Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 01/18/2011 - CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE D DATE: January 18, 2011 STAFF: Wanda Krajicek • • • Consideration and Approval of the Minutes of the December 21, 2010, Regular Meeting. December 21, 2010 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, December 21, 2010, 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: Hutchinson,Kottwitz,Manvel,Ohlson,Poppaw,Roy, and Troxell. Staff Members Present: Atteberry, Krajicek, Roy. Citizen Participation Harvey Mabis,4412 East Mulberry Street, expressed concern regarding the Police Services towing policy. Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, expressed concern regarding Fort Collins' energy policy. Cheryl Distaso, 135 South Sunset,expressed concern about potential Poudre School District school closures. Jeff Schneider,755 Peregrine Run,suggested a terminology change for the Eastside Westside design standards. Gary Young, 5747 Nicklaus Drive, encouraged distributing funding for the I-25/Highway 392 project beyond immediate property owners. Clint Skutchan, 719 Great Plains Court, Fort Collins Board of Realtors Executive Vice President, asked Council to consider its proposal regarding the"average plus"concept in the Eastside Westside design standards. Sean Dougherty, 215 West Oak, Fort Collins Board of Realtors President, opposed changes to the Eastside Westside design standards. Tom Tucker, 3019 Stanford, opposed changes to the Eastside Westside design standards. Jim Martell,300 South Howes,noted there are remaining issues between cities and landowners with respect to the I-25/Highway 392 interchange. Kurt Burgner,7301 SW Frontage Road,expressed concern regarding funding for the I-25/Highway 392 project. 62 December 21, 2010 i Robert Hau, 1109 Heatherwood Lane, expressed concern regarding funding for the I-25/Highway 392 project. Robert Thomas, 1901 Wallenburg Drive, expressed concern regarding neighborhood involvement in the Fort Collins' Development Review process. Citizen Participation Follow-up Councilmember Roy asked about dates for a meeting between Council and the Poudre School District Board. He asked about neighborhood involvement in the Development Review process. Councilmember Kottwitz supported the I-25/Highway 392 project and encouraged continued collaboration between Fort Collins, Windsor, and property owners. Councilmember Troxell supported the 1-25/Highway 392 project and asked for comment regarding the parcels that may be removed. Rick Richter, Engineering and Capital Projects Manager,replied a property originally identified as commercial or employment is now residential, and has therefore been excluded. Mayor Pro Tern Ohlson noted the contribution of federal stimulus funds to the I-25/Highway 392 proj ect. ` Agenda Review City Manager Atteberry recommended postponement of Item No. 9,Second Reading of Ordinance No. 123, 2010, Appropriating Funds from the City's Stormwater Reserves for Transfer to the Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority for the Purpose of Providing a Loan for the Northeast College Corridor Out/all Project, to March 1, 2011. CONSENT CALENDAR 6. Withdrawal of Ordinance No. 120,2010 Authorizing an Option to Lease and a Subsequent Lease of,City-Owned Property at Southridge Greens Golf Course to New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC for the Installation of a Telecommunication Monopine Tower and Related Equipment, and the Grant of Associated Easements. New Cingular Wireless PSC, LLC (AT&T) has withdrawn its application for an option to lease, and a subsequent lease of, City-owned property at Southridge Greens Golf Course. AT&T will be looking for a new site in this area. 63 December 21, 2010 7. Withdrawal of Ordinance No. 121,2010,Authorizing an Option to Lease,and a Subsequent Lease of, City-Owned Property at City Park Ball Fields to Open Range Communications. Inc. to Collocate an Antenna on an Existing Monopole and Install Related Equipment, and the Grant of Associated Easements. Open Range Communications, Inc.has informed staff that it is looking to bring a total of 14 cell towers to various locations in Fort Collins, eight of which it is currently working on. However, the requested site on City-owned property at City Park Ball Fields is not included as one of the eight. Open Range will not be working on the City Park Ball Fields site until 2011. For this reason, staff requests this item be withdrawn from consideration. 8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 122,2010, Appropriating Funds from the City's General Fund Reserves for Transfer to the Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority for the Purpose of Providing a Loan for the Jax, Inc. Building Expansion Project. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on December 7, 2010, authorizes a loan from the City to the Urban Renewal Authority (URA) to reimburse Jax, Inc. ("Jax") for the local street obligations for College Avenue, Jerome Street and the street oversizing fees associated with the Jax Building Expansion Project (the "Project"). Offsetting these costs allowed the expansion of the Jax retail site at 1200 North College Avenue to be economically feasible. The total cost of this Project was $172,758. The requested loan amount from the City of Fort Collins General Fund Reserves to the URA will be$172,758. The URA will utilize the City's Interfund Borrowing program that was formally added to the City's investment policies in 2008. This program enables the City to use a portion of its investment portfolio to assist City Departments and related entities (e.g., the Downtown Development Authority and the URA) to access funds at a competitive interest rate while still providing a market based yield to the City investment portfolio. 9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 123, 2010, Appropriating Funds from the Citys Stormwater Reserves for Transfer to the Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority for the Purpose of Providing a Loan for the Northeast College Corridor Outfall Project. The first step in the development of the Northeast College Corridor Outfall (NECCO) project was the acquisition of an approximately 10-acre parcel for the regional detention pond,designed to accept regional stormwater flows as well as stormwater from development adjacent to the pond. The project is part of the Stormwater Master Plan and the Storm Drainage Fund and the Urban Renewal Authority are proposing to fund the project. The Stormwater Utility had budgeted$896,462 to purchase the pond and required easements to manage regional stormwater flows. The total purchase price of the parcel and an additional easement for both regional and adjacent stormwater flows,based on a City funded appraisal and less an easement being reserved by the property owner, was $1,222,934. This left a project budget shortfall of$326,472, which relates specifically to the cost associated with the land necessary to detain stormwater from adjacent development. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on December 7, 2010, authorizes a loan to the Fort 64 December 21, 2010 Collin's Urban Renewal Authority(URA)from the City's Storm Drainage Fund Reserves to close the acquisition cost gap. On December 7, 2010, the Urban Renewal Authority Board voted unanimously to postpone consideration of the Loan Agreement pertaining to the Northeast College Corridor Outfall project. The primary reason for postponement was the desire to understand the project more fully, especially environmental impacts, impacts from proposed changes to the floodplain regulations, and the financial capacity of the plan area. The URA Board elected to appropriate the funds necessary to pay for the debt service associated with the Loan Agreement, indicating it anticipates moving forward with the project. Staff plans to bring the item back to the URA Board next year as the City Council calendar permits. 10. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 124, 2010, Amending Section 2-575 of the City Code Relating to Councilmember Compensation. Article II, Section 3 of the City Charter directs that the compensation of Councilmembers shall be adjusted annually for inflation in accordance with the Denver/Boulder Consumer Price Index. In 2010, Councilmembers were compensated $675 per month, and the Mayor received $1005 per month. The 2011 compensation of Councilmembers will be $680 per month and the compensation of the Mayor will be $1,015 per month. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on December 7, 2010, amends Section 2-575 of the City Code to accurately reflect the compensation of the Council for calendar year 2011, as adjusted pursuant to the requirement of the City Charter. 11. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 125, 2010, Amending the City Code to Increase the Amounts of the Capital Improvement Expansion Fees Contained in Chapter 7.5 of the Code so as to Reflect Inflation in Associated Costs of Services. The City Code requires annual adjustments to the City's impact fees. The Capital Improvement Expansion fees and Neighborhood Parkland fee are to follow the changes in the Denver-Boulder-Greeley Consumer Price Index (CPI). Street Oversizing fees are adjusted by the changes posted in the Engineering News Record (ENR). Since the last adjustment in 2009 the CPI has increased 1.1% and the ENR has increased 5.48%. This Ordinance was unanimously adopted on First Reading on December 7, 2010. 12. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 126, 2010,Amending Section 25-75(a)of the City Code to Increase the Rate of Tax By Eighty-Five Hundredths Percent (0.85%) Effective January ' 1, 2011, in Accordance with the Ballot Measure Approved by the Registered Electors on November 2, 2010. A Special Municipal Election was held in conjunction with the November 2,2010, Larimer County General Election for a 0.85%increase in the sales and use tax rate with an effective date of January 1, 2011. The qualified electors of the city approved the imposition of such 65 December 21, 2010 additional tax. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on December 7, 2010, codifies the increase in the rate of sales tax. 13. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 127, 2010, Amending Section 27-38 of the City Code Relating to the Licensing of Arborists. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on December 7,2010,amends City Code to set the renewal date for all arborist licenses as January 31 st of each year. 14. Items Relating to the Linden Street Streetscaping Project. A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 128, 2010, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Funds and Downtown Development Authority Funds for the Linden Street Streetscape Project. B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 129, 2010, Authorizing Acquisition by Eminent Domain Proceedings of Certain Lands Necessary to Construct Public Improvements in Connection with the Linden Street Streetscape Project. The Linden Street Streetscape project will add curb,gutter,sidewalk,on-street parking,bike lanes,urban design,historic interpretive features and landscaping to Linden Street,between Jefferson Street and the Poudre River. Utility improvements are planned to precede the street improvements as a part of a City of Fort Collins Utilities project. Construction is planned for summer 2011. Ordinance No. 128, 2010, appropriates federal grant funds and transfers additional DDA funds to the project. Ordinance No. 129,2010,authorizes the City to use eminent domain for acquisition of property, if necessary. Staff anticipates that only temporary easements will be required for the construction of this project. The authorization from Council to use eminent domain is a requirement of the federal funding. Eminent domain is considered a last course of action and is only to be used when deemed necessary. Both Ordinances were unanimously adopted on First Reading on December 7, 2010. 15. Items Relating to the McMurry Natural Area Annexation and Zoning_ A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 130, 2010, Annexing Property Known as the McMurry Natural Area Annexation to the City. B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 13-1,2010,Amending the Zoning Map of the City and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the McMurry Natural Area Annexation to the City. These Ordinances,unanimously adopted on First Reading on December 7, 2010, annex and , zone the City-owned McMurry Natural Area. The parcel is 48.79 acres in size and located north of the Poudre River and east of North Shields Street. The recommended zoning is P- O-L, Public Open Lands. 66 December 21, 2010 16. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 132, 2010, Approving the Terms of the City's Lease of Office Space for Police District One at 144 North Mason Street. The Police District One Office moved from Old Town Square to 144 North Mason, Suites 1, 2, and a portion of 3 in 2010. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on December 7, 2010, approves the terms of the lease dated May 1, 2010; for the new space. 17. Resolution 2010-076 Authorizing the City Manager to Submit to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development an Application for the Section 108 Loan Guarantee Program. Staff has prepared an application requesting a $5 million loan pool from the Section 108 Loan Guarantee Program offered by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Section 108 is the loan provision of the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program, and allows communities to leverage their annual CDBG entitlement grant and provide loans for local economic and community development projects. Eligible projects must meet one of HUD's national objectives, and must be an eligible activity as defined by CDBG Program regulations. The$5 million loan pool allows the City to provide smaller loans to eligible projects on a case-by-case basis. Loans are anticipated to be at least $1 million per project. 18. Items Relating to the I-25/SH392 Interchange Project. A. Resolution 2010-077 Approving an Intergovernmental Agreement Between the City of Fort Collins and the Town of Windsor Pertaining to the Development of the Interstate 125/State Highway 392 Interchange, Including Provisions for Cost and Revenue Sharing, Annexation and Land Use Development. B. Resolution 2010-078 Approving a Contract With the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) and the Town of Windsor Concerning The Funding, Construction and Maintenance of Improvements to the I-25/State Highway 392 Interchange. The City and the Town of Windsor have collaborated to plan and design the I-25/SH-392 Interchange Project (the "Project"). The final design is complete and funds have been identified for construction. Staff from the City and Windsor have been working to develop an intergovernmental agreement between the City and the Town of Windsor, as well as negotiate contract language with CDOT regarding construction,maintenance and ownership of the interchange.The intergovernmental agreement between the City and Windsor defines the process for review of development and redevelopment proposals, sets out cost sharing, puts in place reimbursement and maintenance through fees,and establishes revenue sharing. Resolution 2010-077 approves an Intergovernmental Agreement between the City of Fort Collins and the Town of Windsor and defines the review of development and redevelopment 67 December 21, 2010 proposals,cost sharing and reimbursement through development impact fees and establishes revenue sharing between the two communities. Resolution 2010-078 approves a contract between CDOT, the City of Fort Collins, and the Town of Windsor defining construction, maintenance, and ownership, identifying construction and right of way funding responsibilities, and outlining maintenance responsibilities. 19. Resolution 2010-079 Making Appointments to Various Boards, Commissions, and Authorities of the City of Fort Collins. Vacancies currently exist on various boards, commissions, and authorities due to _ resignations of board members and the expiration of terms of current members. Applications were solicited during September and Council teams interviewed applicants during November and December. This Resolution appoints boardmembers to fill current vacancies and term expirations. ***END CONSENT*** Ordinances on Second Reading were read by title by City Clerk Krajicek. 8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 122,2010,Appropriating Funds from the City's General Fund Reserves for Transfer to the Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority for the Purpose of Providing a Loan for the Jax, Inc. Building Expansion Project. 10. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 124, 2010, Amending Section 2-575 of the City Code Relating to Councilmember Compensation. 11. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 125, 2010, Amending the City Code to Increase the Amounts of the Capital Improvement Expansion Fees Contained in Chapter 7.5 of the Code so as to Reflect Inflation in Associated Costs of Services. 12. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 126,2010,Amending Section 25-75(a)of the City Code to Increase the Rate of Tax By Eighty-Five Hundredths Percent(0.85%) Effective January 11 2011, in Accordance with the Ballot Measure Approved by the Registered Electors on November 2, 2010. 13. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 127, 2010, Amending Section 27-38 of the City Code Relating to the Licensing of Arborists. 14. Items Relating to the Linden Street Streetscaping Project. A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 128, 2010, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Funds and Downtown Development Authority Funds for the Linden Street Streetscape Project. 68 December 21, 2010 B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 129, 2010, Authorizing Acquisition by Eminent Domain Proceedings of Certain Lands Necessary to Construct Public Improvements in Connection with the Linden Street Streetscape Project. 15. Items Relating to the McMurry Natural Area Annexation and Zoning. A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 130, 2010, Annexing Property Known as the McMurry Natural Area Annexation to the City. B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 131,2010,Amending the Zoning Map of the City and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the McMurry Natural Area Annexation to the City. 16. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 132, 2010, Approving the Terms of the City's Lease of Office Space for Police District One at 144 North Mason Street. 23. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 134,2010,Amending Ordinance No. 111,2010,Relating to the Annual Appropriations for the Fiscal Year 2011; Adopting the Budget for the Fiscal Years Beginning January 1,2011,and Ending December 31,2012;and Fixing the Mill Levy for Fiscal Year 2011 Eric Sutherland,3520 Golden Currant,withdrew Item No. 17,Resolution 2010-076AuthorLing the City Manager to Submit to the U.S.Department of Housing and Urban Development an Application for the Section 108 Loan Guarantee Program. Jeff Schneider, 755 Peregrine Run, withdrew Item No. 11, Second Reading of Ordinance No. 125, 2010,Amending the City Code to Increase the Amounts of the Capital Improvement Expansion Fees Contained in Chapter 7.5 of the Code so as to Reflect Inflation in Associated Costs of Services. Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to adopt all items not withdrawn from the Consent Calendar. Yeas: Hutchinson,Kottwitz,Manvel,Ohlson,Poppaw, Roy and Troxell. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. Consent Calendar Follow-up Councilmember Kottwitz thanked staff for work on the telecommunications facilities at Southridge Greens Golf Course. Councilmember Manvel noted Item No. 19,Resolution 2010-079 Making Appointments to Various Boards, Commissions, and Authorities of the City of Fort Collins, appoints 50 individuals to vacancies on City boards and commissions. 69 December 21, 2010 Staff Reports Hal Dean,Police Services,gave a report regarding the Police Services towing policy and reductions in the number of tow companies on the rotational tow list. The reductions will enhance efficiencies for Police Services. Mayor Pro Tern Ohlson asked about a towing company's gate charge. Dean replied a gate charge applies when someone wants to retrieve his vehicle,or items from his vehicle,after regular business hours. Councilmember Kottwitz asked how frequently the rotational tow company list would be revised. Dean replied a Request for Proposal would be put out for four companies each five years and would be reviewed on an annual basis. Ordinance No. 134, 2010, Amending Ordinance No. 111, 2010, Being the Annual Appropriation Ordinance Relating to the Annual Appropriations for the Fiscal Year 2011; Adopting the Budget for the Fiscal Years Beginning January 1, 2011- and Ending December 31, 2012; and Fixing the Mill Lew for the Fiscal Year 2011, Adopted on Second Reading The following is staff s memorandum for this item. "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The revised Annual Appropriation Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading, is presented for Second Reading. This Ordinance sets the City Budget for the two year period(2011-2012). The approved Budget becomes the City's financial plan for the next two fiscal years. This revised Annual Appropriation Ordinance includes the additional recommendations that were discussed by Council at a special Budget work session on December 11, 2010. On First Reading, the Ordinance was amended to add$5,000 to Economic Action Plan Update/ Economic Competitiveness Study in 2011 and the Economic Action Plan Project Initiatives in 2012. To accomplish this within available funding sources, the Radon Mitigation Behavioral Study was moved from 2B-Other Community Priority, to be funded out of the General Fund. Additionally, Lincoln Center Facility Staff and Marketing Budget— Restore Prior Year Reductions, has been reduced from$100,000 to$95,000 in 2011 and 2012. There is also a correction to reflect the money for the Lincoln Center of$95,000 that was omitted on First Reading. Accordingly,_the net changes to the appropriation ordinance are: $95,000 increase to the Cultural Services Fund $ 5,000 increase to the General Fund. " City Manager Atteberry discussed the Ordinance and noted the City has a solid savings account and solid credit rating. 70 December 21, 2010 Eric Sutherland,3520 Golden Currant,expressed concern about the sales tax rate and reserve funds. Councilmember Roy made a motion,seconded by Councilmember Poppaw,to adopt Ordinance No. 134, 2010, on Second Reading. Councilmember Troxell expressed concern that no reserve funds were actively replenished and noted staff is preparing a review of the reserves. City Manager Atteberry replied the review would be complete by the end of the year. Councilmember Manvel thanked citizens for support of Ballot Measure 2B and staff and Council for work on the Budget. Mayor Pro Tern Ohlson noted the final Budget is exactly as promised in the campaign for Ballot Measure 2B. Mayor Hutchinson supported the final version of the Budget and expressed appreciation for staff and Council work on the Budget. The vote on the motion was as follows:Yeas:Hutchinson,Kottwitz,Manvel,Ohlson,Poppaw,Roy, and Troxell. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. Consideration of the Appeal by Windtrail on Spring Creek, HOA of the October 21, 2010 Determination of the Planning and Zoning Board to: (1) approve the CSURF Center for Advanced Technology, Amended Overall Development Plan; (2) approve the Request for Modification of Standard in Section 3.2.2(L) Parking Stall Dimensions of the Land Use Code; and, (3) approve the Request for Modification of Standard in Section 3.5.2(D)(2)Setbacks from Nonarterial Streets of the Land Use Code, Planning and Zoning Board Decision Overturned The following is staff s memorandum for this item. "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY On October 21, 2010, the Planning and Zoning Board conducted a public hearing considering the proposed CSURF Center for Advanced Technology, Amended Overall Development Plan (ODP); Request for Modification of Standard in Section 3.2.2(L) of the Land Use Code; and, Request for Modification of Standard in Section 3.5.2(D)(2) of the Land Use Code. The Board considered testimony from the applicant, the public and staff The Amended ODP and requests for two (2) modifications ofstandards were approved. Windtrail on Spring CreekHOA and Hillpond on Spring Creek have appealed the Board's decisions. The allegations set forth in the Amended Notice of Appeal dated November 24, 2010, are that the Planning and Zoning Board did not properly interpret and apply relevant portions of the Code and Charter, and failed to conduct a fair hearing because it ignored previously established rules of procedure, considered evidence relevant to its 71 December 21, 2010 finds which was grossly misleading, and failed to receive all relevant evidence offered by the appellant. BA CKGRO UND/DISCUSSION This is a request for a CSURF Centre for Advanced Technology,Amended Overall Development Plan . The purpose of the Amended ODP is to realign the proposed future Rolland Moore Drive street connection through Parcel C between Centre Avenue and South Shields Street; and, to eliminate the proposed future Northerland Drive street connection from Parcel C to Gilgalad Way in the Windtrail on Spring Creek PUD to the north. The properties contained on the ODP are, accumulatively, 116.7 acres in size. They are located in the MMN-Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood and E-Employment Zoning Districts. This is a private multi family residential project known as the The Grove, Project Development Plan. It is a proposed student housing project containing 216 dwelling units in 12 residential buildings +8 dwelling units and 1 manager's unit in a clubhouse building. The site is located at the southwest corner of CentreAvenue and existing Rolland Moore Drive, directly south of the Gardens on Spring Creek, in the Centre forAdvanced Technology. Rolland Moore Drive would be realigned onto the southerly portion of the subject property and extended east,from the existing terminus approximately 800 feet east of South Shields Street, to connect with Centre Avenue just to the north of the Larimer No. 2 Canal. There would be about 550 parking spaces on-site and 86 parking spaces on Rolland Moore Drive. The property is 22.9 acres in size. It is located in the MMN - Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood andE-Employment Zoning Districts. The developmentproposal contains 3 requests for modifications and I request for alternative compliance to standards set forth in Sections 3.2.2(L), 3.5.2(D)(2), 3.6.3(F), and 4.6(E)(1) of the Land Use Code. ACTION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD 1. At its October 21, 2010 regular meeting, the Planning and Zoning Board made the following findings of fact and conclusions as stated on page 6 of the Staff Report for the CSURF Centre for Advanced Technology, Amended Overall Development Plan: A. The ODP complies with the applicable standards as stated in Section 2.3.2(D)(1 - 8). B. The re-alignment of Rolland Moore Drive is in compliance with the intent of the Master Street Plan and preserves existing wetlands. C. The elimination of the connection between Northerland Drive and Rolland Moore Drive will not impact this neighborhood in a detrimental way because ample existing pedestrian, bicycle and vehicular connections are provided via the local street network and trails in the area;and wetlands are preserved by the elimination of this connection. 72 December 21, 2010 The Board considered the testimony of the applicant, affected property owners and staff and voted to approve the CSURF Centre for Advanced Technology, Amended Overall Development Plan. 2. At its October 21, 2010, regular meeting, the Planning and Zoning Board made the following findings of fact and conclusions as stated on pages 20, 21 and 22 of the Staff Report for The Grove, Project Development Plan: A. The PDP is in conformance with the approved Amended CSURF Centre for Advanced Technology, ODP. B. The proposed land use is permitted in the MMN, Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood,District C. The proposed land use is permitted in the E, Employment District as a Secondary use. D. The Project Development Plan complies with applicable General Development Standards contained in Article 3 of the Land Use Code, with two (2) exceptions: 1. Section 3.2.2(L) Parking Stall Dimensions. This section requires that parallel parking stall widths be a minimum of 8'-0"for standard vehicles and 7'-6"for compact vehicles. The applicant is proposing a width of 7'-0" for all parallel parking spaces on Rolland Moore Drive. The design of Rolland Moore Drive from the current west end to Centre Avenue shall be designed as a Connector Local street rather than a Collector street. A posted speed of 25 miles per hour (mph) versus a 40 mph speed has been granted by City Engineering. The narrower parallel parking width, in combination with the approved overall street cross section, will help reduce vehicle speed on Rolland Moore Drive and provide a safer, more urban streetscape. A narrower street cross section typically causes drivers to slow down, making it less likely that they will drive faster than the speed limit. Therefore, staff believes that there is sx f cientjustification to grant the Modification ofthe Standard as requested, based on the criteria set forth in Section 2.8.2(H)(1) of the Land Use Code. The proposed plan as submitted will promote the general purpose of the standard for which the modification is requested equally well or better than would a plan which complies with the standard for which the modification is requested. It is important to note, however, that staff has subsequently determined that this code provision actually applies only to private parking lots and private drives and notpublic streets Therefore, the application of this standard in this case was done in error. 2. Section 3.5.2(D)(2) Setback from Nonarterial Streets. This section requires that the minimum setback of every residential building and every detached 73 December 21, 2010 accessory building that is incidental to the residential building from any public street right-of-way other than an arterial street right-of-way shall be 1 S feet. The proposed buildings along Rolland Moore Drive are proposed to be set back generally between 10 feet and 13 feet from the street right-of- way. Rolland Moore Drive is classified as a collector street on the City of Fort Collins Master Street Plan and, therefore, the buildings should be set back a distance of 15 feet from the right-of-way. The actual setbacks from the right-of-way for the 9 buildings fronting on Rolland Moore Drive will vary from 7 feet to 13 feet at the entries and 13 feet to 20 feet for other points on the fronts of Buildings 1 — 7. The entries are at the stated setback because of columns that protrude out from the rest of the facades. The ends of Buildings 8 and 12 facing the street will be set back 10 feet from the right-of- way. There is a 10 foot wide sidewalk with S foot x 5 foot tree wells, containing shade trees, attached to the curb. The buildings provide a significant amount ofsetback variation from the street and parallel parking. The building articulation, containing brick masonry on the entire 1st floor and brick columns going to the 2nd and 3rd floors in various locations, works well with the approved narrower street section as they relate to a more urban setting. Therefore, staff believes that there is suff cient justification to grant the Modification of the Standard as requested, based on the criteria set forth in Sections 2.8.2(H)(1) and (4) of the Land Use Code. The proposed plan as submitted will promote the general purpose of the standard for which the modification is requested equally well or better than would a plan which complies with the standard for which the modification is requested;and, that the plan as submitted will not diverge from the standards of the LUC that are authorized by this Division to be modified except in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered from the perspective of the entire development plan,and will continue to advance the purposes of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2. E. The Project Development Plan complies with applicable district standards of Article 4, Division 4.6 MMN, Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood District of the Land Use Code, with the following exception: 1. Section 4.6(E)(1) Block Requirements. This section sets forth the requirements for "block structure"and "block size"in the MMNDistrict. All blocks shall be limited to a maximum of 7 acres in size. Blocks shall be bounded by streets (public or private), although natural areas and irrigation ditches may form up to 2 sides of a block. The portion of The Grove,PDP located in the MMNDistrict is approximately 12 acres in size. The site is irregular in shape, with existing wetlands on the north 74 December 21, 2010 and west portions of the site and the Larimer No. 2 Canal along the south property line. The proposed Rolland Moore Drive runs through the development from west to east, with 10 foot wide attached sidewalks on either side. There is a private drive system forming a 10 acre block, containing 6 of the 12 buildings, that overlaps into the E, Employment District. There is an internal sidewalk network within this block that provides good, convenient circulation and pedestrian connections between the residential buildings and to the amenity area. Additional street connections to the north and south are not feasible because of the wetlands and the canal. Staff believes that there is sufficient justification to grant the Modification of the Standard as requested, based on the criteria setforth in Sections 2.8.2(H)(1)and(3) of the Land Use Code. The proposed plan as submitted will promote the general purpose of the standard for which the modification is requested equally well or better than would a plan which complies with the standard for which the modification is requested;and, by reason ofexceptional physical conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional situations, unique to such property, including, but not limited to, physical conditions such as exceptional narrowness, shallowness or topography, orphysical conditions which hinder the owner's ability to install a solar energy system, the strict application of the standard sought to be modified would result in unusual and exceptional practical difficulties, or exceptional or undue hardship upon the owner ofsuch property,provided that such difficulties or hardship are not caused by the act or omission of the applicant. F. The Project Development Plan complies with applicable district standards of Article 4, Division 4.27 E, Employment District of the Land Use Code. The Board considered the testimony of the applicant, affected property owners and staff and voted to approve the Request for Modification of Standard in Section 3.2.2(L)Parking Stall Dimensions; and, voted to approve the Request for Modification of Standard in Section 3.5.2(D)(2)Setbackfrom Nonarterial Streets. ALLEGATIONS ONAPPEAL On November 26, 2010, an Amended Notice of Appeal was received by the City Clerk's Office from the Windtrail on Spring Creek HOA (c%Kevin Barrier, President of the HOA, 602 Gilgalad Way, Fort Collins, Colorado, 80526);and,Hillpond on Spring Creek(c% Gail Dethloff Board President of the HOA, 1937 Wallenberg Drive, Fort Collins, Colorado, 80526). The Appellants allege that: 75 December 21, 2010 1. 1 Appeal of the approved re-alignment of Rolland Moore Drive and changes to the Overall Development Plan #16-10. I (a) Failure to conduct a fair hearing in that the Board did not follow relevant procedures- 2-48(b)(2)b. The agenda described two separate items; modifying the ODP regarding the re-alignment ofRolland Moore Drive and the PDP regarding The Grove development. Yet, though these items are completely separate, without notice or discussion, these items were combined, thus,public input was not heard on the ODP or on the Request for Alternative Compliance for Sub-Arterial Street Connections To and From Adjacent Developments LUC 3.6.3(Q. Additionally the Planning and Zoning Board did not vote on LUC 3.6.3(C) Request for Alternative Compliance for Sub-Arterial Street Connections To and From Adjacent Developments before voting on the ODP(#4) item of Agenda. A public input and vote on this item is paramount to deciding whether or not to approve the ODP for the re-alignment of Rolland Moore Drive. (b) Failure to conductafair hearing in that the Board consideredgrossly misleading evidence - 2-48(b)(2)c. As stated above, because the Board did not follow established relevant procedures, and the public was not allowed to comment on this item separately. The Planning and Zoning Board then considered evidence relevant to its findings, which was substantially false or grossly misleading. It has never been maintained that Rolland Moore Drive in its current location was a detriment to wetlands or to wildlife. Yet this was the reason asserted for moving it south. It has been widely established in neighborhood meetings with Ted Shepard that its current location is paramount to safety, connectivity and the continuity of the existing neighborhoods. Yet due to the failure to conduct a fair hearing this evidence could not be offered. (c) Failure to conductafair hearingin that the Board consideredgrossly misleading evidence - 2-48(b)(2)c. In the decision to move Rolland Moore Drive south staff failed to communicate to the Planning and Zoning Board that they had usurped the intent of the Land Use Code and the Master Street Plan. Rolland Moore Drive is a Minor Collector, and as such is an important component of neighborhood connectivity. Yet, staff has chosen to design it as a much narrower Local Connector to fit the project in. The City Transportation Advisory Board must approve the change/amendment as must City Council through resolution. (d) Failure to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Code and Charter-2- 48(b)(1). In Section 2.3.2 Overall Development Plan review Procedures of the Land Use Code, Section 2.3.2(H)(1)states, in part: "Ifthe overall developmentplan contains any land within theM-M-N, C-Cand/orN-CDistricts, theplan shall be consistent with the block size requirements for those districts. "Therefore, in order for the Planning and Zoning Board to have considered the ODP, the plan should have been "consistent with the block size requirements". However, the plan presented on October 21 did not meet the block size 76 December 21, 2010 requirements, nor did the Planning and Zoning Board consider the block size modification requested by the Applicant prior to approving the ODP. 2. Appeal of approved variance to narrow parking lane width from 8'to 7 (a) Failure to conduct a fair hearing-2-48(b)(2)d. The Planning and Zoning Board failed to receive all evidence offered by the appellant. Sarah Burnett offered into evidence the description of a letter dated May 18th regarding multiple additional variances granted by staff. Knowledge of these variances would show how dramatically this project does not fit the Fort Collins Building Code. (b) Failure to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Code and Charter—2- 48(b)(1). The Board failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Code and Charter. Appellants brought up that the project was being fit into too small of a space by the use of multiple variances. City staff's argument for granting the variance was based on Loveland Development Code and streetscapes. The Planning and Zoning Board failed to apply relevant Fort Collins City Code by referencing acceptance ofLoveland's city code for street design. We have our own Code to apply. 3. Appeal of approved variance reducing building setback from 1 S' to 10' - 13' in some places, 7'- 13'at the entry of some buildings. (a) Failure to conduct a fair hearing — 2-48(b)(2)d. Board failed to receive all evidence offered by the appellant. Sarah Burnett offered into evidence the description of a letter dated May 18th regarding multiple additional variances granted by staff. Knowledge of these variances would show how dramatically this project does not fit the Fort Collins Building Code. (b) Failure to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Code and Charter—2- 48(b)(1). The Board failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Code and Charter. Allowing narrower setback without considering additional reduced street width, reduced travel lane, reduced parkway width, reduced right-of-way, bike lanes variances already granted in totality with this variance shows how dramatically this project does not fit the Fort Collins Building Code. DETERMINATIONS TO BE MADE BY COUNCIL 1. Did the Planning and Zoning Board fail to conduct a fair hearing because it ignored its previously established rules ofprocedure? 2. Did the Planning and Zoning Board fail to conduct a fair hearing because it considered evidence relevant to its findings which was grossly misleading? 3. Did the Planning and Zoning Board fail to conduct a fair hearing because itfailed to receive all relevant evidence offered by the appellant? 77 December 21, 2010 4. Did the Planning and Zoning Board properly interpret and apply relevant portions of the Code and Charter? STAFF ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS Allegation 1(a) Appellants'Statement: The agenda described two separate items; modifying the ODP regarding the re-alignment of Rolland Moore Drive and the PDP regarding The Grove development. Yet, though these items are completely separate, without notice or discussion, these items were combined thus public input was not heard on the ODP or on the Request for Alternative Compliance for Sub-Arterial Street Connections To and From Adjacent Developments LUC 3.6.3(C). Additionally the Planning and Zoning Board did not vote on LUC 3.6.3(C)Request forAlternative Compliancefor Sub-Arterial Street Connections To and From AdjacentDevelopments before voting on the ODP (#4) item of Agenda. A public input and vote on this item is paramount to deciding whether or not to approve the ODP for the re-alignment of Rolland Moore Drive. Staff's response: The Planning and Zoning Board, at the beginning of the discussions of the CSURF Centre for Advanced Technology,Amended ODP and The Grove, PDP, decided to discuss both items together and receive input from staff, the applicant, and the public accordingly. The Board made this announcement prior to any presentation or discussion. The public was given the opportunity to provide input on either item or both items during their testimony. This is standard procedure as ODP's and PDP's are frequently combined. City staff addressed the alternative compliance request for Section 3.6.3(F) Utilization and Provision of Sub-Arterial Street Connections to and from Adjacent Development and Developable Parcels of the Land Use Code. The actual request for alternative compliance was part of The Grove, PDP consideration. Alternative compliance, unlike a Modification of Standard, does not require a separate motion and vote of the Board. If the Board had either approved or denied The Grove, PDP then the request for alternative compliance to Section 3.6.3(F) would have been approved or denied as part of the Board's decision. Allegation 1(b) Appellants'Statement: Because the Board did not follow established relevant procedures, and the public was not allowed to comment on this item separately. The Planning and Zoning Board then considered evidence relevant to its findings, which was substantially false or grossly misleading. It has never been maintained that Rolland Moore Drive in its current location was a detriment to wetlands or to 78 December 21, 2010 wildlife. Yet this was the reason asserted for moving it south. It has been widely established in neighborhood meetings with Ted Shepard that its current location is paramount to safety, connectivity and the continuity of the existing neighborhoods. Yet due to the failure to conduct a fair hearing this evidence could not be offered. Staff's Response: The proposed amendment to the ODP shows the wetland and natural features located in Parcel C in greater detail than the currently adopted ODP. The re-alignment of Rolland Moore Drive to the south and the elimination of the Northerland Drive connection to Rolland Moore Drive from Gilgalad Way will actually preserve the existing wetland and natural features more than the plan would as it is proposed currently. Staff supports the elimination of the Northerland Drive connection because of the impact on the wetland and the neighborhood is already well connected via the existing local street network and pedestrian connections to the Spring Creek Trail. Staffalso found that the re-alignment continues to meet the intent of the Master Street Plan because the Master Street Plan is intended to ensure that connectivity and alignments are maintained as development occurs, not to designate the exact locations. Allegation 1(c) Appellants'Statement: In the decision to move Rolland Moore Drive south stafffailed to communicate to the Planning and Zoning Board that it had usurped the intent of the Land Use Code and the Master Street Plan. Rolland Moore Drive is a Minor Collector, and, as such, is an important component of neighborhood connectivity. Yet, staff has chosen to design it as a much narrower Local Connector to fit the project in. The City Transportation Advisory Board must approve the change/amendment as must City Council through resolution. Staff's Response: As outlined in 1.9.4A of the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards ("LCUASS') the local entity engineer has the authority to approve a design that does not conform to the standards setforth in LCUASS through the local entity engineer's evaluation and approval of a variance request prepared by a professional engineer. In a letter dated May 18, 2010, Sheri Langenberger, the City's Development Review Engineering Manager, approved a variance request to allow Rolland Moore Drive to be built to a roadway that is narrower than the width specified in LCUASS. This decision was made in consultation with the City's Engineering Department, Transportation Planning and Traffic Operations. City staff concurs with the consultant engineer that the public health, safety, and welfare would not be compromised in the granting of this variance. The street cross-section is based on sound engineering principles and was not an attempt "to fit the project in". Street width does not necessarily dictate street classification and the local entity engineer's decision to approve the variance is not appealable based upon 1.9.4B ofLCUASS. Furthermore, variances to street width are not unusual. 79 December 21, 2010 Allegation 1(d) Appellants'Statement: In Section 2.3.2 Overall Development Plan review Procedures of the Land Use Code, Section 2.3.2(H)(1)states, in part: "If the overall development plan contains any land within the M-M-N, C-C and/or N-C Districts, the plan shall be consistent with the block size requirements for those districts. " Therefore, in order for the Planning and Zoning Board to have considered the ODP, the plan should have been "consistent with the block size requirements". However, the plan presented on October 21 did not meet the block size requirements, nor did the Planning and Zoning Board consider the block size modification requested by the Applicant prior to approving the ODP. Staff's Response: Section 2.1.3(B) Overall Development Plan of the Land Use Code states that "the purpose of the overall development plan is to establish e�planning and development control parameters for projects that will be developed inphases with multiple submittals while allowing sufficientf exibility to permit detailed planning in subsequent submittals". An ODP does not provide the level of detail regarding the location and alignment of streets smaller than a defined collector street and, therefore, is not intended to graphically include the criteria for establishing the size and structure ofa block in the MMNDistrict. The ODP identifies the need fora future PDP to be consistent with the block size requirement set forth in Section 4.6(E)(1)of the Land Use Code, unless a modification or the standard is requested and approved. Allegation 2(a) Appellants'Statement: The Planning and Zoning Board failed to receive all evidence offered by the appellant. Sarah Burnett offered into evidence the description of a letter dated May 18th regarding multiple additional variances granted by staff.Knowledge of these variances would show how dramatically this project does not f t the Fort Collins Building Code. Staff's Response: The evidence referred to in this allegation was notpresented and offered to the Planning and Zoning Board at its public hearing on October 21, 2010. It was offered to and received by the Board at its November 18, 2010,public hearing and, therefore, is not apart of the public record. Allegation 2(b) Appellants'Statement: The Board failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Code and Charter. Appellants brought up that the project was being fit into too small ofa space by the use of multiple 80 December 21, 2010 variances. City staff's argument for granting the variance was based on Loveland Development Code and streetscapes. The Planning and Zoning Board failed to apply relevant Fort Collins City Code by referencing acceptance of Loveland's city code for street design. We have our own Code to apply. Staff's Response: City staffprovided the Planning and Zoning Board information on cross-sections of various street classifications present in the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards(`ZCUASS'). LCUASS contains design specification for the City of Fort Collins as well as the City of Loveland and Larimer County. Among the information presented, was that the City of Loveland has as part of its collector standard, a 7-foot parking lane. This was provided simply as contest to illustrate that functioning collector streets exist with 7foot parking lanes. The City does not view a safety concern exists in the use of a 7-foot parking lane, as evidence by Mrs. Langenberger's approval of the variance. It should be noted that the City of Fort Collins has a 7 foot parking lane as the standard width for , residential local streets for over 10 years. The various newer subdivisions in the last 10 years(i.e., Maple Hill, Sidehill, Observatory Village, Harvest, and Sage Creek)all have 7 footparking lanes. City staff did not require the application of this modification to these specific projects. That is because, as noted above, this code provision actually applies to private parking lots and private drives but not public streets and the application of this standard in this case was done in error. Therefore,if City Council decides that this item should be remanded to the Planning and Zoning Board, City staff would no longer require this modification of the development plan. Allegation 3(a) Appellant's Statement: Board failed to receive all evidence offered by the appellant. Sarah Burnett offered into evidence the description of a letter dated May 18th regarding multiple additional variances granted by staff. Knowledge ofthese variances wouldshow how dramatically this project does notfit the Fort Collins Building Code. Staffs Response: The evidence referred to in this allegation was notpresented and offered to the Planning and Zoning Board at its public hearing on October 21, 2010. It was offered to and received by the Board at its November 18, 2010 public hearing and, therefore, is not a part of the public record. Allegation 3(b) Appellants'Statement: 81 December 21, 2010 The Board failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Code and Charter. Allowing narrower setback without considering additional reduced street width, reduced travel lane, reduced parkway width, reduced right-of-way, bike lanes variances already granted in totality with this variance shows how dramatically this project does not fit the Fort Collins Building Code. Staff's Response: The Planning and Zoning Board did consider the relationship of the residential buildings to the street cross-section as proposed by the applicant and the variances granted by the Engineering Department. As stated in the Staff Report to the Board and discussed at the public hearing, Section 3.5.2(D)(2)Setbackfrom Nonarterial Street requires that the minimum setback of every residential building and every detached accessory building that is incidental to the residential building from any public street right-of-way other than an arterial street right-of-way shall be 15 feet. The proposed buildings along Rolland Moore Drive are proposed to be set backgenerally between 10 feet and 13 feet from the street right-of-way. Rolland Moore Drive is classified as a collector street on the City of Fort Collins Master Street Plan and, therefore, the buildings should be set back a distance of 15 feet from the right-of-way. The actual setbacks from the right-of-way for the19 buildings fronting on Rolland Moore Drive will vary from 7 feet to 13 feet at the entries and 13 feet to 20 feet for other points on the fronts of Buildings 1 — 7. The ends of Buildings 8 and 12 facing the street will be set back 10 feet from the right-of-way. There is a 10 foot wide sidewalk with 5-foot x 5-foot tree wells, containing shade trees, attached to the curb. The buildings provide a significant amount of setback variation from the street and parallel parking. The building articulation, containing brick masonry on the entire I st floor and brick columns going to the 2nd and 3rd floors in various locations, works well with the approved narrower street section as they relate to a more urban setting. Staff therefore,finds that the Planning and Zoning Board: ].did not ignore its previously established rules ofprocedure; 2.did not consider evidence relevant to its findings which was grossly misleading; 3.did not fail to receive all relevant evidence offered by the appellants; and 4.properly interpreted and applied relevant portions of the Code and Charter. LIST OF RELEVANT CODE PROVISIONS 1. Section 2.3.2 Overall Development Plan Review Procedures The overall development plan shall be consistent with the permitted asses and applicable zone district standards(Article 4)of all zone districts contained within the boundaries of the 82 December 21, 2010 overall developmentplan. The plan shall also be consistent with any zone district standards (Article 4)and general development standards (Article 3)that can be applied at the level of detail required for an overall development plan submittal. If the overall development plan contains any land within the M-M-N, C-C and/or N-C Districts, the plan shall be consistent with the block size requirements for those districts. 2. Section 3.2.2(L)Parking Stall Dimensions Parking areas for automobiles shall meet the following minimum standards for long- and short-term parking of standard and compact vehicles: *8.0'width for parallel(0 degree) Standard Vehicle parking spaces *7.5'width for parallel (0 degree) Compact Vehicle parking spaces 3. 3.5.20)(2) Setback from Nonarterial Streets Minimum setbackofevery residential building and ofevery detached accessory building that is incidental to the residential building from any public street right-of-way other than an arterial street right-of-way shall be fifteen (15)feet. Setbacks from garage doors to the nearest portion of any street sidewalk that intersects with the driveway shall be at least twenty (20)feet. " i City Attorney Roy discussed the quasi-judicial role of Council in an appeal process,per City Code, noting only parties-in-interest participate in the appeal hearing. New evidence is not admissible. Council will have the option to uphold,overturn,or modify the decision of the Planning and Zoning Board,or to remand the item back to the Board should Council find the appellants were denied a fair hearing or there is need for further consideration by the Board. Steve Olt, City Planner, reviewed the two items considered by the Planning and Zoning Board: an amended Overall Development Plan(ODP)for CSURF, and The Grove Project Development Plan (PDP). The Board ultimately approved the modifications of standard for parking stall width and residential building setback. The Board denied the block requirement associated with The Grove PDP and was therefore unable to approve the overall PDP,which was ultimately considered by the Board at a later date. In addition to the two modifications of standard,the amended ODP was also approved. Mayor Hutchinson noted he, Councilmembers Manvel and Troxell and Mayor Pro Tern Ohlsonhad visited the site. Councilmember Manvel stated he did not acquire any information on his site visit that would change his consideration of the case. Councilmember Troxell stated the site visit aided in distinguishing the ODP from the PDP. 83 December 21, 2010 Mayor Pro Tern Ohlson stated the site visit aided in visualizing the land and noted he had questions relating to storm drainage and wetlands, neither of which is being discussed as part of this appeal. Mayor Hutchinson noted the site visit was advertised and attended by several neighbors. Most discussion surrounded storm drainage issues. Mayor Hutchinson stated appellants could speak to the approved ODP or the approved modifications of standard. Appellant Presentation Gear Fisher, 608 Gilgalad Way, Windtrail on Spring Creek HOA Secretary, requested the ODP be remanded back to the Planning and Zoning Board for proper consideration,noting the PDP and ODP were combined for the Board hearing which limited the comment time for each item. Mr. Fisher also requested that Council deny the modifications of standard previously approved by the Board. Kevin Barrier, 602 Gilgalad Way, Windtrail on Spring Creek HOA President, stated the ODP was not appropriately considered and asked that it be remanded to the Planning and Zoning Board. Mr. Barrier also requested that Council deny the modifications of standard previously approved by the Board. Heather Stickler,633 Gilgalad Way,Windtrail on Spring Creek HOA Treasurer,requested the ODP be remanded to the Planning and Zoning Board for a focused and separate discussion. Sarah Burnett, 714 Gilgalad Way, requested the ODP be remanded to the Planning and Zoning Board and discussed possible failures to accurately interpret the Land Use Code. Ms. Burnett also suggested the full scope of requested modifications of standard was not was not considered and asked that Council deny the approved modifications of standard. Ed Peridan, 632 Gilgalad Way,requested the ODP be remanded to the Planning and Zoning Board and the modifications of standard be denied. Opponent Presentation Lucia Liley, attorney representing Campus Crest Development, stated the primary reason for the amended ODP was to realign Rolland Moore Drive in order to lessen the disturbance to area wetlands and wildlife corridor. Ms. Liley discussed the issue regarding combining the ODP and PDP for the hearing and cited the Land Use Code, which states the two may be consolidated and concurrently processed and reviewed. The Board Chairman announced his decision to combine the hearing prior to the staff presentation and public comment and the public was given the opportunity to comment on either or both items. The Land Use Code does not require a separate vote on a request for alternative compliance. Ms. Liley stated the applicant followed the requirements of the Land Use Code and existing ODP. She requested that Council uphold the decisions of the Planning and Zoning Board based upon the specific allegations that have been made and on the Land Use 84 December 21, 2010 Code requirements. The applicant has submitted a new PDP which aims to address the remaining Board and neighborhood concerns. Appellant Rebuttal Mr. Fisher reiterated the appellants' concern that the ODP and PDP were combined for Board consideration and asked that the ODP be remanded to the Board. Ms. Stickler asked about the process for making the decision to combine the ODP and PDP for consideration. She expressed concern that neighbors were originally told the streets could not be re-routed, though the applicant has proposed just that. Ms. Burnett expressed concern that changing a road designation from a collector to a connector should not be an administrative decision. She asked that a larger-sized document, a smaller version of which was previously considered by the Board, be entered into evidence. City Attorney Roy stated the document could be received as it is,simply a larger version of a document which was already part of the record. Ms. Liley did not object and the full-size existing and proposed ODP maps and blow-ups of the notes sections of those maps, labeled as Appellants' Exhibits A-D, were received by Council. Opponent Rebuttal Ms. Liley stated the letter dated May 18" was in the record of the Planning and Zoning Board hearing and is included in tonight's record. However,the letter deals with variances which were not the subject of the hearing. She noted any project slated for this property would need an ODP amendment and asked that Council uphold the Board decision in order to move forward and consider the applicant's PDP. The new PDP aims to satisfy all of the City's requirements with no requested modifications. (**Secretary's note: The Council took a brief recess at this point in the meeting.) Councilmember Manvel asked if considering ODPs and PDPs together is a frequent occurrence and if it is appropriate to combine them. Olt replied the ODP and PDP applications were separate and each had a separate staff report. The discussion at the October 215` Planning and Zoning Board hearing was the first time the two items were considered together. Councilmember Manvel asked what Land Use Code Section 2.3.2(H)(1)states. Olt read the Section into the record: "the Overall Development Plan shall be consistent with permitted uses and applicable zone district standards of all zone districts contained within the boundaries of the ODP. The plan shall also be consistent with any zone district standards that can be applied at the level of detail required for an Overall Development Plan submittal. If the Overall Development Plan contains any land within the MMN, CC, and/or NC districts, the plan shall be consistent with the block size requirements for those districts." Staff s interpretation is that the Overall Development 85 December 21, 2010 Plan should establish general planning and development control parameters. The block standard requirements would need to be met at the more detailed PDP level of review. Councilmember Manvel asked if the block standard requirement was discussed as something the ODP had to satisfy. Olt replied in the negative. Councilmember Manvel expressed concern that the Board approved an ODP that was connected to a PDP which was not going to satisfy the block standard. Ted Shepard, Chief Planner, stated the standard was written to implement block standards on much larger ODPs. Olt clarified the intent of an ODP is not to show the level of detail that would include block size. Councilmember Manvel noted the Land Use Code sentence referencing block size requirements for an ODP was never considered by the Board. Shepard noted the type of street referenced is too small to be shown on an ODP. Councilmember Roy asked about Ms.Bumett's references to the May 18"letter. Mayor Hutchinson stated the letter in question responded to variance requests for Rolland Moore Drive and was signed by Sheri Langenberger, City Engineer. Those variances were approved administratively and were riot considered by the Board. Therefore, those variances should not be considered as part of the appeal. City Attorney Roy stated, in response to Councilmember Roy, this one ground for appeal is intended to address situations wherein the Board does not accept an item entered into evidence. However, there is no evidence to show the Board did not consider the letter. The letter was in evidence as it was part of the staff report which went to the Board;however, it was irrelevant to the Board's determination regarding the ODP. Councilmember Roy asked how many times a road designation has been changed from a collector to a connector. Matt Wempe, Transportation Planning, replied the street widths are frequently modified and noted the Master Street Plan still identifies the street as a collector as the street design still met the definition of a collector. The approved variances looked at the specific design elements from an engineering perspective. Marc Virata, City Engineer, stated staff received a variance request from the applicant to vary components of the street width for Rolland Moore Drive. The applicant needed to demonstrate that the health, safety, and welfare of the general public would not be compromised by the variance. Staff agreed with the applicant and granted the variance. City Attorney Roy noted these types of road width issues are more relevant to the PDP discussion. The variances are not appealable to the Planning and Zoning Board or Council. He recommended that Council ultimately rescind the modification of standard relating to parking stall width as it should never have been required or granted. Councilmember Troxell asked about the allegation that there was no discussion of the Rolland Moore street issue. Olt replied the intent of the ODP dealt with streets in that it showed a graphic realignment change for Rolland Moore Drive. Other than that, there was no presentation or significant discussion regarding the streets. 86 December 21, 2010 Councilmember Troxell asked about the Master Street Plan. Wempe replied the Master Street Plan is a broad planning document and the proposed changes to Rolland Moore Drive,in terms of design, still meet the criteria of a collector street as shown on that Plan. Councilmember Troxell made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, that the Planning and Zoning Board did not fail to conduct a fair hearing with regard to its consideration of the relocation of Rolland Moore Drive and the approval of the Overall Development Plan#16-10. Councilmember Roy stated that, though the hearing may have been fair, the process of including citizens in planning issues needs to be examined. Councilmember Manvel agreed with Councilmember Roy. Mayor Pro Tern Ohlson stated the process of citizen involvement does not appear to be entirely fair but stated he would support the motion given the current system. Councilmember Troxell agreed with Councilmember Roy. Mayor Hutchinson stated Council was in a good position to make a determination about the fairness of the overall process. The vote bn the motion was as follows:Yeas:Hutchinson,Kottwitz,Manvel,Ohlson,Poppaw,Roy and Troxell. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Manvel made a motion,seconded by Councilmember Roy,to overturn the decision of the Planning and Zoning Board approving the realignment of Rolland Moore Drive and approving Overall Development Plan #16-10, stating the Board failed to properly interpret and apply the provisions in Land Use Code Section 2.3.2(H)(1). Councilmember Manvel expressed concern that the ODP was approved, which implies a variance that did not meet Code requirements was granted. Councilmember Kottwitz stated Council was not to consider the block standard question with respect to the ODP. Councilmember Manvel noted the Land Use Code specifically states the ODP must be consistent with the block size requirements for the particular district. Mayor Hutchinson stated the Planning and Zoning Board decision should not be overturned as the ODP is a conceptual planning document and does not preclude a PDP that would be consistent with the block standards. Councilmember Troxell expressed agreement with Mayor Hutchinson and Councilmember Kottwitz. 87 December 21, 2010 The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw and Roy. Nays: Hutchinson, Kottwitz and Troxell. THE MOTION CARRIED. City Attorney Roy stated this decision may make a decision regarding the modifications of standard moot but asked for opinions from the appellants and opponents. Mr. Fisher stated another vote regarding the modifications was not necessary as long as it does not preclude the appellants from making comments, should the applicant appeal the decision to deny the ODP. City Attorney Roy stated any future application or appeal would have public comments opportunities. Ms. Liley expressed disagreement with the decision regarding the modifications as they are stand- alone items which do not need to be associated with an ODP. Olt stated the modifications of standard could be stand-alone items, but do relate to a PDP in this case. As the ODP was denied, the PDP would be out of compliance. However, it would be reasonable for the applicant to want a decision on those. Ms. Liley stated the opponents would not object to moving forward without a decision on the modifications. Councilmember Troxell made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Manvel, to vacate the January, 18, 2011 appeal hearing and find that the decision to deny the amended ODP negates the question of whether to consider the modifications of standard. Yeas:Hutchinson,Kottwitz,Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Roy and Troxell. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. Resolution 2010-080 Making an Appointment to the Water Board, Adopted The following is staffs memorandum for this item. "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A vacancy currently exists on the Water Board due to the expiration of term of David Pillard who did not reapply. Councilmembers David Roy and Wade Troxell conducted interviews but did not agree on a recommendation for the Water Board. The Council interview team wishes to submit two names (Lori Brunswig and Steve Malers)for Council's consideration for that position. " 88 December 21, 2010 Councilmember Roy made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Manvel, to adopt Resolution 2010-080 appointing Lori Brunswig to the Water Board. Councilmember Roy discussed the volunteer service and qualifications of Ms. Brunswig. Councilmember Troxell expressed concern that Ms. Brunswig may not represent' views of mainstream citizens. He discussed the qualifications of Mr. Malers. Councilmember Kottwitz stated Ms. Brunswig's application seemed to put forth a more polarizing view while Mr. Malers' approach appeared more collaborative. Councilmember Roy replied Ms. Brunswig has consistently shown interest in the City's water issues. Councilmember Troxell expressed concern that Ms. Brunswig's appointment would not add diversity to the opinions of the Water Board. Councilmember Manvel expressed support for Ms. Brunswig's work ethic and involvement in the City's water issues. Mayor Hutchinson expressed support for Mr. Malers' qualifications. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw and Roy. Nays: Hutchinson, Kottwitz and Troxell. THE MOTION CARRIED. ("Secretary's note: Councilmember Kottwitz left the meeting at this point.) Ordinance No. 125, 2010, Amending the City Code to Increase the Amounts of the Capital Improvement Expansion Fees Contained in Chapter 7.5 of the Code so as to Reflect Inflation in Associated Costs of Services, Postponed to January 4, 2011 The following is staff s memorandum for this item. "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City Code requires annual adjustments to the City's impact fees. The Capital Improvement Expansion fees and Neighborhood Parkland fee are to follow the changes in the Denver-Boulder- Greeley Consumer Price Index(CPI). Street Oversizing fees are adjusted by the changes posted in the Engineering News Record(ENR). Since the last adjustment in 2009 the CPI has increased 1.1% and the ENR has increased 5.48%. This Ordinance was unanimously adopted on First Reading on December 7, 2010. " Jeff Schneider, 755 Peregrine Run, expressed concern that only one index was used to determine the change in fees and asked that the item be postponed until April 2011. 89 December 21, 2010 Mayor Pro Tern Ohlson asked for clarification regarding the fees that will be considered in April. City Manager Atteberry stated these are capital expansion fees, or impact fees. Mike Freeman,Chief Financial Officer,confirmed development review and building inspection fees will be considered in April, not capital expansion fees. Mayor Pro Tern Ohlson asked that staff report on the index being used and whether that is appropriate. He noted development review fee increases have already been put on hold. Freeman stated the Engineering News Record is the correct index,particularly for street oversizing fees. Tying into the consumer price index for other fees is one logical approach. Mayor Pro Tern Ohlson noted Council has spread out fee increases over time. Mayor Hutchinson asked about a resolution requiring staff to provide background information for fee increases. City Manager Atteberry replied he was unsure if that resolution applies to capital expansion fees, which are subject to automatic inflators. Councilmember Manvel stated he would not support postponing the item. Councilmember Troxell stated he would like information regarding indexes used by neighboring communities. City Attorney Roy noted the Code uses the phrase"increased annually." Should Council intend to use another index,not increase annually, or adjust for deflation as well as inflation,the language of the Code will need to be changed. Mayor Pro Tern Ohlson supported postponing the item to January 4, 2011. Councilmember Roy made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Manvel, to postpone Second Reading of Ordinance No. 125, 2010, to January 4, 2011. Councilmember Roy stated it is prudent to postpone to ensure the decision is consistent with previously defined policy. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Hutchinson, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Roy and Troxell. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. Resolution 2010-076 Authorizing the City Manager to Submit to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development an Application for the Section 108 Loan Guarantee Program, Adopted The following is staff s memorandum for this item. 90 December 21, 2010 "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Staff has prepared an application requesting a $5 million loan pool from the Section 108 Loan Guarantee Program offered by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development(HUD). Section 108 is the loan provision of the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program, and allows communities to leverage their annual CDBG entitlement grant and provide loans for local economic and community development projects. Eligible projects must meet one of HUD's national objectives, and must be an eligible activity as defined by CDBG Program regulations. The $S million loan pool allows the City to provide smaller loans to eligible projects on a case-by-case basis. Loans are anticipated to be at least$1 million per project. BA CKGR O UND/DIS C USSION Staff has prepared an application requesting a $S million loan pool from the Section 108 Loan Guarantee Program offered by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. The Application is included in its entirety as Attachment 1. Section 108 is the loan provision of the Community Development Block Grant(CDBG)Program, and allows communities to leverage their,,, annual CDBG entitlement grant and provide loans for local economic and community development projects. Eligible projects must meet one of HUD's national objectives, and must be an eligible activity as defined by CDBG Program regulations. National objectives include the following: (1) principally benefit low and moderate income persons; (2) aid in the elimination or prevention of slums and blight or; (3)meet an urgent need of the community. Attachment 2 is a Section 108 Loan Program Fact Sheet that concisely explains additional details of the program. The$S million loan pool allows the City to provide smaller loans to eligible projects on a case-by-case basis. Loans are anticipated to be at least$1 million per project. A minimum loan amount is not specified in the application; however, in consideration of City resources, no more than five loans are expected. The advantage of the Section 108 Program is that it adds another tool for.the City to financially leverage non-profit or for profit developments that provide positive economic and social benefits to the community. The City's goal is to provide loans forprojects that add employment opportunities for low and moderate income persons. The Section 108 Program requires the City to pledge current and future CDBG entitlement grants as collateral for any loans made to third party borrowers. If the borrower is not able to repay, no matter what the circumstances, the City is still responsible to fulfill its repayment obligations to HUD. Most communities eitherpurposefully identify their CDBG entitlement grant as a repayment source, or dedicate other revenue such as General Fund or Tax Increment as a debt reserve. Attachment 3 provides information on how several other communities have used the Section 108 Loan Program. If the City has no other repayment source and is unexpectedly forced to use CDBG funds to make payments on the Section 108 Loan, the housing and human service projects that are typically supported by CDBG may not receive the level offunding currently allocated until the loan is repaid to HUD. Key to this process is understanding that the application is purposefully general and non project specific. The City's borrowing capacity is dependent upon the amount of its CDBG entitlement 91 December 21, 2010 grant allocated annually by Congress; therefore, the strategy is to apply for the loan pool now, while the entitlement grant remains substantial (Fort Collins'2010 CDBG entitlement grant was . slightly greater than$1 million). IfHUD agrees to the$5 million loan, the City will have five years to distribute the money to eligible projects. Each potential project will be thoroughly evaluated for its financial feasibility and community benefit by both the City and HUD. Due to the multiple layers of analysis and oversight, staff is confident that only sound projects will be funded, and Section 108 will prove itself as a valuable addition to the City's economic development toolbox. FINANCIAL/ECONOMIC IMPACTS If Council adopts the Resolution, and HUD accepts the City's application, the City will have a $5 million loan pool to use at its discretion for eligible economic development projects as described in the application. Until the City draws money from that loan pool, it will not have any financial obligations to HUD. Once money is drawn down and loaned to a third party, the City will be responsible for quarterly interestpayments and annual principal payments to HUD.Payments from the third parry borrower will provide the revenue to make repayments to HUD. If the third party borrower is not able or otherwise does not fulfill its repayment obligations to the City, the City remains responsible to make its repayments to HUD. By submitting the application, the City is pledging its CDBG Entitlement Grant as collateral should the City not have any other source, i.e., General Fund, to fulfill its dept obligations to HUD. It is expected, as outlined in the application, that the City will require adequate security from the third party borrower that the City could collect in the event of a loan default, and therefore fulfill its debt obligations to HUD so that the CDBG Entitlement Grant is not at risk. If the City has no other repayment source and is unexpectedly forced to use CDBG funds to make payments on the Section 108 Loan, the housing and human service projects that are typically supported by CDBG may not receive the level offunding currently allocated until the loan is repaid to HUD. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Section 108 loan recipients are required to adhere to environmental review requirements set forth in the National Environmental Policy Act and Housing and Urban Development Act. " Eric Sutherland,3520 Golden Currant,expressed concern the City has not put forth a plan regarding student housing in the community. Councilmember Roy asked if any of the provisions in this item would preclude the creation of local standards. Megan Bolin, City Planner, replied the application is fairly general. Should the City receive approval for the loan program,the City will be able to create its own criteria for evaluating projects. 92 December 21, 2010 Councilmember Roy asked that Council consider creating criteria at that time. Bolin replied the creation of a Policy and Procedure manual could aid in the process for soliciting and evaluating applications for the loan program. Councilmember Roy made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Manvel, to adopt Resolution 2010-076. Yeas: Hutchinson, Manvel, Poppaw, Ohlson, Roy and Troxell. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 10:25 p.m. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk 93