Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES-06/06/2006-RegularJune 6, 2006 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO Council -Manager Form of Government Regular Meeting - 6:00 p.m. A regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins was held on Tuesday, June 6, 2006, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll Call was answered by the following Councilmembers: Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein, Manvel, Ohlson, Roy and Weitkunat. Staff Members Present: Atteberry, Krajicek, Roy. Citizen Participation Dolores Williams, 415 Mason Court 7A, asked Council to adopt a Resolution endorsing HR 676 relating to single payer universal health care. Rich Salas, 319 Bluebird Court, representing the Defend Aztlan Citizen's Committee, expressed concerns about efforts to change the name of the Northside Aztlan Community Center and asked the Council to retain the current name and preserve the identity of the Center during the facility upgrade. Betty Aragon Mitotes, 140 2"" Street, asked the Council to retain the current name for the Northside Aztlan Community Center. Rich Harter, 2701 Brookwood Court, supported retaining the name Northside Aztlan Community Center. Chuck Washington,1125 Deercroft Court, spoke regarding the Ten -Year Plan for the Fort Collins - Loveland Airport and expressed concerns regarding the encroachment of development around the airport, the 1,000 foot runway extension and the lack of a written airport business or strategic plan. Steve Yurash, 2920 Waterstone Court, stated the ethnocentric name "Aztlan" was now being used by Communist groups and that the name was "too specific to the Hispanic community" and was not "inclusive to the rest of the community." He stated he would like to see a different name for the Community Center that would be "positive and supportive of the Hispanic community" or more generic, such as the "Riverside Community Center." He suggested that rooms at the Center could be named after Hispanic Medal of Honor winners. Colby Thomas, 2620 Kit Fox Court, stated the Youth Activity Center was important to the youth of Fort Collins and opposed shutting it down. 77 June 6, 2006 Mary Detweiler, 4255 Westshore Way B3, supported keeping the name Northside Aztlan Community Center. Gil Kiefer, 6232 West Chase Road, commented regarding the airport master plan update and the impact of the flight path on surrounding residential and commercial areas. He questioned the maps included in the master plan, the data regarding the number of flights per day and the need for an airport expansion. Wendie Robinson, 3539 Sunflower Way, Executive Director of Neighbor -to -Neighbor, expressed concerns regarding potential City budget cuts that could impact affordable housing. Jim Ling, 6575 Rookery Road, expressed concerns regarding the airport master plan update, questioned the data included in the plan and opposed the runway extension. David Williams, 1600 Birmingham Drive, urged the Council to retain the current name for the Northside Aztlan Community Center and spoke regarding the benefits of the Center. Mayor Hutchinson asked if the Council was willing to extend the time for Citizen Participation. The consensus was to continue. Mayor Hutchinson stated additional participants would have two minutes to speak. Jesse Ramirez, 1066 Tierra Lane Unit B, supported keeping the existing name for the Northside Aztlan Community Center. Kristin Candella, 815 Candlewood Drive, Habitat for Humanity, expressed concerns that possible City budget cuts could have an effect on affordable housing. Carmel "Chuck" Solano, 2200 Berkshire Drive, asked the Council to keep the current name for the Northside Aztlan Community Center. Ray Martinez, 4121 Stoneridge Court, spoke in support of keeping the name for the Northside Aztlan Community Center. He thanked the City for continuing to work on solutions for the Youth Activity Center. Citizen Participation Follow-up Mayor Hutchinson thanked those who spoke during Citizen Participation and stated he would bring up the Northside Aztlan Community Center naming issue under Other Business. Councilmember Ohlson stated the Northside Aztlan Community Center naming issue was not related to the immigration issue whatsoever and that it was being discussed because a new facility was going to be built. He stated he supported the name change because of concerns that the name implied "exclusivity." He stated he did not support "Northside" because he did not want the town divided In June 6, 2006 into "northside, southside, eastside, westside" and that he did not even like the name "Senior Center." He stated he no longer supported the name "Aztlan." He stated the `Balkanization" of anything was "unwise" and would "isolate people" rather than "bring people together." He stated he believed that the name Northside Aztlan Community Center was an "inappropriate name that breeds isolation and exclusivity rather than inclusivity." He stated he would like to see the Council decide to move forward with the discussion when the issue was brought up under Other Business. Aeenda Review CityManager Atteberrystated he was suggesting one change to item #33 FirstReading ofOrdinance No. 104, 2006, Making Various Amendments to the Land Use Code. He asked that Council consider on First Reading the entire item with the exception of #730 relating to revising the building height standards in the downtown zone districts. He stated he would ask that Council schedule item #730 for a Study Session discussion. Bruce Lockhart, 2500 East Harmony Road, withdrew item #26 First Reading of Ordinance No.103, 2006, Calling a Special Municipal Election on September 12, 2006 and Authorizing the Conduct of Said Election as a Mail Ballot Election from the Consent Calendar. Councilmember Ohlson withdrew item #18 First Reading of Ordinance No. 09Z 2006, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves Designated for Fire Services in the Fire Protection Capital Improvement Expansion Fund for Payment to the Poudre Fire Authority to be Used for Headquarters Building Expansion from the Consent Calendar. CONSENT CALENDAR 6. Consideration and Approval of the Minutes of the April 18 2006 Regular Meeting Second Reading of Ordinance No. 075, 2006, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the General Fund for Cultural Development and Programming Activities and the Fort Collins Convention and Visitor's Bureau. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on May 16, 2006, appropriates lodging tax revenues that were in excess of 2005 budgeted lodging tax receipts to Cultural Development and Programming ("CDP'), Visitor Events, and the Convention and Visitors Bureau ("CVB") accounts. Lodging tax revenue for 2005 was estimated to be $593,122 and the 2006 budget appropriated an equal amount. However, actual receipts totaled $668,499 for 2005 and the difference of $75,377 has not been appropriated. 79 June 6, 2006 8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 076, 2006 Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue in the Cultural Services and Facilities Fund to Be Used for Research and Documentation of the Soapstone Natural Area. Ordinance No. 076, 2006, unanimously adopted on First Reading on May 16, 2006, appropriates $147,563 in grant money from the National Park Service to be used for the Fort Collins Museum's Soapstone Natural Area grant project. 9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 077, 2006 Appmpriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue in the Cultural Services and Facilities Fund to Be Used for Repatriation of Human Remains and Cultural Artifacts in the Holdings of the Fort Collins Museum The City was awarded two grants from the National Park Service for $16,375. This Ordinance, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on May 16, 2006, appropriates the grant money in the Fort Collins Museum's Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act ("NAGPRA") Repatriation grant project. 10. Second Reading of Ordinance No 078 2006 Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the Street Oversizing Fund and Authorizing the Transfer of Appropriations from the Street Oversizing Fund to the Capital Project Fund - Lemay Avenue, Trilby Road to Carpenter Road Capital Project. Intersection and arterial street improvements are planned for Lemay Avenue, from Trilby Road south to Carpenter Road (approximately 5280 linear feet). This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on May 16, 2006, appropriates $522,119 in unanticipated revenue from Contributions -in -Aid -of -Construction in the Street Oversizing Fund (received from the Provincetowne Filing 2 and Everitt Enterprises) and transfers an additional $1,141,110 from existing appropriations in the Street Oversizing Fund into the Capital Projects Fund for this project. 11. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 079, 2006 Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the Wastewater Fund for the Puroose of Purchasing Property The Wastewater Utility has a time sensitive opportunity to purchase land. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on May 16, 2006, appropriates funds for this purchase by utilizing prior year reserves. 12. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 080.2006. Authorizing the Lease ofCity-Owned Property at 200 West Mountain Avenue, Suite C. For Up to Five Years The Fort Collins Technology Incubator (FCTI) provides critical business assistance to the most promising high tech startup companies in the community. As part of its service, FCTI offers below market lease space to its client companies. In 2004, the Council approved Resolution 2004-069, which authorized the lease of City -owned property at 200 West 0 June 6, 2006 Mountain, Suite C, to FCTI and its clients. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on May 16, 2006, allows the lease to FCTI and its participants to continue for up to five years. 13. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 081, 2006, Amending the Zoning May of the City of Fort Collins by Changing the Zoning Classification for That Certain Property Known as the Mountain/Frey Rezoning, This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on May 16, 2006, approves the rezoning of most of the Frey Subdivision (approximately 11.6 acres) from the L-M-N, Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhood, District designation to the N-C-L, Neighborhood Conservation Low Density, District designation. 14. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 082, 2006, Amending the Zoning Map of the Cily by Changing the Zoning Classification for that Certain Property Known as the Willow Brook Parcel F Rezoning. Ordinance No. 082, 2006, unanimously adopted on First Reading on May 16, 2006, rezones a .28 acre parcel created by the curving alignment of Rock Creek Drive platted as part of the Willow Brook Subdivision. The parcel will be rezoned from L-M-N, Low Density Mixed - Use Neighborhood, to U-E, Urban Estate and made a part of Lot One of Sunrise Ridge First Filing. 15. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 083, 2006, Desianatiniz the Ernest and Anna Meyer House, 309 East Mulberry Street, Fort Collins. Colorado, as a Fort Collins Landmark Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the City Code. Ordinance No. 083, 2006, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on May 16, 2006, designates the Ernest and Anna Meyer House as a Fort Collins Landmark. The owner of the property, Linda J. Bova, is initiating this request. 16. Items Relating to the Completion of the Spring Cycle of the Competitive Process for Allocating City Financial Resources to Affordable Housing and Community Development Activities Utilizing the Federal Community Development Block Grant Program and Home Investment Partnership Program Grants. and the City's Affordable Housing Fund and Human Services Program. A. Second Reading of OrdinanceNo. 084,2006, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue and Authorizing the Transfer of Appropriations Between Program Years in the Community Development Block Grant Fund. B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 085, 2006, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue and Authorizing the Transfer ofAppropriations Between Program Years in the Home Investment Partnerships Fund. [If June 6, 2006 These Ordinances, unanimously adopted on First Reading on May 16, 2006, complete the spring cycle of the competitive process for allocating City financial resources to affordable housing projects/programs and community development activities (CDBG/HOME/Affordable Housing/Human Services funds). 17. First Reading of Ordinance No 091 2006 AD12rolLnating Unanticipated Revenue in the Capital Projects Fund - Willow Street Environmental Remediation Project and Northside Aztlan Community Center Replacement Project to be Used for Environmental Site Mitigation in the Vicinity of Willow Street. This Ordinance appropriates $200,000 in unanticipated revenue in the Capital Projects Fund - Willow Street Environmental Remediation capital project, in the form of a payment from Public Service Company of Colorado, and up to $50,000 in the Northside Aztlan Community Center Replacement Project in the form of a payment from Schrader Oil Company of Colorado. The payment will help offset some of the City's costs in complying with Environmental Protection Agency requirements to mitigate contamination and take reasonable steps required in connection with contamination that passes across and under Willow Street and the Northside Aztlan Community Center site. The payment from Schrader is designated for design and construction of a passive vapor barrier/venting system for the Northside Aztlan Community Center. 18. First Reading of Ordinance No. 092, 2006 Agpropriating Prior Year Reserves Designated for Fire Services in the Fire Protection Capital Improvement Expansion Fund for Payment to the Poudre Fire Authority to be Used for Headquarters Building Expansion. The Headquarters Building, located at 102 Remington, houses the Fire Prevention Bureau as well as operations and administrative personnel for the Poudre Fire Authority (the "Authority"). The Authority is planning to expand the Headquarters Building as there is a shortage of space for current and future needs. In order to pay for the expansion, the Authority is requesting Council appropriate prior year reserves collected from the fire protection capital expansion fee in the amount of $1,400,176, and transfer that amount to the Authority capital budget. 19. First Reading of Ordinance No. 093, 2006, Amending Section 2-447 of the City Code Relating to Membership of the Youth Advisory Board. The Team Fort Collins Leadership Team has indicated it no longer wishes to make appointments to the Youth Advisory Board. The Youth Advisory Board supports this request. This Ordinance, if adopted, will reduce the membership of the Youth Advisory Board from 9 members to 7 and will no longer require any members to be appointed by Team Fort Collins. m June 6, 2006 20. First Reading of Ordinance No. 094, 2006. Amending Section 2-182 of the City Code Relating to Membership ofthe CommunityDevelopment Block Grant Commission ("CDBG Commission" The membership of the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Commission ("Commission") consists of 11 members appointed by City Council. For the past several years it has become difficult to recruit and maintain full membership. The Commission has been experiencing difficulty in obtaining a quorum for some of its meetings, making it difficult to conduct its duties and functions. Commission members and staff have requested that the membership be reduced to 9 members in an effort to make it easier to obtain quorums and to perform its duties in a more efficient and timely manner. 21. First Reading of Ordinance No. 095, 2006, Authorizing the Conveyance of Certain Real Property along Cedarwood Drive Subject to a Perpetual Utility Easement The City acquired the 3,935 square -foot parcel of land that is the subject of this Ordinance in order to install a sewer line to serve surrounding development. The City is presently maintaining and mowing this small strip of ground. Staff has determined it is not necessary for the City to own the property and the maintenance costs associated with owning the property canbe avoided by conveying the property to an interested adjoining property owner. The City will reserve and retain a utility easement on and under this tract for the existing sewer line and in order to utilize the easement for any other utility purposes. 22. First Reading of Ordinance No. 096, 2006, Amending the Zoning Map by Changing the Zoning Classification for That Certain Property Known as the Cargill Rezoning_ This is a request to rezone 29.5 acres located on the north side of Drake Road, approximately 1/2 mile east of Timberline Road. The site currently contains the Cargill canola research facility and test fields. It is in the T - Transition District. The requested zoning for this property is LMN - Low Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood. 23. Items Relating to the Peterson Annexation and Zoning; A. Resolution 2006-062 Setting Forth Findings of Fact and Determinations Regarding the Peterson Annexation. B. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 097, 2006, Annexing Property Known as the Peterson Annexation. C. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 098, 2006, Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the Peterson Annexation. This is a request to annex and zone 27.89 acres located on the south side of East Vine Drive between Interstate 25 and County Road 5. The property is undeveloped and located in the m June 6, 2006 FA I - Farming District in Larimer County. The requested zoning for this annexation is UE - Urban Estate, which is consistent with the Structure Plan designation and is in conformance with the I-25 Subarea Plan. Staff is recommending this property be included in the Residential Neighborhood Sign District. A map amendment will not be necessary to place this property on the Residential Neighborhood Sign District Map because the property is shown to already be outside of the Areas Not In The Sign District. 24. Items Relating to the Streamside Annexation and Zoning, A. Resolution 2006-063 Setting Forth Findings of Fact and Determinations Regarding the Streamside Annexation. B. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 099, 2006, Annexing Property Known as the Streamside Annexation. C. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 100, 2006, Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the Streamside Annexation to the City. This is a request to annex and zone 73.67 acres located on the south side of East Vine Drive between Interstate 25 and County Road 5. Contiguity is gained along west property lines that abut the Peterson Annexation being evaluated concurrent to this request. The property is undeveloped and located in the FAl - Farming District in Larimer County. The requested zoning for this annexation is UE - Urban Estate, which is consistent with the Structure Plan designation and is in conformance with the I-25 Subarea Plan. Staff is recommending this property be included in the Residential Neighborhood Sign District. A map amendment will not be necessary to place this property on the Residential Neighborhood Sign District Map because the property is shown to already be outside of the Areas Not In The Sign District. 25. Items Relating to the Johnston Annexation and Zoning, A. Resolution 2006-064 Setting Forth Findings of Fact and Determinations Regarding the Johnston Annexation. B. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 101, 2006, Annexing Property Known as the Johnston Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado. C. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 102, 2006, Amending the Zoning Map ofthe City of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the Johnston Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado. June 6, 2006 This is a 100% voluntary annexation and zoning of a property approximately 36.82 acres in size. The site is 6111 S. Timberline Road located approximately one-half mile south of Kechter Road on the west side of Timberline Road. Contiguity with the existing municipal boundary is gained along the entire south boundary which is shared with the Keating Annexation (Linden Park Subdivision). Contiguity is also gained along the entire east boundary which is shared with Westchase Annexation Number One and along the entire west boundary which is shared with the Union Pacific Railroad Fourth Annexation. 26. First Reading of Ordinance No. 103, 2006 Calling a Special Municipal Election on September 12.2006 and Authorizing the Conduct of Said Election as a Mail Ballot Election On May 19, 2006, the City Clerk's Office received an initiative petition to amend the City Charter relating to collective bargaining. The Clerk's Office has completed its review of the petition and has determined that the petition contains a sufficient number of signatures to place the initiated measure on a special election ballot. Pursuant to C.R.S. 31-2-210(4), if the petition is certified as sufficient by the City Clerk, the election must be held as near as possible to the approximate date stated in the petition (September 12, 2006). A Resolution submitting the measure to the voters will be brought to Council at an adjourned meeting on June 13. 27. Resolution 2006-065 Making Appointments to the Community Development Block Grant Commission. the Electric Board, and the Youth Advisory Board. A vacancy currently exists on the Community Development Block Grant Commission due to the resignation of William Slye. Applications were solicited and Councilmembers Manvel and Brown conducted interviews. The Council interview team is recommending Tom LeSavage to fill the vacancy with a term to begin immediately and set to expire on December 31, 2010. A vacancy currently exists on the Electric Board due to the resignation of Tracy Babst- Wiedenbrug. Applications were solicited and Councilmembers Kastein and Brown conducted interviews. The Council interview team is recommending Steven Wolley to fill the vacancy with a term to begin immediately and set to expire on December 31, 2010. Ordinance No. 093, 2006, considered on First Reading on June 6, eliminates two positions on the Youth Advisory Board appointed by Youth Leadership Committee of Team Fort Collins. The Youth Leadership Committee no longer exits, therefore, Team Fort Collins and the Youth Advisory Board initiated a request to remove those two positions from the Board. Currently one of those positions is vacant and the other is filled by Ryan Hennig who desires to remain on the Board. A Council appointment to the Youth Advisory Board is currently vacant due to the resignation ofKristi Thomas. This Resolution would appoint Ryan Hennig to fill the current Council appointed vacancy. ***END CONSENT*** m June 6, 2006 Ordinances on Second Reading were read by title by City Clerk Krajicek. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 075, 2006, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the General Fund for Cultural Development and Programming Activities and the Fort Collins Convention and Visitor's Bureau. 8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 076, 2006, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue in the Cultural Services and Facilities Fund to Be Used for Research and Documentation of the Soapstone Natural Area. 9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 077, 2006, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue in the Cultural Services and Facilities Fund to Be Used for Repatriation of Human Remains and Cultural Artifacts in the Holdings of the Fort Collins Museum. 10. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 078, 2006, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the Street Oversizing Fund and Authorizing the Transfer of Appropriations from the Street Oversizing Fund to the Capital Project Fund - Lemay Avenue, Trilby Road to Carpenter Road Capital Project. 11. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 079, 2006, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the Wastewater Fund for the Purpose of Purchasing Property. 12. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 080, 2006, Authorizing the Lease ofCity-Owned Property at 200 West Mountain Avenue, Suite C, For Up to Five Years. 13. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 081, 2006, Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins by Changing the Zoning Classification for That Certain Property Known as the Mountain/Frey Rezoning. 14. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 082, 2006, Amending the Zoning Map of the City by Changing the Zoning Classification for that Certain Property Known as the Willow Brook Parcel F Rezoning. 15. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 083, 2006, Designating the Ernest and Anna Meyer House, 309 East Mulberry Street, Fort Collins, Colorado, as a Fort Collins Landmark Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the City Code. 16. Items Relating to the Completion of the Spring Cycle of the Competitive Process for Allocating City Financial Resources to Affordable Housing and Community Development Activities Utilizing the Federal Community Development Block Grant Program and Home Investment Partnership Program Grants, and the City's Affordable Housing Fund and Human Services Program. ll June 6, 2006 A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 084, 2006, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue and Authorizing the Transfer of Appropriations Between Program Years in the Community Development Block Grant Fund. B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 085, 2006, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue and Authorizing the Transfer ofAppropriations Between Program Years in the Home Investment Partnerships Fund. 31. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 087, 2006, Amending Chapter 3 of the City Code to Allow Alcohol Beverage Tastings. 32. Items Relating to the Amendment of the Appeals Process Contained in Chapter 2, Article II, Division 3 of the City Code. A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 088, 2006, Making Various Amendments to Chapter 2, Article II Division 3 of the City Code Pertaining to the Appeals Process. B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 089, 2006, Amending Chapter 2, Article II, Division 3 of the City Code with Regard to the Grounds upon which Appeals to the City Council are Decided. C. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 090, 2006, Amending Chapter 2, Article II, Division 3 of the City Code Pertaining to the Filing of Appeals by Members of the City Council. Ordinances on First Reading were read by title by City Clerk Krajicek. 17. First Reading of Ordinance No. 091, 2006, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the Capital Projects Fund - Willow Street Environmental Remediation Project and Northside Aztlan Community Center Replacement Project to be Used for Environmental Site Mitigation in the Vicinity of Willow Street. 18. First Reading of Ordinance No. 092, 2006, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves Designated for Fire Services in the Fire Protection Capital Improvement Expansion Fund for Payment to the Poudre Fire Authority to be Used for Headquarters Building Expansion. 19. First Reading of Ordinance No. 093, 2006, Amending Section 2-447 of the City Code Relating to Membership of the Youth Advisory Board. 20. First Reading of Ordinance No. 094, 2006, Amending Section 2-182 of the City Code Relating to Membership ofthe Community Development Block Grant Commission ("CDBG Commission"). 21. First Reading of Ordinance No. 095, 2006, Authorizing the Conveyance of Certain Real Property along Cedarwood Drive Subject to a Perpetual Utility Easement. FVA June 6, 2006 22. First Reading of Ordinance No. 096, 2006, Amending the Zoning Map by Changing the Zoning Classification for That Certain Property Known as the Cargill Rezoning. 23. Items Relating to the Peterson Annexation and Zoning. B. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 097, 2006, Annexing Property Known as the Peterson Annexation. C. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 098, 2006, Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the Peterson Annexation. 24. Items Relating to the Streamside Annexation and Zoning. B. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 099, 2006, Annexing Property Known as the Streamside Annexation. C. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 100, 2006, Amending the Zoning Map ofthe City ofFort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the Streamside Annexation to the City. 25. Items Relating to the Johnston Annexation and Zoning. B. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 101, 2006, Annexing Property Known as the Johnston Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado. C. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 102, 2006, Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the Johnston Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado. 26. First Reading of Ordinance No. 103, 2006, Calling a Special Municipal Election on September 12, 2006 and Authorizing the Conduct of Said Election as a Mail Ballot Election. 33. First Reading of Ordinance No. 104, 2006, Making Various Amendments to the Land Use Code. Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Roy, to adopt and approve all items not withdrawn from the Consent Calendar. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein, Manvel, Ohlson, Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. M. June 6, 2006 Consent Calendar Follow-un Councilmember Weitkunat commented regarding item #7 Second Reading of Ordinance No. 075, 2006, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the General Fund for Cultural Development and Programming Activities and the Fort Collins Convention and Visitor's Bureau. She noted the importance of generating tourism dollars Councilmember Kastein spoke regarding item #10 Second Reading of Ordinance No. 078, 2006, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the Street Oversizing Fund and Authorizing the Transfer of Appropriations from the Street Oversizing Fund to the Capital Project Fund - Lemay Avenue, Trilby Road to Carpenter Road Capital Project. He commented on discussions relating to payment for out -of -City improvements based on the assumption that the property would eventually be part of the City and suggested that this issue as related to the southwest enclave annexation be scheduled for Council discussion at a future work session. Staff Reports City Manager Atteberry reported that the library awareness ("Read at Your Library") poster campaign had received an award from the Colorado State Libraries System. He also reported that Police Services staff members had been invited to give a presentation on liquor enforcement in college towns at the National Liquor Law Enforcement Association conference. He recognized the support provided by the City Attorney's Office and City Clerk's Office to liquor law enforcement in Fort Collins. He noted that City staff members were frequently asked to present at "best practices" symposiums. Ordinance No. 087, 2006 Amending Chapter 3 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins to Allow Alcohol Beveraee Tastings. Adopted on Second Reading The following is staff s memorandum on this item. "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Ordinance amends the City Code to allow beer and wine tastings at retail liquor stores. The number of tasting events for a retail liquor store license will be limited to 52 days per year. It was adopted on First Reading on May 16, 2006 with a vote of 6-1 (Nays: Ohlson). " City Manager Atteberry stated staff would be available to answer questions. Councilmember Weitkumat made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Roy, to adopt Ordinance No. 087, 2006 on Second Reading. GL June 6, 2006 Councilmember Manvel requested clarification regarding the option that was on the table for discussion. Mayor Hutchinson stated the option being was considered was for controlled tastings for beer and wine. Councilmember Ohlson stated he would vote against the motion because he believed that tastings were inappropriate in a culture with alcohol consumption problems. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein, Manvel, Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: Councilmember Ohlson. THE MOTION CARRIED. Items Relating to the Amendment of the Appeals Process Contained in Chapter 2, Article II, Division 3 of the City Code, Adopted on Second Reading The following is staff s memorandum on this item. "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 088, 2006, Making Various Amendments to Chapter 2, Article II Division 3 of the City Code Pertaining to the Appeals Process. B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 089, 2006, Amending Chapter 2, Article II, Division 3 of the City Code with Regard to the Grounds upon which Appeals to the City Council are Decided. C. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 090, 2006, Amending Chapter 2, Article II, Division 3 of the City Code Pertaining to the Filing of Appeals by Members of the City Council. Ordinance No. 088, 2006, unanimously adopted on First Reading on May 16, 2006, makes various amendments to the appeals process that are perceived to be non -controversial. Ordinance No. 089, 2006, pertains to the basis for Council's decision on appeal and retains the existing provision that limits the grounds to those stated in the notice of appeal and eliminates the opportunityfor Councilmembers to add additional issues prior to the appeal. This Ordinance was adopted on First Reading on May 16, 2006 with a vote of 5-2 (Nays: Manvel, Roy). Ordinance No. 090, 2006, pertains to appeals filed by Councilmembers. It retains Council - members' ability to file an appeal but states that Councilmembers who do so should not participate in deciding the appeal, although they may participate in the appeal hearing in the same manner as .o June 6, 2006 other appellants. This Ordinance was adopted on First Reading, with amendments, on May 16, 2006 with a vote of 5-2 (Nays: Ohlson, Roy). " City Manager Atteberry stated staff was available to answer any questions. City Attorney Roy recommended voting on the three ordinances separately. Councilmember Kastein made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Weitkunat, to adopt Ordinance No. 088, 2006 on Second Reading. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein, Manvel, Ohlson, Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Roy stated he would vote against Ordinance No. 089, 2006 on Second Reading. He stated it might limit Council's ability to make good decisions. Councilmember Kastein made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Weitkunat, to adopt Ordinance No. 089, 2006 on Second Reading. Councilmember Kastein asked if this would be a "small change." City Attorney Roy stated the ordinance would limit the ability of Councilmembers to file a notice of additional issues before the hearing and clarify that no issue should be considered at the hearing other than those raised in the notice of appeal. Councilmember Kastein asked if the change that was made for Second Reading was to limit the ability of Councilmembers to add new issues seven days ahead of the hearing. City Attorney Roy stated was correct. Councilmember Manvel stated there needed to be some clarification in the procedure but that it was "unfortunate" that the process was being changed to make it "neater" but not necessarily one that would help the Council arrive at as "good a decision." He stated he would not support the motion because this would "tie the hands" of future Councils in making decisions to correct errors that were identified. He stated he understood the position that clarification was needed in the process. Councilmember Ohlson stated he did not view this as a "minor change." He stated this would limit the Council to making its decision based on the grounds set forth in the notice of appeal. He questioned why other Councilmembers would support this limitation when it could prevent the Council from making the "best decision." Councilmember Kastein stated the Council had given the responsibility for development review to the City staff and the Planning and Zoning Board. He stated when appeals came to the Council he relied upon the fact that the item had already been dealt with through the development review process. He stated he also relied on the appellants raising the "proper grounds" for the appeal and that it would be "inefficient" for the Council to "find a different rationale" than what was set out in the notice of appeal. He noted that the Council was not "reevaluating every other item that had come 91 June 6, 2006 through the development review." He stated it would be "inconsistent" for the Council to choose to reevaluate a particular item because it was coming to the Council on appeal. He favored trusting the system. Councilmember Ohlson stated there was an appeal on which the Council ruled against the development because the appellant cited the "wrong grounds," when the majority of the Council would have otherwise ruled in favor of the development. Councilmember Kastein stated there was a difference of opinion on that particular appeal. Councilmember Manvel stated there was an appeal on the basis of an unfair hearing and the Council believed that the interpretation of the rules was wrong. Councilmember Weitkunat stated the Council should be "cautious" in this discussion. She stated the appeal process was an opportunity for citizens to come forward to present their perceptions about the issue. She stated the issue should not be how Council perceived the matter. She stated the Council should interpret the matter based on specific rules and that the Council was not a "judge" over what took place in the development review process. She stated the role of the Council was to hear what the appellant was bringing forward. She stated it was important that the Council not "re- hash" what happened at the Planning and Zoning Board or administrative hearing. She stated the Council should deal the specific issues presented by the appellant in accordance with the established rules. Councilmember Roy stated a great deal of information was presented to Councilmembers on appeals. He stated it was likely that Councilmembers "might come up with something that makes the end result even better." He stated this change would prevent that possibility. Councilmember Manvel asked if the Council would have any opportunity to correct a "grievous error" that had been identified in the appeal hearing. He asked if the Council could remand an issue in such cases for further consideration. City Attorney Roy stated the new ordinance would not allow that. He stated there seemed to be some Council interest in having the ability to raise an issue if an appellant did not raise an issue, and that the next ordinance would allow a Councilmember to file an appeal. He stated some revisions would be needed to allow extra time if the Council wanted to allow a Councilmember to raise issues in an appeal that were not set forth in the appellant's notice of appeal. He stated at the present time a notice of appeal would have to be filed by a citizen or a Councilmember within 14 days. Councilmember Manvel asked if multiple appeals relating to the same issue could be filed. City Attorney Roy replied in the affirmative. Mayor Hutchinson stated this was an "important issue." He stated the Planning and Zoning Board spent a lot of time on these issues and that the Council was a "policy level" body. He stated appeals were a "last resort" and an appeal to Council should not be a rehearing to "redo the decision." He 92 June 6, 2006 stated if Council was going to rehear the matter this would be an "unmotivator" for the Planning and Zoning Board to do detailed work on an issue. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein and Weitkunat. Nays: Councilmembers Manvel, Ohlson and Roy. THE MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Weitkunat made amotion, seconded by Councilmember Brown, to adopt Ordinance No. 090, 2006 on Second Reading. Councilmember Roy stated he voted against this ordinance on First Reading because Councilmembers making appeals would not able to participate in the appeal hearing and because a "super majority" would be necessary for a vote to be successful. He stated he did not believe that this change was necessary and that it would have "implications" for future outcomes. Councilmember Brown asked about adding extra days for Councilmembers to file appeals. City Attorney Roy stated extra days would need to be added if the Council wanted to provide an opportunity for Councilmembers to see what was filed before deciding whether to file a Councilmember-initiated appeal. Councilmember Brown offered a friendly amendment to change the deadline for Council -initiated appeals from 14 to 16 days. City Attorney Roy stated he had not had an opportunity to ask if there were staff concerns about the change to 16 days. City Clerk Krajicek noted that Councilmembers typically did not have the appeal until a later date. City Attorney Roy stated staff would have to devise an administrative process to provide the Council with a copy as soon as a citizen appeal was filed. Councilmember Brown asked if it would be possible for the Council to receive the transcript and the video recording of the hearing when they received the copy of the appeal. City Attorney Roy stated it may be impractical for Councilmembers to file appeals after a citizen appeal had been filed. He stated Councilmember appeals would only be practical when a Councilmember had been "following an issue" being discussed by the Planning and Zoning Board. He stated changing the deadline for a Councilmember to file an appeal to 16 days would only allow Councilmembers to determine if the appeal "hit on the issues" of concern to the Council. City Manager Atteber y suggested that extending the deadline by several days would not be a problem but that delaying a hearing on a matter by several weeks could create difficulties. Councilmember Weitkunat stated the issue was whether a Councilmember should have the ability to file an appeal once another appeal had already been filed. She stated this discussion was beyond the scope of the proposed ordinance. City Attorney Roy stated the discussion was going beyond the ability of a Councilmember to file an appeal and the circumstances of such appeals. Councilmember Weitkunat stated this should be discussed at another time. 7�3 June 6, 2006 Mayor Hutchinson asked for clarification that this ordinance would retain the ability of Councilmembers to file an appeal and would provide that the Councilmembers filing the appeal should not participate in the decision -making on the appeal. He questioned the need to change the deadline for the filing of appeals by Councilmembers. City Attorney Roy stated he was trying to respond to the Council's discussion about the circumstance in which there was a "pressing issue" that Council wanted to address because nobody else had raised the issue. He stated the change in the deadline would be one way to address that issue. Councilmember Ohlson asked if the Councilmember would have to give a reason for the appeal. City Attorney Roy replied in the negative. Councilmember Ohlson stated the deadline would therefore not need to be changed because the Councilmember would not have to have a reason that was different than what was set forth in the original appellant's notice of appeal. Mayor Hutchinson stated it was important for Councilmembers to have the ability to file an appeal and that he supported the change to remove the Councilmember filing the appeal from the decision - making process. He asked if Councilmember Brown was still offering a friendly amendment. Councilmember Brown withdrew the offer of a friendly amendment. Councilmember Kastein asked if a Councilmember filing an appeal would be excluded from the decision -making process on a second appeal filed by someone else. City Attorney Roy stated once the Councilmember filed an appeal he or she would be opting out by filing the appeal without having seen whether someone else had appealed. Mayor Hutchinson noted that the Councilmember would be allowed to participate at the podium by presenting his or her views. Councilmember Manvel asked for clarification regarding the Councilmember's participation ifthere were two different appeals. He asked if there would be one appeal process for both appeals. City Attorney Roy stated the Code provided that the Mayor "may" combine the two hearings so that the two appeals could be heard together and that this had been the practice in the past. He stated "technically" the Councilmember could participate in deciding the other appeal but that this might not be a good idea. Councilmember Kastein stated he would support explicit language to address the issue of a Councilmember's participation regarding a parallel appeal i.e. the Councilmember should not participate on either appeal. He stated the filing of an appeal by a Councilmember gave the perception of "bias" on the matter. He stated he would prefer to address this matter now rather than dealing with it when this happened. Councilmember Roy stated the Council could choose to allow the Councilmember to participate in the appeal hearing if another appeal was filed. 94 June 6, 2006 Councilmember Ohlson stated there would be "no" votes on this ordinance. Mayor Hutchinson stated the Code "wisely" allowed some decision -making that could be "tailored to the unique situation." He stated no two situations were the same. He stated he believed that this process would be rarely used and that it would provide a "safety valve." Councilmember Kastein asked if the Mayor was suggesting that this be left to the discretion of the Mayor as currently provided in the Code. Mayor Hutchinson stated this was his proposal and that this should be a flexible process. He noted that Councilmembers were not required to set forth a rationale for filing an appeal. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein and Weitkunat. Nays: Councilmembers Manvel, Ohlson and Roy. THE MOTION CARRIED. Ordinance No. 104, 2006 Making Various Amendments to the Land Use Code. Adouted on First Reading The following is staff s memorandum on this item. "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Staff has identified a variety of proposed changes, additions and clarifications in the Spring biannual update of the Land Use Code. The proposed changes are offered in order to resolve implementation issues and to continuously improve both the overall quality and "user friendliness" of the Code. �N�CNsZ/lil,�I/] The Land Use Code was first adopted in March 1997. Subsequent revisions have been recommended on a biannual basis to make changes, additions, deletions and clarifications that have been identified in the preceding six months. " Mayor Hutchinson requested clarification regarding the staffproposal to exclude item #730 from the ordinance. City Attorney Roy stated this was included in Section 28 of the ordinance. CityManager Atteberryrecommended adoption ofthe ordinance on First Reading except for Section 28, which he would schedule on an upcoming work session. 95 June 6, 2006 Cameron Gloss, Current Planning Director, stated item #730 related to downtown heights. He stated this was the spring cycle of the biannual Land Use Code amendments process. He stated 15 items were proposed for consideration and that he would highlight several of the proposed items. He stated there were proposed changes relating to the posting of notification signs and changes to the required notification distances for various applications. He stated staff was recommending that the base notification distance be changed from 500 feet to 800 feet and that the requirement for 750 feet be changed to 800 feet. He stated cost would be 2%Z times the current cost to expand the notification area from 500 feet to 800 feet. He stated staff also did an analysis regarding the impact to the City Clerk's Office and that the cost differential would be the same. He stated staff believed that the additional notification costs would be reasonable. He stated another item related to the definition of"block face." He stated staff determined that properties across the street and properties diagonally across the intersection should be included in the block face. He stated the proposed text was: "The opposing block face, or a catter-corner block face at the nearest intersection ...." He stated the last major issue was the addition of 12-plexes in the LMN zone district. He presented visual information illustrating examples of how this change could be applied. He stated the maximum size of the building would be changed from two -and -one-half stories to three stories. He stated staffs recommendation to the Planning and Zoning Board was for a maximum of 1,200 square feet for a 12-plex and that the majority of the Board was to expand the size to 1,400 square feet. He stated the rationale was that a typical unit was 1,200 to 1,300 square feet for a market rate unit. He stated staff proposed a 1,200 square foot maximum because of a concern that a 14,000 square foot building in the LMN zone might seem "incongruous" with the character of the area. He stated the Planning and Zoning Board asked the staff to forward a recommendation for the larger size. He stated there were recommended changes to design standards relating to building materials, roof articulation, and building facade articulation dealing with mass, bulk and scale issues. David Herrera, attorney, stated he was representing himself and partnership with which he was associated, questioned the wisdom of withdrawing item #730 from the ordinance. He stated people interested in the development ofthe downtown area were "skittish" about any proposed changes such as item #730. He stated removing this item from the ordinance would cause "uncertainty, doubt and a withdrawal of commitments." He stated the Council needed to make a decision about the downtown and that withdrawing the item from consideration indefinitely would have a "chilling effect" on those who wanted to invest in the downtown area. He asked that item #730 be brought forward expeditiously. City Manager Atteberry stated item #730 would be brought forwared as quickly as possible. Mayor Hutchinson stated this item was postponed because of all the questions on this "complex" issue and the need for Council to make a well-informed decision. Councilmember Kastein asked when this item could be scheduled for work session discussion. City Manager Atteberry stated he would discuss with the Leadership Team the scheduling of this item for July 11 or July 25. 01 June 6, 2006 Councilmember Kastein stated the Downtown Development Authority board members expressed an interest in adding more "certainty" to the Code to provide more assurances to downtown developers. He stated he would be looking for that during the Study Session discussion. He asked about the issue of increasing the size of a 12-plex from 12,000 to 14,000 square feet. He stated there appeared to be a good case for the Planning and Zoning Board's argument in favor of 14,000 square feet. Gloss stated many units could exceed the square footage per unit and automatically throw out the 12,000 square foot maximum. He stated staff s hesitation was in introducing larger buildings in the LMN zone. Councilmember Kastein asked where the Planning and Zoning Board came up with the idea that 14,000 square feet would be better than 12,000 square feet. Gloss stated there was discussion about a larger size at a work session. He stated there was some concern that 14,000 square feet was too big. Councilmember Kastein asked if the discussion started out at 14,000 square feet. Gloss stated staff and the Board reviewed various options between 12,000 and 14,000 square feet during the initial discussions. Councilmember Weitkunat asked if the point of allowing a 12-plex in the LMN zone had to do with affordable housing and the ability to build. Gloss stated there were multiple aspects. He stated the Council had discussed the preservation of open space through aggregating more units under one roof. He stated affordable housing was also an issue and that another issue was a "balancing act" to spread open space throughout a development. He stated the criticism heard about the LMN zone was that there was a lot of small lot development without a lot of variety. He stated it was difficult to design within the LMN zone to get a broad range of densities within a neighborhood. He stated having bigger lots might be one way to do that to offset higher density areas. Councilmember Weitkunat asked if an 8-plex would have a maximum size of 14,000 square feet. Gloss replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Weitkunat questioned the logic that a 12-plex could not be done. Gloss stated the market had not responded to smaller 12-plex units. Councilmember Weitkunat asked if the rationale for 14,000 square feet offered by the Planning and Zoning Board was market conditions. Gloss replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Manvel asked if the developer could ask by appeal for a larger square footage if the maximum was set at 12,000 square foot. Gloss replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Manvel stated it would not make sense to set a standard that would always be modified by appeal. Gloss stated this was the Board's logic and that compliance with the 12,000 square foot requirement would be difficult. 97 June 6, 2006 Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Roy, to adopt Ordinance No. 104, 2006 on First Reading as amended to delete Section 28. Councilmember Weitkunat asked if this motion would mean that the maximum square footage for a 12-plex in the LMN zone would be 14,000 square feet. Gloss replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Ohlson requested clarification regarding the 14,000 square foot maximum. He stated it appeared that the 14,000 square requirement could be appealed. He expressed concerns about the process i.e. the Planning and Zoning Board's recommendation for 14,000 square feet was incorporated in the ordinance rather than the staff s recommendation for 12,000 square feet. He stated he believed that the staff s recommendation should always be presented in such ordinances or that the recommendation put forth should always be the Board's. Councilmember Weitkunat stated staff presented a recommendation to the Planning and Zoning Board and that generally what was brought to the Council was the Board's recommendation. Councilmember Ohlson stated it should be consistent and that it should be staffs recommendation presented to the Council, with the Board's position clearly outlined. Councilmember Manvel stated he agreed with Councilmember Ohlson's comment and that in this case the staff may have been influenced by the Planning and Zoning Board's recommendation. He stated he would like to see such ordinances reflect the staff s recommendation. Councilmember Weitkunat stated the Council needed to decide what the role of the Planning and Zoning Board should be i.e., whether it should be a quasi-judicial body or a "rubber stamp" to the staff s recommendations. Councilmember Ohlson stated the staff s recommendation should be reflected in the ordinance and the Board's recommendation should be clearly outlined. He stated he did not want the Council to have to debate every one of the Land Use Code changes on which the opinions of the staff and the Board differed. Councilmember Weitkunat asked why the matter should even go to the Planning and Zoning Board in that case. Councilmember Ohlson stated he wanted the Board's recommendation but that he wanted the staffs recommendation to be the "ultimate" one. He stated in this case he would support the Board's recommendation rather than the staffs recommendation. He stated he was most interested in the staffs recommendation on Land Use Code changes. Mayor Hutchinson asked how the procedural question was relevant to the matter on the table. Councilmember Ohlson stated it was relevant because the language of the ordinance reflected the Board's recommendation rather than the staffs recommendation. He questioned why the ordinance M June 6, 2006 was written that way. He stated if Council wanted to adopt the staff recommendation amendments would need to be made to the ordinance. He stated the process should be reversed. Councilmember Kastein stated he supported having the staff come to Council with its best recommendation after soliciting input from the community and the boards and commissions. He stated he would prefer to see the staffs recommendation reflected in such ordinances in the future. City Manager Atteberry stated he believed that it was important for the staff to give Council its best professional judgment and recommendation after soliciting feedback from boards and commissions. Councilmember Roy noted that the agenda item summary indicated that staffrecommended adoption of the ordinance on First Reading and that staff in fact did not recommend the change to 14,000 square feet. Mayor Hutchinson noted that the consensus was to direct staff to reflect the staff recommendation in such ordinances. Gloss stated a 14,000 square foot building would be a relatively massive building for a LMN neighborhood. He stated staff made an effort to accommodate the density while reducing the size of the building as much as possible. He stated staff believed that the Board came up with some practical considerations based on the marketplace. He stated staff had "struggled" with this issue since this was a `low" density district. He stated the staff and Board positions on the square footage both had merit. Councilmember Manvel stated the agenda material gave examples of 12-plexes that had 1,100 to 1,500 square feet and that these were not in the LMN zone. Gloss stated that was correct. Councilmember Manvel asked if the larger buildings in the LMN zone would be softened by architectural elements and the open space requirements. Gloss replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Ohlson stated the "wiser course" would be 12,000 square feet because developers could appeal if they had a "higher bar" of setback and architectural standards. He stated he would vote against the option because developers could request a larger building if they could prove their case. He stated adjoining landlords and properties also had property rights. He stated he would prefer 12,000 square feet in this `low" density zone. Councilmember Kastein asked about a change to the sign code suggested by a local church and asked if that change was evaluated for this round of Land Use Code changes. Gloss stated the suggestion came into the process too late. Councilmember Ohlson suggested that staff work on the confusing language referring to "open space." He suggested that staff look at language such as "open area, common area, green space" in place of "open space." He stated he would like signs on pending developments to be done in a different "glaring" color to denote pending change. He stated he did not share the concern expressed byCouncilmember Kastein regarding "assurances" to downtown developers for high rises. Hestated development should be "high risk, high reward" instead of assured. .; June 6, 2006 Councilmember Weitkunat called for a point of order and requested that the discussion focus on the motion. Councilmember Ohlson noted that Councilmember Kastein brought up the issue of "more assurances" for development. Councilmember Weitkunat stated Councilmember Kastein indicated he would bring up the matter under Other Business. Councilmember Ohlson stated that was a different issue. Mayor Hutchinson stated the downtown building height issue was being postponed to a work session. He asked if Councilmember Kastein planned to bring up the issue that was to be postponed. Councilmember Kastein stated there would be a good discussion at the work session. Councilmember Ohlson stated he was responding to Councilmember Kastein's comments so that staff would be aware that there would be two different viewpoints. Mayor Hutchinson asked if 14,000 square feet was included in the motion. Councilmember Manvel stated was part of the motion. He stated 14,000 square feet seemed to be "dictated by the 12-plex." He stated provided there were restrictions on the appearance of the building and setbacks he would support the 14,000 square foot figure. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein, Manvel, Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: Councilmember Ohlson. THE MOTION CARRIED. ("Secretary's Note: The Council took a brief recess at this point for the benefit of the stenographer and reconvened at 8:30 p.m.) Ordinance No. 092, 2006, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves Designated for Fire Services in the Fire Protection Capital Improvement Expansion Fund for Payment to the Poudre Fire Authority to be Used for Headquarters Building Expansion, Adopted on First Reading The following is staffs memorandum on this item. 100 June 6, 2006 "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Headquarters Building, located at 102 Remington, houses the Fire Prevention Bureau as well as operations and administrative personnel for the Poudre Fire Authority (the 'Authority'). The Authority is planning to expand the Headquarters Building as there is a shortage of space for current and future needs. In order to pay for the expansion, the Authority is requesting Council appropriate prior year reserves collected from the fire protection capital expansion fee in the amount of $1, 400,176, and transfer that amount to the Authority capital budget. �.'KU4WdZ111W10 Expansion of the Headquarters Building has been a priority for several years. The current Headquarters Building houses 21 people and there is a shortage of restrooms, storage and office space, conference rooms and other space requirements. The proposed expansion will accommodate these needs as well as provide space for the next 20 years. The necessary property for the expansion has been identified. The Fort Collins Downtown Development Authority Board ofDirectors voted unanimously in May 2005 to lease a small pocket park adjacent to the current headquarters building for a dollar per year. The architect and staff estimate that the Headquarters Building expansion will cost approximately $2,165,000. However, final costs will not be known until actual contractor costs are received. Vaught Frye Architects is currently putting together biddable plans for the expansion. The PFA Board ofDirectors reviewed and approved the project and will provide the balance ofthe necessary funds from existing appropriations for the Authority. The fire protection capital expansion fee f and currently totals $1,400,176. Since the Headquarters Building will house staff and firefighters to manage and coordinate the Authority's city-wideprevention, public education, and emergency services, staffbelieves this meets the requirements for expenditure ofthe capital expansion fee revenue as set out in Section 7.5-30(a) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins. " City Manager Atteberry stated staff would be available to respond to any questions. Councilmember Ohlson expressed concerns about the pocket park and the construction of a $2 million dollar structure at that location. He asked about the process that resulted in the DDA giving "free land" to the PFA. He asked where City planning would come into play. He stated he would vote against this Ordinance because he believed that this was an "unwise move that runs contrary to urban planning." He stated another location should have been found for the expansion ofthe PFA. Guy Boyd, PFA Director of Administrative Services, stated the project was going through the same development review process as any other project. He stated other sites were explored and that the pocket park site was recommended because it would be a cost-effective use of public funds because other property would not need to be purchased; it would be convenient for PFA customers; and PFA employees would be shopping and working in downtown. 101 June 6, 2006 Councilmember Ohlson asked if the project had gone through the development review process. Boyd stated the PFA had gone through a substantial part of the development process and was confident that the project would be approved in accordance with City guidelines. Councilmember Ohlson stated he was concerned that DDA, PFA and CityCouncil approvals did not come before the development review process. He stated he would like to know the status of the development review process before Second Reading. Boyd stated every PFA facility went through the development review process. Councilmember Kastein stated the PFA was asking for an appropriation for the project at a specific location and that he did not think that it was important when the project went through the development review process since these were separate processes. He stated he hoped that the development review process had enough integrity that the standards would be upheld whether or not the Council was in support of a project. He stated it would be a waste of taxpayer dollars to go through the development review process before the PFA knew that funds would be appropriated for the project at this location. City Manager Atteberry stated this Council action would not make any statement about the development review process and that this project would be treated like any other public or private sector project. Councilmember Manvel asked for an explanation of the indefinite $1 per year lease from the DDA to the PFA. He asked if in effect the property was being given "indefinitely" to the PFA. Boyd stated the lease was for $1 per year for 50 years, with an option for an additional 30 years. Councilmember Manvel asked if the project would eliminate the pocket park. Boyd replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Manvel asked if this would double the space for the PFA. Boyd stated it would more than double the size of the existing building. He stated the building footprint would remain the same and that three floors were being proposed for the expansion. Councilmember Manvel asked if that would entirely close off the west side of the parking garage. Boyd replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Ohlson asked if there were any City staff concerns about taking away the award - winning pocket park and changing the character of that area. He stated this change "ran contrary to lots of good thinking." City Manager Attebeny stated staff would prepare information prior to Second Reading. Councilmember Weitkunat made amotion, seconded by Councilmember Brown, to adopt Ordinance No. 092, 2006 on First Reading. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein, Manvel, Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: Councilmember Ohlson. THE MOTION CARRIED. 102 June 6, 2006 Ordinance No. 103, 2006, Calling a Special Municipal Election on September 12, 2006 and Authorizing the Conduct of Said Election as a Mail Ballot Election. Adopted on First Reading The following is staffs memorandum on this item. "FINANCIAL IMPACT Staff estimates that the cost of this special election will be $100, 000. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY On May 19, 2006, the City Clerk's Office received an initiative petition to amend the City Charter relating to collective bargaining. The Clerk's Office has completed its review of the petition and has determined that the petition contains a sufficient number of signatures to place the initiated measure on a special election ballot. Pursuant to C.R.S. 31-2-210(4), if the petition is certified as sufficient by the City Clerk, the election must be held as near as possible to the approximate date stated in the petition (September 12, 2006). A Resolution submitting the measure to the voters will be brought to Council at an adjourned meeting on June 13. " Bruce Lockhart, 2500 East Harmony Road, objected to the special election and adding 14 pages to the City Charter, which could thereafter not be changed without another City election. He stated this was "excessive" and that there should not be a "lot of unions" working for the City. He stated union leaders tended to "exacerbate" issues and to destroy labor-management relations. He stated he hoped that this was not passed as a "stealth measure." He stated he hoped that the citizens of Fort Collins would defeat the Charter amendment. Councilmember Kastein asked if the Council had an option to defeat this ordinance. City Attorney Roy stated the requisite number of signatures had been certified and that the Council had an obligation to call the election and to place the measure on the ballot. He stated staff would be bringing forward a Resolution for the purpose of placing the measure on the ballot whether or not the Council agreed with the measure. Councilmember Kastein asked if the Council had the option of placing the measure on the General Election ballot. City Attorney Roy stated the requisite number of signatures were certified to require the calling of a special election. Councilmember Kastein asked what language would be included on the ballot. City Clerk Krajicek stated the 14 pages of the ordinance would be included in the Charter if the measure passed. She stated the Resolution to be considered by the Council would set forth the ballot language. City Manager Atteber y stated the Council had adopted a Resolution urging Fort Collins citizens to not sign the petition. He stated the Council would also be presented with a Resolution opposing the ballot measure and asking the voters not to approve the measure. 103 June 6, 2006 Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Roy, to adopt Ordinance No. 103, 2006 on First Reading. Councilmember Brown pointed out that a majority of the Council did not favor this election that would cost the City $100,000. Mayor Hutchinson stated adoption of this Ordinance did not constitute endorsement of the measure. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein, Manvel, Ohlson, Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Other Business Mayor Hutchinson asked the Council to decide not to reopen the existing Council policy that was set over 20 years ago about the name of the Northside Aztlan Community Center. He stated the existing policy should not be revisited because the original decision was made through a thorough and length community process. He stated the Council adopted a Resolution in 1983 to name the Community Center. He stated when voters approved the taxes to build a new center in April of 1997 as part of Building Community Choices the ballot language said: "Other capital projects: new Northside Aztlan Community Center." He stated Council had received some a -mails and statements that sought to tie the name issue to the national illegal immigration discussions. He stated the name of the Community Center was a "City issue" that had no connection to the current national debate on immigration. He stated the current Community Center had carried the name for decades and that the name was a part of Fort Collins community history from long before the current national issue. He stated an "emotional squabble" over the name could be "divisive" and could "overshadow the good news of this new facility." He stated he would entertain a motion that the Council not reopen the policy about the name Northside Aztlan Councilmember Roy made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Weitkunat, not to change the name of the Northside Aztlan Community Center. After discussion regarding whether citizen participation should be allowed on an Other Business item, the Mayor stated citizen comments would be heard because there was a motion on the floor. He stated citizen participants would each have three minutes to speak. Rich Salas, 319 Bluebird Court, urged the Council to vote in favor of the motion and stated reopening the issue would create divisiveness. He asked that the name Northside Aztlan Community Center be kept for the new facility to make a statement for "inclusiveness." Jesse Ramirez, CSU graduate student, 1066 Tierra Lane Unit B, spoke in favor of the motion to retain the name Northside Aztlan Community Center to continue to provide a "sense of identity." 104 June 6, 2006 Olivia Abeyta-Gonzales, 415 South Howes Street, asked the Council to adopt the motion and spoke regarding the importance of the Northside Aztlan Community Center to a "mix" of people. Ray Martinez, 4121 Stoneridge Court, spoke in favor ofthe motion and stated the Mayor's statement articulated the issues regarding "inclusiveness" and "multiculturism" very well. Councilmember Ohlson stated he wanted "inclusivity" rather than "exclusivity." He stated he thought that the Council should have this discussion because "good things can come from it" and because almost "anything worth doing ends up divisive." He stated the current name did not "unite" people and "separates and isolates" people. He stated he thought the City could "do better." He stated if the Council decided to approve the motion that he hoped that an effort would be made to make it clear that this was "not an ethnic center." He stated it should be viewed as a Community Center that welcomed everyone. He stated the "Northside" portion of the name bothered him more than the "Aztlan" portion of the name. He stated he believed that many people in the community did not feel comfortable going to the Community Center with the current name. He stated he would like to see the Council go forward with the discussion on the name. Councilmember Manvel stated he did not want the name issue to overshadow the new Community Center. He stated there was agreement that the naming debate was not tied to the national debate on illegal immigration. He stated the issue was how the community viewed the Community Center. He noted that citizen speakers had indicated that the Hispanic community felt "especially welcome" at the Community Center and that other people felt "less welcome." He stated was his issue with the name. He stated he did not believe that the name should single out a specific geographic area or ethnic group. He stated the current name felt "exclusionary" to some people. He stated he would like to see the discussion on the name take place and that he would like to know "what harm had been done" by the current name. Councilmember Weitkunat stated she did not want to see a division between the north and south sides of Fort Collins. She stated there was a "civil war brewing" if there was too much divisiveness between the geographic areas of the city. She stated she would support the motion because there had not been a problem with the name and that she believed that the timing of the discussion was bad because of the national debate about illegal immigration. Mayor Hutchinson stated there was an opportunity to "put all of our energy" into other issues rather than this divisive issue. He stated this should be an inclusive City and that the challenge was to make sure that everyone would feel welcome at the Community Center. He stated the opportunity would "get lost in the noise" if the Council focused on the name rather than the idea of an inclusive Community Center. Councilmember Roy stated he appreciated the Mayor's opening remarks. He stated the citizens of Fort Collins had already voted on this issue. He stated the a -mails that brought this issue forward were "anti -immigrant" and that the Council would be "misguided" to bring this discussion forward. He stated the Council should not spend its time on changing a name that had been approved by the voters when there were major issues the Council should be discussing. 105 June 6, 2006 Councilmember Brown stated the discussion on the issue of the name began before the national movement against illegal immigration. He stated he had not made up his mind about the name and questioned whether the youth of Fort Collins would feel as comfortable at the Northside Aztlan Community Center as they felt at the Youth Activity Center. Councilmember Manvel stated he believed that the argument that the voters voted on the name of the Community Center in 1997 was a "weak argument' and was irrelevant to the debate. Councilmember Ohlson stated he did not view the argument about illegal immigration as "xenophobic" and that he believed that a discussion on population growth in the United State was a valid discussion. He stated he wanted to see it made clear on every level that this was a "Community Center." He stated the timing was "unfortunate" but that he believed that it was a good decision to change the name. He stated he believed that the Council should have the "courage" to go forward with this discussion. Councilmember Kastein stated there was a lot of"fervor" about immigration and illegal immigration at this time. He stated this was not an issue about either issue and that there could be a valid reason to change the name. He stated there was a difference of opinion on whether this name was bad. He stated it was not necessarily courageous to make the most difficult decision. He stated the issue was one of "political correctness" and that he believed that the name of a City facility should be allowed to reflect ethnicity. He noted that the decision on the name was made years ago and that there would have to be a clear rationale to change the name when there would be significant "controversy, heartache and alienation." He stated he did not believe that the name change was worth the controversy. Mayor Hutchinson stated the motion was to leave the name as is. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein, Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: Councilmembers Manvel and Ohlson. THE MOTION CARRIED. Executive Session Authorized Councilmember Weitkunat made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Manvel, to adjourn into Executive Session pursuant to Section 2-31(a)(3) of the City Code for the purpose of discussing the possible acquisition of real property by the City and related legal matters. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein, Manvel, Ohlson, Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. 106 June 6, 2006 ("Secretary's Note: The Council adjourned into Executive Session at 9:25 p.m. and reconvened following the Executive Session at 10:24 p.m.) Adjournment Councilmember Weitkunat made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kastein, to adjourn the meeting to 6:00 p.m. on June 13, 2006. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein, Manvel, Ohlson, Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. The meeting adjourned at 10:25 p.m. 4� Mayo , ATTEST: 107