Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES-03/22/2011-AdjournedMarch 22, 2011 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO Council -Manager Form of Government Adjourned Meeting 7 6:00 p.m. An adjourned meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins was held on Tuesday, March 22, 2011, at 7:10 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll call was answered by the following Councilmembers: Hutchinson, Kottwitz, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Roy, and Troxell. Staff Members Present: Atteberry, Krajicek, Roy. Resolution 2011-030 Supporting the Passage of a Citizen -Initiated Ordinance Amending People's Ordinance No 2 1975 Pertaining to Construction in Library Park, Adopted The following is staff s memorandum for this item. "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Expand Our Library Committee gathered sufficient petition signatures to place a citizens initiative on the April 5, 2011 municipal ballot to modify a 1975 ordinance that limits the footprint of buildings in Library Park to 5% of the total park area. The modified ordinance would require that 85% of Library Park remain as open space with up to historic cabins and driveway/parking that have been add interior remodel and a 6,000 square foot expansion that from the library's second -floor overhangs. BACKGROUND /DISCUSSION 15% allowed for buildings, including the ed since 1975. Project plans include an will be accomplished by building down The Main Library building, constructed in 1976, is a 34,000 square foot structure that the community has outgrown. More square footage is required to meet the needs of a largerpopulation and collection. The remodel and expansion project also addresses the facility's need for modernization. The 35 year old building has undergone only minor refurbishing since its original construction. The remodel will include state-of-the-art technology, easier access to materials and redesigned space including a multi -use meeting room, expanded children's area, group and individual study rooms and a cyber cafe with vending machines. What changes will be made to the original building? The exterior design is congruous with the original building style which emphasizes horizontal and vertical lines. The newfirst floor walls below the second floor overhangs will be built with masonry 238 March 22, 2011 and light-colored glass. The windows will bring more light into the interior and allow better views of the surrounding park. What changes will be made to Library Park? The history, value and local pride associated with Library Park will be preserved. There will be strategic enhancements to the exterior walkways and landscape. The majority of existing trees will be retained. Shrub and perennial beds located along the east and south sides of the building will be renewed and enhanced after the construction is completed. FINANCIAL /ECONOMIC IMPACTS The Poudre River Public Library District will use existing funds to pay for the remodel and expansion. The District has set aside funds for this purpose and will not need additional money from taxpayers to accomplish the project. The project budget for the expansion and remodel of the Main Library is $4.2 million. A revitalized Main Library will bolster its role as a community center and destination place for downtown Fort Collins and beyond. The project will enable the library to bring community members together with expanded programming space, to better meet the increasingly diverse needs of customers and to contribute to the cultural and economic vibrancy of Fort Collins. Wendy Williams, Assistant City Manager, stated this Resolution supports a citizen initiative for a modest expansion and update to the existing downtown library. Funds for this purpose have already been set aside and the library will be a net zero energy consumption facility. Michael Liggett, Poudre River Library District Board of Trustees President, encouraged support of the Resolution. Thomas Edwards, 1101 South Bryan, supported the Resolution and library expansion. Councilmember Roy asked how the Fort Collins libraries will be successful moving into the future. Holly Carroll, Library Executive Director, replied the libraries continue to grow in terms of use, both traditionally and virtually. Councilmember Roy asked if the success of Fort Collins libraries is consistent with other libraries nationwide. Carroll replied use of Fort Collins' libraries is exceptional, though the economy has increased library use nationwide. Councilmember Manvel asked about the net zero status. Carroll replied LEED certification was explored but it was determined net zero energy would be the best use of resources. The same amount of energy will be used with the new, larger building as with the old building. Councilmember Troxell asked if the building has any historical significance. Carroll replied the look of the library will be preserved with the inclusion of more natural light. 239 March 22, 2011 Councilmember Troxell made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to adopt Resolution 2011-030. Yeas: Hutchinson, Kottwitz, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Roy and Troxell. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. Resolution 2011-031 Expressing the City Council's Support for Proposed Charter Amendment No. 1 on the April 5, 2011, Ballot, Adopted The following is staffs memorandum for this item. "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Charter Amendment No. 1 on the April 5, 2011, ballot for the regular City election would change the way in which the boundaries of City's electoral districts are established by using the total population in each district rather than the number of registered electors. This Resolution expresses the City Council 's support for that proposed amendment. BACKGROUND /DISCUSSION Historically, the City has based the determination of Council districts on the number of registered voters. This has been, in part, due to the ease in obtaining voter registration numbers vs. the difficulty in determining total population between census years. The Courts have held that a constitutionally sound redistricting, regardless of the method used, should result in only minimal deviation in total population from one district to another. During the redistricting process in the fall of 2010, discussions ensued about whether it would be administratively feasible to change Council districts on the basis of total population rather than the number of registered electors. The City Clerk's office has determined that it is administratively feasible to do so due to advances in technology that allowfor total population to be calculated more efficiently and accurately. If this Charter amendment is approved by the voters on April 5, staff will bring an ordinance to Council to amend Chapter 7 of the City Code, Section 7-87 to provide that: 1. Not less than one year after the official decennial publication of the U.S. Census concerning the population of the City of Fort Collins, the City Clerk shall recommend to the City Council any district boundary changes necessary to ensure, to the extent reasonably possible, that there is no more than a ten percent deviation between the most populous and the least populous District. 2. Not more than once every five years after making the determination required under subsection (1) above, the City Clerk shall again review the district boundaries to determine ifthe maximum deviation between the mostpopulous and the leastpopulous district exceeds Im March 22, 2011 ten (10) percent, and if so, shall recommend to the City Council any district boundary changes necessary to ensure that each district contains, as nearly as reasonably possible, an equal number of inhabitants. 3. Any changes to district boundaries shall be established by ordinance no less than one hundred and twenty (120) days before a regular municipal election. (This time period may need to be adjusted if, at the April 5, 2011 election, voters approve the implementation of ranked choice voting.) Questions have been raised by some members of the community as to the reason why the proposed Charter amendment is being presented to the electors of the Cityfor their consideration. Because of the importance of the proposed measure, City staff is recommending that the Council adopt this Resolution explaining the reasons behind the amendment and expressing the Council 's support for the measure ". City Attorney Roy stated the Charter Amendment would change the formula used for Council redistricting and would be based on total population rather than the number of registered electors. Councilmember Troxell asked how closely district boundaries align with the proposed system versus the existing system. City Clerk Krajicek replied a preliminary examination has found the changes to be very minor. Councilmember Roy made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Manvel, to adopt Resolution 2011-031. Councilmember Manvel supported the motion as Council representation should include the entire population. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Hutchinson, Kottwitz, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Roy and Troxell. Nays:.none. _ THE MOTION CARRIED. Consideration of the Appeal of the Decision by Hearing Officer on January 25, 2011, Regarding the 431 East Laurel Street Replat, and Proiect Development Plan Hearing_ Officer Decision Stands The following is staff s memorandum for this item. "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY On January 12, 2011, a public hearing was held to consider the project referred to as 431 East Laurel Street, Replat and Project Development Plan, #30-10. The Hearing Officer considered testimony from the applicant, public and staff. On January 25, 2011, the Hearing Officer approved the project, subject to four conditions. On February 9, 2011, a Notice of Appeal was received by 241 March 22, 2011 the City Clerk's Office. On February 11, 2011, the City Clerk's Office notified the appellants that the Appeal contained certain deficiencies. On March 1, 2011, the appellants filed an Amended Notice of Appeal. The appellants allege that the Hearing Officer failed to properly interpret the relevant provisions of the Land Use Code and that the Hearing Officer failed to conduct a fair hearing. BACKGROUND /DISCUSSION The project is a request to replat one existing lot, addressed as 431 East Laurel Street and containing 9,004 square feet, into two lots. Lot One would include the existing house (duplex) that fronts onto East Laurel Street and contain 5,004 square feet. Lot Two would be a vacant lot that would front onto Whedbee Street and contain 4, 000 square feet. The existing east -west alley would form the south property line of proposed Lot Two. The applicant is requesting two Modifications of Standard. The first would allow Lot Two to contain 4,000 square feet versus the minimum required lot size of 5,000 square feet. The second would allow Lot One, which contains the existing duplex, to provide zero off-street parking spaces versus the minimum required four spaces. The site is located at the southwest corner of East Laurel Street and Whedbee Street and zoned N-C-M, Neighborhood Conservation Medium Density. Since the project was submitted and at the request of the City's Technical Services Department, the name of the plat has been changed to the Rollins Subdivision. The request to subdivide 431 East Laurel Street represents the first phase of a project to ultimately construct a single family detached dwelling on a newly created lot. A Contextual Setback is proposed for the front yard along Whedbee Street. Conditions of approval are recommended in association with these requests. A final condition of approval relates to providing sufficient documents at Final Compliance in order for the project to proceed to the next step. The Current Planning Department recommended approval of the P.D.P. and Request for Two Modifications of Standard, subject to four conditions. Action of the Hearing Officer On January 25, 2011, the Hearing Officer approved 431 East Laurel Street Replat, Project Development Plan, #30-10, subject to the following conditions: 1. In order to mitigate concerns related to height, mass, bulk and scale, the Request for Modification of Standard to allow a 4,000 square foot lot is approved subject to the condition that the maximum allowable floor -to -area ratio be reduced from the allowable 0.50 to 0.40. 2. Prior to issuance of a building permit for Lot Two, at least two off-street parking spaces shall be provided on Lot One, and that such parking be screened from view from 425 East 242 March 22, 2011 Laurel Street by a solid wood, six-foot high fence, or by any screening device considered sufficient and mutually agreed upon by the owners of 425 and 431 East Laurel Street. 3. The front setbackfor Lot Two shall be no closer to the front property line than 10.65 feet in order to match the front setback of the main portion of the existing church located to the south across the east -west alley at 717 Whedbee Street. 4. At the time of submittal for Final Compliance Plan, a site plan shall be submitted that graphically illustrates and states in notation form the design parameters of the recommended conditions of approval and any further conditions that may be found to be appropriate the Hearing Officer. Questions Council Needs to Answer 1. Did the Hearing Officer fail to properly interpret and apply relevant laws? 2. Did the Hearing Officer fail to hold a fair hearing? ALLEGATIONS ONAPPEAL 1. Appellants' Allegation (1) — Lot Two — 4, 000 Square Feet The appellants state the granting of the Modification by the Hearing Officer to allow a 4, 000 square foot lot is detrimental to the public good and is inconsistent with the requirements of the Code. Therefore, the Hearing Officer failed to properly interpret the Land Use Code. Staff Response During the hearing, the Hearing Officer accepted the following evidence: (1) Planning Department Staff Report; (2) application, plans, maps and othersupporting documents submitted by the applicant to the City of Fort Collins; and (3) public testimony during the hearing by 29 speakers; approximately forty (40) members of the public were present. The Land Use Code, the City's Comprehensive Plan (City Plan) and the formally promulgated polices of the City are all considered part of the evidence considered by the Hearing Officer. The Hearing Officer considered the evidence presented by the applicant describing the context of the neighborhood (defined as the subject Block 157 and the surrounding eight blocks - see Attachment 4) that includes a significant number of subdivided corner lots. For example, the lot directly across the street to the east contains a house on 3,600 square feet. In addition, the other three legs ofthe Whedbee Street/East Laurel Street intersection already contain sub -divided corner lots. The Hearing Officer concluded that the platting of one additional lot, at 4, 000 square feet, would not be detrimental to the public good. In order to mitigate concerns regarding the size of the future 243 March 22, 2011 house, the Hearing Officer conditioned the approval of the Modification such that the house would be held to a maximum floor -to -area ratio of 0.40 versus the allowable 0.50 (including garage). 2. Appellants' Allegation (2) - Lot One - Number of Parking Spaces The appellants state that granting of the Modification by the Hearing Officer to reduce the number of parking spaces for Lot One from four to two was contrary to the requirements of the Land Use Code. Therefore, the Hearing Officer failed to properly interpret the Land Use Code. Staff Response The Hearing Officer inspected the site and the surrounding area and determined that two off-street spaces and two on -street spaces represented a fair and reasonable compromise. There is a fire hydrant and bus stop along the street frontage of the subject lot. Still, for the duplex (Lot One) there remains 50 feet of street frontage along East Laurel Street. For Lot Two, the bus stop is not protected by signage or red curbing and there is sufficient area for two on -street parking spaces. The neighborhood is characterized by a mix of both on -street and off-street parking. The purpose of the standard is to not create unnecessary competition for on -street parking. While it is not explicitly stated in the Land Use Code or City Code, there is an implicit expectation in neighborhoods that one can park a car on the street in front of one's house. The Modification granted by the Hearing Officer, and conditioned to require two parking spaces on the property, preserves this expectation for the neighborhood. Two on -street parking spaces, distributed along two street frontages, is a normal practice and commonly accepted. Therefore, the Hearing Officer did not fail to properly interpret the Land Use Code the granting of the Modification is not detrimental to the public good. 3. Appellants' Allegation (3) -Lot Two - Contextual Front Setback The appellants allege that the Hearing Officer committed an error in failing to apply the standards for the contextual front setback as required by the Land Use Code. Contextual front setbacks are to be evaluated within the surrounding residential neighborhood, not simply as compared to an adjacent non-residential structure. Staff Response The standard is clear. The standard states in two separate clauses, the following: "A "contextual front setback may fall at any point between the front setback required in the zone district and the front setback that exists on a lot that abuts, and is oriented to, the same street as the subject lot. " "If the subject lot is a corner lot, the "contextual" setback may fall at any point between the zone district required front setback and the front setback that exists on the lot that is abutting and oriented to the same street as the subject lot. " 244 March 22, 2011 The standard explains how to determine the context. It is precisely twice stated that the context is the abutting lot that is oriented to the same street. In the case of 431 East Laurel Street Lot Two, there is only one abutting lot that is oriented to Whedbee Street, which is the church. The context is not the surrounding residential neighborhood. The Hearing Officer correctly evaluated the request for a contextual front setback and established that the setback shall match the church. Therefore, the Hearing Officer did not fail to properly interpret the Land Use Code. 4. Appellants' Allegation (4) -Lot Two -Contextual Front Setback The appellants allege that the Hearing Officer failed to admit relevant evidence regarding the generally accepted definition of contextual setbacks, specifically a letter outlining the issue from the Colorado Historical Society. Staff Response The Hearing Officer did not fail to admit evidence. In fact, the Hearing Officer did indeed accept into the record correspondence from Mr. Roger Reed (Attachment 7). This correspondence consisted of a fax cover sheet followed by two photo copied pages from a document titled "The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties ". Page one is title page and page two is a list of recommended and not recommended practices titled "Design for the Replacement of Missing Historic Features. " Historic preservation standards are found in Section 3.4.7 of the Land Use Code. Article Three of the Land Use Code contains general provisions that are applicable on a citywide basis and not zone specific. Section 3. L I is the applicability statement for Article Three and explicitly exempts single family dwellings from the purview of Article Three when such homes are permitted as an allowable use subject Basic Development Review per Article Four N-C-Mzoning. For example, a new single family detached dwelling was constructed at 805 Smith Street and was not subjected to historic preservation review. Further, there have been numerous additions and garages constructed in the neighborhood that have not be so reviewed. Such would also be the case with the future review of a new house on Lot Two of 431 East Laurel Street Subdivision. The Hearing Officer considered both the written (attached) and verbal testimony of the City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Planner. The written testimony states: "There is no requirement in the Land Use Code requiring Historic Preservation review of the subdivision of land or setbacks. " Therefore, the Hearing Officer did not fail to admit relevant evidence and did not fail to conduct a fair hearing with regard to the evaluation, decision and condition of approval of the front setback along Whedbee Street. 245 March 22. 2011 5. Appellants' Allegation (5) — Deed Restriction The appellants state that the Hearing Officer failed to require, as part of his approval of the Modification pertaining to minimum lot size, a deed restriction that would mandate only one residential unit, versus a duplex, on Lot Two. Staff Response It is not clear what is being alleged. There is no reference to either a failure to interpret and apply a relevant Code provision or whether there was a failure to conduct a fair hearing. Generally speaking, land use regulation and zoning enforcement are based on the various codes as specifically adopted by the City Council by Ordinance. In order to meet the objectives of rational land use regulatory system, City Council relies upon the various adopted codes and not on deed restrictions. If there is a valid public purpose to a regulation, then it is found in an Ordinance and applied equally across the entire City. Applying deed restrictions to individual properties on a case - by -case basis has never been the practice of the City of Fort Collins. As to the allegation, there is no evidence in the record that the Hearing Officer failed to interpret and apply a relevant code provision and did not fail to conduct a fair hearing. 6. Appellants' Allegation (6) -Petition The Hearing Officer failed to properly consider the opposition of over 100 residents of the surrounding neighborhood who signed a petition opposing the Modification requests of the applicant. Staff Response There is no evidence in the public record that the Hearing Officer failed to properly consider opposition to the Requests for Modification. In fact, the Hearing Officer's decision includes a detailed discussion of each Modification. For example, for the Modification pertaining to minimum lot size, the Hearing Officer added a condition of approval that the maximum allowable f oor-to-area ratio shall be reduced from 0.50 to 0.40. Similarly, for the Modification pertaining to the number of off-street parking spaces, the Hearing Officer denied the request to provide zero spaces. Instead, the Hearing Officer required the provision of two spaces and further conditioned that such spaces be adequately screened. These two conditions are evidence that the Hearing Officer did in fact consider testimony opposing the two Modifications. Further, the Hearing Officer accepted into the record the petition and considered the public testimony of 29 speakers. Therefore, the Hearing Officer did not fail to conduct a fair hearing with regard to considering opposition to the two Requests for Modification. 246 March 22, 2011 7. Appellants' Allegation (7) — City Plan and Sub -Area Plan The appellants allege that decision of the Hearing Officer is contrary to Council policies contained in (a) City Plan 2004 and (b) in the East Side Neighborhood Plan adopted in 1986. (a) City Plan: "New buildings in existing neighborhoods will be designed to incorporate or improve upon essential positive qualities for residents, such as proportion and shape, pattern of buildings and yards, orientation to the street, and building materials and styles. " (p. 31) "The character of stable residential neighborhoods should be preserved through neighborhood planning, assistance to neighborhood organizations, and supportive regulatory techniques. " (p. 117) "...The City will follow specific design standards for infill development and redevelopment with an emphasis in protecting existing residential neighborhood character. " (p. 163-4) Staff Response City Plan recognizes the value of stable residential neighborhoods. The N-C-Mzone district was established to implement the City Plan and these policies are manifested in the form of permitted uses and development standards. With regard to the policies citied by the appellants, there is no evidence in the record to suggest that a new house on Lot Two, especially as conditioned by the Hearing Officer not to exceed 0.40 foor- to-area ratio (including garage), would not be designed to comply with the proportion, shape, street orientation as found in the surrounding neighborhood. The applicant offered, by way of example, numerous corner lots that have been similarly divided such that the new lot is 4, 000 square feet or less. No evidence is offered indicating that the Hearing Officer failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Land Use Code. (b) East Side Neighborhood Plan "Any new construction or renovation should respect the character and architectural style of its immediate surroundings. " (p. 20) "A change of use may be deemed appropriate if it conforms to the surrounding neighborhood character, including, but not limited to: scale; mass; building separation; buildingplacement; building height; finish materials; and architectural style... " (p. 23) 247 March 22, 2011 "The preservation and enhancement of the existing housing stock in these areas is a key element of this Plan. All other policies affecting the East Side Neighborhood should be evaluated as to their impacts on the stability of the existing residential areas designated for Neighborhood Preservation. " (p. 23) "Property owners doing major additions, remodeling, or new construction should be encouraged to take care that the resulting exterior treatment (scale, mass, building height, and material(s) and architectural style is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. " (p. 35) Staff Response There is no evidence to suggest that a new house on Lot Two would not respect the character and architectural style of the neighborhood. The request to divide the existing lot is not a change of use. Neighborhood stability is more typically impacted by rezonings or changes of use, not the addition of a single family detached house. The applicant presented into the record an example of the type of house contemplated for Lot Two. This example, while illustrative only, indicates that the applicant has been encouraged to take care that exterior treatment (scale, mass, building height and materials) would be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Finally, no evidence is offered indicating that the Hearing Officerfailed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Land Use Code. 8. Appellants' Allegation (8) -Potential Conversion to Four Plex The appellants allege that the subject property received preferential treatment over the past years with regard to conversion to a duplex. And, potentially, this 9, 000 square foot lot could, ultimately, contain up to four units. Staff Response With regard to the conversion of the existing house into a duplex, the Hearing Officer never indicated that such conversion factored into his decision. There is no specific allegation or reference to the public record that the Hearing Officer failed to properly interpret and apply the relevant Code provisions, or whether the Hearing Officer failed to conduct a fair hearing in the consideration of 431 East Laurel Project Development Plan #30-10. With regard to the potential of a duplex being constructed on Lot Two, such a request would be required to comply with all pertinent standards of the Land Use Code, as would any of the other permitted uses allowed in the N-C-M zone as part of a Basic Development Review. The list of allowable uses is stated in Section 4.8(B) of the Land Use Code and not at issue. - 9. Appellants' Allegation (9) - Setting a Precedent The appellants allege that this is a precedent —setting issue and that if upheld, the decision of the Hearing Officer could open up potentially hundreds of corner lots in the East Side and West Side Ira March 22, 2011 neighborhoods to similar minor subdivisions and conversions contrary to established City policies and plans. Staff Response With regard to the potential of setting a precedent for future land divisions, there is no specific allegation or reference to the public record that the Hearing Officer failed to properly interpret and apply the relevant Code provisions, or whether the Hearing Officer failed to conduct a fair hearing. As with any future Request for Modification, evaluation and consideration would be required to be on the individual merits based on the specific criteria stated in Section 2.8.2(H). 10. Appellants' Allegation (10) — Code Interpretation The appellants allege that the Hearing Officer failed to properly interpret and apply the Code. Staff Response The appellants do not list any specific Code provisions that the Hearing Officer failed to properly interpret and apply. There is no evidence in the record that the Hearing Officer failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Land Use Code. 11. Appellants' Allegation (11) — Fair Hearing The appellants allege that the Hearing Officer failed to conduct a fair hearing. Staff Response The appellants do not list any specific examples of how the Hearing Officer failed to conduct a fair hearing. There is -no evidence in the record that the Hearing Officer failed to conduct a fair hearing. 12. Appellants' Allegation (12) — Conflict of Interest The appellants allege that the City staffplanner involved in the subject application did not disclose a potential conflict of interest — the ownership of a similar lot which could be benefitted by a favorable outcome. Staff Response Again, it is not clear what is being alleged. There is no specific allegation that the Hearing Officer either failed to interpret and apply a relevant Code provision or whether there was a failure to conduct a fair hearing. Any allegation of a staff conflict of interest should have been filed with the City Clerk or City Attorneys Office as such an allegation would not be covered by the Land Use Code and therefore, FUG March 22, 2011 should not be included as part of Appeal of the record of public hearing for P.D.P. Further, no evidence is offered supporting the allegation. As to the claim, the staffplanner owns a corner lot. This lot, however, is zoned L-M-N, Low Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood which contains significantly different land use regulations than the N-C- M, Neighborhood Conservation Medium Density. For example, the L-M-Nzone does not contain any regulations as to minimum lot size or maximum floor -to -area ratio. The claim is found to be unrelated to 431 East Laurel Street P.D.P., not supported by the record and totally without merit. " City Attorney Roy discussed the appeal process and Council's role in the appeal. He noted there is not a verbatim transcript of the original hearing, but detailed minutes have been provided. Councilmember Manvel withdrew from the discussion of the Consideration of the Appeal of the Decision by Hearing Officer on January 25, 2011, Regarding the 431 East Laurel Street Replat, and Project Development Plan due to a potential conflict of interest. Mayor Pro Tern Ohlson asked if a campaign contribution made by one of the arguing attorneys to a Councilmember constitutes a conflict of interest. City Attorney Roy replied a Councilmember should not participate in a decision if he or she has a financial or personal interest in the outcome. The campaign contribution does not hinge upon the outcome of the hearing but the Councilmember's objectivity should not be affected. A court would likely not be persuaded that a monetary campaign contribution would induce a Councilmember to be biased but the parties -in - interest should be given a chance to object to participation by that Councilmember. Mayor Hutchinson asked the appellants and opponents to speak to the sufficiency of the hearing minutes and the campaign contribution issue. Tim Dow, appellants' attorney, did not object to the participation of the Councilmember receiving the campaign contribution and stated the City Ordinance requires a transcript of the hearing rather than a summary. The summary failed to mention a few items which will be discussed further. Lucia Liley, applicants' attorney, did not object to the summary minutes or to the inclusion of other information from the hearing deemed omitted by the appellants. She stated she had not made a campaign contribution. Mayor Pro Tern Ohlson stated Mr. Dow contributed to Councilmember Troxell's campaign. Ms. Liley did not object to Councilmember Troxell's participation in the proceedings. City Attorney Roy asked if Mr. Dow would be offering written or oral evidence to supplement the hearing minutes. Mr. Dow replied he would be offering oral evidence in summary fashion from Steve Mack, appellant. City Attorney Roy asked if Ms. Liley would object to supplementing the record with the oral evidence. Ms. Liley stated she would not object, assuming the evidence was originally presented at the hearing. 250 March 22, 2011 Mayor Hutchinson asked the appellants to submit their clarifications. Steve Mack, 420 East Laurel, appellant, offered information regarding omissions from the hearing summary minutes. He stated Ted Shepard, Chief Planner, has a potential conflict of interest as he owns a corner lot in the area and has the potential to benefit from the outcome. There was no mention in the summary of the contextual setback argument and the differences between the existing Code and the accepted definition from a historical perspective. A letter from the Colorado Historical Society was not allowed into evidence at the original hearing. Mack stated he discussed a conversation with Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator, regarding the original granting of duplex status to 431 East Laurel. Because the applicant is applying for a Subdivision, the granting of that status is re -set. Mack stated he requested the Hearing Officer place a deed restriction preventing the new structure from being converted to a duplex as this decision is precedent -setting. Also omitted was a chart completed by Lisa Demberg, appellant, summarizing the floor area ratios of existing corner lots. Mack stated he would like the aforementioned chart as well as the letter from the Colorado Historical Society accepted into evidence. The chart was offered to the Hearing Officer and the letter was verbally discussed, though not physically submitted. Ms. Liley stated she objected to the Colorado Historical Society letter as it was not submitted at the hearing. Mr. Dow stated the letter should have been received by the Hearing Officer and was accurately verbally summarized by Mr. Mack at the hearing. Mayor Hutchinson stated the letter would not be allowed into evidence. City Attorney Roy stated the Colorado Historical Society letter would be preserved as appellants' Exhibit A for any potential court appeal. Mr. Dow stated one other item was submitted at the hearing but was not included in the Council packet. Lisa Demberg, 425 East Laurel, submitted a chart containing information on corner lot subdivisions and corresponding floor area ratios. Ted Shepard, Chief Planner, stated the chart, if it was physically submitted, was not returned to the Current Planning Department upon learning of the appeal. Shepard stated the data was referenced but he did not recall the actual chart being submitted. Ms. Liley stated her clients do recall the discussion and a document but were unsure if it was submitted. However, they have no objection to submitting the document into the record. Shepard gave the staff presentation and discussed the original application. Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson stated he visited the site with Mayor Hutchinson and Councilmember Troxell. Councilmember Troxell discussed the value of the site visit and the possible undergrounding of utilities and removal of a tree. 251 March 22, 2011 Appellant Presentation Mr. Dow, appellants' attorney, stated the appellants are requesting the Land Use Code be enforced and no variance be allowed as exceptional physical conditions are not grounds for a variance. He stated the Hearing Officer's decision to grant the variance appeared to be arbitrary. The only subdivision occurring in the area since the 1950's was the subdivision of one lot into two to separate two existing dwellings onto two lots; therefore, this will be a precedent -setting decision. Ms. Liley objected to an appellants' exhibit referencing corner lots. Mayor Hutchinson disallowed the appellants' exhibit. Mr. Dow stated a petition signed by over 100 area residents in opposition has been submitted. Mr. Mack stated an error exists in the Staff Report and Hearing Officer's Facts and Findings identifying two dwellings as single-family residences when, in fact, they are both undeclared duplex units; therefore the correct density is not reflected. He expressed concern the applicant has received preferential treatment and asked that the subdivision be denied, or at least deed restricted to keep the new dwelling from being a duplex. Mr. Mack stated he had a discussion with Clark Mapes in Advance Planning regarding the existing duplex and Mr. Mapes expressed surprise the duplex was allowed. City Attorney Roy noted it is not within his purview to raise objections should new evidence be introduced; the opposing side must make those objections. Mayor Hutchinson asked that Council disregard the evidence relating to Mr. Mack's conversation with Mapes. Ms. Demberg read a letter from Terry Opgenorth, co -appellant, opposing the subdivision. Applicant Presentation Ms. Liley, applicant/owner attorney, expressed concern regarding defects found in the Notice of Appeal filed by the appellants. The Hearing Officer found the plan, as submitted, would not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code, except in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered from the perspective of the entire development plan. A substantial number of the corner lots within 8 blocks of this property have been subdivided and have two dwellings on them. The Hearing Officer stipulated the creation of one off-street parking space for the new dwelling as well as the addition of two new off-street parking spaces for the existing duplex. Dave Dunn, property owner at 503 Mathews, supported the applicant and the property subdivision. Troy Jones, 2826 Sitting Bull Way, supported the applicant and the property subdivision and stated the notice of appeal did not include significant support for its arguments. 252 March 22, 2011 Dave Lingle, 517 East Laurel, supported the applicant and the property subdivision as this project supports the idea of infill and quality redevelopment. Jeff Down, 519 Locust Street, supported the applicant and the property subdivision. Richard Taranow, 1200 South College, supported the applicant and the property subdivision. Appellant Rebuttal Mr. Dow requested he be able to make an offer of proof of appellants' exhibits A through G. City Attorney Roy replied those documents will be held in the event of a court appeal and it is the Mayor's prerogative as to whether or not to receive those exhibits as they were deemed by the City Attorney's Office to not fall within the requirements of new evidence. Mayor Hutchinson disallowed the exhibits as part of evidence. Mr. Dow asked for a show of hands of audience members in support of the appeal. He requested Council enforce the Land Use Code and deny the subdivision. Jean Foley, 717 Peterson, asked why the burden of proof regarding lot size appears to be falling to opponents of the subdivision rather than falling to the applicants to prove how a 4,000 square foot lot size improves the neighborhood. Chris Head, 631 Whedbee, objected to the subdivision and asked for Council support of existing residents. Barbara Liebler, 710 Mathews, objected to the subdivision. Dana Hoag, 415 Laurel, objected to the subdivision and asked if a 4,000 square foot lot meets the neighborhood purpose of a 5,000 square foot lot. He stated most of the attendees at the hearing were opposed to the subdivision. Kevin Colby, 715 Smith, objected to the subdivision. Eric Hermann, 722 Whedbee, objected to the subdivision. Applicant Rebuttal Ruth Rollins, applicant, discussed nearby properties and the proposal, noting some nearby lots are roughly 4,000 square feet. She stated the dwelling will be in character with the neighborhood. ("Secretary's note: The Council took a brief recess at this point in the meeting.) Councilmember Roy asked why this application was heard before a Hearing Officer rather than the Planning and Zoning Board. Shepard replied this is a Type I review, a permitted use in the zone district subject to administrative review. 253 March 22, 2011 Mayor Hutchinson asked if Council should consider the appellant's claim that preferential treatment has been granted to the applicants. Paul Eckman, Deputy City Attorney, replied the issue is not relevant. Mayor Pro Tern Ohlson asked about the 10-foot versus 15-foot setback for the proposed dwelling. Shepard replied the 15-foot setback is the requirement for the zone, however, the 10-foot setback is contextual based on the structures on the block face. Mayor Pro Tern Ohlson stated modifications should be rare and occur only under special circumstances and asked for a justification for the hardship basis of the modification. Shepard replied the justification for the modification was not hardship, but rather the nominal and inconsequential justification, in Section 2.8.2(H), which is one of four justifications. Councilmember Roy asked how negative impacts could be deemed inconsequential. Shepard replied staff examined the neighborhood and found, within 9 blocks of the site, 24 of the 36 corner lots had been divided. Councilmember Roy asked how many of those 24 had been subdivided prior to the Land Use Code being in place. Shepard replied he was unsure, but the Gallaghan Subdivision, at the southeast corner of Laurel and Peterson, was done recently. Councilmember Roy stated determining if the Land Use Code has been followed is more important than matching existing character when the Land Use Code was not in place when most of the subdivisions occurred. Mayor Hutchinson asked how Council should consider neighborhood character. Dush replied the lot is part of the Laurel School historic area but the request is for a modification, of which only one of four findings is necessary for approval. Mayor Hutchinsonasked for an explanation of the difference between a variance and a modification of standard. Eckman replied the Land Use Code provides for modifications of standard under the planning process and a variance under the Zoning Board of Appeals process. The standards are similar for both. Councilmember Kottwitz asked about other corner lots with two dwellings that are not split into two lots. Dush replied there may be non -conforming units, or unidentified dwelling units, staff is unaware of. Shepard replied there are a few lots that have more than one address on an undivided lot. Councilmember Troxell asked about the appellants' arguments from a City Plan perspective rather than a Land Use Code perspective. Eckman replied City Plan and subarea plans are part of the City's Comprehensive Plan, out of which come regulations. The Land Use Code is the governing document regarding regulations; City Plan is not a regulatory document. 254 March 22, 2011 Mayor Hutchinson asked what consideration should be given to petitions. Eckman replied petitions are demonstrations of support for both sides; however, this is a decision for Council to make based upon Land Use Code criteria. Councilmember Roy made a motion, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson, to remand the item back to the Hearing Officer for failure to conduct a fair hearing by failing to receive all relevant evidence. Councilmember Kottwitz asked for additional information. Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson replied there appeared to be evidence not accepted into the record. Councilmember Troxell asked what materials specifically were withheld. Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson asked Ms. Demberg to respond. Ms. Demberg replied she prepared a chart which she entered into the conversation with, and presented to, the Hearing Officer. That chart was not in the materials returned by the Hearing Officer so it is unclear whether or not it was considered. Ms. Liley stated the applicants have already stated they do not object to the chart being entered into evidence. Councilmember Roy asked how a summary report is vetted in comparison to a verbatim transcript. City Attorney Roy replied each party was given the opportunity to comment on the accuracy of the summary report and Council should base its decision on whether or not the hearing was fair based upon the information it has. Councilmember Roy asked who was responsible for compiling the summary report. Shepard replied he took notes at the public hearing and subsequently transcribed them. Councilmember Roy and Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson withdrew the motion. Councilmember Troxell made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kottwitz, that the Hearing Officer did not fail to conduct a fair hearing. Yeas: Hutchinson, Kottwitz, Ohlson, Poppaw, Roy and Troxell. Nays: none. City Attorney Roy clarified the issue may only be remanded only if Council identifies a particular issue not fully explored. Otherwise, Council should either overturn or modify the decision. Councilmember Roy made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to overturn the decision of the Hearing Officer for failure to properly interpret the Land Use Code due to his finding regarding Section 4.8(D)(1) that decreasing the lot size is nominal and inconsequential. Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson stated modifications to the Code should be rare and use for obvious reasons. Councilmember Roy noted none of the requested modifications are included in either the applicable sub -area plan or the Land Use Code and it is not inconsequential to ignore those pre -determined goals and standards. 255 March 22, 2011 Councilmember Troxell stated the nominal and inconsequential argument was not presented by the appellants and staff found this modification to be well within the standards of the Land Use Code. Mayor Hutchinson noted it is proper to consider the neighborhood when making a decision. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Ohlson, Poppaw and Roy. Nays: Hutchinson, Kottwitz and Troxell. THE MOTION FAILED TO PASS AND THE DECISION OF THE HEARING OFFICER STANDS. Extension of the Meeting Councilmember Roy made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to extend the meeting past 10:30 p.m. Yeas: Hutchinson, Ohlson, Poppaw and Roy. Nays: Kottwitz and Troxell. Items Relating to the Green Building Program, Adopted on Second Reading The following is staff s memorandum for this item. "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 030, 2011, Amending Chapter 5, Article II, Division 2, of the City Code for the Purpose of Amending the 2009 International Building Code as adopted. B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 031, 2011, Amending Chapter 5, Article II, Division 2, of the City Code for the Purpose ofAmending the 2009 International Energy Conservation Code as Adopted. C. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 032, 2011, Amending Chapter 5, Article II, Division 2, of the City Code for the Purpose ofAmending the 2009 International Residential Code as Adopted. D. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 033, 2011, Amending Chapter 5, Article IV, of the City Code for the Purpose ofAmending the 2009 International Mechanical Code as Adopted. E.. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 034, 2011, Amending Chapter 5, Article IV, of the City Code for the Purpose ofAmending the 2009 International Fuel Gas Code as Adopted. F. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 035, 2011, Amending Chapter 5, Article V of the City Code for the Purpose of Repealing the Uniform Plumbing Code and Adopting a Local Amendment to the Colorado Plumbing Code to Establish Water Flow Rate Restrictions on Certain Fixtures. 256 March 22, 2011 Implementation of the Fort Collins Green Building Program has the primarygoal of better aligning the built environment with community goals of reduced carbon emissions, reduced energy use and reduced water use. The Green Building Program framework is designed to support market transformation through a combination of regulatory and voluntary elements. These Ordinances, adopted on FirstReading by a vote of 5-2 (Nays: Kottwitz, Troxell) incorporate a package of "green amendments "into the Fort Collins Building Code. Theproposed amendments address opportunities with regard to resource efficiency, energy efficiency, water efficiency, indoor and outdoor environmental quality, and buildings operation and maintenance. BACKGROUND /DISCUSSION A number of minor changes have been made in the Ordinances considered on First Reading, based on ongoing review by staff and are intended to consolidate and clarify areas ofpotential confusion. The key substantive changes are as follows: Improve consistency between parallel Codes that address different types of buildings. For example, the commissioning requirement for heating/ventilation/air conditioning systems included in the International Residential Code (applicable to single-family detached homes, duplexes and townhouses) was added to the International Mechanical Code (applicable to multifamily residential buildings) so there is internal consistency across the different codes. Clarify applicability ofparticular amendments to existing buildings. In some instances the First Reading language was unclear as to whether the proposed amendments were intended to apply in a limited manner or not at all to building alterations or additions to existing buildings. The Ordinance language has been modified to make this distinction clear, in a manner consistent with the description of the changes that had been provided by staff Additional Information In response to questions from_ Council during the First Reading of the proposed ordinances, staff is providing additional information: Residential green building practices considered but not included in the proposed green amendments. A complete list is included as Attachment 2. FundinQfor implementation support. The budget needsfor development ofsupport materials and training have been roughly estimated at $100,000. These implementation support activities will primarily take place during 2011, prior to the proposed January 1, 2012 effective date for most of the amendments. Funds to cover this are available through the Utilities 2011 Energy Services budget. Additional training will be offered in subsequent years, funded through the Utilities Energy Services budget. Resource needs for ongoing training are expected be significantly lower than in 2011. Funding for enforcement. The increased budget needs for enforcement of the proposed amendments have been estimated at $158, 000 annually for an additional staffing of]. 5full- time-equivalent positions in the Building Department. Council recently allocated funding 257 March 22, 2011 from Keep Fort Collins Great revenues to cover this increased need for 2011 and 2012 so building permit fees will not increase as a result of the green amendments. • Baseline data. A variety of data regarding Fort Collins design and construction practices were used to develop the proposed green amendments. Data sources included the following: o Technical Review Advisory Committee (TRAQ members. The residential and commercial TRAC included numerous individuals active in building design, construction and code enforcement. Their experience with current design and construction practices was part of discussions around the development of the green amendments. o New home performance surveys conducted in 1999 and 2007. These studies provided a wealth ofdata regarding design, construction practices and performance for new residential projects in Fort Collins. The first data set was published (www.fcgov.com/utilities/img/site specific/uploads/newhome-evalpdj7; the second has not been published; but the information it provides was frequently referenced during the green amendment development process. o Integrated Design Assistance Program projects. Utilities staff work closely with design teams for commercial projects receiving incentives under this program. Discussion and modeling includes the relationship between proposed designs, code requirements and current practice. Staff often has the opportunity to monitor construction practices on these projects as well. Baseline data is reflected in the "Current Practice" and "Context " sections of the Green Building Practice Summary for each proposed amendment, available at www.fcgov.com/gbp. " John Phelan, Energy Services Manager, discussed the proposed Ordinances and noted changes since First Reading include maintenance of consistency between parallel Codes that address different building types, specification of the applicability of amendments to existing buildings, and simple edits. Michael Doddridge, Homebuilders Association ofNorthern Colorado President, supported voluntary green building and energy efficient construction but did not support the Ordinances. Jeff Schneider, 755 Peregrine Run, suggested allowing an opt -out provision for owner -occupied dwellings with regard to Ordinance No. 032, 2011. Alan Cram, Building Review Board Chairperson, stated the Building Review Board did not recommend adoption of the Ordinances. There is no mechanism in the appraisal system at this time to account for green building in property values. Incentives will produce more positive results than will mandates. Councilmember Manvel noted there are many items excluded from the Ordinances. He asked for a brief explanation of LEED standards in comparison to the Ordinances. Phelan replied LEED is the leading green building program for commercial buildings. All of the proposed commercial amendments either support LEED prerequisites or gain points in terms of LEED, but would not 258 March 22, 2011 reach LEED certification alone. The national green building standard has been compared to these amendments in terms of residential dwellings. Councilmember Troxell thanked staff for including additional baseline data. He asked where the home performance survey data could be found and how it should be interpreted. Phelan replied the Technical Review Advisory Committee allowed for the involvement of community builders. Data from the first home performance survey was published and available on the City webpage. Councilmember Troxell asked what the baseline data shows. Phelan replied the building industry is continually evolving and is constantly aiming for improvement with both regulations and voluntary Codes. These proposed Code changes will have no impact on builders already going above and beyond existing Codes. Councilmember Roy made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Manvel, to adopt Ordinance No. 030, 2011, on Second Reading. Councilmember Roy noted individuals are compelled to purchase housing that is sustainable and healthy, just as they are compelled to drink clean water, and it is the responsibility of government to provide those things. Councilmember Kottwitz expressed concern the green building Codes may not be able to be properly enforced. Mayor Pro Tern Ohlson noted these amendments will not take effect until January 1, 2012. He stated the amendments are modest and appropriate for Fort Collins. Councilmember Troxell disagreed with the means of implementing the amendments and stated there is no baseline data provided. Councilmember Manvel noted these amendments are largely driven by the Climate Action Program, approved unanimously by Council in December 2008, which included promotion of sustainable practices in homes and businesses by requiring highly efficient new buildings and supporting increased efficiency in existing buildings. Councilmember Troxell stated the requirements should be incentive -based and based on the free market. Councilmember Manvel noted requirements and voluntary plans are not the same. Mayor Hutchinson stated he would support the Ordinances if it might be possible to include an opt - out provision for residential dwellings. The Climate Action Plan is simply a plan and does not include any binding provisions. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Hutchinson, Kottwitz, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Roy and Troxell. Nays: none. 259 March 22, 2011 THE MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Roy made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to adopt Ordinance No. 031, 2011, on Second Reading. Yeas: Hutchinson, Kottwitz, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Roy and Troxell. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Roy made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Manvel, to adopt Ordinance No. 032, 2011, on Second Reading. Councilmember Troxell made a motion to amend, seconded by Councilmember Kottwitz, to include a five-year opt -out provision, until 2015, for owner -occupied residential dwellings. Mayor Pro Tern Ohlson stated he would not support the amendment as there are items included in these amendments that will make homes safer in terms of indoor air quality. The vote on the amendment was as follows: Yeas: Hutchinson, Kottwitz and Troxell. Nays: Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw and Roy. THE MOTION FAILED. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw and Roy. Nays: Hutchinson, Kottwitz and Troxell. THE MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Roy made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to adopt Ordinance No. 033, 2011, on Second Reading. Yeas: Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw and Roy. Nays: Hutchinson, Kottwitz and Troxell. THE MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Roy made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to adopt Ordinance No. 034, 2011, on Second Reading. Yeas: Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw and Roy. Nays: Hutchinson, Kottwitz and Troxell. THE MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to adopt Ordinance No. 035, 2011, on Second Reading. Yeas: Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw and Roy. Nays: Hutchinson, Kottwitz and Troxell. THE MOTION CARRIED. March 22, 2011 Items Relating to the Implementation of Plan Fort Collins, Adopted on Second Reading The following is staff's memorandum for this item. "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A. Second Reading of Ordinance No, 036, 2011, Making Amendments to the Land Use Code Implementing Policies of the 2010 Update of City Plan. B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 037, 2011, Amending the Zoning Map by Changing the Name of the "Commercial District (C) " to "General Commercial District (C-G). " These Ordinances, unanimously adopted on First Reading on March 1, 2011, implement Land Use Code and Zoning Map amendments related to adoption of the update to City Plan. BACKGROUND /DISCUSSION Clarification of Revision to Ordinance No. 036, 2011, Section 3.3.12 (A), 2011— I-25/S.H. 392 Corridor Activity Center Standards. Section 3.3.12 (A) of Ordinance No. 036, 2011, is the only item that received discussion and questions by Council during First Reading on March 1. A summary of staff responses to Council follow-up questions during First Reading is included as Attachment 2. In response to input and discussion from representatives of the synthetic stucco (E.I.F.S.) trade industry, staffis recommending an amendment to Ordinance No. 036, 2011—I-251S.H. 392 Corridor Activity Center (CAC) Standards relating to Section 3.3.12 (A). The original building materials standard adopted on First Reading prohibited E.I.F.S. Staff has incorporated additional clarification in the Ordinance, identifying where other exterior building materials can be applied, including E.I.F.S. .Options include permitting other materials on the ground floor building elevations not visible from a public street, and on any additional building elevation above ground floor level. The proposed masonry standard applies to ground floor building elevations visible from a public street. This staff recommendation is based primarily on aesthetics in order to create unique and distinctive commercial development within the CAC gateway area. Staff responses to Council questions related to masonry standard rationale, comparing exterior building materials performance between E.I.F.S. and stone or brick including R-Value, durability,, energy efficiency, cost/benefit, and green building standards are included in Attachment 2. Staff has assembled a series ofphotos of both E.I.F.S. and real brick and stoneproject applications (see Attachment 3). In addition, staff has sample boards of these comparative materials for display prior to, and during the Hearing. 261 March 22, 2011 Town of Windsor Review Process On February 3, 2011, the Windsor Planning Commission approved a recommendation to the Windsor Town Board to adopt the Ordinance. On February 14, the Windsor Town Board adopted the Ordinance on First Reading. On March 14, the Windsor Town Board adopted the Ordinance as amended on Second Reading by a vote of 6-0. " Pete Wray, City Planner, stated these land use and design standards were developed as a result of direction from the Windsor Town Board and Council to provide further consistency and increased design quality for future commercial development within the corridor activity center. In response to input and discussion from representatives of the synthetic stucco trade industry, staff is recommending an amendment to the Ordinance. Nancy Partridge, Rocky Mountain Masonry Institute, Denver, supported the original version of the Ordinance, including masonry standards. Diane Travis, Rocky Mountain Masonry Institute, Denver, supported the original version of the Ordinance. Sherrie Temple, Soderberg Masonry, supported the original version of the Ordinance. Rhonda Carey, Bighorn Masonry, supported the original version of the Ordinance. Joseph Plummer, Town of Windsor Planning Director, supported the amended Ordinance. Mayor Pro Tern Ohlson asked for the reason behind the amendment. Wray replied the original masonry standard -was primarily based on aesthetics and the original Ordinance did not clearly identify where other building materials could be applied. Mayor Pro Tern Ohlson asked why these standards are not being made voluntary. Wray replied the original standard prohibited synthetic stucco in all instances; staff has since made the amendment to allow other materials on upper floors and on the first floor if not visible from public streets. Staff was asked to provide unique, quality land use and design standards for this area and therefore opted to supplement the existing standards with a short list of new standards. Councilmember Troxell asked if stucco is being used in the Lincoln Center construction and stated the amendment has struck an appropriate balance. Councilmember Roy made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Troxell, to adopt Ordinance No. 036, 2011, on Second Reading. Yeas: Hutchinson, Kottwitz, Manvel, Poppaw, Roy and Troxell. Nays: Ohlson. THE MOTION CARRIED. 262 March 22, 2011 Councilmember Roy made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Troxell, to adopt Ordinance No. 037, 2011, on Second Reading. Yeas: Hutchinson, Kottwitz, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Roy and Troxell. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. Suspension of Rules Councilmember Roy made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Manvel, to suspend the rules and extend the meeting past 12:00 a.m. Yeas: Hutchinson, Poppaw, Roy and Troxell. Nays: Kottwitz, Manvel and Ohlson. THE MOTION CARRIED. Ordinance No. 024, 2011, Amending Chapter 2, Article V, Division 3 of the City Code Pertaining to City Service Areas Adopted on Second Reading The following is staff s memorandum for this item. "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The CityManager and executive leadership team continue to examine and consider ways to enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of the City organization. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on FirstReading on March 1, 2011, implements changes to the City's internal organizational structure. These changes impact existing service areas which necessitates updates to related provisions of the City Code. BACKGROUND /DISCUSSION First Reading of Ordinance No. 024, 2011 was considered and adopted by City Council on March 1. Council requested some additional information in conjunction with Second Reading. 1. Description ofthe terms found on the City organization chartfor Service Area, Service Unit, Department and Division are as follows: a. Service Area — a group of related functions and services; the Service Area Director reports directly to the City Manager b. Service Unit — a group of related functions and services; the Service Unit Director reports to a Service Area Director C. Department — a group of related functions and services; the Department Director reports to a Service Area Director or a Service Unit Director d. Division — in the general organization, a division is a subset of a department and reports to a department director; in Fort Collins Utilities, a division is a subset of a Service Unit and reports to a Service Unit Director 263 March 22, 2011 2. Organizational Chart The chart focuses on the Service Area structure, which is the element of the organization that the City Council, in accordance with the Charter and City Code, has the power to establish, change, consolidate or abolish upon report and recommendation of the City Manager. The changes are: a. Renaming two Service Areas: Community Services renamed as Policy, Planning and Transportation Services and Internal Services renamed as Community and Operations Services. b. Establishing a new service area entitled Employee and Communication Services Three versions of the organizational chart are attached: a. A simplified version is provided that focuses specifically on the new Service Area Structure that was adopted on First Reading on March 1. The new chart shows the types of services that are provided in each Service Area as opposed to a specific listing by our internal department structure. The new Assistant to the City Manager position, which will focus on sustainability and the built environment, does not appear because it is part of the City Manager's Office rather than a Service Area. (Attachment 2) b. The revised organizational chart that was presented and adopted on First Reading on March 1, 2011. (Attachment 3) C. The current organizational chart (Attachment 4) The colors of the revised charts were changed to be more vibrant and visible. As explained at First Reading of Ordinance No. 024, 2011, this recommended organizational change is based on the changing needs of the organization, including the development of an organizational strategic planning process and implementation of a performance excellence initiative, as well as opportunities in light of upcoming retirements and anticipated changes in organizational leadership. City Manager Atteberry summarized the Ordinance changes since First Reading. Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, did not support the creation of the Assistant to the City Manager position. Mayor Pro Tern Ohlson asked for an explanation of the new positions. City Manager Atteberry replied these changes have been made as a direct result of Council direction and the passage of 2B has allowed for new expenditures. Councilmember Troxell supported the new positions and organizational changes. Councilmember Roy made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to adopt Ordinance No. 0243 2011, on Second Reading. Councilmember Roy supported the Ordinance. 264 March 22, 2011 Mayor Hutchinson supported City Manager Atteberry and his job with organizational development. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Hutchinson, Kottwitz, Manvel, Poppaw, Roy and Troxell. Nays: Ohlson. THE MOTION CARRIED. Other Business Councilmember Troxell stated he has heard a variety of concern regarding the Eastside/Westside standards implementation. He requested a date certain for review of the standards. Councilmember Kottwitz and Mayor Hutchinson supported the review and possible consideration of changes to the standards. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 12:25 a.m. i ATTEST: iv{ayor \,�yof_FoR ,,.. "'•• T p .y •z City Clerk ti or�RADO• 265