Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 03/04/2014 - CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THEAgenda Item 1 Item # 1 Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY March 4, 2014 City Council STAFF Wanda Nelson, City Clerk SUBJECT Consideration and Approval of the Minutes from the January 28, 2014 Adjourned Council Meeting and the February 4 and 18, 2014 Regular Council Meetings. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to consider and approve minutes from the January 28, 2014 Adjourned Council Meeting and the February 4 and 18, 2014 Regular Council Meetings. ATTACHMENTS 1. January 28, 2014 (PDF) 2. February 4, 2014 (PDF) 3. February 18, 2014 (PDF) January 28, 2014 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO Council-Manager Form of Government Adjourned Meeting – 6:00 p.m. An adjourned meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins was held on Tuesday, January 28, 2014, 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: Campana, Cunniff, Horak, Overbeck, Poppaw, Troxell, and Weitkunat. Staff Members Present: Atteberry, Nelson, Roy. Other Business Mayor Pro Tem Horak and Council directed the City Manager to examine possible ways to reduce the number of billboards in Fort Collins. Councilmember Troxell reported on the Futures Committee meeting regarding citizen engagement, expertise and input structures. He suggested engaging the City’s boards and commissions in a discussion regarding alignment with the City’s outcome areas and dashboard. He announced a meeting February 24 th regarding the topic and the budgeting for outcomes process. Councilmember Troxell requested Council support to direct the City Manager to begin a planning process to understand CSU’s proposed 2020 plan and the infrastructure requirements related to the proposed on-campus stadium. Councilmember Cunniff stated he understands Councilmember Troxell’s intent is to create a portfolio of potential impacts and responses, not make a commitment to completing those responses. Councilmember Troxell suggested the planning should be addressed similarly to a subarea plan and should address the City’s best interests. Councilmember Cunniff replied he would be supportive of such a process. City Manager Atteberry noted the 2014 adopted budget contains a West Central Neighborhood Plan and staff is suggesting work on that Plan, including the transportation aspect of the Plan, which was not budgeted. He stated staff is proposing the use of Keep Fort Collins Great funds in order to include the transportation element and noted the scope of the Plan will need to be expanded and potentially expedited, based on Councilmember Troxell’s suggestions and the stadium timeline. Councilmember Troxell stated he would not support expediting anything unless there is some engagement from the University to work with the City in a meaningful way. Councilmember Campana stated the neighborhood study has been delayed, due to the fact it would change dramatically depending upon whether or not the stadium was constructed. Mayor Weitkunat noted the question of the City’s participation has not been clearly defined. January 28, 2014 33 City Manager Atteberry suggested commencement of the Plan with the assumption the stadium will be built once the University makes the decision in the coming months. If the decision is not made, he suggested the Plan include scenario planning both with and without the stadium. Councilmember Campana agreed with City Manager Atteberry’s suggestions. Councilmember Cunniff noted the impacts should be studied without enabling anything. Mayor Pro Tem Horak stated the effects of CSU on the community need to be examined in a more systematic way and plans need to be made based on the increased enrollment at the University. City Manager Atteberry concurred with Mayor Pro Tem Horak. Councilmember Troxell agreed but noted transportation changes the City has made with regard to the existing Hughes Stadium and stated the City needs to consider the impacts of the potential stadium. City Manager Atteberry noted Dr. Tony Frank has stated he plans to exceed the City’s development requirements and process regarding outreach. Council will be receiving information regarding comparable cities with on-campus stadiums. Councilmember Overbeck stated those communities should be those which have had concerned neighborhood groups. City Manager Atteberry replied that is the intention. Adjournment At the conclusion of the executive session, the meeting adjourned at 6:28 p.m. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk February 4, 2014 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, February 4, 2014, 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: Campana, Cunniff, Horak, Overbeck, Poppaw, Troxell and Weitkunat. Staff Members Present: Atteberry, Nelson, Roy. Agenda Review City Manager Atteberry stated there were no changes to the published agenda. Citizen Participation Marge Griffin, 3245 Honeysuckle Court, stated she has never received an offer from anyone to purchase her property, which she stated is proposed to be condemned by the Boxelder Stormwater Authority. Mel Hilgenberg, 172 North College, announced community events and opposed Council visits to other municipalities with on-campus stadiums. He stated the City should hold community meetings regarding the stadium and opposed tax payer funding of the project. He provided a positive update on the recovery of Jack Daniels. Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, opposed the Boxelder Stormwater Authority and stated City staff has presented misinformation to Council. He opposed the use of tax increment financing in Timnath. Linda Vrooman, Fort Collins resident, questioned the locations chosen for on-campus stadium site visits. She requested that the City and CSU engage in a meaningful community dialogue regarding the impacts of the proposed stadium on the safety, culture, and priorities of Fort Collins. Stacy Lynne, 305 West Magnolia, discussed lawsuits she has filed and claimed fraud in Larimer County courts. Doug Brobst, 1625 Independence Road, opposed the process regarding the on-campus stadium and requested an estimate regarding the cost of the necessary City infrastructure changes and an independent environmental impact study regarding the project. John Prouty, 725 Sandpiper, discussed the Willow Street improvements and presented a letter from affected property owners requesting the City commit funds for the construction of the improvements. Citizen Participation Follow-up Councilmember Cunniff requested a prioritized list of street improvements. He requested Council support for obtaining an environmental impact study and cost estimates regarding the stadium. Councilmember Troxell reiterated his suggestion for the creation of a subarea plan related to the stadium area. He stated the community visits are designed to research transportation systems and neighborhood concerns. February 4, 2014 35 Councilmember Overbeck supported the request of Councilmember Cunniff and supported conference calls as opposed to community visits. He asked why the University of Minnesota was not included on the list. Mayor Pro Tem Horak replied the University of Minnesota is in a much larger city than Fort Collins and noted the research is necessary to determine impacts and the facilitation of those impacts, as well as to calculate costs. He also noted Council is not the authority making the decision regarding the stadium. Councilmember Cunniff agreed with Councilmember Overbeck’s suggestion regarding conference calls. City Manager Atteberry indicated the three issues facing Council and the City are the future of the proposed on- campus stadium, the possibility of 5,000-10,000 more students at CSU, and the West Central Subarea Plan. He recommended Councilmembers participate in the site visits in order to discuss the issues with affected citizens. He discussed the reasons for selecting the proposed sites and stated conference calls are an option if Council prefers that option. Councilmember Campana noted the importance of CSU in the community and stated the City needs to enable its growth. He supported the idea of site visits to other on-campus stadium communities. Mayor Pro Tem Horak discussed his experience with Dr. Frank and members of his administration. Mayor Weitkunat stated the fact that CSU and the City are having communications is positive. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Consideration and Approval of the Minutes of the January 7, 2014 Regular Council Meeting and the January 14, 2014 Adjourned Council Meeting. The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the January 7, 2014 Regular Council Meeting and the January 14, 2014 Adjourned Council Meeting. 2. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 010, 2014, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the General Fund for the Exterior Preservation and Reconstruction of the Avery Building at the Intersection of College and Mountain Avenues. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on January 21, 2014, appropriates unanticipated revenues in the amount of $19,839, received in excess of previously appropriated funds, for the Avery Building Restoration project. 3. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 011, 2014, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue in the General Fund for the Fort Collins Police Services Victim Services Unit. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on January 21, 2014, appropriates grant funds in the amount of $32,000 received from the Eighth Judicial District Victim Assistance and Law Enforcement Board to help fund services provided by the Victim Services Unit of Fort Collins Police Services for victim advocacy services under the Colorado Victim Rights Amendment for victims of crime and their family members. February 4, 2014 36 4. Items Relating to Bobcat Ridge Natural Area. A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 012, 2014, Authorizing the City Manager to Enter into a Grant Contract with History Colorado, the Colorado Historical Society for Funds to Restore Two Historic Structures at Bobcat Ridge Natural Area. B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 013, 2014, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the Natural Areas Fund Project to Restore Two Historic Structures at Bobcat Ridge Natural Area. These Ordinances, unanimously adopted on First Reading on January 21, 2014, approve a grant contract with History Colorado and appropriate unanticipated revenue in the Natural Areas Fund for historic building restoration. The State of Colorado awarded the City a grant of $141,877 from the State Historical Fund to fund 71% of the estimated cost of $199,827 to restore two historic structures at Bobcat Ridge Natural Area: the Poultry Shed and the Equipment Shed. The City also received a $43,000 grant from the Pulliam Charitable Trust to provide most of the 29% in funds necessary to match the State funding. Natural Areas fund monies will be used to fund the remaining $14,950 necessary for the project. Information requested at First Reading regarding the use of Natural Areas Funds for historic preservation has been provided. 5. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 014, 2014, Waiving Certain Fees for Fort Collins Housing Authority's Redtail Ponds Permanent Supportive Housing Project and Appropriating General Fund Reserves to Pay Specified Fees. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on January 21, 2014, authorizes certain development and capital improvement expansion fee waivers to be provided to the Fort Collins Housing Authority (FCHA) for the Redtail Ponds permanent supportive housing project. In March 2013, City Council limited the types of projects for which the FCHA could request fee waivers and made these waivers discretionary. Eligible projects are those constructed for homeless or disabled persons, or for persons whose income falls at or below 30% of the adjusted median income of all City residents. FCHA is requesting fee waivers in the amount of $274,199 for this housing project. This is a permissible type of project for a fee waiver request. Changes to the Ordinance on Second Reading are to fix an error in Section 3 that referred to the funds being appropriated rather than the fees being waived, and to clarify that the appropriated funds are to replace the waived Capital Improvement Expansion Fees. Additional information about the ownership structure of Redtail Ponds was requested at First Reading and has been provided. 6. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 016, 2014, Authorizing the Conveyance of a Temporary Construction Easement and Right-of-Way on Long View Farm Open Space to the Colorado Department of Transportation. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on January 21, 2014, conveys a right-of-way and temporary construction easement to the Colorado Department of Transportation. The Colorado Department of Transportation has requested to acquire in fee approximately 0.07 acres of right-of-way along with a temporary construction easement on Long View Farm Open Space, as part of the Hwy 392/US 287 Intersection project. The easement and right-of-way acquisition is needed to replace an existing stormwater February 4, 2014 37 pipe with a large box culvert. The project will impact a small section of a low value wetland on the property that will be mitigated through the Natural Areas wetland mitigation fund. On January 23, 2014, the Larimer County Open Lands Advisory Board voted unanimously to approve this easement. At its December 11, 2013, regular meeting the Land Conservation and Stewardship Board unanimously voted to recommend adoption of the ordinance. 7. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 017, 2014, Amending Chapter 26, Section 26-712, of the City Code Relating to Utility Manual Meter Reading Charges. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on January 21, 2014, amends City Code concerning monthly billing charges for a site visit to obtain metering data for water and/or electric service consumption for monthly billing of utility services. The existing descriptor in the table of utility bill and account charges in Section 26-712 of City Code mistakenly references mechanical electric meters which have not been purchased by Light & Power since 2009. The use of this descriptor has created unnecessary confusion about the intent of this provision. The recommended change is to provide greater clarity. 8. Items Relating to the Adoption of the 2012 International Codes. A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 018, 2014, Amending Chapter 5, Article II, Division 2, of the City Code for the Purpose of Repealing the 2009 International Building Code (IBC) and Adopting the 2012 International Building Code, with Amendments. B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 019, 2014, Amending Chapter 5, Article II, Division 2, of the City Code for the Purpose of Repealing the 2009 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) and Adopting the 2012 International Energy Conservation Code, with Amendments. C. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 020, 2014, Amending Chapter 5, Article II, Division 2, of the City Code for the Purpose of Repealing the 2009 International Residential Code (IRC) and Adopting the 2012 International Residential Code, with Amendments. D. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 021, 2014, Amending Chapter 5, Article IV of the City Code for the Purpose of Repealing the 2009 International Mechanical Code (IMC), and adopting the 2012 International Mechanical Code, with Amendments. E. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 022, 2014, Amending Chapter 5, Article IV of the City Code for the Purpose Repealing the 2009 International Fuel Gas Code (IFGC), and Adopting the 2012 International Fuel Gas Code, with Amendments. These Ordinances, unanimously adopted on First Reading on January 21, 2014, adopt the 2012 International Codes (I-Codes). The 2012 I-Codes represent the most up-to-date construction standards establishing minimum requirements to safeguard the public health, safety, and general welfare from hazards attributed to the built environment within the City of Fort Collins. February 4, 2014 38 Ordinance Nos. 018, 2014 (IBC) and 019, 2014 (IECC) have been amended to include a reference the International Green Construction Code among the referenced standards listed. Ordinance No. 020, 2014, International Residential Code, has been revised on Second Reading to correct Code section numbering of Item numbers (64) and (65) that were incorrectly labeled (see page 21 of Ordinance). Section R313.2 (page 14 of the Ordinance) has been revised to delete single-family dwellings from the fire-sprinkler requirement, which were not intended to be sprinkled. 9. First Reading of Ordinance No. 023, 2014 Vacating a Portion of the Fossil Boulevard Right-of-Way as Dedicated on the Plat of Redtail. The purpose of this item is to vacate a portion of the Fossil Boulevard right-of-way that is no longer necessary or desirable to retain for public street purposes. The property owner adjacent to this portion of right-of-way is requesting the vacation. This location will be the future site of the Redtail Ponds Permanent Supportive Housing project (Redtail Second Filing) which was approved at the Planning and Zoning Board Public Hearing on November 21, 2013. 10. Resolution 2014-010 Authorizing the Initiation of Exclusion Proceedings of Annexed Properties Within the Territory of the Poudre Valley Fire Protection District. The purpose of this item is to authorize the City Attorney to file a petition in Larimer County District Court to exclude properties annexed into the City in 2013 from the Poudre Valley Fire Protection District (the “District”) in accordance with state law. The properties will continue to receive fire protection services from the Poudre Fire Authority. ***END CONSENT*** Mayor Pro Tem Horak withdrew Item No. 7, Second Reading of Ordinance No. 017, 2014, Amending Chapter 26, Section 26-712, of the City Code Relating to Utility Manual Meter Reading Charges, from the Consent Calendar. Mayor Pro Tem Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Troxell, to adopt all items not withdrawn from the Consent Calendar. Yeas: Poppaw, Horak, Weitkunat, Troxell, Campana, Cunniff and Overbeck. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. Staff Reports City Attorney Roy provided an update on the lawsuit filed by the Colorado Oil and Gas Association against the City challenging the validity of ballot measure 2A, which imposed a five year moratorium on hydraulic fracturing and the storage of its waste in the City. He stated the Court has issued a case management order. February 4, 2014 39 Councilmember Reports Mayor Pro Tem Horak reported on Chief Hutto’s public meeting regarding body-worn cameras. He also reported on the unsheltered population point in time count completed by Homeward 2020. Councilmember Troxell reported on the Legislative Review Committee meeting. Councilmember Campana reported on the Let’s Move campaign and stated the City is currently undergoing the registration process. Mayor Weitkunat reported on the Presidential Task Force and stated she is a co-chair of the Disaster Recovery and Resilience subgroup. Ordinance No. 017, 2014, Amending Chapter 26, Section 26-712, of the City Code Relating to Utility Manual Meter Reading Charges, Adopted on Second Reading The following is the staff memorandum for this item. “EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on January 21, 2014, amends City Code concerning monthly billing charges for a site visit to obtain metering data for water and/or electric service consumption for monthly billing of utility services. The existing descriptor in the table of utility bill and account charges in Section 26-712 of City Code mistakenly references mechanical electric meters which have not been purchased by Light & Power since 2009. The use of this descriptor has created unnecessary confusion about the intent of this provision. The recommended change is to provide greater clarity.” Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, stated bad decisions are made when inaccurate information is presented. He suggested better options than Smart Meters could have been put in place to achieve the City’s goals. Councilmember Troxell made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Campana, to adopt Ordinance No. 017, 2014, on Second Reading. Councilmember Troxell noted this item allows for manual meter reading. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Poppaw, Horak, Weitkunat, Troxell, Campana, Cunniff and Overbeck. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. February 4, 2014 40 Ordinance No. 015, 2014, Authorizing the Acquisition by Eminent Domain Proceedings of Certain Land Necessary for the Construction of the West Vine Basin Outfall Project, Adopted on Second Reading The following is the staff memorandum for this item. “EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Ordinance, adopted on First Reading by a vote of 6-0 (Campana recused) authorizes the use of eminent domain to acquire property interests for the West Vine Basin Outfall project. In assembling property interests for the West Vine Basin Outfall Project, the City has encountered two properties with complicated lending situations. Due to the degree of complication and the properties’ keystone importance, staff proposes the use of eminent domain as the most cost effective and efficient approach to complete the City’s desired acquisition of 12.841 acres if all the necessary lender consents cannot be obtained in a timely way. The City has been working with the landowners and they are agreeable to this approach.” Councilmember Campana withdrew from the discussion of this item due to a conflict of interest. Mayor Pro Tem Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Troxell, to adopt Ordinance No. 015, 2014, on Second Reading. Councilmember Cunniff stated this is an unusual situation in that the property owners are willing recipients of potential eminent domain action. He asked who would be negatively impacted by the use of eminent domain in this case. Helen Matson, Real Estate Services, replied the banks would need to declare their interest in court. Tawyna Ernst, Real Estate specialist, stated this is a last resort action and the intent is to move forward without eminent domain; this action would occur if the last bank is unwilling to sign off on approvals. Councilmember Overbeck requested information regarding the reference to eminent domain as being a convenience and timely. Matt Fater, Project Manager, replied the concern is related to a construction deadline due to irrigation season and spring runoff. Mayor Pro Tem Horak noted this item does not mean eminent domain will necessarily occur. Councilmember Cunniff stated he would not support the motion despite the fact this is a usual proceeding. Mayor Pro Tem Horak stated this action could be used to get the one remaining lender to respond. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Weitkunat, Troxell, Poppaw and Horak. Nays: Cunniff and Overbeck. THE MOTION CARRIED. (Secretary’s note: The Council took a brief recess at this point in the meeting.) February 4, 2014 41 Consideration of the Appeal of the Administrative Hearing Officer Decision to Approve the Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment, Administrative Hearing Officer Decision Overturned The following is the staff memorandum for this item. “EXECUTIVE SUMMARY On December 31, 2013 an appeal was filed concerning the Administrative Hearing Officer's decision regarding a proposed Major Amendment to the building elevations and building footprint for Lot 2 of the Stoner Subdivision, 1017 West Magnolia Street. The Appeal asserts that the Hearing Officer failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Land use Code, specifically: 1. Article 3, Section 3.5.1 - Building and Project Compatibility 2. Article 4, Neighborhood Conservation, Low Density District (N-C-L), Section 4.7(A) - Purpose. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION The Stoner Subdivision was originally approved through a Type 1 public hearing held May 30, 2013, to subdivide an existing single-family residence into two new lots, creating a new lot in the rear portion of the existing lot. The new lot is known as “Lot 2” and is east of the existing single-family residence. The existing single-family residence remains on a portion of the original lot, which is renamed “Lot 1”. The two lots are located at the southeast corner of Wayne Street and West Magnolia Street in the Neighborhood Conservation, Low-Density Zone District (N-C-L). Building elevations and a building footprint were approved for Lot 2 as part of the original Stoner Subdivision approval. The Major Amendment proposes amended building footprint and building elevations for the approved single-family detached dwelling on Lot 2. ASSERSIONS OF APPEAL The Appellant asserts that the Hearing Officer failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Land Use Code. The Appellant states: “The appellants agree with the Staff Report that the project fails to comply with Article 3 Section 3.5.1 Building and Project Compatibility and Article 4, Section 4.7(A) Purpose because the design of the home is incompatible in mass, bulk, and scale with homes in the surrounding area. The basis for the City staff’s conclusion is that the design contains a significant amount of competing building forms, causing the overall bulk and massing to be inconsistent with the character of nearby homes. Pursuant to Section 3.5.l(B), architectural compatibility ‘shall be derived from the neighboring February 4, 2014 42 context.’ The appellants agree that the architecture of the homes in the surrounding area varies greatly, but believe there is a predominant architectural feature or characteristic that is shared amongst the homes in the surrounding neighborhoods.” “The photographs presented by both the applicant and the City staff provide visual evidence that the predominant feature of homes in the neighborhood is simple, geometric roof lines that are triangular or rectangular and limited in number. Where there are multiple roof lines, they are typically smaller than the dominant roof and the dormers are small in scale and limited in number. Overall, the neighborhood's predominant architectural style is of a simpler form/shape with minimal extra appurtenances (rooms, balconies, large dormers) sticking out.” “The staff, Meg Dunn and Michelle Haefele testified at the hearing that the proposed building is incompatible to the neighborhood context because the neighboring houses have simple geometric shaped roof lines with several triangular, sloped roofs and a simpler, basically rectangular or square building form. A review of the following photos included in the presentations by the applicant and City staff show the contrast between the neighborhoods' simpler, rooflines and geometric housing shapes and the proposed building. The visual effect of the proposed project's architectural style with its multiple massive dormers and large, popped out rooms on the top of the building is that it appears asymmetrical, significantly larger in bulk, mass and scale, and out of character with the predominant architecture of the neighboring homes.” “Additionally, the appellants support the Staff Report when it states that another predominant characteristic of the architecture of the surrounding area is second story floor area contained within the roof line. The staff, and applicant alike, both provided photographic evidence that the common architectural feature of the neighborhood's diverse housing styles is that the second story floor area is basically contained within the roof line. The photographic evidence clearly supports this conclusion. The proposed project is not compatible with the dominant character of nearby homes because the three large dormered rooms and balcony on the second floor are not contained within the roof line but appear as a large, asymmetrical, unplanned add-ons to an existing structure.” “Finally, the appellants also disagree with the hearing officer's interpretation of Section 3.5.1(B) when she decided that the existing architectural character is not clearly defined. The photos of houses in the area presented by both the applicant and staff showed that the common, simple sloped roof lines with second story floor area contained within the roof line are established architectural characteristics of this neighborhood. The project just doesn't meet this established common architectural feature. In fact, the Hearing Officer personally agreed with the City that the style of the home proposed in the MJA is ‘too busy, with too many competing building forms and roof lines,’ providing additional evidence that the proposed building is not in context with the character of neighboring houses. The photos show that where there are additional dormers or roofs, they are smaller, secondary and minimal in number.” The appellant provides photographic illustrations with the Notice of Appeal, stating that: “Following are photos of neighborhood houses that clearly illustrate the commonality of the roof designs, slopes, and simple geometry building forms that are predominant in this neighborhood and February 4, 2014 43 provide common architectural features. All photos are taken from the applicant's Powerpoint presentation and are highlighted to emphasize the second story architectural features that face the street. The proposed house is also shown with similar highlighting.” HEARING OFFICER FINDINGS AND DECISION 1. The Hearing Officer’s Findings for the Major Amendment are located on page 2, 3, and 4 of the Hearing Officer’s decision letter. For the Appellant’s assertion regarding Land Use Code Section 3.5.1 – Building and Project Compatibility, the Hearing Officer states on page 2 of the Findings and Decision: “The Staff Report contends that the MJA fails to comply with Section 3.5.1, Building and Project Compatibility, because the design of the home is incompatible in mass, bulk, and scale with homes in the surrounding area. The basis for the City's conclusion is that the design contains a significant amount of competing building forms, causing the overall bulk and massing to be inconsistent with the character of nearby homes. Pursuant to Section 3.5.1(B), architectural compatibility "shall be derived from the neighboring context." At the hearing, both the applicant and the City presented photographs and testimony that the architecture of the homes in the surrounding area varies greatly. The photographs presented at the hearing show one-story homes, two-story homes, split-level homes, modern homes, traditional homes, homes with one primary roof element, homes with more than one primary roof element, bungalows, cottages, mid-century ranch homes, Colonial homes, Craftsman-style homes and Tudor-style homes. The Staff Report states that the predominant characteristic of the architecture of the surrounding area is second story floor area contained within the roof line. However, the evidence presented during the hearing by both the applicant and the City simply does not support this conclusion. Pursuant to Section 3.5.1(B): "In areas where the existing architectural character is not definitively established . . . the architecture of new development shall set an enhanced standard of quality for future projects or redevelopment in the area." The Hearing Officer finds that the existing architectural character in this area is not clearly defined. Unfortunately, the phrase "enhanced standard of quality" is undefined, ambiguous and impossible to apply. While the Hearing Officer personally agrees with the City that the style of the home proposed in the MJA is too busy, with too many competing building forms and roof lines, that personal opinion does not render the MJA noncompliant with Section 3.5.1. The majority of the public comments at the hearing, including those from adjacent property owners, supported the architectural style of the home, and there is nothing in the record to indicate that the quality of the home is suspect. As such, the Hearing Officer finds that the MJA complies with Section 3.5.1.” 2. For the Appellant’s assertion regarding Land Use Code Section 4.7(A) – Purpose for the Neighborhood Conservation, Low Density District (N-C-L), the Hearing Officer states on page 3 of the Findings and Decision: “The Staff Report contends that the MJA fails to comply with Section 4.7(A), Purpose, because elements of the building design are not arranged to control the height, scale, mass and bulk in a way that is compatible with architecture in the surrounding area, resulting in incompatible design which does not preserve the character of developed single-family dwellings in the N-C-L district. As discussed above, however, both the applicant and the City presented testimony and photographs demonstrating that the architecture of the surrounding area varies greatly. It was undisputed at the February 4, 2014 44 hearing that the MJA proposes a single-family dwelling in compliance with all applicable size and height restrictions for the N-C-L district. In light of the variety in architecture, mass and height of homes in the surrounding area, it would be impossible for the Hearing Officer to determine that the proposed architecture of the home proposed in the MJA is incompatible with the surrounding area. As such, the Hearing Officer finds that the MJA complies with Section 4.7(A).” SUMMARY Building plans for Lot 2 are the subject of this appeal. Building elevations and a building footprint were approved for Lot 2 as part of the original Stoner Subdivision approval. The Major Amendment proposes amended building footprint and building elevations. The Hearing Officer issued a written decision on December 17, 2013 to approve the proposed Major Amendment. On December 31, 2013, an Appeal to the Hearing Officer’s Decision was submitted, asserting that the Hearing Officer failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Land use Code, specifically: 1. Article 3, Section 3.5.1 – Building and Project Compatibility 2. Article 4, Neighborhood Conservation, Low Density District (N-C-L), Section 4.7(A) – Purpose.” City Attorney Roy reviewed the process for the hearing of appeals by City Council. He stated Council can uphold, overturn, or modify the decision of the hearing officer and detailed the circumstances under which the item could be remanded. Cameron Gloss, Planning Manager, discussed the site, located at the corner of Wayne and Magnolia Streets. He stated the original application was approved by the Hearing Officer in May with footprints and plans of representative architecture. In the fall, an amended plan was received, which included a larger building footprint and revised architecture. Staff concluded this amendment could be considered a change in character, which is the threshold for a minor amendment to become a major amendment; therefore requiring the plan to go before the original decision maker, the Hearing Officer in this case. Gloss stated the Major Amendment was approved by the Hearing Officer and the appeal of that decision relates to two specific items: Land Use Code Section 3.5.1, relating to building and project compatibility, and the purpose statement of the NCL Zone. He reviewed the assertions of the appeal and summarized the findings of the Hearing Officer. Gloss went on to respond to Councilmember Campana’s request for contextual information regarding the history and age of nearby homes. Mayor Weitkunat asked Councilmembers to explain any observations made or conversations held at the site visit which may be relevant to their determination on the appeal. Councilmember Cunniff stated he had a discussion with staff regarding the layout of the property and observed the surrounding neighborhood. Councilmember Campana stated he tried to evaluate the surrounding homes for common architectural details and came to the conclusion the area is quite varied in terms of architecture, lot size, and home size to lot size ratios. February 4, 2014 45 Councilmember Overbeck stated he looked at the character of the neighborhood. Mayor Pro Tem Horak stated he was present at the site visit. Mayor Weitkunat stated she examined the site and the character of the neighborhood. APPELLANT PRESENTATION Michelle Haefele, Protect Our Old Town Homes, discussed the original lot subdivision and original home plans. She stated this project does not meet the purpose of the Neighborhood Conservation Low Density zone district, which is to preserve the character of the existing neighborhood. She stated this project is not compatible with the neighborhood due to its architectural incompatibility and noted staff agreed in its staff report for the Hearing Officer. Meg Dunn, Protect Our Old Town Homes, showed slides of homes in the neighborhood and described the simplicity of their architecture. She stated the architecture of the proposed home is too complex to be compatible with the neighborhood. APPLICANT PRESENTATION Steve Whittall, By Design Homes, stated the NCL zone is quite diverse and stated the proposed plan fits well within the zone. Berin Wachsmann stated he was the original applicant for the lot subdivision and noted a single-story home was never proposed, despite the fact a letter went out from the City indicating a single-story home was proposed. He discussed the fact the original drawings were submitted as prototypes only and were never approved as what would be built. He discussed the variety in Old Town and the fact the proposed home was designed specifically for the lot. Additionally, he noted there are no adjacent neighbors in opposition to the project and two adjacent neighbors have submitted letters of support. Laura Olive, 1500 Quail Hollow, discussed the site and stated the proposed home was designed specifically for the lot. Aubrey Carson, architect, showed slides of the proposed home and discussed its architectural details. He argued the home is compatible in its style, character, mass and bulk. Greg Obermann, property owner, stated character is not uniformity and discussed his reasons for desiring the proposed home. Councilmember Campana stated one of the individuals who spoke has real estate listings with him and stated he would recuse himself from the discussion should the appellants desire. City Attorney Roy recommended all parties be given an opportunity to speak to the issue. He stated this is not likely a conflict of interest given the Councilmember would need to be the recipient of a substantial benefit or February 4, 2014 46 detriment differing from that of the general public. However, the parties need to be assured a fair hearing and his relationship to one of the parties-in-interest may create a bias. Ms. Dunn stated she is fine with Councilmember Campana’s participation. Gina Jannett, appellant, requested Councilmember Campana’s recusal. Councilmember Campana noted he was unaware of the fact the party-in-interest was going to be speaking but stated he would recuse himself from the remainder of the deliberations. APPELLANT REBUTTAL Ms. Dunn agreed the neighborhood is diverse but noted there are some similarities in architecture. She discussed the distinct context of the immediate area. Ms. Haefele stated the original application submitted to the City in February 2013 indicated a one-story house would be built. She also stated the lot subdivision approval was based on the fact the submitted prototype drawing was found to be compatible by the Hearing Officer. Ms. Dunn stated the appellants are not requesting that no home be built; they are requesting the home be compatible with the context of the neighborhood. APPLICANT REBUTTAL Sean Dougherty, 1344 Catalpa, noted the Hearing Officer found the proposed design does not violate the Land Use Code. Mr. Whittall stated this design is the culmination of a long and thoughtful process and noted eight people, including the adjacent neighbors, spoke in favor of this design at the Major Amendment hearing. He stated denying this project will lead to uncertainty in the process and will undermine the confidence of the building community. He requested the decision of the Hearing Officer be upheld. Mayor Weitkunat noted the purpose statements of zone districts are general and are not regulatory in nature. Councilmember Cunniff requested information regarding the staff statements that the project complies with the City’s process and that it does not comply with the applicable requirements of the Land Use Code. Jason Holland, Project Planner, replied staff was referencing Land Use Code Section 3.5.1, which states “architectural compatibility shall be derived from the neighboring context, that some elements affecting compatibility include height, scale, mass and bulk of structures, and that compatibility shall be achieved through techniques such as repetition of roof lines and the use of similar proportions in building mass and outdoor spaces”. Staff made the finding that the proposed architecture is not consistent with the neighborhood when looking at this Code section. February 4, 2014 47 Councilmember Troxell asked how much of Old Town is zoned NCL. Holland provided a zoning map of the area and stated there is a large portion of NCL zoning surrounding the project site. Mayor Weitkunat asked if the zone district is referenced when considering compatibility. Gloss replied the zone district is examined broadly; however, the immediate context is examined specifically. Mayor Pro Tem Horak requested clarification regarding statements made by Holland at the Major Amendment hearing. Holland replied the Land Use Code indicates compatibility shall be achieved through certain techniques, including repetition of roof lines and the use of similar proportions in building mass and outdoor spaces. He also noted the definition of compatibility in the Land Use Code speaks to the fact that architectural compatibility shall be derived from the neighboring context and that some elements affecting compatibility include height, scale, mass and bulk of surrounding structures, and that compatibility refers to the sensitivity of development proposals maintaining the character of the existing development. Mayor Pro Tem Horak asked how the determination was reached, given the statement by the Hearing Officer regarding subjectivity. Holland replied it is a fair assessment that Section 3.5.1 is subjective, which is why staff completed the detailed analysis of the character of homes on the block and in the neighborhood. That analysis found varying architectural styles; however, the common theme is simple roof forms. Mayor Pro Tem Horak asked how the common theme was derived. Holland replied the examination of all the homes indicated the common theme of repetition of roof lines and similar proportions in building forms. Mayor Pro Tem Horak asked if this technique is used on similar projects throughout the City. Gloss replied in the affirmative. Mayor Pro Tem Horak asked if examples exist of staff recommending approval and denial based on that standard. Gloss replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Troxell noted the proposed plan depicts elements that break up massing in order to accommodate one of the main intentions of the Eastside/Westside Plan. He requested an explanation of why this project is at odds with the Eastside/Westside Plan. Gloss replied this application is not subject to the Eastside/Westside design standards as the application was submitted prior to the adoption of those standards. However, he stated the Neighborhood Character Design Guidelines for the East and Westside Neighborhoods were examined in order to provide some guidance as one element of the analysis. Councilmember Troxell stated the proposed project has a great deal of design detail. Gloss replied the “pattern book” project is on the work plan; however, other projects are a higher priority at this point. Councilmember Troxell asked if the proposed project has too much design detail. Gloss replied the design detail was not the major thrust of staff’s position on the project; it was based on the bulk, mass and scale of the building. The architectural renderings are not compliant with Section 3.5.1 based on the massing of the home in that it has more mass, particularly relative to the lot size, than surrounding properties. Councilmember Cunniff asked how staff interprets “immediate area of the proposed infill development.” Gloss replied the block face was considered to be the most immediate context. February 4, 2014 48 Mayor Weitkunat asked if the primary incompatibility issue is related to the bulk of the second story. Gloss replied in the affirmative and stated the complexity of the roof forms and the relative size of those forms to the main primary roof form are at issue. Mayor Weitkunat asked if it is basically a design issue. Gloss replied in the affirmative. Mayor Pro Tem Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Cunniff, to overturn the decision of the Hearing Officer because the Hearing Officer failed to properly interpret and apply Land Use Code Section 3.1(b) and 4.7(a). Mayor Pro Tem Horak stated he is satisfied with staff’s analysis and agreed the proposed design is not compatible with the neighborhood. Councilmember Troxell stated he would not support the motion as the applicant attempted to comply with the intent of the Eastside/Westside Plan in its design features. He stated the City is at fault for not providing design standards for the area and the proposed project meets the enhanced and approved criteria for Old Town. Councilmember Cunniff agreed with Mayor Pro Tem Horak and staff’s assessment of the project. Mayor Weitkunat stated she would support the motion given the dominance of the second story; however, she stated she is in favor of the design in general. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Cunniff, Overbeck, Poppaw, Horak and Weitkunat. Nays: Troxell. THE MOTION CARRIED. Other Business Mayor Pro Tem Horak requested the status of the design “pattern books.” Gloss replied the specific project is on the Planning staff work plan; however, there are several other planning initiatives which are higher on the priority list. He stated staff is currently working on a design manual which will touch on some aspects but will not be as specific as what was mentioned. Mayor Pro Tem Horak requested additional information regarding the prioritization issue. February 4, 2014 49 Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk February 18, 2014 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, February 18, 2014, 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: Campana, Cunniff, Horak, Overbeck, Poppaw, Troxell and Weitkunat. Staff Members Present: Atteberry, Nelson, Roy. Agenda Review City Manager Atteberry withdrew Item No. 2, Postponement of Items Relating to the Kechter Farm Annexation and Zoning to March 4, 2014, for Council to consider postponing to March 18, 2014. Councilmember Troxell withdrew Item No. 4, Second Reading of Ordinance No. 024, 2014, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the Keep Fort Collins Great Fund to Fund Further Development of the West Central Neighborhoods Plan, from the Consent Calendar. Citizen Participation Mel Hilgenberg, 172 North College, reported on community music and theatre events, provided kudos to the City and Rosemary Russo for participation in a panel at CSU, and opposed the proposed on-campus stadium at CSU. Rick Price, Fort Collins resident, commended two items: Second Reading of Ordinance No. 024, 2014, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the Keep Fort Collins Great Fund to Fund Further Development of the West Central Neighborhoods Plan and Resolution 2014-011 Supporting the Grant Application for a Paths to Parks Trail Grant from the State Board of Great Outdoors Colorado for the Fossil Creek Trail from College Avenue to Shields Street, as being important to completing the City’s Bike Plan and Master Trails Plan. Additionally, he suggested that Council direct the City Manager and staff to consider budgeting for the aforementioned two projects and additional trail connectivity. Jack Daniels, 172 North College, commended Council on its excellent work and stated Fort Collins is an outstanding community. Mike Pruznick, Fort Collins resident, supported the City going greener more quickly and discouraged the use of the term “climate change denier.” He opposed City policies preventing net positive solar installation. February 18, 2014 51 Linda Vrooman, 912 Cheyenne Drive, opposed the proposed on-campus stadium at CSU, citing concerns regarding vehicle traffic, trains, and safety on campus and in surrounding neighborhoods. Bob Vangermersch, Fort Collins resident, opposed the proposed on-campus stadium at CSU citing negative environmental impacts. He suggested a full environmental impact study should be required. Doug Brobst, 1625 Independence, requested a status update regarding Council’s potential site visits to other communities with on-campus stadiums. He requested a study of the stadium’s environmental, social, and economic impacts on the city. Chris Marshall, 926 West Mountain, opposed the proposed on-campus stadium and stated the average stadium built in the last twenty years has cost 140% over budget. Ray Burgner, Fort Collins resident, opposed recreational marijuana legalization. Charles David Ham, 3324 Hickock Drive, opposed the location of the proposed on-campus stadium and suggested Council consider the implementation of impact fees. Citizen Participation Follow-up Councilmember Cunniff stated a review of the City’s strategic objectives will occur at the upcoming Council retreat. He agreed with Mr. Pruznick’s comment regarding climate change deniers. Mayor Pro Tem Horak stated the trails will be further along in the future if the money from the Conservation Trust Fund is restored and not used for park maintenance. He also noted trails are dependent upon easements and other cooperative measures. Additionally, he stated the City should not ignore the future growth of CSU, as well as the possibility of an on-campus stadium. Councilmember Troxell requested an update regarding Council’s site visits to other communities with on-campus stadiums. Deputy City Manager Jones replied she is in discussions with representatives from Tulane and Southern Methodist University regarding possible visitation dates. Councilmember Troxell commended Mr. Burgner’s comments in support of the community’s youth. Councilmember Overbeck stated he is not interested in site visits but in conference calls. Deputy City Manager Jones replied she will examine that possibility and noted the universities are aware Council is interested in talking to affected community members as well as university representatives. February 18, 2014 52 CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Consideration and Approval of the Minutes of the January 21, 2014 Regular Council Meeting. The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the January 21, 2014 Regular Council Meeting. 2. Postponement of Items Relating to the Kechter Farm Annexation and Zoning to March 4, 2014. Staff requests that Second Reading of the Kechter Farm Annexation and Zoning Ordinances (Ordinance Nos. 005 and 006, 2014) be postponed until March 4, 2014. The final plat approval should be considered by the Board of County Commissioners by the end of February. Under the Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) with Larimer County, the City has agreed to not annex lands within the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan until after final plan approval by the County. Postponing this item until the March 4 meeting will honor the City’s commitment in the IGA. 3. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 023, 2014 Vacating a Portion of the Fossil Boulevard Right-of-Way as Dedicated on the Plat of Redtail. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on February 4, 2014 vacates a portion of the Fossil Boulevard right-of-way that is no longer necessary or desirable to retain for public street purposes. The property owner adjacent to this portion of right-of-way is requesting the vacation. This location will be the future site of the Redtail Ponds Permanent Supportive Housing project (Redtail Second Filing). 4. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 024, 2014, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the Keep Fort Collins Great Fund to Fund Further Development of the West Central Neighborhoods Plan. The purpose of this item is to appropriate $170,000 of KFCG Other Transportation Reserve funds for consulting services associated with the Transportation Element of the West Central Neighborhoods Plan. An update of the plan is scheduled for 2014. The requested funding enhances the overall planning effort by including an analysis of the neighborhood transportation network, consideration of growth on and around the Colorado State University campus, recommendations and strategies, and detailed corridor vision and design for Prospect Road between College Avenue and Shields Street. 5. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 025, 2014, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the Water Fund to Fund the Replacement of the College Avenue Waterline From Mulberry Street to Buckeye Street. February 18, 2014 53 The purpose of this item is to fund the replacement of the College Avenue waterline from Mulberry to Buckeye Streets, just south of Pitkin. Ordinance No. 134, 2013 appropriated funds for the design of this project. Design and cost estimating have been completed. This Ordinance appropriates $2.1 million from reserves for the construction of this project. 6. First Reading of Ordinance No. 026, 2014, Amending Subsection 2-31(a)(2) of the City Code, Pertaining to Executive Sessions Held for the Purpose of Meeting with Attorneys for the City. The purpose of this item is to amend subsection 2-31(a) of the City Code, which pertains to executive sessions held for the purpose of meeting with attorneys for the City. The purpose of the amendment is to more closely conform to the language in Article II, Section 11 of the City Charter. 7. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 027, 2014, Approving Revisions to the Fort Collins Utilities' Electric Construction Policies, Practices, and Procedures. The purpose of this item is to adopt the revised Electric Construction Policies, Practices, and Procedures (ECPPP). The ECPPP provides definition to developers and contractors related to the construction of electrical facilities. 8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 028, 2014, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code to Clarify the Application of Wastewater Rates to Certain Residential Services. The purpose of this item is to revise the City Code concerning the classification of wastewater users and to revise rates for wastewater service charges during the period of construction. 9. Resolution 2014-011 Supporting the Grant Application for a Paths to Parks Trail Grant from the State Board of Great Outdoors Colorado for the Fossil Creek Trail from College Avenue to Shields Street. The City is applying for a Great Outdoors Colorado Path to Parks Trail Grant. Staff is preparing an application for the Fossil Creek Trail from College Avenue to Shields Street project for this grant cycle. Great Outdoors Colorado requires a City Resolution acknowledging the application intent to be submitted as part of the grant package. 10. Resolution 2014-012 Approving Revised Costs and Fees for Fort Collins Municipal Court. The purpose of this item is to revise certain costs and fees assessed by the Fort Collins Municipal Court. Costs and fees are assessed in addition to fines or other penalties. According to the City Charter, these costs and fees are enacted by Council, upon recommendation of the Judge. Various costs and fees have been approved by resolution over the years. At this time, Judge Lane recommends making some changes: increasing the Court Cost from $25 to $35 to help cover increased Court security costs, revising the Appeal Fee February 18, 2014 54 amount to include a lesser amount for appeals from a Municipal Court Referee to the Municipal Judge on a parking or civil infraction case, and deleting the Continuance Fee. 11. Resolution 2014-013 Adopting the Recommendations of the Cultural Resources Board Regarding Fort Fund Grant Disbursements. The purpose of this item is to adopt the recommendations of the Cultural Resources Board to disburse Fort Fund grants to community events from the Cultural Development and Programming and Tourism Programming Accounts. 12. Resolution 2014-014 Authorizing a License to Enter to the U.S. Department of Justice for Use of City-Owned Property at 215 North Mason for Nine Months. The purpose of this item is to authorize the U.S. Department of Justice to use the Municipal Courtroom and Waiting Area at 215 North Mason Street for Bankruptcy Creditor Meetings. There are 10 scheduled meetings during the remainder of 2014. ***END CONSENT*** (Secretary’s note: Councilmember Campana withdrew from the Consent Calendar vote due to a conflict of interest.) Mayor Pro Tem Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to adopt and approve all items not withdrawn from the Consent Calendar. Yeas: Troxell, Horak, Weitkunat, Cunniff, Overbeck and Poppaw. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. Consent Calendar Follow-up Mayor Weitkunat discussed Item No. 11, Resolution 2014-013 Adopting the Recommendations of the Cultural Resources Board Regarding Fort Fund Grant Disbursements, noting these dollars come from visitors to the city through a lodging tax. Councilmember Reports Councilmember Overbeck reported on a DDA facade grant approval for Wolverine Farm Publishing on Willow Street. Mayor Pro Tem Horak requested an update regarding the retreat with Council. City Manager Atteberry replied staff has requested Council meet Saturday in a retreat setting to discuss strategic objectives which are an important input to the Budgeting for Outcomes process. He stated the Saturday date will not work from a scheduling standpoint and recommended Council convene at 3:00 p.m. next Tuesday in order to complete this task. February 18, 2014 55 Mayor Pro Tem Horak discussed asphalt plants in and around Fort Collins and requested staff research budgetary impacts and the ability to require monitoring. City Manager Atteberry replied he will meet with Karen Cumbo, Planning, Development, and Transportation Services Director, and Gerry Paul, Purchasing Director, to discuss a triple bottom line analysis of purchasing decisions. Mayor Pro Tem Horak reported on the regional Air Quality Commission meeting and the I-25 Coalition meeting. Councilmember Cunniff reported on a meeting with the EPA Administrator, White House Department of Intergovernmental Affairs representative, and Chair of the President’s Environmental Board. Mayor Weitkunat detailed the meeting mentioned by Councilmember Cunniff and stated Fort Collins is a model for river restoration. Items Relating to the Kechter Farm Annexation and Zoning, Postponed to March 18, 2014 Following is the staff memorandum for this item. “EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Staff requests that Second Reading of the Kechter Farm Annexation and Zoning Ordinances (Ordinance Nos. 005 and 006, 2014) be postponed until March 4, 2014. The final plat approval should be considered by the Board of County Commissioners by the end of February. Under the Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) with Larimer County, the City has agreed to not annex lands within the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan until after final plan approval by the County. Postponing this item until the March 4 meeting will honor the City’s commitment in the IGA.” Mayor Pro Tem Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Troxell, to postpone this item to March 18, 2014. Yeas: Horak, Weitkunat, Campana, Overbeck, Poppaw and Troxell. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. Ordinance No. 024, 2014 Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the Keep Fort Collins Great Fund to Fund Further Development of the West Central Neighborhoods Plan, Adopted on First Reading Following is the staff memorandum for this item. “EXECUTIVE SUMMARY February 18, 2014 56 The purpose of this item is to appropriate $170,000 of KFCG Other Transportation Reserve funds for consulting services associated with the Transportation Element of the West Central Neighborhoods Plan. An update of the plan is scheduled for 2014. The requested funding enhances the overall planning effort by including an analysis of the neighborhood transportation network, consideration of growth on and around the Colorado State University campus, recommendations and strategies, and detailed corridor vision and design for Prospect Road between College Avenue and Shields Street. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION The West Central Neighborhoods Plan (1999) generally encompasses the neighborhoods south and west of the Colorado State University (CSU) main campus. The planning area includes commercial and institutional uses as well as the highest residential density of any planning area in the City. In the time since the plan’s adoption, the area has developed and evolved. Additionally, CSU continues to grow its student population and expand on-campus facilities. In order to address these changing dynamics, Planning Services is scheduled to complete an update of the Plan in 2014. Preliminary conversations with area residents indicate significant concerns about transportation facilities and services, especially along the Prospect Road Corridor from College Avenue to Shields Street. The 2014 update of the West Central Neighborhoods Plan presents an opportunity to realize efficiencies by coordinating the neighborhood plan, circulation planning, and the design of this crucial segment of Prospect Road. By enhancing the transportation element of the plan and including preliminary design for this part of the Prospect Corridor, the needs and concerns of the neighborhood can be better addressed. At the same time, this project will inform a future corridor planning effort to address all seven miles of Prospect Road as contemplated by the Transportation Master Plan. An enhanced transportation element will also provide critical baseline data for assessing the impacts of a possible on-campus stadium. The transportation element will promote the development of a corridor and network that are functional, safe, and identifiable for pedestrians, bicycles, buses, and cars. The project will include a review of existing conditions, identifying and addressing data needs, establishing a transportation vision, coordinating with CSU regarding campus development and stadium impacts, recommending updates to existing network plans and policies, developing design alternatives for Prospect Road, evaluating alternatives, and producing a preliminary design (30% complete) for the preferred alternative corridor plan. FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACT This Ordinance appropriates $170,000 of KFCG Other Transportation Reserves for consulting services associated with the development of the Transportation Element. These funds will supplement the $135,000 previously approved by City Council for consulting services to update the land use, housing, and urban design elements of updating the Plan. February 18, 2014 57 By combining the transportation and corridor planning aspects of this project with the scheduled Plan update, a single consulting team may be used to serve both the land use and transportation needs. Considerable efficiencies will be realized by conducting a single program of public outreach and engagement, and by sharing data and design concepts between the land use and transportation modeling phases of the project. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The current transportation infrastructure in the planning area is subject to numerous deficiencies, including narrow or absent sidewalks and bike lanes, constrained segments, and lack of parking facilities. The Transportation Element will identify opportunities to improve the availability of modal choices and to manage automobile congestion. Both modal shift and congestion management are factors that contribute to improvements in greenhouse gas emissions and reductions in fossil fuel consumption. PUBLIC OUTREACH The recommendation to include transportation and corridor planning in the West Central Neighborhoods Plan update is a result of preliminary public feedback received by Planning Services. Once initiated, the project will include an extensive program of public engagement and opportunities for residents to participate in the planning and design process.” Councilmember Troxell expressed concern about the scope being too broad for the intended scope of the West Central Neighborhood Plan and asked about the cost of the Plan. Doug Brobst, 1625 Independence, stated this Plan does not extend far enough in analyzing impacts. He stated a citywide environmental, social, and economic impact study needs to occur. Mark Jackson, Planning, Development, and Transportation Services Deputy Director, stated this proposal is focused on addressing some of the pressures on sub-standard infrastructure in these neighborhoods and is not intended to be a citywide or overall analysis of the impacts of the proposed stadium. Councilmember Troxell asked what type of analysis would be completed to understand the transportation infrastructure needs. Jackson replied the West Central Neighborhoods transportation element is a feeder of information to a larger study. Councilmember Troxell asked about timing. Jackson replied the goal is to address all issues proactively and this study will address the more immediate impacts first, but does not preclude a more systemic evaluation with the CSU team and other affected parties. City Manager Atteberry noted there are three different topics: a stadium proposal, a campus growth plan, and the aforementioned Subarea Plan. He noted Council needs to be certain what this package entails and what it may not entail. February 18, 2014 58 Karen Cumbo, Planning, Development, and Transportation Services Director, stated this item is the transportation element of the Subarea Plan and noted the proposal for this project is not going to address the bigger picture issues of the CSU Master Plan or potential stadium impacts, except as it relates to the planning and preliminary design for Prospect. Councilmember Troxell expressed concern regarding ill effects of transportation issues should the stadium be built and stated expectations should be solidified with CSU prior to the arrival of said issues and their after effects. Mayor Weitkunat clarified this item was never intended to weigh the addition of the stadium. Cumbo stated it will provide a useful baseline for the conversations regarding possible necessary improvements, either because of the stadium or the growth of the south campus. Mayor Pro Tem Horak asked if the appropriation will be adequate to fund work on the land use, housing, and urban design elements of the Plan. Cameron Gloss, Planning Manager, replied the land use and urban design analyses will largely be completed by the City Planning staff. Mayor Pro Tem Horak asked how a stadium traffic analysis would interact with this planning element. Jackson replied that is one of the reasons staff wanted to accelerate the transportation element of the West Central Neighborhoods Plan. Mayor Weitkunat asked about the timeframe for the project. Gloss replied the draft will be completed in approximately one year and the land use scenarios and transportation modeling will be complete in approximately six months. Councilmember Cunniff requested a map of the area prior to Second Reading. Councilmember Campana suggested staff provide a summary of previous Subarea Plans, noting this Plan is not occurring simply because of the stadium. Mayor Pro Tem Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Troxell, to adopt Ordinance No. 024, 2014, on First Reading. City Attorney Roy read language amending the appropriate boundaries of the Plan area. Mayor Pro Tem Horak requested information regarding how the City interacts with CSU or other entities regarding infrastructure and utility improvements for large projects. The vote on the motion to adopt the Ordinance as amended was as follows: Yeas: Weitkunat, Campana, Cunniff, Overbeck, Troxell, Poppaw and Horak. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. Resolution 2014-015 February 18, 2014 59 Making Findings of Fact and Conclusions Regarding the Appeal of the December 17, 2013, Administrative Hearing Officer’s Decision Regarding the Stoner Subdivision, Adopted “EXECUTIVE SUMMARY On December 31, 2013 an appeal was filed concerning the Administrative Hearing Officer's decision regarding a proposed Major Amendment for Lot 2 of the Stoner Subdivision at 1017 West Magnolia Street. On February 4, 2014, City Council voted 5 - 1 on the motion to overturn the decision of the Hearing Officer concluding that the Hearing Officer failed to property interpret and apply Land Use Code Sections 3.5.1 and 4.7(A) in approving the Major Amendment because the proposed amendment was not compatible with the established architectural character of the adjacent neighborhood, particularly with regard to building bulk, mass, scale and rooflines. BACKGROUND The Major Amendment proposes amended building footprint and building elevations for the approved single-family detached dwelling on Lot 2 of the Stoner Subdivision. The Appellant’s Notice of Appeal was based on allegations that the Hearing Officer failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Land use Code, specifically: 1. Article 3, Section 3.5.1 - Building and Project Compatibility 2. Article 4, Neighborhood Conservation, Low Density District (N-C-L), Section 4.7(A) - Purpose At the February 4, 2014 hearing on the matter, Council considered said appeal, reviewed the record on appeal, heard presentations from the Appellant and other parties-in-interest and, after discussion overturned the Decision.” (Secretary’s note: Councilmember Campana withdrew from the discussion of this item as he did not participate in the hearing due to a conflict of interest.) Mayor Pro Tem Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to adopt Resolution 2014-015. Councilmember Troxell discussed the diversity of the Old Town area and stated he would not support the motion. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Cunniff, Overbeck, Poppaw, Horak and Weitkunat. Nays: Troxell. February 18, 2014 60 THE MOTION CARRIED. Resolution 2014-017 Appointing a City Councilmember to the Colorado State University Stadium Community Design Development Advisory Committee, Adopted The following is the staff memorandum for this item. “EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to appoint a member from Council to serve as the City’s representative on the Community Design Development Advisory Committee. BACKGROUND In 2012, Colorado State University (CSU) convened a Stadium Advisory Committee to examine the feasibility of building an on-campus stadium. A 15-person panel - the Stadium Advisory Committee - worked for seven months, including an extensive public input process, and delivered a report to President Tony Frank in August 2012 that identified a potential site, highlighted funding options, examined potential impacts, and captured public sentiment. While the Stadium Advisory Committee determined it was feasible to build a stadium on campus, President Frank ultimately decided CSU should move ahead with the project. In October 2012, the CSU System Board of Governors voted to affirm Dr. Frank’s recommendation to begin an effort to raise private support for at least half the cost of the stadium, as well as to begin detailed planning for the project. At present, CSU has begun detailed planning for the design of an on-campus stadium. As part of this process, the University is convening a Community Design Development Advisory Committee (CDDAC). This Committee is to review a range of development elements and impact -- such as parking, traffic, noise, lighting - and provide feedback as to how to address these issues and provide a high quality stadium for the University and the community. The CDDAC will include members representing a broad range of stakeholder interests, including: Faculty Staff Students Alumni Athletic Department Season ticket holders Neighbors/property owners south of Prospect February 18, 2014 61 Neighbors/property owners north of Prospect SOS Hughes City of Fort Collins Fort Collins Police Department Chamber of Commerce Community/Civic Leaders Be Bold CSU. The Committee will be chaired by Bob McCluskey, a business owner and former member of the Colorado House of Representatives and the Fort Collins’ City Council. The action before City Council is to appoint a member from Council to serve as the City’s representative on the Community Design Development Advisory Committee.” City Manager Atteberry discussed CSU’s proposed stakeholder process which would attempt to mirror or go above and beyond the City’s development review process for this project. He stated CSU would prefer the City to have two representatives involved, one from Police Services, and one other appointed by Council. Chris Marshall, 926 West Mountain, stated the debate and committee need to be more transparent and open. Linda Vrooman, 912 Cheyenne Drive, opposed the on-campus stadium and suggested a Councilmember be appointed to the committee. Jean Yule, 1109 Williams, supported two Councilmembers’ participation on the committee and opposed the on-campus stadium process. Bob Vangermersch, Fort Collins resident, supported the appointment of the Councilmember whose District is most negatively impacted by the proposed stadium. Doug Brobst, 1625 Independence, supported the appointment of two Councilmembers on the committee. Mel Hilgenberg, 172 North College, opposed the function of CSURF. Chester McQueary, 613 Princeton Road, supported the appointment of two representatives to the committee. Councilmember Campana made a motion to appoint Deputy City Manager Jones to the Colorado State University Stadium Community Design Development Advisory Committee. He stated this would enable the opinions of all Councilmembers to be heard. February 18, 2014 62 The motion died for lack of a second. Councilmember Poppaw made a motion to adopt Resolution 2014-017, appointing Councilmember Cunniff to the Colorado State University Stadium Community Design Development Advisory Committee. Councilmember Cunniff stated he would accept the appointment but suggested other interested Councilmembers state interest. Councilmember Poppaw withdrew her motion. Councilmember Cunniff supported the appointment of a Councilmember. Councilmember Campana stated the appointment of Deputy City Manager Jones would keep Councilmembers from attempting to influence the stadium decision. Councilmember Troxell supported the appointment of either Mayor Weitkunat or Mayor Pro Tem Horak. Councilmember Overbeck expressed interest in serving on the committee and provided a presentation regarding his concerns about the proposed stadium. Mayor Weitkunat expressed interest in serving on the committee. Mayor Pro Tem Horak suggested appointing Mayor Weitkunat as the representative with Councilmember Cunniff as an alternate, both of which could attend meetings. Councilmembers Cunniff and Troxell supported Mayor Pro Tem Horak’s suggestion. Mayor Pro Tem Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Troxell, to adopt Resolution 2014-017, appointing Mayor Weitkunat to the Colorado State University Stadium Community Design Development Advisory Committee and Councilmember Cunniff as an alternative representative. Mayor Pro Tem Horak stated the only power the Council holds lies in the power to influence and its only true power is related to utilities. Councilmember Troxell discussed the public-private partnership of the stadium issue. Mayor Weitkunat noted Council will continue to be robustly involved in the issue. Councilmember Campana asked if the committee meetings will be open to other Councilmembers as well as those appointed. Deputy City Manager Jones replied she has not February 18, 2014 63 received information regarding the meeting structure, but noted the meetings will be scheduled the first Monday of each month from 6-8 p.m. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Cunniff, Overbeck, Poppaw, Troxell, Horak, Weitkunat and Campana. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. Other Business Mayor Pro Tem Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Campana, to adjourn to February 25, 2014, at 3:00 p.m. so that the Council may consider any additional business that may come before the Council, including a possible Executive Session. Yeas: Cunniff, Overbeck, Poppaw, Troxell, Horak, Weitkunat and Campana. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 8:25 p.m. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk