay. The Project eliminates all these issues and is proposed for the best location. Councilmember Ohlson asked for a statement from the appellants that would clarify how,other than the properties directly abutting the proposed site, the neighborhood would be negatively impacted by this Project. John Knezovich, appellant, stated the neighborhood believes the medical office building will add a much greater volume of traffic to Garfield Street. There is no access to the medical office building from Lemay. All access is from Garfield Street. The neighborhood believes that patients traveling from the west will use neighborhood streets to avoid Lemay. The neighborhood also believed the height of the building would cause the Planning and Zoning Board to deny the Project. Current landscaping, such as mature trees, will be removed so the Project can be built and will only be replaced with much smaller trees which will change the character of the neighborhood. Mayor Hutchinson noted the proposal is allowed by the current zoning of the property and it is consistent with the Structure Plan. Uses are not being changed on the property, but are being intensified. The question is if the intensification of use is being mitigated adequately. Councilmember Ohlson requested a statement from the traffic study consultant. Matt Delich,Delich Associates,stated the proposed parking garage will consolidate much employee traffic that currently occurs on the east side of the hospital, as well as off-site near Riverside. The Study allocated trips that go to the current employee parking areas to the proposed garage. The Study did include new traffic from enhanced surgical unit and the medical office building at full capacity. It also included trips from a bed tower that is a future phase of the hospital. The traffic counts in the Study are much higher than the proposed Project will generate since it does contain projections for the future phase. The key intersections analyzed do meet the City's guidelines for "level of service"in the mid-term future, which is the full development of everything in the Study. The "level of service" in the long-range future will occur with or without the building of the proposed Project. The long-term analysis is only used as a gauge by the City to determine where problems will occur in the future. The trip-generation in the Study is accurate and was done in accordance with the City's guidelines. Jean Yule, 1109 Williams, stated the traffic pattern will change dramatically as vehicles that now go to different areas will be concentrated in the proposed parking garage. Councilmember Troxell made a motion,seconded by Councilmember Brown,to uphold the Planning and Zoning Board Decision. Councilmember Manvel stated he felt conflicted about the Project as it seemed to be intrusive to the neighborhood, but it fulfills the idea of City Plan, so the decision was difficult. 295 November 6, 2007 Councilmember Troxell stated this Project was in accordance with City Plan and should be supported. Councilmember Ohlson stated he supported infill and redevelopment and the concepts in City Plan, but he was not yet ready to vote on the issue. Councilmember Manvel noted staff would track traffic impacts on Garfield and the neighborhood for the next several years and asked what alternatives would be available if those traffic impacts were considerable. Stanford stated a surcharge was recently added to speeding tickets to hire additional police to work in the neighborhoods. Direct enforcement greatly impacts speeding in neighborhoods. Electronic speeding signs also have a positive impact on slowing vehicles in neighborhoods. Additional resources such as signage and striping and education are available. At present, there is no funding for hard mitigation such as speed humps, roadway redesign or other physical road changes. Councilmember Manvel asked if there were any alternatives to decreasing or diverting traffic from Garfield such as blocking off Garfield. Stanford stated blocking off a street would be difficult to accomplish. Public streets are available for all users and not just the people who actually live on the streets. Internal use of streets by residents in a residential area is encouraged instead of going onto an arterial and driving extra miles. If streets are blocked, then internal use is limited. Councilmember Manvel asked if Council could consider traffic as relating to compatibility with current uses and impacts on the neighborhood. City Attorney Roy stated both traffic and compatibility are legitimate criteria. Deputy Attorney Eckman stated the Notice of Appeal does address traffic in the context of the issue of a fair hearing but it also listed in other allegations. City Attorney Roy noted there are criteria in the Land Use Code that address management of traffic and there are standards for compatibility and transition. Councilmember Manvel stated the rules should be applied to this Project and the rules of bulk and scale are not exact and open to interpretation. A four-story building next to the neighborhood seemed very abrupt. Councilmember Roy stated many infill and redevelopment projects have integrated nicely and sensitively with surrounding neighborhoods. The proposed Project does not seem to be sensitive to the neighborhood and does cause a drastic and abrupt change into the neighborhood. An old, established neighborhood such as this one should not have such an intrusion. Councilmember Ohlson stated he was not convinced that, even if the Project was scaled back, the neighborhood would find those changes acceptable. Councilmember Brown stated the property is zoned for the use proposed by the Project and no criteria in the Land Use Code have been violated. 296 November 6, 2007 Councilmember Ohlson asked if the Planning and Zoning Board's struggle to make its decision was centered on the traffic study or on the scale and mass and transition into a neighborhood. Shepard stated staff struggled with the Project in terms of the compatibility issues of height,bulk,mass,and scale. Traffic was not an issue. The Board had much debate on both traffic and compatibility. The site visit did help it make its decision on the height,bulk,mass and scale decisions. The conditions of approval, after much deliberation, indicated the Board was concerned. Councilmember Ohlson asked if the applicant was willing to offer any changes that would make the Project more acceptable. Dean Barber, PVHS representative, stated the only feasible option for the medical office building is the four-story design. The primary goal is to have patient parking on-site because there cannot be patient parking in the parking structure. Market demand is also driving the feasibility of the building to the size of 60,000 square feet. If the building were downsized, it would be overutilized almost from the beginning. The demand for medical office space is high near the hospital. If the parking structure were downsized, the hospital would immediately need to seek other parking areas. Councilmember Manvel asked if would be possible to expand parking to the lot to the west of the proposed medical office building and lower the building by one story. Mr. Barber stated that, from a development standpoint, the costs of acquiring that site and the improvements needed to create surface parking would not be economically feasible since it would not be an income-producing property. Councilmember Ohlson stated the aesthetics of the Project will impact the neighboring properties and traffic will impact the neighborhood but changes will occur in the area and this Project will benefit the community. Councilmember Poppaw stated infill and redevelopment is important to the community and this Project accomplished that objective. Councilmember Roy stated he did not believe this Project was the only solution for the property and he did not support the Planning and Zoning decision. Mayor Hutchinson stated the Project is allowed by zoning and is consistent with the Land Use Code. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Brown, Hutchinson, Ohlson, Poppaw and Troxell. Nays: Manvel, Roy. THE MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Manvel made a motion,seconded by Councilmember Brown,to suspend the rules and continue the meeting. Yeas: Brown, Hutchinson, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Roy and Troxell. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. 297 November 6, 2007 Ordinance No. 136, 2007, Assessing the Cost of Improvements in the Timberline and Prospect Special Improvement District No. 94 in the City of Fort Collins, Colorado, and Providing for the Payment and Collection Thereof. Adopted on First Reading The following is staff's memorandum on this item. "FINANCIAL IMPACT This Ordinance assesses the District costs to the property owners benefitted by the improvements. Street improvements were completed for Timberline Road from Drake to Prospect. Most of the improvements were adjacent to development and were constructed through the Street Oversizing Program. These developments have also funded additional improvements needed in order to proceed with their developments in accordance with the City's adequate public facilities requirement from Section 3.7.3 of the Land Use Code. Developers have contributed$2,500,000 to the City for the engineering design and construction of the improvements to the Timberline and Prospect Intersection. The developers requested and the City formed Special Improvement District#94 in order to assess undeveloped property for their fair share of intersection improvements. Assessments collected will be forwarded to the original private financiers of the District. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In October 2005, Council established the Timberline and Prospect SpeciallmprovementDistrict#94 (the "District'). The City has completed the improvements and is now prepared to assess the District. In accordance with Chapter 21 of the City Code, the City began the close out with Resolution 2007-073, which accepted the improvements and ordered a notice to be sent to property owners informing them of the assessment. A revised resolution, Resolution 2007-093, was adopted on October 2, 2007, to correct certain items that may have been confusing in the materials included with the original Resolution. A public hearing date of November 6, 2007 was set to hear any objections from the property owners. Based on the procedures specified in the City Code and the notice that has been provided to the property owners within the District, the property owners have until November 5th to file objections to theproposed assessments. As ofthe time ofcompletion ofthis Agenda Item Summary, no protests have been received for the November 6th hearing. A memorandum with updated information regarding any protests that are received will be provided to the Council before the meeting on the 6th. The public hearing is an important part of the Special Improvement District process and the City Code states: "The City Council sitting as a Board of Equalization shall hear and determine all 298 November 6, 2007 such complaints and objections and may conform to the apportionment or make any modifications which may seem equitable and just after consideration of all objections to the apportionment. " This Ordinance places an assessment against property in the District and outlines the procedure for collection. The assessment amount for each property owner is listed in the attached assessment roll and includes the cost of construction, engineering, and administration of the district. Since the District was privately funded, no financing costs are included; however, if a property owner elects to pay off the assessment over time, interest will accrue on the principal amount during the period used to pay off the assessment. Property owners have the option of paying the total principal amount of the assessment without interest if it is paid within thirty days of publication of the Ordinance. If a property owner elects to pay the assessment in installments, the principal will be divided into ten equal installments. The rate of interest charged on the unpaid principal is 5.00%. Payments are due thirty days after the final publication of the Ordinance adopting the assessments. This date is anticipated to be December 26, 2007. BACKGROUND Timberline Road,from Drake to Prospect was the highest deficiency segment in the City's street network. The Timberline/Prospect intersection experienced failing levels ofservice in both the AM and PM peak hours. Attempts by the City to create a funding mechanism for the necessary improvements were not successful. Section 3.7.3 ofthe City'sLand Use Code(the "Adequate Public Facilities(APF)Ordinance')does not allow any additional development to impact failing intersections. A conceptual estimate indicated that$2.5 million was needed to improve the intersection to meet minimum levels ofservice necessary to allow additional development in the area. The improvements were: • Dedicated right turn lanes on all legs of the intersection • Double left turn lanes on Timberline • Additional through lanes on Timberline These interim improvements added capacity to the intersection, but did not include landscaped medians, concrete paving, enhanced crosswalks, or other elements not necessary to increase Levels of Service. There are two large development parcels that were affected by the APF Ordinance. The James Company and its assigns are constructing the Sidehill development project on the east side of Timberline and north of Drake, and the St. Charles Investment Group owns 80 acres on the west side of Timberline and north of Drake. Both of these developments were prevented from proceeding in the absence of improvements to Timberline/Prospect. These developers elected to fund the $2.5 million APF improvements in order to proceed with their development projects. The James Company 299 November 6, 2007 and the St. Charles Investment Group proposed the formation of an involuntary SID as a financing mechanism to allow for fair and equitable assessment of all benefitting property owners. The proposed assessment method is based on the City's APF requirements as contained in Land Use Code Section 3.7.3 and is consistent with the Code provisions setting out the process for creating SIDS and imposing assessments. The Land Use Code states that a proposed development that impacts a failing intersection cannot proceed until improvements are made. The Lorimer County Urban Area Street Standards (Revision No. 2) which are incorporated by reference into the Land Use Code require that development of a property await APF improvements if. • The property is within a one mile radius of the failing intersection; and • New trips from the development will impact the intersection with greater than 2%delay. Section 22-76 of the City Code authorizes the Council to provide for any manner of assessing the costs of street improvements that is equitable and fair. Section 22-81 of the City Code regarding improvement ofstreet intersections provides that the intersection-related costs shall be apportioned in the same manner as all other portions of the street improvements, except for shares to be paid by others, as applicable. In order to determine which properties to include in the SID, staff contracted with a Traffic Engineering consultant to analyze all development property within a one mile radius of the intersection. Using the Zoning, City Structure Plan and the Institute of Traffic Engineers Trip Generation Manual, the number of trips generated from each parcel and a distribution of trips into the Timberline/Prospect intersection was estimated. Based on the applicable developmentstandards in the Lorimer County Urban Area Street Standards (Revision No. 2), which have been adopted by the Council, if the number of trips generated from a development parcel would have delayed the functioning ofthe intersection by more than 2916, theparcel was considered to be a property that was immediately benefitted by the construction of the District Improvements and it was included in the SID (because the improvements satisfied the APF requirements and made redevelopment of the parcel possible). The amount of assessment for each parcel was then determined by projecting the number of new trips into the Timberline/Prospect intersection that would be generated by each parcel when it is developed. The improvements for the District were constructed as part of a larger project, Timberline Road, from Drake to Prospect. A summary of the total project costs: City of Fort Collins Police Facilities $1,272,291 SID #94Improvements $2,518,853 Developer Local Street Contributions $1,634,729 Street Oversizing Program $3,273,425 Total Construction Cost. $8,699,298 The Special Improvement District# 94 construction costs are composed of Construction Costs: $2,400,000 300 November 6, 2007 Engineering Costs $ 100,000 Administration Cost $ 18,853 Total Construction and Engineering costs: $2,518,853 However, there are two properties which were developed in the County many years ago which may redevelop. These properties' share of the improvement costs will be recovered through reimbursement agreements at the time of redevelopment since they received no immediate benefit in theform ofrelieffrom the APF requirements. Thus, their share ofthe construction costs has been subtracted from the actual District cost. Total Special Improvement District#94 costs: $2,338,134 The City created the District in October 2005. The terms of the District are: 1. The amount financed will be $2.5 million, or the amount needed to make the "APF" improvements to the Timberline/Prospect intersection. 2. No municipal or City-backed bonds will be issued. Financing will be by the developers, using cash or private placement bonds. The City would be the collection agency for assessments, but would not incur any financial liability. 3. The assessment method is based on the APF ordinance and its benefit to undeveloped property. Several factors, including trip generation, trip distribution, delay and proximity to the intersection within a one-mile radius are used to calculate the impact and benefit for each property. 4. The properties included in the SID will begin repayment of their proportionate share (the assessments) upon completion of the construction and final accounting of the costs. Providing a 10 year repayment schedule for properties being assessed is a benefit for properties included in the SID. To meet the requirements ofArticleX, Section 20 ofthe Colorado Constitution ("TABOR'), a special election of SID property owners was held on the November 2005 ballot to allow the City to enter into a multi year obligation to repay the developers, using revenues generated by the assessment payments, over a 10 year time period. The reimbursement agreement has been executed by the City Manager and is contingent upon Council's approval ofthe Ordinance. In accordance with the SID policies, the City contracted with an MAI appraiser prior to the formation of the district and recently updated the appraisal for the proposed assessments in order to confirm that the requirements ofthe Code provisions related to SID assessments have been met. The Final Cost/Benefit Study prepared by Bonnie Roerig&Associates, LLC, Study Date September 5, 2007, to evaluate relevant market data related to the Timberline Road Special Improvement District is attached to this Agenda Item Summary. As summarized on page 4 of that Study, the value of each of the parcels to be assessed has increased from the 2005 study value in an amount equal to or greater than the proposed assessment for such parcel, as required by Section 22-90 of the Code. 301 November 6, 2007 SUMMARY The Timberline Road, Drake to Prospect Project was the most heavily congested intersection in the City. In the absence of any City capital improvement funding for this intersection, two impacted developers elected to privately fund these improvements in order to proceed with their development projects. These developers are the majority property owners and will receive the proceeds of Special Improvement District #94 assessments, which will spread a portion of the costs to other undeveloped property in the area benefitted by the improvements. " City Manager Atteberry stated a few years ago, the Timberline/Prospect intersection was the most heavily congested intersection in the City and the"level of service"was below an acceptable level. Development was at a halt because of the existing deficiencies. The City worked with the area's developers to find a way to make needed improvements. Two developers agreed to privately fund the improvements to proceed with their development projects. No municipal bonds were issued on this project. Financing came from the developers,using their funds. The City acted as the collection agency for assessments,but did not incur any financial liability. The two developers used$100,000 of their money to fund the engineering work. The Project is now completed. Councilmember Roy made a motion,seconded by Councilmember Poppaw,to adopt Ordinance No. 136, 2007 on First Reading. Mayor Hutchinson asked if there were any present who had objections to the assessments listed in the Ordinance. No objections were raised. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Brown, Hutchinson, Manvel, Ohlson,Poppaw, Roy and Troxell. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Ordinance No. 126, 2007, Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins by Changing the Zoning Classifications for That Certain Property Known as the Southwest Corner of East Prospect Road and I-25 Rezoning, Adopted on Second Reading The following is staff's memorandum on this item. "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Ordinance was adopted on First Reading on October 16, 2007 by a vote of 5-0 (Troxell withdrawn, Ohlson absent)and rezones 143 acres located at the southwest corner of East Prospect Road and Interstate 25. A 25-acre parcel of land zoned C, Commercial, and a I I8-acre parcel of the former Resource Recovery Farm zoned POL, Public Open Lands is now rezoned to E, Employment District. " 302 November 6, 2007 Councilmember Troxell withdrew from this item due to a conflict of interest. Councilmember Manvel made a motion,seconded by Councilmember Roy,to Adopt Ordinance No. 126, 2007 on Second Reading. Yeas: Brown, Hutchinson, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Roy and Troxell. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Ordinance No. 128, 2007, Authorizing the Conveyance of 143 Acres of Land to Colorado State University Research Foundation in Exchange for 267 Acres of Land Adiacent to Reservoir Ridge Natural Area,Adopted on Second Reading The following is staff s memorandum on this item. "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Ordinance was adopted on First Reading on October 16, 2007 by a vote of 5-0 (Troxell withdrawn, Ohlson absent)and authorizes a land exchange between the City of Fort Collins and the Colorado State University Research Foundation (CSURF). The proposed exchange consists of the City trading 143-acres of City-owned land at the southwest corner of I-25 and Prospect(a portion of the former Resource Recovery Farm)for 267-acres of state-owned land on Colorado State University's foothills campus. The exchange land currently owned by the City would become a gateway for Colorado State University into the City, and ultimately would include research, development, educational, and light manufacturing facilities. The exchange land currently owned by Colorado State University would become part of the Reservoir Ridge Natural Area, which is owned/managed by the City's Natural Areas Program. In addition to the exchange, the City would acquire an option to purchase an additional 27 acres from CSURF that is adjacent to the CSURF exchange property and Reservoir Ridge. " Councilmember Troxell withdrew from this item due to a conflict of interest. Bruce Lockhart,2500 East Harmony Road,asked what was the value of the City's property after the rezoning of the property. Mayor Hutchinson noted two independent appraisals were done on the property and staff had completely explained the process during the discussion at First Reading. This was an excellent project for the City. Councilmember Poppaw made a motion,seconded by Councilmember Roy to adopt Ordinance No. 128, 2007 on Second Reading. Yeas: Brown, Hutchinson, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Roy and Troxell. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. 303 November 6, 2007 Ordinance No. 130, 2007, Amending Section 25-123(c) of the City Code Relating to the Vendor Fee for Collecting and Remitting Sales Tax. Adopted on First Reading The following is staff s memorandum on this item. "FINANCIAL IMPACT This Ordinance amends the Code to modify the formula used in calculating the vendor fee paid to merchants who collect City sales and use tax. The modification to the fee will result in the City receiving an additional $390,000 per year in sales tax collections. These collections will bean ongoing revenue source. On October 16, 2007, City Council adopted the 2008-2009 Final Budget on First Reading with the assumption that this change to the vendor fee would be adopted. The additional$390,000 per year in revenue was appropriated in the budget ordinance. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Ordinance will modify the formula used to calculate the vendor fee for sales and use tax licensees. The proposed modification will result in $390,000 of ongoing additional revenue being available for General Fund uses. This change will not increase taxes or fees charged, but will lower the amount of City sales and use taxes that vendors are allowed to retain in exchangefor the service they provide in collecting City taxes. Currently, vendors are allowed to retain 3%of sales and use taxes collected, up to a maximum of$90 per reporting period. Under the proposed fee, vendors will retain I%of the tax, up to $45 per reporting period. BACKGROUND History The vendor fee is a service fee that is retained by sales tax licensees in recognition of their work in collecting the City's sales and use taxes. The fee was originally established to acknowledge that merchants incurred a cost for collecting sales taxes including accounting work and the completion of paper forms for remitting the sales tax collection. With increasingly automated accounting processes, the cost incurred by vendors has decreased as their "point ofsale"software makes these calculations for the vendor. In the past, the vendor fee has been paid at different rates. The original vendor fee of 3%with no cap was first changed in 1989. The 1989 change limited vendors to 3%of the first$3,000 in sales tax they collected,plus I%of all taxes thereafter. In April2004, the vendorfee was further reduced to the current formula, with a cap of$90 per reporting period. 304 November 6, 2007 The current vendor fee allows licensees to keep 3% ($90) of the first $3,000 of sales tax collected during each reporting period as a service fee for collecting the tax. The fee maybe retained only if the return is filed and paid on time. In order to keep the full vendor fee of$90 each reporting period(monthly/quarterly/annually), a vendor must reach at least$100,000 in net taxable sales. Generally, the top 250 vendors reach the $90 vendor fee cap each month. There are approximately 9,800 active sales tax licenses. Less than 5%of vendors reach the sales volume needed to keep the full vendor fee each month. Over time, the changes in the vendor fee have resulted in businesses retaining a smaller amount of City sales and use tax as a service fee. The following chart illustrates the history of the vendor fee taken by businesses: +,000.000 600.�6 eoa.aoo C ♦00.000 200,000 206, 2W2 2" 20 2 6 2" Yur Recommended Change to the Vendor Fee Currently, approximately $700,000 is retained each year by businesses as a vendor fee. Staff is proposing that the vendor fee be further reduced to 1%, yielding approximately $390,000 of additional revenue available to the City General Fund. The proposed vendor fee will allow vendors to keep 1% ($45) of the first $4,500 in tax collected. Vendors will keep approximately $310,000 annually, which will result in the City realizing a greater share of the actual sales and use tax collected. This does not change the sales tax rate that residents pay, but rather recoups a greater amount of it from the vendors who collect the taxes on the City's behalf. 305 November 6, 2007 Vendor Fee Distribution $800,000 $700.000 $600,000 szee,000 $500,000 $300,000 5420,000 +� " $200,000 I I ilr v 6i IIu EOt�EEi'$1o0,000 '' Ilij'. I�I �Ei�'IYi E I Szn000 , I, I'i a hyi.; II ' tiijE ixl l; ., Igx li Current Vendor Fee Proposed Vendor Fee OTop 250 Vendors ®AII Other Vendors The top 250 vendors currently keep 40%of the total vendor fee. The proposed vendor fee will allow these vendors to keep 30%of the total. Thus, more than 9,000 vendors with active sales tax licenses will keep a greater share of the vendor fee under the proposed changes. Comparison of Proposal to Other Municipalities In reviewing the proposed vendor fees of other regional municipalities, the City's revised fee will be average. Others have higher fees, while several neighboring communities pay no fee to vendors. The chart shows the vendor fees of comparable cities compared to the recommended vendor fee for Fort Collins. " Councilmember Troxell asked if the$390,000 of additional revenue that will come from the reduced vendor fees could be directed specifically to economic development efforts and not just included in the General Fund. City Manager Atteberry stated earmarking those revenues specifically for economic health is not best practice. The 2008-2009 Budget, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading, contains items that were added in with expectation of the funding provided by these revenues. Those items are not necessarily related to economic health. Chuck Scest, Finance Director, added the area of economic health is funded from the General Fund. Earmarking the vendor fees for economic health limits flexibility, should a different priority arise. Councilmember Troxell made a motion,seconded by Councilmember Poppaw,to adopt Ordinance No. 130, 2007 on First Reading. 306 November 6, 2007 John Knezovich, 1205 Green, stated businesses are acting as agents of the City by collecting taxes and the paperwork does take time and is expensive, especially for small businesses. He did not support lowering the vendor fee. Bruce Lockhart, 2500 East Harmony Road, stated removing the vendor fee would not benefit the community and he did not support the ordinance. City Manager Atteber y stated the recommendation to lower the vendor fee is based on what other cities are doing across the Front Range and is data-driven. The Budget is not balanced based on the reduction in the vendor fee but it does provide a way to fund critical areas, particularly affordable housing and other human services. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Hutchinson, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Roy and Troxell. Nays: Brown. THE MOTION CARRIED. Ordinance No. 131, 2007, Amending the City Code Regarding Nuisance Abatement Collections and Liens, Adopted on First Reading The following is staff s memorandum on this item. "FINANCIAL IMPACT This Ordinance will result in an increased ability to collect delinquent abatement charges. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City Code currently permits imposing tax liens on properties for unpaid abatement assessments in three separate sections ofthe Code. The proposed changes to each section will clarify the process and make each section consistent with the others. Neighborhood and Building Services'(NBS)Director and staff recommend making changes to the Code regarding the procedures for recouping the City's costs of abating nuisances, sidewalk snow removal, and forestry encroachments. These changes will provide the City with an efficient mechanism with which to place liens on propertiesfor unpaid and delinquent abatement charges. " Councilmember Troxell asked how these Code changes will provide a more efficient mechanism for enforcement without encroaching on individual property rights. Beth Sowder,Neighborhood Services Manager, stated the efficiency occurs internally and clarifies that the Director of Neighborhood and Building Services can certify that billings were done in accordance with the Code and with that certification,the Finance Director can send the certification 307 November 6, 2007 to the County so liens can be placed on properties. As the Code is now written,both the Director of Neighborhood and Building Services and the Finance Director must both certify the billings. The Ordinance makes this certification process the same in separate sections of the Code. No enforcement standards are changed. Councilmember Troxell made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Manvel,to adopt Ordinance No. 131, 2007 on First Reading. Yeas: Brown, Hutchinson, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Roy and Troxell. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Executive Session Authorized Councilmember Ohlson made a motion,seconded by Councilmember Manvel,to go into Executive Session to consider the possible acquisition and disposition of real property and to confer with the City Attorney regarding related legal issues, as permitted by Sections 2-31(a)(2) and 2-31 (a)(3) of the City Code. Yeas: Brown,Hutchinson,Manvel,Ohlson,Poppaw,Roy and Troxell. Nays:None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Other Business Marty Heffernan, Culture, Parks, Recreation and Environment Executive Director, stated direction was sought from Council regarding the possible continuation of the existing Library Capital Expansion Fee that is a fee on new residential construction for the purpose of offsetting the impact of a growing population base on existing library services. The fee is used to buy books, materials and to create additional library space in order to serve new people in the community. These fees are now being used to build the Southeast Branch Library and to fill the Library with books,materials, technology and furniture. Now that the Library District has been formed,it has been in negotiations with the City and one critical issue in those negotiations is whether or not the Library Capital Expansion Fee will continue. The District has requested that the City consider continuing collection of the fee, at least through 2008. The amount of the fee is approximately $459 per residential construction unit and is a one-time fee. One issue related to this fee is that the District's boundaries are not the same as the City's boundaries. The District has had conversations with the County to determine if the County would create a companion fee similar to the City's fee so that all District residents would be treated relatively equally with regard to the capital expansion fee. The County has expressed interest and has the ability to create the fee, as long as the money is used to benefit residents in unincorporated areas. The District would agree that,if the City would agree to continue its Capital Expansion Fee, it would use the money to benefit City residents. John Knezovich, 1205 Green, Library Board of Trustees Treasurer, stated at the time the Library District was formed, it was authorized to levy 3 mills of property taxes to provide and expand the level of library services. Approximately$5.9 million will be collected from the 2006 property taxes. 308 November 6, 2007 Another$575,000 was collected from specific ownership tax from license registrations. The District also collects BCC taxes and, beginning in 2008, will collect BOB taxes until 2015. The District is mandated to spend the funds collected from BOB on technology. The District will collect a total of $7.5 million of revenue and will spend$5.5 million. Next year,the District will open the Southeast Branch Library and the expected cash outflow will be approximately $700,000. The projected surplus is $3.6 million by the end of 2009. The main library is 32 years old and is in great need of expansion and renovation. The population served by the library has expanded greatly. The surplus is for long-term capital needs. The Capital Expansion Fee must be used for capital expansion and not for renovation. The District would like the City's Library Capital Expansion Fee continued through 2008 to cover the costs associated with the Southeast Branch Library. City Manager Atteberry noted there is currently enough money from fees already collected to pay for the cost of the Southeast Branch Library,should Council choose to stop collection of the Library Capital Expansion Fee. Councilmember Brown asked what would be the impact on the District if the City were to discontinue the Expansion Fee. Mr. Knezovich stated the District was concerned that the costs of finishing the interior of the Southeast Branch Library would be much greater than expected and continuing to collect the Expansion Fees at least until the end of 2008 is a good way to ensure enough funds are available. There are future large capital needs for the Library District. The District needs Fort Collins to continue to collect the Capital Expansion Fee so Larimer County will have incentive to create a similar fee for its residents in unincorporated areas. Mayor Hutchinson proposed keeping the Library Capital Expansion Fee in place until mid-year 2008 and then Council would review when there were more facts available. Mr.Knezovich urged Council to continue the Expansion Fee indefinitely to allow the Library District to develop and allow the District to negotiate with Larimer County about a companion fee. Shelly Kalkowski, 6575 Rookery Road, Library Board Trustee, stated the team working on the Southeast Branch Library has worked hard to hold costs down as much as possible. The Project is down to "bare bones"to have a building that meets LEED-mandated requirements for gold, which does add 6-10% to the cost. There have been many trade-offs such as using carpet instead of recycled rubber flooring to save costs. The Project has a cost-reimbursable contract on the shell. If the Fee is not continued through 2008, it is likely the Project will need to be redesigned with features eliminated that are in the current design and the functionality, comfort and convenience of the building will be diminished. This would shortchange taxpayers who have already contributed impact fees over the years. She urged Council to continue to collect the fees,at a minimum,through 2008 to ensure completion of the Southeast Branch Library. Councilmember Manvel stated the District is projected to have $2 million in surplus funds in the next year or so, but those funds are needed for future capital needs such as major renovation of the main library. Property taxes were intended to pay for operation of the library, not complete the Southeast Branch Library, which was intended to be built with Capital Expansion Fees. He supported continuing the Capital Expansion Fee. 309 November 6, 2007 Mr.Knezovich noted the Friends of the Library have raised significant donations that are also being used to build the Southeast Branch Library. Councilmember Ohlson asked for a list of cost overruns on the Southeast Branch Library. City Manager Atteberry noted the cost overruns were due to increasing costs in steel and other materials and the team was working very hard to hold costs down. Councilmember Ohlson asked for clarification concerning the collection of BCC taxes mentioned by Mr. Knezovich as he thought those taxes were no longer being collected. Heffernan stated that was correct and the money was spent on land for the performing arts and the library. There are BOB funds still being collected and that is money to be used on technology at the library. Council supported continuing the Library Capital Expansion Fee until the Southeast Branch Library is fully funded, then it would review the issue. Councilmember Poppaw requested Council support for staff to bring forward a resolution opposing the possible mining of uranium in Weld County at the December 4th meeting. Councilmember Ohlson made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Manvel, to adjourn to 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday,November 13, 2007 to conduct the annual evaluations of the City Manager, City Attorney and Municipal Judge and to conduct any other business that may come before the Council. Yeas: Brown, Hutchinson, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Roy and Troxell. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 1:15 a.m. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk 310 November 13, 2007 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, November 13,2007, 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, Hutchinson, Manvel, Ohlson,Poppaw,Roy, and Troxell. Staff Members Present: Atteberry, Krajicek, Roy. Executive Session Authorized Councilmember Ohlson made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Manvel, to adjourn into Executive Session under Subsection 2-3 1(a)(1)(a) of the City Code for the purpose of conducting the annual performance reviews of the City Manager, Municipal Judge, and City Attorney, and to discuss their proposed compensation and benefits. Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Ohlson, Poppaw, Roy and Troxell. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. ("Secretary's Note: The Council adjourned into Executive Session at 6:00 p.m. and reconvened following the Executive Session at 9:30 p.m.) Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk 311