HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 07/20/2006Council Liaison: Karen Weitkunat Staff Liaison: Cameron Gloss
Chairperson: Dave Lingle Phone: (W) 223-1820
Vice Chair: Brigitte Schmidt Phone: (W) 491-2579
Chairperson Lingle called the meeting to order at 6:03 p.m.
Roll Call: Stockover, Smith, Schmidt, Meyer, Fries and Lingle. Member Rollins
was absent.
Staff Present: Gloss, Eckman, Averill, Martine, Barnes, Souder, and Deines.
Citizen Participation: None
Director of Current Planning Cameron Gloss reviewed the Consent Agenda:
Consent Agenda:
1. Minutes of the February 16", April 20(Continued), May 18 (Continued)
and June 15 (Continued), 2006 Planning and Zoning Board
Hearings.
2. Resolution PZ06-08 — Easement Dedication.
Discussion Items:
3. #3-04 Southwest Enclave Annexation and Zoning.
Member Schmidt moved for approval of Consent Item 1 the February 16, 2006
minutes only. Member Meyer seconded the motion. The motion was approved 5-
0 with Member Fries declaring a conflict.
Member Schmidt moved for approval of Consent Item 2. Member Fries seconded
the motion. The motion was approved 6-0.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
July 20, 2006
Page 2
Project: Recommendation to City Council regarding the
Southwest Enclave Annexation and Zoning.
Project Description: Request for annexation and zoning of a County
enclave that is completely surrounded by properties
that have been annexed into the City. The request
area is composed of approximately 2.78 square miles
(1,748 acres) of privately and publicly -owned (street
right-of-way and Natural Areas) property generally
bordered on the north by Harmony Road, the south by
Trilby Road, South Taft Hill Road on the west, and 1/4
mile east of College Avenue to the east. The
recommended zoning is a combination of the Urban
Estate (LIE), Low Density Residential (RL), Low
Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood (LMN), Medium
Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood (MMN), Rural
Lands (RUL), Commercial C, and Public Open Lands
(POL) Districts consistent with the Structure Plan map
land use designations.
Recommendation: Approval
Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence:
A verbatim transcript of the hearing is attached.
Other Business:
There was no other business.
The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m.
These minutes were approved on August 17, 2006 by the Planning & Zoning
Board
1
1 PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING
2 CITY OF FORT COLLINS
Council Chambers, City Hall West
3 300 LaPorte Avenue
4 July 20, 2006, 6:00 p.m.
5
Board Members:
6
Dave Lingle, Chairman
7 William Stockover
Andy Smith
8 Brigette Schmidt
Judy Meyer
9 Matthew Fries
10 Staff Members:
11 Paul Eckman, Deputy City Attorney
Cameron Gloss, Planning Director
12 Georgiana Deines, Secretary
David Averill, Transportation Planning Department
13 Doug Martine, Light & Power
Peter Barnes, Zoning Department
14 Beth Sauder, Neighborhood Services
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2
1 * * * * * * *
2 MR. LINGLE: All right. Thank you. Good evening,
3 and welcome to the July 20, 2006 meeting of the City of Fort
4 Collins Planning and Zoning Board. May we have roll call,
5 please?
6 MS. DEINES: Stockover?
7 MR. STOCKOVER: Here.
8 MS. DEINES: Smith?
9 MR. SMITH: Here.
10 MS. DEINES: Schmidt?
11 MS. SCHMIDT: Here.
12 MS. DEINES: Meyer?
13 MS. LINGLE: Here.
14 MS. DEINES: Fries?
15 MR. FRIES: Here.
16 MS. DEINES: Lingle?
17 MR. LINGLE: Here.
18 Cameron, can we have an addenda review, please?
19 MR. GLOSS: Good evening, Chairman, and members of
20 the board. We also have a few items on our agenda this
21 evening. But, first, the minutes that were published --
22 actually, on the first set, which were those of February 16th
23 of 2006 have been completed. And, the others, we should get
24 to you relatively soon.
25 The second item is an easement dedication request
3
1
2
3
M
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
in the Oakridge Village Number X -- or Number IX, rather --
Association. Those are items that are on our consent agenda.
We only have one discussion item, and that is the
recommendation to the Council on the southwest enclave
annexation and neutral zoning. Member, Ron Ellins,
(phonetic) has declared a conflict of interest, and that
concludes my agenda report.
MR. LINGLE: Thank you. And next on our agenda, is
citizen participation, and this is the opportunity for anyone
in the audience that would like to address the Planning and
Zoning Board on any issue that is not on our agenda tonight.
So, at this time, I would like to ask if there is anyone that
would like to address the Board?
Okay. Seeing none, we will move to consideration
of the consent agenda. And that is Item Number 1, minutes of
the February 16th meeting, and Item 2, the Resolution PZO6-08
Easement Issue. I would like to ask if there's anyone in the
audience that would like to have either of those items for
consent polled for discussion?
Okay, seeing none, is there anyone on the Board
that would like to have them removed for discussion? Okay.
None. Then could we have a motion for the consent, then?
MS. SCHMIDT: I would like to make a motion for the
consent agenda, but I do want to point out there is a minor
change to the minutes on the citizen participation at that
E
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
OVA
13
14
15
16
IVA
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
February meeting, and it is outlined in the minutes, so that
will be corrected. But I would like to move that we approve
the consent agenda. That includes the minutes of February
16th and the resolution Pz06-08, the Easement Dedication.
MR. FRIES: Can I make an amendment to that? I
have to abstain from the minutes because I wasn't present on
the Board at that time. Could we take these separate so that
I could vote on the resolution?
MR. LINGLE: Okay.
MS. SCHMIDT: Sure.
MR. LINGLE: I guess the first motion will be that
we approve the minutes of February 16th with the change that
was noted.
MS. MEYER: I'll second that.
MR. LINGLE: Move to approve the minutes of the
February 16th meeting? Roll call.
MS. DEINES: Smith?
MR. SMITH: Yes.
MS. DEINES: Schmidt?
MR. SCHMIDT: Yes.
MS. DEINES: Meyer?
MS. MEYER: Yes.
MS. DEINES: Stockover?
MR. STOCKOVER: Yes.
MS. DEINES: Lingle?
5
1 MR. LINGLE: Yes.
2 Okay. Then do we have a motion for Item 2 on the
3 consent agenda?
4 MS. SCHMIDT: I will move that we approve Item
5 Number 2, Resolution PZ06-08 Easement Dedication.
6 MR. FRIES: Second.
7 MR. LINGLE: Move to second to approve or recommend
8 to City Council the approval of Item Number 2, the Easement
9 Dedication. Can we have a roll call, please?
10 MS. DEINES: Schmidt?
11 MR. SCHMIDT: Yes.
12 MS. DEINES: Meyer?
13 MS. MEYER: Yes.
14 MS. DEINES: Fries?
15 MR. FRIES: Yes.
16 MS. DEINES: Stockover?
17 MR. STOCKOVER: Yes.
18 MS. DEINES: Smith?
19 MR. SMITH: Yes.
20 MS. DEINES: Lingle?
21 MR. LINGLE: Yes.
22 Okay. That item is approved. Next, then, we will
23 move to the discussion agenda, and tonight that consists of
24 Item Number 3, the Southwest Enclave Annexation and Zoning.
25 This is a recommendation to City Council, so this body will
11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
not be making the final approval or disapproval of that item.
So, Cameron, could we have a staff report, please?
MR. GLOSS: Yes. Thank you. The staff has
prepared an analysis of the Southwest Enclave Annexation,
which will be the largest individual annexation and
improvement district, and certainly the largest, as I
understand, the largest in the state that is a forced
annexation or nonconsensual.
The area is roughly two -and -three-quarters of a
mile and roughly bounded by Harmony Road on the north, and by
a quarter mile south of Trilby on the south, going just west
of Taft Hill Road on the west, and then about a half mile
east of College Avenue on the east, and involves several
different subdivisions and commercial businesses.
I just want to walk you through the evolution of it
very quickly over the last several decades, and how we got to
the creation of this enclave. Back in the 1970s, we had
brought the city limits down approximately to Harmony Road.
And then, through the '80s, we almost completely encircled
the area, then known as the Southwest Enclave.
In the '90s, we had a few annexations that
ultimately led to the development, and we had some natural
areas, as well as some other parcels, which completely
encircled the area. And there was some discussion the other
night at the City Council meeting about one particular area
7
1 of the annexation, and that is that little sliver of land
2 that is on the west side of Taft Hill.
3 If you look at your map here on the screen, you can
4 see there on Taft Hill the areas of red, the annexation since
5 the year 2000, and you can see a strip there west of the
6 roadway. And there was some questions whether that strip was
7 public right-of-way or if it was a street parcel or if it was
8 both. And we have done some research. We have looked at the
9 deeds from the transactions of the property, as well as the
10 annexation map, and the following image goes ahead and
11 describes in great detail this area.
12 You have a right-of-way that is about 120-feet
13 wide, and the right-of-way cannot be included in that area to
14 create enclosure under State law. You might remember that we
15 had a street -- the Peterson Annexation that we had a
16 discussion on very recently. But, west of there, there is a
17 strip of land that is 150-feet wide, and that land is not
18 public right-of-way. So, given that evidence, it is the
19 staff's perspective, clearly, that we do have an enclave, and
20 we have full enclosure of that area.
21 The basis for the enclave is steeped in State
22 Statute and the State Constitution, and gives the City the
23 right to annex areas without property owner consent. That
24 they are an enclave in this case, if the area is entirely
25 contained within the boundaries of the municipality. That's
0
1 a State Statute, and then going into the State Constitution,
2 which uses the language, "If there is certain town surrounded
3 by the municipality." And, in both cases, we feel that those
4 standards have been met.
5 Also, the State Statute goes on to say that if the
6 area is surrounded by a period of greater than three years,
7 then the City can then proceed with annexation and bring it
8 into its jurisdiction. The City also has a Master Plan.
9 This is for the entire urban area of Fort Collins, includes
10 lands within the City, as well as the Unincorporated County
11 that is within what we call the "Growth Management Area."
12 That plan has been well regarded upon both the
13 state and national level. We have a very clear vision of the
14 way the City of Fort Collins will handle properties over time
15 and bring land in the GMA into its jurisdiction, and that
16 Master Plan is supported by the City's Intergovernmental
17 Agreement between the County and the City of Fort Collins.
18 And that Intergovernmental Agreement states that
19 it's the City's intent to annex properties within the GMA as
20 expeditiously as possible, and also that the City agrees with
21 the County to pursue involuntary annexation as properties
22 become eligible, and that is the case here.
23 Looking at greater detail, the City's Master Plan,
24 that's the map that implements City Planning Policies, you'll
25 see a variety of zoning districts here ranging from lower
0
1 density residential, the lowest being our new district, which
2 is for rural lands. And that would be largely for property
3 on the west side of the annexation area also, a commercial
4 frontage on College Avenue, and a variety of residential.
5 So, that's the balance of the area, as well as some public
6 lands.
7 These designations very closely resemble the
8 conditions on the ground in terms of use and density. The
9 staff is recommending that you adopt or recommend to the City
10 Council, zoning that reflects the structure plan, and this is
11 depicted on the map shown here on the screen. The series of
12 neighborhoods within the annexation area, they are largely
13 developed, and many have private covenants that prohibit
14 additional subdivision density be added.
15 The aerial photograph of the area, you will see how
16 the subdivisions are largely developed. The area on the west
17 portion of the annexation area is the least developed, and we
18 also have some pockets of vacant land in the annexation area.
19 And you will see that the area is laced with storm drainage
20 areas, and we have natural areas of that land, separate
21 areas, that are part of the annexation. These are only
22 controlled by the City of Fort Collins as a Natural Area.
23 Over the years, the City has made stormwater
24 improvements. This is along Fossil Creek. We have also
25 maintained the structures within the Fairway Estates
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Neighborhood, even though it's within the County's
jurisdiction. So the City does a series of stormwater
management activities, and we fund those activities through a
tax -- pardon me, a stormwater fee that's assessed on a
monthly basis, and it comes in people's utility bill.
And we've had a lot of questions about those within
the annexation area about the impact of this fee, and we are
going to talk a little bit more about the fee, how it's
calculated, and then potential mitigation measures that are
also being proposed.
And I also want to very briefly discuss what
stormwater fees go toward. There has been some concerns of
those in the annexation area that Fossil Creek; they already
had improvements; that we don't have major structural changes
to our stormwater facilities in this portion of the community
contemplated; and what benefit would there be for citizens.
Well, actually, the fees go toward solving
stormwater problems throughout the City, and citizens
throughout the City have at present paid to that fund to
solve problems that might impact rural places. It might
impact neighborhoods that are not within their geographic
area, also near places where they work.
So the fee is dealing with the broader issues of
stormwater and not just those localized and specific to a
neighborhood, and I want to make that very clear. This slide
11
1 goes over very briefly the activity that stormwater fees go
2 towards. Obviously, there's the structural facility that we
3 mentioned, if you think of the recent retention ponds, for
4 example, then, also, local flood conditions and the
5 management of the stormwater utility. That also gets paid
6 for by that fee.
7 Stormwater rates are based on primarily the size of
8 the lot, and the amount of the improvements on your surface
9 that you have. There are some coefficients that are used on
10 larger properties. There are modifications that are made to
11 understand exactly how much area is truly being impacted and
12 how much water is being generated. So there are adjustments
13 made for those larger lots.
14 Stormwater fees have been calculated for properties
15 in the annexation area. I've got some charts here. This
16 shows an example of the Kelmar (phonetic) Strip using the
17 average lot size and what the fee would be. And that fee
18 would be about $133 per month, and that would be for the
19 average lot within the Kelmar Subdivision. That is a
20 commercial subdivision east of College and north of Trilby
21 Road.
22 Also, with the transfer of jurisdiction, there
23 would be a transfer of electric service. All but 100 of the
24 residences and businesses within the area are served by
25 Poudre Valley REA. Those approximately 100 are Excel
12
1 customers. Under State law, REA customers pay a fee called
2 the "Service Rights Fee," and that goes directly to Poudre
3 Valley REA for loss of revenue. And the City actually
4 collects the fee, and then that gets transferred on to REA.
5 There's been a lot of discussion about the fee.
6 The City does have very attractive electric rates. Our
7 electric rates are lower than both Excel or REA. And, in
8 fact, even without consideration of the Service Rights Fee,
9 in many cases, we have situations where folks would be paying
10 less for electric services in the annexation, but there are
11 some that would pay more, and we're going to talk about that
12 later on, the electric service fee mitigation.
13 The City and the County have adopted street
14 standards, and that was back in 2001. Many of the streets
15 within the area are substandard to these standards, and
16 future development will trigger new construction, and that
17 will meet the standards, whether it's in the City or the
18 County.
19 And also, those streets that don't meet standard
20 that will fail over time will need to be improved, and those
21 improvements, whether the annexation goes forward or not,
22 will be paid for by local property owners. Typically, we do
23 that through a Special Improvement District.
24 The City also has adopted an Access Management Plan
25 on South College Avenue, and many of the board members have
13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
been involved in these discussions over the years, and I want
go into that in detail, but I want to remind everyone of
that.
The streets within the area, as I mentioned, vary
tremendously from this type of gravel surface to a pavement,
but, again, not meeting the standards. As these areas
develop or streets are rebuilt, the City will be working very
closely with area residents to come up with a way to finance
creatively those improvements, as well as the street section
that matches the character of the area, and that also
includes street lighting.
The City has acquired a tremendous natural area of
protection within the annexation itself. It's a very large
natural area, which I won't show here, but it is a
photograph, which is in the background here just to the
south, and then there are a couple of other pockets of
natural areas. And we also have Coyote Ridge Open Space west
of College, and so there's a lot of other open space areas in
this area to the east as well.
There were some questions at the work session about
park facilities, and I just wanted to point out that the City
has invested a considerable amount of money and time
designing and building parks immediately adjacent to the
annexation area, and some of those parks you're probably
familiar with. Fossil Creek Community Park, it's our newest
14
1 park. It is just outstanding. It's our premiere facility,
2 and that will be located just east of the annexation area,
3 and I think I indicated on that, all of the facilities that
4 are located in that park.
5 It is a very well -used park, and here, in Fossil
6 Creek Meadows, you are quite close there. To the west and to
7 the south of Harmony Road, you have Ridgeview Neighborhood
8 Park. That helps to serve the subdivisions on the north and
9 west side of the enclave. You have the Homestead
10 Neighborhood Park on the south of Trilby Road and west of
11 College.
12 Also, the Province Town Development, which is near
13 the southeast corner of College and Trilby, east by about a
14 half mile, they actually have a neighborhood park planned
15 that should be constructed by 2008. So many of those within
16 Trilby Heights, for example, would enjoy the benefit from
17 that neighborhood park when it's constructed.
18 The City will be collecting park impact fees as the
19 area develops, and those fees will go towards either
20 enhancing the existing parks and/or constructing new parks as
21 the densities rise enough where we can actually retrofit some
22 areas for parks, but we don't have any specifically planned
23 for the area. As I mentioned, most of them are built -out, so
24 we wouldn't have opportunity in this subdivision.
25 I've got some graphics that very briefly show the
15
1 impact of the annexation area to property owners, and we have
2 gone through some of this in work session. I don't think I
3 am going to go through it in great detail, but just to walk
4 you through it. With respect to utilities, you see a series
5 of columns there. You have the Larimer County status,
6 whether it's a service, and then the change to area residents
7 upon annexation.
8 And you will notice that with the exception of the
9 electric utility and the switch over for service, we don't
10 really have any significant changes between the City and the
11 County, and that also holds true for streets, as I mentioned.
12 We go on to the regulatory environment, and we're going to
13 talk at the end of the presentation a little bit about
14 mitigation measures. There are some code changes that are
15 being contemplated, which will help ease the transition for
16 those residents coming from the County to the City.
17 One of the key analyses that we had to conduct
18 during the review process of the enclave was the impact on
19 the City's financial position. Given that, generally,
20 residential areas cost considerably more to provide service
21 than they do generating revenue, there is a situation
22 that -- we go into a pie chart here. Pardon me. Back up. A
23 graphic that shows the revenues versus the expenditures, and
24 this would be without any mitigations.
25 As you can see, it's a very close match between the
16
1 two sides of the ledger. And, while that sounds good, the
2 problem that we have is that the funds in which these
3 measurements can be generated or allocated toward, actually
4 are skewed towards nongeneral funds. The revenue side and
5 the expenditure side tend to be more for the key areas of
6 police services, and, to a lesser degree, transportation and
7 maintenance, and that creates a little bit of a dilemma for
8 us.
9 If you look at the percent for police services for
10 the entire enclave, right around 1.6 million -- and that is a
11 significant number -- if you look at the revenues that will
12 be generated, this bar chart breaks down that area on the
13 basis of neighborhood, and you will see that the two columns
14 almost to the far right relate primarily to commercial areas,
15 the Trilby Heights frontage and southward to the Kelmar Strip
16 frontages. And you see where most of the revenue is going to
17 be generated quite frankly. If you look --
18 MS. SCHMIDT: Could you just repeat what you just
19 said there? I recall seeing that chart, but I don't
20 remember. Was that where the revenue was coming from by
21 neighborhood? The bars?
22 MR. GLOSS: Yes. The way -- it's by neighborhood.
23 If you look at the color -coded maps in your packet, you will
24 see the names of the residential subdivisions or the
25 commercial subdivisions and what's reflected on the chart,
17
1 are each one of those colored areas having its own separate
2 bar.
3 So go ahead and look at the lists. These are
4 sheriffs, from 2003, and the gradations in color reflect the
5 number of calls. Obviously, the darker color being the
6 greater number of calls, and you can see, even from a
7 distance, that the south College frontage has the greatest
8 number of calls, and then, to a lesser extent, the area
9 surrounding it. And then, the lowest calls tend to be in the
10 residential areas as you go further to the west.
11 And it goes without saying that it is supposed to
12 reflect use and density. With that information, we have
13 elected to pursue a phased annexation approach, and this is
14 an important phase in the plan. It shows up the four phases.
15 The boundaries of the phases could change slightly. This is
16 our best guess based on the information we have on hand, and
17 the phasing is related to -- it's kind of obvious -- the
18 financial ability for the City to provide a full range of
19 services, but also for the progression of the utility service
20 extension.
21 But the first phase, they call it "College
22 Frontage," and we talked about this in the past work session.
23 It's pretty straightforward, and we went through a very
24 lengthy and expensive public process to arrive at the
25 recommendations this evening.
Me
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
And some -- we have been accused of ram rodding or
fast -tracking this annexation through the process, when the
reality is, we spent the last two years meeting with area
residents trying to understand what their concerns are and
trying to ease that transition for residents and business
owners going from the County to the City.
And it has been a very tough process. We've had 19
public meetings, going back for the last two years, and one
of the last meetings were conducted -- under 12 or so over
the last six months, and the City Manager's Office just did a
tremendous job facilitating discussion with these owners.
And the discussions were based on the topic or geographic
area of the annexation, the commercial owners, thank God, and
then got specific information related to their types of
impact, as well as the obvious impacts to the residential
areas.
With all of that discussion, you have got some
wonderful summary information in your packets near the end
that summarizes the various issues that were raised. We
discussed them, but they go into greater detail, and we have
several staff members present here tonight to answer your
questions that might have come up during these meetings.
These are the proposed mitigation measures, and I
wanted to just walk through these with you. We have the
first two, which are a little bit different color, relate to
19
1 the phasing -in of electric utility service, stormwater
2 service, as well as a subsidy of 20 percent of the 25 percent
3 Service Rights Fee. And that subsidy for the Service Rights
4 Fee would come through the Utility Reserve fund. The phasing
5 of stormwater utility would be over a five-year period, and
6 you have got percentages shown there.
7 And then, we have a series of other changes that
8 are contemplated city-wide. For example, with the use of the
9 provision of electric fences that are prohibited today and in
10 certain areas -- actually, barbed wire fences are permitted
11 only in industrial areas, and electric fences are prohibited.
12 This code provision would allow electric fences and
13 barbed wire fences in an urban state in a rural lands
14 district for the purposes of keeping in livestock. And also,
15 the electric fence provision would have an amperage
16 limitation. There are also some over changes, which we have
17 gone through in work session, and we would be prepared to
18 answer those questions.
19 Now, the last one relates to kind of a hybrid. It
20 doesn't really neatly fall into either category because this
21 is specific to the annexation, but it also would go to
22 properties city-wide, and that would be related to
23 transportation improvement. The City wants to make a good
24 faith effort, working with various professionals, to try to
25 find ways to creatively finance improvements in the future
20
1 and also address some issues surrounding two potential street
2 closures.
3 One of them, actually, you are familiar with the
4 barricade that is up today; Palmer Drive that comes through
5 Fairway Estates. And we had a lot of concerns raised from
6 area property owners, and our intention is to support those
7 requests at this time, to maintain closure of the street.
8 I wanted to introduce some staff members, while I
9 have a second here, who participated in the public meetings.
10 They are here tonight to answer questions. Tess is with the
11 City's Manager's Office, and she just did a masterful job
12 facilitating a dialogue with area residents over the last six
13 months. She led the meetings with representatives of Light &
14 Power. Doug Martin, he is here this evening. David Averill
15 with Transportation Planning, Peter Barnes with Zoning, Beth
16 Sauder with our Neighborhood Services Office, and I really
17 appreciate them being here this evening. And I'm sure they
18 will provide more information to you as the questions come
19 up, and we have them to respond.
20 So, with that, the staff would just like to
21 summarize by saying that this annexation request complies
22 with all State laws. We've gone through an exhaustive public
23 process. There's certainly an agreement with Larimer County
24 that this needs to be upheld, and the staff is recommending
25 that the Planning and Zoning Board recommend that this
21
1 annexation be approved along with the recommended zoning
2 district. Thanks.
3 MR. LINGLE: Okay. Thank you, Cameron. And
4 tonight, since the City of Fort Collins is the applicant in
5 this case, there will not be a separate applicant
6 presentation. So we'll move to the Planning and Zoning Board
7 questions of the staff at this time.
8 MR. FRIES: One right off the top. On the slide,
9 you were showing sheriff calls. From the policing
10 standpoint, when you say the word "call," is that an incident
11 or is that a citizen initiating a call? Is that a traffic
12 stop? What all encompasses the word "call?"
13 MR. GLOSS: I understand that it's all requests for
14 service, and that is the full range you just mentioned. It's
15 citizen initiated. It would be a police traffic stop. It's
16 the whole range of police involvement in that area that
17 relates to a specific point in time, an incident. It could
18 be a restaurant. It would be a -- could be a whole range,
19 burglars, all sorts of specific needs that would be generated
20 by an area. So it's the whole range.
21 MR. FRIES: And does the City of Fort Collins pick
22 up any of that slack now or are those numbers strictly from
23 the Sherif's Department or how does that work?
24 MR. GLOSS: I understand that those are all of the
25 calls. We have a mutual aid agreement with Larimer County
22
1 where some of those calls we actually do respond to today.
2 Some of the numbers that you saw are not strictly, solely
3 attributable to Larimer County Sheriffs, and we don't have
4 data that slices it finely enough to say what the percentage
5 or the exact number of those calls are or how they are
6 distributed between the City Police Department and the County
7 Sheriffs, but we do have a mutual agreement.
8 MR. FRIES: Thank you.
9 MR. LINGLE: Questions?
10 MS. SCHMIDT: I was reading through the staff
11 program, and I was a little confused. One here, it says, "A
12 Phase I annexation involving properties on College Avenue
13 would require five FTEs." So I thought that was originally
14 for the whole annexation, but you're saying that even Phase I
15 would require five police officers?
16 MR. GLOSS: That's correct. It would be five FTEs
17 for the first phase, five FTEs for the entire annexation
18 area.
19 MS. SCHMIDT: And they're really feeling that they
20 can absorb five by just reallocating?
21 MR. GLOSS: My staff will clarify the situation,
22 and the City is contemplating a temporary solution whereby we
23 would absorb in a very short period of time those calls by
24 existing employees. And then, as that area generates
25 revenue, those monies would go to the police department to
23
1 hire the necessary number of officers to provide all of the
2 services that we committed to.
3 MS. SCHMIDT: So saying that nothing changes
4 development -wise, the only revenue would be sales tax
5 revenue, and you would be able to spend all of that on police
6 officers is what you're saying?
7 MR. GLOSS: I wouldn't generalize by saying "only
8 sales tax revenue." That is not quite right. There are some
9 other fees that would be collected, but in the big picture,
10 you're right. The lion's share is sales tax. There is a
11 little bit of property tax that we get. It's nominal,
12 otherwise, the fees that we would be collecting, but your
13 general statement is correct, yes.
14 MS. SCHMIDT: So is there any anticipation in how
15 many years it would take to come up with the revenue to pay
16 for those five police officers?
17 MR. GLOSS: Well, based on the numbers that we have
18 today, we can come very close to, on a yearly basis, bringing
19 in those revenues for the first five. But where it becomes
20 difficult, quite frankly, is for the entire annexation area.
21 And that's why we've stressed anything in Phase I
22 generating the revenues, then being able to apply those
23 revenues to provide greater service that's needed for the
24 residential areas. But, as I pointed out, we have a
25 difficult situation that we are in. Residential areas
24
1 generally demand tremendous services, and they don't generate
2 much revenue.
3 But, worst of all, is where you have to develop a
4 residential area and you can't recover impact fees through
5 the development. So we are in a tough situation through some
6 of this annexation because it's developed for residential
7 purposes.
8 MS. SCHMIDT: So really the first year before you
9 make the collections of the income is going to be the
10 hardest?
11 MR. GLOSS: That's correct.
12 MS. SCHMIDT: That's all for right now. Thank you.
13 MR. LINGLE: Okay. Other questions? I've got a
14 couple. I just want to understand street maintenance. After
15 a particular residential street would fail, and then it would
16 be reconstructed using a special improvement district, then
17 the City would take over maintenance of that?
18 Cam: That's correct, yes.
19 MR. LINGLE: So it would be a potential one-time
20 expense for some unforeseen time for a street as the need
21 arises?
22 MR. GLOSS: That's correct.
23 MR. LINGLE: Then Peter, we talked a little bit
24 about the sign amortization costs and assuming that Zoning
25 would need to do an inventory of the signs, and there would
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
be some initial staff costs associated with that?
MR. BARNES: Well, it probably would be a similar
process. What the City did years ago, when it was first
adopted in 1970, there was a six -year amortization period at
that time, I think. At that time, the City hired temporary
employees to go out and survey all the properties. Of
course, they were talking about the whole City, and we don't
contemplate doing that at this time, but there would be a
need to expend staff resources to go out there.
We would have to, basically, conduct a survey of
each property, figure out how much sign allowance each
property was allotted, measure the signs that they have up to
see if they are over their sign allowance. Some things are
pretty obvious. We don't want rooftop signs, and some
businesses have rooftop signs.
So, that type of thing, we could take care of
pretty easily, but there would be some staff resources, and
we would just absorb that through current staffing levels.
Our goal would be to try and do those surveys -- obviously,
not before the annexation occurs, but when the annexation
occurs, we would try to get those surveys done within 18
months, and then notify all of the property owners with
specifics. Maybe sooner, if we can, so that they would have
maybe five years or so of advance notice as to what
specifically they would have to do.
26
1 MR. LINGLE: Okay. Thank you. Are there any other
2 development standard related things that would -- that the
3 land use code has an amortization period for, whether it's
4 landscaping or building design standards or anything like
5 that?
6 MR. BARNES: No, as far as I know, the sign code is
7 the only kind of amortizations that are in use in our land
8 use code.
9 MR. LINGLE: Okay. So our only opportunity to
10 bring some of those areas up, in terms of design, would be
11 through redevelopment?
12 MR. BARNES: Yes.
13 MR. LINGLE: Okay.
14 MR. FRIES: Is that strictly redevelopment or
15 change of use?
16 MR. BARNES: Change of use.
17 MR. FRIES: So you wouldn't necessarily have to
18 redevelop for this flea market turned into a grocery store,
19 for example? That would be a change of use, correct, where
20 they had to bring their property up to code?
21 MR. BARNES: Retail -to -retail may not necessarily
22 be a change of use, but a flea market into an office, for
23 instance, or a restaurant, that's clearly a change of use
24 that would trigger having to comply to the extent reasonably
25 feasible. Obviously, it might not be possible to pick up a
27
1
2
3
4
r
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Ravi
18
19
20
21
`-a
23
24
25
building and move it, but we would be looking at parking lot
improvements, landscaping. Other departments would also have
the opportunity at that time to require upgrades as well.
MR. FRIES: Is there any fees collected or any
potential fees associated with the change of use?
MR. BARNES: Well, they would have to go through a
development review process. That might be something as
simple as a minor amendment, or it could be, in a certain
instance, a full-blown Type I or Type II Review. So we would
reflect the development application fee. Transportation
development review fees might also apply. Building permit
fees would kick in. The other departments, Light & Power,
might have fees as well at that time.
MR. FRIES: Okay. Thank you.
MR. LINGLE: I think my only other question --
Cameron, could you put your slide up that had the nine
mitigation issues on it? I just want to make sure I'm clear
on this. The two in blue are the ones that are specific to
this annexation, and the other seven would be city-wide?
MR. GLOSS: That's correct. The last one, like I
said, is kind of a hybrid, because we have one component of
it to this annexation.
MR. LINGLE: Okay. And that would be as yet to be
determined how the --
MR. GLOSS: No. I would have to say that we have
W.
1 two neighborhood street connections that have been causing
2 some concern with area residents. They don't want to see
3 those streets connected, and it's our position, evaluating
4 the conditions, that we would be supportive of the lack of
5 connection at this time, and it's very similar to what we did
6 two years ago at the south location.
7 And Judy might remember this, where we had a
8 roadway terminating on either side of Spring Creek and a
9 situation there, we had a Master Street Plan that showed the
10 street going through. But there is clearly no need at this
11 point to provide that street connection, and the conclusion
12 that the City Council provided within the annexation
13 ordinance, a resolution and a statement that Council did not
14 support extending the street and connecting it. And that
15 would be a similar condition that we would have here.
16 MR. LINGLE: Okay. Thank you. Any other
17 questions?
18 MS. SCHMIDT: Cameron, you're talking about the
19 roads, that if some roads fail, then it would be a Special
20 Improvement District, and they would be improved. I'm sure
21 one of the concerns are what standards do they have to be
22 improved to? Some of the pictures you showed us, they were
23 asphalt, but no side gutter or anything.
24 If that was what the neighborhood wanted, would it
25 be possible to replace it with that so that they could keep a
29
1 rural feel or would it have to be replaced according to a
2 different standard?
3 MR. GLOSS: The standard can be -- there is a
4 process to do that. We have actually constructed streets
5 within the City through SIDs where they don't meet exactly
6 Larimer County street standards in terms of its
7 cross-section.
8 So, for example, we have some streets that don't
9 have sidewalks. They don't have a drainage system that are
10 the same. They might not have, actually, a curb. They might
11 have a concrete ribbon at the end of the asphalt to keep it
12 from degrading over time. What we probably would not vary
13 much would be relative to the pavement surface itself, in
14 terms of the sub -base and the design of the roadway so that
15 it can hold up over time.
16 But the actual design, we start thinking about the
17 various components that go to the street -- we have
18 flexibility. And, if the staff has worked with the residents
19 in other situations, where we said, "Yes, if you want to keep
20 that, we can work with you." And Light & Power can speak to
21 the lighting, if there is lighting. We have also been
22 flexible on lighting because some of these areas, it's not
23 desirable to have a lot of light. You want to have enough
24 for safe conditions, but not necessarily that you have
25 problems with light pollution.
30
1 MS. SCHMIDT: So how does that usually work if
2 there is a neighborhood consensus that has some direction?
3 MR. GLOSS: We have a collaborative process. I
4 will give you an example. The recent SID where Matt Baker,
5 with the Street Oversight Program, worked with area residents
6 and the engineering staff to come up with what was an
7 acceptable cross-section, and then that project was
8 subsequently constructed.
9 MS. SCHMIDT: Thanks. And the other question on
10 these mitigations, the ones in blue, I understand the ones
11 that might be city-wide I presume will be land use code
12 changes and will also come to us, and we will be voting on
13 those?
14 MR. GLOSS: That's correct, and those changes will
15 be coming to you at your next meeting.
16 MS. SCHMIDT: Okay. Then how would the other two
17 monetary changes be? Is that a resolution that City Council
18 makes?
19 MR. GLOSS: There is actually going to be a
20 separate action specific to this annexation.
21 MS. SCHMIDT: I guess my question -- I have a lot
22 of concern about the mitigation ideas, I guess. For one
23 thing, if we pursue the phasing -in, so suddenly we're making
24 an agreement with someone over monetary charges that we may
25 not phase in for eight years or something.
31
1 Now, would that still be binding if this council
2 votes on that with this resolution, and then eight years
3 later when those people get phased -in and actually get
4 annexed, are you saying fee charges or mitigations wouldn't
5 still apply to them?
6 MR. GLOSS: Yes, they would.
7 MR. ECKMAN: They would probably be a part of the
8 annexation ordinance that the City Council passes, and
9 although, I suppose in a stretch, you might think that a
10 subsequent City Council could go back and amend the earlier
11 ordinance, I haven't seen that done. I highly doubt that.
12 MS. SCHMIDT: What is the staff's feeling about the
13 precedent this sets for other annexations and -- because I
14 take it, by having these separate, that this is something we
15 are not ready to say that in future enclaves we would be
16 willing to give people the same kind of deal.
17 MR. GLOSS: Well, from our perspective, we like to
18 look at these on a case -by -case basis, but one might argue
19 that they could set a precedent.
20 MS. SCHMIDT: Okay. One other question. You
21 mentioned something also about a parks fee. Who pays that?
22 MR. GLOSS: The parks fees are assessed at the time
23 of building permit, so every residential unit pays a fee, and
24 that fee -- gradations are set based on the type of unit.
25 So, if you were assessed a different fee, (inaudible) for
32
1
example. We
have also made special provisions for care
2
facilities, based on their level of impact, as an example.
3
MS.
SCHMIDT: So, when folks get annexed, does this
4
fee get added
on --
5
MR.
GLOSS: It's only for new construction.
6
MS.
SCHMIDT: Okay. I'm going through my list. I
7
think that's
it for right now. Thanks.
8
MR.
LINGLE: Okay. Any other questions?
9
MR.
FRIES: Back to the street standards real
10
quick. It's
my understanding that if the annexation didn't
11
occur, that street
or road improvements would be financed
12
through the County,
very similar with the Special Improvement
13
District?
14
MR.
GLOSS: That's correct.
15
MR.
FRIES: So the folks being annexed, at that
16
point that their
roads need to be improved, they're going to
17
be inheriting
the cost whether they're part of the City of
18
Fort Collins
or Larimer County?
19
MR.
GLOSS: That's correct.
20
MR.
FRIES: It may not be exactly the same, but
21
there is at least
a cost associated with that?
22
MR.
GLOSS: I would assume that it would be the
23
same, because
we have the same street standards.
24
MR.
FRIES: Okay. One other utility related
25
question. At
one of the public hearings, there was a comment
33
1 made by a business owner, that according to his math, his
2 electric bill was going to go from $2400 a month to $4000 a
3 month. Is that even possible or what kind of formula would
4 we be using here?
5 MR. MARTINE: I'm Doug Martine from Light & Power.
6 I met with that customer today, and although the rates are
7 not my specialty -- I also had another fellow from the office
8 who does deal with rates -- and for this particular customer,
9 like I said, we met with him this afternoon, there's -- it's
10 kind of an anomaly.
11 His use pattern is very different, and although the
12 numbers he had weren't quite right, under some circumstances,
13 his electric bill could be higher, even with a 5 percent
14 Service Rights Fee. However, under other circumstances, with
15 a little effort on his part, he could save approximately $500
16 to $600 per year on City Power. He could have some months
17 where he pays more and some months where he pays less, but
18 that could be as much as $500 to $600 a year in savings.
19 MR. FRIES: And this "anomaly," as you describe it,
20 is that an anomaly just in this southwest enclave or is that
21 even an anomaly in the entire City? How unique is this, in
22 other words?
23 MR. MARTINE: His is pretty unique overall. I'm
24 sure there are other customers that are similar, but,
25 basically, his use pattern is such that he has a high
34
1 momentary demand periodically, but over the course of a
2 month, he doesn't use that much electricity. So he pays for
3 the demand component for the electric rate, but he doesn't
4 have to pay a lot for the energy, because he doesn't use that
5 much energy.
6 MR. FRIES: Okay. That answers that good. Now,
7 let's go back to a typical business, if there is such a
8 thing. But somebody that -- you know, 10 to 15 employees,
9 uses air conditioners, has fluorescent lighting, maybe runs
10 some light machinery, what would their electric bill look
11 like typically from REA compared to the City?
12 And I know that is probably a tough question, but I
13 am just really trying to get a -- I've heard a lot of things
14 that I believe are speculation regarding city utilities is
15 far more expensive than REA. We've seen a lot of information
16 regarding residents, and I believe that not to be the case,
17 but I'm trying to focus on a typical small business. What
18 would be an up or down, specifically on electricity, in your
19 opinion?
20 MR. MARTINE: In my opinion, every one that I've
21 looked at, with the exception of this one that we talked
22 about today, every customer would see a decrease in their
23 electric bill on City Power, assuming that it adjusts to the
24 5 percent Service Rates Fee.
25 MR. FRIES: Thank you.
35
1 MR. LINGLE: Okay. Are we ready for public
2 testimony then? All right. We'll move to the public input
3 section of our meeting and open this up to anyone who would
4 like to address the Planning and Zoning Board tonight on this
5 matter. If you could come forward and give us your name and
6 address for the record, sign the log at the podium, we would
7 appreciate it, and we can give you three minutes tonight.
8 MS. MCFAY: My name is Ann MCFay (phonetic). I
9 live at 422 Kyle Avenue. It's on the east side of Kyle, the
10 last house before you get to the Humane Society, if you know
11 where the Humane Society is. And I'm a little concerned
12 about the streets because of the Humane Society. That's
13 where most of the traffic comes from. I have 1200 foot of
14 frontage on Kyle Avenue. I don't want to be caught upgrading
15 Kyle Avenue for the Humane Society.
16 And I was out there before the Humane Society went
17 in, and that was part of that agreement with the County, was
18 that the County would upgrade that road and maintain it,
19 which they have up to this point. I don't want to see that
20 go away in the City, because otherwise, we're talking about a
21 street that had very little traffic on it, but you would be
22 surprised how many cars go down to the Humane Society.
23 On the same issue, all of the current City maps
24 will show Kyle Avenue as being connected from Trilby to
25 Skyview or -- I think it's "Skyway," and that certainly does
36
1 not go through there.
2 I would encourage and be very disappointed if the
3 City maps are not changed since you added this one, because
4 you would be surprised, again, if there's a detour, how many
5 people will come down that street and try to go through it.
6 And I don't think that's ever going to be developed because
7 of the wetlands process, even though that shows up on the
8 City maps.
9 I would like to make a couple of comments about the
10 calls that I personally have made and I know that some of my
11 neighbors have made to the Sheriff's Department, and another
12 question, many of the calls are for fireworks in the city. I
13 woke up at 3:00 on July 5th morning and fireworks were still
14 going off, and they were coming from city subdivisions. I
15 did not call, but I was very tempted to, and it kind of tells
16 me that these guys -- why are the police department not
17 coming down on somebody?
18 Some of the other calls that I personally make are
19 due to underage drivers on vehicles that should not be on
20 city streets. The question to that is what are the City
21 street codes for underage vehicles or ATVs or small
22 motorcycles or whatever they're called, if that's the same as
23 the County or different?
24 And I know that this light is going to go off here
25 shortly, and I'm sorry about that. I would like to know how
37
1 I can get a copy of some of the slides that were on the slide
2 thing tonight, maybe? Who I can talk to about what my
3 personal property might be zoned as and make some comments on
4 that, and, if during this phasing -in, do I happen to be -- I
5 think, in Phase II -- and I'm not even sure about that.
6 Now, if I decide to sell or put up a new garage,
7 who do I go to during this phasing -in? Is it a city building
8 permit or a county building permit? I think that's an issue
9 that a lot of people are going to have. I thank you for your
10 time.
11 MR. LINGLE: Thank you. Is there anyone else that
12 would like to speak?
13 MS. ROBERTS: My name is Sandy Roberts. I live at
14 6858 over on South Shields in the enclave area. And a couple
15 of things that were not brought up, and I would like Planning
16 and Zoning to be aware of, is for one thing, some of that
17 area is definitely rural in character. I live on a small
18 farm, and even with the new proposed zoning, there are
19 certain things that I think will impact the way that I am
20 able to do things on my property out there.
21 I would like to know -- Cameron, you mentioned some
22 things, that the RUL is going to come up at the next meeting.
23 I would like to know when that is. I am kind of curious if
24 the part that is coming up now -- when the RUL is not
25 completely in place. That's just a question that I have on
m
1 there.
2 And another question that comes to mind, talking
3 about impact fees, and I, of course, have a little farm out
4 there, and one of the areas that could potentially develop,
5 one of the few in the area that could potentially develop.
6 When we build out there, we had to get a building
7 permit. We had to give up a 30-foot wide strip of our
8 property along Shields that was deeded either to the City or
9 County. I'm not sure which, and when they widened that
10 portion of Shields three or four years ago now, they didn't
11 move our fence line back to accommodate that right-of-way,
12 which is now, as I said, I'm not sure if it was the City or
13 County.
14 And the other thing we had to do at that time was
15 pay a park fee. Should we develop our property or sell it to
16 a developer, would another park fee be applied to that
17 property if it were to develop, and what percentage of that
18 would be paid since one was already paid when we built our
19 own home there on the front? Thank you.
20 MR. LINGLE: Thank you. Is there anyone else that
21 would like to speak? Okay. Seeing no one, we will close the
22 public input. And, Cameron, could I have you address some of
23 those issues? First thing, I guess, is the Kyle Avenue
24 Special Improvement District. Is that typically based on
25 frontage or is there a traffic report that's --
39
1 MR. GLOSS: They typically are based on frontage.
2 That is correct, yes.
3 MR. LINGLE: Are you aware of any agreements that
4 are in place on any of these streets that might affect any of
5 that?
6 MR. GLOSS: No, I'm not. I'm not aware of it,
7 specific agreements, either on this development or any other
8 development within the annexation area for that matter.
9 MR. LINGLE: If there happened to be agreements
10 that the County had made to the City, could the City inherit
11 those?
12 MR. ECKMAN: I don't think that the City would be
13 bound by any agreement that the County made, but the City
14 will inherit the streets, but I don't think the City inherits
15 obligations that the County has contracted for.
16 MR. GLOSS: Maybe to clarify, to answer his
17 comments, the County maintains the road to their standard.
18 The City will maintain the road to the same standard, but at
19 such time that it fails, the situation is the same for the
20 County, that neither jurisdiction will pay for the public
21 improvement, and it will be assessed against that property
22 owner. And typically, it's based on property tax. That is
23 correct.
24 MS. SCHMIDT: Is that just like you have -- it's
25 all residential? But obviously, like the Humane Society,
1 it's not really residential use. I don't know if it's zoned
2 commercial or what it really is, but does it change based on
3 the use on the roads?
4 MR. GLOSS: No, it doesn't. And the SID, it would
5 be based on usually frontage. However, I think there have
6 been situations where we have taken other factors into
7 consideration to come up with a program to share some of the
8 improvements, but it's normally customary to use street
9 frontage.
10 MS. MEYER: But doesn't the Humane Society have to
11 participate? Isn't it everybody's frontage?
12 MR. GLOSS: But they don't have very much frontage,
13 actually, because they're at the very end.
14 MS. MEYER: But, if this lady has 1200 feet, and
15 they have only got 400, where is the other 800 on the other
16 side? I mean, I'm just asking, if it's both sides of the
17 street that have to participate, right?
18 MR. GLOSS: That's correct.
19 MR. LINGLE: Yeah, but I think her point is that
20 her proportional impact, based on her traffic generation, is
21 not commensurate with her frontage.
22 MS. MEYER: I understand that, but all things in
23 life are not always fair, but there's somebody else with
24 another 800 feet over on the other side. You know, if she's
25 got 1200 feet on this side, there's somebody else over here
41
1 that has got 1200 feet.
2 MR. GLOSS: I know, but, if it's just another
3 single family home on a large lot, so you basically have two
4 people who are paying the majority of the street improvements
5 for a -- let's say it's a commercial facility that's creating
6 most of the traffic. That doesn't seem like that is really
7 fair.
8 MS. MEYER: I'm not sure that's fair, but I think I
9 want to chit-chat with someone about that.
10 MR. STOCKOVER: My question is, is there an appeals
11 process or any process in place for when these situations
12 arise?
13 MR. GLOSS: You know, I can't speak to the
14 technical aspects of the SID. I just can't speak with
15 authority.
16 MS. SCHMIDT: Cameron, have you looked at the
17 connection for Trilby to Skyway? Is that -- I can't see
18 anything on the map because it's so small, and it may not be
19 included. But is that something that is proposed to be
20 connected or is this another case where we want to look at
21 whether it should be or not?
22 MR. GLOSS: The Kyle Avenue extension, as was
23 mentioned, actually is a City Natural Area, so that will not
24 go through.
25 MS. SCHMIDT: Okay. So that road will never
42
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
lr�
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
connect?
MR. GLOSS: Never is a long time, but considering
that it's a City Natural Area and that it has been acquired
for purposes of maintaining a natural habitat, it's highly
unlikely.
MR. LINGLE: Okay. How about ATV usage? Is there
any difference between city streets and county roads in terms
of what's lawful?
MR. GLOSS: That's a qood question, and I can't say
that I have an answer.
MR. LINGLE: Okay.
MR. GLOSS: Excuse me. David Averill of
Transportation Planning can address that.
MR. AVERILL: Dave Averill of the Department of
Transportation Planning. I don't know the traffic code back
and forth, but my hunch is that -- I know that the City's
Traffic Code is based on the Model Traffic Code of the State,
which probably has a lot of adherence with the County Traffic
Code.
There may be some sort of consideration for rural
residents to be able to drive a four -wheeler on a public
road. I know that, in the City, we would not allow that.
You can't even have a motorcycle without a license on a city
road legally, so I think that would be a similar situation
with ATVs, whether it's a kind of recreational vehicle,
43
1 someone might be cruising around or whatever.
2 We have questions similar to that raised from
3 people like that, so there are some emerging technology that
4 we need to deal with, but we wouldn't allow four -wheelers on
5 a city street under any circumstance.
6 MR. LINGLE: Okay.
7 MR. ECKMAN: I would like to respond a little bit
8 to the question about assessments and frontage. In the
9 Special Improvement District in the code, under the heading
10 of "Assessments and Apportioning the Costs of Streets," it
11 says, "The improvement of streets, the cost of such
12 improvement or any portion, may be assessed upon all lots and
13 land abutting on the streets improved in proportion as the
14 frontage of each lot or tract of land is to the frontage of
15 all lots and lands improved. For the purpose of assessment,
16 the sides of corner lots shall be treated as frontage when
17 the street upon which such side abuts is improved."
18 Then it goes on to say, "The City Council may
19 provide for any other manner of assessment to pay the costs
20 of the improvements which it determines is equitable and
21 fair." So, it's like Cameron said, the typical standard is
22 street frontage, but the City Council is at liberty to come
23 up with another standard that it thinks is more fair.
24 MS. SCHMIDT: I don't know how those initially
25 start, but then -- so someone would have to appeal to the
1 City Council for a change in the way that is set up?
2 MR. GLOSS: It would really start with staff.
3 Staff is the delegated authority to help put together that
4 district, and then it goes on through the public process, but
5 if the staff, working with area residents, determined what
6 improvements are going to be made, and again, how those costs
7 are going to be apportioned, because during that discussion
8 would be how one item like this would come up.
9 Is it fair and equitable for one property owner
10 that doesn't have frontage or very little frontage could pay
11 less than a property owner that maybe has a less impact use
12 but has the greater frontage, and try to come up with a
13 system that's fair to the apportionment of costs.
14 MS. SCHMIDT: So staff would have the authority,
15 given that, to come up with a different recommendation than
16 just frontage?
17 MR. GLOSS: Correct, but when the SID is created,
18 it still acts through a Council action. So, if at that time,
19 that staff recommendation would come forward to Council, they
20 ultimately would be the ones to make that decision.
21 MR. ECKMAN: And at the public hearing is the
22 creation of ordinance, and the Council has to decide how
23 things are going to be set up, how things are going to be
24 done, and whether the cost is fair, and how do we assess and
25 so on.
W
1 MR. LINGLE: I have a question about jurisdiction
2 during the phase -in. Is that until such time that that
3 particular phase was, the annexation, quote, would remain in
4 the County?
5 MR. ECKMAN: Right. If you need a building permit
6 before that phase has been recorded, you get the building
7 permit from the County. It's not in the City until that
8 phase has been recorded.
9 MS. SCHMIDT: And that applies to the recorder and
10 everything?
11 MR. ECKMAN: Right.
12 MR. LINGLE: And there was a question about your
13 slide presentation. I don't know what the staff's position
14 on that is in general. Is it available to --
15 MR. GLOSS: Yes, I believe that we have got a hard
16 copy of the proposed zoning maps that I could provide to you
17 this evening, and I can also e-mail you the show as well.
18 MR. LINGLE: Okay. Thank you. And then, there is
19 a question about park fees and how they are assessed.
20 MR. GLOSS: I think we touched on that before, that
21 we have park land acquisition fees, which are assessed at the
22 time of the building permit.
23 MR. LINGLE: And that's for a per unit basis?
24 MR. GLOSS: They are a per -residential -unit basis.
25 And we have assessments for all residential properties. As I
M
1 said, we can make such provision for some kind of use, and a
2 good example would be a congregate care facility where we can
3 apply adjustments, because you attribute less impact to the
4 park facilities based on the population residing within a
5 care facility.
6 MR. LINGLE: Okay.
7 MR. GLOSS: And typically, you would be assessed a
8 fee for the type of residential unit that is being
9 constructed.
10 MR. LINGLE: So, if they have already paid a park
11 fee on one house, and then they subdivide that land to build
12 20, then there essentially would be 20 more park fees?
13 MR. GLOSS: That's correct.
14 MR. LINGLE: Okay. I think the last item, that I
15 had written down anyway, was the RUL zoning and timing of
16 that.
17 MR. GLOSS: Yes, the RUL district has come before
18 you twice, and both times your recommendation was to go
19 forward with the approval for it to City Council. We have
20 made some more changes to the district, largely because of
21 the public process that we have been going through for the
22 annexation.
23 So we'll be coming right back before you then on
24 September 5th when the City Council considers a separate
25 annexation ordinance. They will also be considering the RUL
�Irj
1 district -- because we can't obviously approve an annexation
2 or zoning district that does not exist -- to tie the RUL to a
3 portion of the annexation area.
4 MS. SCHMIDT: Cameron, one question I had on the
5 lines of the zoning. I guess I'm a little unclear what --
6 well, if we recommended to City Council -- let's say, for
7 example, that we did recommend annexation with the phased -in
8 process, and then we always recommend zoning at the same
9 time.
10 At the time that those phases actually do come up
11 for annexation, will it come up for a vote again, with the
12 zoning again, or is that done all at one time, being when the
13 City Council votes on it?
14 MR. GLOSS: Actually, it would be delegated to the
15 City Manager to actually do the recordation of the annexation
16 map. But if the phases were to change, we've got an
17 annexation phasing map. It's the draft that you have seen
18 tonight. It's in your packet, and we'll be potentially
19 refining and changing that slightly.
20 When it goes to Council September 5th, assuming the
21 Council goes ahead and approves the annexation, should that
22 time change, we're going to come up with a specific schedule.
23 What we said is, within 10 years, we'll come into Larimer
24 County and annex the entire area. All maps will be recorded
25 for all phases.
M
1 But, within that time frame, we are going to be
2 looking at target dates for each one of those map
3 recordations. And the City Manager is going to have the
4 opportunity to make his recommendations to either extend the
5 time period for recordation or actually make it come up
6 faster.
7 So here's a good example: You have a big vacant
8 piece of ground, and somebody comes in with a development
9 application. It's a situation where we would like to come in
10 and recover these impact fees. We could potentially abandon
11 the annexation phase and include that development. That is
12 one example.
13 There could be other valid public purposes to
14 extend or modify that phase -in, based on the utility services
15 provision is another example, or maybe there's other
16 extenuating circumstances with the City Budget. It's just
17 hard to anticipate all of those different permutations, but
18 the point is, it is ultimately going to be up to the Council
19 to decide how the phasing would change, if it does, if the
20 City Manager is to make a recommendation.
21 MR. ECKMAN: Cameron, correct me if I'm wrong, but
22 if nothing changes, if the phases are the same as the Council
23 approves the annexation, if at all, and the zoning is set out
24 at that time as well in a zoning ordinance, then there would
25 be nothing to come back to the Council, because it would be
M
1 an administrative action for the City Manager to simply
2 record the phase maps in accordance with what the Council
3 said.
4 And the zoning ordinance would be, I'm thinking,
5 although, it hasn't been drafted yet, but I'm thinking that
6 the zoning ordinance would be set up such that it would not
7 take effect until those maps were recorded, but instruct the
8 City Engineers to amend the zoning maps only when the
9 annexation phase maps were recorded. Because you wouldn't
10 want three zones. So that would automatically take effect
11 then by the City Engineer at the time that the phase maps
12 were recorded, and it would all be done administratively.
13 MR. LINGLE: Would there be some notification to
14 the people within that zone of when that happens so that they
15 know then to go to the City for the building permits and
16 things like that?
17 MR. GLOSS: I'm not certain how the kinks are going
18 to work. I would say that we send out letters to all of the
19 residents of any enclave providing the schedule for the
20 initiating resolution here tonight, and then the two City
21 Council hearings. But we really haven't gotten to that point
22 yet, and we're certainly taking that as a really good
23 suggestion.
24 MR. ECKMAN: It seems like a good idea. Either, if
25 not a mail notice, then in the press, some kind of
50
1 publication in the paper that shows you'll be coming into the
2 City now. It seems like a good idea.
3 MR. LINGLE: Okay. I think that -- does anybody
4 else have anything that they heard from the public they need
5 to address?
6 MR. FRIES: One small thing that might be
7 pertinent, and it might not. In regard to -- I believe she
8 said her name was -- on the maintenance issue on the street.
9 I can't find it for the life of me here, but I'm sure I read,
10 that as part of our zoning proposal, we have to make an
11 amendment in the proposed zone to allow the Humane Society.
12 Isn't that correct, for an animal shelter?
13 MS. SCHMIDT: I think it was having to do with
14 wildlife, but not just the cats and the dogs. I think that's
15 already permitted.
16 MR. FRIES: I think it was actually animal shelters
17 or wild animal fees. Is that what it is?
18 MR. ECKMAN: As I understand, it has to do with
19 wild animals, and they're not allowed in the City, and this
20 animal shelter has them, so that would have to be changed to
21 accommodate that. And that would not be, incidentally -- I
22 think there was some question about are all of those changes
23 land use changes, and they are not. A couple of them are,
24 and others are changes to the City Code, and I think that is
25 a change in the animal section of the City Code.
51
1 MR. FRIES: So, by having to make that amendment,
2 is there anything that we can do to help with the traffic
3 situation? It's kind of a unique situation that you have
4 actually got a residential zone and a very commercial use at
5 the end of it. Is that in our purview, to aid in that
6 situation or not?
7 MR. GLOSS: I'm uncertain what type of mitigation
8 that we could suggest. We do have a situation in other parts
9 of the community, and I guess in the discussion of SIDs is
10 that there may be a way to come up with a fair and equitable
11 solution other than street frontage, as indicated, may not be
12 the fair way to assess cost of that street improvement. But
13 that would be through a process of the SID creation, and
14 that's probably several years away. But I can't think of
15 anything else that this -- an action of the City at the
16 present time that would help to address that situation.
17 MR. FRIES: So, at the time, for these residents,
18 they could organize themselves to some effect and lobby the
19 City Council, is actually who you would be -- that's who is
20 creating the rules for the SID, correct?
21 MR. GLOSS: That's correct, yes. Ultimately,
22 that's correct.
23 MR. FRIES: And it could be addressed at that time?
24 MR. GLOSS: Yes.
25 MR. FRIES: Okay. Thanks.
52
1 MS. SCHMIDT: Cameron, my questions are sort of on
2 the zoning, and first of all, I feel in some respects we are
3 supposed to be making a recommendation to move forward based
4 on an RUL that we haven't seen the final product, and we are
5 not going to see it until next month. Just in general, that
6 creates a certain amount of discomfort, I think.
7 MR. GLOSS: I would just like to offer that the
8 district will not materially change from the one that you saw
9 last time. The density is the same. We do have a minor
10 change that was noted specific to the fences, but otherwise,
11 it's the same.
12 MS. SCHMIDT: All right.
13 MR. AVERILL: Could I interject back to that Kyle
14 Avenue issue real quick? I think that I can maybe shed a
15 little bit more light on it. I wish we had Matt Baker here,
16 because Matt facilitates all of the SIDS, and he's been at it
17 for 20 years. And I think, my understanding is, they all
18 come together in different ways. That are all unique
19 entities.
20 And I know that when he looks at them, it's an
21 area -wide assessment of affected properties or relevant
22 properties. And it's their proportion of the improvement,
23 what they're required to participate with, is based on if
24 they have redevelopment potential, their frontage, and also
25 the generation for traffic. So there is a mechanism for
53
1 equity in there.
2 Obviously, if certain parcels are creating more
3 trips, then it ought to be chipping in more into that
4 improvement, and I think that's the way that Matt usually
5 handles it.
6 MR. PRIES: Thank you, for that.
7 MR. AVERILL: You bet.
8 MR. LINGLE: Okay. I guess that we're ready to
9 move on to our deliberations. We talked in work sessions
10 about treating the nine mitigation measures as individual
11 items similar to how we look at land use code amendments.
12 Cameron, would it be your recommendation that we deal with
13 the annexation and zoning first, and then, depending on what
14 our findings are, then take up the mitigation, or do --
15 MR. GLOSS: Yes, that seems appropriate to address
16 the annexation issue first and then potentially group those
17 mitigation measures. Maybe there are a few that tend to be
18 more controversial. Maybe split those out from the others,
19 where maybe you have some time to go forward with a census
20 together with a separate vote for those.
21 MS. SCHMIDT: I don't know. I guess I would like
22 to get to the mitigation first, because I think, depending on
23 how those mitigation votes go, I might change my vote on
24 whether I support the annexation or not.
25 MR. LINGLE: I think that's our prerogative. Maybe
54
1 what we should do is discuss those first then and see if
2 there are some that are grouped together that we don't have
3 an issue with that we can deal with and talk about the others
4 individually.
5 MS. SCHMIDT: I guess that I would like to just
6 ask, this is probably an abbreviated wording on the
7 mitigation, or is that all that it really says is, "Specify
8 recordkeeping requirements for flea market operators." Is
9 the actually wording going to be -- or by the time City
10 Council votes on this, will there be very specific wording
11 about that? And that wording, I presume, is going to be
12 words with the flea market operators, so they have some input
13 on that, right?
14 MR. GLOSS: The staff report goes into great detail
15 on each one of the mitigation measures. And I guess I would
16 recommend, if you have a specific question, actually, after
17 having gone through it -- we try to be succinct in
18 summarizing each one of the measures in the staff report. It
19 may be beneficial to go through those and then ask staff
20 questions if they need to provide clarification.
21 We've gone through these in the work session and
22 some of the others in past work sessions. I hope not to
23 spend too much time on all of the details, but, most of them,
24 we have discussed, but we will be glad to answer questions.
25 MR. LINGLE: Well, and you indicated that they'll
55
1 come back to us next month?
2 MR. GLOSS: That's correct.
3 MR. LINGLE: So we would see the actual words at
4 that time?
5 MR. GLOSS: Correct. You've got the substance
6 here, but you don't have necessarily the exact code language.
7 MS. SCHMIDT: Well, let's just say the gist of it
8 will always be to help alleviate some of the difficulties
9 that this annexation is causing or perceived to be causing to
10 the residents of the area, correct?
11 MR. GLOSS: Correct.
12 MR. LINGLE: Well, Bridgette, do you want to start?
13 MS. SCHMIDT: I guess the other comments or
14 questions that I would like to make is what staff feels the
15 rationale is for giving the first two mitigations, as far as
16 the fees. I understand that everyone is happy about having
17 greater fees, but that happens in a lot of instances.
18 And I'm looking at it from the perspective of a
19 Planning and Zoning Board member, when the next, same
20 situation comes up, how do I weigh one against the other?
21 Are their certain factors that you took into consideration in
22 deciding this was a fair thing to do, such as -- like, income
23 in the area, house values in the area, money generated, or
24 some sort of guideline as far as the reasoning there?
25 MR. GLOSS: Sure. Why don't we go with the first
56
1 one, which is the phasing -in on the stormwater fees. And we
2 went through a number of individual property owners and tried
3 to have them understand exactly how the fee was calculated,
4 and, then, what their total would be on a monthly basis. We
5 determined in some cases that it was a pretty substantial
6 change.
7 Obviously, their condition today is that they
pay
8 no stormwater fee. So we were asked by the Council to try to
9 find ways to soften the blow, so to speak. Looking at that
10 on the financial side, how could we appease the business
11 owners who might not pay that today and budget for that
12 impact and be anticipating it and phasing it in their budget
13 over a period of time?
14 And we looked at different options. What if we
15 went with a phase -in over two years, three years, and so
16 forth. And we ended up using a five year phase -in and tried
17 to, again, look at what the typical dollar amount would be
18 for the typical Kelmar Strip or for a typical residence and
19 come up with a way that we thought, in our opinion, that we
20 would handle it from the stormwater utilities standpoint,
21 that they could absorb those costs. And, yet, at the same
22 time, move towards getting that fee collected and start
23 making necessary stormwater improvements for the community,
24 so, that was the logic. That was the progression of the
25 thought.
57
1 And we feel that we went out through the public
2 meetings and had significant opposition that when we told
3 area businesses, "You are going to pay 'X' number of dollars
4 per month," the opposition was strong. And we had to go
5 through that process of trying to have individuals understand
6 why we collect the fee, then come up with a way to ease that
7 burden. And that's what we ended up coming up with for the
8 recommendation.
9 MS. MEYER: I understand that you had some
10 difficult meetings, but I -- these first two, and they worked
11 with this one, but I don't think that the City can afford to
12 do it for everybody, and that's where my concern is. Those
13 are the two that I would -- like "Take care of me." And I
14 think the City has to understand that's the way that's going
15 to be from now on, and, once we do it here, I don't think
16 there is any going back.
17 MR. LINGLE: Even with voluntary annexation, isn't
18 it that only at least 50 percent of the landowners in a
19 voluntary annexation have to agree to it? So, potentially,
20 you could have 49 percent of those people that are being
21 involuntarily annexed, and they would have the same argument.
22 So I think that we would be opening it, potentially, to
23 almost every annexation to being negotiated mitigations.
24 I mean, based on the direction you received from
25 the Council, in terms of coming up with something to offer, I
M
1 think that these are reasonable things. It's just, what does
2 it mean down the road? And I guess I'm kind of -- I think I
3 can recommend those to City Council, based on the fact that
4 they asked them to be created, and essentially it's letting
5 them struggle with whether, fiscally, the City can handle
6 that, now, and into the future. But I think that staff has
7 come up with a reasonable solution based on that request,
8 MS. SCHMIDT: One question I had -- I'm sorry. I
9 wrote it Cameron, but I can't remember. Do both of those
10 utility fees come out of reserves so they're not affecting
11 the general budget in any way by offering these mitigations?
12 MR. GLOSS: That's correct.
13 MS. SCHMIDT: And the same way, once we start
14 collecting, they would all go into those specific funds,
15 right?
16 MR. GLOSS: Yes.
17 MS. SCHMIDT: Okay.
18 MR. FRIES: Just so I understand, on the
19 stormwater, if I remember right from my notes, the average
20 cost to a business was $133 a month?
21 MR. GLOSS: Right. That was for a typical lot in a
22 subdivision. And again, that's typical. That's based on
23 frontage and lot depth. That is relatively standard. We
24 have some that are multiple lots. We have others, commercial
25 frontages, that are larger. So, you know, we just threw that
59
1 out as an example, and I hope not to paint a picture that
2 that's exactly what every single person will pay.
3 MR. FRIES: And the proposed mitigation takes that
4 $133 a month and phases it in over a five-year period?
5 MR. GLOSS: That's correct.
6 MR. FRIES: And for a residential, it's $14.36 a
7 month. Is that the right number?
8 MR. GLOSS: That's for a typical lot. Now, some
9 lots within the annexation area are larger, and as I
10 mentioned, we make adjustments, given the amount of pavement
11 on the site. You know, it could be higher than that, but
12 that's for a typical single family lot. That is approximate.
13 MR. FRIES: Thanks.
14 MS. SCHMIDT: I guess, given the rationale for
15 coming up with these mitigation factors, can you see a reason
16 that you would -- if another enclave annexation should
17 happen, and those people also felt like they could not afford
18 this or they were adamant against the fees, why would we not
19 offer that to them?
20 MR. GLOSS: I tried to answer this before and will
21 give you the same answer. And that is: From the staff's
22 perspective, we like to weigh these situations on a
23 case -by -case basis and the circumstances surrounding a
24 particular annexation. We don't know whether this will set a
25 precedent for future voluntary annexations or involuntary
W
1 annexations for that matter.
2 MS. SCHMIDT: Well, I guess I will be perfectly
3 blunt. I don't want to set up a situation where we are
4 enclaving an area that happens to be organized, very informed
5 citizens, and they also have the means to hire attorneys that
6 they get certain mitigation. And then you are enclaving an
7 area and maybe was a lower income area and didn't have access
8 to those same factors, that because they weren't the squeaky
9 wheel, they wouldn't be offered the same kind of situation.
10 And that is my real concern.
11 MR. LINGLE: How do we want to handle the two fee
12 related ones? Together or do they need to be separate?
13 MS. SCHMIDT: I guess that I would like to handle
14 them together, and I would say this: I'm willing to support
15 them. Since this is a recommendation of City Council, I'm
16 willing to support them with the understanding that, as far
17 as I'm concerned, they are setting a precedent; that these
18 types of mitigations should then be offered to anyone else
19 who is in the situation.
20 And I think if Council is not ready to make an
21 commitment to that, then I don't think they should provide
22 this mitigation to these people, and so that would be my
23 recommendation. I don't think there's anything wrong with
24 this mitigation, and the way that the City has worked it out,
25 I don't think there's any negative impact.
61
1 I think it's a good solution, and I think we have
2 each said on the Board that it would be hard for us to now
3 turn around when the next one comes and say, "No, you're not
4 entitled to that." So, if they're willing to accept that
5 sort of scenario, along with their offering them the
6 mitigation, then, I could go with it. But I would like that
7 to sort of be part of the recommendation on this motion, but
8 the others feel --
9 MS. MEYER: I'm not quite -- I'm not willing to say
10 it's okay. I won't say it's okay with prejudice or however
11 you want to put it. I think they are setting a precedent,
12 and that's fine, if that's what they want to do. They can
13 ignore me and my vote and move on ahead. But I think they
14 need to be aware, and I don't think that you can say it's
15 okay, "but." If it's okay, it's okay.
16 MR. LINGLE: Other comments about those two or can
17 somebody put a motion down, and then we will deal with that?
18 MS. SCHMIDT: Well, let's go ahead and move on to
19 the other mitigation factors. So I would move that we
20 recommend to Council that -- I don't know if this is the
21 appropriate way to phrase it -- but my concern is that they
22 include the mitigation factors, such as underground utilities
23 at no cost; the barbed wire and electric fences in the RUL
24 zones; the extended sign amortization from five to seven
25 years; the change in licensing; the specifics in the
62
1 recordkeeping, specifically to the animal shelter; and the
2 pursuit of action to the road funding and neighborhood street
3 connections; all of those mitigations.
4 MR. LINGLE: You want to put all nine together?
5 MS. SCHMIDT: Yeah.
6 MR. LINGLE: Well, I thought we wanted to separate
7 them, so that -- like, if Judy doesn't object to the other
8 seven, but she does for the first two, then we should have a
9 vote.
10 MS. SCHMIDT: I listed them all together except the
11 first two.
12 MR. LINGLE: Okay. I don't agree with the sign
13 amortization, so I would rather not have that one lobbed in,
14 if we can.
15 MS. SCHMIDT: Okay. Is there anyone else that
16 wants to withdraw and do separate ones?
17 MR. LINGLE: Other than my comments about the sign
18 amortization, does anyone have a problem with any of the
19 other six city-wide proposals? Okay. So we can deal with
20 those.
21 MS. SCHMIDT: So I would amend a motion to take out
22 the motion to extending the sign amortization in the list.
23 MR. LINGLE: Is there a second to that?
24 MR. FRIES: Second.
25 MR. LINGLE: Okay. So it would be -- the motion
63
1 has been made and seconded for approval of six mitigation
2 items; underground utilities at no cost, barb wire and
3 electric fences, RUL zones, change licensing requirements for
4 second-hand dealers, flea markets, specify recordkeeping
5 requirements for flea market operators, exempt animal
6 shelters from wild animal restrictions, and pursue action to
7 address road funding and neighborhood street connections.
8 MR. STOCKOVER: Just a quick response to the
9 setting a precedent. I truly think that, with anything of
10 this magnitude, there is give and take. And I have a feeling
11 that you may be thinking that -- you know, the north end of
12 town, that we're talking about the next annexation for
13 Mulberry.
14 And I really don't think that there is a difference
15 in classes as great as you may perceive. I know that
16 Mulberry is very well organized, and I think that that is
17 going to be a whole separate scenario. And I think that City
18 Staff and City Council and everyone has worked really hard to
19 get us to this point, and I look at it as it is my duty to
20 look at the general intent of all of this, and give it -- put
21 it in the hands of staff and the highly trained people that
22 are really right there working on it every day to continue to
23 carry it out.
24 So I feel really good about sup
porting it, and I
25 feel really good about the amount of work that has come to us
1
tonight, and
that is
why I will be supporting it. And I
2
don't think there is
really any inequities created or
3
precedents, really, to the next one, because the staff has
4
worked on this
as it
is. And the next one, as the City
5
evolves and times change, we'll do the same thing there, with
6
their specifics.
So,
again, I feel very good about it.
7
MS.
SCHMIDT:
Well, I'll discuss it when we discuss
8
those two.
9
MR.
LINGLE:
Other comments about these six? All
10
right. Roll
call.
11
MS.
DEINES:
Meyer?
12
MS.
MEYER:
Yes.
13
MS.
DEINES:
Fries?
14
MR.
FRIES:
Yes.
15
MS.
DEINES:
Stockover?
16
MR.
STOCKOVER: Yes.
17
MS.
DEINES:
Smith?
18
MR.
SMITH:
Yes.
19
MS.
DEINES:
Schmidt?
20
MS.
SCHMIDT:
Yes.
21
MS.
DEINES:
Lingle?
22
MR.
LINGLE:
Yes.
23
Okay.
Let's
do the sign amortization. I'm
24
probably on my
own on
this one, but I just feel that it's not
25
necessary. I
think that we are -- by taking in these
65
1 commercial areas, we are inheriting some things -- some
2 properties that have some inherent long-term problems that
3 far outweigh anything we're dealing with on North College.
4 And I think that anything that we can do to encourage
5 redevelopment and bringing those properties up to our
6 standards is where we should go.
7 I'd almost rather see us go from five to three, but
8 I certainly don't want to extend it to seven, so I would just
9 like to keep it where it is.
10 MS. SCHMIDT: Can I just ask a question? What
11 kinds of costs are you -- I presume that the reason -- that
12 these signs are pretty expensive, and it gives the businesses
13 time to save up for new signage?
14 MR. GLOSS: You're correct. Some of the signs are
15 electric signs and can be relatively expensive, and over the
16 past several years, we have seen Larimer County issue sign
17 permits for some signs that are relatively new, and this
18 would then allow the property owner to recoup the value of
19 the sign. And it just means it's an easier situation for
20 them and more affordable. If we didn't have as many newer
21 signs in this area that were more expensive, we would be less
22 inclined to extend the amortization period, and we thought
23 this was a fair solution.
24 MS. SCHMIDT: Why then, for this particular one,
25 are we making it city-wide instead of doing it on a
1 case -by -case basis?
2 MR. BARNES: I'm speaking of a couple of things to
3 further explain what will still be occurring within the five
4 years. But when you look at the area, potential area, that
5 could be annexed to the City, the City and the County started
6 a project about 10 years ago.
7 The purpose of that was for the County to amend
8 their sign code to be in line with the City of Fort Collins'
9 Code, so that when we annexed properties, we wouldn't have to
10 deal with nonconforming signs. That project was very close
11 to being completed, and that was through no fault of County
12 staff or anything like that. The project was tabled until
13 last year.
14 So, during that last 10 years, a lot of signs
15 permits, as Cameron said, had been issued throughout the
16 County, East Mulberry, and in this particular area as well.
17 And signs -- people have spent $10,000 or more on signs, and
18 then the City comes along a year later with the prospect of
19 annexing those, and they have to pay for those signs twice in
20 a very short period of time.
21 If the County had amended their code years ago, we
22 wouldn't be dealing with this, but we don't view it for five
23 years to seven years with any real loss to the City, because
24 during that period of time while those signs were
25 nonconforming, once the properties are annexed, those signs
67
1 still have to be brought into compliance if there is a change
2 of use or if the premises come under new ownership or
3 tenancy, and they want to remodel the sign to advertise the
4 new tenant, that would still trigger having to bring those
5 signs into new compliance.
6 But, in five years time, the number of signs that
7 might still be nonconforming would be fairly small compared
8 to what it is now. And, in addition, within the first 60
9 days of annexation, certain types of signs will have to be
10 brought into compliance right away; vehicle mounted signs,
11 portable signs, banners, and animated flashing signs. So
12 some of those other types of things will have to be taken
13 care of within 60 days.
14 MS. SCHMIDT: Why do those animated flashing signs
15 have to be -- aren't those pretty expensive also?
16 MR. BARNES: Well, all that it takes is flipping a
17 switch to control that.
18 MS. SCHMIDT: So the sign can stay, it just can't
19 flash?
20 MR. BARNES: Yeah, in the City, we still allow
21 those electronic message board signs, but the sign message
22 has to stay constant for 60 seconds, and when it changes, it
23 has to be instantaneous; no scrolling, flashing, blinking, or
24 fading in and out, as some of those signs do now. And they
25 are computer controlled, so --
M
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. LINGLE: Okay. Any other comments? Motion?
MS. MEYER: I move that we approve the mitigation
for extending the signs from five to seven.
MR. SMITH: Second.
MR. LINGLE: Okay. It has been moved and seconded
to recommend the sign amortization mitigation measure. Other
comments? Okay. Roll call.
MS. DEINES: Fries?
MR. FRIES: Yes.
MS. DEINES: Stockover?
MR. STOCKOVER: Yes.
MS. DEINES: Smith?
MR. SMITH: Yes.
MS. DEINES: Schmidt?
MS. SCHMIDT: Yes.
MS. DEINES: Lingle?
MR. LINGLE: No.
Okay. Then the final two. Do we want to handle
those together, both financial ones? Yes?
MR. GLOSS: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, I provided an
explanation on the stormwater mitigation and the means by
which staff analyzed the situation, but I didn't talk about
the electric Service Rights Fee and how we came up with the 5
percent. And I thought that it would be appropriate to have
our staff that is here tonight and knows a lot more about the
m
1 analysis to come forward and provide the information.
2 MR. MARTINE: Okay. Thank you. Just as kind of an
3 overview of where that 5 percent came from, we looked at what
4 other cities do to try to find out how they handle similar
5 situations. And, to and behold, there isn't a consistent way
6 that cities handle it.
7 We found that some cities do not pass any of the
8 Service Rights Fee to the customer. Some pass it all through
9 and some pass various portions. We kind of -- the thought
10 process was that if the City has decided to annex property,
11 therefore, it must be, at least in part, in the City's
12 interest to do the annexation.
13 So, with that, we didn't think that it was
14 appropriate for customers being annexed to pay more. Light &
15 Power's rates are less than REA, but when you add 25 percent
16 to it, in many cases, the customer would pay more. Some
17 cases, the customer would still pay less.
18 But, going to the 5 percent then, those annexed
19 customers would -- virtually all, if not all -- end up paying
20 less. And, that way, it was basically a partnership is the
21 way that we were looking at it, between the City contributing
22 and the customer contributing, without the customer having to
23 pay a little higher electric bill.
24 MS. SCHMIDT: I presume there is no way to do this
25 on a case -by -case basis, so that if a person was paying
70
1 less -- so let's say that this mitigation applied as need be.
2 And so, if a person ended up paying less, then they would get
3 the mitigation. Or let's say if their rate -- if their
4 electric rate would only increase by 5 percent or 10 percent
5 or some number -- you know, so you're sort of dealing like
6 the utilities do when there's a hardship case, and people
7 apply because they can't pay their utility bill, and that is
8 sort of on a case -by -case basis.
9 MR. MARTINE: My initial reaction with that is,
10 with the numbers involved, that would not be very practical
11 to try and accomplish.
12 MR. FRIES: The reserves that we are going to use
13 to pay for this, what do we normally have reserves for?
14 MR. MARTINE: We keep reserves on hand, of course,
15 for catastrophic emergencies, as well as -- we've got plans
16 to build some new substations to be built on the
17 eastern/southern end of town. And, in part, because of the
18 additional load that this would add, and those are relatively
19 expensive to build, and we would probably have to dip into
20 reserves. We certainly would have to pay for those.
21 MR. FRIES: And by offering this as a mitigation
22 means, your department doesn't feel like we are putting
23 anything at risk for a potential disaster or what have you?
24 MR. MARTINE: We do have adequate reserves on hand
25 to cover this.
71
1 MR. FRIES: Okay. And then, also, just to clarify,
2 too, the reserves were put there by existing rate payers; is
3 that correct?
4 MR. MARTINE: That's correct.
5 MR. FRIES: Okay. Thanks.
6 MS. SCHMIDT: Another question. So let's say we
7 start down this path, and maybe six years from now, you do
8 build another substation, and you have to use reserves. So
9 then, eight years from now, we don't have as big a reserve
10 fund to use to provide this mitigation for the final part of
11 the annexation or if another annexation comes in. Do you see
12 that? Any problem? Do you think the reserves are always
13 going to be there, enough to buffer this kind of mitigation?
14 MR. MARTINE: For this kind of mitigation, there is
15 adequate reserves for this part, yes.
16 MS. SCHMIDT: Do you see any rationale why you
17 wouldn't offer this kind of mitigation to other portions of
18 the community?
19 MR. MARTINE: That would require certainly a higher
20 level decision than I can make, but I would anticipate that
21 would probably be the case, as we talked about earlier, this
22 being effectively a precedent. Whether it's intended to be a
23 precedent or not, it could be viewed that way.
24 MS. SCHMIDT: Thank you. Okay.
25 MR. LINGLE: Other comments or does someone want to
72
1
make a motion?
2
MR. ECKMAN: I've got
a comment
-- just a little
3
bit. I don't think that we have
such a
problem of
4
establishing a legal precedent.
We can
handle it any way we
5
want. It would be more in terms
of the
political precedent.
6
MR. SMITH: I move to
approve
both of the
7
mitigation pieces there, the stormwater
fee and also the
8
electric as proposed.
9
MR. LINGLE: Is there
a second?
10
MS. SCHMIDT: For the
sake of
discussion, I'll
11 second it.
12 MR. LINGLE: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to
13 recommend the final two mitigation measures. Any additional
14 comments?
15 MS. SCHMIDT: I guess that I feel the same way as
16 Judy does. Unless the City is willing to make it a
17 precedent, I guess I feel I can't go forward on recommending
18 it. I understand the benefit that it is for the people in
19 this area, and I think -- I think that everyone has put a lot
20 of time and effort into it, and I think that you've come up
21 with a good way to handle it.
22 It's not that I don't like it, but I feel -- it
23 worries me with the fact that we are just doing a political
24 thing for this particular time, and I would hate to be here
25 when the next one comes up, and we say, "Oh, sorry. It's not
73
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
working for you guys." So, as part of the comment to
Council, if they are willing to go with it and say we are
going to set this as a precedent, "This will be from now on,"
that would be fine with me. But, since that is not part of
the motion, I'm going to vote against it.
MR. SMITH: I guess that I would see this -- you
know, I see this as part of a larger deal. I don't see a
precedent being established, and I think that anytime there
is a very complicated deal and being involved where you
negotiate piece -by -piece, and you don't necessarily have to
have a big piece of a starting point for another deal.
It's all taken as a package, and so I think that as
part of the overall package, it does make sense. And, in the
future, any other annexation, you know, it's not a starting
point necessarily, but if we look at the whole deal, and, if
it makes sense in the future, the political minds in power at
that point can do something like this or something maybe even
greater or less. So I think it's a good mitigation measure
as proposed.
MR. LINGLE: My comment is -- that I already talked
about -- but I think that they're both reasonable in terms of
what staff was asked to do. And I'm pretty confident that
when it gets to Council, they will understand what they are
dealing with in terms of how it impacts the future, and they
will make their decision based on that.
74
1 And I guess that I'm okay not having that as a
2 binding part of the motion. They will have our minutes, and
3 they will be able to take that into account.
4 MR. STOCKOVER: My only comment is that I can't
5 think of what scenarios we might see in the future, but what
6 if the streets were more important to them than stormwater?
7 If this is already thrown in, they're just going to want
8 something else anyway.
9 So you really should start from ground zero and
10 work through the specifics at that time, because things will
11 definitely change by the time we have our next annexation.
12 And, again, I think at that point in time, I think that we'll
13 have -- and I know on Mulberry, there's a very well organized
14 group out there. So they're not going to come misinformed,
15 and we are still going to have the staff and the City Council
16 and a Board, and I think that we will work through it in a
17 reasonable manner at that time.
18 But I think carrying things forward would put us at
19 a detriment. I don't think we'd be doing the City a service
20 if we tied them to those two for the future, because there
21 will be different circumstances at that time.
22 MR. FRIES: I guess I would say, going back and
23 forth on this issue ever since the annexation came up -- and
24 it's a tough one -- where I'm at with it, I think five years
25 is too generous. I don't have a problem with giving people
75
1 some time to basically allow for budgeting and so forth, and
2 we've put an awful lot of time into this.
3 I think the first signal to anybody that you're
4 going to be annexed was this big blue line on this map called
5 "GMA." And I thought about this on the sign issue. It's
6 coming. Prepare for it. Don't do a City Code sign. Get
7 ready for paying stormwater fees. That's part of being in a
8 municipality, and I think in the long run, there's a lot of
9 other benefits that go along with it, too. So, I'm not going
10 to be supporting the motion, but I would entertain a motion
11 for something substantially less than five years.
12 MS. SCHMIDT: I guess my comments in relation to
13 what David said, you know, I agree. I think that City
14 Council had specific things in mind, but, by the time the
15 next one comes forward, it could be a different Council who
16 sees things differently.
17 And maybe, at the time -- I guess my recommendation
18 would be if Council gave some guidelines -- like, for me, if
19 you say, "Well, the median income in Phase I is 'X' dollars,
20 and therefore, this creates a kind of hardship for them, and
21 the median property value is" -- you know, if it's over
22 $400,000 or something. I still have trouble thinking that
23 $134 a month is going to be a real hardship for these people.
24 So you have some basic criteria to say -- not just
25 because they were adamant and upset. I think a lot of
76
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
citizens are adamant and upset, and they don't always get
mitigation, you know? But we try to do what we can, because
all of these citizens are going to be adamant and upset. So,
for me, to not have any criteria on why it is important to do
this, makes it a little difficult.
I think that if Council goes forward with this that
it would be a benefit if they could supply some of that so
that we would have a basis to decide things on in the future.
That would help.
MR. LINGLE: Now, Matt, you're concerned on the
timing, just on the first one for stormwater, not on the 5
percent, right?
MR. FRIES: Yes, correct.
MS. MEYER: However the vote goes, if this motion
fails, the Council gets to veto; is that correct? If it goes
ahead, the Council can still revote?
MR. LINGLE: If it ends up with a tie, there just
would be no recommendation; is that correct?
MR. GLOSS: That's correct.
MR. LINGLE: Okay. All right. Other comments
then? All right, roll call.
MS. DEINES: Stockover?
MR. STOCKOVER: Yes.
MS. DEINES: Smith?
MR. SMITH: Yes.
77
1
2
3
M
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. DEINES: Schmidt?
MS. SCHMIDT: No.
MS. DEINES: Meyer?
MS. MEYER: No.
MS. DEINES: Fries?
MR. FRIES: No.
MS. DEINES: Lingle?
MR. LINGLE: Yes.
So we have a no recommendation, I guess, on those
two items. That leaves the annexation and zoning for us to
deal with, so are there -- does someone want to start with a
motion or do we want to make comments first?
MS. SCHMIDT: I guess I need one question answered
before we can make a motion. There were two maps. One is
proposed zoning, and one is the structural plan designation?
MR. STOCKOVER: Can we back up one second? I think
that with no recommendation, I think that we should have
staff actually explain to them our concerns.
MR. GLOSS: Absolutely.
MR. STOCKOVER: We have your discussion with that
one.
MR. GLOSS: Yes, thank you. We are taking verbatim
minutes of the proceedings tonight, and then we will
summarize in writing, as well as provide the staff
presentation.
rf:]
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. STOCKOVER: Because I think we had some really
good discussion on that one, and I would hate for them to
just miss all of that.
MS. SCHMIDT: So, Cameron, there is some slight
differences between the structure plan designation and the
proposed zoning, and I think mostly it's on some of the dark
green open lands that isn't shown on the proposed zoning. Is
that usual or I just wasn't sure --
MR. GLOSS: Let's me try to explain a little bit.
We have some areas on the structural plan, the drainage ways,
for example, that cut across. Those are areas we don't zone,
but we designate them on the plan.
So, say a drainage way, for example, that cuts
right through the middle of Fairway Estates will not be
developed. It's in a mapped floodway, but we don't assign a
public zone to that. So that is one example.
Then you will notice on a few of the zoned
designations, there's a very slight variation. And I think
the difference there being the structure plans tend to be
generalized. We have some areas where, say, the property
line is very specific; whereas, a structured plan is a more
generalized line.
But, if you take the two and put them side -by -side,
they are actually quite close. And, if you want, I can point
out where a specific difference is and then try to explain
79
1 that at present value. I can put those up on the screen.
2 MS. SCHMIDT: I guess my question would be, you
3 have gone over this, I'm sure, specifically with the people
4 in those areas and in those neighborhoods, and do you feel
5 that -- you know, given the fact that they don't want to be
6 annexed to start with, but, if they were, do they feel these
7 zonings are acceptable?
8 MR. GLOSS: As I mentioned in my presentation,
9 largely what is reflected on the ground today is the same as
10 what is permitted with the zoning. So, you take the
11 Applewood Estates Subdivision, for example. The lot size and
12 density corresponds very closely to those in the district,
13 and that's the designation on the structure plan, and that's
14 the zoning designation.
15 We do have some areas that may be -- they're a
16 little -- not quite as tightly fitting. Let's put it that
17 way. So a lot size is slightly different than what's allowed
18 or somehow is slightly different. But, for the most part,
19 it's reflected with what is out there today.
20 MS. SCHMIDT: Can I just ask to make sure that I'm
21 reading the map correctly? The light yellow that is to the
22 west of the commercial, is that low density mixed use or is
23 that urban mixed use?
24 MR. GLOSS: That's mixed use, again, because of the
25 size of the lots, and the subdivisions there are smaller than
M
1 they are in urban estate lots, and those lot sizes in general
2 terms are about 7,000 square feet, which is closer to urban
3 mixed than it is to urban estate density.
4 MS. SCHMIDT: And that is also the coloring right
5 above the commercial, too, right? The yellow through what is
6 Fairway estates?
7 MR. GLOSS: That's correct, yes.
8 MS. SCHMIDT: Okay.
9 MR. GLOSS: I take that back. That is actually low
10 density residential. That is the Fossil Creek Meadows
11 neighborhood, and that is more of a RL, low density
12 residential designation density. So the lot sizes are, I
13 believe, closer to about 8,000 square feet on average.
14 MS. SCHMIDT: Okay. And just so I'm clear on this,
15 then, what is south on Trilby? Because they are all yellow.
16 I want to make sure I have a different --
17 MR. GLOSS: If you take a look at the structured
18 plan, you see there's some differences. Actually, I'm
19 looking at my structure plan on the zoning map, and for some
20 reason, the structured plan gradations are turning out a
21 little bit cleaner than the zoning map, and I apologize for
22 that.
23 But you have, for example, south of Trilby Road, if
24 you look at the structured plan, I think it's a little more
25 clear. That is a darker yellow, and that would be the LMN
sM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
zone, and that is comparable to Province Town. And, to give
you an example, that is immediately to the east of that area,
and you also have a mobile home park that's south of Trilby
about a quarter mile, I think, east of College. And that
density is more akin to LMN than it is to RL, as an example.
And then, you go north of Trilby Road, and that's
where you have zoning, and those lots are quite a bit larger.
In fact, we have heard from one of the residents this evening
that has one of those lots.
MR. LINGLE: Based on that, Cameron, it looks like
to me, then, Fossil Creek Meadows on the structured plan is
the darker yellow, which would be the low density mixed use,
not the urban.
MR. GLOSS: I do think there is some discrepancy
there. I would have to say, based on my experience, the
Fossil Creek Meadows Neighborhood in it's present
development, which is a built -out subdivision, more closely
resembles the density permitted in RL, low density
residential, than it does in the LMN, low density mixed use.
MR. LINGLE: So would that require a structure plan
amendment then, unless this isn't just printing right, the
colors?
MR. GLOSS: I would have to do a little more
research on the history of that designation, to be quite
frank.
M.
1 MR. LINGLE: Okay. So is this something that could
2 be done between now and --
3 MR. GLOSS: I'll ask the staff if they would like
4 to do the research between now and September 5th when this
5 goes to City Council.
6 MS. SCHMIDT: Another question is the person with
7 the 40 acres stated what -- it looks to me like their
8 property would be in Phase III to the annexation. If they
9 did want to sell and subdivide or something prior to that, it
10 would be solely on the County or do we have any regulations
11 that they would need to annex at the time that they --
12 MR. GLOSS. No. Well, it just depends on whether
13 the development has congruity at the time that the
14 development proposal comes forward. As you know, with our
15 IGA with the County, if the property is eligible for
16 annexation, and you have certain types of development plans
17 have different thresholds, and it kicks over that threshold,
18 they have to come to the City in order to develop. They have
19 the annexation, and then a development plan comes to the
20 City, so a lot of it is going to depend on timing, quite
21 frankly.
22 MR. LINGLE: Any additional comment or is somebody
23 ready to make a motion? The staff recommendations are on top
24 of page 17 in the old staff report, all 17 on the new one.
25 MR. STOCKOVER: I guess that I don't know if I
W,
1 would agree with Facts and Findings Number 3, because it says
2 the proposed annexations consist of criteria in Fort Collins'
3 Land Use Code. Well, we would be making changes to a lot of
4 that code.
5 I guess I'll make a motion to recommend that the
6 Planning and Zoning Board recommends to City Council that
7 they approve the annexation and the zoning district as
8 described on the zoning map based on the facts and findings
9 of the staff report, Numbers 1, 2, and 4.
10 MR. LINGLE: I might suggest you could include 3
11 and say, "Just as amended by the mitigation."
12 MR. STOCKOVER: Okay. That would be fine to
13 include the Fact and Finding Number 3 as proposed annexation
14 is consistent with the applicable criteria in the Land Use
15 Code and as amended with the mitigation factors.
16 MR. LINGLE: Okay. Is there a second?
17 MR. SMITH: I'll second that.
18 MR. LINGLE: All right. A second to recommend
19 approval the annexation and the zoning districts. Additional
20 comments? Anybody?
21 MS. MEYER: I would like to say that I think the
22 staff did a fine job with this, and I understand that it was
23 a long, hard, cruel road, but we've gotten something that
24 maybe they can live with. But this is one of the fairest,
25 equitable things that the City could do.
Im
I I don't see how anybody thinks the City is going to
2 win on this one. If it was just simply a matter of a few
3 blocks, I could understand, but we can't have a big block of
4 this in the middle of the City, and it just doesn't work like
5 that. You have to be contiguous. That's the way it is.
6 MR. STOCKOVER: I guess that I would like to second
7 Judy's comments as far as the work that the staff has done.
8 I know that a lot of it has been from the direction of the
9 Council. I think that my concern is for the rest of the
10 City.
11 Given our budget situation at the time, I really
12 don't know if it is in the City's best interests financially
13 to pursue this annexation at this time, but I'm presuming
14 that they've developed a financial model that makes this
15 workable for all individuals, and I just hope that that's a
16 correct plan.
17 MR. LINGLE: Other comments?
18 MR. FRIES : I would just chime in. I think the
19 staff did a super job as well, in obviously, a very tough
20 situation. I do -- I'll be supporting the motion, and I
21 support the annexation. I think it's good planning.
22 It's rough for the people that have been there for
23 a while, and our City has grown, and we've got quite a
24 commodity. We've got a very desirable place to live. That's
25 really what's driving this is growth. When you look at that,
M
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I think this is what I call "controlled growth," good growth.
We've been planning as we should, as the Planning and Zoning
Board should.
The other thing that I would just like to make sure
is on the record, I do believe that the citizens in the
enclave have been taking advantage of -- in many positive
ways -- taking advantage of our City services, and I would
like to -- certainly this isn't our decision -- but if the
City Council, in fact, approves this, welcome them to our
City. And I think it's going to be a benefit to you as a
resident, as a business owner, as a property owner,
et cetera, so I will be supporting the motion.
MR. LINGLE: Okay. My comment, Cameron, could you
go to your very first slide? I think it's the one that shows
the enclave location within the city limits. Yeah, that one.
I guess, as I read through the staff report and all of the
neighborhood comments and everything, I kept coming back to
the question of: Is it reasonable to assume that this
enclave would remain an enclave indefinitely? And, if not,
is now the best time to annex it, and, if not, why not?
And I kept coming to the conclusion that, no, I
don't believe that this should remain an enclave. I think
that's the whole intent of the Intergovernmental Agreement in
this area, that the County not have to extend urban level
services to an area that they're not equipped to provide
W
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
urban level services to.
And, if the City continues to develop around at
higher densities, it becomes even more cumbersome on the
County to do that. It only makes sense for the City to take
this in. And having make that conclusion, then, well, is now
the best time to do it? If not, why not?
And I guess we're needing to rely on the staff and
the City Council's analysis of the fiscal impact and
determine that, yes, now makes sense. And I think that the
staff has made a lot of effort in terms of both analysis of
the impact, trying to establish a zoning district that match
the development patterns that are in place today so there is
the least amount of impact on those neighborhoods, and has
done an incredible amount of public outreach that has been
pretty contentious at times. And I think that having made
that comment, I'm ready to proceed with this and send it on
to City Council. Okay? Roll call.
MS. DEINES: Smith?
MR. SMITH: Yes.
MS. DEINES: Schmidt?
MS. SCHMIDT: Yes.
MS. DEINES: Meyer?
MS. MEYER: Yes.
MS. DEINES: Fries?
MR. FRIES: Yes.
M
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. DEINES: Stockover?
MR. STOCKOVER: Yes.
MS. DEINES: Lingle?
MR. LINGLE: Yes.
MR. FRIES: I would like to say that I think that
Dave summed it up really well, those exactly were my feelings
about it also.
MR. LINGLE: Okay. Is there any other business?
MR. ECKMAN: I had one item. At one of your work
sessions you mentioned that you had hoped that it might be
possible for these acceptances of easements to be taken to
the City Manager instead of to the Board, and I discussed
that last week with some of our staff, and we'll be working
with the Real Estate Services Department to see if we can get
that accomplished for you. So I'll report back as that comes
to pass, but we're working on that now.
MR. LINGLE: Thank you. Okay. If there is no
other business, we're adjourned.
(Proceedings were concluded at 8:17 p.m.)
M
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
STATE OF COLORADO )
REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE
COUNTY OF LARIMER )
I, Lela A. Brister, Court Reporter and Notary Public,
State of Colorado, hereby certify that the foregoing
proceedings, taken of the City of Fort Collins Planning and
Zoning Board, was taken on July 20, 2006, at 300 LaPorte
Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado; that prior to testifying, the
witness was duly sworn by me; that said testimony was taken
down by me in stenotype notes and thereafter reduced under my
supervision to the foregoing 87 pages; that said transcript
is an accurate and complete record of the proceedings so
taken.
I further certify that I am not related to, employed
by, nor of counsel to any of the parties or attorneys herein
nor otherwise interested in the outcome of the proceedings.
Attested to by me this 2nd day of August, 2006.
Lela A. Brister
Meadors Court Reporting, LLC
315 West Oak Street, Suite 710
Fort Collins, Colorado 80521
(970) 482-1506
My commission expires October 6, 2007