Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 02/01/2011 - CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE J --AW AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY DATE: February 1, 2011 STAFF: Wanda Krajicek FORT COLLINS •LINCIL Consideration and Approval of the Minutes of the January 4 and January 18, 2011 Regular Meetings. January 4, 2011 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, January 4, 2011, 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, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, and Troxell. Councilmembers Absent: Kottwitz, Roy Staff Members Present: Atteberry, Krajicek, Eckman. Citizen Participation Barbara Albert,603 Gilgalad Way,expressed concern City staff appears to support developers rather than citizens in the development review process. Gear Fisher, 608 Gilgalad Way, expressed concern about the development review process with regard to The Grove project. Heather Stickler, 633 Gilgalad Way, Wind Trail on Spring Creek HOA Treasurer,discussed crime related concerns with other Grove projects nationwide and stated she has not received a response from City staff regarding her submitted concerns. Terry Podmore, 733 Gilgalad Way,requested a schedule for processing of The Grove applications which would allow neighborhood input to be formulated and considered. Sarah Burnett, 714 Gilgalad Way, expressed concern that past history of a developer could not be considered at any point during the development review process. Merry Hummel, 814 Maple, Women's Commission member, expressed concern about potential Poudre School District school closures and asked that Council make a public statement regarding the potential closures. Cheryl Distaso, 135 Sunset, Center for Justice, Peace, and Environment, expressed concern about potential Poudre School District school closures: Chase Eckert, ASCSU Community Affairs Director, stated The Grove project has extremely high demand for its units. Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, discussed an open records request he had submitted regarding utility debt. 94 January 4, 2011 Citizen Participation Follow-up Mayor Hutchinson asked for an update regarding Council meeting with the School Board. City Manager Atteberry replied Council will hold a joint work session with the Poudre School District Board of Education at 5:30 p.m., January 19, 2011, at Fossil Ridge High School. Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson agreed with the citizens who expressed concern about the development review process and stated the neighborhood input process needs to be improved. Councilmember Troxell stated the development review process should be reviewed and asked for an update regarding The Grove project. Steve Olt,City Planner,replied a project development plan was submitted for The Grove on December 8,2010 and has been through one round of development review. The applicant intends to submit a revised overall development plan which will meet the Land Use Code criteria. A conceptual review of that plan is scheduled for January 10, 2011. A neighborhood meeting has been scheduled for January 18, 2011. Mayor Pro Tern Ohlson asked for clarification regarding the redevelopment of the former Toys `R Us building. City Manager Atteberry replied the current hold is due to negotiations between private interests and is not related to City process. Councilmember Manvel agreed the development review process needs to be reviewed and asked for legal responses to citizen questions. City Manager Atteberry stated he did receive Ms. Stickler's letter and apologized for not responding more quickly. He stated Steve Dush, Planning Director, has been asked to provide a written response to some of the development review concerns and agreed the process should be reviewed. He stated planning staff is professional and competent and most have been with the City for many years. Mayor Pro Tern Ohlson stated several former planning directors have left the City for positions in private development. CONSENT CALENDAR 6. Consideration and Approval of the Minutes of the December 7, 2010, Regular Meeting and the December 14, 2010 Adjourned Meeting. 7. 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 95 January 4, 2011 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. Second Reading of this Ordinance was postponed on December 21,2010,to address several questions raised. First, Councilmembers inquired about whether the process followed for updating the Capital Expansion Fees was consistent with the City's practices. City Code Sec. 7.5-18 dictates that,"The amount of the fee will be increased annually according to the Denver-Boulder Consumer Price Index for Urban Consumers, as published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics." The proposed Ordinance is consistent with this Code provision. Second, Council and a member of the public inquired about the use of the Denver-Boulder CPI as the appropriate index for these fees. This index was included in the Code adopted in 1997,as the most appropriate,least volatile index for accounting for cost changes over time. As staff noted at the December 21,2010 meeting,Council is scheduled to review two groups of development related fees in depth during 2011. A work session is scheduled for April 26, 2011,to review proposed changes to Development Review and Building Permit Fees. Staff is currently conducting a detailed analysis of these fees and will propose adjustments. Council action on this item is tentatively scheduled for June 2011. The second phase of the Fee Study includes a detailed review and recalculation of Capital Expansion Fees. This portion of the Study is slated for the 3rd and 4th quarter of 2011. Based on Council's discussion of this Ordinance on December 21, 2010, the review of the Capital Expansion Fees will also include further review of which index is appropriate for annual adjustments, and language which allows for both increases and decreases to fees and regionally comparative fee data. 8. First Reading of Ordinance No. 001 2011, Amending Section 2-168 of the City Code Regarding the Functions of the Women's Commission. This Ordinance will amend Section 2-168 of the City Code regarding the functions of the Women's Commission. Specifically, this change clarifies the role of the Women's Commission as it relates to reviewing legislation and making recommendations to City Council. 9. Resolution 2011-001 Making Findings of Fact Regardin the he Appeal of the Planning and Zoning Board Approvals of the CSURF Center for Advanced Technology,Amended Overall Development Plan Modification of Standards of Section 3.2.2(L)Parking Stall Dimensions, and Section 3.5.2(D)(2) Setback from Nonarterial Streets. On November 26, 2010, an appeal of the October 21, 2010 decisions of the Planning and Zoning Board to approve the CSURF Centre for Advanced Technology, Amended Overall Development Plan, the request for Modification of Standard in Section 3.2.2(L) Parking Stall Dimensions, and the request for Modification of Standard in Section 3.5.2(D)(2) Setback from Nonarterial Streets was filed by the Appellants Windtrail on Spring Creek HOA (Kevin Barrier, President) and Hillpond on Spring Creek HOA (Gail Dethloff, President). 96 January 4, 2011 On December 21, 2010, City Council voted to overturn the decision of the Planning and Zoning Board. In order to complete the record regarding this appeal, the Council should adopt a Resolution making findings of fact and finalizing its decision on the appeal. ***END CONSENT*** Ordinances on Second Reading were read by title by City Clerk Krajicek. 7. 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. Ordinances on First Reading were read by title by City Clerk Krajicek. 8. First Reading of Ordinance No. 001, 2011, Amending Section 2-168 of the City Code Regarding the Functions of the Women's Commission. 13. Items Relating to the East and West Side Neighborhoods Design Standards Study. A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 002, 2011, Increasing the Membership of the Landmark Preservation Commission and Expanding Its Functions to Include Establishing an Advisory Committee. B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 003, 2011,Making Amendments to the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code Pertaining to East Side and West Side Neighborhood Design Standards (Option A or B). Jeff Schneider, 755 Peregrine Run, withdrew Item No. 7, Second Reading of Ordinance No. 125, 2010,Amending the City Code to Increase theAmounts of the Capital Improvement Expansion Fees Contained in Chapter 7.5 of the Code so as to Reflect Inflation in Associated Costs of Services. Eric Sutherland,3520 Golden Currant,withdrew Item No.9,Resolution 2011-001 Making Findings of Fact Regarding the Appeal of the Planning and Zoning Board Approvals of the CSURF Center for Advanced Technology, Amended Overall Development Plan, Modification of Standards of Section 3.2.2(L)Parking Stall Dimensions,and Section 3.5.2(D)(2)Setbackfrom Nonarterial Streets from the Consent Agenda. Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to adopt and approve all items not withdrawn from the Consent Calendar. Yeas: Hutchinson, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw and Troxell. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. 97 January 4, 2011 Items Relating to the East and West Side Neighborhoods Design Standards Study., Adopted on First Reading The following is staff s memorandum for this item. "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 002, 2011, Increasing the Membership of the Landmark Preservation Commission and Expandinglts Functions to Include Establishing an Advisory Committee. B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 003, 2011, Making Amendments to the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code Pertaining to East Side and West Side Neighborhood Design Standards (Option A or B). The East and West Side Neighborhoods Design Standards Study began in January 2010 to explore concerns that new houses and additions are not compatible with the established character found in these core, older neighborhoods. The fundamental question is whether the City's current regulations warrant revision to better reflect adopted policies of protecting established neighborhood character. City Council confirmed that changes are necessary, and directed staff to proceed with the implementation of items- that would address the size and design of new construction. These options would: 1. Allow the Landmark Preservation Commission to offer voluntary design consultation. 2. Revise house size limits-in the Neighborhood Conservation Low Density (1VCL) and Neighborhood Conservation Medium Density (NCM)zoning districts. BA CKG R O UNDID IS C USSION Staff at the direction of City Council, initiated a study in January 2010 to explore concerns related to the compatibility of new single family houses and additions in Fort Collins'oldest neighborhoods. Some are concerned that a portion of the new construction is not compatible with established neighborhood character. Of particular concern is that small, older houses are being removed and replaced with larger new construction. The fundamental question is whether the City's current zoning regulations warrant revision to better reflect adopted polices of protecting established neighborhood character. The Study explored these concerns and clarified the issues through a public process. In February 2010, staff presented an initial project scope and schedule at a Council work session. The scope outlined the process and methodology for the Study, which Council supported and directed staff to proceed. (See Attachment 1, a summary of the February 23, 2010 Council work session) After numerous meetings with a Citizen Advisory Committee, and two public meetings with neighborhood residents, a second Council worksession was held in August to present the results of the Study. (See Attachment 2, the Study's final report). Staff asked Council whether changes to regulations were 98 January 4, 2011 warranted to address the size and design of new construction, and several potential options were presented. (See Attachment 3, a summary of the August 24, 2010 Council work session) Council confirmed that changes were necessary and, at a third work session in November, directed staff to bring forward three options for formal Council consideration. (See Attachment 4, a summary of the November 23, 2010 Council work session.) The three options are: 1. Allocate funding for a Design Assistance Program. 2. Allow the Landmark Preservation Commission to offer voluntary design consultation. 3. Revise house size limits. Staff has worked to take the necessary steps towards implementation of each item. The Design Assistance Program was submitted as a budget request, and the other options were developed into Ordinances. Each is discussed in detail below. Design Assistance Program The purpose of the Design Assistance Program (DAP) is to address concerns about compatible design, and provide financial assistance for professional design consultation and drawings. The process would be similar to the previous DAP that was available to owners of historic landmark structures. The new DAP would be offered annually to approximately 20property owners proposing additions to existing structures or construction of new structures, within the East Side and West Side Neighborhoods, regardless of whether or not they are a historic landmark. On December 21, 2010, City Council approved, on Second Reading, an Ordinance adopting the Budget for 2011 and 2012, including 540,000 each year for the Design Assistance Program "pending decision about the East Side/West Side design standards". Once the Council has enacted Option A or B of Ordinance No. 003, 2011, no further Council action will be needed to authorize the funding for the DAP. ORDINANCE NO. 002, 2011 - Voluntary Design Consultation Ordinance No. 002, 2011, amends City Code to add afunction allowing the Landmark Preservation Commission (LPC) to offer voluntary design consultation for interested property owners, and to increase the membership of the LPC from seven to nine members. Currently the City does not review the design of new houses and additions, and the LPC is interested and willing to provide this service in order to foster compatibility.' A sub-committee of the LPC would be formed to provide this service. Because some property owners receiving design assistance may also conceivably be applicants to the LPC atsome point, members ofthe sub-committee would have to recuse themselves from such decision-making. Therefore, LPC membership should be increased in order to avoid problems meeting a quorum as necessary to take formal action. The policies and procedures for design consultation would be prepared by City staff in consultation with the LPC. 99 January 4, 2011 House Size Limits Regulating House Size The issue that led to potential Land Use Code revisions is the size of larger new houses/additions in the older, core neighborhoods. The options presented below focus on amendments to.the Neighborhood Conservation Low Density(NCL)and Neighborhood Conservation Medium Density (NCM) zoning districts. This topic of regulating house size received considerable attention throughout the study process, and led to ideas for options to lower existing size limits. The fundamental question for this Study was whether the City's existing zoning regulations warrant revision to better implement adopted policy ofprotecting established neighborhood character. City policy defines character to include size (i.e., scale, mass, building separation, building placement, and building height), in addition to design aspects such as building materials, and architectural style. Therefore, in examining current size regulations, the Study considered the established development pattern and the adequacy of existing zoning regulations to protect the character created by that pattern. Existing Size Limit Regulations The City currently regulates house size in the two zone districts by limiting the ratio of total building floor area to lot size, commonly referred to as Floor Area Ratio (FAR). In the NCL zone, the ratio is .40, or 40% of lot size, and in the NCM zone it is .50, or 50% of lot size. The table below illustrates the current size limits using the example of a house and a 500 square foot garage. Table 1: Potential House Sizes by Lot Size and FAR NCL (40 FAR) NCM(50 FAR) 4,000 sq ft lot 1,100 sq ft house + 500 sq ft garage 1,500 sq ft house + 500 sq ft garage 9,500 sq ft lot 3,300 sq ft house + 500 sq ft garage 4,250 sq ft house + 500 sq ft garage Existing Development Pattern The existing size limits noted above do not reflect prevailing established development patterns in the neighborhoods. Prevailing FARs most commonly average about.15-.25, and original house sizes most commonly average about 800-1500 sq. ft. There are larger house size and FAR exceptions, typically involving larger, recent new construction, and/or small lots such as those created by subdivision of original corner lots, which result in higher FARs. Difference Between Existing Development Pattern and Existing Size Limit Regulations The difference between current FAR limits in the zoning regulations (40 and.50) and the existing development pattern (about .15-.25 FAR) clearly illustrates the issue that this Study has tried to address. 100 January 4, 2011 The difference is clear even where larger, recent construction has now become part of the existing pattern on many blocks. Although many recent house expansions are significantly larger than the original housing stock, very few have approached the upper limits of.40 or.50 FARs. Very few of the expanded houses exceed 3,000 sq.ft., and very few exceed a FAR of.33. While there are wide differences in interpretation, there is little or no disagreement that the.40 and .50 FARs allow new construction that does not reflect existing developmentpatterns in terms ofsize. In response, two main approaches were identified and explored to address this issue: (1) take a more tailored, contextual approach using averages found in existing development; or(2) lower the FARs. Additional details and the merits of each option are discussed below. ORDINANCE NO. 003, 2011 - Option A: Average-Plus Concept This option would limit house size to the average size house on the same block face plus an additional 50 percent, or 2,000 sq.ft., whichever is greater. Basements and detached garages would not be included in these figures. Also, the current limits of total floor area on a lot (40 and.50), including garages and other accessory buildings, would remain in place. Applicants wanting to expand/rebuild would use the County Assessor's data to find the average existing house size and calculate the 50 percent increase. If the established pattern is one where lot sizes vary considerably, but house sizes remain fairly consistent, it seemed logical to derive a standard for allowable house size based on the more consistent variable. The average plus concept establishes a house size standard based on the context of the block face, and allows for an additional increase in size in order to accommodate contemporary living (50%). A 2,000 sq. ft. allowance was added as a compromise to reflect concerns that the average plus 50%was overly restrictive for those block faces with small houses. Pros • Reflects, to a certain degree, the existing development pattern (at the block face level) • Reduces the most dramatic potential increases in house size • Allows for long term evolution in house size • The minimum allowance provides for new construction to accommodate contemporary living Cons • New, untested method and may result in undesirable and/or unintended consequences • "Micro-manages"incremental house sizes in the 2,000-3,200 square foot range(e.g., 2,000 sq.ft. allowed on one block face, vs. 2,400 on another, vs. 2,600 on another, etc) o . Contention that these increments ofsize limits do not address character issues, i.e., the difference between a 2,000 and 2,500 sq.ft. house may not matter as mach as the design; design can completely mask the size difference, so the result may not be worth the complexity 101 January 4, 2011 • Once the 2,000 sq.ft. allowance is included for small block faces, the contextual approach is diminished • The concept is diluted by some blocks that have existing size ranges of double to quadruple from the smallest to the largest, which weakens the concept of averaging • Technical calculation questions, i.e., volume, is a key concept of the whole Study, but the existing house size data from the Assessor's office does not capture the volume of any one- story houses that may contain space that would be counted as second floor area in the proposed "loophole"fix (explained below) • Concern that the block face is not adequate to represent neighborhood character, because it gives undue influence to a few houses that happen to be nearby • Contention that lot size should be taken into account, i.e., larger lots should be allowed to contain larger size houses • Penalizes the "first-one-in", because the average plus increases as more property owners on the block face expand • Debate that a different limit on different blocks due to different house sizes is unfair ORDINANCE NO. 003, 2011 - Option B: Lower the FARs This option would lower the FAR limits in the NCL and NCM zones for single family detached homes to.27. Basements and detached garages would not count toward the limit. Table 2 provides a comparison of the house sizes allowed with a .27, .40, or .50 FAR based on varying lot sizes. Attachment 5 provides a more extensive comparison of FARs ranging from .10-.50. Table 2: Allowed House Size Comparison Lot Size S t FAR 10,000 9,500 9,000 8,500 8,000 7,500 7,000 6,500 6,000 5,500 5,000 .27 2,700 2,565 2,430 2,295 2,160 2,025 1,890 1,755 1,620 1,485 1,350 .40 4,000 13,800 3,600 3,400 3,200 3,000 2,800 2,600 2,400 2,200 2,000 50 5,000 14,750 4,500 4,250 4,000 3,750 3,500 3,250 3,000 2,750 12,500 Considering that prevailing FARs in these two neighborhoods are between .15-.25, lowering the standard to .27 is better aligned with the existing development pattern, and still allows for houses to reasonably expand to meet the needs of contemporary households. Pros • Reduces the most dramatic potential increases in house size • Provides a predictable standard • Limits floor area in relation to lot size • Lowering FARs comes closer to reflecting the established character of the neighborhoods 102 January 4, 2011 Cons • Smaller lots are more limited than larger lots in terms of potential expansion • District-wide FAR standards do not necessarily reflect the unique character of individual areas within the neighborhoods Other Land Use Code Revisions Regardless of which option to limit house size is preferred, staff recommends that two minor, technical clarifications to the Land Use Code be adopted, along with some minor text edits. The technical clarifications are related to the relevant zoning standards, and would revise the way that house size is measured as described below: 1. Address the "volume loophole" by counting upper building space as a second floor, regardless of whether the floor is built, where the volume exceeds the typical volume associated with a one-story house. 2. Change the point of measurement for side wall height to be at the property line rather than at the base of the side wall at finished grade. These changes are imbedded in both Land Use Code Ordinance options. In addition, in order to help ensure that any variance of the new standards adopted by Ordinance No. 003, 2011, does not result in new construction or additions that are incompatible with existing structures in the City's residential neighborhoods, the Ordinance also amends Section 2.10.2(H) of the Land Use Code, pertaining to variances, to require that any application for a variance of these new standards be accompanied by a written recommendation from a committee of the Landmark Preservation Commission, as authorized under Section 2-278(b)(5) of the City Code. Two-year review Both Options A and B include a provision directing the City Manager to submit a report and recommendation to the City Council no later than January 31, 2013, regarding the implementation of the provisions of this Ordinance and, in particular, whether such implementation has achieved the stated purposes ofensuring the compatibility ofadditions, alterations and new construction with existing structures in residential neighborhoods of the City without working an undue hardship on affected property owners. FINANCL4LIECONOMIC IMPACTS Economic Planning Systems(EPS)has been contracted to analyze the economic impacts of revising house size limits. The final report will be presented to Council at the meeting on January 4, 2011. 103 January 4, 2011 Staff has been asked about the financial/economic impacts with regard to historic value. See Attachment 6 for a compilation of existing research and data from an architectural-level survey completed for the East and West Side Neighborhoods. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Staff finds no direct or definable impact on environmental resources with any of these items. One concern that was raised in the process was the protection of solar access. After careful analysis, staff determined that there is no reasonable new standard for defining or controlling property owners'rights to solar access due to the established pattern of development. " Deputy City Attorney Eckman discussed and clarified changes in the Ordinances. Megan Bolin, City Planner, stated the East Side West Side Design Standards address the compatibility of new single family homes and additions in the East and West Side Neighborhoods. Council had requested a study relating to the compatibility issue and this included extensive public outreach. Bolin discussed Options A and B of Ordinance No. 003, 2011, noting Option A would revise single family house size limits by using the average plus concept,which would determine the amount of house floor area allowed on a lot by finding the average size house on the block face plus an additional 50%or allow 2,000 square feet,whichever is greater. Basements and detached garages would not be included in this calculation and the floor area ratios of.40 and .50 for the NCL and NCM zone districts would remain the same. Option B would lower the floor area ratios to 0.27 for both the NCL and NCM zone districts, excluding basements and detached garages. Staff recommends adoption of Ordinance No. 002, 2011 and Option B of Ordinance No. 003, 2011. Dan Guimond,Economic and Planning Systems,discussed the results of a limited Economic Impact Analysis relating to the East and West Side Neighborhoods. Al Kulenski,939 West Oak,expressed concern about changing the existing building permit process as restrictions may lead to homeowners making fewer improvements. Jill Kuch, 709 Stover, expressed concern about'the proposed restrictions. Jennifer Carpenter, 848 Sandy Cove, expressed concern about the late addition of Option B which has yet to be fully vetted. She suggested postponing the item until the Planning and Zoning Board could consider it. Dian Sparling, 324 Jackson, expressed concern about recent development of larger homes in the West Side area and supported Option B. Jeff Wolf, 2009 Linden Lake Road, disagreed with changes in regulations citing infringements on the rights of property owners. He asked that the.27 floor area ratio in Option B be increased to .35. Gina Janett,730 West Oak,expressed concern about the elimination of historic homes and supported the staff recommendation. 104 January 4, 2011 Lara Williams,3000 Phoenix,realtor,stated home buyers often move to the downtown area because of its location, not the quality of homes. She expressed concern about the proposed regulations and asked how the .27 floor area ratio was derived. Brad Kuch, 709 Stover, stated Option A would prohibit a planned addition for his family's home and Option B would penalize residents living in NCM zones to a greater extent than residents living in NCL zones by decreasing the floor area ratio to a greater extent. He stated the new regulations would have a negative impact on residents. Eric Smith, 1216 West Mountain, expressed support for the staff recommendation. Jeff Schneider,755 Peregrine Run,expressed concern regarding a lack of a master drainage plan for the downtown area and stated rebuilds can enhance property values. Jacob Lees, Fort Collins resident, expressed concern regarding the timing of new information presented from consultants and suggested the item be postponed for further consideration. Andre Mouton, 119 North Loomis, opposed changing regulations. Heather Landenpera, 280 Circle Drive, opposed changing regulations. Chris Galan, Fort Collins resident, asked about the source of the proposed .27 floor area ratio in Option B and encouraged further consideration of the item by Council. Randy Shortridge,280 Circle Drive,encouraged postponement of the item for further consideration. Laura Olive, 231 South Grant, encouraged postponement of the item for further consideration. J.J. Hannah, 601 East Elizabeth, encouraged postponement of the item for further consideration. Tom Tucker, 3019 Stanford, opposed changes to regulations. Leslie Lees, Fort Collins resident,asked what types of variances these regulations might encourage and how the variance process would occur. Chris Marshall, 926 West Mountain, opposed Option A, stating it is difficult to enforce and suggested the .27 floor area ratio should be greater. He opposed Landmark Preservation Commission assistance. Steve Laposa, 1103 Honhotlz Drive, Colorado State University Real Estate Professor, encouraged Council to research potential impacts on home values and other unintended consequences. Michael Doddridge, 1725 Trailwood,stated most residents buying homes in Old Town plan to make improvements and may opt not to buy should guidelines be too strict. He suggested postponing a decision on the item. 105 January 4, 2011 Sean Dougherty,Fort Collins Board of Realtors President, supported Option B but asked that more time be given for consideration of the option. Clint Skutchan, Fort Collins Board of Realtors Executive Vice-President, suggested the proposed .27 floor area ratio may be a bit low and asked that a decision on the item be postponed until the correct number is determined. Lynne Stutheit, 508 East Plum, supported regulations limiting home sizes. Joe Guido, 313 Wood Street, supported raising the .27 floor area ratio proposal. Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, stated the development review process needs to assure regulations are followed. Nancy York, 130 S. Whitcomb, opposed postponement of the item and supported a floor area ratio lower than .27. Kurt Schrieber, 4021 Yellowstone Circle, Realtor, supported postponement of the item for further consideration. Travis Schmidt,220 North Shields, supported certain regulations but opposed using floor area ratio as a guideline. ("Secretary's note: The Council took a brief recess at this point in the meeting.) Councilmember Poppaw asked when the Planning and Zoning Board would have an opportunity to review the item should Council move forward with a decision. City Clerk Krajicek replied the Planning and Zoning Board will have work sessions at which the item could possibly be discussed, on January 7 and 14, and a regular meeting on January 20. Second Reading could be postponed to February 1. Councilmember Troxell asked about the origin of the .27 floor area ratio proposal. Joe Frank, Advance Planning Director, replied Council's direction was to deal with the large houses with respect to context while allowing for appropriate neighborhood change. The .27 floor area ratio would allow approximately a 2,400 square foot house on an average sized lot. Councilmember Manvel asked about the inclusion of garages in floor area ratio calculations. Bolin replied detached garages are excluded and attached garages are included if more than half of the houses on the block have attached garages. Councilmember Manvel asked for the approximate number of block faces with attached garages. Bolin replied there are few. Councilmember Manvel asked about garage size limits. Bolin replied garages are limited to 600 square feet. 106 January 4, 2011 Councilmember Manvel asked what constitutes a basement. Clark Mapes, City Planner, replied 50% of the basement can be above grade. Councilmember Manvel asked about variance requirements. Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator, replied the Zoning Board of Appeals deals with these types of variances and it must make a finding that one of three criteria are met by the applicant in order to obtain a variance: that a hardship exists in terms of lot size or shape, that the request deviates from the Code standards in a nominal, inconsequential manner when considered in the context of the neighborhood, or that the proposal satisfies the purpose of the standard equally well or better than a compliant plan. The proposal in both Options A and B would require the applicant to approach the Landmark Preservation Commission to seek a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mapes stated the main result of the data collected is that a policy question exists as to whether the objective should be to keep new house sizes reflective of existing house sizes or should be more weighted toward owners' abilities to expand and renovate their homes. Councilmember Troxell asked about economic impacts and potential economic analyses. Mr. Guimond replied the study examined possibilities for the future rather than quantifying tax implications of additions or rebuilds. Mayor Pro Tern Ohlson noted floor area ratio measurements have been used in Fort Collins for several decades and asked about the net result of the floor area ratio change if garages are excluded Mapes replied the.27 floor area ratio on an 8,000 square foot lot would allow for a 2,160 square foot house, plus a 600 square foot garage. Currently, in the NCL zone, an 8,000 square foot lot with a 600 square foot garage could have a 2,600 square foot house at a floor area ratio of.34,because the garage is not counted in the square footage. Mayor Pro Tern Ohlson asked about the discrepancy between the square footage of houses built and the square footage of houses desired by home buyers. Mr. Guimond replied some of the square footage measurements do not count finished raised basements,though they are used as living space. The average market demand is 2,000-2,500 square feet. Councilmember Troxell asked about floor area ratios for other zone districts. Mapes replied the new residential zones do not have a floor area ratio. These zones do have a floor area ratio because of the existing established pattern. Councilmember Troxell made a motion,seconded by Mayor Hutchinson,to postpone the item until February 1, 2011. Mayor Pro Tern Ohlson stated he would not support the motion. Mayor Hutchinson stated the First Reading should be as complete as possible and he would support the motion to postpone. 107 January 4, 2011 The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Hutchinson and Troxell. Nays: Manvel, Ohlson and Poppaw. THE MOTION FAILED. Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Mayor Pro Tern Ohlson, to adopt Ordinance No. 002, 2011, on First Reading with Second Reading to be considered on February 1, 2011. Mayor Pro Tern Ohlson asked that staff provide additional information regarding a true comparison of floor area ratios. Councilmember Manvel asked why the Landmark Preservation Commission membership is to be increased. Bolin replied the increase will allow for a subcommittee to be established to offer voluntary design consultation. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Hutchinson, Manvel, Ohlson"and Poppaw. Nays: Troxell. THE MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Mayor Pro Tern Ohlson to adopt Option B of Ordinance No. 003, 2011, on First Reading. Councilmember Manvel stated Council should receive more input regarding the proposed 0.27 floor area ratio prior to Second Reading. Councilmember Poppaw made a friendly amendment to postpone the Second Reading of Ordinance No. 003, 2011 to February 1, 2011. The amendment was accepted by Councilmember Manvel and Mayor Pro Tern Ohlson. Councilmember Troxell expressed concern the neighborhood character issue is not being addressed and stated he would not support the motion. Councilmember Manvel stated a problem does exist in these neighborhoods and noted there is a provision to revisit the regulations in two years. Mayor Pro Tern Ohlson asked that staff prepare information regarding regulation changes with respect to small lots. Councilmember Troxell asked that staff prepare a plan for evaluation and desired outcomes for the review in two years. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Manvel, Ohlson and Poppaw. Nays: Hutchinson and Troxell. THE MOTION CARRIED. 108 January 4, 2011 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. Adopted on Second Reading 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. Second Reading of this Ordinance was,postponed on December 21, 2010, to address several questions raised. First,Councilmembers inquired about whether the process followed for updating the Capital Expansion Fees was consistent with the City's practices. City Code Sec. 7.5-18 dictates that, "The amount ofthefee will be increased annually according to the Denver-Boulder Consumer Price Index for Urban Consumers, as published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. " The proposed. Ordinance is consistent with this Code provision. Second, Council and a member of the public inquired about the use of the Denver-Boulder CPI as the appropriate index for these fees. This index was included in the Code adopted in 1997, as the most appropriate, least volatile index for accounting for cost changes over time. As staff noted at the December 21, 2010 meeting, Council is scheduled to review two groups of development related fees in depth during 2011. A work session is scheduled for April 26, 2011, to review proposed changes to Development Review and Building Permit Fees. Staff is currently conducting a detailed analysis of these fees and will propose adjustments. Council action on this item is tentatively scheduled for June 2011. The second phase of the Fee Study includes a detailed review and recalculation of Capital Expansion Fees. This portion of the Study is slated for the 3rd and 4th quarter of 2011. Based on Council's discussion of this Ordinance on December 21, 2010, the review of the Capital Expansion Fees will also include fiurther review-of which index is appropriate for annual adjustments, and language which allows for both increases and decreases to fees and regionally comparative fee data. " Jeff Schneider, 755 Peregrine Run, asked for clarification regarding process issues and encouraged postponement of the item. Michael Doddridge, 1725 Trailwood, stated the best index needs to be used when examining fees and he encouraged postponement of the item. Mayor Pro Tern Ohlson asked about the possibility of averaging the indexes. 109 i January 4, 2011 Mayor Hutchinson asked about the Council policy regarding fee increases. Deputy City Attorney Eckman replied the referenced Resolution is from 2006 and authorizes the City Manager to establish some fees. Capital Improvement Expansion Fees, per City Code, are to be considered by Council annually, based upon the Denver-Boulder Consumer Price Index. Changing that Index reference would require a Code change. City Manager Atteberry stated the Resolution could be updated and revised and noted Fort Collins fees need to be based on community need and costs as well as Consumer Price Indexes. Mayor Putchinson noted comparison to other communities is also important. Councilmember Troxell agreed that comparative analysis is important. Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw,to adopt Ordinance No. 125, 2010, on Second Reading. Councilmember Manvel stated comparative analysis is important; however, fees are also related to services provided. Councilmember Poppaw thanked citizens for discussion of the issue. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Hutchinson, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw and Troxell. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. Resolution 2011-001 Making Findings of FactRegarding the Appeal of the Planning and Zoning Board Approvals of the CSURF Center for Advanced Technology, Amended Overall Development Plan, Modification of Standards of Section 3.2.2(L) Parking Stall Dimensions, and Section 3.5.2(D)(2) Setback from Nonarterial Streets, Adopted The following is staff s memorandum for this item. "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY On November 26, 2010, an appeal of the October 21, 2010 decisions of the Planning and Zoning Board to approve the CSURF Centre for Advanced Technology, Amended Overall Development Plan, the request for Modification of Standard in Section 3.2.2(L) Parking Stall Dimensions, and the request for Modification of Standard in Section 3.5.2(D)(2) Setback from Nonarterial Streets was filed by the Appellants Windtrail on Spring CreekHOA(Kevin Barrier,President)and Hillpond on Spring Creek HOA (Gail Dethloff, President). On December 21, 2010, City Council voted to overturn the decision of the Planning and Zoning Board.In order to complete the record regarding this appeal, the Council should adopt a Resolution making findings of fact and finalizing its decision on the appeal. 110 . January 4, 2011 BA CKGR O U<VD/D IS C USSIO N The Appellants notice of appeal was based on the allegations that: • The Planning and Zoning Board did not properly interpret and apply relevant portions of the Code and Charter. • The Planning and Zoning Board failed to conduct a fair hearing because it: o ignored previously established rules of procedure; o considered evidence relevant to its findings which was grossly misleading evidence; and, o failed to receive all relevant evidence offered by the appellant. At the December 21, 2010 hearing on this matter, Council considered the testimony of City staff, the Appellants, and the'Opponents to the Appeal. In subsequent discussion at this hearing, Council determined that the Planning and Zoning Board did not fail to conduct a fair hearing with respect to its consideration of the relocation of Rolland Moore Drive and approval of the Overall Development Plan#16-10. However, Council overturned the decision of the Planning and Zoning Board on the grounds that the Board failed to properly interpret and apply the Land Use Code requirement that the Overall Development Plan be consistent with the blockstandards requirements in the M-M-Nzone district. " Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, expressed concern about the wording of the Resolution and suggested there were process defects. Mayor Hutchinson asked for clarification regarding the intent of Resolution 2011-001. Deputy City Attorney Eckman replied the Resolution is written sufficiently and discusses the Planning and Zoning Board approved modifications of standard. Councilmember Manvel noted the Resolution discusses the fact that the modifications of standard have been rendered moot. Councilmember Manvel made a motion,seconded by Councilmember Poppaw,to adopt Resolution 2011-001. Yeas: Hutchinson, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw and Troxell. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. 111 January 4, 2011 Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk 112 January 18, 2011 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,January 18,2011, 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: Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Roy, and Troxell. Councilmembers Absent: Hutchinson, Kottwitz Staff Members Present: Atteberry, Krajicek, Roy. Citizen Participation Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, stated an open records request he submitted regarding the Smart Grid project was inappropriately handled. Clint Skutchan,Fort Collins Board of Realtors,discussed the East and West Side Plan and promoted a sliding scale floor area ratio proposal. Sean Dougherty,Fort Collins Board of Realtors,2616 Terry Lake Road,supported the sliding scale floor area ratio proposal for the East Side West Side Design Standards. John Roberts,Fort Collins resident,discussed the museum to be installed at the property referenced in Item No. 13,First Reading of Ordinance No. 009, 2011, Authorizing the Lease of City Property at 200 West Mountain Avenue, Suite C, to Our Global Village Museum of Arts and Cultures For Up to Three Years. Sue Pawlak, Veterans Plaza Committee of Northern Colorado Project Co-Chair, discussed the Veterans Plaza project at Spring Canyon Park. She presented a check to the City for $115,435 which will cover Phase One of the project. Ray Martinez thanked Kathleen Benedict for her assistance with the project. Mayor Pro Tern Ohlson thanked the volunteers for their commitment to the Veterans Plaza project. Citizen Participation Follow-up Councilmember Troxell commended the individuals involved with the Veterans Plaza project and thanked John Roberts for his involvement with the Global Village Museum. He asked for an update regarding the East and West Side Design Standards. 113 January 18, 2011 Councilmember Roy asked for a response to Mr. Sutherland's concerns. Karen Cumbo,Planning,Development and Transportation Director,replied staff has been working on issues relating to the East and West Side Design Standards and stated the Planning and Zoning Board has discussed the issue at a work session and will be taking formal action at a meeting on January 20, 2011. The Citizens Advisory Committee has also discussed the item. City Manager Atteberry made a commitment to have the pertinent information to Council earlier than the date of packet distribution. In response to Mr. Sutherland's allegations regarding his open records request, City Manager Atteberry stated the City has always been very committed to the principals of the Colorado Open Records Act and requests thereof. City Attorney Roy stated Mr. Sutherland sent an open records request to the Utilities Department regarding the Smart Grid project. The information provided to Mr. Sutherland did not include a report prepared by a consultant. The decision to not include that report was not based on the fact that the report itself was confidential; it was the judgment call of the custodian that the report was not within the scope of the request. Also excluded was a proprietary model used by the consultant. Mr. Sutherland ultimately did receive the report, which was never considered confidential,but not receive the proprietary model. Under the Colorado Open Records Act,that model had to be withheld as it is proprietary. The City does not believe it violated the Open Records Act. Proprietary information is information used by a company in its business that is customarily withheld from the public and information which, if disclosed, would put the company at a competitive disadvantage in conducting its business. Agenda Review City Manager Atteberry stated there are no changes to the published agenda. CONSENT CALENDAR 6. Consideration and Approval of the Minutes of the December 21, 2010, Regular Meeting. 7. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 001, 2011, Amending Section 2-168 of the City Code • Regarding the Functions of the Women's Commission. This Ordinance,unanimously adopted on First Reading on January 4,2011,amends Section 2-168 of the City Code regarding the functions of the Women's Commission. Specifically, this change clarifies the role of the Women's Commission as it relates to reviewing legislation and making recommendations to City Council. 8. Items Relating to the Veterans Plaza Capital Project. A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 004,2011,Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the Capital Projects Fund for the Veterans Plaza Project at Spring Canyon Community Park. 114 January 18, 2011 B. Resolution 2011-002 Accepting the Proposed Donation of the Veterans Plaza Sculpture, "The Soldiers Gift". The Veterans Plaza at Spring Canyon Community Park will create a public venue,bringing community members together to recognize and commemorate the sacrifices and dedication of service members who have served our country. The Plaza will be located on approximately three acres of land near the main entrance of the park on Horsetooth Road. Ordinance No. 004, 2011, appropriates revenue in the amount of$275,000 for the project. Resolution 2011-002 accepts the donation of a bronze sculpture by artist Susan Raymond. This sculpture will be located at the Veterans Plaza and become part of the City's Art in Public Places collection. 9. First Reading of Ordinance No. 005, 2011, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the Capital Projects Fund, Downtown Alley Enhancement Project. The Downtown Alley Enhancement Project funding for construction of the West Laurel to West Myrtle Alley Project needs to be appropriated to the City. The City will be administering the construction contract for the Downtown Development Authority(DDA). The DDA funds for the Project will remain in the DDA's account, and will be transferred and spent to pay contractor invoices only as they become due and payable. 10. First Reading of Ordinance No. 006, 2011, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the Cultural Services Fund and Prior Year Reserves in the General Fund for Transfer to the Capital Projects Fund and Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the Capital Projects Fund for the Building on Basics Lincoln Center Renovation Project. During the Lincoln Center addition and renovation project,an unanticipated structural issue with the 32 year old performance hall walls was identified . The structural problem is significant and the performance hall walls will require additional structural support. This work must be completed before the facility can be reopened. This Ordinance appropriates an additional $460,000 from prior year reserves in the Cultural Services Fund and the General Fund to implement the additional structural support. 11. First Reading of Ordinance No. 007, 2011, Authorizingthe he Appropriation of 2011 Fiscal Year Operating and Capital Improvement Funds for the Fort Collins-Loveland Municipal Airport. The 2011 annual operating budget for the Airport totals $726,390, and will be funded from Airport operating revenues, contributions from the Cities of Fort Collins and Loveland ($85,000 from each city),and interest earnings. This Ordinance appropriates the City of Fort Collins' contribution,which is a 50%share of the 2011 Airport budget and totals$363,195. This Ordinance also appropriates the City of Fort Collins' 50% share of capital funds, totaling $608,500 for the Airport from federal and state grants; contributions from Fort Collins and Loveland; and the Airport General Fund. Most of the 2011 Airport capital 115 January 18, 2011 funds, totaling$1,217,000, will be used to continue runway improvements and some funds are slated for utility master planning and design engineering to accommodate Airport business development. 12. First Reading of Ordinance No. 008, 2011, Approving a Second Amendment to the Fort Collins-Timnath Intergovernmental Agreement Regarding Cooperation on Annexation, Growth Management, and Related Issues, Extending the Deadlines for the City and Town to Amend Their Growth Management Area Boundaries, and Deleting All References to the Possible Purchase by Timnath of the Vangbo Property. On February 17, 2009, the City of Fort Collins and the Town of Timnath entered into an intergovernmental agreement regarding annexations, growth management, and related issues. The agreement resolved certain differences that had arisen between the City and Town concerning a variety of planning and growth management issues. The agreement set one-year deadlines for the parties to amend their Growth Management Area boundaries and for Timnath to exercise an option to purchase the Vangbo property from the City. In early 2010,the parties approved an amendment to this intergovernmental agreement that extended the deadlines for approval of the Fort Collins GMA and for Timnath to decide whether to exercise its option. Another extension is needed, and Ordinance No. 008, 2011, would extend for an additional year the period of time within which the parties' GMA boundaries are to be amended. It would also delete all references to Timnath's possible purchase of the Vangbo property because Timnath has decided not to move forward with the purchase. 13. First Reading of Ordinance No. 009, 2011, Authorizing the Lease of City Property at 200 West Mountain Avenue, Suite C, to Our Global Village Museum of Arts and Cultures For Up to Three Years. Our Global Village Museum of Arts and Cultures ("Global Village") is in need of a larger facility for its museum operation of international exhibits of artifacts and art objects. Global Village has requested a lease to utilize approximately 6,530 square feet of space located at 200 West Mountain Avenue, Suite C in space formerly occupied by RMI2. 14. Resolution 2011-003 Authorizing the Mayor to Enter into an Addendum to the Intergovernmental Agreement with Larimer County Regarding Joint Implementation. Operation and Use of a Computer Aided Dispatch, Records Management and Jail Management System. This Resolution authorizes the City of Fort Collins to add an addendum to the Intergovernmental Agreement between Larimer County and the City of Fort Collins for the Tiburon Computer Aided Dispatch/Records Management System. The addendum changes how additional costs, upgrades or other enhancements or improvements will be shared between Fort Collins Police Services and Larimer County Sheriff s Office. 116 January 18, 2011 15. Resolution 2011-004 Approving Expenditures from the Art in Public Places Reserve Account in the Cultural Services and Facilities Fund for the Purpose of Commissioning an Artist to Create Art for the College and Harmony Intersection Improvements Project. Resolution 2011-004 approves expenditures of$18,000 for design,materials,installation and contingency for a project with the artist Robert Tully to create four art elements integrated into the College and Harmony Intersection Improvement Project. 16. Resolution 2011-005 Making Appointments to the Senior Advisory Board. This Resolution makes appointments to fill current vacancies on the Senior Advisory Board. ***END CONSENT*** Ordinances on Second Reading were read by title by City Clerk Krajicek. 7. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 001, 2011, Amending Section 2-168 of the City Code Regarding the Functions of the Women's Commission. Ordinances on First Reading were read by title by City Clerk Krajicek. 8. First Reading of Ordinance No. 004, 2011, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the Capital Projects Fund for the Veterans Plaza Project at Spring Canyon Community Park. 9. First Reading of Ordinance No. 005, 2011, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the Capital Projects Fund, Downtown Alley Enhancement Project. 10. First Reading of Ordinance No. 006, 2011, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the Cultural Services Fund and Prior Year Reserves in the General Fund for Transfer to the Capital Projects Fund and Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the Capital Projects Fund for the Building on Basics Lincoln Center Renovation Project. 11. First Reading of Ordinance No. 007, 2011, Authorizing the Appropriation of 2011 Fiscal Year Operating and Capital Improvement Funds for the Fort Collins-Loveland Municipal Airport. 12. First Reading of Ordinance No. 008, 2011, Approving a Second Amendment to the Fort Collins-Timnath Intergovernmental Agreement Regarding Cooperation on Annexation, Growth Management, and Related Issues, Extending the Deadlines for the City and Town to Amend Their Growth Management Area Boundaries, and Deleting All References to the Possible Purchase by Timnath of the Vangbo Property. 13. First Reading of Ordinance No. 009, 2011, Authorizing the Lease of City Property at 200 West Mountain Avenue, Suite C, to Our Global Village Museum of Arts and Cultures For Up to Three Years. 117 January 18, 2011 Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to adopt and approve the Consent Calendar. Yeas: Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Roy and Troxell. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. Consent Calendar Follow-up Councilmember Manvel supported Item No. 9, First Reading of Ordinance No. 005, 2011, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the Capital Projects Fund,Downtown Alley Enhancement Project, and discussed the improved alleys throughout town. Mayor Pro Tern Ohlson commended staff for confirming the necessity of unanticipated issues regarding Item No. 10, First Reading of Ordinance No. 006, 2011, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the Cultural Services Fund and Prior Year Reserves in the General Fund for Transfer to the Capital Projects Fund and Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the Capital Projects Fund for the Building on Basics Lincoln Center Renovation Project,and asked for confirmation of savings prior to Second Reading. Mayor Pro Tern Ohlson asked for clarification regarding Item No. 15, Resolution 2011-004 Approving Expenditures from the Art in Public Places Reserve Account in the Cultural Services and Facilities Fund for the Purpose of Commissioning an Artist to Create Art for the College and Harmony Intersection Improvements Project. Ellen Martin, Arts in Public Places Program Administrator,replied the Board did approve the project as designed and noted the Board and artists work together to get a cohesive design. Mayor Pro Tern Ohlson asked for clarification between the "distinct" feel of the project versus cohesive design. City Manager Atteberry replied more. information would be provided. Staff Reports City Manager Atteberry stated Poudre Fire Authority employee Captain Patrick Love was chosen as Public Information Officer of the Year by Emergency Services Public Information Officers of Colorado. , Larry Schneider,Streets Department Manager,discussed Fort Collins'snow removal operations and the process crews complete before, during, and after a storm. Monitors have been placed along Spring Creek to determine whether run-off from the snow removal procedures is affecting the stream. Councilmember Roy asked what the road temperature needs to be in order for freezing to begin. Schneider replied pavement temperatures in the teens make de-icing very difficult and require different de-icing products. Mayor Pro Tern Ohlson asked why residential streets are not often plowed and how citizens are notified of that policy; when stream monitoring began and if it is on the Poudre River as well; and for a discussion on the wisdom of 12-hour shifts. Schneider replied residential streets are generally 118 January 18, 2011 plowed only if getting in and out of neighborhoods becomes difficult. The cost of regularly plowing those streets is extraordinary. The Streets Department webpage discusses the priorities for snow removal and routinely informs citizens about the policy in the Utility bill inserts and in the Coloradoan. Snow operators are comfortable with the 12-hour shifts and are given regular breaks and lunch. Operators are monitored for fatigue. City Manager Atteberry asked about the accident record related to snow operations. Schneider replied, in the past 30 years, there may have been one accident per year. City Manager Atteberry requested a written safety report regarding snow operations. Mayor Pro Tern Ohlson asked for a written report regarding water quality monitoring with respect to snow removal chemicals. Randy Hensley,Parking Services Director,gave an update regarding downtown valet parking. The City received a proposal from two private downtown businessmen regarding a downtown valet service. Should this service be offered, it would be administered and authorized under the provisions of the downtown concessionaire process. Hensley reviewed the proposed drop-off/pick- up zone, proposed hours of operation, and cost to members of the public. There is no conflict between this proposal and adopted City plans and no Council vote would be required. Vendor selection would be a competitive process. Staff has found the proposal to be both feasible and desirable. Councilmember Roy asked who would be liable for the overnight parking fees should a customer not reclaim his car prior to the closing time of the valet. He expressed concern spaces in the parking garage would not be available for public use and asked about the format for public input regarding the topic. Hensley replied this proposal is conceptual and no decisions regarding details of the public process have been made. All potentially affected interests,including the Downtown Business Association,Downtown Development Authority,the public,internal City management,and Council, will be included. Councilmember Troxell supported the overall idea of a downtown valet service. Mayor Pro Tern Ohlson asked that the Transportation Board be involved in the decision as well. Councilmember Reports Councilmember Troxell discussed the flag raising at the Poudre Valley Bank building,which is now the Ingredient restaurant. 119 January 18, 2011 Other Business Councilmember Roy expressed support for on-bill financing. Councilmember Troxell expressed concern regarding agenda management,given certain meetings with no discussion items and other meetings with several. He asked the Leadership Team to examine the agenda balance. Councilmember Manvel noted this type of agenda planning happens every two years in order to finish up business prior to elections so the voting Councilmembers have had the benefit of work sessions. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 7:35 p.m. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk 120