HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES-02/13/1996-AdjournedFebruary 13,1996
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
Council -Manager Form of Government
Adjourned Meeting - 6:30 p.m.
An adjourned meeting f the Council of the City of Fort 13, 1996, at 6:30 p.m. inthe Coun ilChaCollins
mbers of the Citty of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll CFebruary
1
was answered by the following Councilmembers: Apt, Azari, Janett, Kneeland, McCluskey,
Smith, and Wanner. Councilmember Absent: None.
Staff Members Present: Fischbach, Roy, Krajicek.
Appeal of the December 11,1995 Decisions of
the P&Z Board Approving the Registry Ridge Overall
Development Plan and Registry Ridge PUD, Phase I, Preliminary;
P&Z Approval of ODP Upheld• P&7 Approval of PTin Ove
rturned
The following is staff's memorandum on this item.
' "Executive Summary
On December 11, 1995, the Planning and Zoning Board voted 4-2 to approve the Registry
Ridge O.D.P. (#32-95) with conditions as stated in the staff memo. The Planning and Zoning
Board then voted 4-2 to approve the Registry Ridge P. U.D., Phase 1, Preliminary (#32-95A)
with conditions as stated in the staff memo as well as a condition that 8' wide detached
bike/pedestrian connections be made along Shields Street from Trilby Road, north to Clarendon
Hills and along Trilby Road from Shields Street, east to the Ridgewood Hills P. U.D.
On December 21, 1995, a Notice of Appeal was received by the City Clerk's Office regarding
the decisions of the Planning and Zoning Board. An Amended Notice of Appeal was received
on January 26, 1996, by the City Clerk regarding the same decisions.
The appellant cites Section 2-48(b)(1), 2-48(b)(2a), and 2.48(b)(2b) of the City Code as the
basis for the appeal. The appellant alleges that the Board failed to properly interpret and apply
relevant provisions of the Code and Charter. The appellant further alleges that the Board
failed to conduct a fair hearing in that the Board exceeded its authority or jurisdiction as
contained in the Code or Charter; and that the Board substantially ignored its previously
established rules of procedure.
1
69
February 13, 1996
In a memo to the City Clerk dated February 2, 1996, Mayor Pro Tem Janett identified additional t
issues for review in the appeal of the December 11, 1995 Planning and Zoning Board decision to
approve the Registry Ridge P. U.D., Phase 1 Preliminary (#32-95A).
Documents include the Notice of Appeal and the Amended Notice of Appeal; Mayor Pro Tem
Janett's memo of additional issues; the Planning Department response to the Amended Notice of
Appeal and Mayor Pro Tem Janett's memo of additional issues, and the information packet that was
received by the P & Z Board for its December 1), 1995 meeting. In addition, a verbatim transcript
and videotape recording of the P & Z Board meeting are included. The procedures for considering
and deciding the Appeal are described in Chapter 2, Article II, Division 3 of the City Code. "
City Attorney Steve Roy reviewed the appeal procedure. He stated this is an appeal on the record
and with certain limited exceptions, new evidence cannot be introduced. The Council will be
making its determination based upon the record of the proceedings before the P&Z Board.
Lucia Liley, attorney representing the owner of the Registry Ridge project, stated that "abuse of
discretion" was cited as a ground in the Thieman appeal. She reminded that the City Code had been
amended to delete abuse of discretion as a ground for appeal. She agreed it would be appropriate
to consider "abuse of discretion under" the "fair hearing" allegation.
Michael Schultz, attorney representing the appellants, expressed no objection to Ms. Liley's
comments. He stated he was prepared to argue "abuse of discretion" under the context of "exceeded I
authority".
Mike Ludwig, project planner, made the staff presentation. He introduced other City staff and stated
staff was available for questions.
Councilmember Janett asked if a slide was available depicting Subarea No. 7 in the area between
Fort Collins and Loveland and its relation to the Registry Ridge site. She asked how the project
meets the corridor plan provisions.
Ludwig displayed a slide out of the Plan for the Region Between Fort Collins and Loveland and
pointed out the Registry Ridge site. He stated Subarea No. 7 runs from Trilby Rd. to the Loveland
City limits. He pointed out sites designated for cluster development and stated the Plan designates
urban development should be directed north of County Rd. 32. Staff determined the proposed
project met the Plan objectives.
Councilmember Janett asked about Criterion "e", location within 3500 ft. of a publicly owned, but
not developed, neighborhood or community park.
Ludwig responded that the proposed park site that the project received points for is the six -acre park
proposed within the development. The deed for the park site has been placed into an escrow account
70 1
February 13, 1996
' and the developer has complied with Criterion "e". The deed will be transferred to the City upon
Final PUD approval.
Councilmember Janett stated the Master Park Plan indicates a neighborhood park should be between
10-13 acres. She asked about that standard and about why the City is accepting a six -acre site.
Randy Balok, Parks Planner, stated the standard is 2 acres of parkland per 1000 residents in a given
square mile. The average neighborhood park is between 12-13 acres. The numbers of homes on the
edge of the City do not provide adequate funding to build a 10-13 acre park. Staff is readdressing
the 2 acre per 1000 residents standard.
Councilmember Janett asked if it is acceptable to accept a smaller acreage than the Master Park Plan
provides.
City Attorney Roy stated it is up to the Council to determine if this entire arrangement meets the
intent of Criterion "e" both in terms of the escrowed deed and the size of the park site.
Councilmember Janett stated with regard to Criterion "p" relating to neighborhood facilities and
services, the applicant is taking points for a recreational center located in Tract J which is not part
of this PUD. She asked if there is any assurance that this center will be built and asked whether the
total development budget refers to this PUD or the 20-year build out of the CDP.
Ludwig responded that the recreation center is not part of this preliminary PUD. The standard
process for preliminary approval is to require an itemization of the costs proposed for the recreation
facility. At the time of final PUD approval, the City will record documents to secure the
construction of the recreational center. The total development budget refers to the PUD.
Councilmember Janett questioned how the project can obtain points for something that doesn't exist
and has no approval to be built.
Councilmember Apt asked about the 10 points received for the six -acre park site.
Ludwig responded that during the processing of the application, the Parks Department negotiated
the acquisition of the park land and the Park and Recreation Board recommended accepting the
dedication. Awarding of the points was based upon that approval by the P&R Board.
Councilmember Apt asked what road improvements to Trilby Rd. and parts of South Shields the
developer will be required to construct. He asked about the detached eight -foot sidewalk bike path
required by P&Z as a condition of approval.
Sheri Wamhoff, Civil Engineer I, replied the Code currently requires off -site improvements to
arterials. Since Shields St. bears the largest traffic impact for this project, off -site improvements
' would include a minimum cross section of 36 feet, which would include two 12 foot travel lanes and
71
February 13, 1996
a 6 foot shoulder to be used for bicycles/pedestrians on each side. She stated the location of the '
sidewalk/bike path would be determined by the applicant and would be reviewed at the time of the
submittal of the final plan.
Councilmember Smith asked who assumes responsibility for the 3/4 mile portion of Shields Street
north of the site that is in the County and asked where Shields stops being two lanes of traffic in each
direction.
Ludwig stated the four lanes stop south of Horsetooth and resume north of Harmony and then narrow
to two lanes down to the site.
Councilmember Smith asked about the long term plans for Shields in terms of development. Will
it be two lane or four lane and what is the timing.
Mike Herzig, Development Review Manager, responded that Shields Street is master planned to be
a four lane arterial street. The pieces south of Horsetooth will be part of the build out of a
development project or a capital project. He stated the Code requires the developer to construct the
off site improvements to arterial standards. The intent of the Code provision is to prevent the City
from having to maintain and operate a street that was not adequately built. The developer in this
case was given two options, 1) to design and build the off site streets to arterial standards (20 year
design life pavement and the proper design speeds and enter into a repay agreement with the City
and receive repay as property adjoining the road improvements develop out) or 2) to design a
pavement that has 20 year design life at the existing configuration and elevation of the road as it
exists today. He would not be eligible to enter into a repay agreement with the City for those
improvements. It would be a pure expense to his development and as development occurs, that
pavement would most likely have to be reconstructed to fit the ultimate configuration. The timing
is dependent on development of land adjoining the arterial streets. Herzig stated there is shared
ownership of Shields (City/County) and added that annually both maintenance crews get together
to determine which portions of streets will be maintained by each entity.
Councilmember Apt asked if a traffic study was done and how many trips per day the project is
expected to generate. He asked about the need for signalization.
Eric Bracke, Traffic Engineer, responded that a traffic study was done and that at build out, 111700
trips are projected. This is an arterial intersection and will need a signal at some point in time. At
this point it meets peak hour warrants which means it's difficult to make a left turn during peak
hours. Traffic signals are not generally installed based on peak hour warrants. The addition of
auxiliary lanes to the intersection would diminish the need for a signal. The addition of those
auxiliary lanes would be part of the negotiation at the time of final plan. The intersection will likely
be signalized within 5-6 years.
Councilmember Smith asked about the location of the nearest emergency services.
72
February 13, 1996
Herzig replied that the nearest fire station is located on Harmony, east of College Ave. Another is
located on Taft Hill between Horsetooth and Drake.
Councilmember Janett asked if the project was located within 1,000 ft. of an existing child care
center.
Ludwig responded that the child care center is proposed and would be located on parcel B. The
LDGS does not distinguish between a planned and an existing child care center under that criterion.
He stated that prior to P&Z Board consideration of the ODP and the Preliminary PUD, the deed for
parcel B was placed in escrow to a local church for a day care center. This was done through private
negotiations between the developer and the church.
Councilmember McCluskey asked how much of the area within the one square mile is open space
owned by the City or targeted for purchase by the City in the future.
Natural Resources Director Tom Shoemaker replied that the City hopes to acquire between 150 and
200 acres of dedicated natural area in the 200 acre parcel immediately to the east. He presented a
slide depicting areas that are at least potential open space in either public or private ownership based
on the plan for the region between Fort Collins and Loveland.
LeAnn Thieman, 6600 Thompson Dr., appellant representing the neighbors adjacent to the proposed
Registry Ridge PUD, spoke of the neighbors' opposition to 700 homes located on the fringe of the
City. She stated that this development is wrong for the entire community. She asked that the
development be halted until the rules for the Urban Growth Area are rewritten and a strategic plan
for the area is in place.
Michael Schultz, attorney representing the neighborhood, stated this subdivision has no business
being located in the middle of the fields that exist in the County. He spoke of the guidelines to be
followed for Council's decision making. He spoke of the streetscape and the density disparities
between the proposed project and the surrounding area. He questioned the ability of the
Loveland/Fort Collins Water District to serve this site.
Lucia Liley, attorney representing the property owner, raised an objection to the new information
included in Mr. Schultz' presentation, stating the presentation was going far outside the scope of the
record. She reminded that Council is to consider the information on the record and in the verbatim
transcript.
Mr. Schultz responded that he did not believe he was going beyond the issues raised at the P&Z
hearing.
City Attorney Roy stated the fact that a certain issue was raised does not permit the introduction of
new evidence with regard to that issue unless it is in response to questions from Council.
73
February 13, 1996
Schultz spoke of the Plan for the region between Fort Collins and Loveland and stated the Plan had '
been adopted by the Fort Collins Council as a policy guide for future regulation of development in
the region. He spoke of the land use character of Subarea 7 including cluster development south of
Trilby. The rural character of the area is to be maintained and is identified as anarea of special
planning because of its scenic resource values. He stated the proposed development did not
accomplish the objectives of the regional plan.
Lucia Liley, attorney representing the owner, stated it was more difficult to address this project on
appeal than others because a lot is going on in the City with land use ordinances and regulations that
are establishing requirements that are different from what were in effect when this project was
submitted and when it received its preliminary approval from P&Z. The Board tried to separate
those issues and determined that this project had followed the rules in effect at the time of submittal
and was entitled to approval under those rules. She stated it is recognized that under the new rules,
this project would not comply and could not be approved. That standard is applicable to future
projects and not to this project. It is essential that that point be made and that the developer can
depend on the integrity of the Council to look at and separate out those issues and to recognize that
although personally the interim ordinances might be preferred, this owner has followed the rules that
were in place.
Frank Vaught, Vaught -Frye Architects, stated two documents have influenced this project. The first
is the Land Development Guidance System that requires a minimum of three dwelling units per acre
and the second is the Plan for the Region between Fort Collins and Loveland. The preferred land
use scenario in the Plan indicated this piece of property to be residential. Residential is defined as
an area of urban residential development within the UGA. Densities are typically three or more
dwelling units per acre. He spoke of the changes in location of the different land uses based on
meetings with the neighborhood. The area to the north was redesigned to increase the size of lots
in that area, to add more open space, and to eliminate the second entrance, thereby reducing the
density in that area to less than two dwelling units per acre. He stated the street improvements will
incorporate full turn lanes at all four legs of the Shields/Trilby intersection. There will be a 36 ft.
wide street the entire length of Trilby that will allow left turn lanes into both Thompson and Registry
Ridge. The 36 foot street would be extended to the south boundary of this property. He spoke of
buffering efforts and added the ability to have open space will provide the needed view vistas to the
foothills. He reviewed the benefits of the proposal which he described as: the preservation of very
important wetlands; the provision of valuable open space to the City/County residents; the provision
of a connection to the existing City sidewalk system; the provision of lower density and buffering
to the north; compliance with the intent of the corridor plan; exceeding the requirements of the solar
orientation ordinance
with 69% of the lots meeting the requirement; and design of a neighborhood that includes a school,
a park, a recreation area, shopping and mixed housing opportunities.
Lucia Liley addressed issues contained in the Thieman appeal. She stated the corridor plan is silent
on the question of clustering. This is an advisory document that is not a part of the comprehensive
plan; however, the developer looked very hard at trying to comply with it. She stated the project '
74
February 13, 1996
meets the intent of clustering as described in the corridor plan. The crux of the appellant's issue has
to do with density. The LDGS defines appropriate density. Under LDGS requirements this project
is a low density, single-family residential proposal. The appellants are talking lot size differences
not land use differences. The LDGS requires a minimum three dwelling units per acre residential
requirement. Owners face denial for not meeting that absolute criterion. She addressed the issue
of failure to property consider the compatibility of the Registry Ridge use versus the existing and
future land uses, which is primarily a density issue. The issue of the Board exceeding its authority
by failing to consider community facilities and services focuses on schools and roads. The project
is within existing service areas of police, fire, water and sewer. She pointed out that water and
electric are available on the site and noted that sewer service will need to be extended. This will be
done at the sole cost of the developer. There are no standards contained in the LDGS with regard
to schools. Responses indicated no concern about police and fire service times. Code requirements
dictate both on -site and off -site street improvements. A project can be required to provide
infrastructure necessary to meet the demands of the project. This development will pay the cost of
meeting its own impacts. A traffic study was done and full right and left turn movements will be
provided for. The developer would be willing to contribute to signalization but the warrants do not
justify a signal. She spoke of the irrevocable escrow that binds the developer to do things that were
not necessary on the day care site, the park site and on the off -site open space. This was done to
make sure everyone understood the commitment of the developer and to emphasize that it was not
a minimal commitment.
Rebuttal -
Mike Schultz stated this project sets the tone for everything going on south of Trilby and especially
between Shields and Taft Hill Road. He stated the LDGS calls for a transition in land uses. He
stated that this development, even by reducing the densities to two units per acre along Trilby Road,
does not make the development and all of its high density interior development, compatible with the
rural character of the land to the north and the vacant agricultural property surrounding the property.
He stated the land is not contiguous to any existing urban residential development within the City.
The land use policy plan states that for this reason, the proposal can be denied. He stated the
development will not be compatible with the existing neighborhood setbacks and that there is not
an adequate supply of water promised to this development. He stated placing the development at
the far northern edge of the Thompson R-2J school district does not promote the safe, efficient and
economic use of public facilities such as schools and school busses. He stated the three-mile
annexation plan is critical and added the City of Fort Collins does not have such a plan that should
spell out what the City plans to do with the area surrounding this site. He stated the proposal does
not add to the community of Fort Collins.
Lucia Liley stressed that from the land use standpoint as defined by the City, these are two single-
family land uses. The question is one of lot size. The developer is providing in a variety of ways,
for some design features that will better accommodate the differences in lot sizes. She stated that
in the LDGS, the three dwelling unit per acre requirement is a mandatory absolute criterion. If it is
not met, the developer cannot proceed. Variances are not usually granted except in cases where there
1
75
February 13, 1996
has been significant evidence on the record that there are exceptional, unusual environmental '
conditions that would dictate and require the developer to go below the stated City minimum density.
She stated the developer has worked with the Thompson R-2J school district. She spoke of City
policies that require mixed use and stated no plan would be approved without mixed use. She stated
she did not believe the three-mile annexation plan requirement applied since this property was
annexed in 1981 and the statute was adopted in 1987. She stated this project is separated from
Ridgewood Hills by the proposed open space. The development can never be contiguous to existing
City development if the open space is preserved. She stated the developer has provided a plan that
offers many benefits to the City and meets a lot of City policies. Unanimous recommendations have
been received from the Park and Recreation Board and the Natural Resources Board and from staff.
She spoke of the open space to be gained and the negotiations involved in demonstrating the
commitment to the project on the part of the owner.
Councilmember Kneeland asked how the policy documents versus the zoning requirements are
applied and about the compatibility of the development with the existing uses surrounding it.
Ludwig responded that the LDGS states that ODPs are reviewed against the land use policies plan
and their conformance with the comprehensive plan. PUDs are reviewed against the LDGS. The
focus of the compatibility issue was whether the densities were the same. The density is not the
same as the uses to the north but staff believed and the Board agreed, that with the setbacks and the
buffering of the more intense uses, it met the compatibility criteria.
Councilmember Smith asked when the emergency services approval was granted and if it was '
granted specific to this configuration. He asked if the escrowing of the three acres for the day care
center was contingent on the church raising the money and building the center.
Ludwig replied that the plans were routed in June or July of 1995 as is consistent and comments
came back indicating no concern with serving the area. The only change to the original plan was the
location of the commercial site and the medium density residential.
Lucia Liley responded that there are no contingencies. The developer did not charge the church
anything for the deed. It was transferred with no strings attached. It is shown on the ODP as a day
care center and there is no alternative land use. It must be a day care center or not built unless
Council or the P&Z Board changes the use.
Councilmember McCluskey asked about the concerns raised on the three-mile annexation plan. He
asked about the escrowing of the deed for the day care center.
City Attorney Roy replied that if this was an annexation Council was considering, it would be a
relevant consideration. It is not relevant with regard to the approval of the ODP or the PUD.
Assuming that the escrow documents with regard to the park are irrevocable and in proper order and
are delivered upon final approval of the PUD, the City's ownership of that park property would be
ensured. Whether Council wants to consider that the equivalent of present ownership of the '
76
February 13, 1996
property, is up to the Council. With regard to the day care center, it would also accomplish the
conveyance of the property to the church. He stated the property cannot be developed in any other
fashion but as a day care center but there would be no assurance as to the construction of the day care
center. If Council construes that requirement as requiring the PUD to be within 1000 feet of an
existing day care center or one that is to be constructed simultaneously with this phase, it would not
give that assurance. Any change to the day care center use would require an amendment to the ODP
and that would be subject to review by the P&Z Board and appeal to the Council.
Councilmember Smith asked about stormwater detention for the area.
Basil Hamdan, Stormwater Utility Department, responded that two tributaries drain into Fossil
Creek. He stated there are two elements to stormwater runoff, the rates of runoff and the total
volume of runoff. Courts have held that you cannot alter one or the other or change the character
of the streams. Developers must get the runoff to a major drainage way. In this case the developer
has been required to reduce the rates of runoff through detention to even out the rates. The plan is
a combination of detention/ retention. Detention slows the water but eventually lets it go off the site.
Retention keeps it on the site and the excess runoff is controlled.
Councilmember Janett asked if the day care center can be built with ODP approval or is PUD
approval necessary. She asked if the church could request a change of use in the PUD.
City Attorney Roy replied that PUD approval is needed. ODP approval would not be sufficient to
begin construction of the day care center. The church would have to seek an amendment to the ODP
to make it consistent with the PUD. Unless the ODP was amended the church could not ask for a
different use.
Mayor Azari asked for clarification and rationale on the contiguity issue.
Ludwig spoke of the contiguity criterion for PUDs on the point chart. He stated no points were
claimed or awarded for this project for its contiguity to existing development.
City Attorney Roy commented on the alternatives available to Council. He suggested Council
address the issues raised in the following order:
- the questions of whether or not the appellant was denied a fair hearing for any of the reasons
stated in the Notice of Appeal;
- if Council finds the appellant was denied a fair hearing, the matter must be remanded to P&Z;
- if Council finds the appellant was not denied a fair hearing, the two other issues to be
addressed would be the approval or disapproval of the ODP; and
' the approval or disapproval of the Preliminary PUD.
77
February 13, 1996
He suggested separate motions for each issue. I
Councilmember Kneeland made a motion, seconded by Councilmember McCloskey, that the P&Z
Board did conduct a fair hearing, operated under its previously established rules of procedure, and
did not exceed its jurisdiction.
Councilmember Kneeland stated that based on the information received, the rules of procedure were
followed in accordance with established rules of procedure and the Board did not exceed its authority
orjurisdiction.
The vote on Councilmember Kneeland's motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Apt, Azari,
Janett, Kneeland, McCluskey, Smith and Wanner. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Apt made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Janett, that the P&Z Board failed
to properly interpret and apply the relevant provisions of the Code and that its decision on the ODP
be overturned.
Councilmember Apt stated he believed the ODP did not conform to the City's currently adopted
comprehensive plan, in particular Land Use Policy 3, the location of residential development should
be close to employment, recreation, shopping facilities; LU26, availability of existing services shall '
be used as a criterion in determining the location of higher intensive areas in the City; LU 27,
developments with requirements beyond existing levels of police and fire protection, parks, and
utilities shall not be allowed to develop until such services can be adequately provided and
maintained; LU 49, the City's Land Use Policies Plan shall be directed towards minimizing the use
of private automobiles and toward alleviating and mitigating the air quality impacts of concentrated
use of automobiles; LU 80, higher density residential uses should locate (a) near the core area,
regional/community shopping center, CSU main campus, or the hospital; (b) within close proximity
to community or neighborhood park facilities; (c) where water and sewer facilities can be adequately
provided; (d) within easy access to major employment center; (e) with access to public
transportation; and (f) in areas with alternative modes of transportation; LU 82, higher density
residential uses should locate in planned unit developments or in close proximity to existing higher
density areas.
Councilmember Janett suggested a friendly amendment to add LU 22, preferential consideration
shall be given to urban development proposals which are contiguous to existing development within
the city limits or consistent with the phasing plan for the City's Urban Growth Area.
Councilmember Apt agreed to the friendly amendment.
Councilmember McCluskey stated there is always controversy about the definition of high density
and added that to many people, three dwelling units per acre is high density. He stated this project ,
78
February 13, 1996
' is higher density than the existing rural area surrounding it, but is not high density within the City
of Fort Collins and does not need to meet those criteria.
Councilmember Kneeland stated she would not be supporting the motion. She stated she believed
the proposed development meets the requirements of the LDGS. It scored the number of points
needed and meets the All Development Criteria.
Councilmember Janett stated the ODP fails to meet the land use policies stated and additionally the
P&Z Board failed to properly interpret the Code with regard to Criterion "e" and the day care center
and with regard to Criterion "p" with the budget for the recreation center since the center is in a
different phase.
Mayor Azari stated she would not support the motion. She stated she believed the P&Z Board did
properly apply and interpret the Code in the approval of the ODP. She stated the project had been
legitimately reviewed by staff and the P&Z Board.
Councilmember Wanner stated he believed the P&Z Board hearing was conducted properly and that
the project complies with the regulations and laws in force at the time. -
The vote on Councilmember Apt's motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Apt, Janett, and
Smith. Nays: Azari, Kneeland, McCluskey and Wanner.
' THE MOTION FAILED.
Councilmember McCluskey made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kneeland, to uphold the
P&Z action to approve the Registry Ridge ODP.
Councilmember Apt stated the City has had an existing comprehensive plan in place for many years
and stated that he believed the City was doing inappropriate things in approving development that
is completely out of phasing and in keeping with the comprehensive plan.
The vote on Councilmember McCluskey's motion was as follows: Yeas: Azari, Kneeland,
McCluskey and Wanner. Nays: Apt, Janett and Smith.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Janett made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Apt, to overturn the P&Z Board
decision to approve the Registry Ridge PUD because the Board failed to properly interpret the Code
in regards to Criteria "g" and " p" of the residential density point chart, as well as All Development
Criteria 2.2, 2.7 and 2.12, including building placement, orientation, architecture and setbacks.
Councilmember Janett stated that the requirement that the location is within 1000 feet of a day care
center should mean that the center exists. Points should not be given for a facility that does not exist.
' 79
February 13, 1996
She stated she did not believe it was appropriate to give points for a recreation center that is '
scheduled to be built in another phase of the project and where there is discretion about what will
happen in that phase. The recreation center is not an approved land use and there is no guarantee it
will be an approved land use.
Councilmember Apt stated approving this PUD is premature. There are issues around the
comprehensive plan (air quality, pedestrian flow, architecture or building heights and views) that
have not been carefully considered. The project needs more work before it is approved.
Councilmember Kneeland stated she would not support the motion. She stated she believed the
LDGS was properly interpreted based on the background information provided and the discussion.
Mayor Azari stated she would not support the motion. She stated she believed the Code was
properly applied and that the Board carried out its duties.
The vote on Councilmember Janett's motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Apt, Janett,
Smith and Wanner. Nays: Azari, Kneeland and McCluskey.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Other Business
Mayor Azari suggested postponing discussion of the study session item on Cost of Services that had '
been scheduled for February 13. City Manager Fischbach suggested rescheduling the Cost of
Services discussion to February 27 which would move formal consideration of Cost of Services to
April 16.
Councilmember Janett made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Apt, that the City send a letter
to the town of Windsor, under the Mayor's signature, indicating the City of Fort Collins has no
intention of annexing east of I-25 and south of Harmony Road.
Councilmember Janett spoke of Windsor's plans to annex 3,000 acres and of a policy statement from
the City of Loveland stating that the City has no intention of annexing north or east of its existing
boundaries. She stated the purpose of her motion was to assure Windsor that Fort Collins has no
intention of annexing into Windsor's urban area.
Councilmember McCluskey suggested stressing the importance of working as partners in areas of
mutual concern rather than identifying specific geographical boundaries.
Councilmember Smith made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kneeland, to amend
Councilmember Janett's earlier motion by deleting specific language relating to location.
80 1
February 13, 1996
The vote on Councilmember Smith's amendment was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Apt,
' Azari, Janett, Kneeland, McCluskey, Smith and Wanner. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
The vote on Councilmember Janett's motion as amended was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers:
Apt, Azari, Janett, Kneeland, McCluskey, Smith and Wanner.
Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Janett asked for a two page memo on providing transit passes and 10-ride tickets
at City offices and on whether the City could provide bus passes as part of employees' compensation
packages.
Councilmember Apt asked for a two page memo on City Code requirements with regard to
sidewalks, curb and gutter.
Councilmember Smith asked for information on development costs in other communities and other
indicators that would complement development cost information.
Councilmember Apt reminded of the February 26 forum to be held at the Lincoln Center to discuss
the Goals and Vision document of City Plan and the issue of growth.
Adiournment
The meeting concluded at 10:15 p.m.
ATTEST:
�I ;t9�u�C.tty Clerk
1
81