The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 01/16/2007 - CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE O ITEM NUMBER: 6 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY DATE: January 16, 2007 FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL STAFF: Wanda Krajicek SUBJECT Consideration and Approval of the Minutes of the October 3, 2006 Regular Meeting. October 3, 2006 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, October 3,2006, 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, Kastein, Manvel, Ohlson, Roy and Weitkunat. Staff Members Present: Atteberry, Krajicek, Roy. Citizen Participation Mayor Hutchinson stated each participant would have two minutes to speak. Tom Sutherland, 812 Garfield Street, spoke in support of ballot measure 5C relating to the library district. Kellie Cremer, 1225 West Prospect Road,spoke against prairie dog fumigation on natural areas and asked Council to launch an independent investigation of the Natural Resources Department staff. Toni Lueck, 2400 North Taft Hill Road, spoke in support of funding for Dial-a-Ride. Laura Sebastian, 2917 Oxford Court,opposed prairie dog fumigation and asked the Council for an investigation of the Natural Resources Department. Dr. Ed Siegel, California resident, stated he had launched a national campaign to make the national anthem singable and asked for local support for this campaign. Viviana Armendariz, 820 Mergenser Drive, Apt. 908, supported funding for Dial-a-Ride. Mike Devereaux, 2150 Maid Marian Court, spoke in support of Dial-a-Ride funding. Angela Byrne, 2921 Timberwood Drive, supported funding for Dial-a-Ride. Maryanne Ingratta,3314 Sharps Court,chair of the Human Relations Commission,read a resolution adopted by the Commission in support of Referendum I relating to domestic partnerships. William Mygdal,4716 Regency Drive,spoke in support of ballot measure 5C relating to the creation of a library district. Joann Ginal, 316 East Magnolia, Human Relations Commission member, spoke in support of Referendum I relating to domestic partnerships. 301 October 3, 2006 Matt Wildhagen, 614 Cowan Street, opposed prairie dog fumigation in natural areas. Sarah Allmon, 1200 East Stuart Street, #38, spoke in support of funding for Dial-a-Ride. Jenny Shock, 3604 Mt. Ouray Street, Wellington, supported funding for Dial-a-Ride. Elaine Boni, 1608 Prospect Lane, Human Relations Commission member, supported Dial-a-Ride funding and the HRC resolution on Referendum I. Lynn Barrett,4305 29th Street Road,Greeley,opposed prairie dog fumigation and asked the Council to order a fumigation moratorium. Bud Herin, 415 South Howes Street, representing the Senior Advisory Board, spoke in support of Dial-a-Ride funding. Mayor Hutchinson asked if Council wished to continue Citizen Participation beyond the allotted 30 minutes. The consensus was to continue Citizen Participation. Sam Freund, 1942 Seven Lakes Drive, Loveland,business owner, opposed prairie dog fumigation. Robert Foster, 4313 New Bedford Drive, supported Dial-a-Ride funding and suggested a grandfathering process for current Dial-a-Ride customers if funding cuts must be made. Marty Tharp, 601 Birky Place, supported ballot measure 5C relating to creation of a library district. Ashlie Lund, 2828 Silverplume#G-2, spoke in favor of continued funding for the Youth Activity Center. Christie Schler, 1618 Northbrook Drive, supported Dial-a-Ride and fixed route funding. Jim McCauley,3617 Woodridge Road,supported ballot measure 5C relating to creation of a library district. CourtneyHealey, 1600 West Plum Street,Coloradoans for Fairness,spoke in support of Referendum I relating to domestic partnerships. Al Baccili, 520 Galaxy Court, stated Dial-a-Ride should be the number one funding priority and opposed creation of a library district. He suggested creation of a Dial-a-Ride district instead. Citizen Participation Follow-up Mayor Hutchinson thanked those who spoke during Citizen Participation. City Manager Atteberry stated contrary to the input of some of those who spoke during Citizen Participation the City did not "rush to kill prairie dogs." He stated he had provided Council with 302 October 3, 2006 information on previous and current Citypolicies regarding prairie dogs and would provide this same information to members of the public on request. Mayor Hutchinson suggested citizens obtain the information to "get the facts." Councilmember Kastein commented the Human Relations Commissions members had stated their opinions about Referendum I and noted that the Commission was advisory to and did not"represent" the Council. Commission members were able to state their opinions but the Council had not taken a position on Referendum I. He would personally be in opposition to the Referendum if the Council was to discuss taking a position. The City was$5.8 million short in sales tax revenues for 2007 and there was over$1 million in unexpected expenses. The City had looked at over$3 million in budget cuts and had looked at about$3 million in fees. There were significant General Fund budget issues that had not been resolved. The Youth Activity Center was a$700,000 item and Dial-a-Ride was a$1.1 million item. The Council did not want to cut anything but that some things would have to be cut. The Council was looking at options. Councilmember Ohlson asked for information on what was spent in 2005 for Dial-a-Ride and what was projected for 2006 through 2008. It was important for people to understand how much the City was spending on Dial-a-Ride and that it was not being eliminated. He would like to look at some of the issues brought up by speakers. The City had been serving areas outside of the City limits and he would like to know the number of rides per day beyond the City's service area. He had difficulty with the concept that some City residents would have the service and others would not. He believed the City still had work to do on the prairie dog policy and City interpretation of the policy. Councilmember Roy thanked the members of the Human Relations Commission and others who spoke during Citizen Participation. Agenda Review City Manager Atteberry asked that item#6 Second ReadingofOrdinance No. 133, 2006,Authorizing the Grant of an Access, Drainage, and Utility Easement from the City to The Greens at Collindale Homeowners Association be postponed indefinitely. City Attorney Roy stated an affirmative vote on the Consent Calendar would reflect postponement of this item indefinitely instead of to a November 7, 2006. Mayor Hutchinson suggested that this be made part of the motion regarding adoption of the Consent Calendar. Karen Rose, 5200 Parkway Circle East, requested withdrawal from the Consent Calendar and separate discussion of item #7 Second Reading of Ordinance No. 139, 2006, Amending Land Use Code Sections 3.8.7(a)(3)© Regarding Amortization of Nonconforming Signs and 3.8.11(b) Regarding Fencing; item#8 Second Reading of Ordinance No. 140, 2006, Amending Chapter 26, Article VI, Division 4 of the Code of the City Relating to Rates and Charges for Electric Service; item#9 Second Reading of Ordinance No. 141, 2006, Amending Chapter 26, Article VII, Division 2 of the Code of the City Relating to Stormwater Fees;item#10 Second Reading of Ordinance No. 142, 2006, Amending Chapter 15, Article XI of the Code of the City of Fort Collins Pertaining to Secondhand Dealers and Flea Markets; item #11 Second Reading of Ordinance No. 143, 2006, 303 October 3, 2006 Amending Section 4-73 of the Code of the City offort Collins Relating to the Possession of Wild or Exotic Animals; item#13 Second Reading of Ordinance No. 145, 2006, Amending Section 17-101 of the City Code Establishing Criteria for Discharge of a Weapon Permit; and item #22 Items Relating to the Front Range Second Rezoning and Structure Plan Amendment. CONSENT CALENDAR 6. Postponement of Second Reading of Ordinance No 133,2006,Authorizing the Grant of an Access Drainage and Utility Easement from the City to The Greens at Collindale Homeowners Association to November 7. 2006. D.Geisler Development and Packard Enterprise,Inc.is developing The Greens at Collindale PUD, First Replat, located on South Lemay Avenue adjacent to Collindale Golf Course, which is owned by the City of Fort Collins. The proposed access, drainage, and utility easement will relocate and provide a necessary detention area for the development. The Greens at Collindale Homeowners Association has requested that the developer put funds into an escrow account to ensure completion of improvements associated with the easement. The developer does not believe this is necessary. A postponement of Second Reading until November 7,2006 is requested as the developer and the Homeowners Association have not yet reached an agreement on this issue. 7. Second Readingof Ordinance No. 139 2006 Amendin Land Use Code Sections g 3 8 7(a)(3)(c) Regarding Amortization of Nonconforming Signs and 3.8.11(b) Regarding Fencing. This Ordinance,unanimously adopted on First Reading on September 5,2006, changes the amortization period from 5 years to 7 years for nonconforming permanent signs located on properties annexed into the City and allows barbed wire fences and electrically charged fences used for livestock and pasture management in UE and RUL zones. 8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 140, 2006, Amending Chapter 26, Article VI, Division 4 of the Code of the City Relating to Rates and Charges for Electric Service. This Ordinance was unanimously adopted on First Reading on September 5,2006 and uses Utility reserve funds to cover all except 5% of the 25% mandated service rights fee for Poudre Valley Rural Electric Authority (PVREA) customers in the Southwest Enclave Annexation area. 9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 141,2006, Amending.Chapter 26, Article VIh Division 2 of the Code of the City Relating to Stormwater Fees. This Ordinance, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on September 5, 2006, phases in monthly stormwater utility fees over a five-year period, charging 20%of the total fee the first year, then 40, 60, 80 and 100%, respectively. 304 October 3, 2006 10. Second Reading of Ordinance No 142 2006,Amending Chapter 15,Article XI of the Code of the City of Fort Collins Pertaining to Secondhand Dealers and Flea Markets. This Ordinance was unanimously adopted on First Reading on September 5, 2006. It changes the licensing requirements for secondhand dealers/flea markets so that the owner of the flea market is the licensed secondhand dealer rather than the individual booth operators and specifies record keeping requirements for flea market operators so as not to put an undue burden on individual booth operators, while still addressing and satisfying the intent of the record requirements of identification of stolen property. Minor changes were made between First and Second Readings in order for the City and Police Services to have records of all vendors during the permit period,rather than just those renting only at the time of application. This will enable greater accountability and ease in enforcement should a question arise regarding a certain item of property. 11. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 143, 2006, Amending Section 4-73 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins Relating to the Possession of Wild or Exotic Animals. This Ordinance, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on September 5, 2006, exempts animal shelters and bird rescue and education centers from restrictions on the possession and feeding of wild animals. 12. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 144, 2006,Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue in the General Fund for the Natural Resources Radon Program and Authorizing the Transfer of Matching Funds Previously Appropriated in the Natural Resources Operating Budget to the Grant Project. The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment has awarded the City a$5,760 grant for continuing education and outreach to encourage radon testing and mitigation. This Ordinance,unanimously adopted on First Reading on September 19,2006,appropriates the unanticipated grant revenue for this program. Matching funds of$5,760 will be provided from the existing 2006 Air Quality Improvement Budget. 13. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 145, 2006, Amending Section 17-101 of the City Code Establishing Criteria for Discharge of a Weapon Permit. This Ordinance,which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on September 19, 2006, amends the City Code to provide the Police Chief authority to issue a non-transferable, revocable permit allowing the discharge of firearms or weapons by any public or private entity or private person at a specific location to test-fire firearms cleaned or repaired at a licensed firearms dealer's business location within appropriately zoned areas of the City and only to those businesses operating prior to annexation. 305 October 3, 2006 14. Second Readine of Ordinance No. 146.2006.Authorizing the ConvevanceofaConservation Easement on City Natural Area Property(Round Butte Ranch Phase 2) to Larimer County and Authorizing a Related Grant Agreement with the Board of the Great Outdoors Colorado Trust Fund. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on September 19,2006, authorizes the conveyance of a 720-acre conservation easement on Round Butte Ranch, Phase 2, to Larimer County and authorizes a grant agreement with the Board of the Great Outdoors Colorado Trust Fund. The City will receive a$212,700 grant from Great Outdoors Colorado to support the conservation of the property. The grant requires that a conservation easement be placed on the property and conveyed to a qualified third party. The conservation easement acknowledges and protects the natural qualities of the property. It also allows a single five- acre building envelope as well as continued ranching and other compatible activities. 15. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 147, 2006,Authorizing the Conveyance of a Telephone Cable Right-of-Way Easement to Owest Corporation on CathyFromme Prairie Natural Area. There is an existing telephone cable running along the north edge of Cathy Fromme Prairie where it abuts Taft Canyon Subdivision to the north. Qwest acknowledges the cable was put in by Qwest and that Qwest is presently using the cable for telephone service. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on September 19, 2006, conveys a perpetual, nonexclusive easement for the Qwest telephone cable. 16. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 149,2006,Appropriating Unanticipated Revenues in the 013ys General Fund and Prior Year Reserves in the Wastewater Fund for the Purpose of Recording the Transfer of Certain Surplus Properties from the Utilities to the General Fund in Exchange for Certain Properties Historically Used for Utilities Purposes but Not Acquired with Ratepayer Revenues and Approving Said Transfer. This Ordinance,unanimously adopted on First Reading on September 19, 2006, exchanges properties between Utilities and other non-Utilities City purposes. City staff has identified two properties formerly used by Utilities but no longer needed for Utilities purposes - the remaining 25-acre portion of the Wastewater Utility's Resource Recovery Farm and the Electric Utility's Old Power Plant Building at 430 North College Avenue. In exchange for these properties, four properties will be transferred to Utilities. The properties to be transferred to Utilities include three sites that are,and have for years,been in use for Utilities purposes but were not purchased with Utilities funds initially: the Water Treatment Plant#1 site(the area not in use as Gateway Park),the Old Waterworks property on North Overland Trail, and the Mulberry Wastewater Treatment Plant. The fourth property for possible transfer to Utilities is the Police Annex site, Lots 36 and 37, less the north 80 feet,of Block 32 in the City of Fort Collins. This property may be an appropriate future location for Utilities' Customer Information Services office,when it is relocated from 330 South College Avenue. The Charter requires Utilities to reimburse other City funds for services received, and vice-versa. The City's Real Estate Services staff has prepared value estimates for each of the properties and,based on those estimates,Utilities will pay the amount of$13,400,the difference in total values, to the General Fund in order to make the exchange an even one. 306 October 3, 2006 17. Items Relating to the Manufacturing Equipment Use Tax Rebate Program. A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 151, 2006, Continuing and Modifying a Manufacturing Equipment Use Tax Rebate Program for Fort Collins Manufacturers. B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 152, 2006, Appropriating Prior Year Use Tax Carryover Reserves for the Manufacturing Equipment Use Tax Rebate Program. The Manufacturing Equipment Use Tax Rebate Program was intended to encourage reinvestment by local manufacturing firms in new manufacturing equipment. The goal of the Program is to maintain the local economic base by providing modest tax relief to manufacturing concerns located in Fort Collins. Investment in manufacturing equipment used to be made every three or four years,but the current standard is every twelve to eighteen months. The Program remains an economic incentive for retaining local manufacturers. Modifications were last made in 1999 to reflect requests made by the manufacturing community. This year, staff received input from local manufacturers and reviewed the current Program and proposes this Ordinance to modify the Program to better serve the manufacturing business community. 18. First Reading of Ordinance No. 153, 2006, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves and Unanticipated Revenue in Various Funds and Authorizing the Transfer of Appropriated Amounts Between Funds or Projects. The purpose ofthis annual'clean-up"ordinance is to combine dedicated revenues or reserves that need to be appropriated before the end of the year to cover the related expenses that were not anticipated and, therefore, not included in the 2006 budget. The unanticipated revenue is primarily from fees, charges, rents, contributions and grants that have been paid to City departments to offset specific expenses. 19. First Reading of Ordinance No. 154, 2006, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in Street Oversizing Contributions-in-Aid in the Street Oversizing Fund for the Drake and Zeigler Road Improvements, Phase 2. Arterial street improvements are planned for Ziegler Road,from Environmental Drive south to Horsetooth Road (approximately 4,500 linear feet). These street improvements will include realigning and constructing Ziegler Road to a minor arterial street standard, relocating a portion of the Fossil Creek Inlet Ditch("FCRID")to accommodate the arterial roadway,the construction of a bridge over the Foothills Channel,the construction of abridge over the FCRID, and the construction of an outfall channel from the existing Rigden Pond to the Poudre River. In order to facilitate the roadway construction in 2007, the relocation of the FCRID and the construction of the bridge structures need to be completed this winter, prior to irrigation season. 307 October 3, 2006 In meeting City requests for off-site improvements, developers are able to choose between actually building the improvements or paying the City an equivalent amount that the City then spends when it determines it is most appropriate to do so. These payments are referred to as the"contributions-in-aid-of-construction." This appropriation of the contributions-in- aid-of-construction will allow engineering and bid documents to be prepared and construction of the structures and ditch relocation to be awarded prior to the 2007 construction season. Staff has coordinated this project with the planned construction of a new trunk sewer line to be constructed by the City's water and wastewater utility. This is the second phase of the Drake Road and Ziegler Road Improvement Project. The first phase consisted of roadway improvements on Drake Road from Timberline to Environmental Drive. 20. First Reading of Ordinance No. 155, 2006, Temporarily Suspending the Operation and Enforcement of the Land Use Code and Zoning Map Regarding the Usage of the "Ricker Building" as an Emergency Daytime Severe Winter Weather Shelter for the Homeless. Local health and human service agencies have asked the City to assist in providing a facility to house a temporary emergency daytime shelter for the homeless in the event of severe winter weather. This Ordinance allows for the use of the facility at 220 North Howes Street as an emergency severe weather shelter until April 30, 2007. 21. First Reading of Ordinance No. 156,2006,Amending Section 4.17(B)(2)©of the Land Use Code to Add a Permitted Use to the R-D-R,River Downtown Redevelopment Zone District. This is a request for a text amendment to the Land Use Code to add Health Clubs as a permitted use in the River Downtown Redevelopment Zone District. The new use is proposed as being subject to Administrative Review (Type One). 22. Items Relating to the Front Range Second Rezoning and Structure Plan Amendment. A. Resolution 2006-101 Amending the City's Structure Plan Map. B. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 157, 2006,Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins by Changing the Zoning Classification for that Certain Property Known as the Front Range Second Rezoning. This is a request for a City Structure Plan amendment and rezoning of45 acres located along the west side of South College Avenue from Trilby Road to Skyway Drive. The 45 acres are part of a larger, 58-acre land area. The current City Structure Plan and zoning map both designate an integrated pattern of NC, Neighborhood Commercial, and MMN, Medium Density Neighborhood, and C, Commercial Corridor, for this land area. This request would revert the 45-acre subject area to C, Commercial zoning, and thereby consolidate the whole 58-acre area into C,Commercial zoning. (The difference of 13 acres is already zoned Commercial.) 308 October 3, 2006 23. Items Relative to the New Dawn Fort Collins (Rigden Farm) Rezoning and Structure Plan Amendment. A. Resolution 2006-102 Amending the City's Structure Plan Map. B. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 158, 2006,Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins by Changing the Zoning Classification for that Certain Property Known as the New Dawn Fort Collins Rezoning. This is a request to amend the City Structure Plan and zoning map on a 3.9 acre parcel located at the southeast corner of Iowa Drive and Limon Drive, in the Rigden Farm development. The current City Structure Plan designation is Neighborhood Commercial Center, with zoning the corresponding NC - Neighborhood Commercial District. The applicant proposes a Structure Plan amendment on 3.9 acres to Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood. 24. First Reading of Ordinance No. 159, 2006, Authorizing the Acceptance of a Donation of Real Estate from Everline LLC and Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue to the Natural Areas Fund. The property to be donated is a 72.195 acre parcel known as Tract B,Fossil Lake PUD,First Filing,Fort Collins, Colorado. The current owner and donor is Everline, LLC, a subsidiary of the Everitt Companies. The owner of this tract purchased and developed approximately 200 acres of land along the north shore of Fossil Creek Reservoir. The subject parcel,Tract B, abuts the Fossil Creek Reservoir shoreline and is subject to a conservation easement granted to Latimer County by the Everline LLC in 1999. 25. First Reading of Ordinance No. 160, 2006, Authorizing a Right-of-Way Easement and Tempora_ry Construction Easements on City-Owned Property at Meadow Springs Ranch for Overland Pass Pipeline Company, LLC. Overland Pass Pipeline Company,LLC,has requested a right-of-way construction easement to construct a liquid natural gas pipeline through the Meadow Springs Ranch,owned by the City. This Ordinance will authorize conveyance of the right-of-way easement and temporary construction easements. 26. Resolution 2006-103 Making an Appointment to the Women's Commission. A vacancy currently exists on the Women's Commission due to the resignation of Paula Cole. Councilmembers Weitkunat and Ohlson reviewed the applications on file and interviewed one new applicant. The Council interview team is recommending Jill Walusis to fill the vacancy. ***END CONSENT*** 309 October 3, 2006 Ordinances on Second Reading were read by title by City Clerk Krajicek. 7. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 139, 2006, Amending Land Use Code Sections 3.8.7(a)(3)(c) Regarding Amortization of Nonconforming Signs and 3.8.11(b) Regarding Fencing. 8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 140, 2006, Amending Chapter 26, Article VI, Division 4 of the Code of the City Relating to Rates and Charges for Electric Service. 9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 141, 2006,Amending Chapter 26, Article VII, Division 2 of the Code of the City Relating to Stormwater Fees. 10. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 142,2006,Amending Chapter 15,Article XI of the Code of the City of Fort Collins Pertaining to Secondhand Dealers and Flea Markets. It. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 143, 2006, Amending Section 4-73 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins Relating to the Possession of Wild or Exotic Animals. 12. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 144, 2006,Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue in the General Fund for the Natural Resources Radon Program and Authorizing the Transfer of Matching Funds Previously Appropriated in the Natural Resources Operating Budget to the Grant Project. 13. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 145, 2006, Amending Section 17-101 of the City Code Establishing Criteria for Discharge of a Weapon Permit. 14. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 146,2006,Authorizing the Conveyance of Conservation Easement on City Natural Area Property(Round Butte Ranch Phase 2) to Latimer County and Authorizing a Related Grant Agreement with the Board of the Great Outdoors Colorado Trust Fund. 15. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 147, 2006, Authorizing the Conveyance of a Telephone Cable Right-of-Way Easement to Qwest Corporation on Cathy Fromme Prairie Natural Area. 16. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 149,2006,Appropriating Unanticipated Revenues in the City's General Fund and Prior Year Reserves in the Wastewater Fund for the Purpose of Recording the Transfer of Certain Surplus Properties from the Utilities to the General Fund in Exchange for Certain Properties Historically Used for Utilities Purposes but Not Acquired with Ratepayer Revenues and Approving Said Transfer. 30. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 150, 2006, Authorizing Amendments to the Intergovernmental Agreements Between the City and Poudre School District and Thompson School District Pertaining to the Land Dedication and In-Lieu Fee Requirements Contained in Such Agreements. 310 October 3, 2006 31. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 148, 2006, Authorizing the Grant of a Non-exclusive Easement and Right-of-Way to Platte River Power Authority for Construction and Maintenance of a 230kV Transmission Line. 32. Items Relating to the Southwest Enclave Annexation and Zoning. A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 137, 2006 Annexing Property Known as the Southwest Enclave Annexation. B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 138,2006,Amending the Zoning District Map of the City of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in Phase One of the Southwest Enclave Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado. Ordinances on First Reading were read by title by City Clerk Krajicek. 17. Items Relating to the Manufacturing Equipment Use Tax Rebate Program. A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 151, 2006, Continuing and Modifying a Manufacturing Equipment Use Tax Rebate Program for Fort Collins Manufacturers. B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 152, 2006, Appropriating Prior Year Use Tax Carryover Reserves for the Manufacturing Equipment Use Tax Rebate Program. 18. First Reading of Ordinance No. 153, 2006, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves and Unanticipated Revenue in Various Funds and Authorizing the Transfer of Appropriated Amounts Between Funds or Projects. 19. First Reading of Ordinance No. 154, 2006,Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in Street Oversizing Contributions-in-Aid in the Street Oversizing Fund for the Drake and Zeigler Road Improvements, Phase 2. 20. First Reading of Ordinance No. 155, 2006, Temporarily Suspending the Operation and Enforcement of the Land Use Code and Zoning Map Regarding the Usage of the "Ricker Building" as an Emergency Daytime Severe Winter Weather Shelter for the Homeless. 21. First Reading of Ordinance No. 156,2006,Amending Section 4.17(B)(2)0 of the Land Use Code to Add a Permitted Use to the R-D-R,River Downtown Redevelopment Zone District. 22. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 157, 2006, Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins by Changing the Zoning Classification for that Certain Property Known as the Front Range Second Rezoning. 23, Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 158, 2006, Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins by Changing the Zoning Classification for that Certain Property Known as the New Dawn Fort Collins Rezoning. 311 October 3, 2006 24. First Reading of Ordinance No. 159, 2006, Authorizing the Acceptance of a Donation of Real Estate from Everline LLC, and Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue to the Natural Areas Fund. 25. First Reading of Ordinance No. 160, 2006, Authorizing a Right-of-Way Easement and Temporary Construction Easements on City-Owned Property at Meadow Springs Ranch,for Overland Pass Pipeline Company, LLC. 33. First Reading of Ordinance No. 161, 2006, Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins by Changing the Zoning Classification for that Certain Property Known as the Harmony and Shields Rezoning. Councilmember Weitkunat made a motion to adopt and approve all items not withdrawn from the Consent Calendar and to postpone item#6 Second Reading of Ordinance No. 133, 2006,Authorizing the Grant of an Access, Drainage, and Utility Easement from the City to The Greens at Collindale Homeowners Association indefinitely. Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein, Manvel, Ohlson, Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Consent Calendar Follow-uu Councilmember Ohlson commented on the adoption of item #17 Items Relating to the Manufacturing Equipment Use Tax Rebate Program. He requested the following items be scheduled on the Discussion Agenda rather than the Consent Calendar on October 17,2006 because he still had some questions and concerns: item #19 Ordinance No. 154, 2006, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in Street Oversizing Contributions-in-Aid in the Street Oversizing Fund for the Drake and Zeigler Road Improvements, Phase 2; item # 21 Ordinance No. 156, 2006, Amending Section 4.17(13)(2)(c) of the Land Use Code to Add a Permitted Use to the R-D-R, River Downtown Redevelopment Zone District;item#22 Ordinance No. 157, 2006,Amending the Zoning Map of the City offort Collins by Changing the Zoning Classification for that Certain Property Known as the Front Range Second Rezoning; and item#23 Ordinance No. 158, 2006,Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins by Changing the Zoning Classification for that Certain Property Known as the New Dawn Fort Collins Rezoning. He would try to get his questions answered prior to Second Reading and the decision regarding placement on the agenda would be up to the Leadership Team. Councilmember Reports Councilmember Weitkunat reported on the opening and inauguration of Bobcat Ridge, the City's newest natural area. 312 October 3, 2006 Councilmember Ohlson commented on the Bobcat Ridge opening and reported on the Old Town Greek Festival. He asked that the Old Town fountain be repaired. Ordinance No. 150,2006, Authorizing Amendments to the Intergovernmental Agreements Between the City and Poudre School District and Thompson School District Pertaining to the Land Dedication and In-Lieu Fee Requirements Contained in Such Agreements,Adopted on Second Reading. The following is staffs memorandum on the item. "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Since 1998, the City of Fort Collins has collected a fee-in-lieu of land dedication for both Poudre School District and Thompson School District. These fees allow a residential developer to pay a school site fee to the School Districts rather than to dedicate a parcel of land to the District for development of future schools. The ability of the school districts to require land dedication is provided under State of Colorado Statute. The last time the amount o these fees was adjusted was in 2001. This Ordinance, adopted on First f f J P Reading on September 19, 2006 by a vote of 6-1 (Nays:Brown), changes the amount of the fees for each district and also modifies the fee structure to reduce the cost in payments for larger, multi- family developments. The school districts requested a substantial increase to the fees in reaction to substantial increases in the cost of securing appropriate school sites. The Ordinance was amended on First Reading to phase in the fee increase for the Poudre School District. The first increase will take place on January 1, 2007 and increase the fee to $1200 per dwelling unit. The second increase to $1800 per dwelling unit will occur on January 1, 2008. " Mayor Hutchinson stated the City and School District had discussions relating to the review of the Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA). This item was being considered by the Council with the understanding that there was a commitment to review the IGA. City Manager Atteberry introduced staff members and School District representatives who would be available to answer any questions. Mayor Hutchinson stated participants would each have five minutes to speak. Michelle Jacobs, Homebuilders Association of Northern Colorado, opposed the fee increase and questioned the Poudre School District's methodology for calculating the fee. She stated the fee increase would be a hardship on the"softening"real estate market and the Council had a choice on whether or not to approve the fee increase. Council could choose a lower fee and still renew the Intergovernmental Agreement. She asked that the Council adopt a lower fee as was done by the Town of Wellington. 313 October 3, 2006 Dave Dunn,5148 Augusta Trail,opposed the fee increase and compared the proposed Poudre School District school site sizes with the school site sizes used by Highland Park, Illinois. It was difficult to provide citizen input on the fee calculation because the fee was determined by the School District. There needed to be a"defined assessment process"to determine when the fees would be evaluated. All levels of government needed to be involved and the fees should not continue to be"imposed in a vacuum"by the School District. He asked the Council to ask questions about the fee calculation methodology before imposing the fee. Councilmember Brown stated he had asked questions posed by his constituents and he had not received answers. City Manager Atteber y stated he forwarded Councilmember Brown's questions to Superintendent Wilson shortly after they were received. He did not believe the City staff was equipped to answer School District standards questions. Councilmember Brown read his questions into the record as follows: (1) why the need for fees regarding the construction of new schools when the overall enrollment is dropping;(2)why not close schools that have extremely small enrollment numbers;(3)could the District cover some ofthe costs of new construction by selling off schools that are not being utilized; (4) why does the District believe that more land and large buildings equate to better learning and better test scores; (5) he would like an overall view from Poudre School District on what cuts have been made(this goes back to the acreage per school site calculation);and(6)what are the projected enrollment numbers for the next 10 years. Councilmember Kastein asked if Councilmember Brown was looking for a response from Poudre School District. He stated the first question was important to him and asked Councilmember Brown to read that question again. Councilmember Brown stated the first question was why there was a need for fees for construction of new schools when the overall enrollment was dropping. Councilmember Kastein asked if there was a response from staff or Poudre School District. Jerry Wilson,Poudre School District Superintendent, stated he would have Jim Sarchet respond to the first question. He asked that the focus remain on the fees themselves because some of the questions began to "stray into other areas." What was most pertinent for the Council was the discussion about the fee. Jim Sarchet, Poudre School District Assistant Superintendent, stated enrollment was "flat"rather than declining. He stated the smallest class was now in the 4th grade and there were larger classes in the lower grades. Growth was expected in the future in southeast Fort Collins where land remained for development. The population in the area was expected to increase by 78%by 2035. The School District needed to continue to look for school sites to meet that anticipated future growth. Councilmember Kastein stated he viewed the Council role on this as being different than it would be if the Council "owned this issue." There were two levels of government involved in this issue. 314 October 3, 2006 The Council had a"severe"public process on any fee increase requiring formal Council action. He had hoped to see documentation of this kind of process in the School Board discussions i.e., the formal action that was taken by the Board of Education on this fee increase. He asked for information on the School Board's process. Superintendent Wilson stated the Board took official action on May 8. The Board adopted a Resolution supporting the recommendation that was brought forward based on the consultant's report. The Board reviewed the components of the fee structure at that time. It was"confusing"to compare different structures with the School District's fee structure. The School District was building"quality schools for a quality community"and the School District was looking toward the future. Councilmember Kastein asked if the $1,800 fee was approved by the School District in May. Superintendent Wilson replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Weitkunat stated one difficulty was the five-year delay in making a fee increase and the need for such a substantial increase. She asked if the School District methodology to calculate fees had changed over the last five years i.e., whether there was now a new planning standard. Assistant Superintendent Sarchet stated the School District had adjusted the acreage for high schools downward from 100 to 80 acres and the acreage for junior high schools was also adjusted downward from 50 acres. Superintendent Wilson stated one of the main factors in the per unit cost was the cost per acre. Councilmember Weitkunat made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Manvel, to adopt Ordinance No. 150, 2006 on Second Reading. Councilmember Weitkunat stated the City did need to have a discussion with the School District regarding the Intergovernmental Agreement. This would take time and would involve more than a discussion of the in-lieu-of payments. Phasing in the fee over two years would make this more palatable. Mayor Hutchinson stated this issue was "different"than most issues that came before the Council and this fee would be spread out over two years. He noted there was a commitment to a thorough review of the IGA. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Hutchinson, Kastein, Manvel, Ohlson, Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: Councilmember Brown. THE MOTION CARRIED. Mayor Hutchinson thanked the School District representatives for participating in the discussion. 315 October 3, 2006 Ordinance No. 148, 2006, Authorizing the Grant of a Non-exclusive Easement and Right-of-Way to Platte River Power Authority for Construction and Maintenance of a 230kV Transmission Line. Postponed to December 5. 2006. The following is staffs memorandum on the item. "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Platte River Power Authority is requesting a 75 foot wide, non-exclusive easement for a 230kV transmission line across Colina Mariposa Natural Area along the east side of Shields Street, south of Trilby Road. Staff was aware that the Natural Areas Easement Policy does not allow overhead power lines to be built across natural areas and has worked with Platte River for over a year to find a solution. Platte River has offered to perform a number of extensive mitigation projects in hopes the policy can be waived in this instance. Staff and the Land Conservation and Stewardship Board have concluded that the alignment of the transmission line is the only reasonable alignment and the mitigation projects offered serve to mitigate the impacts to the natural area and surrounding open spaces. This Ordinance, adopted on First Reading by a vote of 4-3 (Nays: Manvel, Ohlson, Roy), authorizes conveyance of a non-exclusive easement. " Mark Sears,Natural Resources Department,stated this Ordinance would grant permission to Platte River Power Authority to construct a transmission line across the Colina Mariposa Natural Area. The project would improve the power supply to the City of Loveland. Staff had worked with PRPA for over a year on this easement request. PRPA indicated during the discussions that the transmission line would be placed underground if that was the City's desire. PRPA explained the high cost and the difficulty of placing a high voltage transmission line underground and requested that the City consider accepting a number of mitigation measures to offset the visual impacts to the Loveland-Fort Collins community separator area. The City's easement policy required the alignment across a natural area must be the"only reasonable location"for that line. Staff had concluded this was the only reasonable alignment for connecting the two substations. Staff noted there would be significant visual impacts due to the overhead transmission linebut had determined that the proposed mitigation measures would outweigh the impacts and the overall effect to the community separator corridor would be a net benefit to that area. He presented visual information showing the proposed mitigation projects: (1) undergrounding of a mile of power line along the west side of College Avenue adjacent to the Long View Open Space; (2)undergrounding of approximately two miles of power line adjacent to the west side of Shields Street across the McKee Farm Open Space and along the western side of the Colina Mariposa Natural Area; and (3) undergrounding the current City of Fort Collins line running along Trilby Road and along the railroad tracks across from Colina Mariposa. The three mitigation projects would underground approximately four miles of line. PRPA had also offered two other mitigation projects to place conservation easements on a parcel of property being acquired and on a 20-acre parcel already acquired by PRPA. PRPA had also offered to grant the City an easement across both parcels for a 1 1/4 mile bike trail. Staff reviewed the easement policy and believed this exception to the policy was warranted. The easement request was taken to the Land Conservation and Stewardship Board,which approved(with one dissenting vote) the alignment along the railroad track. The Board discussed the exception to the easement policy, 316 October 3, 2006 the visual impacts,the pros and cons of the various alignments,the ecological impacts,and the cost of undergrounding compared with an overhead line. The Board determined the significant visual impacts would be outweighed by the proposed mitigation projects. Council received a petition from the residents of the Ridgewood Hills Subdivision east of Colina Mariposa and staff asked the Land Conservation and Stewardship Board to take another look at the alignment. The petition requested the alignment be moved to the east side of Shields Street. The Board then recommended(with one dissenting vote) that the alignment be moved to the location along Shields Street. One Council question was whether staff was aware of any other transmission easement request and that staff was not aware of any such request. The goal of the easement policy was to be`reasonable." Staff and the Board both believed this was a `reasonable request" and the mitigation projects would be "reasonable" and would warrant this exception to the natural areas easement policy. Mike Dahl, Platte River Power Authority Electric Operations Division Manager, stated the PRPA Board of Directors adopted a policy stating preference would be given to building transmission lines overhead because of the cost difference between overhead and underground lines. The policy provided that,when circumstances warranted because of existing land uses or other factors,the lines would be placed underground. PRPA was"cautious"about the use of funds and there was a large capital budget plan for the next 10 years. PRPA believed the natural area was a good location for the transmission line. The only other option PRPA had that might affect a natural area for the next 10 years was to re-conductor an existing transmission line from Timberline and Prospect three miles to the south. There were no other plans in the Fort Collins area that would affect natural areas. He presented visual information showing the Colina Mariposa natural area, the PVREA substation at the Shields and Trilby intersection,the current view of the proposed alignment and photo simulations after project completion. Mayor Hutchinson stated each audience participant would have two minutes to speak. Ray Schultz,625 Holyoke Court, stated it was not environmentally responsible for PRPA to pursue a waiver of the established natural areas policies to place 80-90 foot high voltage lines spaced 12 feet apart or to create a scar across the Colina Mariposa Natural Area that would never heal. Sue Lewsader, 6701 Holyoke Court, questioned why the new power line along the railroad track could not be buried at the same time the existing power line was buried. She asked that the power line be buried. Kevin Haussler, 1215 Vinson Street, expressed concern that the people in his neighborhood were not notified of the proposed power lines that would be near their backyards and stated the power lines would have visual impacts and affect property values. David Brock, 6731 Holyoke Court, stated the old power lines would be buried and replaced by "objectionable" 84-foot power lines where prohibited in an open s ace area. This woul d"open the door" to power lines in other open spaces. The additional cost to bury the lines would amount to "pennies per month" on residential bills. 317 October 3, 2006 1 Leslie A. Howitt, 7421 Stonington Court, stated open space should be preserved and the decisions made today would have impacts far into the future. Approval of this waiver would be a"dangerous precedent." Gina Heath,7457 Stonington Court,stated these power lines would impact property values and there was an alternative to bury the lines. Mike Farrell, 518 Ramah Drive, Ridgewood Hills Homeowners Association President, stated granting this easement was a direct violation of the natural areas policy and noted the lines could be buried. He stated Mayor Hutchinson should recuse himself from voting on this issue because he was a member of the PRPA Board of Directors. Joe McCarthy, 6713 Holyoke Court, stated 22 of the 23 homeowners opposed this power line. He asked that these power lines be placed underground. Linda Bokovitz, 7103 Sedgwick Drive, stated the cost of undergrounding the power lines would be minimal over time. Yvonne Pedersen, 6915 Sedgwick Drive, stated the homeowners were concerned about the impact of the 85-foot power poles. She asked that power lines be placed underground wherever possible in Fort Collins. She asked the Mayor to comment on why it was not a conflict of interest for him to vote on this matter since he was a member of the PRPA Board of Directors. Tom Woods, 7245 Fort Morgan Drive, stated building 85-foot towers in a natural area would "negate" the natural areas policy. He questioned whether the proposed mitigation would be sufficient and stated the cost should be paid by the Loveland area, which would benefit from these lines. Andy Piszkin, 6915 Sedgwick Drive, stated this would be an "eyesore" and that the proposed mitigation measures would result in a"bigger pile of rubbish." He stated the cost would be about 10¢ per household per month to bury this power line to preserve the view of the natural area. Jennifer McKee, 1230 Vinson Street, representing Registry Ridge, expressed concern that the neighborhood was not notified about this proposal. She asked for more information on what it would cost per household to underground the line. Jesse Lenz,7257 Fort Morgan Drive,stated the power poles would obstruct the view and expressed concern about the health effects of high voltage power lines. Thomas Ely, 721 Snyder Court, stated it would be a mistake to make an exception to the policy that would set a precedent for all of the natural areas. He stated the power line should be buried. ("Secretary's Note: The Council took a brief recess at this point in the meeting.) 318 October 3, 2006 Mayor Hutchinson stated the Mayor was an ex-officio member of the Board of Directors of Platte River Power Authority. He stated this was not a "personal relationship" and he took his responsibilities as a member of that Board, representing the City, very seriously. City Attorney Roy stated there was a provision in the City Charter that defined a personal or financial conflict of interest. The City Code addressed potential conflicts of interest or appearance of conflicts of interest arising from this kind of appointment to another Board. He stated that,unless there was some "personal interest", the appointment would not create a conflict of interest. Mayor Hutchinson stated his service on the PRPA was a"duty"he carried out in the best interest of the City. Councilmember Ohlson stated the community's support for natural areas and open space was clearly expressed by those who spoke. He did not want the Council to make a"hundred year mistake" He would like to see a map showing how many miles this would be and where this power line would go. He was interested in more than the part that was before the Council. He asked if part of the power line would go through Pine Ridge or Coyote Ridge in existing easements and if that kind of graphic was available. Sears stated that map was not available. Councilmember Ohlson asked for an estimate of how many miles of the line would go through natural areas. Mr. Dahl stated the Dixon Creek Substation was at the west end of Drake Road and there was a Western Area Power Administration transmission line south of the substation in an easement that had been there since the 1950s. The WAPA transmission line went through the Pine Ridge Natural Area, up one of the dams, and went down the first ridge of foothills, ending up at a small substation at the south end of Horsetooth Reservoir. The proposal was to replace old poles with new and taller stand-alone steel structures. From the substation back across the first ridge of foothills and down to Trilby Road there was a Poudre Valley REA/Tri-State Generation and Transmission line that fed a substation on Trilby Road and Shields. PRPA was also proposing to rebuild that line,which had been there for a number of years. The WAPA line went through the Pine Ridge Natural Area and the Tri-State line on Trilby was at the northern edge of the Coyote Ridge Natural Area. Councilmember Ohlson stated he wanted to lay the groundwork for other questions relating to 85- foot poles adjacent to or through natural areas, whether or not that was part of the motion Council would be considering. He asked about the purpose of the lines that were being discussed i.e., whether they were to serve the new $20 million American Honda Motor Company data center in Longmont, for future backup power for Loveland, etc. He would like to know who would benefit from these poles. Mr. Dahl stated the line from Dixon Creek Substation to the northwest part of Loveland was being constructed as part of three projects. The Fort Collins project at the Dixon Creek Substation would be finished this fall and a new line would be extended to the northwest corner of Loveland to provide additional reliability for service to Loveland and to interconnect the transmission systems for the two cities. There was no direct connection to Longmont. There was a separate proposed project for Longmont and he understood that the American Honda Motor Company data center would be built next to an existing substation. All ofPRPA's transmission lines were interconnected. 319 October 3, 2006 Councilmember Ohlson noted the item before the Council was a 1 to 1 1/2-mile line. He asked if the lines in Pine Ridge or Coyote Ridge would be related to the Longmont issue. Mr. Dahl stated this project was not intended to support the Longmont transmission system. Councilmember Ohlson noted Sears had mentioned that if the City really wanted the line to be undergrounded,PRPA would do that. He asked if that was a correct representation. Mr.Dahl stated if the City indicated it did not want PRPA to build the proj ect as proposed then PRPA would go back and look at the plans. The transmission line did need to be built. PRPA would find the best way to accomplish that, and one of the possibilities would be to underground it. Councilmember Brown asked if the high voltage lines could be buried with the utility lines along the railroad tracks and,if so,what would be the cost. Mr. Dahl stated it was"technically possible" and it would be necessary to create enough of a separation so the heating effect of the high voltage cables did not affect the capacity of the lower voltage distribution cable. The only economy of scale would be in the trenching operation. The conduit system and the cable systems would be kept totally separate. Councilmember Brown asked if there was a possibility that money could be saved with this alternative. Mr. Dahl stated PRPA had not looked into that alternative but this could be done. Councilmember Brown stated a citizen had heard the 85-foot poles would be painted brown. Mr. Dahl stated there were three types of poles PRPA had experience with and one type of pole was a self-rusting material called Cotten steel that turned dark brown. Galvanized steel poles required a coating to keep it from rusting, and there were painted poles such as those in Steamboat Springs. He stated PRPA did not want to paint poles because of the long term maintenance issues. Councilmember Brown asked if this line was buried what kind of precedent would be set for the line to the south. Mr. Dahl stated PRPA believed that if the line was buried across the natural area it would be appropriate to bury it all the way to the substation. He stated it was about 2-1/2 miles from Trilby to the terminal substation. Councilmember Brown asked about the cost to bury the line. Mr. Dahl stated the cost to bury 2-1/2 miles of line would be approximately$6.25 million. Councilmember Brown asked where the line would pop up if this part was buried. Mr. Dahl stated the line could be buried for one mile and a transition pole would be installed where the underground cables would connect to overhead wires. Councilmember Brown asked how many poles there would be in a mile. Mr. Dahl stated poles would be set at 600-700 feet apart and that there would be 8-9 poles in one mile. Councilmember Manvel noted that the cost would be $6.25 million for an underground line and $1.25 million for an aboveground line for the whole stretch and the difference would therefore be about $5 million. Mr. Dahl agreed. 320 October 3, 2006 Councilmember Manvel stated there was discussion that it would cost about$100,000 in increased revenue each year to pay for each$1 million in additional cost and asked that this be addressed. Mr. Dahl stated the interest rate would require a revenue component of about$65,000 per year. He stated PRPA needed to ensure that it was viewed as"fiscally responsible"to have a good bond rating and this was done since inception by generating revenues that were 11/2 times the debt service requirements. The additional revenue of$35,000 beyond the$65,000 needed to pay the interest was also needed for future capital projects. Councilmember Manvel suggested perhaps this additional cost should not be assigned to this project. He understood people would be paying more on their electric bills but if only two-thirds was the "cost"for the undergrounding,then the bills were being increased to pay for the undergrounding and to improve PRPA's future financial condition. Mr. Dahl stated this was the standard practice applied by PRPA to all capital projects i.e.,this was the way to recover revenue to ensure sufficient funds for future capital improvements so that"borrowing does not get out of hand." Councilmember Manvel asked if this was a"sinking fund"to reduce future indebtedness. Mr.Dahl replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Manvel stated the figures provided b PRPA implied that about a third of one � P Y P percent would be required for an electric rate increase. Mr. Dahl stated the effect on the rates charged by the City of Fort Collins would be about .07%per$1 million in additional cost. Councilmember Manvel asked if this meant that the rate increase would be about.35%to offset the $5 million in additional cost. Mr. Dahl replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Manvel asked what this would mean for a typical residential electric bill. Mr.Dahl stated for a$50 electric bill the increase would amount to about 150 to 17¢ per month. Councilmember Manvel noted that this would be "pennies per month." Councilmember Kastein asked if the residential electric rate increase of approximately 15¢ per month would be spread across four cities. Mr. Dahl stated PRPA was owned by Fort Collins, Loveland, Longmont and Estes Park and there was one common wholesale rate for all four cities. Every project that was built was a "shared common expense" for the four cities. PRPA had a substantial capital project plan for the next 10 years and this increase would "add up" when combined with other increases. This was why PRPA was "cautious" about its spending. Councilmember Kastein asked about the previous projects that were mentioned. Mr. Dahl stated about 20 years ago there was a big effort regarding transmission between Fort Collins and Loveland. The cities had grown and there were concerns about the security of the transmission system in the post-September 11 world. PRPA felt it was essential to increase service capacity and to diversify the routes used for delivery. This meant the need for a transmission line on the west side of Fort Collins connecting to the Rawhide plant and the Dixon Creek Substation expansion. This project would connect the westside high voltage transmission line to Loveland and a separate project from Fort St.Wain to Longmont would ensure eastside and westside high voltage delivery for Longmont. 321 October 3, 2006 Those three projects would take care of the major part of the transmission needs for those three cities for more than 10 years. Councilmember Kastein stated it was mentioned that transmission lines were buried in Loveland and Longmont. He asked if there was an impact to ratepayers as a result of the decision to bury those lines. Mr. Dahl replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Kastein noted the Council could make a decision now on behalf of ratepayers in the whole distribution system and other decisions had been made affecting rate increases for City residents. He asked how decisions were made about what was "fair" i.e., if this was done through the PRPA Board. Mr. Dahl stated the PRPA Board had the authority to make decisions about the money spent,the budgets adopted,the capital projects authorized, etc. Staff provided project plans to the Board that made sense. There was generally no discussion on the Board about"who was being favored"by a project. There was a "collective wisdom about the value of an adequate supply of electricity at a reasonable price." Councilmember Kastein asked if the Council should look at what would benefit Fort Collins. Mr. Dahl stated the Council should make a decision based on what Council believed was right for Fort Collins. Councilmember Kastein stated burying the lines was the "easy choice"but there would be a cost involved. He asked about the impact of spending an additional$5 million on future capital projects. Mr.Dahl stated this cost and other costs would add to a"cumulative"effect requiring a rate increase. He stated"in isolation"this cost would not cause rates to be increased. Councilmember Manvel asked for a comparison of the capacities of this line and the lines that were placed underground in Loveland and Longmont. Mr. Dahl stated the voltage for the lines that had been buried were 115,000 volts. He stated 230 kV underground cable was relatively new. The distribution voltages would probably be 12,000 to 13,000 volts. Councilmember Manvel asked about the cost factor. Mr. Dahl stated there was significantly more copper in the cable and a different insulation composition. The cable used for undergrounding would be about five inches in diameter with a core of copper that would be 1-inch to 1 1/4-inches in diameter. There would be a dense polyethylene plastic that would provide the insulation. The cable and the labor for installation were costly. Councilmember Weitkunat made a motion,seconded by Councilmember Brown,to adopt Ordinance No. 148, 2006 on Second Reading. Mayor Hutchinson stated he had comments from the Board perspective. There were four cities involved in sharing the expense. Platte River Power Authority planned to spend $53 million on additional generation power and transmission projects. PRPA was a well-managed entity, it was environmentally responsible, and it made"intensive efforts"to control costs and provide services. The issue was the common good of four cities compared with the good of some residents. 322 October 3, 2006 Councilmember Ohlson offered a friendly amendment to grant the non-exclusive easement with a requirement for undergrounding. Councilmember Weitkunat stated she would accept that as a friendly amendment. City Attorney Roy stated that if it was Council's intent to require the line to be placed underground then he would recommend Council not pass this Ordinance and instead direct staff to come back with a different Ordinance. This Ordinance would not work for a number of reasons for that purpose. Councilmember Ohlson asked that the main motion be withdrawn and that direction be given to staff to bring back the appropriate Ordinance requiring undergrounding. THE MOTION WAS WITHDRAWN. Mayor Hutchinson asked if staff would need to draft a new Ordinance. City Attorney Roy replied in the affirmative and stated if Council wanted the line to be placed underground it would be appropriate to make a motion to postpone consideration of this item on Second Reading and direct staff to bring back a version on Second Reading that would require undergrounding of the lines. Councilmember Kastein made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Manvel, to postpone Ordinance No. 148, 2006 on Second Reading to December 5, 2006 and to bring back an option to require undergrounding of the line. Councilmember Brown stated he would like to see the cost to locate the line along the railroad line when this Ordinance was brought back. Councilmember Kastein stated there was a"public good and a private good"and he had heard from many constituents on this issue. It was important to look at the costs to understand how this would affect everyone. The cost to ratepayers would be $5 million and other capital projects may be delayed. He would support the motion to come back with an underground option "with reservations." The good of the neighborhood was outweighed by the good for the natural areas and viewshed. The small cost to ratepayers meant it made sense to explore the undergrounding option. The Council must consider the common good as well as the neighborhood good. Councilmember Weitkunat stated she respected the relationship between the City and PRPA. It was important the two work together to do "good work" for the people of Fort Collins and the other communities. She appreciated the work that had been done to try to find a solution that would work for everyone. It was important to provide the best service to residents at a fair cost. The cost per ratepayer would be small but such costs do add up. She was also sensitive to City policies and one policy was to underground utilities. The natural areas policy plan also prohibited overhead lines. It was important to "honor" that policy. Councilmember Manvel stated the suggested mitigation efforts were low cost ways to improve the visual environment of the community. He wanted to encourage PRPA to continue to consider 323 October 3, 2006 removing the power lines along Shields Street and College Avenue. The cost of$760,000 would mean a rate increase of about 300 per ratepayer over the next 20 years. Councilmember Roy stated he would support the motion. Both the community-owned utility and the community-owned natural areas were"valuable." The cost to underground this section of the line was minimal for the benefit of protecting the viewshed. Councilmember Ohlson stated PRPA was well represented by Mr. Dahl. There were"costs"other than financial costs. There would be long term costs associated with permanently damaging the natural areas. In the future the City's notification process needed to be improved for these types of issues. He believed the word "mitigation"was improperly used in the agenda materials since the proposed measures would not have mitigated these poles. He would"enthusiastically"support the motion. Mayor Hutchinson stated the motion was to postpone and it was good to bring back the undergrounding option so that additional information could be provided. He hoped people now understood the City-PRPA relationship. He thanked Mr.Dahl for his fine representation of PRPA. provided to Council on December 5 or if City Manager Atteberry asked if two options were to be p only an undergrounding option was to be provided. Councilmember W eitkunat stated her intent was that a version be prepared for undergrounding.City Manager Atteberry stated he understood that two options should be prepared (overhead and underground). Councilmember Ohlson stated he wanted to clarify that he did not believe that"PRPA is us." He stated the four communities each had two representatives on the PRPA Board and the City could at times be"at odds"with PRPA. Mayor Hutchinson stated his point was that this issue was not the City versus a"evil"private power company. Councilmember Kastein stated it was his intent that the motion be to bring back an option that would include undergrounding. City Attorney Roy stated the confusion related to the use of the word"option,"which implied that there would be two options. Councilmember Kastein stated his intent was to bring one Ordinance relating to undergrounding back for consideration. City Attorney Roy stated that was the clarification that was needed. Mayor Hutchinson asked if staff would provide one option to require undergrounding at the December 5 meeting. City Manager Atteberry replied in the affirmative. 324 October 3, 2006 The vote on the motion to postpone was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein, Manvel, Ohlson, Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Items Relating to the Southwest Enclave Annexation and Zoning, Adopted on Second Reading. The following is staffs memorandum on the item. "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 137, 2006 Annexing Property Known as the Southwest Enclave Annexation. B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 138, 2006,Amending the Zoning District Map of the City of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in Phase One of the Southwest Enclave Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado. This is an involuntary annexation of an enclave area approximately 2.7 square miles (1731 acres) in size,generally bordered on the north by Harmony Road, the south by Trilby Road, South Taft Hill Road on the west and 114 mile east of College Avenue to the east. Ordinance No. 137, 2006, adopted on First Reading on September 5, 2006 by a vote of 5-2 (Nays: Brown, Ohlson), annexed the area into the City of Fort Collins. Ordinance No. 138, 2006, unanimously adopted on First Reading on September 5, 2006, designated zoning of lands contained within Phase One of the Southwest Enclave Annexation. " Mayor Hutchinson noted a number of related items were pulled from the Consent Calendar(items #7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13 and 22) and comments would be taken at this time on those items as well. The Council would be required to vote separately on each item. (**The Council took a brief recess at this point.) Mayor Hutchinson noted extensive public input was expected on the agenda item following this item and he wanted to ensure that both issues received a fair hearing within the allotted time. (After polling the audience,he determined that at least 47 people wanted to speak on the two agenda items.) City Attorney Roy explained the City Council meeting rules. Councilmember Weitkunat questioned whether the Harmony/Shields rezoning matter should be heard at this meeting. Mayor Hutchinson noted the other issue was that the Council must vote separately on each of the pulled Consent Calendar items after voting on the two Ordinances that were part of this item. If the Harmony/Shields rezoning matter was to be continued to the next meeting it must be the first item of business considered. He asked for Council input on how this should be handled. 325 October 3, 2006 Councilmember Ohlson stated he would like to know if both sides on the rezoning issue would like to have the matter heard at this meeting in spite of the potential for a late meeting. He asked if the meeting could continue past midnight if discussion on an item started before then. City Attorney Roy stated would require a vote by a majority of the Council to suspend the rules. Councilmember Kastein asked if the Pulled Consent items could be considered as one item. City Attorney Roy stated each Pulled Consent item was typically considered separately. The Mayor had the option to rearrange the agenda for the purpose of dealing with items as efficiently as possible subject to his determination being overridden by a majority of the Council. Councilmember Kastein asked if the Council could vote once to approve all of the Pulled Consent items. City Attorney Roy stated the question was whether to entertain citizen input on each separate item. Mayor Hutchinson stated he had determined that audience participants would have one chance to speak on this agenda item or any of the related Pulled Consent items. He asked if the Council must vote on those items separately. City Attorney Roy stated given the nature of the items he would suggest a separate vote on each item. Councilmember Kastein suggested evaluating the situation after the Southwest Enclave Annexation item was completed. The consensus was in favor of that suggestion. City Manager Atteber y noted a General Improvement District meeting was scheduled at the conclusion of the Council meeting and asked that the GID meeting be postponed to October 17th. Mayor Hutchinson stated the GID meeting would be postponed. City Manager Atteberry introduced the staff members who were available to answer questions. Cameron Gloss,Current Planning Director,presented background information regarding the agenda item. He noted that, in response to Council questions on First Reading, information had been prepared regarding comparable enclave annexations in other jurisdictions. Staff found there were no other enclave annexations of this size. The Phase 1 Annexation was scheduled to become effective November 1st, based on the recordation date of the annexation map. Staff had already notified agencies that would be impacted by the Phase 1 Annexation,which was primarily frontage along College Avenue containing commercial and residential properties. A series of open houses were scheduled to help business and property owners in Phase 1. Greg Byrne,CPES Director,commented on the concept of grandfathering and non-conforming uses. The Council had an opportunity to exercise discretion to ensure fairness when the rules change,the boundaries change or the community grows. It was Council's judgment whether or not time was of the essence in requiring immediate compliance with City regulations or whether a property could be grandfathered with regard to specific rules. 326 October 3, 2006 Mayor Hutchinson stated each audience participant would have two minutes to speak. The following individuals spoke in opposition to the annexation: Karen Rose, 5200 Parkway Circle East. Sandy Robbins, 5801 South Shields Street. Melinda Cooper, 428 West Skyway Drive(P.O. Box 273281, Fort Collins). Gary Young, 712 Hillview Court. Ken Carson, 5303 Fossil Creek Drive. Joann Malara, 2701 Blackstone Court, Kel-Mar Strip business owner. Neil Hurst, 5221 Griffith Drive. Scott Greer, Kel-Mar Strip business owner. Wayne Anderson, enclave resident. Al Baccili, 520 Galaxy Court. Cheryl Carson, 5303 Fossil Creek Drive. Lynne Block, 5328 Fossil Ridge Drive. The following individual spoke in favor of the annexation: Bryan Schumm, 5948 Colby Street. The following individual spoke in opposition to U-E zoning and in favor of Commercial zoning for his Phase 1 annexation property: Randy Whitman, 209 East Skyway Drive, business owner. Councilmember Ohlson asked where the General Fund revenues of $877,562 referenced in the agenda material would come from. Gloss stated the revenues would come from commercial sales tax collections, sales tax collections on large ticket items purchased by residents of the annexation area, property tax, and permits and fees. Councilmember Ohlson asked if there was information on a specific breakdown of the revenues. Gloss stated a summary of the revenue had been submitted to Council on several occasions. Councilmember Ohlson stated he was responding to a citizen inquiry about that information. Gloss stated the summary had been presented to Council at Work Sessions and in agenda packets. Councilmember Kastein asked if the zoning referenced by a Skyway Drive property owner was included in the Ordinance setting the zoning. Gloss replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Kastein asked staff to comment on the U-E zoning for that parcel of property when there was a "compelling argument' as it was "wedged within a lot of commercial uses." Byrne stated the current County zoning for that property was Farm and the business operated under a County permit as a home occupation. This business would be permitted to continue since it was a legal use in the County. Staff had talked with Mr. Whitman about the proper zoning for a large 327 October 3, 2006 parcel he owned and staff had told him a recommendation would be made at a future time for rezoning a portion of that property to Commercial uses. This would require a Structure Plan Map change. Mayor Hutchinson stated he would entertain motions on the annexation and zoning Ordinances followed by motions on the Pulled Consent items. Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Weitkunat, to adopt Ordinance No. 137, 2006 on Second Reading. Councilmember Kastein stated there had been a lot of discussion on this issue. The Council was not "ignoring" what had been said but was instead "disagreeing" with what was being said. It was beneficial to the City residents and the County to have the City manage urban level development. There had been a"sincere attempt" to allow opportunities for questions and answers. Councilmember Roy stated it would have been a good idea to ask the residents of this area what the City could do to make them want to be annexed. The Council had heard the City needed to be cautious with its open space program so that open space lands were not used to create enclaves and these kinds of"misunderstandings." Urban planning was important for the future of the community. and he hoped everyone would work together to build a vision for this part of the City. Councilmember Weitkunat stated she supported this annexation from the perspective that this was a "wonderful community with good planning and positive direction." There had been "negative commentary" about the annexation. She asked people to look at the positive aspects of the community. The annexation was a "positive step forward" even though the opponents of the annexation did not believe that right now. This was a well-planned community that put great effort into its planning. Councilmember Ohlson stated there were good reasons for involuntary annexations and efficient government could not come from"checkerboard"planning. He would not support the annexation because it was "way outside of my comfort zone." There was too much "manipulation of the organization to create the Enclave." He noted none of the open space purchases had anything to do with creating the Enclave and annexation of open space was different than acquisition of open space. None of the open space was purchased to create the Enclave. He opposed the annexation of the open space when he served on the Natural Resources Advisory Board. This annexation "did not feel right"to him. He had no criticisms of those who would vote in favor of this involuntary annexation. The negative comments about Cameron Gloss were "misplaced" and he was a resource for this community. Councilmember Brown stated there were many"accusations" leveled at City staff at this meeting and he believed staff performed extremely well in a"thankless job."He would like to see the people in the annexation have the right to vote but because this was a phased annexation the residents would not have the right to vote until they were annexed. He would vote against the motion. 328 October 3, 2006 Councilmember Ohlson stated if the property was to be annexed it should be annexed all at once so that residents would have the right to vote in City elections as the City developed new policies. He questioned how people could live in the fast growing Growth Management Area without expecting to be annexed. Councilmember Kastein stated the City could expedite future phases of the annexation. When the open space area was annexed he was fully aware an enclave was being created. He did not vote in favor of the annexation because it would form an enclave,but because the City owned the land and needed to take responsible for policing of the open space adjacent to the City. Councilmember Manvel stated there was no question this area should be part of the City and it would get more expensive to annex down the road. This area belonged in the City and he would support the motion. Mayor Hutchinson stated this was an"extraordinary situation"and the City had taken"extraordinary measures"to mitigate problems. He would vote in favor of the annexation. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Hutchinson,Kastein,Manvel,Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: Councilmembers Brown and Ohlson. THE MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Kastein made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Manvel,to adopt Ordinance No. 138,2006 on Second Reading. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas:Councilmembers Hutchinson, Kastein, Manvel, Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: Councilmembers Brown and Ohlson. THE MOTION CARRIED Ordinance No. 139, 2006, Amending Land Use Code Sections 3.8.7(a)(3)© Regarding Amortization of Nonconforming Signs and 3.8.11(b) Regarding Fencing. Adopted on Second ReadiM The following is staff's memorandum on the item. "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on September S, 2006, changes the amortization period from 5 years to 7 years for nonconforming permanent signs located on properties annexed into the City and allows barbed wire fences and electrically charged fences used for livestock and pasture management in UE and RUL zones." Councilmember Weitkunat made amotion,seconded by Councilmember Ohlson,to adopt Ordinance No. 139,2006 on Second Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers Brown,Hutchinson,Kastein,Manvel, Ohlson, Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: None. 329 October 3, 2006 THE MOTION CARRIED. Ordinance No. 140,2006, Amending Chapter 26,Article VI,Division 4 of the City Code Relating to Rates and Charges for Electric Service.Adopted on Second Reading. The following is staff s memorandum on the item. "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Ordinance was unanimously adopted on First Reading on September 5, 2006 and uses Utility reserve funds to cover all except 5%ofthe 25%mandatedservice rights fee forPoudre Valley Rural Electric Authority (PVREA) customers in the Southwest Enclave Annexation area. " Councilmember Roy made a motion,seconded by Councilmember Manvel,to adopt Ordinance No. 140, 2006 on Second Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein, Manvel, Ohlson, Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Ordinance No. 141, 2006, Amending Chapter 26, Article VII, Division 2 of the City Code Relating to Stormwater Fees.Adopted on Second Reading. The following is staff s memorandum on the item. "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Ordinance, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on September 5, 2006,phases in monthly stormwater utility fees over a five-year period, charging 20% of the total fee the first year, then 40, 60, 80 and 100%, respectively. " Y P Councilmember Weitkunat made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Manvel, to adopt Ordinance No. 141,2006 on Second Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers Brown,Hutchinson,Kastein, Manvel, Ohlson, Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Ordinance No. 142, 2006, Amending Chapter 15,Article XI of the City Code Pertaining to Secondhand Dealers and Flea Markets.Adopted on Second Reading. The following is staff's memorandum on the item. 330 October 3, 2006 "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Ordinance was unanimously adopted on First Reading on September 5, 2006 It changes the licensing requirements for secondhand dealers/flea markets so that the owner of the flea market is the licensed secondhand dealer rather than the individual booth operators and specifies record keeping requirements forflea market operators so as not toput an undue burden on individual booth operators,while still addressing and satisfying the intent of the record requirements of identification of stolen property. Minor changes were made between First and Second Readings in order for the City and Police Services to have records of all vendors during the permit period, rather than just those renting at the time of application. This will enable greater accountability and ease in enforcement should a question arise regarding a certain item ofproperty." Councilmember Roy made a motion,seconded by Councilmember Manvel,to adopt Ordinance No. 142, 2006 on Second Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein, Manvel, Ohlson, Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Ordinance No. 143, 2006, Amending Section 4-73 of the City Code Relating to the Possession of Wild or Exotic Animals,Adopted on Second Reading. The following is staff's memorandum on the item. "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Ordinance, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on September 5, 2006, exempts animal shelters and bird rescue and education centers from restrictions on the possession and feeding of wild animals. " Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Weitkunat, to adopt Ordinance No. 143,2006 on Second Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers Brown,Hutchinson,Kastein, Manvel, Ohlson, Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Ordinance No. 145,2006, Amending Section 17-101 of the City Code Establishing Criteria for Discharge of a Weapon Permit. Adopted on Second Reading. The following is staff s memorandum on the item. 331 October 3, 2006 "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Ordinance, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on September 19, 2006, amends the City Code to provide the Police Chief authority to issue a non-transferable, revocable permit allowing the discharge of firearms or weapons by any public or private entity or private person at a specific location to test-fire firearms cleaned or repaired at a licensed firearms dealer's business location within appropriately zoned areas of the City and only to those businesses operating prior to annexation. Councilmember Kastein made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Weitkunat, to adopt Ordinance No. 145,2006 on Second Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers Brown,Hutchinson,Kastein, Manvel, Ohlson, Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Items Relating to the Front Range Second Rezoning and Structure Plan Amendment.Adopted. The following is staff s memorandum on the item. "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A. Resolution 2006-101 Amending the City's Structure Plan Map. B. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 157, 2006, Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins by Changing the Zoning Classification for that Certain Property Known as the Front Range Second Rezoning. This is a request for a City Structure Plan amendment and rezoning of 45 acres located along the west side of South College Avenue from Trilby Road to Skyway Drive. The 45 acres are part of a larger, 58-acre land area. The current City Structure Plan and zoning map both designate an integrated pattern of NC, Neighborhood Commercial, and MMN, Medium Density Neighborhood, and C, Commercial Corridor,for this land area. This request would revert the 45-acre subject area to C, Commercial zoning, and thereby consolidate the whole 58-acre area into C, Commercial zoning. (The difference of 13 acres is already zoned Commercial.) APPLICANT: Commercial Building Services, Inc. clo Ivor Larsen 7561 South Grant Street, Suite A-4 Littleton, CO 80111 332 October 3, 2006 OWNERS: Lithia Real Estate Inc. 360 East Jackson Street Medford, OR 97501 Front Range Limited Partnership 3573 East Sunrise Drive, Suite 233 Tucson, AZ 85718 COL College and Trilby, LLC President Hunt Douglas R.E. Services P.O. Box 320342 Tampa, FL 33679 Southgate Church, Inc. 6541 South College Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80525 BACKGROUND The applicant, Commercial Building Services, on behalf of the property owners,Lithia Real Estate, Front Range Limited Partnership, COL College and Trilby LLC, and Southgate Church, has submitted a written requestfor the rezoning of 45 acres located along the west side of South College Avenue from Trilby Road to Skyway Drive. The requested zoning for these properties is C, Commercial. Because the properties are currently in the Neighborhood Commercial Center and Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood designations on the Structure Plan, an amendment to the plan is necessary. Four properties are included in the Rezoning and Structure Plan Amendment request. There is a farmstead home and several outbuildings in the middle of the property owned by Front Range Limited Partnership and an existing church on the property owned by Southgate Church at the northwest corner of South College Avenue and Trilby Road. The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: N: Larimer County C, FA; suburban subdivision; highway commercial strip S: Larimer County C, FA; large lot sub; 2 lots converted to commercial E: Larimer County C; highway commercial strip W.• Larimer County R2, FA; suburban subdivision; supported living facility The property was annexed into the City of Fort Collins as the Timan First Annexation on June 7, 1988. The main considerations in staff support for this request are: 333 October 3, 2006 1. The request is to simply revert back to Commercial zoning, which has previously been found appropriate. 2. When the current NCIMMNzoning configuration was approved in 2000, stafffound it to be appropriate, but also found the Commercial zoning in place at that time was appropriate, as well. In other words, either land use/zoning scenario could be appropriate and consistent with City Plan; and either provides a needed land use designation. 3. Freestanding development has occurred on four acres at the northwest corner of South College and Trilby, within the NC area, in a manner more consistent with Commercial zoning than NC zoning. Staff believes these considerations adequately support a conclusion that the Structure Plan needs to be changed in response to this request. A. Context of the Proposed Structure Plan Amendment The City Structure Plan is the primary basis for zoning decisions. An amendment is a prerequisite to this rezoning request. To recommend approval of this proposal,staffand the Planning and Zoning Board have to find that: 1. the existing Structure Plan is in need of change; and 2. the proposed changes would promote the public welfare and be consistent with the vision, goals,principles, and policies of City Plan. These are the applicable criteria, contained in Appendix C of City Plan. B. Staff Analysis-Structure Plan Amendment Stafffznds the requested Commercial Corridor designation acceptable primarily on the grounds that the City has already found this site to be part of the South College Commercial Corridor on the original 1997 City Structure Plan, consistent with all aspects of City Plan;and that it is still a valid perspective. The supermarket-anchored NC district initiative, which was the driving force behind the previous rezoning, is no longer a factor. The need to change the designation to Commercial Corridor is to expand flexibility in commercial land use while still allowing most of the uses permitted in the current set of zone districts. Some factors behind the requested change are the imminent construction of a super center supermarket a few miles south of the subject property, in Loveland, and the continuing influence of commercial corridor uses on the east side of College. C. Rezoning Request 334 October 3, 2006 In order to recommend approval of this proposal, staff and the Planning and Zoning Board would have to find that the rezoning is: 1. consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan; and/or 2. warranted by changed conditions within the neighborhood surrounding and including the subject property. " The above criteria are found in subsection 2.9.4[H][21 ofthe Land Use Code and outline mandatory requirements for quasi-judicial rezonings. In addition, the following subsection 2.9.4[H][3] lists additional factors that may be considered along with the mandatory requirements for this type of quasi-judicial rezoning, as follows: "In determining whether to recommend approval ofany such proposed amendment, the Planning and Zoning Board and City Council may consider the following additional factors: 1. whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment is compatible with existing and proposed uses surrounding the subject land, and is the appropriate zone district for the land; 2. whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment, including but not limited to, water, air, noise, stormwater management, wildlife, vegetation, wetlands and the natural environment'; and 3. whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in a logical and orderly development pattern. " Purpose Statement of the Zone District For convenient reference, the purpose statement ofthe C, Commercial(Section 4.17 ofthe Land Use Code)zone district states: "The purpose ofthe CDistrict is to be a setting for development, redevelopment and inftll ofa wide range ofcommunity and regional retail uses, offices and personal and business services. Secondarily, it can accommodate a wide range of other uses including creative forms of housing. While some Commercial District areas may continue to meet the need for auto- related and other auto-oriented uses, it is the City's intent that the Commercial District emphasize safe and convenient personal mobility in many forms, with planning lannin and design that accommodates pedestrians. " D. Staff Analysis-Rezoning Request 335 October 3, 2006 Is the request consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan? Yes. If the Structure Plan Amendment is supported, then the zoning logically follows. Zoning this site as part of the South College Commercial Corridor is an appropriate fit with City Plan. Have conditions changed in the neighborhood to warrant the rezoning? This was not a decidingfactor in staffs evaluation. Anecdotal information indicates that a recently built superstore in north Loveland has severely defiated market demand for a supermarket-anchored NC district at this location. Is the rezoning request compatible with existing and proposed uses surrounding the subject land and is it the appropriate zoning district for the land? Yes. It is covered by evaluation of the Structure Plan Amendment. Essentially, the original City Structure Plan found Commercial designation appropriate for the South College corridor; and development standards are in place to achieve urban compatibility. Will the rezoning have adverse effects on the natural environment? No. Under either existing or proposed zoning, the same standards for protecting the natural environment will apply. Will the rezoning result in a logical and orderly development pattern? Yes. Previous discussion noted the site as part of the South College Commercial Corridor. FINDINGS After reviewing the Front Range Second RezoningandAmendment to the Structure Plan,staffmakes the following findings offact and conclusions as explained above: 1. This requestfor a Structure Plan amendment adequately demonstrates a need to change the designation, in response to the request. Such a change would be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. 2. This rezoning request is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan based on the Structure Plan amendment. 3. The proposed C - Commercial Zoning District is appropriate for this property as an extension of the South College Commercial Corridor. 4. The proposed rezoning would not result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment. 336 October 3, 2006 5. The proposed rezoning would result in a logical and orderly pattern. RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends approval of the Front Range Second Rezoning and Structure Plan Amendment. PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD RECOMMENDATION The Planning and Zoning Board, at their regular monthly meeting on September 21, 2006, voted 7-0 to recommend approval of the Front Range Second Rezoning and Structure Plan Amendment. " Councilmember Kastein made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Weitkunat, to adopt Resolution 2006-101. Yeas: Councilmembers Brown,Hutchinson, Kastein,Manvel, Ohlson,Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Manvel made a motion,seconded by Councilmember Roy,to adopt Ordinance No. 157,2006 on First Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers Brown,Hutchinson,Kastein,Manvel,Ohlson, Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Meeting Extended Councilmember Kastein made a motion,seconded by Councilmember Brown,to extend the meeting. Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein, Manvel, Ohlson and Roy. Nays: Councilmember Weitkunat. THE MOTION CARRIED. Items Relating to the Harmony and Shields Rezoning and Amendment to the Structure Plan.Adopted. The following is staff s memorandum on the item. 'EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A. Resolution 2006-104 Amending the City's Structure Plan Map. B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 161, 2006, Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins by Changing the Zoning Classification for that Certain Property Known as the Harmony and Shields Rezoning. 337 October 3, 2006 APPLICANT. Michael Markel 5723 Arapahoe Avenue #2B Boulder, CO 80303 OWNER: Darrell Knudson 17731 Irvine Blvd., Suite 202 Tustin, CA 92781 This is a request to amend the Structure Plan map and rezone a 58 acre parcel located on the west side of South Shields Street, north of Harmony Road. The rezone would essentially "switch" portions of the area zoned NC, Neighborhood Commercial, presently located in between the proposed Troutman Parkway extension and Wake Robin Lane, with portions of the area zoned Medium Density Mixed Use Neighborhood district. The resulting zone districts would include an NC-zoned parcel at the northwest corner of Harmony and Shields with the balance of the site zoned M-M-N, Medium Density Mixed Use Neighborhood. BACKGROUND In July 2006, the applicant submitted essentially the same request as the plan previously rejected by City Council earlier this year. The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: N M-M-N Vacant Pine View PUD (expired) R-L, U-E existing single-family residential(Mountain Ridge Farm Subdivision, Skyline Acres); Westfield neighborhood park S: R-L, U-E Existing detached single family residential (Westbury, Ridge, LMN Cottonwood Ridge Subdivisions), Front Range Community College; Harmony branch library E: M-M-N, Existing multi family residential(Woodlands Condominiums) R-L detached single family residential(Woodlands) W.• R-L; Existing detached single family residential(Westbrooke, Regency Park LMN subdivisions);Johnson Elementary, Weber Jr. High School, Dragon's Lair Wetlands;Harmony LDS Church • 1980 The property was annexed and zoned on June 3, 1980 as part of a larger parcel of land bounded by Horsetooth, Harmony, Shields and Taft Hill Roads. The initial zoning was conditioned upon the property being developed as a Planned Unit Development(PUD). 338 October 3, 2006 • 1981 The 67 acre Pineview Master Plan and First Phase Preliminary Development Plan was approved by the Planning and Zoning Board on October 26, 1981. The first phase included approval of 326 multi family units (apartments and condominium units) on 26.9 acres located at the northwest corner of Shields and Harmony Roads. The approved Master Plan included the following programmatic breakdown: Tract A (Phase 1) 326 apartments and condominium units on 26.9 acres Tract B 77 apartment and condominium units on 14 acres Tract C Neighborhood Commercial Center on 16.5 acres with 140,000-150,000 square feet of retail and non-residential uses. Tract D 97 townhouses and condominium units on 8.1 acres Tract E 124 townhouses and condominium units on 10.3 acres • 1983 Preliminary PUD plans for 80 apartment units (Tract B), a 157,500 square foot neighborhood shopping center (Tract C), including a 45,000 square foot grocery store on 17.9 gross acres, 98 condominium units (Tract D), and 114 condominium units (Tract E), were approved by Planning and Zoning Board on July 25, 1983. • 1987 One-year extension to the Tract C approval for a neighborhood shopping center approval granted by Planning and Zoning Board July 27, 1987. • 1997 The City Plan Structure Plan Map was adopted. The map identified a red "dot"on the Pine View property,signifying the location ofa future neighborhood commercial centergenerally fronting on South Shields Street between Wake Robin Lane and future extended Troutman Parkway and the rest ofthe property designated Medium Density Mixed Use Neighborhood. The Zoning Map designated approximately 22 acres on the subject property Neighborhood Center (NC) District, in the area between Wake Robin Lane and Troutman Parkway (extended). The remainder of the subject property was zoned Medium Density Mixed Use Neighborhood(M-M-N). • March 16, 2006 Planning and Zoning Board evaluated a previous Structure Plan Amendment/Rezoning request on this property to "switch"portions of the NC and MMN districts on the subject property, moving a portion of the NC district to the corner of Harmony Road and South 339 October 3, 2006 Shields Street, and unanimously recommended (6-0) that the City Council approve the request. The requested land area proposed for NC designation was 17.9 acres. • AAgri118, 2006 City Council disagreed with the Planning and Zoning Board, denying the previous Structure Plan and Rezoning application on a split vote (4-3). Expressed rationale for the denial was: 1. The loss of predictability for residents reliant on the adopted zoning pattern when they purchased their property; 2. Potential diminution ofsurrounding residential property values; and 3. Economic factors are not appropriate grounds for land use planning decisions. • July 13, 2006 Markel Homes submitted a revised request for Structure Plan Amendment/Rezoning. The revised request is essentially the same as the previously rejected plan. Differences in the submittal packet include a slight reconfiguration/expansion(0.6acres added)of the rezoning area along South Shields Street, a transportation impact memorandum and different written statement discussing how the request meets the review criteria. • September 21, 2006 Planning and Zoning Board recommended 6-1 (Nays: Stockover) that the City Council approve the revised zoning request. Land Use Code: The regulations covering rezonings in the City of Fort Collins are contained in Division 2.9 of the Land Use Code. Section 2.9.4 (H) (2) indicates the following: Mandatory Requirements for Quasi-Judicial Rezonings. Any amendment to the Zoning Map involving the zoning or rezoning ofsix hundred forty(640)acres of land or less (a quasi-judicial rezoning) shall be recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Board or approved by the City Council only if the proposed amendment is: (a) consistent with the City Comprehensive Plan; and/or (b) warranted by changed conditions within the neighborhood surrounding and including the subject property. Section 2.9.4 (H) (3) of the Land Use Code indicates the following: 340 October 3, 2006 Additional Considerations for Quasi-Judicial Rezonings. In determining whether to recommend approval of any such proposed amendment, the Planning and Zoning Board and City Council may consider the following additional factors: (a) whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment is compatible with existing and proposed uses surrounding the subject land, and is the appropriate zone district for the land; (b) whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment, including, but not limited to, water, air, noise, stormwater management, wildlife, vegetation, wetlands and natural functioning of the environment; © whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in a logical and orderly development pattern. APPLICANT'S REQUEST AND JUSTIFICATION: Michael Markel, an authorized representative of the property owner has submitted a rezoning petition and corresponding request to amend the Structure Plan. Reason f request: uest: The applicant's written statement includes the following justification for the City Structure Plan amendment and rezoning: "It is our intention to develop the property in conjunction with a commercial developer. We are currently negotiating with Regency Centers and Safeway to develop the neighborhood center. A letter is provided from Safeway to express their interest in a corner location. We feel strongly that this request is in the best interest of Fort Collins, the existing neighborhood and the success of the new neighborhood center that will be located on the property. The existing Structure Plan is in need of the proposed amendment to reflect the proposed zoning for the following reasons. The Following Mandatory Requirements (Reason for Request)for Quasi-judicial Rezoning applications are listed as (A) and(B) with their representative responses listed below. (A) "Consistent with the Citv's Comprehensive Plan: " The proposed amendment will promote and maintain the existingpublic welfare and will be consistent with the vision, goals, principles and policies of City Plan as outlined below: 341 October 3, 2006 Land Use Neighborhood Centers are typically located at the corner of two arterial roads on the structure plan. The zoning shift will provide a more compact urban design that will be conducive to efficient access for the larger southwest area of town. The zoning shift will enhance the character and sense ofplace by appropriately moving Commercialzoningfrom the backyards oflow-density residential homes and moving it to the corner of 2 major arterial roads. Transportation A memorandum from Delich Associates is provided to highlight general traffic concerns and the proposed zoning shift. The zoning shift will implement land use patterns that will support effective transit, an efficient roadway system and provide for alternative transportation modes on trails and pedestrian street design. With the planned improvements to Harmony Road, commercial will be more centrally located and easier to access for this area of Fort Collins. Community Appearance and Design The proposed shift in zoning will create the best location for a Neighborhood Gathering Place for the greater neighborhood. The requested rezoning will place commercial in the best visual and accessible location and provide for a more appropriate transition of land uses and densities to adjacent property. Economic Sustainability and Development The zoning shift is needed to foster commercial development and encourage investment on this Property. A successful neighborhood commercial development is more economically sustainable at the corner and will attract better commercial anchors, tenants and reduce vacancies. Housing The zoning shift will promote neighborhood stability by moving commercial development away from neighboring single-family homes. The shift in zoning is needed to appropriately transition between adjacent properties and proposed uses to enhance and maintain the neighborhood. Environment The requested zoning is located appropriately for a commercial neighborhood center. Commercial uses are more efficiently accessed at the corner of two arterials as opposed to the middle of the property. 342 October 3, 2006 Open Lands Open lands along the western edge of the property will be maintained along the existing ditch corridor, as a trail and buffer. This trail corridor will promote alternative modes of transportation for walkers and bicyclists. This connection will allow interconnectivity between existing neighborhoods and the proposed commercial center. Growth Management The property is a sustainable infzll site that will increase economic activity in the area to benefit existing residents and businesses. City utilities and services currently exist within and adjacent to the property. (B) "Warranted by changed conditions within the neighborhood surrounding and including the subject property" The Purpose of Neighborhood Commercial Districts "The Neighborhood Commercial District is intended to be a mixed-use commercial core area anchored by a supermarket or grocery store... "—Division 4.19 The availability ofproperties to locate a Supermarket in this area of Fort Collins has changed. The availability of Supermarkets and Grocery stores to anchor this neighborhood center has changed. The grocery market has changed and requires sites to be more accessible and visual to build new exciting stores. Based on these changes, the proposed zoning shift is required to successfully anchor this neighborhood center. Based on trade areas and existing store locations, Safeway is the only potential supermarket for this location and they will not locate there unless located at the corner. Without a strong supermarket anchor, this neighborhood center will not attract as quality tenants or be as viable a gathering place for this area of Fort Collins. "(3)Additional Considerations for Quasi-Judicial Rezoning. " "(a) Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment is compatible with existing and proposed uses surrounding the subject land, and is the appropriate zone district for the land;" 343 October 3, 2006 Appropriate Planning The requested rezoning is more compatible with existing zoning and uses than the existing zoning locations. The shift will promote neighborhood stability by moving commercial development away from neighboringsingle family homes. The requested zoning is the most appropriate zone to transition between adjacent residential properties and proposed uses to enhance and maintain the neighborhood. "(b) Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment, including, but not limited to, water, air, noise,stormwater management, wildlife, vegetation, wetlands and the natural functioning of the environment;" Minimal Impacts • The property is a sustainable infill site surrounded by existing development. • Shifting the existingzoning will not adversely impact the natural environment • Arterial streets are the most appropriate buffer to front commercial uses. "© Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in a logical and orderly development pattern. " Smart Growth Locating Neighborhood Commercial zoning at corner locations is logical and typical in Fort Collins. The proposed shift in zoning is a more orderly development pattern by locating Residential against existing residential back yards and locating commercial along busy arterial roads. " STAFFANALYSIS City Plan Structure Plan Map Minor Amendment: The City Structure Plan envisions neighborhoods as the primary building block to the community. Multiple neighborhoods are viewed as parts of larger residential districts served by a grocery store and otherfrequent destinationsfor its residents. These essential services areprovided to residential districts in "Neighborhood Commercial Centers"which are denoted on the Structure Plan as a red square,rectangle orpolygon. Typically,Neighborhood Commercial Centers are 15-20 acres in size. Such centers are intended to serve as a true focal point for surrounding neighborhoods through not only goods and services but the provision of public gathering spaces and other civic amenities. Neighborhood Commercial (NC) centers work in tandem with, and are surrounded by, Medium Density Mixed Use Neighborhood (MMN) zone districts. The subject property provides both the Neighborhood Commercial Center needed to support surrounding neighborhoods as well as the higher density uses found within the medium density mixed use areas that concentrate housing 344 October 3, 2006 within easy walking distance of services and that provide a transition to the surrounding lower density residential areas. Stafffinds the requested Structure Plan Amendment consistent with adopted City Plan principles and policies. The slight shift of the Neighborhood Commercial Center and Medium Density Mixed Use Residential areas still allow both districts to function synergistically as envisioned under the Plan. The location of existing and planned future roadways, such as Wake Robin Lane to the west, Westbury Drive to the south, and the future western extension to Troutman Parkway to the north, will allow for direct vehicular, bicycle and pedestrian connections to the center. The size of the Center at 18.6 acres is in keeping with the 15-20 acres generally envisioned for such districts. From sta 's ers ective, the ro osed zonin reconfiguration has the benefits relative to the present .ff P P P P g City Structure Plan layout: • The reconfigured Medium Density Mixed Use (MMN) District provides more residential transition to abutting low-density residential development to the west than the existing location. • The relocated NC district will result in fewer existing single family residences directly abutting the commercial center. • Traffic Impacts to the surrounding neighborhood streets to the west will be less with an NC center at the corner of Harmony and Shields. According to the submitted Traffic Analysis prepared by a Professional Traffic Engineer, the proposed location will provide less "cut-through" traffic to neighborhoods lying to the west. This is particularly important given the number ofchildren attending Johnson Elementary School and Webber Junior High School, both located west of the site. • City Plan recognizes the need for a grocery store or supermarket; this configuration is likely necessary if th need is to be met. The applicant has not submitted an amendment to the Open Lands, Parks and Stream Corridors designation that crosses the subject property nor is there a requirement to do so in order for the parcel to be rezoned NC, Neighborhood Commercial. It is acknowledged that the illustration found on the Plan is a very rough approximation ofthe Mail Creek drainage, and that the natural features "on the ground"do not coincide with the generalized pattern shown on the Structure Plan Map. Future development plans on the site will be subject to the requirements of Section 3.4.1 of the Land Use Code protecting significant habitat and natural features. Review Criteria For Structure Plan Minor Amendments Appendix C of City Plan outlines mandatory requirements for public notice, review process and evaluation criteria for minor amendments to City Plan, including Structure Plan map amendments. The Plan text states: 345 October 3, 2006 "A plan amendment will be approved if the City Council makes specific findings that: The existing City Plan and/or related element thereof is in need of the proposed amendment; and The proposed plan amendment will promote the public welfare and will be consistent with the vision goals,principles and policies o i Plan and the .g •P i .f City P P elements thereof. " Relevant Principles and Policies of City Plan PRINCIPLEMMN-2: The layout and design ofa Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood will forma transition and a link between surrounding neighborhoods and the Neighborhood Commercial Center, Community Commercial District, Employment District, or an Industrial District,subject to adjustment for site-specific or pre-existing circumstances such as a major street, major drainageway, or existing development. Policy MMN-2.1 Size. A Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood should extend an average of about one-quarter milefrom the edge of the adjacent Neighborhood Commercial Center, Community Commercial District, Employment District, or an Industrial District, subject to adjustmentfor site specific or pre-existing circumstances such as a major street, major drainageway, or existing development. PRINCIPLE MMN-3: A Neighborhood Commercial Center will provide uses to meet consumer demands from surrounding Residential Districts for everyday goods and services, and will be pedestrian-oriented places as a focal point for the surrounding neighborhoods. Policy MMN-3.1 Land Uses/Grocery Store Anchor. A grocery store, supermarket, or other type of anchor(e.g., drugstore)should be the primary functional offering of these Centers.A mix of retail, professional office, and other services oriented to serve surrounding neighborhoods are the secondary offerings. The Neighborhood Commercial Center will provide locations for some limited auto-related uses. Policy MMN-3.2 Surrounding Neighborhoods. The Neighborhood Commercial Center should be Neighborhood contributing to the integrated in the surrounding Medium Density Mixed-Use , g S tyg g neighborhood's positive identity and image. Residents should be able to easily get to the Center without the need to use an arterial street. PROS Stafffinds the requested Structure Plan Amendment consistent with adopted City Plan principles and policies; articular) the crucial policy o dispersing grocery stores/su ermarkets to serve P pa rticularly P Y .f P g g sY P residential districts. With the current configuration, City Plan tried to embed the NCDistrictfurther into a true neighborhood setting. Since then, communities and urban land interests have explored 346 I October 3, 2006 the issue, and consistently found that market viability requires the shift requested here. Corner locations andtraffic counts still drive grocery location;neighborhood compatibility can be achieved through careful design. Relocation of the Neighborhood Commercial Center and Medium Density Mixed Use Residential areas still allows both districts to function synergistically as envisioned under the Plan, and is apparently necessary to viability of the NCDistrict.From staffs perspective, the proposed land use reconfiguration is an improvement over the present City Structure Plan layout in the following respects: • The reconfigured Medium Density Mixed Use (MMN)District provides a greater buffer to abutting low-density residential development to the west than the existing location. • The relocated NC district will result in fewer existing single family residences within close proximity to the commercial center. • Traffic Impacts to the surrounding neighborhood streets to the west will be less with an NC center at the corner of Harmony and Shields. According to the submitted Traffic Analysis Engineer, the proposed location will provide less "cut- prepared by a Professional Traffic g p p p through"traffic to neighborhoods lying to the west. This is particularly importantgiven the number of children attending Johnson Elementary School and Webber Junior High School, both located west of the site. • Many ofthe design and operational issues cited by neighborhood residents associated with future development on the site can be addressed during the development review process. Land Use Regulations are in place to require that on- and off-site impacts to traffic circulation to/from and within the site, lighting, storm drainage, aesthetics, wildlife habitat, pedestrian safety, are mitigated. • The location of existing and planned future roadways,such as Wake Robin Lane to the west, Westbury Drive to the south, and the future western extension to Troutman Parkway to the north, will continue to allow for direct vehicular, bicycle and pedestrian connections to the center. • The size of the Center at 18.5 acres is slightly more consistent with the 15-20 acres targeted for such districts than the presently designated area of 22 acres. CONS Staff recognizes that there are also the following downsides to the rezoning. However, when taken in the context of larger, City-wide policies of City Plan and the positive attributes stated above, it appears that the revised Neighborhood Center and Mixed Use Neighborhood configuration will continue to promote the public welfare. • Neighboring area property owners relied on the adopted City zoning map prior to purchase; 347 October 3, 2006 • Properties within the Westbury neighborhood and those residential properties fronting the southside of Harmony Road across from the NC district will be 500 feet closer to the commercial center than under the existing location; • The existing Neighborhood Center designation will provide more direct access for some neighboringproperties to the northwest, and southbound on Shields Street, at such time that Troutman Parkway is extended to the west. REQUEST TO REZONE BY RECONFIGURING THE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCL4L, NC,AND MEDIUM DENSITY MIXED NEIGHBORHOOD, M-M-N, —SECTION 2.9.4(H): The request to reconfigure the NC and MMN zone districts is considered quasi-judicial (versus legislative) since the parcel is less than 640 acres. There are five standards that maybe used in evaluating a requestfor a quasi-judicial rezoning. These standards, and how the request complies, are summarized below: Mandatory Standards (Note requirement of either A or B or both A and B): A. Any amendment to the Zoning Map shall be recommended for approval only if the proposed amendment is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan; and/or As stated above under the Structure Plan amendment analysis, staff has concluded that the proposal is consistent with the principles and policies of City Plan, and would be consistent with the Structure Plan but only if it is amended as proposed. B. Any amendment to the Zoning Map shall be recommended for approval only if the proposed amendment is warranted by changed conditions within the neighborhood surrounding and including the subject property. Since the Neighborhood Center and residential densities were established for this property in 1981, the neighborhood surrounding the subject property has changed substantially. Hundreds ofresidential units, schools,parks, a library and public improvements have been made within the market area served by the NC zone district. The Front Range Community College has gone from a small vocational school to an expanded curriculum with approximately 5,200 students. The rezoning acknowledges the relocation of the Neighborhood Commercial district due to the contemporary needs of the grocery industry. The NC and MMNdistricts on the subject property have not developed to date under the vision of City Plan, in part due to the location of the NC district on the subject property. Optional Additional Considerations: A. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment is compatible with existing and proposed uses surrounding the subject land,and is the appropriate zone district for the land. 348 October 3, 2006 The amendment will improve the degree of compatibility between potential future commercial and residential uses and surrounding lower density residential areas. The reconfigured Medium Density Mixed Use District provides a larger buffer and transition to immediately abutting residential development to the north and west than the existing location. Rezoning still allows the Neighborhood Commercial district to work in tandem with the Medium Density Mixed Use zone district. The subject property provides both the Neighborhood Commercial Center needed to support surrounding neighborhoods as well as the higher density uses found within the medium density mixed use areas that concentrate housing within easy walking distance of services and that provide a transition to the surrounding lower density residential areas. B. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment, including but not limited to, water, air, noise, stormwater management, wildlife, vegetation, wetlands and the natural functioning of the environment. Immediately abutting the property to the west is a stormwater detention/wetland area referred to as the "Dragon's Lair Wetland"owned by the City of Fort Collins. In the year 2000, a volunteergroup, Trees, Water and People worked cooperatively with the City ofFort Collins to reconstruct the wetland and further enhance it with native vegetation. There is no evidence that the rezoning will result in significant adverse impacts to the natural environment on- or off-site. At such time that detailed development plans are submitted, the applicant will be required to submit an Ecological Characterization Study, identifying wildlife habitat areas, wetland boundaries, wildlife movement corridors and other natural features and how impacts can be avoided or mitigated through buffer zones and other measures. C. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in a logical and orderly development pattern. As it is proposed to be amended, the rezoning is consistent with the development pattern envisioned under the City's Structure Plan. The revised neighborhood center still focuses the commercial service in a way that best supports neighborhoods as the basic building block to the community. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSION In evaluating the request to amend the Harmony and Shields Structure Plan minor amendment and rezone, staff makes thefollowingfindings offact: 349 October 3, 2006 A. The proposed amendment to the Structure Plan will promote the public welfare and will be consistent with the vision, goals, principles and policies of City Plan and the elements thereof, and the Structure Plan is in need of amendment. B. The rezoning satisfies thefollowing criteria of Section 2.9.4 ofthe Land Use Code,assuming that the Structure Plan is amended as proposed. NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING Although quasi-judicial rezone applications are exempt from the neighborhood meeting requirements, the City sponsored a neighborhood meeting on the evening ofAugust 14, 2006 at the Harmony Library located cater corner to the property. Comments raised at the neighborhood meeting ranged focused largely on transportation impacts with respect to access and safety, compatibility with surrounding existing residential development, and potential future land development patterns. A detailed meeting summary has been provided as an attachment. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the following: A. Approval ofthe requested Structure Plan Map amendment byreconf:guringdesignationsfor the Subject Area on the Plan through relocation of the Neighborhood Commercial Center, presently located in between the proposed Troutman Parkway extension and Wake Robin Lane, to the northwest corner of Harmony Road and Shields Street and designating the balance of the property Medium Density Mixed Use Neighborhood. B. Approval ofthe requested amendment ofthe Zoning Map by reconfiguring the Zoning ofthe Subject Area through relocation of the NC, Neighborhood Commercial zone district, presently located in between the proposed Troutman Parkway extension and Wake Robin Lane, to the northwest corner of Harmony Road and Shields Street and designating the balance of the property Medium Density Mixed Use Neighborhood District. PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD RECOMMENDATION The Planning and Zoning Board, at its regular monthly meeting on September 21, 2006, voted 6-1 (Nays: Stockover) to recommend approval to the City Council of the change to the City Plan Structure Plan map and approval of the requested rezoning. " During the course ofthe Planning and Zoning Board hearing, there was substantial public testimony about the perceived negative impacts that the rezoning would potentially have on the surrounding area, including: 350 October 3, 2006 • The request constitutes a "spot zoning". • A future supermarket on this site could be as big as a Wal-Mart. • No information has been provided by staff that accurately represents the neighborhood's position. • A new commercial center will not benefit the local economy by adding new retail sales, but will just increase competition between existing retailers. • The Neighborhood Center zone district proposed is too big; it's bigger than other NC districts. • The Neighborhood Center is not as "central" to the neighborhood as under the existing zoning. • Inadequate access will be provided to the proposed Neighborhood Center location. • The Westbury Neighborhood relied on the adopted zoning map that apartments rather than commercial uses would be built on the corner. • A 114 mile buffer is not provided all the way around the neighborhood center. • There is inadequate access toffrom the Westbury Neighborhood to the center. • City Plan is outdated. • Surrounding property values will be "ruined". • No additional grocery stores or supermarkets are needed in the area. • "Drawing"traffic into the area due to the neighborhood center is inappropriate. • The MMN zone district already allows for some commercial development that would meet the area's needs. • Traffic volumes will increase as a result of the rezoning. • Lack of traffic signals within the area creates access problems for surrounding residences. • Wake Robin Lane street modifications:some comments indicated support for a termination of Wake Robin, while others questioned whether restricted access would provide adequate passage for emergency vehicles, school buses and residents. • Access to the Neighborhood Center would be better at the f uture Troutman extension where there will be a traffic signal. • The applicant has not demonstrated how conditions have changed. • Many shopping centers are successful on arterial/collector intersections. • Most of the existing Neighborhood Centers were built prior to City Plan and under the Land Development Guidance System. • The new model for Neighborhood Centers under City Plan is to locate them away from arterial/arterial intersections. • In balance, more City Plan policies are not being met than are compliant. The Safeway representative behaved inappropriately at the neighborhood meeting. • The relocated NC district will infringe more on the Dragon's Lair wetland. • School children cross at Shields Street and the new NC location will make it a more unsafe condition. • Front Range Community College has a large and growing student population; the intersection improvements will need to address potential traffic backups to the increased traffic volumes. • The Neighborhood Center will generate more traffic if the location is changed. • The character of Fort Collins as the "Best Community"will be changed. Density transfers should always occur at midblock, not at streets. 351 October 3, 2006 • The revised zoning does not represent "good"infzll. • Community goals are not met with the revised location. • Stores are patronized based on price, design and accessibility, not on location. • The owner master planned the property under essentially the existing zoning. • Seneca and Regency Drives will not be widened. • Development on the site replaces natural drainage with impervious surfaces. • The site's aesthetics will be degraded and the view corridor will be reduced to the west. • There are conflicting views on wetland impacts. " Mayor Hutchinson asked the City Attorney to explain the criteria to be used in making the rezoning decision. City Attorney Roy explained this was a quasi-judicial decision that would be based on the information heard by Council at the hearing. The criteria were listed in the agenda item summary and it would be a question of what was in the best interests of the City in terms of compatibility with surrounding areas and the other criteria listed. Cameron Gloss,Current Planning Director,presented background information regarding the agenda item. This was a request to rezone a portion of a 55 acre parcel at the northwest corner of Harmony and Shields. The Council denied a similar application earlier in the year. The Planning and Zoning Board held a public hearing on September 21 with respect to this revised application and recommended approval of this application. Council had received a summary of public comments and a summary of the detailed Board minutes. Staff wanted to present some factual information that was not included to aid the Council in making a decision. He presented visual information relating to the property. He showed a slide of the Pine View Master Plan and noted Tract C was about 16.5 acres and was approved for a neighborhood commercial center in 1981. He pointed out the area in question. In 1984, the acreage was slightly greater and a grocery store was shown on the west side of the development plan abutting the ditch. It was about a 45,000 square foot store and there was a total of about 155,000 square feet in that development plan,which was approved. The application expired and several extensions were subsequently granted and eventually expired. The current zoning was put in place in 1997 when the City Structure Plan was adopted and City-wide zoning was done. This acreage was about 22 acres and slightly bigger than the approved PUD Master Plan. He presented visual information depicting the application being considered. This would shift the N-C District. There was a slight variation between the application and the previous application but it was " w amended "essentially the same request previously bytheCouncil. The Structure Plan as in the five-year update to City Plan. Previously there was a"red circle"denoting the neighborhood center. Legal staff believed it would be appropriate in situations where there were property boundaries to come up with a polygon to define those areas. He showed an aerial photo from 1984, taken at the time the PUD Master Plan was approved for the property. The area was primarily in grazing or agriculture and the Front Range Community College was very small at that time. The surroundings included a mobile home park and some County subdivisions that were now part of the Southwest Enclave Annexation. He presented visual information showing the current surroundings, including Clarendon Hills,Registry Ridge,Westbury, Harmony Ridge,Regency Park,the Johnson and Webber Schools, Lopez Elementary, Westbrooke, Woodbridge, Taft Canyon, and other subdivisions. There had been a tremendous shift in both residential and non-residential development in the area,"parks and open lands. 352 October 3, 2006 There had"clearly been a change of conditions"and there had also been many changes in the grocery industry. Data from the Food Marketing Institute showed the size of grocery stores and supermarkets was on the rise and the average in 2005 was 48,058 square feet with 55,000 items provided in each store. This trend was also reflected in Fort Collins. He presented visual information showing supermarkets(over 45,000 square feet)in the NC District and supermarkets not in the NC District. The stores were definitely getting bigger and the largest was over 70,000 square feet. There had been questions about the difference between a supermarket and a Wal-Mart. The threshold between a grocery store and a supermarket was 45,000 square feet. The Wal-Mart at South College was 85,000 square feet with expansion potential to 105,000 square feet. On a national level Wal-Mart was, on average, about 102,000 square feet fora standard store and 187,000 square feet for a supercenter (such as the one at Mulberry and Lemay). He quoted Peter Calthorpe,an expert in the land use field, who said: "Retail wants to live out on the major roads where it is more convenient and accessible. Retailers want to be at intersections where 30,000 vehicles per day pass by." He stated Calthorpe indicated retailers did not cooperate to place stores posed within one-quarter mile of residents' homes. There was `clearly a change in conditions" according to land use experts. City Plan had a mandatory criterion relating to compliance with the City's Comprehensive Plan. He presented a drawing generated by Calthorpe Associates and noted that a version of the drawing was in City Plan. It showed a grocery store anchored center serving multiple neighborhoods. The stated purpose of the neighborhood center was to provide uses to meet consumer demands for every day goods and services and to be pedestrian-oriented places that serve as a focal point for the surrounding neighborhoods. There was another policy that stated a grocery store/supermarket or other type of anchor should be the primary functional offering of these centers. He presented visual information indicating there were two different zone districts on the site that were being reconfigured. The MMN zone allowed a wide variety of residential uses and densities as well as some accessory and secondary uses. The NC zone allowed personal and business service shops, retail, and no "big box"or major retailers except for supermarkets,which must be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Board. He presented visual information showing City Plan and the polygons depicting NC Districts. There were several comments at the Planning and Zoning Board hearing about the competitiveness of the various NC Districts. One property owner asserted during the hearing that City Plan only allowed neighborhood centers at arterial-collector intersections. Every operating grocery store or supermarket in Fort Collins within an NC District was located at an arterial-arterial intersection without exception. Other comments were offered that there were successful grocery stores in other districts than the NC. He stated this was correct and there were such stores in the C,CC and HC zones. The distinguishing factors were visibility and traffic counts. The 2004 and 2005 traffic counts showed there would be 24,000 vehicles per day at Shields and Wakerobin and 39,000 vehicles per day at the proposed location. Traffic volumes were rapidly increasing along this corridor. He spoke about traffic counts at other grocery store/supermarket sites. He noted one neighborhood comment was that grocery store anchor centers were all constructed before City Plan was adopted. He stated this was incorrect. He compared the proposed site with the Rigden Farm site. Front Range Community College and the Harmony Branch Library were high intensity uses. There had been arguments that moving the NC District to the south would make it abut existing residential, and he compared this situation to the Rigden Farm neighborhood center situation. There was substantial discussion about transportation impacts and that the City was embarking on a potential capital project. Regardless of how this property developed, there would 353 October 3, 2006 be improvements and access restrictions at that intersection. Staff had reviewed the traffic memorandum submitted by the applicant and the City's Traffic Engineer concurred that the proposed location to the south would result in less cut-through traffic in the neighborhood to the west. The applicant asserted that connectivity would be better by moving it to the south and staff did not agree with this assertion. Staff believed keeping it to the north was one of the cons listed in the staff report but this did not mean that there could not be access to the north. It would be more circuitous than the present configuration. It was clear there were changed conditions on the ground,grocery industry and land use planning profession and there was compliance with City Plan and similarity to another approved project. Any proj ect had potential impacts and any development would have to go through the "exhaustive" development review process. Staff believed the criteria were being met and the Council needed to answer the question"is it really important to have a grocery store or supermarket in this location to serve this neighborhood." If Council found that it was important, staff would support this application. Mayor Hutchinson stated each audience participant would have three minutes to speak. City Manager Atteber y noted this would mean the meeting would definitely go past midnight and that Council may wish to suspend the meeting rules. City Attorney Roy stated the rules provided the meeting would end at midnight and the rest of the hearing would be carried over to the next meeting. He stated Council could decide to suspend the rules and finish the hearing at this meeting. Such a decision would need to be made at midnight by majority vote of the Council. Mayor Hutchinson stated he would allow each speaker to have 2 1/2 minutes to speak. Martin Leeke, 4612 Mariposa Court, Westbury Subdivision, submitted a letter to the Council and spoke in opposition to the proposal, which was based on "faulty information." He purchased his property with the understanding that there would be a 750 foot line-of-sight buffer from the edge of the property to a neighborhood center. He stated "predictability" was important for the neighborhoods and most people knew where they were going and wanted ease of access. Grocery stores did not need to be on a corner to be successful. He asked the Council to vote against the proposal due to neighborhood impacts. Clifford Loeb, 1233 Belleview Drive, Westbury Subdivision, stated he was not against the commercial use of the property and he opposed the rezoning to move the neighborhood center to the corner due to negative impacts on Westbury neighborhood property values. People in the neighborhood made investment decisions based on the current zoning and there should be convincing,overwhelming and"substantive"reasons to make a zoning change. The Council should consider the"precedent"that was set with its previous denial of the rezoning at this location. William Harper,2201 Karakul Drive, stated he did not live in the neighborhood and he was curious why a project that had been endorsed twice by the Planning and Zoning Board was so"contentious." He suggested that if the project was built out in the new configuration,the impact on the area would be fairly similar to the impact of build out under the current configuration. The configuration on the corner might be better from the traffic standpoint. It would be nice to have a neighborhood center in a neighborhood that did not presently have one. He urged the Council to approve the proposal. 354 October 3, 2006 "inconsistency" a settin to neighborhood groups Karen Rose,5200 Parkway Circle East,stated y p g gh gr p and worked against"expectations, lives and investments." ex expressed concern about"inconsistency." This was the Dr. Neal Krawetz, 4736 Westbury Drive, p y largest NC zone in the City and did not have the appropriate buffers that other large NC zones had. NC zones were supposed to be surrounded by MMN zones and this one did not have enough MMN. Rezoning would not improve the situation and would not serve the Westbury Subdivision, which was the one most impacted by this. If the NC zone was moved there would be no buffer zone to the south and "missing buffer" to the east. The development would not be easily accessible from Westbury Subdivision. He asked the Council to deny the rezoning. Rosemarie Russo, representing Front Range Community College, stated FRCC had the highest enrollment of any community college in the state this fall. Harmony Library was now serving slightly less than one-half million people. FRCC was concerned with increased traffic and student safety and the rezoning would exacerbate existing traffic problems. John Walgast,4700 Westbury Drive,stated he bought his house because he did not want to live next to a major retail center, which this could become. He believed the zoning laws and plans would make this a"safe"location. This rezoning would mean he would live less than one-eighth of a mile from the front door of a major Safeway without a buffer. He asked that the Council deny the rezoning. Matt Kassawara, 1156 Belleview Drive, stated zoning provided predictability for purchasers and lenders and encouraged the most appropriate use of land. The current zoning led property owners to expect a buffer of condos between the neighborhood and the original proposed neighborhood center. The proposed rezoning would mean the Westbury neighborhood would have to contend with "unforeseen commercial development" directly to the north. Arterial streets were not a sufficient buffer between commercial and low density residential development, especially if the anchor operates 24/7. The proposed rezoning did not meet the criteria of City Plan: the layout and design of a mixed use neighborhood is to form a transition and a link between the surrounding neighborhoods and a neighborhood commercial center;the neighborhood commercial center should be integrated into the surrounding medium density mixed use neighborhood contributing to the neighborhood's positive identity and image;and the NC district is intended to function together with a surrounding medium density mixed use neighborhood that serves as a transition and link to a larger surrounding low density neighborhood. He urged the Council to vote against the rezoning. An unidentified male speaker, Ridgewood Hills Subdivision resident, stated this would be a convenient shopping center for Ridgewood Hills and Registry Ridge. His neighbors were"excited" to hear a grocery store could go in at this location. Things had changed in the area and it was his understanding that if there was no Safeway on this corner, there would be three-story apartments. Jim Wetzler,6645 Majestic Drive,realtor,spoke regarding his experiences with the positive impacts of neighborhood shopping centers on property values. Grocery stores on the comer worked and gh PP g P P Y rY those mid-block did not. It was in the best interest of the entire community to approve the grocery store on the corner. 355 October 3, 2006 Gerald Dusbabek, 1125 Doral Place, supported the rezoning for more convenient shopping for the surrounding area. Kimberly Iwanski, 4102 Westbrooke Drive, opposed the proposed rezoning due to traffic and pedestrian safety concerns. Desiree Williams, 4321 Mill Creek Court, spoke regarding traffic safety impacts on her neighborhood. Deanne Seitz, 4336 Mill Creek Court, spoke in opposition to the rezoning. Ed Kirchoff, 1403 Nunn Creek Court,stated the applicant's arguments for changed conditions were "weak." The neighborhood welcomed development on the property north of Wakerobin zoned for NC but not on the proposed corner site. There would also be a more appropriate property available soon at College and Carpenter. The neighborhood wanted a store where the current zoning would allow it. There were eight examples of successful off-comer low visibility stores in southwest Fort Collins. There were no changed conditions in the neighborhood surrounding the site. He asked that Council vote against the proposal. Joan Eddy, 1403 Sheep Creek Court, opposed the rezoning. David Berka, 1409 Sheep Creek Court, questioned whether this development would help improve property values. Marilyn Kirchoff, 1403 Nunn Creek Court, stated the neighborhood residents would have to drive through a shopping center to reach their homes. The present NC was set up for a low profile Scotch Pines-type development and it was"upsetting"that the developer wanted to bring in a large regional developer for a comer development. The mid-block development was laid out to easily accommodate pedestrian entry to local kinds of establishments and a smaller grocery store. She expressed concerns about traffic safety. Sherrie Temple, 5608 Pleasant Hill Lane,Mountain Ridge Farms, expressed concerns about traffic issues. A smaller neighborhood center would be better and a light at Troutman would be the best option. She did not agree with the rezoning. Melanie Manning, 1219 Mariposa Court, stated she bought her current home based on the existing zoning of the adjacent property. City Plan's purpose was to make development predictable. This rezoning would shift commercial activity closer to some single-family homes and away from a few others. Her property value would decrease due to closer proximity to the neighborhood center. The homeowners bordering the property were against the rezoning. She would rather see three-story apartments at this location. Jane Romero, 1420 Nunn Creek Court, stated the neighbors were happy to accept business development under the current zoning. The property owner and surrounding homeowners bought their properties with full knowledge of the existing zoning. The rezoning was not predictable." She 356 October 3, 2006 expressed concerns about increased traffic and pedestrian safety issues in the Westbrooke neighborhood if the rezoning was approved. Out-of-town interests would benefit from the rezoning and Fort Collins homeowners would be impacted. She requested that Council deny this rezoning. Lisa Rhoads, 1238 Belleview Drive, opposed the rezoning and stated City staff was giving"facts" in support of the development rather than a"balanced view." She asked the Council to vote against the rezoning. Nancy Gescheidt, 1502 Wind Creek Court, expressed concerns about traffic and speeding and opposed the rezoning. Scott Beard, 1712 Silvergate Road,resident of The Gates, supported the rezoning and a convenient grocery store in the area.A grocery store would be more successful at the corner than mid-block and would be more convenient for the people at Front Range Community College. A mid-block development would be"packed with office space"rather than retail. Retail centers were needed to provide for the community. Joan Heiman,4330 Mill Creek Court,opposed the rezoning and expressed concerns about traffic and pedestrian safety. Ken Manning, 1219 Mariposa Court,thanked the Council for considering the neighborhood's point of view. The main premise behind the rezoning was that the mid-block location was not economically viable and visibility or exposure of the location was not a requirement for successful stores. Karen Miller,4325 Mill Creek Court,stated the proposal mustbe consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and warranted by changed conditions within the surrounding neighborhood and subject property. This proposal was denied in April because it did not meet those conditions and the current proposal was identical except that it was solely driven by Safeway's desire for the corner,as stated in their June 13 letter. She stated City Plan clearly stated land use boundaries and density changes in the Neighborhood Commercial zone district are to occur at mid-block locations to the maximum extent feasible. She stated people bought their homes with those expectations. She stated nothing in this neighborhood had changed since 1997 whatsoever. She stated the argument was that Safeway was the only potential grocery store for this location and that Safeway would not locate there unless they could have the corner. She stated these were not changes in the neighborhood itself. She stated this type of rezoning should not be allowed solely to benefit commercial interests in "blatant disregard"of the City's policies and vision for the City. She stated"smart growth"would be in-fill that would utilize the existing infrastructure and the new Troutman extension. She stated economic factors were not appropriate grounds for land use planning decisions. John Williams, 4321 Mill Creek Court, stated flat open spaces such as the existing flat empty drainage did not buffer noise and light and that the section of MMN shown on the development map was about 260 feet wide. He questioned whether the narrow section shown as MMN buffer would fit after road improvements and a ditch easement were in place. He would like to see the commercial center stay at the originally intended location because the promised buffering would exist. Roads and drainage areas were not sufficient buffers. 357 October 3, 2006 Glen Colton, 624 Hinsdale Drive and former Planning and Zoning Board member, stated he supported the current zoning and a store at the mid-block location. He opposed the proposed rezoning. The staff report made it apparent that staff was supporting the proposed rezoning because they believed the applicant's contention that NC at the current location was not viable. The rezoning was contrary to critical elements of City Plan's visions, goals, policies and principles. The staff report indicated the current configuration embeds the NC District in a true neighborhood setting located between two collectors (Wakerobin and Troutman)that would allow easy access to future and existing neighborhoods to the west, north and east across Shields. He was concerned that considerations about market viability had "trumped compliance with City Plan." He stated "spot rezoning" of particular parcels in contradiction to City Plan was "arbitrary and unfair." It was "almost ludicrous"to state that more development in the southwest area of Fort Collins constituted a change in conditions. Build-out of that area was planned and could not be considered as a changed condition. The"community values of fairness and choice must be respected." He urged the Council to vote against the Structure Plan amendment and zoning change. Kyle Henderson, owner of Wheeler Commercial, stated his business was located less than a mile away. This was a"straight forward,common sense decision." Successful locations on comers were needed to attract retailers. He asked the Council to approve the rezoning. Mayor Hutchinson asked if there was a motion to suspend the rules and continue the meeting past midnight. Councilmember Manvel made a motion,seconded by Councilmember Ohlson,to suspend the rules and continue the meeting. Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein, Marvel, Ohlson, Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Mayor Hutchinson stated the rules were suspended and the meeting would continue. Eric Kronwall, 1119 Monticello Court,property owner adjacent to the Safeway store on Harmony Road east of Lemay, spoke regarding the controversy relating to the building of that store, the six- month moratorium on any development in the Harmony Corridor, and the creation of the Harmony Corridor Plan. He and his neighbors now agree Safeway is a"great asset"to their neighborhood. He was"confident"that,after Council approval ofthis zoning change,the neighbors adjacent to this location will have a"similar experience." Michael Markel, applicant, 5723 Arapahoe Avenue, Boulder, stated he had been under the impression he would be allowed to make a presentation as was done at the Planning and Zoning Board and asked for direction on that. Mayor Hutchinson asked the City Attorney about giving "adequate time to the applicant. City Attorney Roy stated under the Council rules of procedure the Council had the prerogative to increase or decrease the time limits per speaker as deemed necessary to facilitate the City Council's understanding of the item or to allow the Council to consider and act upon the item in a timely fashion. In this kind of hearing a judgment needed to be made to determine what was necessary to 358 October 3, 2006 give each speaker a reasonable opportunity to be heard. The applicant's question was whether the same period of time allotted to other speakers was adequate for the applicant in a rezoning situation to explain the application and respond to the points made by the other speakers. He suggested that the Mayor determine how much time the applicant was requesting and why he needed additional time. Councilmember Ohlson stated proponents and opponents all had equal opportunity to have their 2 1/2 minutes and he did not think it was pertinent that one side outnumbered the other side. He did not think it was appropriate to give an individual or a representative of one side or the other 20 minutes. He stated he supported giving all speakers the same time allotment. Mayor Hutchinson asked what would be a reasonable time for the Council to understand the applicant's proposal. Mr. Markel stated the applicant gave a 20 minute presentation at the Planning and Zoning Board hearing. Mayor Hutchinson stated 20 minutes was appropriate for the Planning and Zoning Board and questioned whether that was appropriate in this venue. Councilmember Kastein asked if there were specific rules about the applicant's presentation in rezoning matters. City Attorney Roy stated the rules on appeals had specific time frames for speakers but the Council had not adopted a rule on time frames for rezoning hearings. He stated the determination was made at this time on a case by case basis. Councilmember Kastein stated he remembered a Council discussion on this matter and he was under the impression a rule was adopted. City Attorney Roy stated this issue came up before in conjunction with the first rezoning application. The decision on whether to adopt such a rule was deferred. Councilmember Kastein stated the Council should follow the current rule. Mayor Hutchinson stated the applicant would have 2 1/2 minutes to speak and Councilmembers would be able to ask questions until they believed they had a `reasonable understanding" of the application. Mr. Markel stated it was difficult to provide all of the evidence that had been presented at the Planning and Zoning Board meeting within the allotted time. The applicant was responding to a changing neighborhood environment and to changing retail and marketing information. An expert on retail was available to speak. Regency Centers had 400 grocery store-anchored centers within the U.S. The applicant would consider pedestrian safety issues and the applicant's traffic engineer was available to speak. Many of the issues that were presented by the neighborhood speakers were site plan issues(buffers, landscaping,housing types). This particular site had been zoned Commercial since the 1980s and had not been sold and developed. The rezoning was necessary for a successful neighborhood center. 359 October 3, 2006 Shane Miller, 4325 Mill Creek Court, stated the City would be affected by this development. The rezoning would"arbitrarily reallocate value"from one group of homeowners to another and ignore the principle of"predictability." There would sometimes be a"compelling interest"to require the reallocation of value of people's homes i.e.,the protection of the public health and safety. Having a Safeway store 500 feet closer to the corner was not a compelling reason. The project would conflict with existing uses. City staff s position that a commercial use is a buffer for the adjacent wetlands overlooked the plan to place residences adjacent to the wetlands in either scenario. The rezoning would encourage greater use of residential streets to the west as alternate routes north. A natural drainage area would be replaced with non-permeable parking lots to a greater degree than would be the case with residential uses. The neighborhood centers should be placed in mid-block locations as an optimum choice. The neighbors were asking for a better choice. Snowden Leftwedge, Regency Centers, stated the organization had expertise in this field and the original site was not viable for the type of development done by Regency Centers. An "obvious grocer"was interested in the site but not at a mid-block location. A mid-block location would not work for Regency Centers or the interested grocer. He asked for Council support of the rezoning. g Y Eric Nichols, 1845 Kedron Court,Remax Alliance, stated he had worked with Mr. Markel for over 10 years and that he had built two fine condominium projects (Northfield at Prospect and Shields and The Lodge at Miramont at Boardwalk and Lemay). The neighborhood had changed since the development was platted in 1981. There were now thousands of people living in this area who were not in 1981. This site had waited for 25 years for someone to provide neighborhood services at that location. The retailers would not come to that location because of the traffic count. Mr.Markel flew in Peter Calthorpe (the City Plan consultant) to plan this site and Mr. Calthorpe's first recommendation was to move the commercial down to the corner since it would not work mid-block. A mid-block location would cause cut-through traffic in the neighborhoods. This neighborhood center would be designed to serve the entire southwest part of Fort Collins,not the four to six blocks surrounding the center. Matt Delich, Delich & Associates, Loveland, traffic engineer for the applicant, stated his firm performed preliminary traffic analyses with regard to the rezoning. When the actual development proposal would come forward a detailed transportation impact study would be done. Many existing groceries were in the College Avenue corridor and the location of a grocery store here would reduce vehicle miles traveled in this area and take some traffic out of the congested College Avenue corridor. The mid-block location would contribute to cut-through traffic in the neighborhoods. The intersection of Shields and Harmony was currently inadequate and over capacity. In a few years there would be increased capacity, auxiliary lanes, and improved safety. This was an opportunity to move the safety of that intersection forward. Councilmember Weitkunat stated the matter being discussed was a rezoning and there were mandatory requirements for rezonings. One of the presentations discussed the consistency with the City's Comprehensive Plan. She asked staff to address to address the consistency issue and how it applied (or did not apply) to the vision, goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. She understood that the Council was to look at rezonings based on two criteria and asked if the Council must look at both criteria or if it would be sufficient to look at one or the other. City Attorney Roy stated there were two mandatory criteria and that they were"either/or." The first was consistency 360 October 3, 2006 with the City's Comprehensive Plan. If it was not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan,it should be"made consistent." The Resolution amending the Structure Plan was included in the agenda item to do that in the event the Council approved the rezoning. The second mandatory criterion was that the rezoning was warranted by changed conditions within the neighborhood surrounding and including the subject property. There were additional criteria that were not mandatory and were offered for Council's consideration: (1)whether,and the extent to which,the proposed amendment is compatible with existing and proposed uses surrounding the subject land and is the appropriate zone district for the land;(2)whether,and the extent to which,the proposed amendment would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment, including but not limited to water, air, noise, stormwater management, wildlife, education, wetlands and the natural functioning of the environment; and (3)whether, and the extent to which, the proposed amendment would result in a logical and orderly development pattern. Councilmember Weitkunat stated one speaker addressed the lack of consistency with the vision, goals, principles and policies of City Plan. She stated she was an advocate of City Plan and its principles,policies and goals. If, in fact this consistency had not been addressed,this would be an important consideration. She would like to make sure that the rezoning would be consistent with City Plan. Gloss stated there was a series of principles, policies, visions and goals specifically relating to this request. The first related to Commercial districts. Neighborhood Commercial Centers would typically contain a grocery store or supermarket and the appearance of these centers was to be effectively integrated within the overall street pattern, design and scale of the surrounding neighborhood. They are to be located and designed in a manner that fosters transit service for the center and surrounding neighborhoods. The City was to search for innovative ways to reduce traffic growth(measured in total daily vehicle miles of travel). The pattern of development was to facilitate pedestrian, bicycle and transit travel. In this case, if transit was to become a major fixture in this area, it would clearly be on the two major arterial streets. For efficiency City buses were generally run on arterial streets and the connections must be practical. City Plan policies relating to the MMN zone district (which supports the NC district) provided that the layout and design of the medium density mixed use neighborhood would form a transition and link between surrounding neighborhoods and the neighborhood commercial center. Some citizens had raised concerns about the size of the MMN zone around the neighborhood centers. The district should extend an average of about one-quarter of a mile from the edge of the district subject to adjustment for site specific or pre-existing circumstances such as a major street,major drainageway or existing development(all of which are pre-existing circumstances in this situation). A neighborhood commercial center was to provide uses to meet consumer demands from surrounding residential districts for everyday goods and services. It would be a pedestrian-oriented place that would serve as a focal point for the surrounding neighborhoods. The supporting policies for that principle was that there would be a grocery store or supermarket anchor and the MMN zone would work in conjunction with, and contribute to, that identity and image. This was a summary of the overall policies and goals of City Plan that staff believed related to this situation. Staff had done extensive analysis with regard to these goals. One area that was"very subjective"was the amount of MMN surrounding the NC zone. There had to be adjustments based on the site-specific conditions. 361 October 3, 2006 Councilmember Weitkunat asked if the Council could go back to 1981 to look at changed conditions or could only go back to 1997 at the time City Plan was adopted. Gloss stated staff had discussed this with the Planning and Zoning Board and he believed that,in 1997 when City Plan was adopted, the City looked at the location of approved NC districts and found that"it would continue to work." This issue(moving neighborhood centers to the corner)was not discussed. Staff therefore went back and looked at the original PUD and determined it was fair to "go back to 1981"to determine what had changed since then. Councilmember Manvel stated he had reviewed the tape from the last Council discussion on this issue and asked about the position staff took at that time. Gloss stated the information that was available at that time from the applicant and the staff research was "weak." Staff had done more research that was "spurred by the Planning and Zoning Board discussion" and questions from the public about what had changed. From staff s perspective,based on grocery store data developed at the national level there were changed conditions in the grocery store industry. Staff also looked at the status and size of grocery stores in Fort Collins. This kind of"good information" was not available before. Councilmember Manvel stated this was"good information"that did not match the words in the Code that specified"changes in neighborhood conditions." He asked if this included national grocery store marketing conditions. Gloss stated there had been clear changes in the City as a whole i.e., trends in grocery store locations and traffic counts. Councilmember Manvel questioned whether this applied to"changes in neighborhood conditions." Gloss stated there were changes in neighborhood conditions such as additional subdivisions,parks, schools, etc. Councilmember Manvel stated six months ago staff said: "It would be difficult to argue that there have been changes that were not anticipated." He stated this area was "laid out for that density of development." Councilmember Ohlson stated the Calthorpe quote was that "the retailers will want to go to the corner"and this did not mean he believed this would be the best thing for urban planning. He asked staff to clarify this. Gloss stated Calthorpe was an urban planner and author of several books on regional planning and local conditions and this indicated he would "speak with authority" on the location of commercial development. Staff was relying on his judgment and his reference was to the realities of land use planning and the grocery store industry. Calthorpe's point was that the development must be"economically viable"and sound land use planning needed to"meld"with the "realities of the marketplace." Councilmember Ohlson stated he would like to see the article in question since City Plan was based in part on Calthorpe's views. He questioned why the Code was not changed to "coincide" with Calthorpe's view on placing grocery stores on the corner. Gloss stated this issue and this specific property had not been given"much attention"during the City Plan update. Byrne stated this was also the case with several other NC areas. He stated the original 1997 Structure Plan had been "refined" in several cases particularly around these neighborhood centers (i.e., Rigden Farm). 362 October 3, 2006 Councilmember Ohlson stated the agenda material indicated that"the revised request is essentially the same as the previously rejected plan." He asked if City policies would allow the request to come back again for a third time if the plan was rejected again. He questioned how the same plan could come back to Council again when the other side was not able to bring approved plans back for reconsideration. Gloss stated at the time the Land Use Code was adopted in 1997 the City established a twice-a-year rezoning application cycle for spring and fall. There were no further restrictions on submittal of rezoning applications provided the applicant paid the fee and submitted a complete application by the deadline. Councilmember Roy asked if it was true that a"consistent thread"for a change of condition was the "reality" that a comer location makes more"economic sense" for the development. Gloss replied in the affirmative and stated the agenda material expressed the rationale of some of the City Councilmembers in making the decision. Councilmember Roy asked if it was true that using economic outcomes should not be the basis for land use decisions. Gloss stated the staff did not agree with that. There were situations wherein economic hardship could be a factor in a variance. Economics played a part in this "larger policy issue"and land use planning. In this situation staff did not have any"reservation"in saying that it played an important role in the siting of a commercial center. This was not the position of some of the Councilmembers at the previous hearing. Councilmember Roy asked if the biggest changed condition that was brought forward by staff was the "changed economics of the site" due to the fact that a Safeway was committed to the comer location due to a better guarantee of success. Gloss stated staff was saying the criteria were met because the Comprehensive Plan policies were being met,there were changed conditions within the neighborhood and the surrounding neighborhoods, and there had been changes in the grocery store industry. The grocery store industry and land use planning experts were saying this played into land use planning. Councilmember Roy asked staff to point out three changes in the neighborhood in the last six months. Gloss stated staff's analysis was based on the present application relative to the conditions when the property was initially zoned. Councilmember Roy stated he wanted to know what had changed in the neighborhood since the last time the Council heard this as a quasi-judicial body. Gloss stated he did not believe there was any significant change in the neighborhood in that time period. Councilmember Manvel asked if the testimony indicated that the neighborhood center was an "obsolete concept" since it could not be done with a 40,000 square foot grocery store or in mid- block. This appeared to indicate that the center must draw from the whole region of southwest Fort Collins and this did not sound like a neighborhood center. Gloss stated the neighborhood center addressed the needs of multiple neighborhoods in a bigger area. There was misunderstanding that a neighborhood center was supposed to be a"mom and pop comer store." The decision on the size of the grocery store was not being made tonight. The NC zone district would permit either a 45,000 or 60,000 square foot grocery store. 363 October 3, 2006 Councilmember Manvel stated the wording in the neighborhood center description talked about encouraging pedestrian and bicycle use,being a gathering point for the neighborhood,and avoiding crossing or using arterial streets to access it. Locating the center at the crossing of two arterials seemed to go against this description. Byrne stated there must be a"balancing act." The assumption of City Plan and the prior plan was that a grocery store or supermarket would serve about a four square mile area. There would need to be some amount of arterial traffic getting to the supermarket. They were also designed so there would be direct access and connectivity from the adjacent neighborhood. Gloss illustrated this concept of neighborhood connectivity using the example of Rigden Farm. Councilmember Kastein noted that the two mandatory criteria were consistency with the Comprehensive Plan "and/or" changed conditions within the neighborhood surrounding and including the subject property. He was not convinced the neighborhood conditions had changed to create a need for this rezoning. Because of the words "and/or"he would not focus on the issue of changed conditions and would focus on the issue of consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. The applicant and staff had many points relating to this issue. The staff analysis indicated that City Plan recognized a need for a grocery store or supermarket and this configuration was likely necessary if the need was to be met. This was not a neighborhood change and was a"global market change." Staff had offered pros and cons and the cons indicated neighborhood and area property owners relied on the adopted City zoning map prior to purchase. This addressed the predictability element brought up by many speakers. Staff indicated the pros outweighed the cons when this was considered within the context of larger City-wide policies. He asked how the Code addressed "predictability" and whether it was a gray area because there were not many criteria for decisions. Gloss stated the Code and Comprehensive Plan were not specific in the area of predictability. When the change was made to move away from a performance-based system (the LDGS) to City Plan the thought was that it would be more predictable because it would be more prescriptive. There was not a specific criterion or language in the policies and goals for determining "predictability." Byrne stated if too much weight was given to predictability the Council's ability to rezone property anywhere would be "stymied." The Comprehensive Plan was an advisory document that guided decision-making and there were different ways to achieve the principles and goals of the plan as conditions changed, markets changed and development occurred in the neighborhood. Council was called upon to exercise discretion with regard to rezoning property. Councilmember Kastein stated the decision then became how"adverse the potential impact"of the rezoning would be to the neighborhood i.e., the Westbury properties in this case. He asked if the development would be 500 feet to the south of where it would otherwise be. Gloss stated when a comparison was done between the existing and proposed configurations there would be less impact on the areas to the north and the west and more impact to the south. More than one speaker mentioned the impact would be shifted. Staffs perspective was that"careful design"and roadway redesign would lessen and mitigate the impacts. Those kinds of opportunities would be explored during the development review process. Councilmember Kastein stated staff had indicated that every existing grocery store/supermarket location in town was on a corner. Gloss stated this was the case in the NC District without exception and that all were on an arterial-arterial comer. 364 October 3, 2006 Councilmember Kastein asked about the examples that were presented for Denver and other cities. Gloss stated he did not know if those were neighborhood centers. There were other centers in Fort Collins, such as Whole Foods, that were not at arterial-arterial corners. Whole Foods served a different market and there were high traffic counts on College Avenue. It was necessary to make a "fair comparison"with other NC District grocery stores to get an accurate picture. Councilmember Kastein asked staff to summarize why a grocery store needed to be on a corner in the NC District compared to grocery stores in other districts. Gloss stated it might be appropriate for the applicant to respond. Councilmember Kastein asked for clarification regarding the rules regarding Council asking questions. Mayor Hutchinson stated Councilmembers could ask specific questions. Councilmember Kastein asked if the applicant had a specific market study that showed how grocery stores in the NC District would work only on corners. Mr. Markel stated he was not prepared to present information on a specific market study. Snowden Leftwedge of the Regency Centers had indicated there was a need for a specific traffic count to have a successful grocery store. He also relied on Peter Calthorpe's assessment that a grocery store could only be successful at this particular location if the retail grocery store was at the comer. These were some of the"foremost experts"in the country on grocery stores and land use planning. Councilmember Roy asked if Mr. Calthorpe was a paid consultant on this matter. Mr. Markel replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Roy asked if Mr.Calthorpe was working for Mr.Markel on this particular site rather than as an urban designer. Mr. Markel stated he was working for him as a land planner and expert in land plans. Councilmember Roy asked about the language on page 3 of Resolution 2006-104 expressing Council's rationale for the previous denial of this application. He questioned whether this was a new application rather than a continuation of that previous action by Council. This was a follow-up to his question for staff on whether anything had changed between April 18 and now. City Attorney Roy stated this was an entirely "new decision and new record." Council's decision needed to be supported by information in the record. The Council needed to decide whether or not the record indicated there were changed circumstances in the neighborhood surrounding and including the property or whether or not the principles and policies in City Plan would be better advanced and promoted by approval of the rezoning. Mayor Hutchinson stated references had been made to the applicant submitting"a plan previously rejected by City Council earlier this year." He did not believe this was the same"package." He was "impressed" by the information that had been added. There appeared to be confusion regarding whether this was re-submission of what had been submitted earlier or whether there was a better rationale and analysis making this a new package. Gloss stated this application was"not identical" 365 October 3, 2006 to what was submitted previously. Additional material was presented in the staff report and presentation. and the configuration of the zoning district in the two packages was very similar. Councilmember Weitkunat made a motion,seconded by Councilmember Brown,to adopt Resolution 2006-104. Councilmember Weitkunat stated the Structure Plan Map needed to be amended to do the rezoning and asked if the rezoning would be considered if the Resolution failed to pass. City Attorney Roy suggested that the Council act on both the Resolution and the Ordinance. If Council chose not to amend the Structure Plan Map, the Council would be relying entirely upon changed circumstances to justify the rezoning. Councilmember Weitkunat asked if it would be acceptable to address the rezoning at this point.The consensus was that the discussion of the rezoning was appropriate at this point. Councilmember Weitkunat stated the question to be decided was a rezoning and that there were guidelines regarding such actions. It was important to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and she believed this application had been reviewed to determine how it would fit with the Comprehensive Plan. She stated "economic sustainability" had been added as a "key element." Buffering of impacts to assure compatibility would be addressed during the development review process. The plan was consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. There had been major changes in this area since 1981 relating to Front Range Community College,the branch library,and the residential nature of the neighborhood. There had been a change in conditions and the second criterion was met by the application. The speakers had addressed traffic issues and the City had allocated fending to work on this intersection. New development would add additional money to the City budget for that purpose. Traffic issues would be addressed when work was undertaken on the Harmony/Shields intersection. Speakers had also addressed consistency and predictability. This had been on the "drawing board" for a long time as a neighborhood and commercial center and nothing had changed on that since 1981. This was"predictable"since it was in the plan. The change was where it would be located but that it would still be basically the same neighborhood center and MMN zone. She would support the change in the Structure Plan Map. Councilmember Ohlson stated the main thinking behind City Plan was "predictability." There needed to be a work session on the predictability factor of City Plan. He was "stunned" that an ap plicant could come back repeatedly every six months and "wear down neighborhoods." The Pp P Y �'Y P� "redistribution of equity" referenced by some of the speakers was a concern since the people who did the most research would now be "punished" because their property values would go down because of the switch. A recent study of retail success did not list a corner location as a requirement. He did not agree with the"corner-to-corner" arguments. Mayor Hutchinson stated a Safeway store at College and Mulberry did not work because of its location away from the corner. Predictability was a central issue and Council was not told there would be no predictability. Council was told there must be a balance and City Plan could not be too "rigid." If it was too rigid Council would never be allowed to rezone. 366 October 3, 2006 Councilmember Roy stated there were other reasons for the failure of the Safeway store at College and Mulberry. Council agreed with the Planning and Zoning Board on April 18 for three reasons: (1)the loss of predictability;(2)the potential loss of surrounding residential property values;and(3) a determination that economic factors were not appropriate grounds for land use planning decisions. Between April 18 and now there were no demonstrated changes on the ground. It was"upsetting" to be required to revisit this matter after only six months to the benefit of a very small group of people who were not community members rather than the larger needs of the citizens of Fort Collins. He stated he believed that there were only minimal changes in this rezoning application compared to the April 18th application. Councilmember Kastein stated the Councilmembers were prohibited from entering into any ex parte contacts or communications on this quasi-judicial matter. He was trying to make a decision based on what was given in the public record. He voted against the rezoning in April and this put him in a"tough spot." He needed to see something significantly different in the new application. Of the three rationales for defeating the rezoning the first time he agreed only with the one on predictability. He was looking at the rezoning as if development was going to happen. Some kind of development . He would happen at this site and he was comparing the existing zoning with the proposed zoning. was trying to decide"how much worse"it would be for those who relied on the predictability of the zoning. Councilmember Manuel stated the Council should focus on how much better it would be if it moved to the corner. He stated the rezoning should not be changed unless it would make the situation better. He stated he could see several benefits and that staff had apparently decided that there were many benefits. He stated in his opinion it would be"better in some ways and worse in other ways"and that it would not be enough better to justify the rezoning. Determining the benefits would depend on making difficult "future economic guesses." He believed the "status quo was appropriate." Councilmember Weitkunat stated the questions to be answered were whether the rezoning was consistent with City Plan, whether it would be compatible with existing and proposed uses surrounding the subject land, whether the"shifting"would make it incompatible or inappropriate, the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significant adverse impacts to the natural environment, and whether it would result in a logical and orderly development pattern. A "factual discussion"needed to occur in framing answers to these questions. The answers,rather than any"extraneous material", should lead to the decision. Councilmember Brown asked if staff believed this property met all of the criteria for rezoning. Gloss replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Brown stated it was not the City's place to tell the property owner what he could do with his property. The development would service an area of four square miles. Nothing had happened with this property for two decades and there needed to be convenient shopping for this neighborhood. He stated he would support the rezoning. 367 October 3, 2006 Councilmember Ohlson stated the City could tell people what to do with their property "within legitimate limits." The current zoning was"part of a better plan: and that he would"choose people over changing the plan"in this case. Based on the plan people had"reasonable expectations." Most people indicated they accepted that this property would develop soon. He would vote against the rezoning. Councilmember Kastein stated he was changing his mind. The good of the southwest part of Fort Collins meant"enabling a City." The"harm that was brought to the neighborhood was real'but that it was not as significant as he initially thought it would be. This had been a"stagnant land use"for 26 years and that it was necessary to move forward to have a grocery store in the southwest area. Mayor Hutchinson stated this was a"superior package in terms of content." The goals and details were not changed but the information focused more on the criteria, which he believed were met. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein and Weitkunat. Nays: Councilmembers Manvel, Ohlson and Roy. THE MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Weitkunat made a motion,seconded by Councilmember Brown,to adopt Ordinance No. 161, 2006 on First Reading. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein and Weitkunat. Nays: Councilmembers Manvel, Ohlson and Roy. THE MOTION CARRIED. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 1:30 a.m. on Wednesday, October 4, 2006. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk 368