Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES-07/19/1994-Regular' July 19, 1994 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO Council -Manager Form of Government Regular Meeting 6:30 p.m. A regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins was held on Tuesday, July 19, 1994, at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll call was answered by the following Councilmembers: Apt, Azari, Horak, Janett, Kneeland, McCluskey, and Smith. Councilmembers absent: None. Staff Members Present: Burkett, Krajicek and Roy. Consideration of the Appeal of the June 6, 1994, Decision of the Planning and Zoning Board Approving, with Conditions, a Development Project Known as the Falcon Ridge P.U.D.. Preliminary. P & Z Upheld The following is staff's memorandum on this item. "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY On June 6, 1994, the Planning and Zoning Board approved, with conditions, the Falcon Ridge P.U.D., Preliminary. This project consists of 60 single family residential lots on 19.17 acres. The property is located east of Colorado Highway 1 (Terry Lake Road) and North College Avenue, south of Country Club Road, north of Spaulding Lane, and is zoned RP, Planned Residential with a planned unit development condition. On June 20, 1994, two appeals were received by the City Clerk's office regarding the decision of the Planning and Zoning Board: 1. In the Notice of Appeal from Appellants Robert B. and Rosemary Powers, it is alleged that: The Board abused its discretion in making an arbitrary decision without support of competent evidence in the record, specifically, reaching its decision in spite of lack of adequate and supporting evidence as to ownership of a portion of the real property to be subject to the plat/P.U.D. The Board failed to properly interpret and apply relevant law, specifically, the requirement that all owners of interest in, or proprietors of real property join in and/or consent to the platting of, or P.U.D. zoning affecting, their property. The Board failed to hold a fair hearing by considering substantially false or misleading evidence and/or improperly failing to receive all relevant ' evidence that was offered, specifically, relying on grossly misleading 18 July 19, 1994 ' evidence to the effect that the developer owns the real property in which Appellants own an interest, and failure to receive and consider evidence offered by Appellant to the contrary. 2. In the Notice of Appeal from Appellant Gerald Manning (representing a group of appellants), it is alleged that: The Board failed to correctly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the following sections in the Code and Charter: • Neighborhood Compatibility Criteria (Section II D of the Land Development Guidance System). • Chart A-2.1 Vehicu7ar, Pedestrian and Bicycle Transportation • Residential Uses Density Chart (Activity H of the Land Development Guidance System). The Board failed to conduct a fair hearing in that it failed to receive all relevant evidence offered by the Appellant. The attached documents include: • the appeals , • the Planning Department response to the appeals • the Application for the Falcon Ridge P.U.D., Preliminary certified by the Applicant • the Staff Report for Falcon Ridge P.U.D., Preliminary that was received by the Planning and Zoning Board for the June 6, 1994, public hearing the minutes of the June 6, 1994, Planning and Zoning Board public hearing The procedures for deciding the appeals are described in Chapter 2, Article II, Division 3 of the City Code." City Attorney Roy explained the appeals process. He stated this appeal is not a new hearing, but is an opportunity for the parties in interest on both sides to argue to the Council the evidence that was presented to the Planning and Zoning Board. He stated that no new evidence can be presented to Council regarding the project. 19 July 19, 1994 Steve Olt, City Planner, stated the proposed project consists of 60 single family residential lots on 19.17 acres and is located on the southeast corner of Colorado Highway 1. He stated the proposed access to the development is from two points along Ford Lane in the northeast portion of the development and from one point along Spaulding Lane located at the southeast corner of the development. He stated the Planning and Zoning Board believed the project met all applicable criteria of the City's plans and policies and approved the project with conditions. Ed Powers, P.O. Box 891 - Broomfield CO, stated the issues that need to be addressed are ownership, land use, drainage, and access. He provided a slide presentation of the proposed site. Mayor Azari asked if the slides being shown were presented to the Planning and Zoning Board. Powers stated that some slides were not presented to the Planning and Zoning Board. The slide in question indicates that the developer owned the property which is misleading evidence that was presented to the Planning and Zoning Board. City Attorney Roy stated the slide could be submitted if the applicant agreed. Rick Zier, representating the developer, opposed the slide presentation. He stated he did not belive that any of the slides had been shown to the Planning and. Zoning Board. City Attorney Roy ruled the slides were admissible evidence. Powers continued with the slide presentation of the proposed project. He stated the Planning and Zoning Board abused its discretion in making an arbitrary decision without support of competent evidence regarding ownership of the property. He stated the Powers family had presented a series of quit claim deeds including a deed of the subject property to the Powers family. These were presented to the Planning and Zoning Board as evidence that the developer could not develop the property. He stated the applicant could not provide sufficient evidence of ownership of the property. Gerald Manning, 2108 Ford Lane, representating of 24 surrounding residents of the proposed property, stated the proposed project is incompatible with neighborhoods located on the northeast portions of the project. He stated the proposed project is a micro planned development in the heart of an existing, rural, suburban development. He stated the project would cause potential problems with safety, access, privacy and environmental factors. He believed the proposed project violates the Land Development Guidance System Neighborhood Compatibility section. He stated the proposed development would not maintain the existing neighborhood characteristics. He stated the Planning and Zoning Boards decision was skewed by inaccurate traffic and density point chart studies that fail to satisfy the criterion listed in Section A-2.1 of the Land Development Guidance 20 July 19, 1994 ' System. He stated the City's Transportation Department acknowledged the inaccuracies of the traffic study, but did not order a new traffic study to be conducted. He stated child safety issues should be addressed prior to any approval of the proposed project. He stated the Planning and Zoning Board did not adequately address the surrounding neighborhoods concerns with the proposed development. He urged Council to overturn the decision of the Planning and Zoning Board. Rick Zier, representing the developer, stated that Council should not consider the ownership of the property as one of the factors in determining whether .or not to overturn the Planning and Zoning Boards decision. He stated the deed of the property should be considered in a courtroom and not by the Council. He stated the applicant for the development has met all the City's requirements in the PUD process. He provided a slide presentation to Council that was presented at the Planning and Zoning Board Hearing. Peter Sherman, applicant, described the slides that were presented at the Planning and Zoning Board Hearing. Zier stated public utilities are available at the proposed site. He stated the proposed development is compatible with the surrounding area. He believed. the traffic studies that were conducted were accurate. Gene Cappola, traffic engineer, stated that traffic counts were taken during peak ' hour periods in the morning and afternoon. He explained the procedures to arrive at the actual traffic count figures. He stated the traffic counts for Country Club Road were obtained from the City's Transportation Department. He stated the City has reviewed and deemed the traffic studies to be acceptable for the proposed project. Zier stated the distances marked for the proposed development between schools, shopping centers, etc. were measured correctly and accepted through the PUD process. He stated the City's traffic experts reviewed the traffic studies and their conditions and concluded that the studies were in accordance with the City's procedures. He urged Council to uphold the Planning and Zoning Boards decision. Ed Powers stated the Council needs to review the ownership of the property before allowing action to be taken on the proposed project. He stated the documents of ownership submitted to Council by the applicant do not substantiate ownership of the property. He stated the documents submitted do not contain the actual recorded grants and deeds in the public record of the Larimer.County Clerk and Recorder's Office. He stated Council should review the issues such as ownership, land use, drainage, and access to the property and over turn the Planning and Zoning Boards decision. 21 IJuly 19, 1994 Don Mussard, 2124 ford Lane, stated that not all the density figures that the applicant referred to were submitted at the Planning and Zoning Board Hearing. He believed some of the figures were new evidence and if they are allowed to be submitted as part of this hearing then the figures should be reviewed for accuracy. He stated the traffic study indicated various traffic count numbers but did not clarify how those figures were reached. Councilmember McCluskey asked if the Planning and Zoning Board failed to respond or failed to receive all the information from the appellant according to the appeal procedures. City Attorney Roy stated the Board's error would be if it failed to receive all relevant evidence offered. He stated if the Board did receive all the relevant evidence offered then there was no error. He stated that if the contention was that the Board received all the relevant evidence but did not give it the weight that one party or the other wanted, then Council could address that issue under failure to improperly interpret and apply the provision of the Code. He stated that would not warrant a remand to the Planning and Zoning Board if all the evidence was received but did not bring about the desired result. Councilmember Apt asked if the ownership and detention pond issues are relevant to the decision of this project. City Attorney Roy stated that it was relevant in the sense that prior to final approval of the development, the City needs to decide whether it received proper evidence of ownership. He stated the issue for Council to decide was not who owns the property, but if the procedures in the Code were followed. CounciImember- Horak asked if the applicant did not own the land could the City zone the property and have a valid PUD. City Attorney Roy stated that if the City approved development for a property that the applicant does not own then the decision could be reversed or overturned by a court. He stated it was not the role of the Council to decide an ownership issue. Mayor Azari asked if the LOGS procedures required a form to be filled out during the preliminary stages of review that requires proof of ownership of a property. Olt stated that the submittal requirements for a Preliminary Plan Submittal stated that an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of Colorado certify that owners and proprietors as defined in Section 29-526 of the Colorado Revised Statutes have executed and acknowledged the plat. Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Apt, to deny the appeal and uphold the Planning and Zoning Board Decision. 22 July 19, 1994 ' Councilmember Smith asked for clarification on whether there was a period between the preliminary and final approval that would present the opportunity to resolve the ownership issues with regard to the proposed property. City Attorney Roy stated the project would come back for final approval and recommended Council to add the condition that there be a requirement of an attorney's certified plat be presented prior to final review. Councilmember Horak offered an amendment to his previous motion to add the condition that an attorney certified plat be presented prior to final review. Councilmember Apt as seconder to the motion accepted the amendment to the previous motion. Mayor Azari stated she supported the motion. She stated the attorney certification was vital to the project and would be required prior to final approval of the project. The vote on Councilmember Horak's motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Apt, Azari, Horak, Janett, Kneeland, McCluskey, and Smith. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember McCluskey asked if the distances are measured "as the crow flies" ' or by travel on roadways. Olt stated that Section 7-C2 of the LDGS states that the distance from activity centers is measured by a straight line to the dwelling units from the outer boundary of the activity center. Councilmember Apt asked why the City did not measure distance in a practical manner rather than "as the crow flies". Ron Phillips, Planning Director, explained the methodology behind the City's use of the national standard for measuring the distances between two places. He stated the use of the national standard is common practice. Councilmember Horak asked if the All Development Criteria was applied to the proposed project. Olt stated the proposed project was reviewed in the same manner that other projects are reviewed. Councilmember Janett asked if the traffic capacity for Ford Lane (750-1000 cars a day) is considered the ultimate capacity of a local street. 23 I July 19, 1994 Tom Vosburg, Transportation Planner, stated the City does not consider a local City street busy until the traffic volumes reach 750-1000 cars per day. He stated the current street standards require all streets that are projected to carry greater than 2,500 average daily trips to be built to collector standards rather than local street standards. Councilmember Janett asked what the estimate of average daily trips was for Ford Lane. Vosburg stated the applicant's traffic study estimated the existing traffic to be approximately 100 average daily trips and the estimated additional trips to be approximately 250 average daily trips which would total 350 average daily trips per day for Ford Lane when the project is completed. Councilmember Janett asked if the City's Master Transportation Plan include the streets located around the proposed project. Vosburg stated these are local streets and are not identified on the Master Street Plan with the exception of Country Club Road which is identified as a collector street. Councilmember Kneeland asked about the impact of an additional access point on Country Club Road. Vosburg stated the additional access point on Country Club Road would cut the Ford Lane traffic volume in half. Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember McCluskey, that the Planning and Zoning Board held a fair hearing. The vote on Councilmember Horak's motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Apt, Azari, Horak, Janett, Kneeland, McCluskey, and Smith. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kneeland, to deny the appeal and uphold the Planning and Zoning Boards decision. Councilmember Smith stated he would support the motion. He stated the City should review the methodology of.the measurements of distances between two points. Councilmember McCluskey stated he would support the motion. He believed the Planning and Zoning Board took into consideration the current rules and regulations that any development proposal needs to follow. 24 July 19, 1994 ' Councilmember Horak stated the proposed project should be considered highly compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods. He believed that emergency services should be able to serve the proposed project without any major complications. Mayor Azari stated the Planning and Zoning Board conducted a fair hearing and interpreted the LDGS in the manner in which it applies to the proposed project. The vote on Councilmember Horak's motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Apt, Azari, Horak, Janett, Kneeland, McCluskey, and Smith. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Consideration of the Appeal of the June 9, 1994, Decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals to Deny a Variance for a Building Addition to the B&B's Pickle Barrel Restaurant Located at 122 West Laurel Street (ZBA #2108). ZBA Upheld The following is staff's memorandum on this item. "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY On June 9, 1994, the Zoning Board of Appeals considered a variance request for ' the property at 122 West Laurel Street. The variance sought would have reduced the required lot area from 2 times as large as the floor area of the building, to 1.52 times as large as the floor area. Specifically, the variance request would have allowed a 2610 square foot addition to the B&B Pickle Barrel restaurant, when the Code would otherwise allow a maximum addition of only 1380 square feet in order to comply with the lot area/floor area ratio for this 7,840 square foot lot. This request, heard as Appeal #2108, was denied by a vote of four to one. Boardmembers cited the lack of a valid hardship as the reason for voting to deny the variance. Mr. Robert Piccaro, co-owner of B&B's Pickle Barrel, is appealing the decision. BACKGROUND: Bob Piccaro contacted the Building Inspection office several months ago to obtain information about Building Code issues regarding a proposed first and second floor addition to his restaurant, B&B's Pickle Barrel. Zoning issues about parking and lot area also surfaced during the course of Mr. Piccaro's inquiries. The restaurant is located at 122 West Laurel Street and is in the BL (Limited Business) zoning district. This zone requires that the lot area be twice as large as the total floor area of the building. The Zoning Code stipulates that the "floor area" shall include the gross floor area of each floor level, but does not include the area of a basement, open balcony, or garage. 25 July 19, 1994 The lot area of 122 West Laurel Street is 7,840 square feet. Applying the 2:1 lot area/floor area requirement, this size lot would allow a building to be a maximum of 3,920 square feet. The existing floor area is 2,540 square feet. This means that an addition can.not exceed 1,380 square feet in order to stay within the limits. Mr. Piccaro's proposed addition of 2,610 square feet would bring the total floor area of the building to 5,150 square feet. Since his lot size will only allow 3,920 square feet of building, the addition will be 1,230 square feet too large. On May 26, 1994, Mr. Piccaro applied for a variance to Section 29-303 of the Zoning Code in order to reduce the required lot area from 2 times as large as the floor area of the building, to 1.52 times as large as the floor area. In his application, he cited the following reasons for needing an addition and the hardships which make it impracticable to comply with the ordinance: • The kitchen of the restaurant needs to be enlarged. • The restaurant is quite crowded and the traffic flow needs to be improved. • The building footprint will be enlarged only slightly. • There is no additional land available to buy. • Up until 1991, this property was zoned BG, and'a variance would not have been required. • Many of the other buildings in the block were added on to under the old zoning (BG), and he would like to be able to do what others have done. The Zoning Board of Appeals heard and considered Mr. Piccaro's request at its June 9, 1994 meeting. At that time, the appellant elaborated on his addition plans and the hardships created by the downzoning. City staff showed slides of the Pickle Barrel restaurant and other buildings in the area. Staff and Mr. Piccaro pointed out other buildings which had recently been added onto when the area was zoned BG. Those buildings don't comply with the 2:1 lot area/floor area requirement of the BL zone, but do comply with the 1:2 lot area/floor area requirement of the BG zone which applied to them at the time of their construction. Specifically, the buildings and locations that were mentioned are: 1. Rams Book Store, 130 West Laurel 2. Lee's Cyclery, 202 West Laurel 3. The Mountain Shop, 632 South Mason 4. Laurel Street Emporium, 112 West Laurel ' Members of the Board discussed the various issues and concerns which had been 26 July 19, 1994 ' raised, but had difficulty determining that a valid hardship existed. There was considerable discussion among the members about whether or not the downzoning constituted a hardship. Some members expressed their belief that Section 29-41 (c) of the Code indicates. that a hardship exists when there is some unusual characteristic of the specific piece of property, such as shallowness, narrowness, or topography. They believed that the downzoning didn't make the lot any narrower or shallower, didn't change the slope or topography, or create any extraordinary or exceptional situation peculiar to this specific lot. After due consideration, members of the Board expressed their findings that there was nothing unusual about this lot under the current BL zoning. Therefore, the Board voted 4-1 to deny the variance due to lack of hardship. On June 23, 1994, Mr. Piccaro filed an appeal with the City Clerk's office regarding the decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals. In the statement of appeal, it is alleged that the ZBA erred in denying the variance by its "failure to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the code and charter." Specifically, the appellant refers to Section 29-41 (c) of the Code, which states: "The Zoning Board of Appeals shall authorize, upon appeal in specific cases, variances from the terms of this Article where by reason of exceptional narrowness, shallowness or slope of a specific piece of ' property at the time of the enactment of this Article or by reason of exceptional topographical conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional situations or conditions of such piece of property, including situations or conditions which hinder the owner's ability to install a solar energy system, the strict application of any regulation enacted herein would result in peculiar and exceptional practical difficulties to or exceptional or undue hardship upon the owner of such property, provided such relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without substantially impairing the intent and purpose of this Article, and provided that no variance shall authorize any use in a zoning district other than a use specifically permitted in such zoning district." Mr. Piccaro states in his letter of appeal that he believes the Board based its judgement solely on that part of Sec. 29-41 (c) which speaks to reasons of exceptional narrowness, shallowness, slope or topographical conditions of a specific piece of property, and that "they failed to interpret the second and third segments of part C of Sec. 29-41" relating to the existence of "extraordinary and exceptional situations and conditions which result in exceptional or undue hardship upon the owner of such property." Staff Response to Appeal: The Board failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Code and Charter. 27 July 19, 1994 Response: The record shows that members of the Board struggled with the question of whether or not the downzoning of a piece of property creates any extraordinary or exceptional condition in and of itself. There was considerable dialogue between Boardmembers and Deputy City Attorney Paul Eckman regarding this question. Boardmember Huddleson stated his belief that the Code instructs the ZBA to find a hardship related only to some peculiarity of a specific property, such as the shape or slope of the lot, and not because of some outside influence like downzoning. In this particular instance, he could not find that the downzoning created any extraordinary or exceptional condition of the property. The downzoning did not make the lot any shallower nor did it change the slope or topography. There was additional discussion about the effect of zoning or downzoning on a property. The general feeling was that the zoning designation itself does not create a hardship, although it may be at least an added burden on everyone that is governed by that zoning designation. Zoning establishes regulations, and everyone is under obligation to those regulations. Therefore, the "hardship" is uniform, and not unusual with respect to specific properties. In interpreting and applying Section 29-41 (c), the Board determined that there was nothing unusual about Mr. Piccaro's property with respect to narrowness, shallowness, slope or topography, and that the downzoning did not create an extraordinary or exceptional condition of the piece of property. City Council is being furnished with a verbatim transcript of Appeal #2108, and all other materials presented to the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding Mr. Piccaro's variance request. The procedures for deciding the appeal are described in Chapter 2, Article 77, Division 3 of the City Code." Councilmember Horak withdrew from discussion and vote on this item due to a perceived conflict of interest. Felix Lee, Director of Building Permits and Zoning, stated the appellant is proposing enlarging the building housing the B&B Pickle Barrel Deli from 2,540 square feet to 5,150 square feet with a 2,600 square foot addition. He stated the Zoning Board of Appeals denied the appellants request. He stated the property is located in the B-L (Limited Business) Zone and covers 7,846 square feet of lot area. He stated the property was rezoned two years ago from B-G (General Business) Zone which would permit the floor area ratio needed for the appellants request. He submitted a slide presentation of the proposed project and surrounding properties. Councilmember Smith asked why the zoning changed. go July 19, 1994 ' Lee stated the zoning changed as part of the Eastside/Westside Rezoning Plan and the property was down -zoned to a less intense business use to allow transition into the residential area from College Avenue. Councilmember Smith asked if businesses surround the proposed project. Lee stated there is no residential property in the area of the project. Robert Piccaro, 3134 LaPorte Avenue, appellant,. stated the intent of the B&B Pickle Barrel is to expand the kitchen in an effort to make food production more efficient. He stated the second floor would be renovated for seating, patio, and additional restrooms. He stated those changes would drastically improve traffic flow for the people entering the establishment. .He stated the parking plan for the improvements has already been approved and that the zone change presents a hardship to the business. He stated the proposed expansion would not be a detriment to the public good. He stated that patrons have asked if it was the possible to expand to create a better environment for the business. He stated that when the City changed the zoning for the area, the businesses were not informed and should be "grandfathered" for any improvements needed to the businesses. Jim Waterson, Robertos Burritos, stated he supported the appeal and believed the proposed project would be an asset to the neighborhood. He stated he was not I notified of the zoning change either and is reviewing the possibility of expanding his facility in the future. Phillip Teeter, neighboring business owner, stated he supported the appeal. He stated the change in zoning prohibits businessowners to improve their establishments and accommodate increases in business. He urged Council to overturn the ZBA decision. Councilmember Smith asked if Council's options were either to uphold or remand the ZBA's decision on the basis of hardship and not on the basis of lack of notice on a change in zoning. City Attorney Roy stated that was correct. He stated Council could only deal with the question of whether a variance could be granted to the applicant. Councilmember Kneeland asked if a zoning classification could be considered as a hardship. Lee stated the criteria is the hardship has to be unique to the property. Councilmember Janett asked if the applicant is denied the variance, do they have the option to request a rezoning. City Attorney Roy stated there was the possibility to petition for a rezoning. 29 July 19, 1994 Councilmember Janett asked if a rezoning would occur on the entire zone or parts of the zone. City Attorney Roy stated the petition could be made to amend a zoning district in part or in its entirety. He stated it would be an amendment to the City's zoning map. Councilmember Janett asked what the intent of the zone change was for that area. City Manager Burkett stated the zone change was to create a transition area between businesses and residential areas. He stated the general goal was to maintain healthy residential areas. Councilmember Kneeland made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Apt, to uphold the ZBA decision. Councilmember Kneeland stated the problem is a zoning issue and not a hardship issue. She believed the ZBA interpreted the Code correctly. Councilmember Apt stated he would support the motion. He stated the zoning issue should not be considered a hardship. He stated the zoning is appropriate to protect the residential areas; however, for the proposed project area the zoning classification needs to be addressed so existing businesses could expand. Councilmember McCluskey stated the overall zoning of the area is the issue and should be revisited. He believed granting variances to the businesses in the area is not the solution. Councilmember Smith stated the ZBA acted appropriately and he would support the motion. He stated the zoning issue needs to be revisited for that particular area. Councilmember Janett stated she would support the motion. She stated the zoning issues need to be reviewed. Mayor Azari stated she would support the motion. She believed the ZBA applied the Code correctly. She stated the proposed project gave the City the opportunity to review the zoning in that area. The vote on Councilmember Kneeland's motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Apt, Azari, Janett, Kneeland, McCluskey, and Smith. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. 30 July 19, 1994 Citizen Participation Yolanda Nicely, 300 East Harmony, expressed her appreciation for the prompt attention to replacing the swings at Boardwalk Park. Jeff Bridges, 725 Mathews, stated the Eastside Neighborhood Association would support the expansion of the B&B Pickle Barrel. He stated that the National Night Out celebration would take place on August 2, 1994 and urged Council to participate in the activities. He suggested that Council postpone its August 2nd meeting to attend the activities in their neighborhoods. Sandy Lemberg, 6851 Poudre Canyon Highway, stated he was concerned with the Jefferson Street truck traffic and the possibilities of building a bypass. He stated if Council decided not to build a bypass prior to completing the review of the NEATs study, any decision would be made out of poor judgement. He asked Council allow the citizens to participate in this and similar studies and that the citizen elected boards not be so driven by staff. Citizen Participation Follow-up Councilmember Janett responded to Mr. Lemberg's comments and stated the previous Council determined that any bypass should be located north of Douglas Road. She stated if truck traffic did not travel through town there wouldn't be a need for I a bypass. She stated.a study will be performed to determine if keeping trucks on Interstate-25 is a viable option. Agenda Review City Manager Steve Burkett stated there were no changes to the Agenda as published. ***CONSENT CALENDAR*** The Consent Calendar consists of Item Numbers 9 through 20. This Calendar is intended to allow the City Council to spend its time and energy on the important items on a lengthy agenda. Staff recommends approval of the Consent Calendar. Anyone may request an item on this calendar to be "pulled" off the Consent Calendar and considered separately. Agenda. items pulled from the Consent Calendar by the Public will be considered separately under Agenda Item #21, Public Pulled Consent Items. Items pulled from the Consent Calendar by staff or Councilmembers may be considered separately under Agenda Item #26, Council/Staff Pulled Consent Items. Items Relating to the Robert Shields Annexation and Zoning. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 92, 1994, Annexing Approximately 18.4 Acres, Known as the Robert Shields Annexation. 31 L July 19, 1994 B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 93, 1994, Zoning Approximately 18.4 Acres, Known as the Robert Shields Annexation, Into the R-L-P, Low Density Planned Residential, District with a PUD Condition. This Ordinance, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on June 7, approves the request to annex and zone approximately 18.4 acres located east of County Road #9 and one-half mile north of Harmony Road. The property is currently zoned FA-1 Farming in the County which allows single-family residential development with a minimum lot size of 2.29 acres. The requested zoning is the R-L-P, Low Density Planned Residential, District with a PUD condition. The R-L-P District could allow for a variety of housing types and densities through the PUD process, but due to the property's relatively small size a variety of uses is not likely to occur. The property is presently undeveloped. This is a voluntary annexation of property located in the Fort Collins Urban Growth Area. 10. The City Council Policy Agenda includes development of a land use plan ' for the Loveland Fort Collins/Corridor. Larimer County has taken the lead role in completing this project in a cooperative program with elected officials and staff from the City of Fort Collins, and the City of Loveland. Larimer County has executed a $40,000 contract with BHA Associates of Fort Collins to assist with the planning project. Larimer County has requested financial contributions of $10,000 each from the City of Fort Collins and the City of Loveland. This Ordinance, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on July 5, appropriates $10,000 of undesignated reserves from the General Fund. This Ordinance, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on July 5, appropriates $156,785 from unanticipated revenues (Enhancement and STP Funds) in the Transportation Fund and $39,215 in local matching funds authorized for transfer from the Capital Projects Fund Minor Street Capital Project. 12. Items Relating to the Wild West Annexation and Zoning. A. Public Hearing and Resolution 94-104 Setting Forth Findings of Fact and Determinations Regarding the Wild West Annexation. 32 13. 14. July 19, 1994 ' Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 104, 1994, Annexing Property Known as the Wild West Annexation. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 105, 1994, Amending the Zoning District Map Contained in Chapter 29 of the Code and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the Wild West Annexation to the City of Fort Collins. This is a request to annex and zone approximately 8.2 acres located east of County Road 9 and 1/4 mile south of Horsetooth Road. The requested zoning is the R-L-P, Low Density Planned Residential, District. The property is presently undeveloped, but the applicant plans to construct a single-family home on the site. The property is currently zoned FA-1 Farming in the County which allows single-family residential development with a minimum lot size of 2.29 acres. The applicant is being required to annex as a condition of receiving City sewer service. This is a voluntary annexation of property located within the Fort Collins Urban Growth Area. In 1992, City Council adopted the Service Productivity Incentive Policy, ' effective for 1992 and years thereafter. The goal of the policy is. to provide a framework within which a manager can develop a long-range strategic plan for service delivery rather than rely on a short-term, line -item cost approach. An operating manager that has unspent and uncommitted appropriations as a result of increased productivity and operational efficiency can carry- over those dollars in their own reserve savings account. Managers may request the use of the savings through the City Manager and City Council must approve the request by an appropriation ordinance. Use of productivity savings will be presented to Council twice a year for appropriation in the current year. The City and the County own the property located at 226 West Mountain Avenue. The property is being used as the Mountain Cafe. Since 1991, the lease has been with Khalil Kamandy, and managed by Moe Kamandy. It is time to renew the lease and Moe Kamandy is taking over the business for his brother. As a result, staff has negotiated a one-year lease with the option for two one-year renewals. Upon checking with both the City and County Facilities Divisions, the potential three-year lease does not impact the projected development of Block 31 since development of the Block is not scheduled during this period. , 33 15. July 19, 1994 The base rent for 226 West Mountain is $708 a month. In addition, the City and County will receive reimbursement for the costs of water, sewer, gas, and property taxes in the amount of $159.24 a month, for a total rent payment of $867.24 a month. This equates to $12.19 per square foot. The lease also contains a cost of living adjustment clause tied to the CPI. Based on consultations with commercial real" estate brokers, the $12.19/square foot lease rate for 226 West Mountain Avenue is on John McCoy is developing Raintree Townhomes P.U.D. located between Rolland Moore Park to the north and the Senior Center to the south. Raintree Townhomes P.U.D. was approved by Planning and Zoning Board on November 15, 1993. Public Service Company needs a ten foot wide easement for a gas line to serve this development. The easement would be parallel to the east property line of the Fort Collins Senior Center site. ' 16. Resolution 94-111 Amending the Intergovernmental Agreement Pertaining to the Establishment of a Multicultural Commission. On April 5 the City Council approved Resolution 94-60 which authorized the City to enter into an intergovernmental agreement to establish a Multicultural Commission. The intergovernmental agreement outlined the Commission's general duties and functions, composition, sources of resource support, accountability, reports and other operating guidelines. The parties of the intergovernmental agreement were the four founding organizations of the Cultural Diversity Task Force --City of Fort Collins, Colorado State University, Poudre R-1 School District and the Chamber of Commerce. Three other community organizations--Larimer County, Front Range Community College, and Poudre Valley Hospital --expressed a desire to become full parties to this intergovernmental agreement. Therefore, they have been added as parties, to the agreement. As a result, Section 3-- Composition of the Commission has been amended so that each party to this agreement (that is, all seven organizations) shall appoint two persons to the Multicultural Commission; once this has been completed, this group of fourteen shall appoint five (5) at -large members of the community to complete the voting membership of the Commission. 34 17 19 July 19, 1994 Resolution 94-112 Statinq Support for the Retention and Expansion of Basic Industrial Firms. City Council recently expressed the desire to make an affirmative statement regarding the retention and expansion of basic industry employers within the City. The City's Economic Development Policy clearly indicates that the City will work in partnership with other public and private entities to ensure that the community remains an attractive location for business and residents. Resolution 94-113 Making an Appointment to the Landmark Preservation Commission. A vacancy currently exists on the Landmark Preservation Commission due to the resignation of Richard Hill. Councilmembers Horak and McCluskey recently interviewed applicants for the Landmark Preservation Commission during the annual appointment process and are recommending Carl McWilliams be appointed to ,fill the vacant term which expires July 1, 1996. Postponement of Items Relating to the Overland Trail Annexation and Zonin to September 6, 1994. A. Postponing of Public Hearing and Resolution 94-61 Setting Forth , Findings of Fact and Determinations Regarding the Overland Trail Annexation. Postponing of Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 54, 1994, Annexing Approximately 282 Acres, Known as the Overland Trail Annexation. C. Postponing of Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 55, 1994, Zoning Approximately 212 Acres of the Overland Trail Annexation into the R-F, Foothills Residential, District and Placing the Remaining 70 Acres into the R-L-P, Low Density Planned Residential, District. The applicant, John Spillane, has requested that consideration of the Overland Trail Annexation and Zoning request be postponed until the September 6, 1994, Council meeting. The applicant would like to have an opportunity to meet with the adjacent property -owners and present preliminary development plans for the property. Many of the citizens who spoke at the Planning and Zoning Board requested information regarding the potential development of the property. This is a request to annex and zone approximately 282.33 acres located west of Overland Trail and north of Prospect Road (extended). The requested zoning is for 212 acres of the R-F, Foothills Residential ' 35 July 19, 1994 District, and 70 acres of the R-L-P, Low Density. Planned Residential District. The property is presently undeveloped. The property is currently zoned E-1, Estate, and FA-1, Farming, in the County. This is a voluntary annexation of property located within the Fort Collins Urban Growth Area. 20. Routine Deeds and Easements. A. Deeds of Easement from Clifford I. Kight for the purpose of utility, drainage, and emergency access. Deed of right-of-way for public street purposes. All three are located on Lot 12 of Tennyson Heights between Maple Street and Cherry Street. Monetary consideration: $0. B. Deeds of Easement from Bartran and Company, Inc.,for the purpose of temporary turnaround and drainage located along the east edge of Huntington Hills 4th Filing which is just south of East Horsetooth Road next to County Road 9. Monetary consideration: $0. C. Deed of Easement from Poudre School District R-1, for the purpose of a permanent sanitary sewer located on the north end of Webber Junior High School which is just off Seneca Street. Monetary consideration ' $10. D. Deed of Easement from Wild Wood Farm, Inc., for the purpose of temporary grading located between Corbett Drive and Indigo Circle South in Wild Wood Farms 2nd Filing. Monetary consideration $0. E. Deed of Easement from Faith Realty and Development Co., for the purpose of permanent drainage. Located just south of Jax on North College Avenue. Monetary consideration $10. F. Deed of Easement from David B. Pedersen for the purpose of permanent drainage. Located just south of Jax on North College Avenue. Monetary consideration: $10. G. Deed of Easement from Ron and Mary D. Dreher for use as permanent drainage. Located just south of Jax on North College Avenue. Monetary consideration: $10. H. Deed of Easement from Greg Bever for the purpose of permanent drainage located on Lots 133 and 134 of English Ranch 2nd Filing just off Stockbury Drive on Rochdale Drive. Monetary consideration: $0. 1 1 36 July 19, 1994 I. Deeds of Easement from Amy C. Potter for the purpose of permanent drainage located at the southwest corner of Poudre Plains Subdivision located near the corner of West Vine Drive and Mercer Drive. Monetary consideration: $0. J. Deed of Easement from Douglas B. Hample for the purpose of a permanent drainage pipe located at Lot 11 of Golden Meadows Business Park which is just north of Harmony Road near the Union Pacific Rail Road (4530 Innovation Drive.) Monetary consideration: $0. K. Deed of Easement from Huntington Hills, L.L.C. of Colorado for the purpose of temporary access located at the east end of Saturn Drive in Huntington Hills 3rd Subdivision near the intersection of South College Avenue and Skyway Drive. Monetary consideration: $0. L. Powerline Easement from Ronald A. Mills, 324 Park, needed to install new underground streetlight service. Monetary consideration: $10. M. Powerline Easement from James and Linda Fellion, 509 Garfield, needed to install new underground streetlight service. Monetary consideration: $10. Items on Second Reading were read by title by City Clerk Wanda Krajicek. 9.1 Items Relating to the Robert Shields Annexation and Zoning. 10. 24. A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 92, 1994, Annexing Approximately 18.4 Acres, Known as the Robert Shields Annexation. B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 93, 1994, Zoning Approximately 18.4 Acres, Known as the Robert Shields Annexation, Into the R-L-P, Low Density Planned Residential, District with a PUD Condition. Months. 37 F July 19, 1994 Items on First Reading were read by title by City Clerk Wanda Krajicek.' 12. Items Relating to the Wild West Annexation and Zoning. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 104, 1994, Annexing Property Known as the Wild West Annexation. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 105, 1994, Amending the Zoning District Map Contained in Chapter 29 of the Code and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the Wild West Annexation to the City of Fort Collins. 13. 14. 15. 25. Councilmember Smith made a motion, seconded by Councilmember McCluskey, to adopt and approve all items not removed from the Consent Calendar. The vote on Councilmember Smith's motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Apt, Azari, Horak, Janett, Kneeland, McCluskey, and Smith. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Reports Councilmember Kneeland spoke of a recent Legislative Review Committee meeting. She stated the Committee is considering providing Council with a resolution, with options, regarding -the proposed County -wide tax. She spoke of federal telecommunications legislation that may impede the City's ability to negotiate franchise fees with cable companies. She stated there were several citizen driven initiatives that may appear on the November ballot. Councilmember Janett stated Channel 27 programs would now be listed in the television section of the Coloradoan. She commented 3 local organizations had petitioned to participate on the Multi -Cultural Commission effort. She spoke of ' a letter received by the City that speaks of initiating a regional growth 38 July 19, 1994 planning project in cooperation with the Cities of Greeley, Loveland, Windsor, Berthoud, Wellington and Evans, to see how these cities can maintain their uniqueness and boundaries. Councilmember McCluskey reported he and Councilmember Smith attended a meeting of the Southeast Business Council where the issue of Transfort services was addressed. Councilmember Smith reminded everyone that it was Bicycle Awareness Week. Mayor Azari spoke of a recent National League of Cities meeting. She stated two issues were discussed, public safety and local and national economy. Ordinance No. 111, 1994 of the Council of the City of Fort Collins Establishing a Temporary Suspension of the Processing of Applications for Retail "Superstores" Within the City for a Period of Six Months, Adopted on Second Reading The following is staff's memorandum on this item. "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY I The City has recently received applications for large scale retail developments which have raised a number of issues, such as • appropriate location within the city • design and compatibility with existing development traffic impacts and parking requirements. Existing developments of this type did not always achieve the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan, most notably a location in the northern section of town, and an attractive, compatible design that encourages multi -modal transportation. This Ordinance, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on July 5, would place a six-month suspension on the processing of certain retail development applications. During this time staff will research the impacts such developments have in more detail, and will prepare policy recommendations how to deal with such developments in the future. The temporary suspension will end six months after the effective date of this ordinance." Councilmember McCluskey made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Horak, to adopt Ordinance No. 111, 1994 on Second Reading. Yolanda C. Nicely, 300 Harmony Road, spoke in opposition to the ordinance. 39 ' July 19, 1994 The vote on Councilmember McCluskey's motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Apt, Azari, Horak, Janett, Kneeland, McCluskey and Smith. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Ordinance No. 114, 1994 Amending Section 29-526(D)(2) of the City Code and Directing City Staff to Develop Certain Proposed Plans and Policies to Support the Adoption of Long -Term Growth Management Measures. Adopted on First Reading The following is staff's memorandum on this item. "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY For the past eighteen months, the City Council, Planning and Zoning Board and City staff have been discussing growth management issues and tools. This discussion has involved neighborhood groups, representatives of the business and development industry and the general public. Minimum residential densities, infill and phasing of development were among the issues that were discussed. Last April, the City Council and Planning and Zoning Board gave direction that ' the issues of density, infill and phasing should be addressed through refinements to the Land Development Guidance System (LDGS). The amendments are proposed to be implemented on an "interim" basis. During the interim period, necessary studies will be initiated and completed to support more permanent criteria and programs. The amendments will become null and void as of December 31, 1995, unless further extended by the Council by ordinance. The ordinance will not affect the property rights of preliminary PUD plans and final PUD plans which have been granted approval by the Planning and Zoning Board subsequent to the enactment of the Ordinance. In summary, the proposed changes are as follows: 1. Increase public notice and awareness of density as a community objective. 2. Amend the residential Density Chart in the LDGS to give more credit for being close to existing, developed public facilities and major destinations and less credit for proximity to planned/undeveloped facilities and destinations. 3. Establish a higher floor of points on the Density Chart. BACKGROUND: How will Fort Collins grow during the next fifty years? Will it sprawl into farmland and/or important natural areas? Will the community face huge costs as it tries to extend streets, sewer and water lines, parks, police and fire ' services, etc.? Will the liveability of the community continue? Are we building 40 July 19, 1994 the community that was envisioned at the time the Comprehensive Plan was adopted? The answers to those questions depend on how we use and plan the use of land within and around the community. For the past eighteen months, the City Council, Planning and Zoning Board and City staff have been wrestling with these issues and discussing methods to manage the growth of the community. Last December, the City Council formed a subcommittee, composed of members of the City Council and the Planning and Zoning Board, to provide direction to City staff on growth management issues raised by the entire City Council. In proposing growth management techniques, the Council, Committee and City staff were responding to: • Adopted policies in the City's Comprehensive Plan; • Current trends in the local economy and residential development market toward urban sprawl as the prevailing development pattern and increasing pressure for residential development at densities below what the City's Comprehensive Plan calls for; • Tightening public budgets and revenues projected as a result of the adoption of Amendment 1 which limit the flexibility of local jurisdictions to fund the extension or expansion of basic public services and facilities to accommodate growth and development; Trends in auto ownership and use -- vehicle miles traveled (VMT) ' rising faster than population growth, with associated deterioration in air quality and rising street congestion; and • Increasing housing costs threatening the City's ability to meet its affordable housing goals and objectives. The issues that the Council Committee on Growth Management have focused upon for this phase of its work are minimum urban residential densities, encouraging urban Will and phasing of new development. The specific objectives are to: • Maintain residential densities at or above 3 dwelling units per acre as called for in the City's Land Use Policies Plan; • Locate neighborhood commercial uses, jobs, parks, and schools within walking/bicycling distance of homes; • Link land use with the availability of existing public facilities, including public parks, transit, sidewalks and bicycle paths/)anes; and • Encourage the development of Will and redevelopment properties. 41 1 1 July 19, 1994 The debate over these issues has involved neighborhood organizations, representatives of the business and development industry, and general citizens in a public participation process which has included a community -wide open house, town meetings, focus groups, and public hearings, as well as receiving numerous telephone calls and letters. On April 12, 1994, the City Council and Planning and Zoning Board met in joint work session on these growth management issues. The consensus of the meeting participants was that in the interim, these issues be addressed through refinements of the City's Land Development Guidance System (LDGS). During the next eighteen months, the City Council, Planning and Zoning Board, City staff, and the general public will initiate and complete the necessary planning studies and subsequent plan and plan implementation amendments which would support more permanent criteria and programs for Will, phasing, residential density and other growth management issues. The interim ordinance will not divest any existing vested property rights of preliminary PUD plans and final PUD plans which have been granted approval by the Planning and Zoning Board subsequent to the enactment of the proposed Ordinance. The amendments will become null and void as of December 31, 1995. In summary, the proposed changes to the Land Development Guidance System are as follows: 1. Increase public notice and awareness of density as a community obiective in the LDGS. Amend the Residential Density Chart in the LDGS to give more credit for being close to existing developed public facilities and major destinations such as neighborhood and community parks; schools; transit stops; sidewalks and bike paths/lanes; and neighborhood shopping centers; and, less credit for planned/undeveloped facilities and destinations. Establish a higher floor of points on the Density Chart; the proposal is to require a minimum of 60 points for six or fewer dwelling units per acre. In effect, any development would have to be much better located according to City policies in order to proceed. The specifics of these amendments are as follows: 1 42 1. 2 July 19, 1994 Attachment A. Amend the ALL DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA by adding a new "community -wide criterion" which fully describes the intent and objective of the existing, minimum density requirement of 3 du/ac, including guidelines for implementation and interpretation. HLiacnmenv v. • Amend criterion "a." (proximity to a neighborhood shopping center) and add a new criterion to distinguish credits for close proximity to "existing" versus "planned" neighborhood shopping centers (the term "planned" refers to having Overall Development Plan or preliminary PUD plan approval), as follows: Max Credit 20% a. 2000 feet of an existing neighborhood shopping center; or Max Credit 10% 2000 feet of an approved, but not constructed neighborhood shopping center. • Amend criterion "b" (transit) to raise the maximum credit from 10 percentage points to 20 percentage points for being within 650 feet of an existing transit stop (available only to projects having a density of 6 or more dwelling units per acre), as follows: Max Credit 20% b. "650 feet of an existing transit stop(applicable only to projects having a density of at least six (6) dwelling units per acre on a gross acreage basis). • Amend criterion "d." (neighborhood park, community park or community facility) and add a new criterion to distinguish credits for close proximity to publicly owned "developed" versus "undeveloped" public parks; and, delete reference to "community facility" as a source of points, as follows: Max. Credit 20Y "d. 3500 feet of a publicly owned and developed neighborhood or community park; or Max. Credit 10% 3500 feet of a publicly owned, but not developed, neighborhood or community park. 43 ' July 19, 1994 3. • Amend criterion "e." (public schools) to clarify that credit is only given for proximity to an "existing" school site, and increase the maximum walking distance for credit from 1000 feet to 2500 fe6t, as follows: Max. Credit 10% g. 2500 feet of an existing school, meeting all requirements of the State of Colorado for compulsory education laws. • Add a new bonus criterion "v." which awards points to developers who provide connections between on -site bicycle and pedestrian systems and the off -site city-wide system and destination points as follows: "v. If the applicant commits to providing adequate, safe and convenient pedestrian and bicycle connections between the project and any of the destination points described below, calculate the bonus as follows: 5% For connecting to the nearest, existing city sidewalk and bicycle path/lane; 5% For connecting to any existing public school, park and transit stop within the distances as defined in this Density Chart; 5% For connecting to an existing City bicycle trail which is adjacent to or traverses the project. "2. DOES THE PROJECT EARN THE MINIMUM PERCENTAGE POINTS AS CALCULATED ON THE FOLLOWING "DENSITY CHART" FOR THE PROPOSED DENSITY OF THE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT? The required earned credit for a residential project shall be based on the following: 60 percentage points = 6 or fewer dwelling units per. acre 60 - 70 percentage points = 6 7 dwelling units per acre 70 - 80 percentage points = 7 8 dwelling units per acre 80 - 90 percentage points = 8 9 dwelling units per acre 90 -100 percentage points = 9 or more dwelling unit per acre 100 or more percentage points = 10 more dwelling units per acre" PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD RECOMMENDATION On June 27, 1994, the Planning and Zoning Board recommended approval (4-2) of the proposed amendments. However, the Board expressed general concerns about the amendments as follows: . 1 44 July 19, 1994 ' Incremental changes to the City's growth management tools and policies also have regional impacts -- regulations which increase the cost of development or make development more difficult are having the effect of forcing development to Timnath, Windsor and unincorporated areas of Larimer and Weld counties where development is not as costly or difficult. Regional cooperation is essential. • Incremental changes to the City's growth management tools and policies may have other unintended effects like .discouraging development to the north. Encouraging phasing and infill needs to be looked at comprehensively -- the proposed changes to the LDGS are "bandaids". • Infi11 development, redevelopment and new development near existing rural subdivisions will likely continue to be the most controversial projects. If infill, redevelopment and urban density projects are public objectives, the City will need to be prepared to make decisions that might be unpopular with the immediate neighborhood. The Board has not reviewed the new bonus criterion "v" as it was added to the proposed Ordinance subsequent to the Planning and Zoning Board's meeting. However, the Board recommended that a requirement similar to criterion "v" be imposed as a mandatory requirement, so staff believes that it would not be ' necessary to resubmit that requirement to the Board in its present form as a voluntary "bonus" criterion. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the proposed Ordinance." Director of Community Planning and Environmental Services Greg Byrne gave a brief staff presentation outlining the history and background of the item. He stated sprawling, low density development is expensive to serve and maintain and spoke of different options. Assistant Planning Director Joe Frank gave a detailed description of phasing criteria and clarified the proposed ordinance is not a moratorium on residential building. He spoke of density issues and of amendments to the density chart. Councilmember Apt, Chair of the Growth Management Committee, spoke of the need to monitor growth and reemphasized that there is not a moratorium for residential construction. He spoke of the possibility of offering incentives for infill. Councilmember McCluskey spoke of the importance of public input and urged those in attendance to express their concerns. Councilmember Apt made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Janett, to adopt Ordinance No. 114, on First Reading. ' 45 I July 19, 1994 Les Corum, 1305 Remington, stated a moratorium was not the answer to the problem and spoke of the need for further research. Don Jackson, a Fort Collins realtor, spoke of the LDGS point system and stated the concept of limited growth was outrageous. Craig Howe, real estate broker with the Group, Inc., stated staff was correct about problems with the LDGS regarding infill. He read a letter written by him and his colleagues which strongly opposed the ordinance. He suggested adoption of the criterion might be in violation of State Fair Housing Laws. Roger Prenzlow, a Fort Collins resident, urged Council to amend the ordinance to allow growth in the northeast part of the City, and stated a moratorium would cause a greater impact on the northeast area. Peggy Sage, a Fort Collins resident, stated she was concerned with the manner in which growth occurs and stated she believed the process could be completed in 6 months. She requested Council table discussion on the item. Jim Pounds, 1112 Columbine Court, stated adoption of the ordinance would put housing out of reach for young families and urged its defeat. Yolanda C. Nicely, 300 E. Harmony Road, believed a moratorium would stop business and jobs and threaten the survival of working class citizens. She urged Council to defeat the motion. Carter Ewing, Fossil Creek Estates developer, opposed the ordinance. He stated the reason infill sites are not developed is due to the expense of the land. He suggested Council consider developments in various natural areas. William Harper, 2201 Karakul Drive, opposed the ordinance and spoke of the differences in housing and shopping center developments. Len Lumens, 323 Garfield, commended staff and the Planning and Zoning Board for writing the ordinance stating it was needed so that growth management could be studied further. He emphasized the proposed ordinance was not similar to the one that was adopted in Boulder and urged adoption of the ordinance. Scott Mason, 861 Sandy Cove Lane and President of Citizen Planners, stated Citizen Planners strongly urged Council to adopt the ordinance and commended Council and staff for their efforts. Jeffrey Wolf, 1225 Mansfield Drive, expressed his opposition to the proposed growth amendment, stating if the motion were adopted it would deprive people of their choices for uses of their property. He stated if the ordinance was adopted land prices would increase. 46 July 19, 1994 ' Janet McNulty, 1506 Shadow Mountain Court, stated that Council needs to examine the issue further before adopting the ordinance and spoke of the need for growth management. Steven Zivon, 2837 Zendt and a member of the focus group that discussed the issue, stated the quality of life will be changed by forcing higher densities and spoke of the hidden costs for infill projects. He commented passage of the ordinance will drive up the costs for housing and development and asked that sales tax revenues and employment issues is researched before the ordinance is adopted. He emphasized this ordinance was discussed by the task force but not supported. Ray Spencer, President of Fort Collins Homebuilders Association and member of the focus group, concurred with the comments from Mr. Zivon that the group did not support the ordinance. Speaking on behalf of the Homebuilders Association, he commented that member opposed the ordinance and stated infill sites have not been developed due to economic reasons and constraints regarding topography, infrastructure costs, drainage, utility and neighborhood compatibility problems. He urged Council to delay action until more studies are completed regarding market influences. Rick Garhart, owner of Bear Construction, spoke of labor and job impacts if the ordinance is adopted. I Lloyd Wilson, Broker of American Connection Real Estate, stated he believed this was a knee jerk reaction to growth concerns. Jay Stoner, a Fort Collins Realtor, opposed the ordinance and urged Council to table the issue for further discussion. Loring Knutson, 4625 Regency Drive, opposed the ordinance and spoke of potential impacts on the City if the ordinance is passed. John Roehrig, 1800 Wallenburg Drive, vice-president of the Prospect Shields Street Neighborhood Association and member of the previously mentioned task force, spoke in support of the ordinance and urged its adoption. Craig Larson, 2825 Eastborough Drive, stated the only people who will benefit from the ordinance are those who own infill property, noting that the price of the land would escalate. Eldon Ward, planning consultant for Cityscape Urban Design, opposed the ordinance stating he did not believe the ordinance was ready for adoption. He questioned what would become of projects that are in the middle of the process. Glen Colton, a Fort Collins resident, commended staff and Council for its efforts and stated he supported the ordinance. July 19, 1994 Larry Miller, 1753 Concord Drive, stated he saw the issue as a no growth issue and opposed the ordinance. Larry Stroud, a Fort Collins Realtor, clarified he does not deal with residential development and has nothing to gain by his objection to adoption of the ordinance. He suggested Council consider prorating impact fees and impose a moratorium on further changes to the LDGS for 18 months. Lester Litton, 2909 Mount Royal Court, thanked staff for its efforts and questioned Council's goal regarding infill projects. Sam Hamlin, a Fort Collins resident, spoke in opposition to the ordinance. Byron Collins, Paragon Point developer, opposed the ordinance and spoke of the need to hold further discussions. Dick Sherman, a Fort Collins realtor, opposed changes to the Land Development Guidance System stating if the ordinance is adopted the price of the land will increase which will make it impossible for people to live in Fort Collins. He urged Council to table the item for further discussion. Andrea Olson, employee of Mountain Plains Property Management, stated Council ' needs to think about additional housing for college students so there is more room for families. Melanie Hunt, vice-president of the Fort Collins Chamber of Commerce, spoke of the impact the ordinance will have if adopted, noting the potential for loss of employment. She asked Council to table the item stating she believed the ordinance is directly opposed to some of Council goals. 1 Tom Honn, 1601 Quail Hollow Drive, opposed the ordinance but spoke in support of a land -use system that would address infill development. He stated the ordinance does not address basic concerns regarding air quality, transportation impacts and congestion. Ken Anderson, 1st vice-president of the Fort Collins Board of Realtors, requested Council postpone consideration of the ordinance. John Martin, a Fort Collins resident, stated considering all the opposition to the ordinance, he believed Council should allow more time for input and additional studies. Dean Smith, Manager of the Boxelder Sanitation District, expressed the Board's opposition to the ordinance. „ 48 July 19, 1994 Management Analyst Claudia Haack -Benedict spoke of the amount of room within the infill sites and spoke of the definition for infill development. She defined the term "unit", stating a unit can be a single family dwelling and/or an apartment complex. Assistant Planning Director Joe Frank spoke of incentives for growth in the north, stating incentives were in direct response from the Land -use Policies Plan which encourages growth to the north. Director of Community Planning and Environmental Services Greg Byrne stated the proposal has elements of infill and phasing and stated projections are based on current development patterns with no increase in density. He briefly outlined the point system for Council and clarified points are available for affordable housing. Frank spoke of the reasons for people not wanting to develop in the northern section of the City, citing road conditions and access to the area. Councilmember Apt stated he supported the motion and spoke of the need for affordable housing and the need to look at incentives. Councilmember Smith supported the ordinance and urged people to continue being involved. Councilmember Janett supported the motion and spoke of the need for mixed uses ' stating it will afford citizens the choice for alternative modes of transportation. Councilmember Kneeland spoke of the complexity in dealing with growth management issues. She stated it was important to continue to look at the best way to mitigate future occurrences and stated she supported the motion, with the intention that it would be interim. She spoke of the need to continue discussions regarding possible solutions. Councilmember McCluskey supported the motion and stated there would be time between first and second reading for additional public input and encouraged citizens to communicate their thoughts and ideas to Council before second reading. Councilmember Horak spoke in support of the motion and the need to build in areas that currently offer services such as shopping, schools and parks. He spoke of the expense involved in developing areas that do not offer these services. Mayor Azari supported the motion and spoke of the opportunity for debate before second reading. 49 1 July 19, 1994 The vote on Councilmember Apt's motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Apt, Azari, Horak, Janett, Kneeland, McCluskey and Smith. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Other Business Councilmember Smith spoke of concerns regarding rezoning of the previously discussed ZBA Appeal and questioned if Mr. Piccaro would be offered any options. Director of Community Planning and Environmental Services Greg Byrne stated after discussion on the item, he spoke with Mr. Piccaro regarding options and clarified staff would be meeting with him to discuss them. Councilmember Janett spoke of National Night Out participation. J Adjournment Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Smith, to adjourn to July 26 at 6:30 p.m. Yeas: Councilmembers Apt, Azari, Horak, Janett, Kneeland, McCluskey and Smith. Nays: None. ' THE MOTION CARRIED. The meeting adjourned at 12.55 a.m. , Z—,-e55� yor ATTEST: a4 �. City Clerk ' I 1 O