Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES-02/06/1996-RegularFebruary 6,1996 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, February 6, 1996, 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: Councilmembers Apt, Azari, Janett, Kneeland, McCluskey, Smith and Wanner. Councilmembers Absent: None. Staff Members Present: Fischbach, Krajicek, Roy. Citizen Participation David Roy, 1039 W. Mountain Ave., stated he was unhappy with the manner the Timberline extension project was proceeding. He stated the road extension was a development, not a transportation issue and stated the citizens who worked on the Choices 95 agenda did not intend for the Timberline extension to be a part of the Choices 95 project list. ' A] Baccili, 520 Galaxy Court, opposed the location of the new police station annex in the downtown area. He opposed PRPA paying dues to the Chamber of Commerce. Citizen Participation Follow-up Councilmember McCluskey stated a meeting was recently held with the residents in close proximity to the airport regarding the noise. He reported the Airport Manager called the airline responsible for the recent noise complaints and was assured it would not happen again. Councilmember Smith clarified a public outreach meeting regarding the Timberline extension would be held for interested parties. Councilmember Apt stated there was an ongoing public process for the Timberline extension. Agenda Review City Manager John Fischbach stated a settlement had been reached regarding Item #18, Resolution 96-12 Authorizing the Acquisition by Eminent Domain Proceedings of Certain Land Necessaryfor the Diversion of Stormwater Runoff Through Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal from Prospect Road to Stuart Street, and requested it be withdrawn from the Consent Agenda. He recommended �1 February 6, 1996 postponing Item #15, Resolution 96-6Allocating $235,000 of Community Development Block Grant ' (CDBG) Funds, until February 20, 1996. City Manager John Fischbach stated staff supported holding an Executive Session following Item #26, Items Relating to the Design Standards and Guidelines for the Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods, and stated that a new Agenda Item Summary has been included in Council packets. ***CONSENT CALENDAR*** 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 #22, Public Pulled Consent Items. 8. Second Reading of Ordinance No 1 1996 Authorizing the Sale to the Resource Assistance Center For Nonprofits Inc of Real Proper Known as the Eastside Venture Property. The City owns the Property and two other parcels of property located along J.F.K. Parkway which were acquired by the City as the result of nonpayment of SID assessments. Proposals were solicited for the sale of these properties. Ordinance No. 1, 1996, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on January 16, ' 1996, authorizes the sale of the property to TRAC. 9. First Reading of Ordinance No 4 1996 Appropriating_ Prior Year Reserves The funds recommended for appropriation are unencumbered funds from 1995. Appropriating these unencumbered funds does not affect the projected year-end balances presented in the adopted 1996 budget. 10. First Reading of Ordinance No 5 1996 Amending Subsection 15-412(c) of the Code of the City Pertaining to Volume Based Rates for Solid Waste Collection This wording change clarifies the amendment to the volume -based trash rates ordinance that was approved on January 2, 1996. It provides more detail about how waste haulers may charge collection fees based on the volume capacity of containers, in increments of 33 gallons, which is the standard garbage can/bag size. • • :.� •. • • i • C- • • •• 37 February 6, 1996 ' Providing Additional Amounts Needed to Construct Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements for the Choices 95 Drake/College Intersection Project The estimated cost of adding bicycle and pedestrian improvements on East and West Drake at College Avenue is $500,000. Funds to increase the College/Drake Intersection project budget by this amount are currently available as follows: 1/4 Cent Necessary Capital Projects Fund: $ 75,000 Sales and Use Tax Reserves: $175,000 Street Oversizing Fund $250,000 TOTAL $500,000 12. First Reading of Ordinance No. 7. 1996. Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to Enter into an Agreement for the Lease -Purchase Financing of Vehicles and Equipment. The City has solicited proposals from 42 firms for lease -purchase financing for the City's vehicle and equipment requirements. The proposal meeting all City requirements and offering the lowest net effective interest rate of 5.12% for seven years was received from Safeco Credit Company, Inc. Staff believes acceptance of this interest rate is in the City's ' best interest. This ordinance will authorize the Purchasing Agent to enter into a lease -purchase financing agreement with Safeco Credit Company, Inc. at 5.12% percent interest rate, for the purchase of required vehicles and equipment. The agreement shall be for an original term of one year from the execution date of the agreements. The 1996 lease -purchase payments will not exceed amounts already appropriated for 1996. The agreement provides for renewable one- year terms thereafter, subject to annual appropriation of funds needed for lease payments. The payment schedule will provide for full payment of the amount associated with each leased item within the estimated useful life of that item. This lease -purchase financing is consistent with the financial policies of the City of Fort Collins. 13. First Reading of Ordinance No 8 1996 Amending Various Sections of the Code of the City of Fort Collins Relating to the Elimination of the Office of Utility Services and the Creation of the Office of Electric Utility Services and the Office of Water. Wastewater and Stormwater Utility Services, If adopted this Ordinance will eliminate the Office of Utility Services and create two new service areas, the Office of Electric Utility Services, and the Office of Water, Wastewater, and Stormwater Utility Services. 1 38 February 6, 1996 References to Natural Resources and Streets (previously a part of Utility Services) are also t eliminated from Chapter 26 - UTILITIES, as they are now included in the. Office of Community Planning and Environmental Services, and the Office of Transportation Services, respectively. 14. First Readitia of Ordinance No. 9. 1996, Amending Division 8 of Chapter 2 of the City Code to Change the Name of .b- TV Board to the TelecommunicationsBoard Broaden The Cable TV Board was created in 1987 from a merger of the Cable Advisory Board and the Public Access Advisory Board. Since its inception in 1987, the Cable TV Board has been an effective liaison between citizens of Fort Collins and the local cable TV operator, and was instrumental in the formulation of a new cable TV franchise in 1993. As the century draws to a close however, the communications environment is dramatically changing. The coming deregulation of the telecommunications industry will almost certainly increase the number of voice, video and data providers in the Fort Collins area. Cable operators will soon be joined by wireless providers, phone companies and perhaps others who will compete for customers in the Fort Collins area. It is imperative that local government define its role with regard to telecommunications providers and in relation to such issues as right-of-way access and management, zoning requirements and others. In the context of this rapidly changing telecommunications environment, the Cable TV Board and staff believe that it is appropriate at this time to broaden the scope of the Board's advisory function to include other ' telecommunications providers in addition to cable TV. Therefore, the Board and staff recommend that the name of the Cable TV Board be changed to the Telecommunications Board and that its function be broadened to that of advising City Council on all telecommunications related issues. 15. Resolution '• • Allocating $235.000 of CommunityDevelopment Bl• •i On June 6, 1995, the City Council passed Resolution 95-76 which allocated funds from the City's Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), from the Department of Housing and Urban Development, to various applicants for the FY 1995-96 Program year. One of the projects approved for funding was a "Set -Aside for Mobile Home Park Development Assistance" in the amount of $235,000. At the start of the FY 1995-96 CDBG Program year, on October 1, 1995, the City advertised for proposals for expenditure of the available funds. Several applications were received and reviewed by the CDBG Commission which presents a recommendation for funding to the City Council. Copies of all applications were submitted earlier to the Council under separate cover. At the January 16, 1996, Council meeting, the Council tabled consideration of Resolution 96-6 pending clarification of information and issues related to relocation efforts for Pioneer , 39 February 6, 1996 residents. The Council directed staff to prepare a comprehensive review of what is being done to assist Pioneer families. Staffs report was previously distributed to the Council. The Council also requested that the agencies involved in finding options for Pioneer residents meet to discuss how to best utilize the available CDBG funds. Such a meeting was held on January 23, 1996, and the consensus of those who attended the meeting is reflected in the redrafted Resolution 96-6. 16. Resolution 96-10 Adopting the Recommendation of the Cultural Resources Board Regarding Fort Fund Disbursements, The Cultural Resources Board made several recommendations for disbursements from the City's Cultural Development and Programming Account. 17. Resolution 96-11 Authorizing the Purchase of a Rosco RA-300 Automated Pothole Patcher as an Exception to the Competitive Bid Process, The RA-300 Patcher consists of a 400 gallon asphalt tank, a large, pressurized aggregate tank, hydraulic system, air system, and controls allowing one -person operation from the truck cab; with the entire patching unit mounted on a 33,000# GVW Ford truck chassis. The asphalt is kept hot during operation using a regenerative hot water heating system. The unit has warning lights and directional arrow boards allowing safe operation in traffic. Power Motive, the sole authorized distributor for Rosco in this area, has offered the City the Rosco RA-300 for $97,755. Streets has been renting a unit from Power Motive since July of 1995 and a portion of the monthly rental will be applied toward the purchase price, resulting in a net purchase price of $83,442.19. The RA-300 patcher is among the list of items to be purchased on March 1, 1996, via the lease -purchase financing also before the Council this date. 18. Resolution 96-12 Authorizing the Acquisition by Eminent Domain Proceedings of Certain Land Necessary for the Diversion of Stormwater Runoff Through Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal from Prospect Road to Stuart Street. This parcel of land is needed to implement masterplan improvements in the Canal Importation Basin. These improvements were first authorized by City Council adoption of the masterplan entitled Volume II - Preliminary Design Report Diversion of Stormwater Runoff Through Irrigation Canals form Mulberry Street to Spring Creek Fort Collins, Colorado, dated July 1980. This masterplan calls for a diversion ditch to parallel the existing Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal from just south of Elizabeth Street to Spring Creek south of Drake Road. ,e February 6, 1996 This parcel contains approximately 1.44 acres, of which approximately .96 acres is affected by the Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal Irrigation Ditch. In addition, the site also lacks access. These two factors make the site undevelopable. This conclusion is supported by the fact the former developer and a former builder of this site let it go for tax sale in 1989 since it had no developable value. 19. Resolution '. Appointments • the Charter• n• Changing the Composition of •m Council has adopted Resolution 95-161, which created an eleven member Charter Review Committee and directed the scope of the Charter review. The proposed Resolution would reduce the composition of the Charter Review Committee from eleven to nine members, which is a change recommended by the Council Governance Committee to streamline the Charter review process. The Council Governance Committee interviewed all 20 of the applicants for the Charter Review Committee and has made recommendations to the Council concerning the appointments. The Resolution would appoint nine registered City electors to serve on the Committee until the work of the Committee is complete. 20. Resolution 96 14 Makin an Appointment to the Natural Resources Advisory Board A vacancy currently exists on the Natural Resources Advisory Board due to the resignation ' of Lisa Steffes. Councilmembers Janett and Smith reviewed the applications on file and are recommending that Linda Kirkpatrick be appointed to fill the vacant term which expires June 30, 1997. 21. Routine Deeds and Easements. A. Deed of Easement from Siena Builders Ltd., LLC, for the purpose of permanent drainage located on Blue Spruce Drive north of Conifer Street. Monetary consideration $0. B. Deed of Easement from Daniel Vogel and Richard L. Wartenbe for the purpose of permanent drainage and storm water detention located on Blue Spruce Drive north of Conifer Street. Monetary Consideration $0. C. Deed of Easement from The Ridge PUD Homeowners Association for the purpose of temporary construction and permanent drainage located south of Harmony Road and east of Regency Drive. Monetary Consideration $10. 41 1 February 6, 1996 ' D. Deed of Easement from Autozone Inc. for the purpose of detention pond drainage located on North College Avenue just south of Conifer Street. Monetary Consideration $10. E. Deed of Easement from Westbury, LLC for the purpose of permanent storm drainage located south of Harmony Road on Westbury Drive. Monetary Consideration $0. F. Deeds of Easement from R.J. DEVELCO for the purpose of permanent storm drainage located on Brewer Drive north of Conifer Street. Monetary Consideration $0. G. Deed of Easement from Pinecone-IRET, Inc. for the purpose of permanent storm drainage and permanent sewer line located on Pinecone Circle east of Timberline Road. Monetary Consideration $0. Items on Second Reading were read by title by City Clerk Wanda Krajicek. Second Reading of Ordinance No 1 1996 Authorizing the Sale to the Resource Assistance Center For Nonprofits Inc of Real Property Known as the Eastside Venture Property, ' 27. Second Reading of Ordinance No 2 1996 of the Council of the City of Fort Collins Amending Certain Criteria Contained in Section 29-526 of the City Code Which Criteria Pertain to the Review of Proposed Residential Uses under the Land Development Guidance System, Items on First Reading were read by title by City Clerk Wanda Krajicek. 9. First Reading of Ordinance No 4 1996 Appropriating Prior Year Reserves 10. First Readin$ of Ordinance No. 5.1996. Amending Subsection 15-412(c) of the Code of the City Pertaining to Volume Based Rates for Solid Waste Collection. 11. First Reading of Ordinance No 6.1996. Appropriating Funds from Prior Year Reserves and Authorizing the Transfer of Appropriated Amounts Between Funds for the Purpose of Providing Additional Amounts Needed to Construct Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements for the Choices 95 Drake/College Intersection Project, 12. First Reading of Ordinance No 7 1996 Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to Enter into an ,Agreement for the Lease -Purchase Financing of Vehicles and Equipment 42 February 6, 1996 13. First Reading of Ordinance No 8 1996 Amending Various Sections of the Code of the City ' of Fort Collins Relating to the Elimination of the Office of Utility Services and the Creation of the Office of Electric Utility Services and the Office of Water. Wastewater and Stormwater Utility Services 14. First Reading of Ordinance No 9 1996 Amending Division 8 of Chapter 2 of the City Code to Change the Name of the Cable TV Board to the Telecommunications Board and to Broaden its Function. 26. Items Relating to the Design Standards and Guidelines for the Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods, Alternative 1 A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 11, 1996 of the Council of the City of Fort Collins Adopting the 'Neighborhood Character Design Standards and Guidelines for the Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods in Fort Collins". B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 12, 1996 of the Council of the City of Fort Collins Amending the Code of the City of Fort Collins for the Purpose of Making the Enforcement of the 'Neighborhood Character Design Standards and Guidelines for the Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods in Fort Collins" Applicable to Construction on Landmarks and in Landmark Districts, New Construction and Increases in the Floor Area of Buildings in Areas Governed by Said Standards and Guidelines and for the Purpose of Providing a Method of Appeal of Staff Decisions Pertaining Thereto. Alternative 2 A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 13, 1996 of the Council of the City of Fort Collins Adopting the "Standards and Guidelines for Historic Properties" and the "Neighborhood Character Design Guidelines for the Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods in Fort Collins". B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 14, 1996 of the Council of the City of Fort Collins Amending Chapter 29 of the Code of the City by Incorporating into the Zoning Code Certain Changes for the Purpose of Promoting and Implementing the Objectives of the Eastside and Westside Neighborhood Plans. C. First Reading of Ordinance No. 15, 1996 of the Council of the City of Fort Collins Amending Chapter 14 of the Code of the City by Authorizing the Establishment of the Administrative Procedure for the Designation of Landmarks and Landmark Districts and by Providing the Landmark Preservation Commission with Additional Review Criteria. 43 ' February 6, 1996 Alternative 3 A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 16, 1996 of the Council of the City of Fort Collins Amending Section 4 of Ordinance No. 179, 1993, for the Purpose of Extending the Expiration Date of Said Ordinance until May 1, 1996. 28. First Reading of Ordinance No. 17, 1996 of the Council of the City of Fort Collins Amending Certain Sections of the City Code. and Revising Certain Related Design Criteria. Pertaining to the Design. Construction. and Maintenance of Residential Local Streets. Alleys, and Pedestrian and Bicycle Paths within the City. 29. First Reading of Ordinance No. 18, 1996, Establishing Certain Interim Standards and Guidelines for All Commercial Development, Councilmember McCluskey made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Smith, to adopt and approve all items not removed from the Consent Calendar. Yeas: Councilmembers Apt, Azari, Janett, Kneeland, McCluskey, Smith and Wanner. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. IIT. ' Chief of Police Services Fred Rainguet briefly outlined how seizure funds could be allocated and how funds from the Police Partnership Grant Program would be used. COUNCILMEMBER REPORTS Councilmember Kneeland stated the Health and Safety Committee would be meeting and would discuss a Youth Intake Facility. She asked citizens interested in being involved in the Drake Road design to come forward and participate. She reported the Neighborhood Partnership Group recently held a retreat and noted the Poudre R-1 Liaison Committee will be meeting to discuss how neighborhood schools could be utilized for neighborhood meeting places. Councilmember Apt stated the Growth Management Committee met and discussed the City Plan process and stated after discussion the Committee decided it would be beneficial to hold a public hearing regarding the City Plan document. He spoke of a recent conference he and Councilmember Janett attended discussing land use planning. Councilmember Smith spoke of the appointments made to the Charter Review Committee and of some of the issues the Committee would be reviewing. F February 6, 1996 Items Relating to the Design Standards and Guidelines for the Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods, Adopted Alternative 2 as Amended on First Reading. The following is staff's memorandum on this item. "Executive Summary ALTERNATIVES: The Council has three alternatives to consider: Alternative 1 is the original document as presented in August, 1995, which is still a viable option. This is included in the packet as Attachment A. Should the Council wish to pursue this option, the following actions are needed: A. Adopt First Reading of Ordinance 11, 1996 of the Council of the City of Fort Collins Adopting the "Neighborhood Character Design Standards and Guidelines for the Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods in Fort Collins". B. Adopt Ordinance No. 12, 1996 of the Council of the City of Fort ' Collins Amending the Code of the City of Fort Collins for the Purpose of Making the Enforcement of the "Neighborhood Character Design Standards and Guidelines for the Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods in Fort Collins" Applicable to Construction on Landmarks and in Landmark Districts, New Construction and Increases in the Floor Area of Buildings in Areas Governed by Said Standards and Guidelines and for the Purpose of Providing a Method of Appeal of Staff Decisions Pertaining Thereto. In addition, it is recommended that formatting and editing, as well as separating the Standards and Guidelines for Historic Structures, be completed prior to Second Reading so the document resembles those presented in alternative 2. 2. Alternative 2 represents the proposal presented to the Planning and Zoning Board on January 22, 1996. This includes the Neighborhood Design Guidelines for the Eastside and WestSide Neighborhoods (Attachment B), Design Standards and Guidelines for Historic Properties (Attachment C) and changes to the City Code that incorporate Zoning Code amendments reflecting previously recommended design standards and recommend changing the minimum lot size in the NCM and NCB ' 45 February 6, 1996 ' zoning districts to 5,000 square feet. Should the Council elect to recommend this option, the following actions are required: A. Adopt Ordinance 13, 1996 of the Council of the City of Fort Collins Adopting the "Standards and Guidelines for Historic Properties" and the "Neighborhood Character Design Guidelines for the Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods in Fort Collins". B. Adopt Ordinance 14, 1996 of the Council of the City of Fort Collins Amending Chapter 29 of the Code of the City by Incorporating into the Zoning Code Certain Changes for the Purpose of Promoting and Implementing the Objectives of the Eastside and Westside Neighborhood Plans. C. Adopt Ordinance No. 15, 1996 of the Council of the City of Fort Collins Amending Chapter 14 of the Code of the City by Authorizing the Establishment of the Administrative Procedure for the Designation of Landmarks and Landmark Districts and by Providing the Landmark Preservation Commission with Additional Review Criteria. ' 3. Alternative 3 is the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Board to extend the interim time period for the minimum lot size in the NCM zoning district for 60 days to allow staff time to develop a proposal closer to the original Design Standards and Guidelines. This new option would be reviewed at the March 25 Board meeting prior to presenting a recommendation to Council. To approve this alternative, Council will need to: A. Adopt Ordinance No. 16, 1996 of the Council of the City of Fort Collins Amending Section 4 of Ordinance No. 179, 1993, for the Purpose of Extending the Expiration Date of Said Ordinance until May 1, 1996. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A Proposed Neighborhood Character Design Standards and Guidelines for the EastSide and WestSide Neighborhoods in Fort Collins (dated May 30, 1995) Attachment B Proposed Neighborhood Character Design Guidelines for the EastSide and WestSide Neighborhoods in Fort Collins (dated January, 1996) 46 February 6, 1996 Attachment C Proposed Standards and Guidelines for Historic Properties in Fort Collins (dated January, 1996) Attachment D Proposed changes to the City Code incorporating previously recommended design standards and changes to the minimum lot size in the NCM and NCB zoning districts. Attachment E Proposed process for local landmark district designation Attachment F Draft minutes from the January 23, 1996 meeting of the Landmark Preservation Commission Attachment G Matrix summarizing proposed changes to the standards originally proposed for Council adoption Attachment H Memorandum from Nore Winter identifying those elements that, under the proposed zoning option (alternative 2), would not be regulated and including alternative development scenarios that could occur with proposed zoning changes. Attachment I Two maps graphically depicting lots potentially eligible for alley houses under the existing zoning and proposed zoning scenarios ' Attachment J Memorandum from Nore Winter summarizing his final recommended changes to alternatives I and 2 and offering a third option for consideration. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY. The City of Fort Collins has historically been concerned about the future of its older, core commercial and residential areas. One of the concerns has been that if the quality of life and character of these neighborhoods is lost due to incompatible development and redevelopment, it will be impossible to recreate. In response, the City adopted neighborhood plans for the EastSide (in 1986) and WestSide (in 1989) neighborhoods. These plans contain a variety of policies and implementation actions that seek to enhance the character of these areas. Some of the actions recommended in these plans have been implemented, including a comprehensive rezoning of the EastSide and WestSide in 1991. In addition, in 1994, the City adopted a plan for the preservation of historic resources in the community. Each of these plans contains recommendations that design guidelines and standards be developed for building renovation and new construction to maintain the character and uniqueness of these areas. Although there have been a few attempts over the years to prepare design guidelines for these areas, they were never finished or adopted. 47 1 February 6, 1996 ' The most recent impetus for the preparation of design guidelines and standards for these neighborhoods was the adoption of an interim amendment to the Neighborhood Conservation Medium density (NCM) zoning district which increased the minimum lot size from 4,500 square feet to 5,500 square feet. This amendment was prompted by the development of secondary residential structures on some of the larger lots in the neighborhoods that were incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood. During this interim period, design guidelines were to be prepared and adopted. An additional extension was granted until June 30, 1995 to ensure adequate review of the final draft of the Design Standards and Guidelines before action was taken by the Planning and Zoning Board. In October, 1994, the City hired Winter & Company and RNL Design as outside consultants to assist in the preparation of the design guidelines. In December, a citizen advisory committee was established consisting of residents of the two neighborhoods, representatives from the Landmark Preservation Commission and Affordable Housing Board and an at -large member. A public outreach process was begun with a public workshop in January, 1995. A total of three workshops were held, one each month in January, February and April. The proposed standards and guidelines that resulted from the advisory committee's input, citizen input through the workshops, staff review, Planning and Zoning Board review and the expertise of the consulting team were originally presented for Council review in August 1995. The design guidelines focused on alterations and new construction within the EastSide and WestSide neighborhoods. They addressed work affecting the exterior of properties as seen from public ways, which include both streets and alleys. They were to guide an approach to construction that would help protect the established character of neighborhoods, while also allowing new, compatible design. The guidelines focused on promoting a sense of neighborhood identity and a pedestrian - friendly environment that is based on the traditional scale and character of the two neighborhoods. The Council originally considered the item for adoption in August, 1995. Rather than act on the proposal, they provided direction to staff to revise the document to simplify and clarify the text, consider transferring some of the mandatory standards to the Zoning Code and develop a process to designate local landmark districts. In addition to the above work on the document and process, the following actions were taken: • Staff met with each of the existing neighborhood organizations to receive comments and explain the process. This included the City Park, Lee Martinez, Capital Hill, Old Town, Midtown and Old Fort Collins High School neighborhood groups; • A focus group was formed consisting of individuals who were active during the adoption process and representatives of the Landmark Preservation Commission. Included in this group were people opposed to the project, in support of the project ' and some who were in between. After four meetings, the focus group completed 48 February 6, 1996 review of the proposed standards, identifying those they felt were appropriate to ' remain as regulations as well as identifying those they felt could be placed in the Zoning Code. While the final recommendations do not coincide totally with the focus group's recommendations, language has been tightened by including standards in the Zoning Code and those that the focus group recommended be moved to the Zoning Code have been. Two open houses were held. These were held to answer questions individuals might have and to explain the process that was occurring leading up to the next scheduled City Council hearings. Approximately 100 people attended each of these meetings after notification was delivered to each home within the study area as well as meeting notices being placed in the Coloradoan. ISSUES: Several issues have been identified throughout the development of the original proposal and the public hearings. These include: The lack of specificity in the wording of the proposed standards; Under alternative 2, the document has been reviewed and edited to clarify the language throughout. These changes are reflected in Attachments B and C. This ' issue has further been addressed in alternative 2 by moving all standards except those in the Historic section to the Zoning Code. Should the Council choose to select alternative 1 these changes would still be needed. Concern over the possibility of inconsistent interpretation of regulations by different staff members; By moving regulatory standards to the Zoning Code in alternative 2, interpretation becomes less of an issue due to more specific language. Interpretation issues may remain with the mandatory standards of the Design Standards And Guidelines For Historic Properties. These will be interpreted by the Historic Preservation staff and the Landmark Preservation Commission. Interpretation issues remain with alternative 1. The appropriateness of any additional government regulation especially standards related to an individual's home; This is a philosophical issue involving government's right to regulate land use and aesthetics. It is unlikely this will be resolved in this forum. 49 1 February 6, 1996 IApprehension over the possibility of being included in a local landmark district; The Landmark Preservation Commission and the staff have developed a proposed process for district designation that will be adopted by the City Manager, if he is authorized by the Council through the adoption of proposed Ordinance No. 1996. This packet contains a copy of this process as Attachment B. The proposed process includes several opportunities for property owners and citizen input. Currently, no local landmark districts exist other than the Historic Old Town District. Regulation of alley houses. Alternative 2 moves recommended standards regarding alley houses to the Zoning Code. In addition, it is recommended that the minimum lot size in the Neighborhood Conservation Buffer (NCB) and Neighborhood Conservation Medium Density (NCM) Zoning Districts be changed to 5,000 square feet to limit the number of potential alley houses. Alternative 1 retains the alley house regulations as standards. CHANGES FROM PREVIOUS RECOMMENDATIONS (as reflected in the recommendation to Council): GENERAL CHANGES: Miscellaneous changes from the previous recommendations include: Clarifying the language of both the introductory text and the standards and guidelines; Reformatting the document from single columns to three columns to make it easier to read and understand; and, Separating the standards and guidelines for historic properties from the neighborhood guidelines into a separate document to avoid confusion about when they apply. While some standards from the general application section of the Proposed Design Standards And Guidelines For The EastSide And WestSide Neighborhoods document have been deleted or changed to a guideline, the majority have had their wording changed to non -regulatory form and either reference existing sections of the Zoning Code or have had new language drafted to be placed in the ' Zoning Code. Attachment G identifies the status of each of the previously proposed standards in 50 February 6, 1996 matrix form. The proposed adoption ordinance includes all of the recommended language for ' Zoning Code amendments. Standards within the historic section of the document remain as originally proposed. If they are adopted as recommended, these standards will be mandatoryfor all historically designated structures, including any contributing structures within future local landmark districts. Winter and Company has prepared a memorandum summarizing those standards that would not be regulated by the proposed Zoning Code amendments and has prepared graphics illustrating some alternative development scenarios that could occur with these proposed zoning changes (Attachment H). ' III I _ I II r1JSfIT:b'CKYIIZ.�1L�`�/��5%IJCYKYLIZ As noted above, the standards and guidelines have been separated into two documents: those for general application (Attachment B) and those that apply to historic properties (Attachment C). The standards and guidelines originally proposed for historic properties remain the same with some editing for clarification. With the rewording of previous standards to non -regulatory language, the general guidelines are now all advisory (NOTE: Even though the language in the guidelines document is advisory, those guidelines with references to the Zoning Code are effectively mandated through compliance requirements of the Zoning Code). ALLEY HOUSES: While secondary residential structures (alley houses) continue to be addressed in both the design ' guidelines and the Zoning Code amendments implementing the previous standards, it is also recommended that they be addressed by increasing the minimum lot size in the Neighborhood Conservation Medium Density (NCM) and Neighborhood Conservation Buffer (NCB) zoning districts. The proposal would change the minimum lot size from 4,500 square feet (interim lot size of 5,500 square feet in the NCM zoning district) to 5,000 square feet. The maps included in Attachment I as well as the following table, indicate the number of lots in the EastSide and WestSide neighborhoods that are greater than 9,000 square feet (existing zoning) and 10,000 square feet (proposed zoning). While this is not an accurate representation of the potential for alley houses, it is a good comparison to evaluate the scale of change that altering the minimum lot size in the NCB and NCM zoning districts would have. The effect of the change is to reduce the number of larger lots eligible for potential secondary structures by 428 (51.3%). 51 1 February 6, 1996 I POTENTIAL FOR SECONDARY RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES (ALLEY HOUSES) Planning Area TotatNumber of Lots larger Lors larger Than ` Lots Than10,000 9,000': _ (Existing - (Propbsed Zoning) Zoning) ..:. EastSide/ WestSide Plan Area 4264 835 19.6% 407 9.5% EastSide Plan Area 1528 418 27.4% 243 15.9% WestSide Plan Area 2736 417 15.2% 376 13.7% Zoning District NCB 354 128 36.2% 60 16.9 o NCM 1787 528 29.5% 168 9.4% NCL 1643 179 10.9% 179 1o.9% LOCAL LANDMARK DISTRICTS: The Landmark Preservation Commission has developed a public process for the designation of local landmark districts in the EastSide and WestSide neighborhoods. This process for designating historically important structures was developed in response to Council's and the public's concern about the process for district designation, and concern about how a property would be evaluated for eligibility for designation as a Local Landmark. The anticipated process for District Designation is an eight -step process comprised of a minimum of seven opportunities for public input, at neighborhood meetings and public hearings, and the formal solicitation of property owners' opinions. The process would culminate with the Commission making a formal recommendation to Council. To determine district potential, buildings over fifty years old are evaluated for architectural, geographical and historical significance and for physical integrity. Buildings can then be categorized into one of three groupings for Local Landmark designation and for review: Individually Eligible - An architecturally, historically, or geographically significant building that retains its integrity. That is, it would not have experienced major or insensitive exterior changes. The building may have minimal alterations, but these alterations will not have in any way compromised the building's physical integrity. These buildings would be reviewed 1 52 February 6, 1996 by the Landmark Preservation Commission using the more stringent "Standards and I Guidelines for Historic Properties" document. Contributing - Those significant buildings which are classified as Contributing Structures to a Local Landmark District may have experienced some alterations which, while not seriously damaging the integrity of the building, have altered the appearance enough to be noted. These buildings retain enough physical integrity to contribute to the architectural or historical character of the surrounding neighborhood. Upon application to the Landmark Preservation Commission by the property owner(s), contributing structures may be evaluated for a change in status to Individually eligible for Local Landmark Designation. These properties would be reviewed by the Commission only when the proposed alterations trigger a building permit. At that time, they will be reviewed under the "Standards and Guidelines for Historic Properties" document. Non -Contributing - Buildings fifty years old or older which have no architectural, historical, or geographical significance, or which have endured numerous exterior changes, or both, are considered non-contributing. These buildings do retain value as residential or commercial structures, but do not possess the significance andlor integrity necessary to be listed as contributing. Some of these buildings have the potential to become contributing with sensitive rehabilitation. The Landmark Preservation Commission generally will not review design modifications to Non -Contributing buildings. Instead, these buildings would need to comply with current code requirements and will be reviewed administratively by staff. ' Contributing and individually eligible properties designated as Local Landmarks would be eligible for a number of incentives, including federal and state tax credits and state and local grant programs. " Current Planning Director Bob Blanchard gave a staff presentation and spoke of the various options available. He spoke of a focus group that was formed to review the proposed standards and thanked them for participating in the process. He reported on the open house outreach sessions, and how notice of the open houses was delivered, stating there were approximately 100 citizens in attendance at both meetings. He spoke of several issues identified: lack of specificity with the language in the proposed standards; inconsistent interpretations from different staff members; the appropriateness of additional governmental regulation as it relates to individual residences; apprehension regarding being included in a local Landmark District; and alley houses. Blanchard clarified the definition of standards stating standards were regulatory, and guidelines were advisory. Councilmember Kneeland stated most people are comfortable with the guidelines but expressed citizens concerns regarding absentee landlords who are interested in maximizing profits on their properties and not in considering the guidelines. 53 ' February 6, 1996 Blanchard emphasized that guidelines are not enforceable. He stated the majority of the comments and concerns expressed were regarding alley houses with the comments being fairly even for and against them. Zoning Administrator Peter Barnes reviewed amendments to the Zoning Code. Blanchard stated the initial intent was to attempt to maintain the character of the Eastside/Westside neighborhoods, and stated, in his opinion, Alternative I would better maintain the character. Councilmember Wanner stated he would need to review the description of "footprint" because he misunderstood the lot coverage aspect. Councilmember Janett spoke of the importance of visual character and of the difficulty in maintaining the appearances of some neighborhoods. She spoke in support of Option "C" including specific standards as suggested by Mr. Winter. Councilmember Janett made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Wanner, to adopt Alternative 2, Ordinance No. 13, 1996 on First Reading amending it to add direction that standards which are not covered by zoning be reviewed and evaluated by the public, staff and Councilmembers Janett and Wanner (as Council Liaisons to the Planning and Zoning Board) before Second Reading. Betty Maloney, 1309 City Park Avenue, stated she supported the 4500 sq. ft. and stated alley houses would be beneficial for families needing a home for aging relatives, and that alley houses are beneficial in providing affordable housing needs. Carla Oceanic, 425 East Elizabeth, supported the motion. Nancy Easum, member of RESTORE, supported the motion and questioned how public input would be gathered. She spoke of the planting strip and the need to define what can be planted. Jeff Bridges, 725 Mathews, supported adopting Standards and Guidelines. He spoke of the percentage of property that is owner occupied in the area. He stated adopting standards is the most effective way to address character issues. Bob Teuting, 916 Cheyenne Drive, questioned the necessity for the process and stated he believed the City and government in general tend to be to omeddlesome. Chris Marshall, 926 W. Mountain, spoke in support of Option 2, without adding the additional standards. Don Dazlik, 700 Smith, supported Option 2. 54 February 6, 1996 Joe Bastian, Chair of RESTORE, urged Council to use moderation in its decision. I Angela Dazlik, 700 Smith, urged adoption of Alternative 2 and stated she believed the government should stay out of the business of regulating aesthetics. Mark Kukerola, a resident of Denver, stated the limits would greatly impact CSU students and their ability to find affordable housing. Councilmember McCloskey spoke in support of Alternative 2 and of the need for moderation. Due to the ordinance not being on file 48 hours prior to consideration, City Attorney Steve Roy read the ordinance into the record. The vote on Councilmember Janett's motion to adopt Ordinance No. 13, 1996, alternative 2, as amended on First Reading was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Apt, Azari, Janett, Kneeland, McCluskey, Smith and Wanner. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Janett made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Wanner, adopt Ordinance No. 14, 1996 on First Reading. Chris Marshall, 926 W. Mountain, requested information regarding the definition of Standards and ' Guidelines. City Attorney Steve Roy stated that standards are requirements that must to be met. Jeff Bridges, 725 Mathews, reported that only 18 lots would be large enough to build alley houses and thanked Council for moving ahead with this issue. Nancy Easum, RESTORE member, requested clarification of "dumpster" and spoke of the need for an impact study, and questioned what impact the extra volume would have on the water and sewer system. Councilmember Janett made a motion to include the recommendations considered in Option B. Councilmember Wanner accepted the motion as a friendly amendment. Councilmember Apt spoke in support of the motion and commended everyone for their efforts. Councilmember Kneeland believed the ordinance captured the intent of what the Eastside/Westside neighborhood plans were meant to accomplish. 55 February 6, 1996 ' Mayor Azari spoke in support of the zoning and of the importance in adopting a plan. She expressed her frustration with the process. The vote on Councilmember Janett's motion to adopt Ordinance No. 14, 1996 on First Reading was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Apt, Azari, Janett, Kneeland, McCluskey, Smith and Wanner. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Wanner made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Apt, to adjourn into Executive Session to receive legal advice relating to an adversarial situation. Yeas: Councilmembers Apt, Azari, Janett, Kneeland, McCluskey and Wanner. Nays: Councilmember Smith. THE MOTION CARRIED. At the conclusion of Executive Session the meeting resumed at 10:30 p.m. Ordinance No. 2, 1996 of the Council of the City of Fort Collins Amending Certain Criteria Contained in ' Section 29-526 of the City Code, Which Criteria Pertain to the Review of Proposed Residential Uses under the Land Development Guidance System. Postponed to 2/20. The following is staff's memorandum on this item. "Financial Impact Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance as amended on Second Reading. Staff analysis of the impacts on multi family in -fill projects of Ordinance No. 2, 1996, as approved by the Council on First Reading is included in the attached staff report. Executive Summary Ordinance No. 2, 1996, was adopted on First Reading on January 16, by a vote of 5-2. Council adopted New Option 3 (40 base points, existing facilities, affordable housing base points) with the following modifications and gave direction to staff to evaluate the potential impacts of these proposed revisions on multi family in -fill projects. The modifications made on First Reading are: Retain base point credit for publicly owned undeveloped park sites and golf courses; ' 2. Limit the life of new preliminary PUD approvals to one year; 56 February 6, 1996 3. Eliminate the practice of granting extensions to preliminary approvals for PUDs. I Planning and Zoning Board Recommendation The Planning and Zoning Board held a public hearing on these proposed policy changes on January 22, 1996 At that meeting, the Board recommended to Council adoption of New Option 2 (40 base points, existing facilities, no affordable housing base points), with the same modifications: Retain base point credit for publicly owned undeveloped park sites and golf courses; 2. Limit the life of new preliminary PUD approvals to one year; 3. Eliminate the practice of granting extensions to preliminary approvals for PUDs. Responses to Questions Raised at First Reading Council requested additional information be developed by staff to respond to several issues and questions raised at the first reading of the ordinance. These questions have been responded to by staff in the attached report. Options Presented On Second Reading, the original Option 3 is being presented with the modifications approved by ' the Council on First Reading. Also presented for Council's consideration is the option proposed by the Planning and Zoning Board, as described above. Details/Housekeeping Changes You will also notice a few corrections in the details of the ordinance that need to be made. Specifically the terms for neighborhood shopping center are changed to reflect the actual intended meaning of "neighborhood service center" (which is Point Chart B) and the term "regional shopping center" is changed to "community/regional shopping center" (which is Point Chart C). Also, some typos in the affordable housing criteria have been fixed. " Councilmember Wanner made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Apt, to postpone consideration of Ordinance No. 2, 1996, until February 20, 1996. Yeas: Councilmembers Apt, Azari, Janett, Kneeland, McCluskey, Smith and Wanner. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. 57 February 6, 1996 ' Ordinance No. 17, 1996 i of the Council of the City of Fort Collins Amending Certain Sections of the City Code, and Revising Certain Related Design Criteria, Pertaining to the Design, Construction, and Maintenance of Residential Local Streets, Alleys, and Pedestrian and Bicycle Paths within the City, No Action Taken. The following is staff's memorandum on this item. "Executive Summary On December 19, 1995, the City Council's Growth Management Committee, instructed City staff to develop (a) new residential street standards; (b) residential alley standards; and (c) a standard for pedestrian bicycle path connections for connecting residential neighborhoods. The Committee's instruction was to have the new standards presented to City Council for adoption at the earliest possible date. The purpose for the new standards is to establish requirements immediately that reflect the strong desire noted in the Visual Preference Survey for narrower residential streets, detached sidewalks and connected neighborhoods. These changes provide opportunities for more neighborhood friendliness, lower construction and maintenance costs and slower speeds. These new standards may be subject to further modification upon completion of the City Plan process. ' The proposed new standards are shown on Exhibit "A" of the Ordinance: 24' Narrow Residential Local Street 30' Residential Local Street 36' Residential Collector Street 14' Residential Alley Pedestrian/Bicycle Path Connections The proposed standards have been developed within a short time frame with input only from some City staff members, the private utility companies, the Council Growth Management Committee, the Transportation Board and the Planning and Zoning Board. At this point there has been limited public input. However, there will be opportunities for input within the next 3 or 4 months. We are scheduled to present this information to the Affordable Housing Board at its next meeting on March 7. The ordinance is drafted with proposed changes needed in the City Code, the Land Development ' Guidance System, the Street Design Criteria and Construction Standards and the Uniform Fire Code. W February 6, 1996 The proposed standards were reviewed by both the Transportation Board and the Planning and ' Zoning Board on January 17, 1996, and January 22, 1996, respectively. The Transportation Board voted unanimously to recommend that the City Council adopt the new standards. A letter with comments from the Transportation Board is attached as Attachment]. The Planning and Zoning Board passed a motion (6-0) in favor of recommending that City Council adopt the new standards with a modification of the garage setbacks in the alley standard. It is anticipated that the Padre Fire Authority Board will be reviewing the proposed changes to the Uniform Fire Code and providing its recommendation to Council prior to second reading on the Ordinance. An additional item included in the ordinance for adoption is revised structural design standards for City street pavements. The process to revise these standards has occurred over the last eleven months. Since the revision process is complete and ready for City Council approval, the revisions were added to this ordinance for the convenience of revising the Street Design Criteria and Construction Standards all at once. These revisions are attached as Attachment 2, together with a memorandum explaining them. BACKGROUND: The following is general discussion common to more than one proposed standard with some explanation for the proposal. For street trees all of the proposed new streets include a sidewalk detached from the street by 7.5 ' feet. The space between the street and the sidewalk (the "parkway") would be far street trees and grass and/or annual and perennial flower bed landscaping. The detached walk and trees area preference indicated in the Visual Preference Survey. The street trees are proposed to be canopy shade trees selected by the developer from a City approved list. The trees, minimum size 2" caliper balled and burlapped, would be planted and maintained by the developers until their growth is established. The homeowners would water the trees. The City would then trim the trees and replace them as necessary. The trees are preferred to be in the street right of way to provide the City legal access for trimming and replacement of the trees. At the current City growth rate averaging 800 residences per year it is estimated that the City costs for pruning and replacement of these trees would cost about $20,000 per year for the first 10 years. After that period staff will review these costs which will increase because of maturity and additional street trees being planted. The 'ds: ewalk proposed to be 5 feet wide provides comfortable space for two people to walk side by side. Vertical curb is proposed as the most desirable. Driveway entrances would be smooth and handicapped accessible. Since on narrower streets some drivers tend to park as far off the road as possible, the vertical curb also provides more of a barrier between the roadway and the landscaped 59 1 February 6, 1996 tparkway. However, vertical curbs will require developers to plan ahead for driveway locations or driveways will have to be installed later by removing curb and gutter and constructing a drive cut. For safety reasons, there is no difference between the driveover curb and the vertical curb. Since some comments from the development community have requested that the driveover curb still be allowed, the proposed 30 foot residential street is proposed to have an option to use driveover curb. This street is likely to have the most driveways. Since the 24 foot street would have no driveways and the 36 foot residential collector street would have very few driveways, it is proposed that vertical curb and gutter be the only option. The parking lanes 7 feet wide will provide enough space for most vehicles, including vans and pickups. Many recreational vehicles are larger than 7 feet wide and would cause some obstruction from time to time. Garage doors must be set back from the sidewalks at least 20 feet. This is the space needed to allow parking in the driveway for one vehicle depth without blocking the sidewalk. The Poudre Fire Authority still has a technical issue about reducing the drive lane width below the fire code requirement of 20feet of clear width for access. The Ordinance would amend the Uniform Fire Code to allow for this change. However, this issue will require the Fire Authority to make an ' administrative change in fire hydrant locations from 800 feet to 600 feet spacing, and will require more review which may result in the need for more residential fire sprinkling or other requirements. A recommendation will be forthcoming from the Poudre Fire Authority Board with regard to this proposed change prior to Second Reading. The utility easements shown for each new standard, conform with each utility company's current practices, and, thereby, these proposed standards have the utility companies and departments support. Concerns have been voiced by some people that easement sizes seem excessive. Changing the sizes of these easements would require the utilities to change their long standing methods of installation and maintenance. This should be done as a task separate from this proposal. A comparison between the proposed 30' residential local street standard and the existing 36' local street standard, is attached as Attachment 3. The comparison shows the effects of the streets on a small residential lot (4,500 sq. ft.). The exhibit shows the lot pushed back 4 feet with the wider street right of way. However, the lot could be reduced in size to 4,300 sq. ft., not moving the rear lot line, and the house could still fit within the required setbacks. With the narrower street and the detached walk, the yard space between the street and house increases from 26 feet to 33 feet. One developer, has voiced concerns that the right of way proposed for the new 30' street is 4 feet wider than the right of way width for the existing 36' street. He believes that for the example shown in Attachment 4, a 4,500 sq. ft. lot pushed back 4 feet causes a loss of 200 square feet per lot. The ' developer estimates the monetary loss in value to the property owner to be about $1,000.00. 60 February 6, 1996 Ron Mills, the City Right of Way Agent, reviewed the Attachment and looked at it from the following ' perspective. "If the 4,500 sq. ft. lot is reduced by 200 sq. ft. to 4,300 sq. ft., what would be the lost value for the smaller lot?" Ron believes that if the same house can fit on the smaller lot within standard setbacks, even with a smaller backyard, the value of the two properties would be about the same. The most important comparison is the house setback with the new street standard. The setback from the roadway to the house for the new 30' street standard is increased 7 feet from the existing street standard. Even though more of this space is right of way, the market place would view the "setback" to be from the edge of the roadway at the curb and gutter rather than from the right of way line. This increased "setback" would be considered a benefit by the marketplace. Ron believes the value would be at least the same and possibly increased with the new street standard for this example. Estimated construction cost comparisons for the proposed streets and alley are summarized in Attachment 4. The street costs were developed from current bids. Since no residential alleys of this type have been built by the City, the alley costs were developed with a contractor's assistance accounting for construction methods. The narrow alley, including a center gutter or side curb and gutter, is less cost when constructed with concrete. These costs do not include additional right of way or street trees. The cost of the new 30' residential local street would be slightly less than the existing 36' local street. The new 24' narrow street plus an alley would cost about the same as the local streets. An Attachment 5 is included that shows the existing 36 foot and 28 foot local street standards far comparison, which will be eliminated from the City standards for residential streets. The following is a discussion of features unique to each standard: ' 24' Narrow Residential Local Street This street would be used in residential developments where the access to garages are served by an alley. Parking would be allowed on only one side of the street. Since no driveways would be allowed onto the street, parking on only one side would provide about the same amount of parking as on two sides of streets with driveways. The one travel lane 16' wide requires that vehicles slow down to pass by each other. Since this street would be used only in conjunction with alleys, a grid pattern is most likely to be used. However, if curved streets are used staff proposes a design speed of 20 MPH to match the anticipated slower vehicle speeds. Design layout using this street must be done to limit the anticipated traffic volume to 300 vehicles per day maximum. 30' Residential Local Street 61 1 February 6, 1996 This street replaces the 36 foot wide and 28 foot wide local streets in residential areas and would be the standard for all residential streets. It is believed that the narrower travel space (14') will have a traffic calming effect. Vehicles may have to move into unparked areas to let the other vehicles pass by. In accordance the design speed is proposed to be 25 MPH, reduced from 30 MPH on the wider two lane streets. This allows smaller radius curves of 165' radius vs. 240 feet for the higher design speed. Design layout using this street must be done to limit the anticipated traffic volume to 750 vehicles per day or less. When vehicles per day exceed 750, two travel lanes will be necessary. 36' Residential Collector Street This standard can be used in lieu of the 50 foot wide collector width narrowing the street to 36 feet by removing parking. This design has been approved experimentally in two PUD's, Stetson Creek and Timber Creek. Some houses front on the streets and share driveways, 3 and 4 houses to a driveway with parking provided off-street. The maximum traffic volume anticipated for this street is 2,500 vehicles per day. This street will collect vehicles from residential local streets and connect neighborhoods to arterial and ' 50 foot wide collector streets. The design speed is proposed to be 30 MPH, whereas the 50 foot wide collector street is 40 MPH. 14' Residential Alley The proposed alley is one lane wide serving two-way access at the rear of lots fronting on a street. Parking would not be allowed in the alley right of way. The alley would serve adjoining properties for garage access and trash pick up. The 14 foot width is wide enough for trash truck operations. It is proposed that the pavement be concrete designed to handle trash truckloads. It costs less than the other methods to construct and costs less to maintain. Driveways will have to be flared next to the alley to provide room for vehicles to turn into and back out of the driveways. Comments from the Transportation and Planning and Zoning Boards have suggested that the 20 foot setback requirement for garage doors from alleys is excessive. The belief is that no one will block or park in such a narrow alley. Staff believes that the design layout of a ' property could be considered to determine what the setback must be. But for standard 62 February 6, 1996 purposes it is suggested that the setback be 20 feet or 8 feet. The 8 foot setback is needed ' for the utility easement and allows a vehicle to be parked parallel in front of a garage without blocking the alley and provides room to maneuver a vehicle into an out of the garage or on the side of the garage. With the narrow alley, anything less than an 8 foot setback would require some vehicles to move back and forth more than once to get in and out of the garage. Between 8 feet and 20 feet for setbacks, staff believes that some drivers squeeze into the driveways leaving vehicles sticking out into the alleys. Bikeway/Walkway Connections This standard will be used for connecting neighborhoods or any other desirable bikeway/walkway connections. The proposed walk is ramped from the street for bicycle and handicapped access. The walk near the street is 5 feet wide to keep it from being attractive to motor vehicles. The walk is widened to 8 feet wide in the side yard area for bicyclist and pedestrian comfort. With the 12 foot wide easement, 2 feet is added to each side to provide more comfort in using the space and keeping sideyard fences away from the walk. It is proposed to have the connections in an easement placed on the side of one lot. The size of the lot can be adjusted in the development process to keep the same usable space for the house. The maintenance responsibility can be attached to the lot owner by the developer and ' passed on in the property records with each sale. If a development is designed with other open space and common area to be maintained by a homeowners association, the connections can be placed in the common area and maintenance assigned to the association." Development Review Manager Mike Herzig gave a staff and slide presentation on this item. He outlined the street standards and spoke of subdivisions in the area having similar street widths. He spoke of comments by developers regarding the possibility of higher costs. He stated the proposed street standards do conflict with the current Fire Code and spoke of the conditions that were added to the ordinance allowing exceptions for a 16' street as long as fire hydrants are available and reducing the distance between fire hydrants by 200'. He stated no recommendations have been made by the Poudre Fire Authority Board at this time. Transportation Operations and Projects Group Leader Gary Diede spoke of changes in soil testing and stated the amount of asphalt used would increase by''/z inch and cost each house an additional $59. He stated 3 years of maintenance would be gained by increasing the depth of the asphalt. He clarified the street construction costs are the only costs that have been identified at this time. He responded to Council questions regarding sidewalks and bicycle lanes. He stated that over the next few months, during the City Plan process, there will be an opportunity for looking at modifications or changes to the narrow street standards if necessary. He spoke of issues regarding alley parking. 63 1 February 6, 1996 ' Frank Vaught, Vaught -Frye Architects, supported reducing street widths but expressed concerns regarding the impact the setbacks would have on the density of neighborhoods. He urged Council to use caution when considering the adoption of the ordinance. Steve Slezak, 2803 Leisure Drive, commended staff for its efforts to narrow street widths. He expressed concerns regarding the amount of paving that would need to be done and stated more work needs to be done. Rene Clements, 705 E. Drake Road, supported reducing the amount of pavement in the City but expressed process concerns. She read Council a letter from the developer of Indian Hills, John Prouty, stating his support of new approachs to street standards. Linda Hopkins, 1809 Rangeview Drive, commended staff for its willingness to test the proposed traffic calming affect. Tom Sibbald, 725 Bonita Avenue, stated he was a proponent of narrower streets but stated the proposed standards would not decrease construction costs and spoke of the reduction in density in the R-L and R-L-P zones. He stated if the ordinance is adopted, Council should amend the Zoning Code deleting the minimum lot size althogether. He stated the item is not ready for adoption until construction costs and zoning issues are mitigated. I City Forester Tim Buchanan clarified for Council that tree planting would become part of the standard. Diede spoke of how the phasing in of the proposed standards would correlate with existing standards. Councilmember Wanner expressed concerns regarding density and costs involved. He suggested further analysis before adopting the ordinance. After Council discussion Director of Transportation Administration Ron Phillips stated this item could be submitted with the Transportation Plan scheduled for the June 4, 1996, Council meeting. He clarified the Planning and Zoning Board and Transportation Board have unanimously recommended approval. Councilmember Smith made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Wanner, to postpone consideration of Ordinance No. 17, 1996, until it is reviewed by the Affordable Housing Board. Councilmember Smith withdrew his motion. Phillips asked if Council would consider adopting construction standards for pavement. February 6, 1996 Phillips asked if Council would consider adopting construction standards for pavement. , Mayor Azari stated staff could bring forward construction standards for pavement at the February 20, 1996 meeting if need be. Councilmember Janett expressed frustration with establishing the standards. She reported she sent a copy of the standards to a small group of local designers and architects, noting the consensus was that staff was moving in the right direction but additional work needs to be done. She clarified the Growth Management Committee placed this item on the agenda, and consequently, staff did not have adequate time to gather public input. Councilmember McCluskey spoke of the amount of support for narrowing street widths but stated additional information and input is needed in the process. NO ACTION TAKEN. Ordinance No. 18,1996 Establishing Certain Interim Standards and Guidelines for All Commercial Development, Adopted on First Reading The following is staff's memorandum on this item "Executive Summary ' The Interim Standards and Guidelines for all commercial developments are adapted from results of the Harmony Corridor, "Big Box Retail", and North College Projects, with City Plan and the Visual Preference Survey in mind. The standards and guidelines would apply to all commercial development (all development that is not residential or industrial) in the City. The standards and guidelines have been assembled by staff to serve as another interim step that reflects a continuing shift in priority regarding which factors are emphasized in new development. The shift has been away from primary dominance of car traffic, parking, and marketing formulas, with more of a shared emphasis with places for walking and gathering, and how the building structure fits into the community context. The standards and guidelines would apply in all development review processes such as PUD's and use -by -right review. In the PUD approval process, the standards and guidelines are a supplement to the LDGS All Development Criteria. In use -by -right review processes where the LDGS All Development Criteria do not currently apply, this ordinance applies six selected LDGS criteria to use -by -right review under the Zoning Code. 65 1 February 6, 1996 BACKGROUND - The main provisions of the standards and guidelines include a relatively informal submittal requirement -- a "Context Diagram." This is described as a flexible tool to convey the basic ideas that drive a development application, to be used in discussions in which staff can work with applicants to help meet the criteria. The Standards and Guidelines consist of statements that encourage or require the following characteristics in new development: Second, the Standards and Guidelines consist of statements that require and explain the following characteristics in new development: - Extend city streets and connect to surrounding settings and activities as much as possible. - Connect pedestrian origins and destinations directly and continuously as a formative part of developments -- don't locate sidewalks last to follow parking and driveway outlines only. - Do not make walking through a parking lot the only way to walk to a building (or across a driveway for that matter, unless it is unavoidable). - Acknowledge the importance of street corners by locating buildings and landscaping at the coaster, not parking or drive-thru lanes. Third, Guidelines are included which encourage and explain some other characteristics that are generally desirable but are more difficult to quantify into legal requirements for all development: Design the public aspects of buildings based on consideration of their context. Locate and design buildings to relate to city sidewalks as much as possible, and where it's not appropriate to do so, orient buildings to alternative, equivalent outdoor space for people. Consolidate outdoor space in large developments, such as shopping centers or office parks, into useful, formative outdoor space for people. PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD DISCUSSION The Planning and Zoning Board heard this item on January 22. The Board voted 6-0 to postpone the item "until it is finished. " In the Board's discussion, the following two points were made with respect to the content of the standards and guidelines: (I) Board members asked Staff to require with standards, rather that suggest with guidelines, that outdoor space be consolidated and formed into community gathering and focal areas; and (2) a Board member questioned whether the statements regarding buildings at street corners can apply to different types of corners. Since the hearing, a group of staff and representatives from development planning firms has met to ' explore that question and apply the standard to a number of example site plans. This resulted in 66 February 6, 1996 minor changes to the wording of the standard and more assurance that it allows appropriate I flexibility to fit different types of corners. In response to the request for stronger requirements about community gathering places, staff believes that the issue is covered by existing development criteria. " City Planner Clark Mapes gave a staff presentation on this item. He clarified several of the standards and guidelines came out of the Harmony Corridor and North College Avenue rezonings. He responded to Council questions and spoke of outreach sessions. Councilmember Kneeland made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Wanner, to adopt Ordinance No. 18, 1996 on First Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers Apt, Azari, Jarrett, Kneeland, McCluskey, Smith and Wanner. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. OTHER BUSINESS Linda Hopkins, 1809 Rangeview Drive, stated she did not pull Item #11, First Reading of Ordinance No. 6, 1996, Appropriating Funds from Prior Year Reserves and Authorizing the Transfer of Appropriated Amounts Between Funds for the Purpose of Providing Additional Amounts Needed to Construct Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements for the Choices 95 Drake/College Intersection ' Project, from the Consent Agenda out of respect for staff and citizens who were at the meeting to speak on other items. She expressed process concerns regarding Choices 95 Capital Improvement Projects, noting this item was modified and the cost of the project increased over 31 %. Councilmember Janett asked that historic guidelines come back as an item that would be included in the City Code. She requested a 2 page memo on funding for Art in Public Places and questioned if funds could be expended on existing city facilities. City Manager John Fischbach responded to concerns and questions raised by Ms. Hopkins. Mayor Azari stated she was invited to attend the School Board's task force which would be discussing problems at Irish Elementary. She stated she would report back to Council as to whether or not the City would be formally participating in the task force. Councilmember Apt spoke of the number of citizens who have said the ballot language on the Timberline project was incorrect. City Manager John Fischbach stated the ballot language issue will be formally addressed during the upcoming process. 67 1 February 6, 1996 IADJOURNMENT Councilmember Janett made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Apt, to adjourn to 6:30 p.m. on February 13, 1996 to hear the Registry Ridge Appeal. Yeas: Councilmembers Apt, Azari, Janett, Kneeland, McCluskey, Smith and Wanner. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. The meeting adjourned at 12:20 a.m. ATTEST: City Clerk M.