HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES-08/21/2001-RegularAugust 21, 2001
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
Council -Manager Form of Government
Regular Meeting - 6:00 p.m.
A regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins was held on Tuesday, August 21, 2001,
at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll Call was answered
by the following Councilmembers: Bertschy, Hamrick, Kastein, Martinez, Tharp, Wanner and
Weitkunat.
Staff Members Present: Fischbach, Krajicek, Roy.
Citizen Participation
Hugh C. Sullivan of California spoke regarding a parking ticket his daughter received a year and a
half ago and requested reimbursement for attorney's fees and other costs relating to the appeal. He
spoke regarding the process followed by the City Attorney's Office and Municipal Court with regard
to the appeal and the need for a judicial review panel.
Mike Doten, 426 Laporte Avenue, Director of Citizen Planners of Northern Colorado, spoke
regarding the I-25 Corridor Plan and asked that substantive changes be made to the plan with regard
to air quality, parallel road systems, open space and funding mechanisms.
Eric Levine, 145 North Meldrum, spoke in opposition to the vision of maximum and continuous
development within the corridor as expressed in the I-25 Corridor Plan. He expressed concern
regarding the possible price tag for the Plan and asked that Council direct that staff look at any
proposed developments that are in progress to make certain that the City does not pay costs incurred
because other communities did not charge adequate impact fees.
Howard Stimely, 1037 Sailor's Reef, spoke regarding late night noise, keg parties and white
supremicist and animal sacrifice ceremonies in the nature preserve and Warren Park near his house.
He expressed concerns regarding the lack of police response.
Doug Hutchinson, 1315 Whedbee, spoke in support of the I-25 Corridor Plan and the public process
that has been followed by the communities involved in the plan. He stated that the plan will not
cause growth, that the lack of a plan will not stop growth and that the plan will manage growth.
Al Baccili, 520 Galaxy Court, spoke in opposition to the continuation of the vendor's fee
0
August 21, 2001
Karen Wagner, member of the Fort Collins focus group for the I-25 Corridor Plan, asked how citizen
input from the town meeting on the I-25 Corridor Plan will be processed, whether Council believes
that a few "tweeks" will address the concerns raised at the town meeting, if citizens will be involved
in a continuing dialogue of major issues, if the subarea plan can be adopted first and if citizen
concerns will remain paramount.
Kelly Ohlson, 2040 Bennington Circle, spoke in opposition to the I-25 Corridor Plan and asked that
Council scrap the fatally flawed plan. He stated that the parallel road system is the basis for
opposition to the plan. He also spoke regarding the decision of the Bureau of Reclamation not to
dump soil for the dam project in the Pineridge natural area and expressed concern that the City was
even willing to negotiate allowing this dumping in a natural area.
Citizen Participation Follow-up
Mayor Martinez asked for follow up regarding the price tag for the I-25 Corridor Plan. He
expressed concern regarding the Warren Lake complaint and requested a report regarding the police
response time. City Manager Fischbach stated that he would discuss the matter with the Police
Department.
Mayor Martinez thanked Randy Fischer for his work on the Pineridge issue and stated that Council
and staff pushed the Bureau of Reclamation to find alternatives to dumping soil on the Pineridge
natural area.
Councilmember Hamrick thanked those who came to speak regarding the I-25 Corridor Plan and
asked if a citizen input process has been established. City Manager Fischbach stated that a one -page
memo is being prepared for Council's review and comment.
Councilmember Hamrick asked if there are maps that show proposed developments along the I-25
corridor. City Manager Fischbach stated that there are maps showing proposed development,
current development and existing development.
Councilmember Hamrick asked for a report on the vendor's fee issue
Councilmember Bertschy thanked those who spoke during Citizen Participation and asked about
ownership of the nature preserve at Warren Lake and about the City's curfew ordinance. City
Manager Fischbach stated that the party problem has been on the Warren Lake dam and at the end
of the cul-de-sac and that he would speak to Mr. Stimely regarding the matter.
Councilmember Kastein asked for a report on the I-25 Corridor parallel road system issue because
that appears to be the basis for the opposition. He spoke regarding the need for a regional plan for
the I-25 Corridor.
4
August 21, 2001
• Councilmember Kastein asked for a report on additions to police staffing levels and police response
times. City Manager Fischbach stated that five police officers are being added per year for the next
10 years to keep up with growth and that he would prepare a report for Council.
Agenda Review
City Manager Fischbach reported that item #25 First Reading of Ordinance No. 132, 2001,
Amending Sections 2-462 and 2-569 of the City Code with Regard to the Appointment of Alternate
Members of the Downtown Development Authority and the Ethics Review Board will be scheduled
for Second Reading on September 18 rather than September 4 and that item #42 First Reading of
Ordinance No. 121, 2001, Amending Chapter 10 and Chapter 26 of the City Code to Reflect the
Adoption of a New Master Drainage Plan for the Canal Importation Basin and Clarifying the
Application of the Provisions of Chapter 10 to Floodplains in the City has a revised ordinance.
Kelly Ohlson, 2040 Bennington Circle, withdrew item # 14 Second Reading of Ordinance No. 119,
2001, Approving the Terms of the Lease by the City of 415 East Monroe for a Youth Activity Center
from the Consent Calendar.
Councilmember Hamrick withdrew item # 18 First Reading of Ordinance No. 125, 2001, Authorizing
the Sale of]. 032 Acres of Westfield Park to Pool of Dreams, Ltd. and Appropriating the Proceeds
of Such Sale as Unanticipated Revenue in the Neighborhood Parkland Fund from the Consent
Calendar.
CONSENT CALENDAR
7. Consideration and approval of the Council Meeting minutes of June 5 June 19 July 17
2001 and the adjourned meeting minutes of July 10 2001
8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 112 2001 Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue
in the General Fund for Environmental Programs
The City has applied for and received three grants related to reducing waste streams from
the commercial sector. Ordinance No. 112, 2001, which was unanimously adopted on First
Reading, appropriates unanticipated grant revenue in the general fund for environmental
programs.
9. Second Reading of Ordinance No 113 2001 Authorizing the Appropriation of Reserve
Funds in the Neighborhood Parkland Fund for Raw Water Purchases
The development of a new neighborhood park requires the one-time acquisition of raw water
for the irrigation of the park. A City Water Utility policy that went into effect in 1997
• requires raw water be purchased for each new park. Previously, raw water for parks was
3
August 21, 2001
supplied from the City's existing raw water inventory. Funds are identified in the budget
of each new park for the purchase of raw water. The Neighborhood Parkland Fee was
increased in 2000 to cover the increased raw water costs. Ordinance No. 113, 2001, was
unanimously adopted on First Reading on July 17, 2001.
10. Second Reading of Ordinance No 114 2001 Designating the John and Inez Romero House,
425 Tenth Street as a Local Landmark Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the City Code.
The owner of the property, Fort Collins Partners I, LLC, initiated this request for landmark
designation for the John and Inez Romero House. This residence has architectural
importance as an exceptional example of adobe architecture in Fort Collins. Additionally,
the house has historical importance, for its association with the sugar beet industry in Fort
Collins, and for its association with John and Inez Romero, important leaders in the Hispanic
community. Ordinance No. 114, 2001, was unanimously adopted on First Reading on July
17, 2001.
11. Second Reading of Ordinance No 115 2001 Designating the Joseph Baines House, 520
South Howes Street as a Local Landmark Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the City Code.
The owner of the property, Chris Ray, dba Vantage Properties, LLC, initiated this request
for landmark designation for the Joseph Baines House. This home has architectural
significance to Fort Collins, as a good representation of late nineteenth century residential
architecture in Fort Collins. Ordinance No. 115, 2001, was unanimously adopted on First
Reading on July 17, 2001.
12. Second Reading of Ordinance No 117 2001 Vacating a Portion of the Right -of -Way for
Richards Lake Road Adjacent to the Richards Lake P.U.D. First Filing.
This Ordinance, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on July 17, 2001, vacates
the north 15 feet of street right-of-way for Richards Lake Road.
13. Second Reading of Ordinance No 118 2001 Authorizing the Long-term Lease of Property
at the Fort Collins -Loveland Municipal Airport to Cole Smith dba Signal Construction, for
the Construction of an Aircraft Hangar.
The Airport Manager has negotiated a lease of property for the construction of an aircraft
hangar. The hangar will provide at least 8,296 square feet of aircraft storage space. At the
expiration of the lease, the improvements revert to the ownership of the Airport.
Ordinance No. 118, 2001, was unanimously adopted on First Reading on July 17, 2001. The
legal description has been amended between First and Second Reading of the Ordinance due
to an error which was discovered when Mr. Smith had a physical (on -site) survey completed
11
August 21, 2001
• after First Reading of the Ordinance. Previously, the survey firm that was contracted to
provide legal descriptions used a FAA approved Airport Layout Plan to calculate the
boundaries for the Cole Smith lease property. Because the plan used in developing the legal
descriptions for Mr. Smith's leases did not have existing buildings accurately located; the
legal was incorrect by approximately 30 feet. This correction does not change the terms of
the lease.
14. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 119, 2001 Approving the Terms of the Lease by the City
of 415 East Monroe for a Youth Activity Center.
Everwest has offered to lease to the City the facility located at 415 East Monroe Street, east
of the Foothills Fashion Mall and formerly occupied by Healthworks Health Club. The
facility has over 26,000 square feet and will make an excellent replacement facility for the
YAC. The term of the lease is 10 years, which may be extended by later agreement.
Ordinance No. 119, 2001, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on July 17,
2001, authorizes the lease of the facility.
15. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 122, 2001 Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code
Relating to Fees for Raw Water Requirements of the Water Utility.
This Ordinance, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on July 17, 2001,
increases the cash rate charged developers for satisfaction of raw water requirements from
$4,500 to $6,500 per acre foot. The cash rate, which is adjusted periodically to reflect the
current price of raw water, is also the basis for a surcharge paid by nonresidential customers
for water used in excess of their annual allotment.
16. Second Reading of Ordinance No 123 2001 Calling a Special Municipal Election to be
held in Coniunction with the November 6, 2001 Latimer County Coordinated Election
Ordinance No. 123, 2001, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on July 17,
2001, calls a special election to be held on November 6, 2001 in conjunction with the
Larimer County Coordinanced Election. It also adopts the provisions of the Uniform
Election Code of 1992 in lieu of the Municipal Election Code of 1965, directs the City Clerk
to certify ballot content to Larimer County no later than September 12, and authorizes the
City Manager to enter into an intergovernmental agreement with Larimer County for the
conduct of the election. The November 6, 2001 Coordinated Election will be conducted by
mail ballot.
17. First Reading of Ordinance No. 124 2001 Appro riating Unanticipated Revenue in the
General Fund and Authorizing the Transfer of Appropriated Amounts Between Accounts
and Projects for the Multi -Jurisdictional Drug Task Force
0 5
August 21, 2001
For the past 14 years, Fort Collins Police Services has applied to the Colorado Division of
Criminal Justice for federal drug grant monies to help fund the investigation of illegal
narcotics activities. Fort Collins has once again joined with other members of the Larimer
County Drug Task Force, to include the Loveland Police Department, Larimer County
Sheriffs Department, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and the Colorado State
University Police Department, in one application for funding of the multi jurisdictional drug
task force to be administered by the City of Fort Collins. As administrator of the 2001-2002
grant, Police Services will assure funding to other participating agencies for their share of
the federal funds. The City has recently received notification of a grant award in the amount
of $290,222. The participating agencies will be providing matching funds in the amount of
$319,415. A portion of the $319,415 match will consist of $3,500 from Colorado State
University to fund some training expenses. Fort Collins portion of the match is $139,419.
This match is met via the budgeted salary and fringe benefits of existing Fort Collins Police
Services personnel currently assigned to the Drug Task Force.
18. First Reading of Ordinance No 125 2001Authorizing the Sale of 1.032 Acres of Westfield
Park to Pool of Dreams Ltd and Appropriating the Proceeds of Such Sale as Unanticipated
Revenue in the Neighborhood Parkland Fund.
The City purchased 14.61 acres of land in 1981 for Westfield Neighborhood Park. The
amount of land needed for the park was estimated at that time to be about 10 to 12 acres.
The landowner would only sell 14.61 acres for $166,700. At the time of park development
in 1997/98, the actual amount of land needed to serve the residential area around the park
was determined to be 11 acres. The park currently has 11 developed acres and complies
with park acreage requirements in the 1996 Parks and Recreation Policy Plan. A one-time
fee on new housing funds new park acquisition and development.
A group of neighbors, organized as Pool of Dreams, approached the City in 1999 about
acquiring a portion of the unused parkland at Westfield Park for a neighborhood pool.
Residents in the area would use the pool. The pool would not be open to the general public.
The development, operation and maintenance of the pool will be the responsibility of Pool
of Dreams.
August 21, 2001
• 19. First Reading of Ordinance No. 126, 2001 Authorizing the Transfer of Appropriations from
the Transit Services Fund to the Capital Projects Fund CSU Transit Center Capital Project
to be Used For the Final Design and Site Preparation/Construction of the CSU Transit
Center.
The City and Colorado State University have been working together since 1996 to develop
a campus Transit Center. Work is expected to begin on final design in the fall. This item
authorizes the transfer of existing appropriations from the Transit Services Fund to the
Capital Projects Fund for final design and site preparation at the CSU Transit Center.
20. First Reading of Ordinance No 127, 2001, Authorizing the Transfer of Appropriations from
the Transportation Services Fund to the North Front Range Transportation & Air Quality
Planning Council Fund to be Used for Operating Expenses of the Metropolitan Planning
Organization.
The funds to pay the North Front Range Transportation & Air Quality Planning Council
Executive Director salary and benefits, which were previously budgeted and appropriated
in the Transportation Services Fund, now need to be transferred to the newly created
NFRT&AQPC Fund. Council's adoption of this Ordinance will not appropriate any
additional funds; rather, it will serve as a transfer of existing appropriations and budget to
• the fund that will be incurring the expenditures.
21. First Reading of Ordinance No. 128, 2001, Authorizing the Transfer of Appropriations
Between Projects in the Transportation Services Fund for the Operation of the North Front
Range Transportation & Air Quality Planning Council's 2001-2002 Metropolitan Planning
Organization Administration Program Year.
The North Front Range Transportation & Air Quality Planning Council (NFRT&AQPC) is
the regional Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO). The administration/program
budget for the NFRT&AQPC is funded with federal transportation program dollars
administered by the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) based on the federal
fiscal and program year of October 1, 2001 to September 30, 2002. This period does not
correspond to the City's calendar year appropriation time frame, and this time differential
causes some accounting and budget management problems. Council adoption of this
Ordinance will enable staff to more consistently manage and track the NFRT&AQPC's
budget and expenditures. The proposed budget and appropriation for the 2001-2002
program year is $781,101 for administration of the NFRT&AQPC.
22. First Reading of Ordinance No. 129. 2001 Authorizing an Amendment to the Long term
Lease of Property at the Fort Collins -Loveland Municipal Airport to Cole Smith Dba Signal
Construction, for the Construction of Aircraft Hangars
0
August 21, 2001
City Council adopted Ordinance No. 56, 2001, on Second Reading on May 6, 2001,
authorizing the long-term lease of property to Cole Smith for the construction of two aircraft
hangars. Since that lease agreement was entered into, the parties discovered that the legal
description of the leased premises as described in Exhibit A of the agreement is in error.
The survey firm that was contracted to provide the original legal descriptions used an FAA -
approved Airport Layout Plan to calculate the boundaries. Because the plan used in
developing the legal descriptions did not have existing buildings accurately located, it
resulted in an incorrect legal description. This amendment rectifies that situation with a
corrected Exhibit A.
23. First Reading of Ordinance No. 130 2001, Approving and Authorizing the City to Enter into
Agreements in Connection with the Execution and Delivery of Lease Certificates of
Participation for Public Safety and Recreational Improvements
This Ordinance authorizes the City to execute and deliver lease purchase certificates of
participation to provide funds to acquire a facility for the Police Department and to construct
a new clubhouse at the Collindale Golf Course and to make additional Golf Course
improvements. The Police Department and Golf Fund projects will be financed through the
use of a non-profit corporation, the Fort Collins Capital Leasing Corporation. This is similar
to the financing used for the parking structure and City office building. Through a sale -
leaseback arrangement, the City will transfer the properties to the Fort Collins Leasing
Corporation. The Corporation will then lease the properties back to the City for a term of
20-years. The actual financing will be accomplished through the sale of certificates of
participation (COPS). Upon payment in full of the COPs the site lease will be terminated.
The average life of the COPS is expected to be between 13 and 15 years. The City expects
to pay interest on the lease semi-annually, at an estimated rate of 5.50% for the first 10 years
at which time the rate will be reset for an additional 10-year period. Principal payments will
be made annually.
9
August 21, 2001
is 24. First Reading of Ordinance No. 131, 2001 Amending Sections 2-31 2-33 and 2-73 of the
City Code Pertaining to Executive Sessions.
This Ordinance would make certain amendments to the sections of the City Code that pertain
to executive sessions. The amendments are generally similar to recent amendments to the
State Open Meetings Law and would, among other things, require the tape recording of
executive session discussions so that, if a member of the public believes that an executive
session discussion has strayed from the appointed topic or that final legislative action was
taken in an executive session, he or she could apply to the District Court with a request that
all or a portion of the recording of the executive session discussion be made available for
public inspection.
25. First Reading of Ordinance No 132 2001 Amending Sections 2-462 and 2-569 of the City
Code with Regard to the Appointment of Alternate Members ofthe Downtown Development
Authority and the Ethics Review Board.
This Ordinance revises two sections of the City Code to clarify the Council's authority to
appoint an alternate member to the Downtown Development Authority Board of Directors
and the Ethics Review Board. These alternate members would have all of the same duties
and privileges as a regular member when the regular member is unavailable.
• 26. First Reading of Ordinance No 133, 2001 Vacating a Portion of the Right -of -Way for
Hoffman Mill Road, Dedicated on the Plat of the Cache La Poudre Industrial Park P.U.D.
This Ordinance will vacate a portion of street right-of-way for Hoffman Mill Road in order
to eliminate the dedicated street west of Timberline Road to its end at the east edge of the
Nix Farm Natural Areas Facility. The Nix Farm Natural Areas Facility PDP was approved
June 12, 2001, reflecting the vacation of this right-of-way and its replacement with
emergency access and utility easements. This segment of Hoffman Mill Road is shown on
the Master Street Plan as a local street, but was deemed unnecessary as a public street with
the development of the Nix Farm Natural Areas Facility.
The road vacation process was followed and the appropriate departments and agencies were
notified. The only need identified was an assurance that the Nix Farm Natural Areas Facility
address would be posted both at its entrance via existing Hoffman Mill Road to the west and
at the intersection of Hoffman Mill Road and Poudre River Drive just east of Lemay
Avenue. This has been agreed to by the Natural Resources Department; therefore, there are
no objections to this vacation.
August 21, 2001
27. First Reading of Ordinance No 116 2001 Authorizing the Conveyance of a Non -Exclusive
Easement to Latimer County for Environmental Monitoring in the Cathy Fromme Prairie
Natural Area.
The Cathy Fromme Prairie Natural Area, portions of which are owned jointly with Larimer
County and portions of which are owned solely by the City of Fort Collins, is adjacent to the
Latimer County Landfill. In 1989, certain contamination was discovered leaching out of the
landfill and flowing in the groundwater under Cathy Fromme Prairie, including portions of
the site now owned solely by the City of Fort Collins. The State of Colorado and the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) require routine monitoring of the contamination
until contamination is no longer detectable. This monitoring has been occurring since the
contamination was discovered. The State, which oversees the contamination site for the
EPA, requires Latimer County, as operators of the Landfill, to have evidence of the legal
right to access the contaminated property for purposes of monitoring until the site proves to
be clean of contamination and the State and EPA no longer require monitoring. The
Ordinance gives ongoing permission for that access. The easement permits no monitoring
operations on the site that are not already occurring, other than allowing for future
monitoring wells to be drilled downstream if contamination is found to be migrating beyond
the current monitoring wells. The easement agreement makes certain stipulations that
provide for protection of the site's natural resources, to the extent possible, during the
monitoring operations.
28. First Reading of Ordinance No 134 2001 Authorizing the Conveyance of Approximately
360 Acres of Land on the Former Rockwell Ranch to the United States Forest Service in
Exchange for the Conveyance to the City of the Land Underlying Joe Wright Reservoir,
Subject to a Non-exclusive Conservation Easement for Use of the Reservoir Property by the
Public and the Colorado Division of Wildlife.
In 1996, the City Council directed staff to pursue an exchange of the City -owned Rockwell
properties for the land under and around the City's Joe Wright Reservoir owned by the
United States Forest Service (USFS). At that time there was concern expressed by the
Natural Resources Advisory Board (NRAB) that the exchange be made utilizing the USFS's
administrative procedure instead of a legislative solution being promoted by the City of
Greeley, Water Supply and Storage Company, and the Water Board. The NRAB was
concerned that the legislative process would preempt the necessary environmental reviews.
The Council, after considerable discussion, directed staff to utilize the USFS's administrative
procedure. Since that time, staff has worked with the USFS and the United States Fish and
Wildlife Service in processing the land exchange using the administrative procedure,
including all of the necessary environmental assessments and reviews.
29. Resolution 2001-96 Providing Direction to the City Manager to Participate in the Creation
of a Day Facility for the Homeless.
10
August 21, 2001
• On Friday, March 30, 2001, New Bridges, a local day center for the homeless, ceased
operations and closed its doors. Since that time the Fort Collins Area United Way has
brought together service providers and community leaders to address the gap in services
created by the closing of New Bridges.
Property owned by the City at 450 North College, the site of the old Fort Collins Power
Plant, has been identified as a possible long-term location for a new day facility for the
homeless. City staff is currently looking into the details of the land in order to determine if
the site is feasible. If a facility can be located on the site, the City of Fort Collins could
provide the land at a lease rate similar to previous lease rates provided to non-profit
organizations. This provision of land would be the only involvement that the City of Fort
Collins would have in the construction and operation of the facility.
30. Resolution 2001-97 Approving Expenditures from the Art in Public Places Reserve Account
in the Cultural Services and Facilities Fund to Commission an Artist to DesignFabricate
and Install Four Kinetic Sculptures Inspired by a Transportation Theme
This Resolution would appropriate $20,673 for design, construction, installation, and
contingency. The Transit Center kinetic sculpture project will feature four different
sculptures relating to the theme of transportation. Its graphic style was designed to
• compliment the existing Transit Center bronze pavers that were also designed by Andrew
Dufford.
31. Resolution 2001-98 Approving Expenditures from the Art in Public Places Reserve Account
in the Storm Drainage Utility Fund to Commission an Artist to Design Fabricate and Install
a Collaborative Art Piece on a Concrete Wall at the Site of the Interpretive Center on the
Spring Creek Trail.
In 1995, the City Code was amended adding Section 23-303 establishing the Art in Public
Places (APP) Reserve Account, and designated it for the use in the acquisition or leasing of
works of art, maintenance, repair or display of works of art, and administrative expenses
related to the Art in Public Places Program, in accordance with the Art in Public Places
Guidelines adopted by the Council in Ordinance No. 20, 1995. The Council permanently
adopted the Art in Public Places Program, and reenacted City Code Chapter 23, Article XI,
with certain modifications in 1998.
In connection with the Water Cycle Wall project, staff and the APP Board have proposed
to commission the artist Janet Austin to collaborate on a community project that is intended
to artistically and scientifically show the interaction between water and the many other
cycles of nature. This Resolution would approve the expenditure of $20,700 for fabrication,
installation, contingency and artist fees.
0 11
August 21, 2001
32. Resolution 2001-99 Approving Expenditures from the Art in Public Places Reserve Account
in the Cultural Services and Facilities Fund, and the Art in Public Places Reserve Account in
the Storm Drainage Utility Fund to Commission an Artist to Design, Fabricate and Install an
Art Piece to Enhance Concrete Walls and Metal Railings near the Spring Creek Bike Trail at
the Taft Hill Road Project.
In 1995, the City Code was amended adding Section 23-303 establishing the Art in Public
Places (APP) Reserve Account, and designated it for the use in the acquisition or leasing of
works of art, maintenance, repair or display of works of art, and administrative expenses related
to the Art in Public Places Program, in accordance with the Art in Public Places Guidelines
adopted by the Council in Ordinance No. 20, 1995. The Council permanently adopted the Art
in Public Places Program, and reenacted City Code Chapter 23, Article XI, with certain
modifications in 1998.
In connection with the Taft Hill Road project, staff and the APP Board have proposed to use
$70,004 to commission the artist Carolyn Braaksma, of Surface Strategy Inc., to design,
fabricate, install, and for contingency for an art piece portraying a complex ecosystem by
sculpting the concrete walls and applying images on portions of the metal wall railings at the
Taft Hill Road Project.
33. Resolution 2001-100 Authorizing the Mayor to Execute an Intergovernmental Agreement
among the City of Fort Collins City of Greeley, and the VanGoTM Program for the Provision
of Vehicle Maintenance by the City of Greeley.
The VanGoTM vanpool service has grown to over 30 vans, of which a growing number are
originating service in the greater Greeley area. To provide better customer service and reduce
vehicle miles traveled; the VanGoTM staff has worked closely with City of Greeley and City of
Fort Collins officials to design a program that strengthens the services currently provided.
Currently, Fort Collins Fleet Services does the maintenance for all VanGoTM vans. However,
this Intergovernmental Agreement would transfer the maintenance responsibilities for
approximately 9 vans to the City of Greeley. The Greeley Fleet Services would provide
maintenance using the same policies currently being used by the Fort Collins Fleet Services.
Transfer of maintenance service would begin on September 4 after both city councils have
reviewed and approved the IGA.
34. Items Relating to the Placement of Citizen -Initiated Ordinances on the Ballot for the Special
Municipal Election to be held in Conjunction with the November 6, 2001 Latimer County
Coordinated Election.
12
August 21, 2001
isA. Resolution 2001-101 Submitting a Citizen -Initiated Ordinance to a Vote of the
Registered Electors of the City at the Special Municipal Election ofNovember 6, 2001
(Citizen -Initiated Ordinance No. 1, 2001).
B. Resolution 2001-102 Submitting a Citizen -Initiated Ordinance to a Vote of the
Registered Electors of the City at the Special Municipal Election of November 6, 2001
(Citizen -Initiated Ordinance No. 2, 2001).
C. Resolution 2001-103 Submitting a Citizen -Initiated Ordinance to a Vote of the
Registered Electors ofthe City at the Special Municipal Election ofNovember 6, 2001
(Citizen -Initiated Ordinance No. 3, 2001).
On June 25, 2001, the City Clerk received three petitions requesting that Council submit three
citizen -initiated ordinances to the voters at a special election. On July 17, 2001, the City Clerk
certified to the Council that each of the petitions contained a sufficient number of signatures to
requirement placement of the initiated ordinances on a special election ballot. Under Article
X of the City Charter, 3,112 signatures of registered electors (at least 15% of the total ballots
cast in the last regular City election) are required to place an initiative on a special election
ballot. Generally, upon presentation of an initiative petition certified as to sufficiency by the
City Clerk, the Council must either adopt the proposed ordinance without alteration or submit
• the proposed measure in the form petitioned for, to the registered electors of the city. Because
all three petitions propose ordinances that are subject to the election requirements of Article X,
Section 20 of the Colorado Constitution (TABOR), the Council must submit the issues to the
voters.
35. Resolution 2001-104 Making Appointments to Various Boards and Commissions
A vacancy currently exists on the Downtown Development Authority due to the resignation of
John Pitner. Applications were solicited and Councilmembers Wanner and Bertschy conducted
interviews. The Council interview team is recommending Steve Taylor to fill the vacancy on
the Downtown Development Authority with a term to begin immediately and set to expire on
December 31. 2005.
A vacancy currently exists on the Housing Authority Board due to the resignation of Monica
Clark. Applications were solicited and Councilmember Wanner conducted interviews. The
Council interview team is recommending Angie Payton to fill the vacancy on the Housing
Authority with a term to begin immediately and set to expire on December 31, 2005.
Vacancies also exist on the Youth Advisory Board due to the resignations of Sarah Smith, Sarah
April and Aaron Steinbach and to the removal of Harry McCrystal and Mike Davis for
attendance problems. Applications were solicited and Councilmembers Martinez and Kastein
conducted interviews. The Council interview team is recommending the following applicants
• 13
August 21, 2001
to fill the vacancies on the Youth Advisory Board with terms to begin immediately: Julian
Archuleta and Cooper Liska-Smith with terms to expire on December 31, 2002, and Amy Flug
and Kaise Allen with terms to expire on December 31, 2003, and Pat McCosh with a term to
expire on December 31, 2005.
36. Routine Easements.
A. Easement dedication from 2002 Corporation, Inc., for a permanent utility easement,
located at Mountain Avenue and Remington Street. Monetary consideration: $10.
Staff: Marc Virata.
B. Easement dedication from Ilene Shields, for storm drainage, located east of Ziegler
Road and south of Charlie Lane. Monetary consideration: $10. Staff: Dave Stringer.
C. Easement for construction and maintenance of public utilities from Harriett R.
Orcheltree to install a pad mount transformer, located at 312 Locust Street. Monetary
consideration: $10. Staff: Patti Teraoka.
Ordinances on Second Reading were read by title by City Clerk Krajicek.
8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 112 2001 Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue in
the General Fund for Environmental Programs.
9. Second Reading of Ordinance No.113 2001,Authorizin the he Appropriation of Reserve Funds
in the Neighborhood Parkland Fund for Raw Water Purchases.
10. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 114 2001, Designating the John and Inez Romero House,
425 Tenth Street as a Local Landmark Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the Cijy Code.
11. Second ReadineofOrdinanceNo.115 2001 DesignatinafngtheJoseph Baines House, 520South
Howes Street as a Local Landmark Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the City Code.
12. Second Reading of Ordinance No 117 2001 Vacating a Portion of the Right -of -Wad
Richards Lake Road Adjacent to the Richards Lake P.U.D. First Filing.
13. Second Reading of Ordinance No 118 2001 Authorizing the Long-term Lease of Property at
the Fort Collins -Loveland Municipal Airport to Cole Smith dba Signal Construction, for the
Construction of an Aircraft Hangar.
14. Second Reading of Ordinance No 119 2001 Approving the Terms of the Lease by the City of
415 East Monroe for a Youth Activity Center.
14
August 21, 2001
• 15. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 122 2001 Amending Chanter 26 of the City Code Relating
to Fees for Raw Water Requirements of the Water Utility.
16. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 123 2001 Calling a Special Municipal Election to be held
in Conjunction with the November 6, 2001 Latimer County Coordinated Election
Ordinances on First Reading were read by title by City Clerk Krajicek.
17. First Reading of Ordinance No 124 2001 Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the
General Fund and Authorizing the Transfer of Appropriated Amounts Between Accounts and
Projects for the Multi -Jurisdictional Drug Task Force.
18. First Reading of Ordinance No. 125, 2001, Authorizing the Sale of 1.032 Acres of Westfield
Park to Pool of Dreams, Ltd. and Appropriating the Proceeds of Such Sale as Unanticipated
Revenue in the Neighborhood Parkland Fund.
19. First Reading of Ordinance No. 126,2001, Authorizing the Transfer ofAppropriations from the
Transit Services Fund to the Capital Projects Fund CSU Transit Center Capital Project to be
Used For the Final Design and Site Preparation/Construction of the CSU Transit Center.
• 20. First Reading of Ordinance No. 127, 2001, Authorizing the Transfer ofAppropriations from the
Transportation Services Fund to the North Front Range Transportation & Air Qualijy Planning
Council Fund to be Used for Operating Expenses of the Metropolitan Planning Organization
is
21. First Reading of Ordinance No. 128, 2001 Authorizing the Transfer ofAppropriations Between
Projects in the Transportation Services Fund for the Operation of the North Front Range
Transportation & Air Ouality Planning Council's 2001-2002 Metropolitan Planning
Organization Administration Program Year.
22. First Reading of Ordinance No. 129, 2001, Authorizing an Amendment to the Long-term Lease
of Property at the Fort Collins -Loveland Municipal Airport to Cole Smith Dba Signal
Construction, for the Construction of Aircraft Hangars.
23. First Reading of Ordinance No 130 2001 Approving and Authorizing the City to Enter into
Agreements in Connection with the Execution and Delivery of Lease Certificates of
Participation for Public Safety and Recreational Improvements
24. First Reading of Ordinance No.131, 2001, Amending Sections 2-31 2-33 and 2-73 of the City
Code Pertaining to Executive Sessions
15
August 21, 2001
25. First Reading of Ordinance No. 132 2001 Amending Sections 2-462 and 2-569 of the City
Code with Regard to the Appointment of Alternate Members of the Downtown Development
Authority and the Ethics Review Board.
26. First Reading of Ordinance No. 133,2001,Vacating aPortion oftheRi t-of-Wayfor Hoffman
Mill Road Dedicated on the Plat of the Cache La Poudre Industrial Park P.U.D.
27. First Reading of Ordinance No. 116, 2001, Authorizing the Conveyance of a Non -Exclusive
Easement to Larimer County for Environmental Monitoring in the Cathy Fromme Prairie
Natural Area.
28. First Reading of Ordinance No. 134, 2001, Authorizing the Conveyance of Approximately 360
Acres of Land on the Former Rockwell Ranch to the United States Forest Service in Exchange
for the Conveyance to the City of the Land Underlying Joe Wright Reservoir, Subject to allon-
exclusive Conservation Easement for Use of the Reservoir Property by the Public and the
Colorado Division of Wildlife.
42. First Reading of Ordinance No. 121, 2001, Amending Chapter 10 and Chapter 26 of the City
Code to Reflect the Adoption of a New Master Drainage Plan for the Canal Importation Basin
and Clarifying the Application of the Provisions of Chapter 10 to Floodplains in the City.
44. First Reading of Ordinance No. 135, 2001, Authorizing the Conveyance of Non-exclusive
Easement Interests for the Construction of a Thirty-six Inch Water Line by the Fort Collins -
Loveland Water District on a Portion of the Cathy Fromme Prairie Natural Area.
45. First Reading of Ordinance No. 136, 2001, Authorizing the Conveyance of Non-exclusive
Easement Interests for the Construction of a Sixteen Inch Water Line by the Fort
Collins —Loveland Water District on Portions of Coyote Ridge Natural Area McKee Farm Open
Space, and Long View Farm Natural Area.
Councilmember Kastein made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Hamrick, to adopt and approve
all items not withdrawn from the Consent Calendar. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas:
Councilmembers Bertschy, Hamrick, Kastein, Martinez, Tharp, Wanner and Weitkunat. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED
Consent Calendar Follow-un
Councilmember Hamrick spoke regarding item #29 Resolution 2001-96 Providing Direction to the City
Manager to Participate in the Creation of a Day Facility for the Homeless and requested that the
Natural Resources Department follow up with regard to the buffer between the facility and the river.
16
August 21, 2001
• Mayor Martinez commented regarding item #29 Resolution 2001-96 Providing Direction to the City
Manager to Participate in the Creation ofa Day Facility for the Homeless and asked the City Manager
to read a memo from United Way regarding future operations and funding of the facility. City Manager
Fischbach read the memo as requested.
Councilmember Bertschy spoke regarding item #29 Resolution 2001-96ProvidingDirection to the City
Manager to Participate in the Creation of a Day Facility for the Homeless and expressed concerns
regarding the proximity of the facility to the old Power Plant facility, the proposed new Aztlan
Community Center and area day care facilities.
Staff Reports
Tom Frazier, Multi -Modal Transportation Group Leader, reported on the CSU Transit Center project
and current and future funding.
Councilmember Tharp asked if the funding for the transit center is limited to federal dollars and does
not take money away from the bus system. Frazier stated that the funding is from federal dollars.
City Manager Fischbach reported on the Pineridge dumping situation and stated that staff worked
diligently to ensure that all options were reviewed. He stated that the City was pleased that the Bureau
• of Reclamation decided not to pursue the Pineridge option any further. He noted that there was potential
for violating the open meetings law if more than four members ofthe Council went to the Pineridge site
at the same time. He stated that any gatherings at which more than four Councilmembers are expected
is to be posted and that the City Attorney has drafted policies to address this type of tour/meeting
situation.
Councilmember Reports
Councilmember Wanner reported on Finance Committee discussions of the proposed ballot measures
for the November election.
Councilmember Weitkunat reported on Growth Management Committee discussions of the I-25
Corridor Plan, the 1-25 Subarea Plan, and the City Plan monitoring project.
Councilmember Weitkunat reported on Poudre School District Liaison Committee discussions of a
flyers sent home with students, senior tax work -off programs, and November initiatives relating to term
limits and Foothills Gateway funding.
Councilmember Hamrick asked if the modified I-25 Subarea Plan will go before the boards before
coming back for Council review. Councilmember Weitkunat stated that the plan was presented rather
than modified. City Manager Fischbach stated that the plan will likely be presented to the boards and
17
August 21, 2001
that the present schedule calls for the subareaplanto be approved prior to the I-25 Corridor Plan coming
back to the Council.
Mayor Martinez noted the receipt of Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting
awarded to the City of Fort Collins by the Government Finance Officers Association.
Resolution 2001-105
Supporting Three Citizen -Initiated Ballot Measures
Relating to Funding for a New Performing Arts Center,
a New Main Library, New and/or Renovated Museum Facilities,
and the Acquisition of Land and/or the Design and Construction
of Improvements for a New Branch Library, Adopted
The following is staffs memorandum on this item.
"Financial Impact
On November 6, 2001, the voters of the City of Fort Collins will consider a ballot measure for a. 29%
cent sales and use tax and two separate ballot measures to approve bondingfor a new performing arts
center and a new library. The first ballot measure also includes funding for increased operation and
maintenance costsfor the expansion ofthese facilities and a trustfund set up to provide an endowment
following the 20 year life of the tax. There is no impact to the General Fund over the 20 year life of the
tax.
Executive Summary
Three citizen -initiated ballot measures will be considered by the voters ofthe City of Fort Collins on
November 6, 2001. The three measures will provide for:
• Construction of a new main library in the downtown
• Construction of a new performing arts center in the downtown
• Expansion of the Fort Collins Museum
• Funding to purchase landfor afuture branch library (most likely in the southeast quadrant of
Fort Collins)
• Money for a partnership with Colorado State University on programs and facilities at the
University Center for the Arts
• Funding for the increased costs in operation and maintenance for these three facilities
• An endowed trust fund to support costs beyond the 20 year of this proposed tax
BACKGROUND:
m
August 21, 2001
• A group of citizens, known as Imagine Fort Collins, has come together to place three citizen -initiated
ballot measures before the voters in November. This group follows a long tradition of citizen
involvement in our community. Beginning in the 1970's, a group known as Designing Tomorrow Today
(DTz) brought to the voters a question which included the construction ofthe existing main library, the
Lincoln Center, and the remodel of the old libraryfor use as the Fort Collins Museum.
Approximately twenty-five years later, the City Council, along with the community volunteers, placed
an item before the voters to begin planning for the future of these community amenities. Through
Building Community Choices, the voters approved money to buy landfor a new library in the downtown
and anew performing arts center. Now f ve years later, Imagine Fort Collins has come together to
implement these facilities byplacingthree funding -related measures before the voters in theyear 2001.
Since the development of the existing main library, the Lincoln Center, and the Fort Collins Museum
in the 1970's, these facilities have been highly valued and well used by the community. The City has
one of the highest per capita uses for libraries within Colorado. The City is also turning away
performing arts groups and students from its programs because there is no longer space to
accommodate the demand at the Lincoln Center. The Museum can only display 10% of its historical
collection because of the limited space in the facility.
By adopting the Resolution, Council is formally expressing its supportfor the three ballotmeasures and
• urging the voters to approve them. Voter approval of the ballot measures in November will enable
current residents andfuture generations to maintain the quality oflife experienced and expected in Fort
Collins. By showing its support, the Council expresses its appreciation to the citizen volunteers of
Imagine Fort Collins who have taken on the task ofplanningfor the quality of life for the community's
future, and joins with these citizens to plan for and implement a community vision that places strong
emphasis and value on enhancing the cultural and educational experiences ofcommunity residents. "
•
City Manager Fischbach introduced the agenda item.
Bruce Hendee, 2830 Mercy Drive, Imagine Fort Collins supporter, spoke in support of the proposed
Resolution and the potential community benefits of the projects.
Peggy McGough, 912 Bramblebush Street, spoke in support of the citizen initiatives.
Mary Robertson, 1833 Greenable Court, Library Board Chair, asked that the Council support the
initiatives and asked members of the audience to stand up to show their support.
Dr. Brenda Martin, representing the Museum Advisory Council, spoke in support of the initiatives.
Al Baccili, 520 Galaxy Court, spoke in opposition to the citizen initiatives and more taxes.
Fran Johnson, Cultural Resources Board Chair, spoke in support of the Resolution.
19
August 21, 2001
Councilmember Tharp spoke regarding the need to build an attractive community with quality of life
in order to preserve the community's economic viability. She stated that she supports the concept and
the plan put forth by Imagine Fort Collins.
Councilmember Kastein asked about the number of signatures on the initiative petitions. City Clerk
Krajicek stated that the petitioners were required to obtain approximately 3,200 signatures for each
petition and that each petition contained unverified signatures beyond that point.
Councilmember Kastein asked about the idea of an endowment to fund operations and maintenance
costs. City Manager Fischbach stated that the ballot measure includes specifics for an endowment fund
for long term O&M costs and that the projection is that there will be approximately $30 million in the
fund for this use by the time the sales tax ends.
Councilmember Hamrick asked about funding and schedule to purchase land for a future branch library.
City Manager Fischbach stated that the funding for this purpose is approximately $1.5 million and that
the schedule to purchase this land has not yet been discussed.
Councilmember Hamrick noted that the financial analysis shows no impacts to the General Fund over
the 20-year life of the tax and asked if street, parking and congestion impacts have been taken into
consideration. City Manager Fischbach stated that there will be a small impact and that an analysis
could be prepared.
Councilmember Wanner asked if the dollars put into reserve will cover the O&M costs for the three
facilities. Mike Powers, CLRS Director, stated that amounts of $3 million each year for the library,
$650,000 per year for the museum and $440,000 annually for the performing arts center are built into
the ballot measure to cover increases in O&M costs. He stated that the endowment is set up to collect
money and interest over a 20-year period and that there will still be General Fund dollars going to the
three facilities based on their current support levels.
Councilmember Weitkunat made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Tharp, to adopt Resolution
2001-105.
Councilmember Weitkunat commented that this is a citizen -initiated ballot measure and that the voters
will decide whether they support these measures. She stated that this is also a prime example of
community building and that she is strongly in favor of the Resolution.
Councilmember Bertschy thanked the citizens who have worked on the ballot initiative and stated that
this is an appropriate way to propose the projects. He stated that he would support the Resolution and
noted that the law will prohibit further City involvement in taking a position on the ballot measure.
Councilmember Tharp spoke in support of the Resolution.
20
August 21, 2001
• Councilmember Kastein stated that he would support the Resolution and noted the unfunded capital
needs of the City. He stated that it is appropriate for the citizens to step forward and propose such
projects. He spoke regarding the earlier discussion about the positive economic impact such projects
will have on the community. He noted that the Council may also propose ballot measures for
November relating to funding for environment and street packages.
Councilmember Wanner stated that he would not support the Resolution and that he would remain
neutral on the ballot measures.
Mayor Martinez stated that he supports the Resolution and that it is the right of the people to vote on
such measures. He stated that the measure will have a tremendous impact on the economy, environment
and quality of life and that the public will have to set priorities and make judgment calls about what they
are willing to support. He noted that former Mayor Azari called to thank those who have worked so
hard on the initiatives and to support the measure.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Bertschy, Hamrick, Kastein, Martinez,
Tharp and Weitkunat. Nays: Councilmember Wanner.
THE MOTION CARRIED
• Consideration of the Appeal of the June 7, 2001,
Determination of the Planning and Zoning Board to Deny the
Request for Modification of Standards in Sections 4.4(B)(3)(c)1 and 4.4(D)(3)(b) of
the Land Use Code for the Brophy Property at 1109 West Harmony Road,
Decision of the Planning and Zoning Board Upheld.
•
The following is staffs memorandum on this item.
21
August 21, 2001
"Executive Summary
On June 7, 2001, the Planning and Zoning Board denied the request. for Modification of Standards in
Sections 4.4(B) (3) (c) I and 4.4(D)(3)(b) of the Land Use Code for the Brophy Property at 1109 West
Harmony Road. The Board's decision was appealed to the Council.
BACKGROUND:
The property that is the subject of this appeal is zoned LMN-Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhood
(as of the effective date of March 28, 1997 for the new Land Use Code). The property is located at the
southwest corner of West Harmony Road and South Shields Street.
On June 18, 2001, a Notice ofAppeal was received by the City Clerk's office regarding the decision of
the Planning and Zoning Board. In the Notice ofAppeal from the Appellant Mark Brophy, it is alleged
that
Relevant laws were not properly interpreted and applied.
2. The Board considered substantially false and grossly misleading evidence.
The procedures for deciding the appeals are described in Chapter 2, Article II, Division 3 of the City
Code.
Following is a summary of the Appellant's Grounds for Appeal.
Introduction
The 2 requested modifications pertain to separation requirements between Neighborhood
Centers (NC). It was stated to the P&ZBoard that these modifications were necessary because
an NC on my property would conflict with the Seneca Center to the west. The Seneca Center
was developed under the Land Development Guidance System (LDGS) and contains some
features similar to an NC, but is not an NC. A former Planning Director ruled that the
separation requirements are violated when an NC is within 114 mile ofa similar LDGSproject.
The Planning Director does not have the power to enact his own ordinances. The action of the
P&ZBoard was arbitrary and without regard to the benefit or harm involved to the community
at large, including all interested parties.
22
August 21, 2001
isMarket Issues
There is currently a glut of office space (13 % vacancy rate) in the City of Fort Collins, so our
property cannot be developed as an office parkfor 3-5 years when the space is absorbed. The
only use for which it is reasonably adapted today is a mixed use of office and retail.
The P&Z Board's decision relied on a report from City staff recommending denial of the
Modification of Standards. We contend that our property is spot zoned because it is the only
LMNzoning at the intersection of major arterials in Fort Collins.
It is likely that the confusing provisions of the LAM District and Modification of Standards
sections of the Land Use Code caused some misinterpretation of the Code.
She aration Requirements
Even if the Seneca Center had been developed under the Land Use Code, it still would not be
considered an NC because of many deficiencies enumerated in the Modification to Standards
application.
* Just as our property is located 0.6 mile east ofthe Seneca Center, the Seneca Center is located
• 0.6 mile east of J.J. 's Corner at the intersection of South Taft Hill Road and West Harmony
Road JJ 's contains many more of the elements of an NC enumerated in the Principles and
Policies of City Plan than the Seneca Center, but the separation distance was not considered
a problem during the planning process.
The City's project planner erroneously stated that the reason for the separation requirements
is to prevent the proliferation of NC's on arterials. City Plan Principle LMN-2 clearly states
that all LAM neighborhoods are required to contain an NC, which implies that many of them
will be located on arterials. In denying the Brophy Property application, the Board denied a
requiredNCfor the neighborhood. There has not been a single NCplanned since the Land Use
Code was adopted in March, 1997.
Undue Hardship
The City staffstated that because development on the Brophy Property will attract traffic from
the arterials rather than the neighborhood access at Olt Court (to the south), it could not be an
NC.
* Present accesspointsonWestHarmonyRoadandSouthShields Street are about 150feetfrom
the intersection and lead to thefront door ofthe Brophy residence. Ifthese streets are widened,
the access points will need to be moved to the edges of the property 500 feet from the
• intersection. The new driveways will be substantially longer than the existing driveways and
23
August 21, 2001
they will lead to the backyard rather than the front yard, thereby destroying our enjoyment of
the property. A stand of 100 year old, 70 feet tall Cottonwood trees that act as a visual buffer
between the vehicles on the street and our home will be destroyed Also, a back-up stand of
Colorado Blue Spruce trees behind the Cottonwood trees will be destroyed.
Neighborhood Issues
* The neighbors oppose development because they believe it will increase traffic on Olt Court and
Westbury Drive, whereas City staffopposes the development because they believe the majority
of the traffic will arrive from West Harmony Road and South Shields Street.
* The neighbors would like to keep traffic offofOlt Court, but it is a public street that was placed
there as alternate secondary access to the Brophy and Collins properties.
* Both sides of this issue have some truth. City staff is right that the passing traffic will arrive
from West Harmony Road and South Shields Street The neighbors will use Westbury Drive and
Olt Court by vehicle, foot and bike.
* The Planning and Zoning BoardtreatedtheBrophyPropertydiiferentlythantheSenecaCenter
because neighbors that attended the public hearing urged the Board to retain the property as
a park at the property owner's expense.
* Based on comments from the neighbors, the Planing and Zoning Board appeared to
prematurely reach the conclusion that our property cannot be developed well as an NC. There
is more than sufficient space for an NC and there is an enormous buffer between the Brophy
Property and the properties to the west on Mariposa Drive.
Conclusion
Fort Collins has a history of erecting barriers to infill development, and it has an enormous
amount ofleapfrog development and urban sprawl. At 47square miles, Fort Collins is the same
size as Boston and San Francisco, but contains only a fraction of the population.
City Council is urged to reverse the decision of the Planning and Zoning Board to send a
message that infill development is favored over further sprawl. In the more than 4 years since
the Land Use Code has been enacted there still has not been a single NC planned
City Council is urged not only to reverse the decision of the Planning and Zoning Board, but
also to take actions to remedy the strong anti-infill development bias of the City. "
City Attorney Roy explained the appeal process and explained the relevant Code provisions and options
available to the Council at the conclusion of the hearing on the appeal.
24
August 21, 2001
• City Manager Fischbach introduced the agenda item.
Steve Olt, City Planner, presented background information relating to the agenda item.
Mayor Martinez requested that photos relating to the appeal be shown. Olt presented slides showing
the property and its surroundings.
Mayor Martinez stated that the each side would have 20 minutes to give a presentation.
Mark Brophy, 1109 West Harmony Road, appellant, asked that the Council send a message to the City
staff and the Planning and Zoning Board to carefully differentiate between decisions made under the
LDGS and the new Land Use Code, which is intended to reduce the number of issues to be negotiated
and to encourage developers to accept infill projects. He stated that the staff report cites three
neighborhood centers and that only two are subject to the newer Land Use Code. He stated that
Registry Ridge at Shields and Trilby is an LDGS urban sprawl project with no contiguous development
and no neighbors, that extended the borders of Fort Collins closer to Loveland. He stated that the only
neighborhood center ever approved under the Land Use Code was Willow Brook at County Road 9 near
I-25 and that this project is another urban sprawl project without neighbors and contiguous development
that further extended City borders. He stated that the only infill center being contemplated in the last
four years is Sunstone on Timberline and that Willow Brook and Sunstone contain no restaurants. He
• stated that the Land Use Code is clear about the matter before the Council: there must be three-quarters
of a mile between neighborhood centers. He stated that the Seneca Center cannot be considered as a
neighborhood center because it does not contain direct connections to the neighborhood; it contains a
drive-in car wash facility which is expressly forbidden in a neighborhood center; and it contains a gas
station with a convenience store located less than three-quarters of a mile from the gas station and
convenience store at JJ's Corner at the corner of Harmony and Taft Hill. He stated that the Seneca
Center is not a neighborhood center and that it does contain a pad that theoretically could be used for
a restaurant but that is not likely to occur because of the lack of ambience and car traffic. He spoke
regarding the section of the Land Use Code prior to 1999 called the quarter section rule, which provided
that each quarter section must contain a neighborhood center and stated that the Seneca Center is in a
different quarter section, that his property is the last undeveloped property in the quarter section, and
that the earlier regulations would have required the placement of neighborhood center on his property.
He stated that the Land Use Code has been modified to no longer require neighborhood centers in each
quarter section but that the LUC requires each quarter section to contain a neighborhood center to the
maximum extent feasible. He stated that City Plan LMN 2.1 provides that a typical neighborhood will
be an area about a half mile across, and he noted that a quarter section is a half mile across. He stated
that City Plan LMN 2.2 states that a neighborhood should be planned to include other neighborhood
serving uses and features in addition to residential uses and that at a minimum each neighborhood will
include a neighborhood center that serves as a year round gathering place to all residents. He stated that
a car wash is not a neighborhood gathering place and that the Seneca Center is therefore not a
neighborhood center, while a restaurant would be a year round gathering place. He stated that the
• Planning Department has indicated that his property should not be a neighborhood center because it
25
August 21, 2001
would provide duplicate services, which is not true. He stated that the Seneca Center contains a gas
station, convenience store and car wash, and that his proposal is for a restaurant and retail uses. He
stated that the Planning Department has suggested that his proposal include a school, church or office
building rather than a restaurant or retail use and that a school would not be viable because the location
is at the intersection of two busy streets. He stated that a church would be a good use but it is a limited
market and that office buildings would require three to five years to absorb the space due to the 13%
office vacancy rate. He stated that the City staff stated in the packet that the spacing requirements exist
for aesthetic reasons and that this is a wrong interpretation because his property contains a large number
of trees that could provide an outstanding ambience for a restaurant and thus provide him with a
reasonable return on his investment. He stated that a development consisting solely of office space
would require the expenditure of thousands of dollars to remove those trees. He spoke regarding the
transplanting of 17 large trees to the property to provide a buffer and asked that the Council deliberate
carefully and bear in mind the work that has been done to preserve these transplanted trees. He stated
that he prefers to live on his property adjacent to a restaurant with outdoor seating and large shade trees
than to live adjacent to office buildings. He noted that his property will soon be part of an eminent
domain proceeding to widen Harmony and Shields and that the City is legally required as part of that
process to minimize damage to the property only to the extent necessary for the immediate needs of the
public use. He stated that the Planning Department is asking him to transform a unique asset into a
liability and that it is unconstitutional to excessively damage his property in this manner beyond the
immediate needs of the public use, and that he will not sell the land necessary to widen Harmony and
Shields under these conditions. He stated that by enforcing the plain text in the Land Use Code the City
will be making decisions based on a clear set of rules rather than emotional appeals. He urged the
Council to support a common goal of promoting infill development and encouraging the development
of unique and appealing restaurants and retail businesses. He asked for Council's deliberate
consideration of the matter.
Frank Muller,1244 Belleview Drive, representing the Westbury Homeowners' Association, stated that
the association's position is documented in the material that has been presented to the Council. He
stated that the association believes that the development of a neighborhood center at Harmony and
Shields is neither desirable or necessary and that modification of the standard is not justified. He
requested that the Council sustain the decision of the Planning and Zoning Board.
Marty Leeke, 4612 Mariposa Court, neighbor adjoining the Brophy property, stated that there are many
people from the area at the meeting who oppose the Brophy request to modify the zoning standards.
He reaffirmed the comments made to the Planning and Zoning Board. He highlighted the
environmental, safety and traffic concerns of the neighborhood, the lack of public need for a
neighborhood center, and wildlife disruption, noise and lighting concerns. He stated that a reasonable
person would deny the appeal that has been brought forward. He stated that Mr. Brophy has asserted
that there is a glut of office space and is asking to be compensated for his inability to market his
property for development as office buildings. He stated that Mr. Brophy's argument is not valid. He
stated that Mr. Brophy referenced a court case in Overland Park, Kansas and that his research shows
that this property is heavily commercialized and that situation does not resemble this situation at all.
26
August 21, 2001
• He stated that Mr. Brophy indicated that Westbury Drive was built as a bypass to direct traffic away
from the Harmony and Shields intersection and that this is clearly not correct. He stated that Mr.
Brophy also asserted that the zoning change would be good for the neighborhood and the City at large
and that no substantiated evidence has been presented to support the assertion. He stated that Mr.
Brophy has made no attempt to work with the adjoining neighborhoods. He stated that there is no
public need for a neighborhood center because the Seneca Center, which will be .6 miles from the
property in question and will have fuel and retail sales. He stated that a property .25 mile north of the
Brophy property is also zoned to be a commercial shopping center. He stated that Mr. Brophy's appeal
states that the neighborhood has repeatedly said that they do not want the property to be developed, and
that this is not true. He stated that the neighborhood recognizes that the property is zoned LMN and will
be developed in accordance with need and the public good. He stated that the neighborhood opposes
the variance that would allow fuel sales and restaurant uses within 70 feet of the neighborhood's back
doors. He stated that the development should be responsible and fit in with the character of the
neighborhood. He stated that most of the buffer referenced by Mr. Brophy is on the Brophy property
and that upon development it is likely that the majority of the trees mentioned by Mr. Brophy will be
removed. He stated that the type of development proposed by Mr. Brophy will include excessive noise
and lighting and increased pollution. He stated that Mr. Brophy indicated that the homes built to the
west of his property destroyed the view from his property, and that Mr. Brophy did not mention that
those homes were built before he bought that property. He stated that Mr. Brophy is asking the citizens
of Fort Collins to subsidize his poor personal planning in the investment he made and that he is asking
• for a subsidy in the form of a zoning variance that will line his pockets and make his investment a good
choice at the expense of the neighbors and the City at large. He stated that he does not believe that the
Brophys have a right to interfere with the rights of the neighborhood when their motive is purely for
their benefit. He stated that Mr. Brophy has not substantiated any claim that there is a need for this
property to be developed in accordance with his request and that there is no substantiation that the
proposal would benefit the City or the neighborhood. He stated that this proposal is clearly not the right
thing to do and he asked that Council deny the appeal.
•
Dr. Neal Krawetz, 4736 Westbury Drive resident, stated that the proposal would effectively change the
zone to be a neighborhood commercial district without any of the benefits of a medium density mixed
use neighborhood. He stated that the Brophys are asking for all the benefits of the neighborhood
commercial district without any of the protections to the neighborhood properties. He stated that the
Overland Park, Kansas case set out eight factors that should be considered during a zoning decision:
character of the neighborhood; zoning uses of nearby properties; suitability of the property for the use
to which it has been restricted; the extent to which the removal of the restrictions will detrimentally
affect nearby properties; the length of time the subject property has remained vacant as zoned; the
relative gain to public health, safety and welfare compared with the hardship imposed by the owner;
recommendations of professional staff, and conformance of the plan with the City's master plan. He
stated that the Board recommended that Mr. Brophy discuss the plan with the neighborhoods and that
he submitted an appeal without talking with the homeowners association.
27
August 21, 2001
Mayor Martinez asked if Council wished to receive new evidence submitted by Dr. Krawetz which was
described as information concerning the Overland Park, Kansas court case.
City Attorney Roy stated that the material in question should not be construed as evidence and could
be received.
Mayor Martinez stated that the Council would receive the material offered.
Sharon Rogers, resident northwest of the Brophy property, stated that the trees referenced by Mr.
Brophy are dying because they have not been watered and that Mr. Brophy has let the property run
down. She stated that Mr. Brophy has indicated that he would like to build a home on the property and
that he has actually listed the entire property for sale.
Mayor Martinez stated that the appellant and the opponents would each have 10 minutes to make a
rebuttal.
Mr. Brophy stated that he is not asking for a rezoning to Neighborhood Commercial as asserted by one
of the opponents and that the request is to be a LMN neighborhood center. He stated that one of the
opponents cited the factors in the Overland Park, Kansas court case and that these factors are applicable
in every state. He asked that the City require the City staff to list the eight factors for every zoning
change. He stated that his proposal is not a zoning change. He stated that the trees on the property are
not dying.
Mary Brophy, appellant, stated that there is some browning on the trees that have been transplanted and
that the trees have been watered appropriately and should become self sufficient. She stated that having
the property for sale does not preclude them from keeping a portion of the property on which to build
a home.
Councilmember Weitkunat asked for clarification that this is an appeal of the denial by the Planning and
Zoning Board regarding a request for modifications to the zone relating to fuel sales, a restaurant and
spacing requirements between districts and that this is not a zoning request. Olt stated that there is no
rezoning request on this property and that the zoning would remain LMN. He stated that there are
standards in the LMN zoning district specific to neighborhood centers and that the Planning and Zoning
Board denied the appellant's request for modification to two of those standards, which would permit
restaurants and retail uses on that site. He stated that there are separation requirements set out in the
Land Use Code and that an interpretation was made in 1999 that the Seneca Center constitutes a
neighborhood center and that the Brophy site could therefore not have the previously cited uses because
it is within .75 mile of the Seneca Center.
Councilmember Weitkunat asked if retail, office and restaurant uses would be allowed. Olt stated that
a restaurant would not be allowed and that fuel sales, restaurant and retail uses would be allowed under
the modification. He stated that Section 4.4133b provides that neighborhood centers with retail uses or
FIE'
August 21, 2001
• restaurants located on arterial streets shall be spaced at least .75 mile apart. He stated that the Seneca
Center is .6 mile to the west with retail and restaurant uses.
Councilmember Weitkunat asked ifthe neighborhood center is the issue. Olt stated that a neighborhood
center would be permitted without modifications and that several uses would not be allowed.
Councilmember Weitkunat asked what happened to LDGS developments when the new code was
enacted i.e. the determination of the Seneca Center as a neighborhood center. Olt stated that the Seneca
Center was interpreted to be a neighborhood center by the previous Current Planning Director even
though it was approved under the LDGS. He stated that the Seneca Center is the equivalent of a
neighborhood center under the new code.
City Attorney Roy stated that there are two kinds of allegations in the notice of appeal. He stated that
one allegation is that the board relied on evidence that was substantially false or grossly misleading, and
the Council should determine if any evidence has been heard to support this allegation and decide
whether the board did rely upon false or misleading evidence and whether the matter should be
remanded to the board. He stated that the second allegation is that the board failed to properly interpret
and apply, and the Council should look at the administrative interpretation that the .75 mile separation
requirement should apply to a proj ect approved under the LDGS and whether that previously approved
center is tantamount to today's neighborhood center and therefore the separation requirement should
. be applied. He stated that if the Council determines that the requirement applies a decision will need
to be made to determine if the requirement should be modified. He stated that the criteria for this
decision is in 2.8H of the Code, and that the modification needs to meet three tests i.e. whether the
proposed plan will serve equally well the purpose of the standard that is being weighed, whether the
granting of the modification would alleviate some City-wide problem, and whether it should be granted
because of some unique hardship. He stated that the matter is not a rezoning or a condemnation and that
Council should consider evidence relevant to the determinations that need to be made.
Councilmember Kastein asked for clarification that the first issue is whether a fair hearing was held and
whether the board received false or grossly misleading evidence. City Attorney Roy stated that this is
the issue and that Council could ask questions of the appellant to decide if false or grossly misleading
evidence was received by the board.
Councilmember Kastein asked about the administrative interpretation from Bob Blanchard requested
by the appellant regarding the separation requirement. Paul Eckman, Deputy City Attorney, stated that
the Land Use Code provides in Section 1.4.1 that any person can request an interpretation of any
provision of the Land Use Code by the Director of Current Planning. He stated that this interpretation
is part of Council's material and reads in part that the Seneca Center " ... is consistent with the
requirements of the Land Use Code with the exception of convenient direct access directly from
Overlook at Woodridge First Filing to the northwest. Although the project is not integrated into the
Overlook development, there is direct access from the remaining residential development south of
• Harmony Road. Because of this, any proposed neighborhood center at the corner of Harmony and
29
August 21, 2001
Shields that proposes retail uses or restaurants would not meet the separation requirements and would
require a modification of standards in order to develop."
Councilmember Kastein stated that this interpretation is at the heart of the issue. City Attorney Roy
stated that it would be proper for the Council to consider whether the Current Planning Director and the
board, by applying this standard in this situation, properly interpret the Code.
Councilmember Kastein asked Mr. Brophy what he viewed as wrong about the interpretation of the
Code made by the Current Planning Director.
Mr. Brophy requested an opportunity to review his notes regarding the interpretation.
Councilmember Tharp asked what the appellant thought was false or misleading about the evidence
received by the board.
Mr. Brophy stated with regard to the interpretation that the Planning Department noted that there is no
direct connection to the neighborhood and that the Seneca Center contained a drive-in car wash facility
while his site would not be permitted to have such a facility.
Councilmember Kastein asked about the zoning for the Seneca Center and if it is considered to be a
neighborhood center. Olt stated that it is zoned LMN and is classified as a neighborhood center by
definition under the LMN district.
Councilmember Kastein asked if the Seneca Center contains fuel or restaurant uses. Olt stated that it
plans to have a convenience store with fuel sales and one pad site indicates a potential for a restaurant.
Councilmember Tharp asked if the Seneca Center can have a gas station, drive-in and restaurant as a
neighborhood center under the LMN zone, how it differs from the Brophy proposal.
City Attorney Roy stated that the issue is the separation requirement and that, if Council detemunes that
the spacing requirement applies in this situation, that the site is not eligible to be a neighborhood center
with a restaurant or fuel sales unless the standard is modified.
Councilmember Hamrick asked the appellants what they considered to be false and grossly misleading
evidence received by the board.
Mayor Martinez stated that the Council must determine if false or grossly misleading evidence was
received by the board.
City Attorney Roy stated that Council may ask the appellant the question posed by Councilmember
Hamrick. Eckman stated that the notice of appeal states as follows: "Steve Olt stated to the board that
these modifications were necessary because an N-C on my property would conflict with the Seneca
30
August 21, 2001
• Center to the west. This is false because the Seneca Center was developed under the LDGS and
contains some features similar to N-Cs but is not an N-C." He stated that the notice of appeal also states
as follows: "Steve Olt of the Current Planning Department erroneously stated that the reason for the
separation requirements is to prevent the proliferation of neighborhood centers on arterials."
City Attorney Roy stated that the appellant should be given an opportunity to ask the question and that
the Council should then decide if it agrees with the appellant.
Mr. Brophy stated that the appellant considers it to be false that the Seneca Center is a neighborhood
center.
Mayor Martinez asked ifthe Seneca Center is considered to be a neighborhood center. Cameron Gloss,
Director of Current Planning, replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Kastein noted that the Seneca Center was proposed under the LDGS and that there was
a point system in place for neighborhood centers. He asked if the separation requirement was
mandatory at that time. Olt stated that the .75 mile separation was stated in the point chart but was not
mandatory. He stated that the Seneca Center applicant did not request or receive points for the
separation criterion.
• Councilmember Kastein asked for clarification that separation is now a requirement. Olt replied that
separation is now mandatory.
•
Councilmember Kastein stated that in his opinion the evidence presented was not false or grossly
misleading.
Councilmember Kastein made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Hamrick, to find that the
appellant received a fair hearing and that the evidence relied on by the Planning and Zoning Board was
not false or grossly misleading. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers
Bertschy, Hamrick, Kastein, Martinez, Tharp, Wanner and Weitkunat. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED
Councilmember Hamrick made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Weitkunat, to uphold the June
7, 2001 decision of the Planning and Zoning Board.
Councilmember Kastein noted that there is a .6 mile separation between the Seneca Center and this
property. He stated that the requirement is to avoid the proliferation of commercial and retail uses in
LMN districts and asked how undesirable the .6 mile separation would be compared with the .75 mile
requirement. Olt stated that staff stands on its recommendation.
31
August 21, 2001
City Attorney Roy suggested that the Councilmembers explain their positions relating to the questions
that have been presented for Council consideration.
Councilmember Hamrick stated that the intent of his motion is that the separation standard applies and
should not be waived.
Councilmember Tharp asked for clarification regarding the distance. Olt stated that the distance is
scaled from the center of the Brophy property to the center of the Seneca Center property and that the
distance is 3,500 feet (66 mile) while the standard requires a separation of .75 mile. He stated that the
difference between the requirement and the actual distance is 460 feet.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Bertschy, Hamrick, Kastein, Martinez,
Wanner and Weitkunat. Nays: Councilmember Tharp.
THE MOTION CARRIED
Ordinance No. 121, 2001
Amending Chapter 10 and Chapter 26 of the City Code
to Reflect the Adoption of a New Master Drainage Plan for the
Canal Importation Basin and Clarifying the Application of the Provisions
of Chapter 10 to Floodplains in the City. Adopted on First Reading
The following is staffs memorandum on this item.
"Financial Impact
The Canal Importation Basin Master Plan has identif ed $51.5 million in capital improvements that are
necessary to address flooding in the Basin. Funding of the Master Plan will be from stormwater fees
collected in the City. Duringthe bi-annual budget process, specificprojects will be scheduled andfunds
appropriated based upon a city-wide prioritization of drainage projects.
There is no f nancial impact as a result of the revision of the floodplain regulations.
32
August 21, 2001
isExecutive Summary
FLOODPL 41N REGULATIONS
Chapter 10 ofthe City Code includes provisions pertaining to the administration ofthe regulations in
regard to the floodplain that have been defined in the City. Included in the current City Code is a
provision that the General Manager ofthe Utilities shall administer the floodplain regulations andshall
enforce the floodplain regulations on properties located in floodplain adopted by City Council, in
areas of known flooding, and in areas that have the potential to experience flooding. This latter
provision of potential flooding areas means that once a floodplain area has been determined the
General Manager must start administering that area under the provisions ofthe floodplain code even
before formal adoption of the floodplain and the applicable floodplain regulations by City Council.
The proposed ordinance eliminates the requirement that the General Manager of the Utilities shall
administer or enforce the floodplain regulations before adoption of the applicable floodplain
regulations by City Council. However, the proposed ordinance does recommend that in areas where
thefloodplain is expanded due to a technical analysis resultingfrom the implementation ofnewpolicy
or new design criteria, the General Manager ofthe Utilities shall apply the floodplain regulations with
regard to new development, critical facilities, and hazardous materials on an interim basis. This
change to the Code allows for the enforcement of the floodplain regulations on significant new
• development that would be subject to flood hazards and allows for a comprehensive review of the
applicable floodplain regulations resulting in and then the adoption ofthe finalfloodplain regulations
for that floodplain.
In regard to the Canal Importation Basin, other changes to the Code resulting from the adoption ofthe
Ordinance would also limit the enforcement of the floodplain regulations in the Basin to new
development, criticalfacilities, andhazardous materials. The revision ofthefloodplain regulations as
they apply to the Canal Importation Basin would become effective after Second Reading of the
Ordinance or on September 14, 2001. After Second Reading, staff would initiate a public process to
perform a comprehensive review of the floodplain regulations that would involve public outreach to
determine the appropriate floodplain regulations for the Canal Importation basin and would make
recommendations to City Council. Staff expects that review to take about 9-12 months.
CANAL IMPORTATION BASIN MASTER PLAN
The Ordinance would amend Chapter 26 ofthe City Code to replace the 1980 master plan for the Canal
Importation Basin with an updated plan. The Canal Importation Basin is a highly urbanized area
encompassing approximately 3,200 acres in west central Fort Collins. Most of this Basin was
developedprior to drainage criteria being in place. Therefore, drainage channels are too small or non-
existent, irrigation canals and detention ponds overflow, streets and intersections flood, and there are
many structures in the 100 year floodplain that are exposed to flood damage.
0 33
August 21, 2001
The total estimated cost of the proposed storm drainage improvements in the updated Canal
Importation Basin Master Plan is 551.5 million. Due to the highly urban character of this basin, the
recommended solutions are also highly urban or structural in character. In general, projects include
construction or enlargement ofdetention ponds, construction ofopen channels and storm sewers, and
enlargement of road culverts.
The net benefit provided by the projects is over $109 million in today's dollars. Comparing this to the
estimatedcost of implementingthe proposed drainage projects, the benef t-costratio for the masterplan
is 2:1. Although the cost ofthe Plan is high, its effectiveness is shown by its highlyfavorable benefit -
cost ratio.
The Master Plan has been prepared with significant staff and public input. A technical review team,
consisting of City stafffrom key departments and representatives from the ditch companies and CSU,
has provided input. Staffin the Golf, Parks and Recreation, and Natural Resources departments have
been directly involved in the review of the proposed projects. The Water, Golf, Parks and Recreation,
Natural Resources, and Planning and ZoningBoards have had an opportunityto comment on the Plan.
There have been three public open houses. Meetings have takenplace with the Chamber of Commerce,
neighborhood associations and property owners in the Basin. City Council discussed the Master Plan
at the May 22, 2001 Study Session.
As part of the Master Plan, a 100 year foodplain map has been prepared and is currently being
regulated per current City Code. Council's action will be adoption of the Master Plan and inclusion
of the Canal Importation Basin in the foodplain section of the Code for the foodplain regulation
provisionspertainingto new development, criticalfacilitiiesand hazardous materials. Staffsent out over
100 f oodplain information letters to individual property owners and worked with those property owners
onspecif:cprojectproposals. There has been significantpublicfeedback regarding the application of
the existing foodplain regulations. Staff has heard concerns over the notice of the enforcement and
applicability of the foodplain regulations to the basin. As a result of this feedback staff is making the
recommendation to revise thef oodplain code as described above andperform a comprehensive review
of the regulations.
There has been additional public feedback about the prioritization ofprojects and which projects will
be done first. The current project schedule is based on both the Old Town and Canal Importation
Basins being high priorities, particularly those areas hardest hit by the 1997 storm.
BACKGROUND:
FL 0ODPLAIN REG ULATIONS
Chapter 10 of the City Code includes provisions pertaining to the administration of the regulations in
regard to the f oodplain that have been defined in the City. The purpose ofthe f oodplain regulations
34
August 21, 2001
• is to promote the public health, safety, and general welfare and to minimize public and private losses
due to food conditions.
Included in the current City Code is a provision that the General Manager of the Utilities shall
administer the( oodplain regulations andshall enforce thefoodplain regulations on properties located
in f oodplain adopted by City Council, in areas ofknownfooding, and in areas that have the potential
to experience flooding. This latter provision ofpotential flooding areas means that once a f oodplain
area has been determined, the General Manager must start administering that area under the
provisions of the (oodplain code even before formal adoption of the (oodplain and the applicable
(oodplain regulations by City Council.
The proposed ordinance would eliminate the requirement that the General Manager of the Utilities
shall administer thefoodplain regulations before adoption by City Council. However, the proposed
ordinance does authorize enforcement ofcertain provisions for areas where thefoodplain is expanded
due to a technical analysis resultingfrom the implementation ofnew policy or new design criteria on
new development, critical facilities, and hazardous materials on an interim basis. This change to the
Code allows for the enforcement of the (oodplain regulations on significant new development that
would be subject to food hazards and allows for a review of the applicable (oodplain regulations
resulting in the eventual adoption ofthe final (oodplain regulations for that area. This process would
include the following steps:
• Based on a solid technical analysis, City Staff determines the (oodplain, its boundaries and
characteristics based on new policy or new design criteria adopted by City Council.
• For those areas outside ofthe already adoptedfoodplain staffwould enforce the critical facilities,
hazardous materials, and new development provisions of thefoodplain regulations.
• City staffmakes recommendations on the regulations for that (oodplain that was changed based
on a review of the (oodplain regulations, the characteristics of that (oodplain and comments
received during public outreach.
• City Council adopts the regulations applicable for thefoodplain.
• City staff enforces thefoodplain regulations adopted by City Council.
The proposed code revision also creates a section that specifically identifies the foodplains that have
been adopted by City Council.
In regard to the Canal Importation Basin, the change to the Code would remove the requirement for
the enforcement of the (oodplain regulations except for those provisions that pertain to new
development, critical facilities, and hazardous materials. The revision ofthe (oodplain regulations as
they apply to the Canal Importation Basin would become effective after secondreading ofthe ordinance
or around September 14, 2001. After second reading staffwould initiate a public process to perform
a comprehensive review ofthe (oodplain regulations that would involve public outreach to determine
the appropriate (oodplain regulations for the Canal Importation Basin and would make
• recommendations to City Council. Staff expects that review to take about 9-12 months.
35
August 21, 2001
CANAL IMPORTATION BASIN MASTER PLAN
The Canal Importation Basin is a highly -urbanized area encompassing approximately 3,200 acres in
west central Fort Collins. Most of this Basin was developed prior to drainage criteria being in place.
Therefore, drainage channels are too small or non-existent, irrigation canals and detention ponds
overflow, streets and intersections food, and there are many structures in the 100 year floodplain and
exposed to flood damage.
For drainage Basin masterplans, the City uses the 100 year storm to identifyproblems and has adopted
the policy to provide 100 year protection only if the benefit ofprojects outweigh their cost. This means
it is possible to provide less than 100 year protection. However, the regulatory floodplain is still
mapped using the 100 year storm andproperty andstructures remaining in the floodplain afterprojects
are built are subject to the floodplain regulations. The enforcement offloodplain regulations ensures
new problems are not created with the development or redevelopment of areas in the floodplain.
In 1999, a higher rainfall standard was adopted based on a technical analysis of rainfall patterns in
the region. This higher rainfall has resulted in higher runoffand larger floodplain. This requires all
master plans to be updated to reflect the higher rainfall, and reevaluate the needed capital
improvements. The Canal Importation Master Plan is the f rst to be completed since the adoption ofthe
higher rainfall standard
Due to the highly -urban character of this Basin, the recommended solutions are also highly urban or
structural in character. The purpose ofthese capital improvements is to correct the problems created
in the past when development tookplace without considerationfor storm runoff. In general, projects
include construction or enlargement of detention ponds, construction of open channels and storm
sewers, and enlargement of road culverts.
The overall plan reduces or eliminates the majority of damages caused by flooding in the Basin.
Structures in the 100 yearfloodplain will be reducedfrom 704 to 65. Flooding along W. Elizabeth will
be reduced, but not eliminated. Flows onto CSUat Elizabeth and Shields will be reduced by over half
To the extent possible, the proposed projects provide opportunities to enhance and expand wetlands and
natural habitat areas to improve the quality ofstorm runoff. The New Mercer Canal project is the one
majorproject which will drastically alter the existing vegetation and ditch corridor. The improvements
to the New Mercer Canal will provide the desired flood protection while leaving the Larimer County
No. 2 Canal virtually untouched
The total estimated cost of the proposed storm drainage improvements is $51.5 million. This is an
increase compared to the cost to build the remainingprojects in the original Master Plan. Two factors
contribute to the cost increase: the increased rainfall and expansion ofthe scope ofthe Master Plan to
address additional local problem areas that were identified during the development ofthe Master Plan.
36
August 21, 2001
• Table I summarizes the damages due to current flooding and the damages expected when all
improvements are built. These amounts do not include other costs such as damage to public
infrastructure, emergency response, clean-up, etc.
Table 1
Current Damages
Damages After Improvements
(in millions of dollars)
(in millions of dollars)
Single 100 year Event
$25
$2.38
Average Annual Damages
$6.84
$0.84
Value of Average Annual
Damages in Today's Dollars
$125
$15.3
(over 50 years)
The net benefit provided by the improvements is over $109 million in tday's dollars. Comparing this
to the estimated cost of implementing the proposed drainage improvements, the benefit -cost ratio for
the Master Plan is 2:1. Put another way, the "rate ofreturn"for the Master Plan is 11.6%.
The Master Plan has been prepared with significant staff and public input. A technical review team,
• consisting of City stafffrom key departments and representatives from the ditch companies and CSU,
has provided input. Stafffrom the Golf, Parks and Recreation, and Natural Resources departments
have been directly involved in the review of the proposed projects. The Water, Golf, Parks and
Recreation, Natural Resources, and Planning and ZoningBoards have had an opportunity to comment
on the plan. There have been three public open houses. Meetings have taken place with the Chamber
of Commerce, neighborhood associations and property owners in the Basin. City Council discussed
the Master Plan at the May 22, 2001 study session.
•
The Canal Importation Basin Master Drainage Plan seeks to balance the interests of the community
by proposing to:
provide flood protection at the 100 year level for the majority of the Basin;
reduce the incidence ofovertopping andflooding ofmajor streets and irrigation canals;
and,
to the extent possible, enhance and expand wetlands and natural habitat areas to
improve the quality ofstorm runoff.
Although the cost ofthe Plan is high, its effectiveness is shown by its highlyfavorable benefit -cost ratio.
37
August 21, 2001
Attached is a staff memo and documentation about the Master Plan. The majority of information was
presented with the May 22 study session packet. All new information since the study session is included
on yellow paper. "
City Manager Fischbach introduced the agenda item.
Jim Hibbard, Water Operations and Planning Manager, presented background information relating to
the agenda item. He stated that staff is recommending a change to the process by which floodplain
regulations are adopted, that the floodplain regulations be changed and a less strict interim regulation
be adopted for the canal importation basin, and that a comprehensive review be completed for all
floodplain regulations.
Bob Smith, Stormwater Planning Manager, explained the current process for adoption of floodplain
basins and regulations and the reasons for the proposed code changes. He described the canal
importation basin and flooding problems experienced in that basin and spoke regarding outreach efforts
with regard to the plan. He outlined the benefits of establishing a master plan and improvements and
the next steps in the process.
Janet Laughon, 111 South Roosevelt, City Park Neighborhood Association Floodplain Steering
Committee member, spoke in support of the plan.
Councilmember Hamrick asked about the costs of the project and the degree of risk to life versus
property damage. Susan Hayes, Stormwater Engineer, stated that the cost analysis was based solely on
property damage and that the cost for reduced emergency response and lives saves was not calculated.
She stated that there is a greater risk for loss of life in a residential area than in a commercial area.
Councilmember Hamrick asked about costs of the project based on different levels of protection for
property. Hayes stated that the basic philosophy is to provide 100 year protection if benefits outweigh
cost and that costs were not calculated for other levels of protection.
Councilmember Hamrick asked if the project takes into account the expanded floodplain. Hayes stated
that this is based on the revised rainfall criteria.
Councilmember Hamrick asked about the analysis relating to the level of risk versus the level of
regulation. Hibbard stated that staff heard from some customers that the risk due to loss of life did not
justify the amount of regulation that would be imposed.
Councilmember Hamrick spoke regarding the cost of the project and stated that he would like to see
different levels of cost for different levels of protection. He asked how long it would take for staff to
do this kind of analysis. Hayes stated that the time and cost would depend on the scope of the analysis.
W
August 21, 2001
Councilmember Hamrick stated that he would prefer that staff take another look at the project as long
as the regulations will be undergoing a comprehensive review. Hibbard stated that this would be a
policy decision for Council.
Councilmember Hamrick asked ifthere are funds allocated to enhance and expand wetlands and natural
habitat areas to improve the quality of storm runoff. Hayes stated that there is money allocated in the
cost of each project for revegetation and restoration of areas.
Councilmember Bertschy asked if modification of the rainfall standards following the flood incident
resulted in the modification of the canal importation storm drainage proposal. Hayes replied in the
affirmative.
Councilmember Bertschy asked if more than the properties in the canal importation basin will be
protected under the proposed project. Hayes stated that by building these projects the City will reduce
flows onto adjacent basins.
Councilmember Bertschy asked if the result of this is savings to public facilities that are required to be
built and to insurance rates. Hayes stated that flood insurance is not required in the Old Town Basin
because it is not a FEMA floodplain, and that some of the projects may benefit those who have flood
insurance.
• Councilmember Bertschy spoke regarding the impacts of the 1997 flood on city facilities and CSU
facilities funded by taxpayers and expressed concern with any further delays to the project. He
expressed a concern related to the equity ofmodifying or suspending the regulations pending the review
of the floodplain in relation to what has been done on the Poudre River corridor floodplain. City
Attorney stated that there must be a rational basis for different treatment of people who are similarly
situated. Hibbard stated that there is a rational basis for different treatment because of differences in
potential depth and velocity of flows and the differences between a riparian versus urban flood plain.
He stated that the comprehensive review will be intended to match the type of regulation to the physical
characteristics of the basin.
•
Councilmember Kastein asked how the public process with regard to the floodplain regulations will
change the plan of action regarding the canal importation drainage basin. Hibbard stated that there will
be little effect in terms of the projects to be built.
Councilmember Kastein asked for clarification that it is the regulations that are to be changed rather
than the definition of the floodplain. Hibbard stated that the definition of the floodplain is based on a
technical analysis of the 100 year event and that projects are designed to mitigate that to the extent
practicable provided the cost -benefit is positive. He stated that this definition has no relationship to the
regulations.
39
August 21, 2001
Councilmember Kastein asked if the floodplain definition and the rainfall standards determine the type
of mitigation that is needed. Smith replied in the affirmative and spoke regarding the intent of
floodplain definition and regulations.
Councilmember Tharp asked about the history of repeated flooding in the community. Hayes stated
that the community has a history of flooding and that it will get worse as development occurs. She
spoke regarding recent and historical flood events.
Councilmember Tharp asked if we are attempting to correct past errors. Hayes replied in the
affirmative.
Councilmember Tharp asked how long the City has been working on the flooding problems. Hayes
stated that the Stormwater Utility was created in 1980 and many of the master plans were first created
in the early 1980s. She stated that significant headway has been made in the area of new developments
and preventing flooding problems.
Councilmember Tharp stated that she believes that the City should move ahead with the plan. She
expressed a concern that we are leaving the variances up to one person. Hibbard stated that technical
adjustments to the floodplain line would be up to the Utility Director. Smith spoke regarding the
variance procedure involving the Water Board.
Councilmember Tharp asked if the City will prioritize the basin projects. Hibbard stated that priorities
will be determined as part of the discussion relating to financing.
Councilmember Tharp stated that there needs to be a fair process to set priorities. Hibbard stated that
Council would have an opportunity to review the process.
Councilmember Wanner noted that there have been concerns regarding the expense to property owners
to conform to floodplain regulations when it is planned that the area will be completely out of the
floodplain.
Councilmember Hamrick asked if there was an estimate of the original project on this basin. Hayes
stated that in 1998 the remaining cost for the projects left in the 1980 master plan was approximately
$22 million and there has been an increase up to $51.5 million. She stated that about half ofthe increase
is due to the rainfall standards and half is due to adding new projects to the basin. She noted that
localized problems not identified in the original master plan have been added to the plan.
Councilmember Hamrick asked if the cost of the project would be less if the scope of the master plan
was decreased. Hayes replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Hamrick stated that he would like to see more of this type of analysis.
,M
August 21, 2001
• Councilmember Wanner stated that reducing the scope of the plan would mean that everyone would
not be offered the same protection of the 100 year floodplain.
Councilmember Bertschy made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Wanner, to adopt Ordinance
No. 121, 2001 on First Reading.
Councilmember Weitkunat stated that flooding is a real problem and that the plan will address the
problem.
Councilmember Bertschy requested information prior to Second Reading regarding the equity of the
plan in relation to properties that will soon be taken out of the floodplain.
Councilmember Kastein requested clarification regarding the equity issue.
Councilmember Tharp spoke in favor of moving forward with the plan as quickly as possible.
Councilmember Wanner thanked staff for the hard work on the issue since the 1997 flood.
Councilmember Hamrick stated that he supports flood protection but expressed concern regarding
determining an adequate level of protection at an appropriate cost. He stated that he would like to see
• additional analysis for fixture basins regarding different levels of protection for different cost.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Bertschy, Kastein, Martinez, Tharp,
Wanner and Weitkunat. Nays: Councilmember Hamrick.
THE MOTION CARRIED
Resolution 2001-93
Adopting a Stormwater Financing Plan Adopted
The following is staffs memorandum on this item.
"Financial Impact
Substantial increases in monthly Stormwater fees are needed in order to implement a 25 year plan to
build out the City's storm drainage system. If the Resolution is adopted, staff will prepare the 2002-
2003 budget with a 45% increase in monthly stormwater fees in 2002 and 10% in 2003. Fora typical
residential customer (8,600 square foot lot with light runoff coefcient) fees would increase from the
current level of$8.13 per month to $11.79 in 2002 and $12.97 in 2003. The increases are expected to
produce operating revenues in the Storm Drainage Fund ofapproximately $9.5 million in 2002 and
$10.8 million in 2003.
0 41
August 21, 2001
Executive Summary
The City's new rainfall standards and work on updating master plans have produced the need to re-
examine the City's Stormwater Financing Plan. In 1998, when the current City-wide approach to
financing stormwater capital improvements was adopted, existing master plans reflected a cost of
approximately $68 million to build out the system. Based on this amount, Council decided to finance
the stormwater improvements over a 15 year period using primarily municipal debt f nancing.
Some of the master plansfrom which this information was derived were nearly 20 years old Since that
time, improvedmappingandotherplanning techniques have revealeddrainageproblems notpreviously
identified. This, along with the change in rainfall standards, has driven cost estimates for needed
improvements in the entire system to approximately $120 million.
Due to the increase in costs, it was necessaryfor staffand the Water Board to look at new stormwater
financing options. As options were developed, the following key factors were considered:
• Reasonableness of stormwater fees and overall utilityfees
• Amount of debt financing to be used
• Lengthening the original timetable
• Reducing the 100 year protection standard to some lesser amount
Based on inputf om the Water Board, the following stormwaterfinancing alternatives were developed
by staff.
Alternative 1—Fifteen Year Build-outSchedule Using a Combination ofMunicipal Bonds and Pay -
As -You -Go
This alternative meets the original 15 year schedule developed in 1998. Under this alternative, rates
would need to increase 70% in 2002 and then 11-12%per year every vear until 2008. It is assumed
that the Utility would borrow $30million in2002with al.5 year repayment schedule which, along with
some pay -as you -go funding, wouldprovide the necessaryfunding to complete the projects. Staffhas
a real concern about the ability to do a good job and complete these projects within the remaining 13-
year time -frame.
Alternative 2 —Fifteen Year Build -out Schedule Using Pay -As -You -Go
This alternative also meets the original 1 S year schedule. Under this alternative, rates would need to
increase 140% in 2002 and another 10% in 2003 to accumulate enough cash flow to complete the
projects within the 15 year period. 3% increases would also be needed in each of the years 2009
through 2011. No more borrowing would take place beyond what has already been done. The same
concern about the ability to get the projects done properly within the alloted time -frame also applies.
42
August 21, 2001
• Alternative 3 — Twenty -Five Year Schedule Using Municipal Bonds
This alternative extends the build -out schedule by 12 years and relies mostly on debt financing to
construct the improvements. Under this approach, rates would need to increase 5-6%per year every
year from 2002 through 2018 (a 17 year period) before finally leveling off. The biggest drawback to
this scenario is that debt payments would continue another 20 years beyond completion of the
improvements. In addition, debt service payments would constitute approximately 66% of the total
operating budget, for several years.
Alternative 4 — Twenty -Five Year Schedule Using Pay -As- You -Go
This alternative also extends the build -out schedule by 12 years, but relies exclusively onpay-as you -go
financing from 2002 forward Under this approach, rates would need to increase 40% in 2002, then
by an average ofabout 7%per year from 2003 through 2008. This is the alternative preferred by staff
and the Water Board because: (1) it eliminates reliance on debt and the related obligation ofthe City
many years into the future; (2) the impact on fees is dramatic at first, but then levels off (3) fees are
reduced dramatically coincident with the completion ofthe projects; and (4) fee amounts are high but
not unreasonable in relation to costs.
Council's Preferred Alternative
• At the May 22 Study Session, Council directed staff to present Alternative 4 with some modifications
for Council consideration. Council generally favored the pay-as-you-go approach to stormwater
financing in order to reduce the City's reliance on debtfinancingfor these improvements. However,
Council expressed a desire to see the City move ahead and make some significant progress on getting
the highest priority improvements done in the next few years. This was based on concern that the longer
the City waits to complete the improvements, the more likely significant damage to persons and
property could result from food events.
Based on this direction, staff recommends borrowing $15 million in 2002 to 'Jump-start" the twenty-
five year improvement program and then proceeding with a pay -as you -go approach to finishing the
rest ofthe improvements. As mentioned above, this approach requires a 45% increase in fees in 2002
and 10% in 2003. Future monthly fee increases are expected to approximate those outlined in
Alternative 4, but could change somewhat depending on the final costs ofthe improvements, growth in
new customers added to the system, and the future cost of operating and maintaining the system. As
was mentioned at the Study Session, the pay-as-you-go approach also gives the City the flexibility to
modem the priority, timing, and scope of future projects if deemed desirable or necessary. "
City Manager Fischbach introduced the agenda item.
0 43
August 21, 2001
Dave Agee, Utilities Financial Officer, presented background information regarding the agenda item.
He stated that staff has developed a new stormwater financing plan for Council's review. He stated that
the key features are less reliance on debt financing, lengthening the timetable from 15 to 25 years, and
adding a $15 million borrowing upfront in 2002 to j ump start key projects. He outlined the alternatives
that were considered and the alternative recommended to the Council. He stated that staff is
recommending in the budget a 45% rate increase and a 10% increase in 2003.
Councilmember Wanner asked if the dollars on the graph are in current values. Agee stated that the
figures are in current values and that actual numbers will be used as this proceeds.
Councilmember Kastein asked if the population growth rate is considered in setting the rates. Agee
stated that there has been 3-5% growth in the stormwater utility and that the conservative figure of 1-2%
growth has been used.
Councilmember Kastein asked if a future Council can decide the level of support for specific drainage
basins and if there are legal ramifications to this. City Attorney Roy stated that the Council has
legislative discretion to determine its plans and how to spend its money in the best interests of the
community.
Councilmember Weitkunat stated that the increase in stormwater fees is not just for people living in the
canal importation basin and is City-wide. Agee stated that in 1998 the Council determined that storm
drainage was a City-wide rather than basin by basin issue.
Gary Vette,1625 West Elizabeth, Avery Parkresident (Woodbox Condominiums), expressed concerns
about the pay as you go process and spoke regarding concerns about flooding problems relating to the
New Mercer ditch.
Mayor Martinez asked about how the New Mercer ditch fits with the discussion relating to stormwater
policies. Jim Hibbard, Water Operations and Planning Manager, stated that the New Mercer ditch has
been a problem and has been identified as a project in the canal importation basin master plan. He
stated that the project will be prioritized with the rest of the projects brought back for Council
consideration in 2002. Mike Smith, Utilities General Manager, spoke regarding the history of
stormwater financing and stated that the New Mercer ditch will happen a lot faster now than it would
have under the old financing plan.
Mayor Martinez asked how long the New Mercer project would take if it was given top priority.
Hibbard stated that it would probably take about 3-4 years. City Manager Fischbach stated that there
was no way for the City to respond to the New Mercer ditch problem prior to 1998 when the Council
established City-wide funding for stormwater.
lV
August 21, 2001
IsCouncilmember Bertschy asked about prioritization of the canal importation basin. Smith stated that
Council has indicated at the study session that the priorities should be reviewed and the process should
be revisited.
Councilmember Weitkunat stated that projects were prioritized within the canal importation basin and
that projects will also need to be prioritized City-wide.
Councilmember Wanner spoke about the neighborhood meeting at City Park and stated that the canal
importation basin continues to be a high priority. He stated that the City is now basing protection on
the 100 year flood and priorities had to be reviewed because of the different policy.
Mr. Vette spoke again about problems with the New Mercer ditch.
Councilmember Kastein asked how the priorities are set within the canal importation basin. Hibbard
spoke regarding the prioritization process.
Councilmember Hamrick asked for confirmation that the Council will look at priorities before
construction commences. Hibbard replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Hamrick asked ifthe financing plan will change if basin costs change. Agee stated that
• the financing plan will remain even if basin costs change.
Councilmember Weitkunat made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Tharp, to adopt Resolution
2001-93.
Councilmember Tharp stated that the jump start will get the City moving and that priorities will be
reviewed quickly.
Councilmember Kastein spoke regarding future drainage plans and asked for another data point that
shows the costs for reducing the level of protection. He asked if Council would entertain asking staff
to do this for the next plan. The consensus was that this did not need to be part of the motion. City
Manager Fischbach stated that staff would be willing to include this kind of data in the future.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Bertschy, Hamrick, Kastein, Martinez,
Tharp, Wanner and Weitkunat. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED
•
45
August 21, 2001
Ordinance No. 135, 2001,
Authorizing the Conveyance of Non-exclusive Easement Interests
for the Construction of a Thirty-six Inch Water Line by the
Fort Collins- Loveland Water District on a Portion of the
Cathy Fromme Prairie Natural Area, Failed.
The following is staffs memorandum on this item.
"Financial Impact
The Fort Collins -Loveland Water District will be responsible for all costs associated with the
construction of the water pipeline and restoration of disturbed areas. The District has agreed to pay
fair market value as compensation for the temporary construction easements and the permanent
easements. This value will be determined prior to second reading. Staff recommends waiving the
application fee.
Executive Summary
The Fort Collins -Loveland Water District has planned since 1986 to construct a 36-inch water pipeline
between Harmony Road and Trilby Road, adjacent to Taft Hill Road The pipeline is needed to supply
water to existing and projected growth within the District's existing Service Area. The City of Fort
Collins, together with Lorimer County, purchased theparcels ofland now known as the Cathy Fromme
Prairie Natural Area between 1993 and 1997. The proposed easements would allow the construction
of the new water pipeline on the Cathy Fromme Prairie, east of south Taft Hill Road. The pipeline
alignment was planned to minimize the impact to the prairie and account for the planned future
widening of Taft Hill Road in this vicinity.
A copy of the temporary and permanent easement forms that the District has agreed to sign are on file
in the City Clerk's Office. The final temporary andpermanent easements will be completed and signed
prior to second reading.
BACKGROUND:
The Fort Collins -Loveland Water District is apolitical subdivision ofthe State of Colorado, formed to
provide water service to urban areas in south Fort Collins, north Loveland andareas ofunincorporated
Lorimer County between the two cities. The District obtains its waterfrom Horsetooth Reservoir, treats
the water at its Soldier Canyon Treatment Plant, and transports it to its service area via a series of
pipelines. The District completed a master plan for its future facilities in 1986 Among the future
facilities identified in this plan was a 36-inch water pipeline to be located along Taft Hill Road in
southern Fort Collins. The 36-inch water pipeline would connect to an existing 24-inch supply line at
August 21, 2001
• Taft Hill Road and Trilby Road Future plans are also to extend the pipeline to the south to connect to
the City of Loveland water supply.
The District recently completed the construction ofthefirstphase ofthepipeline project, located on the
east side of Taft Hill Road between Horsetooth Road and old Harmony Road. The District plans to
complete the second phase of the pipeline during Fall of 2001 in order to meet anticipated water
demands. The second phase ofthe project would extend from old Harmony Road south for two miles
to Trilby Road, where it would connect to the existing pipeline. The District has requested a 100 foot
wide temporary construction easement and a 30 foot wide permanent easement for the construction,
operation, and maintenance of the water pipeline.
The Cathy Fromme Prairie Natural Area is located on both sides of Taft Hill Road for the first mile of
the proposed water line alignment. South of this point, the City owns (in conjunction with Lorimer
County) the landfor 0.75 mile along the eastern side ofthe road. The City has reached agreement with
the owners ofthe remaining 0.25 mile to Trilby Road We anticipate closing on this 40 acre parcel this
fall, therefore we are asking Council to approve the easement agreements for this parcel as well. The
Larimer County owns the landfill property west of Taft Hill Road along the second mile of the route.
Staff from several City departments have worked closely with the District to determine the
recommended location for the pipeline alignment, considering environmental conditions along the
• alignment, the needs ofthe district for pipeline construction and operation, and the future widening of
Taft Hill Road from two lane to four lane, as calledfor in the City's adopted Master Street Plan. Three
alternatives were considered for the pipeline location: in Taft Hill Road itself, west of Taft Hill Road,
or east of Taft Hill Road
•
From a natural areasprotection perspective, the mostdesirable location for the waterpipeline would
be within Taft Hill Road itself The District desires not to place the pipeline under the existing Taft Hill
Roadfor several reasons. First, construction within Taft Hill Road would require complete closure of
the roadfor aperiod oftwo to three months. Second, placement in the road now may require relocation
ofportions of the pipeline in the future when Taft Hill Road is widened, which would interrupt water
service for a prolonged period ofseveral months and would greatly increase the cost of the pipeline.
Third, compared to theproposed location, placement ofthe pipeline in the road would cost much more
due to the reconstruction of the roadway. And fourth, given the volume of water to be carried in the
pipeline, the District has serious concerns aboutpublic safety in the event of a future leak in the pipeline
if it was buried in the road
Natural Resources staff evaluated the alternatives of placing the pipeline on either side of Taft Hill
Road Because there are extensive wetlands on the west side ofthe road, staffrecommended that both
the future widening of Taft Hill Road and the pipeline location occur entirely on the east side of the
road, from "old" Harmony Road south to approximately the entrance to the Larimer County Landfill.
47
August 21, 2001
From this point south to Trilby Road, the f ture road widening would occur on both sides ofthe road
(as is normally done) and the pipeline would be placed east of the road.
The City's adopted Master Street Plan calls for the widening ofTaft Hill Road south of Harmony Road
from its current two-lane configuration to a four -lane arterial. The City Manager anticipates that this
project will be completed within approximately five years. Although formal design is several years
away, staffdeveloped a conceptual plan, for theproject tofacilitate decision making regarding the water
pipeline location. Key elements of the design include:
• Performing all ofthe road widening on the east side ofthe existing road, rather than on both sides
of the road from old Harmony Road south to the Landfill entrance.
• Using "rural arterial " roadcross-section rather than the standardarterial cross-section in order
to reduce the area of disturbance (a 72 foot cross section rather than a 145 foot cross section).
• Varying the finished slopes adjacent to the road so they appear more natural and blend into the
environment of the Cathy Fromme Prairie.
• Locating the pipeline easement near the toe ofthe future slope ofthe road embankment so that the
pipeline does not need to be moved when the road is built and that the easement area is not
redisturbed by road construction.
These considerations led to the proposed location ofthe pipeline 175 feet east ofthe existing centerline
ofTaft Hill Road This means that, until Taft Hill Road is widened, the pipeline will be located within
the current Cathy Fromme Prairie rather than immediately adjacent to the road Ultimately, however,
this arrangement should produce less impact to the prairie and result in a more natural -appearing
landscape.
In addition to the design considerationsfor locating thepipeline, Natural Resourcesstaffhasdeveloped
additional provisions that are included in the easement andon the plansfor resource protection during
construction andfor restoration of the property following construction. Some ofthe more significant
measures include thefollowing:
• Ecological characterization study to determine ifplant or wildlife species ofconcern are present.
Construction is then scheduled to avoid or minimize the impact on the species found and sensitive
plants are removed for transplanting following construction.
• Aspecifcaccessplanand use ofconstructionfencingtolimitconstruction activity tothe easements
• Erosion control.
• Maintain good communication with Natural Resources representative prior to, during, and
following construction to assure that the resource protection measures are being implemented
correctly.
• Segregation of topsoil from disturbed areas.
• Replace topsoil and reseed the disturbed areas per Natural Resources specifications.
• Payment offees for the City to take over the ongoing management of the revegetation.
m
August 21, 2001
• Natural Resources must accept the restoration before the Contractor is relieved of responsibility
by the District.
With the resource protection measures in place, staffrecommends approval of the proposed easements.
Construction of the new water line will impact the Cathy Fromme Prairie Natural Area. However, the
pipeline is an essential public facility that has been anticipated for 15 years. The District has workea
with City staff to locate the pipeline appropriately and to implement the appropriate resource
protection measures. "
City Manager Fischbach introduced the agenda item.
Mark Sears, Natural Resources Program Manager, presented background information relating to the
agenda item. He stated that the staff is recommending approval of this easement and that the Natural
Resources Advisory Board recommended denial because they felt that the water line could be put
underneath the existing pavement of Taft Hill Road. He stated that staff looked at this as an alternative
and that the District's response to that alternative has been that the elevation of the line would be above
the natural ground and any leak could cause the road embankment to cave in causing a safety hazard.
He stated that the easement policy specifies that in this type of situation where an underground line is
considered unsafe in the road right-of-way it could be allowed parallel and adjacent to the road right-of-
way. He stated that staff believes this meets the intent of the easement policy. He stated that staff is
• recommending a waiver of the application fee because staff has been working with the District on this
matter for over 18 months.
Randy Fischer, Natural Resources Advisory Board chair, stated that he was speaking as a private
individual and expressed personal concerns that this does not comply with the easement policy and that
the line goes too far out into the natural area. He also stated that the application fee should not be
waived. He stated that the District has placed pipe lines in road right-of-way when adjacent to
properties owned by other individuals and chooses to run parallel to the right-of-way when adjacent to
natural areas. He also noted that no price has been determined for the value of this easement and that
the City should be compensated for the value of the easement rather than just the value of the land. He
spoke regarding the damage done to natural areas with such installations.
Councilmember Tharp asked what was on the west side of the road. Sears stated that the first mile on
the west side is Cathy Fromme Prairie and the second mile is the Latimer County Landfill.
Councilmember Tharp asked about the reason for waiving the fee. Sears stated that staff has been
working with the District for about 18 months on the easement and the District did not feel it was fair
to pay a fee that has only recently been enacted.
Councilmember Kastein asked about the build out for Taft Hill Road. Sears showed visual information
relating to the Taft Hill Road cross section.
0 49
August 21, 2001
Councilmember Kastein asked why the pipe line could not be placed under the embankment at a width
less that 175 feet. Sears stated that the District typically installs water lines about five feet deep and
installation under the embankment would require more fill and would make maintenance and
replacement more costly. He stated that staff s concern is not just the initial impact but also the repeated
impact over time as lines must be replaced.
Councilmember Bertschy asked why it would not be appropriate to run the water line under the road
right-of-way in this stretch when it is appropriate to do so when adjacent to private property. Don
Taranto, TST Consulting Engineers, representing the Fort Collins -Loveland Water District, stated that
several alternatives were objectively reviewed in determining the location of the water line and that
there are differences in the Phase I and Phase II projects. He stated that the intent is not to disturb any
more property than necessary and to make sure that the line once installed would be in an area that
would not be disturbed in the long run. He spoke regarding elevation problems for Phase 11 and stated
that the selected alignment took into consideration environmental concerns and short term and long term
maintenance impacts. He stated that the location that was selected at the toe of the slope of the future
road was determined to be have the least amount of impact for the water line.
Councilmember Bertschy asked if the two-mile section was developed where the line would be run.
Mr. Taranto stated that there would be the same constraint with the road if there were homes along it
and that homes would have to be setback even further.
Councilmember Bertschy asked if the City will be receiving fair market value for this disturbance or
if this is the easiest way to go because the land is vacant. Mr. Taranto stated that the right place for a
public utility is in the easiest and best place to put it in the first construction and to maintain it long term
as long as other issues are not compromised. He stated that the compromises that are made in this
situation are acceptable from an engineer's perspective.
Councilmember Bertschy stated that the natural areas have been purchased for the purpose ofprotecting
natural resources and that there should be a value to the disturbance. Mr. Taranto stated that once the
road is completed and the water line is adjacent to the toe of the slope of the road the entire road will
have infringed upon the prairie. He stated that pipelines have along life but will have to be replaced
at some point in the future.
Councilmember Bertschy asked if the easements could be approved with the blank for the figures. City
Attorney Roy stated that the assumption would be that on Second Reading the Council will be satisfied
that the compensation represents the fair market value of the easements. He stated that the ordinance
has no effect until approved on Second Reading.
Councilmember Bertschy asked why the dollar amount is not filled in. Sears stated that the appraisals
have not yet been completed and that the District and the City have agreed to a specific appraiser.
50
August 21, 2001
• Councilmember Bertschy asked why First Reading was not deferred until September 4. Sears stated
that the District requested that the easement be scheduled on First Reading at this meeting so that
construction could begin this fall.
Councilmember Wanner asked for clarification regarding the proposed location of the pipe line. Sears
indicated the proposed location on the cross section. He stated that the pipe line would be 175 feet from
the existing center line of the roadway.
Councilmember Wanner asked why the City did not negotiate to locate the pipe line within the proposed
expansion of the roadway. Mr. Taranto stated that when the road is built the pipe line will be within
the proposed road right-of-way and in an area that would be disturbed by the road construction. Sears
stated that in the future when the road is widened that the limit of disturbance will not end at the toe of
the slope. He stated that the pipe line is not proposed at the toe of the slope because the width of the
road is not yet fixed and that the cross section shown indicates the minimum width of the road that will
be built.
Councilmember Wanner asked how long it will be before this section of road will be built. Sears stated
that there are currently no funds budgeted or project proposed. City Manager Fischbach stated that the
construction of this stretch is 10-15 years away.
• Mike DiTullio, General Manager of Fort Collins -Loveland Water District, stated that the District has
been working on this project for over 18 months, that this is an essential public utility, and that the
District has negotiated in good faith with the City. He stated that the pipe line will serve customers of
the District and citizens of Fort Collins. He stated that the fair market of 50% is reasonable and that the
matter has been delayed at the request of the City to build within a construction timeframe that the City
would like to see with respect to the activities on the prairie. He stated that the District needs to build
the pipe line this year, and to meet that construction deadline the easement is needed now. He stated
the appraisal is not complete because there has been good faith negotiation in selecting the appraiser.
He stated that the dollar amounts will be available before Second Reading of the ordinance.
•
Councilmember Weitkunat asked about the timeline that indicates that the District completed a master
plan for the facilities in 1986 and whether the City was aware of this. City Manager Fischbach stated
that the District shares its information with the City. Sears stated that he became aware of the plan 18
months ago and had no information about how long the City had known about the plan.
Councilmember Weitkunat asked for confirmation that the Cathy Fromme Prairie was designated 7-10
years after the District's master plan. Sears replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Weitkunat asked if the District's plan always called for the pipe line to run along Taft
Hill Road. Sears stated that this was shown on the District's master plan in 1986.
51
August 21, 2001
Councilmember Hamrick asked if locating the easement 175 feet into the natural area is consistent with
the natural areas easement policy. Sears stated that the policy states that if it is determined that an
underground utility is not safe within the road right-of-way that it can be put in adjacent to and parallel
with the road right-of-way. He stated that is what is proposed in this situation. He stated that the road
right-of-way would end at the back of a multiuse trail and that a slope easement would need to be
acquired. He stated that the right-of-way will therefore be outside of what would be the road right-of-
way.
Councilmember Hamrick asked if the proposal is consistent with the natural areas easement policy.
Sears stated that the easement would be outside of the road right-of-way.
Councilmember Hamrick asked if environmental assessments have been done. Sears stated that an
environmental characterization study has been done and that is consistent with the easement policy.
Councilmember Hamrick asked if the same arguments would apply to Phase I as are used for Phase II.
Sears stated that it is his understanding that in Phase I that portion of Taft Hill Road is not in an
embankment and if the waterline leaked the water would come to the surface instead of going out the
side of the embankment and the problem would become apparent before a large cavity developed.
Councilmember Kastein asked if Phase I of the pipe line on Taft Hill Road is completed. Sears stated
that this stretch was completed this spring.
Councilmember Hamrick asked Mr. Fischer why the pipe line should not be located as proposed if the
natural area is going to be impacted anyway because of the road right-of-way. Mr. Fischer stated that
the slope easement would only be required for only about one-half mile of road and that much depends
on the road design and construction.
Councilmember Weitkunat made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kastein, to adopt Ordinance
No. 135, 2001 on First Reading.
Councilmember Hamrick stated that there are other alternatives to placing the pipe line in a natural area
and spoke regarding the value and importance of the natural areas. He stated that Phase I was placed
in the road right-of-way and spoke against the approach of running the easement through a natural area.
Councilmember Weitkunat agreed with the importance of natural areas. She stated that this type of
activity has been going on historically and road right-of-way must necessarily intrude upon natural
areas. She stated that approving this easement would follow through on a program that the City
established, and that staff has stated that the proposal does meet the criteria of the recently adopted
natural areas easement policy.
52
August 21, 2001
• Councilmember Wanner stated that he would not support the ordinance because it is reasonable to
expect that the pipe line would be in the disturbed area the whole length of the right-of-way. He stated
that more effort to minimize the disturbance should be demonstrated.
Councilmember Kastein stated that the width of the future road is unknown and that the area outside
of the embankment will be disturbed in the future. He stated that he would put an easement for a pipe
line in this part of a natural area before he would take property from homeowners. He noted that Phase
I is already built and that if the pipe line is installed in the roadway for Phase II the pipe line will have
to be torn up when the roadway is built.
Councilmember Wanner stated that the cross section of the road will vary considerably.
Councilmember Bertschy stated that he would not support the ordinance because the City has a policy
requesting that easements be in road rights -of -way and this is not in the right-of-way. He stated that he
could not support approving an easement when the dollar amount is blank.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Kastein, Martinez and Weitkunat.
Nays: Councilmembers Bertschy, Hamrick, Tharp and Wanner.
THE MOTION FAILED
• Mayor Martinez requested adjournment of the meeting because of the lateness of the hour. City
Manager Fischbach stated that Second Reading of the item for the Youth Activity Center is extremely
important. Mayor Martinez stated for the record that the lateness of the hour means that this is no longer
a public meeting.
Councilmember Tharp stated that would be an arbitrary decision to determine that this is no longer a
public meeting. She supported continuing the meeting.
The consensus was to continue the meeting.
Ordinance No. 136, 2001,
Authorizing the Conveyance of Non-exclusive Easement Interests
for the Construction of a Sixteen Inch Water Line by the Fort Collins —Loveland
Water District on Portions of Coyote Ridge Natural Area, McKee Farm
Open Space, and Long View Farm Natural Area Adopted on First Reading
The following is staffs memorandum on this item.
"Financial Impact
•
53
August 21, 2001
The Fort Collins -Loveland Water District will be responsible for all costs associated with the
construction ofthe water pipeline and restoration of disturbed areas. The District has agreed to pay
fair market value as compensation for the temporary construction easements and the permanent
easements. This value will be determined prior to second reading. Staff recommends waiving the
application fee.
Executive Summary
The Fort Collins -Loveland Water District hasplanned since 1986 to construct water storage tanks on
the land now known as Coyote Ridge and a water pipeline to the tanks across Longview Farm Open
Land, McKee Farm Open Land and Coyote Ridge Natural Area. These parcels are owned either by the
City ofFort Collins alone or in partnership with Larimer County and Loveland. The pipeline is needed
to supply water to existing and projected growth within the District's existing Service Area. After
eighteen months of negotiations and analyzing many alternative tank locations and water line
alignments the City County and the District have reached agreement on a proposed alignment. The
proposed easements wouldallow the construction ofthe new water pipeline across the Longview Farm
Open Land, the McKee Farm Open Land, the Coyote Ridge Natural Area, and the Larimer County
Landfill. The proposed pipeline alignment minimizes the impact to the natural areas and open lands.
The watertank location on the Larimer County Landfill, which will become a natural area in the future,
minimizes the visual impact for nearbyproperty owners, natural area users, and motorists on Taft Hill
Road as well as minimizing the impact on the natural areas. (See attached maps.)
A copy ofthe temporary and permanent easement forms that the District has agreed to sign are on file
in the City Clerks Office. The final temporary and permanent easements will be completed and signed
prior to second reading.
BACKGROUND:
The Fort Collins -Loveland Water District is apolitical subdivision ofthe State of Colorado, formed to
provide water service to urban areas in south Fort Collins, north Loveland and areas ofunincorporated
Larimer County between the two cities. The District obtains its waterfrom Horsetooth Reservoir, treats
the water at its Soldier Canyon Treatment Plant, and transports it to its service area via a series of
pipelines. The District completed a master plan for its future facilities in 1986 Among the future
facilities identified in this plan were water storage tanks on the land now known as Coyote Ridge and
a water pipeline to the tanks across Longview Farm Open Land, McKee Farm Open Land and Coyote
Ridge Natural Area. The storage tanks and water line would serve developments east of Shields Street
and south of Trilby Road
Melody Homes, the developer of Ridgewood Hills, east of Shields and south of Trilby is the first
developer to need the additional water storage. Therefore they are partnering with the District to
construct the first of what may ultimately be three - one million gallon water storage tanks, and the
August 21, 2001
distribution waterline to connect the tank to their development. The waterline and water storage will
be needed by future developments east and south of5hields and Trilby. The District has requested a
100 foot wide temporary construction easement and a 30-foot wide permanent easement for the
construction, operation, and maintenance of the water pipeline.
The proposed water line alignmentstarts on the Ridgewood Hills Development. It then goes south onto
the Longview Farm Open Land, which is owned jointly by Larimer County, City of Loveland and the
City of Fort Collins. The line proceeds west across a portion of the Longview Farm that is owned
entirely by the County. The line then crosses the Burlington Northern Sante Fe Railroad, a small parcel
ofland owned by MarkPowell, and then across Shields Street. Once under Shields Street the waterline
will proceed west along the northern boundary ofMcKee Farm Open Land, which is owned by the City
of Fort Collins. Just before Taft Hill Road the line will turn andgo north across Coyote Ridge, which
is owned by the City of Fort Collins, parallel to and just east of Taft Hill Road for approximately 314
of a mile. At that point it will cross Taft Hill Road and then proceed north across Coyote Ridge, which
is ownedjointly by the County and the City, just west of andparallel to Taft Hill Road. The water line
will cross Trilby Road on to the Larimer County Landfill, which is owned by the County. The water line
will proceed west along the north side of Trilby Road on the County's landfill property for
approximately 314 mile. The waterline will then head northwest approximately], 000'to the tank site,
which is also on the County's landfill property. (See attached map.)
• City Natural Resources staff and County Open Lands staff have worked closely with the District to
determine the recommended location for the tank and the water line alignment. Staffconsidered the
ecological impacts of the water line alignment and the tank location, the visual impacts of the tank
location, and the needs of the district for pipeline and tank construction and operation. City Natural
Resources staff and County Open lands stafffeel that the proposed watertank location on the Larimer
County Landfill, which will become a natural area in the future, minimizes the visual impactfor nearby
property owners, natural area users, and motorists on Taft Hill Road as well as minimizing the impact
on the natural areas.
•
At staffs request the District and Developer analyzedfour alternative tank locations and more thanfour
waterline alignments. The first tank location proposed was the original location on Coyote Ridge as
was shown on the 1986 Master Plan. This location was not acceptable to City and County staffdue to
its proximity to the newly open Coyote Ridge Trail and the extreme impacts to the natural area. The
secondtanklocation consideredwasonprivatepropertysouth ofTrilbyRoad The tank location would
have been acceptable, however the water line alignment to the tank would have crossed diagonally
through Coyote Ridge Natural Area causing extreme impacts to the natural area. The third location
considered was the site now beingproposed on the Larimer County Landfill. The fourth tank location
was on the Ridgewood Hills development. This location would have required the construction of an
elevated tank The construction of the first one million gallon tank would have been very high priced
and aesthetically displeasing to the area residents as well as motorists on College Avenue andShields
55
August 21, 2001
Street. The construction of the second tank and possibly the third tank in the future made this
alternative totally unreasonable in terms of costs, maintenance and especially aesthetics.
Two waterline alignments from the proposed tank location were considered. The one now being
proposed and another which would have gone east on Trilby to Shields, down Shields a mile and then
across the Longview Farm Open land as is being proposed now. The later option would have been
extremely expensive, caused Trilby and Shields to be torn up and the roads closedfor several months.
The proposed tank location is just north ofTrilby Road and sits between two hogbacks. The one million
gallon tank will be 38' high and 80' wide and will be painted a sage green color to blend in with the
surrounding native vegetation. The hogback to the east will partially block the view of the tank f rom
TaftHill Road Less than 20' of the tank will be visible f tom the east. The hogback to the west will
partially block the view of the tankf •om the few homes west of the tank. Approximately 30' of the tank
will be visible to the west. The option of burying the tank was discussed with the District. The
ecological impact would be similar to that ofan above ground tank and the costfor construction would
have been more than double, therefore the District was not willing to consider building an underground
tank.
In addition to the design considerations for locating the pipeline, Natural Resources staff developed
additional provisions that are included in the easement and on the plansfor resource protection during
construction and for restoration of the propertyfollowing construction. Some of the more significant
measures include the following:
• Ecological characterization study to determine ifplant or wildlife species ofconcern are present.
Construction is then scheduled to avoid or minimize the impact on the species found and sensitive
plants are removed for transplanting following construction.
• Use of construction fencing to limit construction activity to the easements.
• Erosion control.
• Maintain good communication with Natural Resources representative prior to, during, and
following construction to assure that the resource protection measures are being implemented
correctly.
• Segregation of topsoil f tom disturbed areas.
• Replace topsoil and reseed the disturbed areas per Natural Resources specifications.
• Payment offees for the City to take over the ongoing management of the revegetation.
• Natural Resources must accept the restoration before the Contractor is relieved of responsibility
by the District.
With these resource protection measures in place, staff recommends approval of the proposed
easements. Construction of the new water line will have an impact on the following public lands:
Longview Open land, the McKee Farm Open land, the Coyote Ridge Natural Area, and the Larimer
56
August 21, 2001
County Landfill. However, the pipeline is an essential public facility that has been anticipated for 15
years. The District has worked with City staffto locate the pipeline appropriately and to implement the
appropriate resource protection measures."
City Manager Fischbach introduced the agenda item.
Mark Sears, Natural Resources Program Manager, presented background information regarding the
agenda item and presented slides showing the site. He stated that the staff and the Natural Resources
Advisory Board recommend approval of the easement and the compensation will be determined prior
to Second Reading.
Roger Hollard, Melody Homes, 11031 Sheridan Boulevard, Westminster, spoke regarding the history
of the subdivision that has caused this easement request. He stated that the Ridgewood Hills
Subdivision was purchased from Jensen Homes and the existing master plan approved by the City
showed that in order for the site to develop a tank site had to be installed. He stated that the master plan
showed the tank site on Coyote Ridge, west of the site. He stated that this site would not be the best
location, and the ongoing staff review continued to show that a tank would be required in order to
develop the site. He stated that other alternatives for the tank location and water line were explored and
this alignment was determined to be the best. He stated that this project is not new to the City and the
water line and tank required for the subdivision were approved with the master plan and reviewed with
• the City with the final platting for Filing 3.
Mike DiTullio, General Manager of the Fort Collins -Loveland Water District, requested Council
approval of the easement request to avoid the costly condemnation proceedings that the District will
initiate against the City with regard to the easement denied in the previous agenda item.
Councilmember Wanner made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Tharp, to adopt Ordinance No.
136, 2001 on First Reading.
Councilmember Kastein noted that the staff and the advisory board have recommended in favor.
Councilmember Bertschy stated that he would vote against the ordinance because the dollar figure is
blank and that he will likely support the ordinance on Second Reading,
Councilmember Tharp stated that the threat of a condemnation suit on the previous agenda item does
not influence her vote.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Kastein, Martinez, Tharp, Wanner and
Weitkunat. Nays: Councilmembers Bertschy and Hamrick.
THE MOTION CARRIED
•
57
August 21, 2001
Mayor Martinez asked if Council would like to continue the meeting or adjourn. He recommended
adjournment.
The consensus was to continue the meeting.
Ordinance No. 119, 2001,
Approving the Terms of the Lease by the City of 415 East Monroe
for a Youth Activity Center, Adopted on Second Reading.
The following is staff s memorandum on this item.
"Executive Summary
Everwest has offered to lease to the City the facility located at 415 East Monroe Street, east of the
Foothills Fashion Mall and formerly occupied by Healthworks Health Club. The facility has over
26, 000 square feet and will make an excellent replacementfacilityfor the YAC. The term of the lease
is 10 years, which may be extended by later agreement. Ordinance No. 119, 2001, which was
unanimously adopted on First Reading on July 19, 2001, authorizes the lease of the facility. "
City Manager Fischbach noted that the citizen who pulled the item had left the meeting and there would
be no need for a staff presentation.
Councilmember Bertschy made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Weitkunat, to adopt Ordinance
No. 119, 2001 on Second Reading. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers
Bertschy, Hamrick, Kastein, Martinez, Tharp, Wanner and Weitkunat. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED
Councilmember Bertschy thanked staff for staying for this agenda item.
Mayor Martinez asked if the Council would consider adjournment.
The consensus was to continue the meeting.
Ordinance No. 125, 2001,
Authorizing the Sale of 1.032 Acres of Westfield Park to Pool of Dreams, Ltd.
and Appropriating the Proceeds of Such Sale as Unanticipated Revenue in the
Neighborhood Parkland Fund. Adopted on First Readine.
The following is staffs memorandum on this item.
58
August 21, 2001
• "Financiallmpact
The sale will provide $120, 000 for neighborhood parks.
Executive Summary
The Citypurchased 14.61 acres ofland in 1981 for Westfield Neighborhood Park The amount ofland
needed for the park was estimated at that time to be about 10 to 12 acres. The landowner would only
sell 14.61 acres for $166, 700. At the time ofpark development in 1997198, the actual amount of land
needed to serve the residential area around the park was determined to be 11 acres. The park currently
has 11 developed acres and complies with parkacreage requirements in the 1996Parks and Recreation
Policy Plan. A one-time fee on new housing funds new park acquisition and development.
A group of neighbors, organized as Pool of Dreams, approached the City in 1999 about acquiring a
portion ofthe unused parkland at Wes f eldParkfor a neighborhoodpool. Residents in the area would
use the pool. The pool would not be open to the general public. The development, operation and
maintenance of the pool will be the responsibility of Pool of Dreams.
The City was interested in the proposal and, by coincidence, had already started discussion of the sale
of the unused parkland at Wesf eld Park The pool would be compatible with the Park and provides
an additional recreational facility that cannot be provided by the City at this location.
Negotiations for the sale of the site to Pool of Dreams started in early 1999. When a purchase price
couldn't be reached on the 1.032 acre site, both parties agreed to have the property appraised The
appraisal was completed in August of 2000 and the value of the property was appraised at $120, 000.
Additional negotiations took place, and in December, staff sent a letter of intent to Pool of Dreams,
agreeing to hold the site at the appraised value of $120, 000 until October 1, 2001, pending Council
consideration of the proposed sale. Staff is recommending that Council approve this Ordinance,
authorizing the sale ofthis property and appropriating the $120, 000 from the sale to the Neighborhood
Parkland Fund. "
City Manager Fischbach introduced the agenda item.
Councilmember Hamrick requested clarification regarding what happens to the land if the neighborhood
decides not to build the swimming pool. Mike Powers, CLRS Director, stated that this is a land sale
transaction and that the neighborhood has submitted plans for the pool to the Planning Department. City
Attorney Roy stated that prior to Second Reading of the ordinance staff could look at the possibility of
restrictive covenants that return title to the City if within a given period of time the land was not put to
the use represented.
0 59
August 21, 2001
Councilmember Hamrick stated that he would like to see such restrictive covenants added and asked
for clarification about the figures relating to the acreage.
Councilmember Hamrick commented that this would be a private pool next to a public park.
Councilmember Weitkunat made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kastein, to adopt Ordinance
No. 125, 2001 on First Reading.
Councilmember Hamrick stated that he would like to see deed restrictions because the neighborhood
is getting a discount on the purchase of the property.
Councilmember Kastein stated that this is fair market value for the property and that the property is not
usable as parkland or for development. City Manager Fischbach stated that this is fair market value.
Councilmember Hamrick expressed a concern that the property could be sold for some type of
undesirable use and that he would like to protect the City.
Councilmember Hamrick made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Tharp, to add some type of deed
restrictions or convenants regarding the use of the pool and first right of refusal.
Councilmember Wanner expressed a concern that the property could be abandoned and a nuisance
would be created. He favored some type of City control to ensure that the property is used for the
planned purpose. City Manager Fischbach stated that a covenant would affect the price and the matter
would have to be renegotiated. City Attorney Roy stated that both parties must agree and that existence
of restrictions can reduce the fair market value of the property.
Councilmember Bertschy suggested that the City retain a first right of refusal in the event the property
is sold.
City Manager Fischbach stated that it may be in the best interest of the City to retain control in the event
of abandonment.
Councilmember Weitkunat asked for clarification regarding whether the City is interested in selling the
property only if it is used for a pool. City Manager Fischbach stated that the neighborhood came to the
City asking to purchase the property and the City would not be selling the property if the neighborhood
was not interested in building a pool.
Kevin Shaw, Treasurer of the Pool of Dreams organization, stated that the neighborhood is interested
in purchasing the land at fair market value. He stated that the value would be less if there were deed
restrictions. He stated that the intent of the neighborhood is to build a pool on the property.
August 21, 2001
Councilmembers Weitkunat and Kastein, as the maker and seconder of the original motion, accepted
Councilmember Hamrick's motion as a friendly amendment. City Attorney Roy stated that ordinance
would be brought back on Second Reading with some form of deed restrictions.
Councilmember Tharp stated that she would favor a policy that dealt with a private pool that would not
be open to the public and is neat to a public park.
Councilmember Kastein thanked staff for working with the Pool of Dreams group.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Bertschy, Hamrick, Kastein, Martinez,
Tharp, Wanner and Weitkunat. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED
Adjournment
Councilmember Bertschy made amotion, seconded by Councilmember Kastein, to adjoumthe meeting
to 6:00 p.m. on August 28, 2001 for the purpose of hearing additional business. The vote on the motion
was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Bertschy, Hamrick, Kastein, Martinez, Tharp, Wanner and
Weitkunat. Nays: None.
• THE MOTION CARRIED
The meeting adjourned at 11:45 p.m.
Mayoral'
�tCF~
ATTEST:
— )� ULO-A ��' '2 � -
0 61