HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES-09/06/2005-RegularSeptember 6, 2005
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, September 6,
2005, 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: Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein, Manvel, Ohlson, and
Weitkunat.
Councilmembers Absent: Roy
Staff Members Present: Atteberry, Krajicek, Eckman.
Proclamation Honoring Kenneth Bueche
for His Service to Colorado Municipalities and the Colorado Municipal League
Mayor Hutchinson read the Proclamation recognizing Kenneth Bueche for his service to Colorado
municipalities through his contributions as an employee of the Colorado Municipal League. Mayor
Hutchinson noted that Mr. Bueche was a "native son" of Fort Collins.
Mr. Bueche thanked the Council for issuing the proclamation.
Resolution 2005-099
Recognizing and Encouraging Local Support
for Victims of Hurricane Katrina, Adopted
Mayor Hutchinson read the Resolution in full.
Councilmember Ohlson made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Manvel, to adopt Resolution
2005-099.
Councilmember Kastein asked if there was information on the City website giving contact
information. City Manager Atteberry asked Wendy Williams to give a summary of City relief
efforts and stated the City would be able to put contact information on the City's website. Wendy
Williams, Assistant City Manager, stated some surplus vehicles would be sent to the area to replace
rolling stock lost in the disaster and that the City was evaluating the possibility of sending personnel
to the hurricane area. She stated the greatest need was for cash donations and that such donations
would be matched by the Bohemian Foundation.
Councilmember Kastein stated households in Colorado were housing evacuees and that he did not
want the City's occupancy limit to be an issue. He asked if the Council would need to take action
in that respect. Deputy City Attorney Eckman stated the Council could temporarily amend the Code
to accommodate that direction.
267
September 6, 2005
Mayor Hutchinson asked if an Emergency Ordinance could be considered at the next meeting to
temporarily amend the Code. Deputy City Attorney Eckman replied in the affirmative.
Mayor Hutchinson stated the City had received from the National Mayor's Association information
that data was being collected about the availability of homes. He stated the City would be collecting
data about the availability of living spaces for evacuees. City Manager Atteberry stated the surplus
vehicles referred to by Ms. Williams were vehicles that had been used by Police Services and were
scheduled to go to auction as surplus vehicles. He stated those vehicles ranged in value from $2,000
to $3,000.
Mayor Hutchinson thanked staff for developing that idea as a way to help with the disaster.
Councilmember Ohlson stated he would like to see the Emergency Ordinance relating to the
occupancy limit be specific to the hurricane situation for a time certain.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein,
Manvel, Ohlson, and Weitkunat. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Citizen Participation
Mayor Hutchinson stated each participant would have two minutes to speak.
Callea-Devi Goetz, 417 East Thunderbird, praised the Fort Collins police force and stated more
police officers were needed.
Jack Harper, 6500 Constellation Drive, spoke in opposition to the southwest enclave annexation.
Brian Schumm, 5948 Colby Street, questioned the Structure Plan amendment and interpretation
process.
Joanne Malara, 2701 Blackstone Court, Kel-Mar strip business owner, opposed the southwest
enclave annexation.
Linda Knowlton, 3230 Monarch Court, opposed the proposed Human Rights Protection Ordinance.
Gail Zirtzlaff, 2046 Manchester Drive, thanked the Council for the Hurricane Katrina Resolution.
She expressed privacy concerns about a City form for complaints about nuisances such as barking
dogs. She stated the form asked for date of birth and other personal information. She also asked
about enforcement of the parking ordinance that allowed a car to remain on the street for 48 hours.
Cheryl Distaso, 135 South Sunset Street, spoke in favor of the Human Rights Protection Ordinance.
Kimberly Salinas, 128 North McKinley Street, supported the Human Rights Protection Ordinance.
September 6, 2005
Jack Margolis, 1719 Essex Drive, spoke regarding rental nuisance issues.
Peter O'Neill, 3346 Egret Court, opposed the Human Rights Protection Ordinance.
Lisa Olivas, 3326 Ponter Way, supported the Human Rights Protection Ordinance.
Dawn Scott, 1025 Wakerobin Lane, supported funding for Dial -a -Ride night service.
Ray Martinez, 4121 Stoneridge Court, opposed reductions to the Police Services staffing budget.
Sarah Ax-Sol, 1200 East Stuart Street, supported funding for transit and Dial -a -Ride.
Ray Czaplewski, 2012 Huntington Circle, spoke regarding the occupancy limit ordinance.
Kathleen Reagan, 411 Park Street, spoke in favor of funding for transit and Dial -a -Ride.
Gary Thompson, South 13 Subdivision property owner, opposed the southwest enclave annexation.
Peter Constable, 1000 West Horsetooth Road Apt. D-1, supported funding for Dial -a -Ride.
Citizen Participation Follow-up
Councilmember Ohlson asked for information regarding privacy issues for those reporting a crime
such as barking dogs and for information on complaints regarding parked vehicles. City Manager
Atteberry stated he would gather information about circumstances in which complainants were
required to provide personal information. He stated staff would follow-up on the parked car issue
referenced by one of the speakers.
Mayor Hutchinson thanked those who spoke about budget issues and stated if funding was to be
restored to a program that another program would have to be cut. City Manager Atteberry stated
copies of the recommended budget were at the public library and that it would be available through
the City's website.
Councilmember Ohlson stated Council would soon be considering the southwest enclave
annexation, the budget and the Human Rights Protection Ordinance.
Agenda Review
City Manager Atteberry stated there were no changes to the published agenda.
Ray Martinez, 4121 Stoneridge Court, withdrew item #18 Resolution 2005-097 Setting the Dates
of the Public Hearings on the 2006 and 2007 Proposed City of Fort Collins Biennial Budget from
the Consent Calendar.
September 6, 2005
Councilmember Ohlson withdrew item #15 Resolution 2005-094 Updating the List of Names For
Arterial and Collector Streets from the Consent Calendar.
CONSENT CALENDAR
6. Consideration and Approval of the Regular Council Meeting Minutes of August 16 2005
7. Second Readine of Ordinance No. 085, 2005, Amendina Various Provisions of the Fort
Collins Traffic Code.
This legislative session the Colorado General Assembly amended certain statutory
provisions relating to traffic regulations. At the time of the adoption of the Traffic Code, it
was the understanding of staff and Council that the Traffic Code would most likely be
subject to future amendments, not only for the purpose of clarification and correction of
errors, but also for the purpose of ensuring that the Traffic Code remains consistent with
state traffic laws. This Ordinance, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on
August 16, 2005, will make several such amendments.
8. Postponement of Items Relating to the State Highway 14 — East Frontage Road Annexation
and Zoning to the Regular Council Meeting of November 15, 2005
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 086, 2005, Annexing Property Known as the State
Highway 14 — East Frontage Road Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 087, 2005, Amending the Zoning Map of the City
of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the
State Highway 14 — East Frontage Road Annexation to the City of Fort Collins,
Colorado.
These items have been postponed in order to allow for further discussions relating to
property access issues.
9. Postponement of Items Relating to the Waterdale Annexation and Zoning to the Regular
Council Meeting of November 15, 2005.
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 088, 2005, Annexing Property Known as the
Waterdale Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 089, 2005, Amending the Zoning Map of the City
of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the
Waterdale Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado.
These items have been postponed in order to allow for further discussions relating to
property access issues.
270
September 6, 2005
10. Items Relating to the Timberline Road. Drake to Prospect Project and the Creation of
Timberline and Prospect Special Improvement District (SID) No 94
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 090, 2005, Relating to the Creation and
Organization of the Timberline and Prospect Special Improvement District No. 94
and Providing for the Construction of Improvements Therein.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 095, 2005 Amending Section 22-111 of the City
Code Pertaining to the Issuance of Bonds for Special Improvement Districts.
C. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 091, 2005, Authorizing Acquisition by Eminent
Domain Proceedings of Certain Lands Necessary to Construct Public Improvements
in Connection with the Timberline Road, Drake Road to Prospect Road Project.
The Timberline Road, Drake to Prospect Project is the most heavily congested intersection
in the City. In the absence of any City capital improvement funding for this intersection, two
impacted developers are electing to privately fund these improvements in order to proceed
with their development projects. These developers are the majority property owners and
have proposed the initiation of a special improvement district to distribute a portion of the
costs through assessments to other undeveloped property in the area benefitted by the
improvements. The creation of a Special Improvement District will spread the cost of the
APF improvements to all undeveloped property which benefits from the construction.
Ordinance Nos. 090, 095, and 091, 2005, were unanimously adopted on First Reading on
August 16, 2005.
11. Items Relating to Placing Proposed Charter Amendments on the November 1 2005 Ballot
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 093, 2005, Submitting to a Vote of the Registered
Electors of the City of Fort Collins a Proposed Amendment to Article II of the City
Charter, Pertaining to Publication of Ordinances.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 094, 2005, Submitting to a Vote of the Registered
Electors of the City of Fort Collins a Proposed Amendment to Article VIII of the
City Charter, Pertaining to the Board of Elections.
These Ordinances, which were unanimously adopted on First Reading on August 16, 2005,
place individual Charter amendments on the November 1, 2005 Special Election ballot.
12. First Reading of Ordinance No. 096 2005 Appropriating Proceeds from the Issuance of City
of Fort Collins Colorado Wastewater Utili1y Enterprise,Sewer Revenue Refunding Bonds
Series 2005, dated October 3. 2005, in the Maximum Aggregate Principal Amount of
$11,900,000, in the Wastewater Utility Fund
The Board of the Wastewater Utility Enterprise (the 'Board") will be considering at its next
271
September 6, 2005
meeting, which is scheduled to take place after the regular September 6, 2005, Council
meeting, Ordinance No. 4, of the Board of the Wastewater Utility Enterprise, which
authorizes the issuance of City of Fort Collins Colorado, Wastewater Utility Enterprise,
Sewer Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2005, Dated October 3, 2005, in the Maximum
Aggregate Principal Amount of $11,900,000 (the "Bonds"). The Bonds will be issued to
refund, pay and discharge the outstanding Sewer Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 1995.
The City will be paying off higher cost bonds with new bonds that will have lower interest
rates. The final rates will be determined by selling the Bonds at a competitive sale on
October 3, 2005. The City Charter authorizes the City to form enterprises to issue municipal
revenue bonds and, since 1992, all utility bonds have been issued by the appropriate utility
enterprise. However, the Charter grants only the Council the power to appropriate the funds.
Therefore, this action by the Council is necessary in order to appropriate the bond proceeds,
approved by the Board, for the Wastewater Utility. Authorizing the issuance of the bonds
and appropriating the proceeds are both necessary to complete the bond transaction.
13. First Readine of Ordinance No. 097, 2005, Authorizing the City anner to Extend the
Term of the Agreement Between the City and CH2M Hill. Inc for En ineerine Services at
the Fort Collins -Loveland Municipal Airport
There is an urgent need to conduct design work for airport improvements which will be
completed during next summer's construction season. In order to obtain the most favorable
construction costs it is necessary to solicit bids over the winter months. Due to the
complexity of the project the design work needs to commence as soon as possible and will
take approximately 6 months to complete.
The current Agreement with CH2M Hill expires this October 31, 2005. In order to start this
work now and continue work beyond the Agreement expiration term it is necessary to extend
the term of the Agreement for one year to October 31, 2006. The funds necessary to
complete the design fees have already been adopted in the 2005 Airport budget; 95% of the
costs are recovered from an existing FAA Grant and 2.5% of the Airport's match will come
from a Grant from the State of Colorado.
14. First Reading of Ordinance No. 098, 2005, Authorizing an Option to Lease and a
Subsequent Lease of City -Owned Property at City Park North Ballfield to New Cingular
Wireless PCS, LLC, for the Location of Antenna Equipment and Related Facilities Along
With an Associated Easement.
Cingular Wireless Company contacted the Parks Division to discuss the possible lease of
land for an antenna and related equipment to enhance its cellular phone service. The
property to be leased and a related utility casement are located in City Park, north of the
ballfields. Council has approved similar leases for Sprint, VoiceStream, and Cricket in the
same area. Through a series of negotiations, staff has developed a proposed Option and
Structure Lease Agreement that meet the needs of the City and Cingular. Maps of the
location of the antenna and related equipment are attached as an exhibit to the Ordinance.
272
September 6, 2005
15. Resolution 2005-094 Updating the List of Names For Arterial and Collector Streets
Section 24-91 of the City Code requires that all new arterials and collectors be named from
the official list of street names approved by the City Council. The list is adopted by the City
Council and names can be added only by resolution of the City Council.
This Resolution represents an update of the official list of eligible street names in order to
keep current with the pace of new development. With the support of Police Services, Poudre
Fire Authority, U.S. Postal Service and Larimer Emergency Telephone Authority, staff
recommends that four new proper names be added to the list at this time. In addition, 11
names are to be deleted for having already been used in the Fort Collins Growth
Management Area since the last update. Finally, seven names are to be deleted because they
have already been used in other communities in the emergency calling area.
16. Resolution 2005-095 Renaming Coffey Parkway to William Neal Parkway and Revising the
List of Names for Arterial and Collector Streets Accordingly.
Changing a street name requires the passage of a resolution by City Council. The City has
been asked to rename "Coffey" Parkway to "William Neal" Parkway as a memorial to
William L. Neal. This street is located in Rigden Farm and a major segment has recently
been constructed. As a collector street, the name must be selected from the official list
approved by Council in accordance with Section 24-91 of the City Code. A resolution
adding the name of William L. Neal to this list has also been prepared for Council's
consideration.
17. Resolution 2005-096 Approvingthe he Stipulated Determination of Vested Rights Between the
City and Village Homes of Colorado. Inc.
Village Homes of Colorado, Inc. is the developer of Willow Brook and has almost completed
the project, but there remains about 13 acres to be developed. The plan has expired.
Accordingly, Village Homes has filed an application for a Determination of Vested Rights
under Division 2.13 of the Land Use Code and the City Manager and City Attorney agree
that the application for Determination of Vested Rights should be granted. The proposed
resolution would formalize the determination of vested rights.
18. Resolution 2005-097 Setting the Dates of the Public Hearings on the 2006 and 2007
Proposed City of Fort Collins Biennial Budget.
The City will be adopting a biennial budget for the years 2006 and 2007. The City Charter
requires that the City Council set a date for a public hearing on the proposed budget. This
Resolution sets that hearing date for the Council meeting of September 20, 2005. In an effort
to receive further public input, this Resolution also sets an additional hearing date for the
October 4, 2005 Council meeting.
273
September 6, 2005
19. Routine Deeds and Easements.
A. Deed of Easement Dedication from Board of Governors of the Colorado State
University System by and through Colorado State University, fora waterline, located
at Hughes Stadium. Monetary consideration: $0 (Water supply loop will be
transferred to the City). (See Map #1). Staff: Kathy Valdez.
B. Deed of Dedication for Right -of -Way from the City of Fort Collins to Legacy
Development Corporation for public street purposes, located on Old Legacy Road
in the Homestead PUD. Monetary consideration: $10. (See Map #2). Staff: Susan
Joy.
C. Easement Dedication from College and Mountain Properties, LLC, for a building
facade easement, located at 107 North College Avenue. Monetary consideration: $0.
(See Map #3). Staff: Patrick Rowe.
D. Easement Dedication from Mike McCormick, for a building facade easement,
located at 132 North College Avenue. Monetary consideration: $0. (See Map #4).
Staff: Patrick Rowe.
E. Revocable Sign and Landscape Easement Agreement from Centerra Properties West,
LLC, located at the Fort Collins -Loveland Airport. Monetary consideration: $0.
(See Map #5). Staff: Patrick Rowe.
***END CONSENT***
Ordinances on Second Reading were read by title by City Clerk Krajicek.
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 085, 2005, Amending Various Provisions of the Fort
Collins Traffic Code.
10. Items Relating to the Timberline Road, Drake to Prospect Project and the Creation of
Timberline and Prospect Special Improvement District (SID) No. 94.
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 090, 2005, Relating to the Creation and
Organization of the Timberline and Prospect Special Improvement District No. 94
and Providing for the Construction of Improvements Therein.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 095, 2005 Amending Section 22-111 of the City
Code Pertaining to the Issuance of Bonds for Special Improvement Districts.
C. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 091, 2005, Authorizing Acquisition by Eminent
Domain Proceedings of Certain Lands Necessary to Construct Public Improvements
in Connection with the Timberline Road, Drake Road to Prospect Road Project.
274
September 6, 2005
11. Items Relating to Placing Proposed Charter Amendments on the November 1, 2005 Ballot.
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 093, 2005, Submitting to a Vote of the Registered
Electors of the City of Fort Collins a Proposed Amendment to Article II of the City
Charter, Pertaining to Publication of Ordinances.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 094, 2005, Submitting to a Vote of the Registered
Electors of the City of Fort Collins a Proposed Amendment to Article VIII of the
City Charter, Pertaining to the Board of Elections.
Ordinances on First Reading were read by title by City Clerk Krajicek.
12. First Reading of Ordinance No. 096, 2005, Appropriating Proceeds from the Issuance of City
of Fort Collins, Colorado, Wastewater Utility Enterprise, Sewer Revenue Refunding Bonds,
Series 2005, dated October 3, 2005, in the Maximum Aggregate Principal Amount of
$11,900,000, in the Wastewater Utility Fund.
13. First Reading of Ordinance No. 097, 2005, Authorizing the City Manager to Extend the
Term of the Agreement Between the City and CH2M Hill, Inc. for Engineering Services at
the Fort Collins -Loveland Municipal Airport.
14. First Reading of Ordinance No. 098, 2005, Authorizing an Option to Lease, and a
Subsequent Lease of, City -Owned Property at City Park North Ballfield to New Cingular
Wireless PCS, LLC, for the Location of Antenna Equipment and Related Facilities, Along
With an Associated Easement.
24. First Reading of Ordinance No. 099, 2005, Expanding the Boundaries of the Fort Collins,
Colorado Downtown Development Authority and Amending the Plan of Development of the
Authority.
Councilmember Weitkunat made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kastein, to adopt and
approve all items not withdrawn from the Consent Calendar. The vote on the motion was as follows:
Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein, Manvel, Ohlson and Weitkunat. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Staff Reports
City Manager Atteberry reported that the City had won the Governor's Award for Downtown
Excellence from the Colorado Community Revitalization Association for a third year and stated this
year's award recognized the Armstrong Hotel rehabilitation project owned by Steve and Missy
Levinger. He reported on positive feedback from a resident regarding City Engineering employee
Rick Richter and his streets crews. He reported that Officer Robert Younger was recently
recognized for his off -duty efforts in the recovery of a stolen van. He also announced that Interim
Finance Director Chuck Seest had been appointed as the Finance Director.
275
September 6, 2005
Mayor Hutchinson stated it was good to hear positive things about the City and its employees.
Councilmember Reports
Councilmember Kastein reported on Metropolitan Planning Organization discussions regarding the
process for development of the next regional transportation plan and the Regional Transportation
Authority.
Councilmember Weitkunat reported on Poudre Fire Authority Board of Directors discussions on a
reorganization making the Mayor the chair of the five -member Board, the budget, renovation of the
"burn" building used for training, and the remodeling of Station 5. She also spoke regarding the
positive working relationship between the Fire Department and the Police Department.
Mayor Hutchinson reported that a joint quarterly meeting of the Board of County Commissioners
and the City Councils of Loveland and Fort Collins was held on August 31 at the Fort Collins -
Loveland airport to tour the facilities and discuss the master plan update.
Resolution 2005-098
Amending the "Framework Overlay Plan"
which is a Part of the East Mulberry Corridor Plan, Adopted
The following is staffs memorandum on this item.
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The East Mulberry Corridor Plan (EMCP) was adopted September 17, 2002. The Plan shows two
scenarios for the Downtown Airpark. One assumes continuing operations as an airport while the
other indicates redevelopment. The redevelopment scenario is referred to in the EMCP as the
"Framework Overlay Plan "and calls fora combination oflndustrial (60%) and Employment (40%)
zoning to be placed on the Airpark property.
An application has been received to amend the Framework Overlay Plan so that the entire
Downtown Airpark would be placed in the Employment zone, thus eliminating the Industrial zone.
On May 19, 2005, the Planning and Zoning Board voted 5 to 0 to annex the property but denied the
request to convert the entire 148 acres to Employment zoning. On July 21, 2005, after additional
information was presented to the P & ZBoard, the Board voted 6— 0 to deny the applicant's request
for 100%Employment zoning and retain the original mix oflndustrial and Employment zoning as
called for in the EMCP and shown on the Framework Overlay Plan.
BACKGROUND
The applicant has entered into a purchase contract for the Downtown Airpark. Along with two
abuttingproperties, the applicant is requesting a consolidated annexation of148 acres into the City.
Annexation is not an issue. The applicant is requesting an amendment that would, upon annexation,
place the entire 148 acres into the Employment zone. By recommending denial of the applicant's
276
September 6, 2005
request, the Planning and Zoning Board preserves the adopted Framework Overlay Plan which
calls for a mix of Industrial (60% - northwest portion) and Employment (40% - southeast portion)
zoning.
Summary of the Planning and Board's Recommendations
In matters pertaining to annexation, zoning and amendments to adopted sub -area plans, the
Planning and Zoning Board is authorized only to make recommendations to City Council. Final
zoning authority rests with Council. The Board took the following actions:
A. May 19, 2005:
Voted 5 — 0 to recommend annexation of the subject parcel.
Voted 4 — I to recommend the parcel be zoned Industrial.
B. July 21, 2005:
At the request of the applicant, the Board considered additional
information and voted 6 — 0 to recommend the parcel be zoned
Industrial (60%) and Employment (40%) in accordance with the East
Mulberry Corridor Plan Framework Overlay Plan.
Compatibility — Helicopter Operations Vis-It-vis Employment Land Uses
The central issue is compatibility between existing and future land uses. There are more
opportunities for a variety of residential uses under Employment versus Industrial zoning. The
applicant testified that mixed -use dwelling units located above or adjacent to non-residential land
uses, could possibly be placed at the northwest end of the property whereas the commercial and
industrial uses would be placed closer to the Mulberry Street and Timberline Road intersection.
The P & ZBoard considered the testimony from two existing businesses associated with helicopter
aviation. These businesses do not rely on the Downtown Airpark for aviation operations. While
these two businesses have enjoyed the open air space provided by the Downtown Airpark, they do
not depend upon it. Rather, they are capable of take -off and landing from their own heliports on
their individual private property. (Private heliports are governed by the Federal Aviation
Administration. For example, Poudre Valley Hospital has a heliport on the east side of its
property.)
Consequently, the two businesses are keenly interested in the potential land uses on the re -developed
Airpark property. According to these businesses, the most troubling potential land use is
residential, particularly mid -rise structures which could possibly impede operations. In addition,
the close proximity ofresidential to helicopter operations could lead to noise complaints fromfuture
residents.
277
September 6, 2005
Timing of When to Address the Compatibility Issue
The P & Z Board indicated that the best time to address the compatibility issue is now at the time
of annexation and zoning of the property. Since each zone district includes a specific list of
permitted uses, the zoning of the property is the key step in setting the stage for compatibility
between existing and future land uses.
In contrast, the applicant contends the best time to tackle compatibility issues would be at the time
of Overall Development Plan and Project Development Plan. Since compatibility issues can be
influenced by such design attributes as site planning, layout of the streets and building setbacks, it
would be presumptuous to assume that compatibility issues cannot be resolved through a logical and
orderly design process that involves citizen participation, review by Staff and consideration by the
Hearing Officer or Planning or Zoning Board.
Mix of Residential Land Uses Allowed In the Industrial and Employment Zones
There is a difference in the extent of allowable residential development between the Industrial and
Employment zones.
Industrial Zone:
Mixed -Use D. U. *
Boarding & Rooming Houses
Employment Zone:
Mixed -Use D. U. *
Single Family Detached
Two -Family
Multi -Family
Mobile Home Parks
Group Homes
Boarding & Rooming Houses
* A "Mixed -Use Dwelling Unit" is defined as:
"Dwelling, mixed -use shall mean a dwelling that is located on the same lot or in the same
building as a nonresidential land use. "
The Industrial zone does not distinguish between a primary use and a secondary use. The
Employment zone, however, takes all the permitted land uses and divides them between primary and
secondary categories. Among all the permitted residential dwelling units in the Employment zone,
mixed -use dwelling unit is the only one designated as a primary use. All others are secondary.
Under both I and E zones, mixed -use dwelling units are permitted, and in the
E zone they are granted primary status.
The Employment zone allows a greater diversity of allowable residential
uses.
278
September 6, 2005
While the E zone allows a greater diversity, all dwelling units, with the
exception of mixed -use, are considered secondary. Secondary uses in the E
zone are not permitted to occupy more than 25% of the total gross area of
the development plan.
For the applicant, the logical conclusion is that mixed -use dwelling units are
permitted in both zones. Therefore, the desired Employment zoning would
be roughly equivalent to Industrial zoning.
For the businesses associated with helicopter operations, there is no
guarantee, at this stage in the process, that mixed -use dwelling units will be
the only housing type associated with the project. Employment zoning
clearly permits a diversity of housing types including multi family which
could result in three-story buildings. Therefore, Employment zoning
represents a risk that could lead to operational and compatibility issues.
Planning and Zoning Board Deliberation
The P & Z Board debated the merits of maximizing protection for the helicopter businesses
(Industrial zoning) versus maximizingfexibilityforthe applicant (Employment zoning). The Board
indicated that at this stage in the process, zoning is the only issue at hand. The Board cannot, at
this stage, address issues that are more related to site specific design and other attributes that could
contribute to mitigation ofimpacts associated with development. Zoning is not the appropriate tool
to reach such a level of refinement as to satisfy the parties.
The applicant offered such mitigation measures as granting avigational easements for take -offs and
landings, and requiring residential purchasers to sign a disclosure statement acknowledging the
presence ofhelicopter operations. Further, evidence was submitted regarding relative decibel levels
associated with helicopter operations. Finally, the applicant indicated that building placement,
height restrictions and strategic placement of parking lots and stormwater detention ponds could
all contribute to achieving compatibility.
The Board considered all the testimony and decided in favor of retaining the Framework Overlay
Plan that calls for Industrial zoning on 60% of the northwest portion of the parcel and Employment
zoning on 40% of the southeast portion of the parcel. This preserves the EMCP as written and
builds in, at this time, a cautious approach to land use that favors industrial -related activities.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends upholding the Planning and Board decision to retain the mix of Industrial and
Employment zoning as indicated on the EMCP Framework Overlay Plan. Staff originally
recommended approval of the applicant's request for overall Employment zoning at both the May
19th and July 21 st Planning and Zoning Board hearings.
Upon considering the public testimony and weighing the Board's deliberations at both hearings,
279
September 6, 2005
Staff now concludes that the proposed plan amendment may create compatibility issues with the
surroundingproperty owners. The cautious approach would be to install some level ofcompatibility
through zoning at this time.
Throughout the formulation of the EMCP and subsequent discussions since adoption, Staffassumed
the helicopter operators were directly associated with the Downtown Airpark. Staffalso assumed
that with the purchase option and potential re -development of the Airparkproperty, these businesses
would relocate along with all other aircraft -related users. With the recent realization that the
existing helicopter businesses intend to remain in their present locations, Staffs recommendation
is consistent with the P & Z Board's concern regarding issues of compatibility.
All parties recognize that placement into a zone district is but one tool in determining the
development of the subject 148 acres. In particular, the Board asked if there was a process by
which there could be a blending of the Industrial and Employment land uses subject to meeting
certain compatibility requirements. In response, Staff replied that such a process would be a
combination ofboth zoning and masterplanning and theseprocesses cannot be achieved at the same
time. Only upon submittal ofa future Overall Development Plan and Project Development Plan can
there be a thorough discussion and refinement of compatibility issues. "
City Manager Atteberry introduced the agenda item.
Ted Shepard, Chief Planner, presented background information regarding the agenda item. He
stated this was a request to amend the component of the Structure Plan called the East Mulberry
Corridor Plan. He stated the request related to how to deal with the future redevelopment of the
privately owned downtown airpark. He stated the existing plan was a combination of zoning of
about 60% Industrial on the northwest part of the runway and about 40% Employment toward the
southeast. He stated the proposal was to convert the zoning to 100% Employment. He stated staff
and the Planning and Zoning Board were recommending that the status quo be retained. He stated
the applicant was proposing a Resolution that would convert the 60% Industrial to Employment.
He presented visual information (2004 data) relating to the Buildable Lands Inventory showing those
portions of the City and the Growth Management Area zoned Industrial and Employment that were
vacant. He stated there were 841 acres of vacant Employment and 974 acres of vacant Industrial
land. He stated there were therefore 1,815 vacant acres zoned I and E within the Growth
Management Area. He stated if the 80 acres zoned Industrial in the airpark were zoned Employment
that there would be a loss of about 8% of the vacant Industrial land. He stated the Industrial zone
would allow two residential land uses and that the Employment zone would allow a broader range
of residential dwelling units. He stated at the Planning and Zoning Board meetings concerns were
heard that the diversity of residential in the Employment zone was a point of concern for ongoing
private sector helicopter operations with private heliports abutting the airport. He stated the
Industrial zone was less oriented to mixed uses and catered strictly to industrial land uses, while the
Employment zone had more mixed uses and more aesthetic requirements. He stated staff had
changed its recommendation because of the persuasiveness of the public testimony at the Planning
and Zoning Board meetings relating to the independent helicopter operations. He stated the issues
of compatibility must be addressed at some point and that the Board was comfortable in taking a
September 6, 2005
position to establish some level of compatibility at the early stages of the time line i.e. at the
annexation and zoning stage.
Lloyd Goff, the developer of Airpark Village, stated he was presenting a proposal for a public -
private partnership to create a research and development industry on this site that would have a
"huge ripple effect" on the City. He stated there would be 4,000 research jobs at the proposed
development and 10,000 supporting and development jobs in the local community. He stated there
would be an approximately $19 million annual economic impact at build -out. He stated oil prices
would drive gasoline prices to over $5 per gallon in the near future and that "massive mitigation"
would be required. He stated there was a need for a research center focusing on "next generation"
infrastructures such as transportation, energy, water recycling, security, telecommunications, etc.
He stated the City's contribution would be to establish "incentive policies" such as appropriate
zoning, free trade, and special districts. He stated such a partnership would allow the project to be
marketed nationally.
Alan Krcmarik, Financial Consultant, stated this project could be an "economic catalyst" for the
City. He stated the figures he would present were "conservative." He stated his financial analysis
included use taxes that would be collected on construction materials and other City fees and permits
that would be due up -front. He stated the analysis also included the property tax at full build -out
and the sales tax that would be generated by commercial uses on this site, as well as the income that
would be generated by the new jobs at the site. He stated there would be additional sales tax from
the "multiplier effect" and that there would be additional property taxes if a Metropolitan District
was used. He stated use taxes would amount to about $850,000 and that impact fees and permits
would generate about $5.6 million for the City. He stated one-time fees associated with construction
of industrial/commercial uses would amount to about $6.5 million. He stated this project had the
potential to be larger and denser than the Lifestyle Center project. He stated based on the City staff
work done on the Lifestyle Center and adjusting upward roughly two times the $6.5 million figure
was determined for this project at build -out. He stated the project could actually be 3-4 times larger
at full intensity. He stated the residential uses were straightforward. He stated use taxes would
amount to about $1.8 million and that fees and permits were estimated at $14.7 million, amounting
to about $16.5 million in up -front money. He stated the property tax revenue for all taxing
jurisdictions would amount to about $2.6 million and that the City's share would be about $284,000.
He stated there would be about $1.9 million in property tax for all taxing jurisdictions for residential
properties, and that the City's share would be about $216,000. He stated this project would be the
first of its kind to meet the densities contemplated in City Plan. He stated sales tax from 300,000
square feet of retail on the site could amount to about $225 per retail square foot.
Susanne Durkin -Schindler, Airpark Village professional team member, asked the Council to amend
the East Mulberry Corridor Plan and the Framework Overlay Plan with regard to the airpark site.
She stated the project would eliminate heavy industrial; recycling facilities; RV, boat and truck
storage facilities; outdoor storage facilities; resource extraction plants; junkyards; airports;
transportation terminals; farm and implement; and heavy equipment sales. She stated most of these
eliminated uses would likely not be approved by City Council for this area given the fact that the
site was between two residential neighborhoods (Andersonville/San Cristo and Dry Creek Mobile
Home Park). She stated the East Mulberry Corridor Plan anticipated that any redevelopment on the
281
September 6, 2005
airport site would be market driven and privately initiated. She stated expanding the Employment
zone would give the ability to arrange the site plan to truly function as a research and development
center. She stated the more "neighborhood friendly" uses should not be packed into the 53 acres at
the south end surrounded by industrial uses. She stated it was essential to expand the Employment
zone to create an employment center in line with the "market reality" of mixed use development
close to a civic center offering arts, culture and demographic diversity. She stated this amendment
was consistent with the goals and policies of City Plan because it would provide revitalization and
economic growth in a transitional area, promote public welfare by creating jobs and housing in
balance, integrate with existing residential areas, and place new residential proximity to destination
centers. She stated this development would improve the appearance of the area, bring more
employment, avoid big box and industrial uses, and be a quality development. She stated Airpark
Village would meet a stated land use goal of the East Mulberry Corridor Plan and provide
employment opportunities in the area. She stated the project would bring "life and energy" to the
area.
Troy Jones, Airpark Village project team, stated this was a "plan refinement' rather than a plan
amendment. He stated City staff supported the proposal until recently. He presented visual
information showing the area proposed to be mixed use and the area proposed for a research and
development park. He stated there would be a hotel and convention center on the research and
development site and that there would be medical care and senior housing in mixed use buildings
on the northern area. He stated a "flip flop" of the proposed plan would not be good planning
because residential uses could be done only if there was a plan amendment done. He stated the
intent was to do mixed use dwellings. He stated the applicant would be willing to do conditional
zoning to eliminate all residential uses except for mixed use dwelling units. He stated there was an
extensive neighborhood outreach process on this project, including six public meetings.
Mikal Torgerson, Airpark Village project team, stated the main concern expressed at the Planning
and Zoning Board meetings was the helicopter issue. He stated heliports were allowed in both the
Industrial and Employment zones. He stated the heliport issue was therefore not a zoning issue and
that compatibility issues could be addressed at other points in the process (during the ODP and PDP
reviews). He stated the developer had been working with the helicopter operations to address safety
issues related to helicopter "glide slopes." He stated the developer was proposing a flight path area
for helicopters to address that safety concern. He stated the downtown airpark would close
regardless of whether the proposed project succeeded. He stated this could also mean that airpark
related businesses would have to relocate to other airports. He stated Front Range Helicopter had
already indicated that flight training would be moved to the Fort Collins -Loveland Airport. He
stated Geo-Seis Helicopters had to land on the runway and taxi into the helipad because of prop
wash and that this operation was clearly tied to the Airport. He stated Century Helicopter used
private property and also used the Airport as part of its glide slope. He stated these heliports were
dependent on the airport for glide slope and that this need would be accommodated by the Airpark
Village project. He stated the applicant was also proposing an avigation covenant that would put
residents and businesses on notice that there were adjacent helicopter operations.
Loren Maxey, original airpark shareholder and airpark director since 1968, stated he had owned a
business in the airpark area since 1969. He stated a change was being requested in the upper part
282
September 6, 2005
of the airport to accommodate redevelopment. He stated there were "serious drawbacks" to keeping
Industrial zoning for that area. He stated the area was not developed with sufficient street width and
lots to accommodate industrial uses. He stated adequate truck access was necessary for industrial
uses and that there would be no way to get such access for the upper end of the airport because it
was too far removed from the arterials. He asked that the Council recognize the need for this
amendment to Employment zoning in that area.
Steve Goldberg, Treasurer/Board member and tax counsel for the Downtown Airpark, stated during
his tenure there had been significant losses that had forced the sale of fixed assets and real property
to continue the support for a "declining business." He stated there were significant property tax
payments that could not be supported by the revenue. He stated it was likely that revenue would
continue to decrease due to high fuel prices. He urged the Council to consider the amendment
proposal.
Mayor Hutchinson stated the agenda material indicated that the Planning and Zoning Board felt that
the only issue at this point was the zoning. He asked if that should be the Council's focus as well.
Shepard stated at the May Planning and Zoning Board hearing the Board also considered the
annexation of the property and that the Board voted in favor of recommending annexation. He
stated staff would bring back to Council another initiating Resolution for the annexation. He stated
the zoning issue was a separate matter.
Councilmember Weitkunat asked when the East Mulberry Corridor Plan was developed as a subarea
plan. Shepard stated the plan was developed in 2002.
Councilmember Weitkunat asked if these parcels were looked at geographically i.e. in isolation,
during work on the plan. She asked if this parcel was specifically discussed. Pete Wray, City
Planner, stated two key areas were identified for future Employment and that an expansion of
Employment uses was identified for the intersection area. He stated the main framework plan for
the existing airpark area recognized the airport operation and showed predominantly Industrial
zoning through the airport property. He stated the framework plan overlay map was determined to
apply in the event that the airport would eventually sell for redevelopment. He stated the basis of
the determination was future land use, the opportunity to coordinate future street connections
through this property and the future coordination of storm drainage to the Dry Creek channel. He
stated the framework plan overlay map showed a portion of the Timberline/Mulberry area as an
expanded Employment hub and the remaining airport property as Industrial. He stated staff looked
at various land use options that would potentially support the applicant's proposal and that those
options considered included Medium Density Mixed Use Neighborhood and Community
Commercial. He stated staff initially determined that the extension of Employment on the remainder
of the property made the most sense for what was being proposed with this potential project.
Councilmember Weitkunat asked if this area was incorporated into the Structure Map. Wray stated
the original framework plan adopted as part of the East Mulberry Corridor Plan set the stage for the
recommendation to amend the City's Structure Plan Map for the whole plan area. He stated the
framework overlay map was for future implementation in the event that the Airport redeveloped.
Councilmember Weitkunat stated "nothing was set in stone" in the planning process. She stated the
283
September 6, 2005
independent helicopter operations were an important consideration. She asked if there was a map
showing the surrounding residential and industrial uses. She stated she recalled discussion about
Industrial being appropriate due to the railroad tracks and other surrounding uses. She asked if
Industrial was appropriate or inappropriate. Wray presented visual information showing existing
and future residential uses, manufactured home areas, vacant land (future Low Density Mixed Use
Neighborhood), and existing mobile home parks. He stated the primary industrial zoning was in the
middle area south of the Airport and that there were vacant lands on the northwest side of the
Airport. He stated there was Commercial zoning along the corridor.
Councilmember Weitkunat asked about the importance ofproperly positioning the differently zoned
areas in terms of planning. She asked why the proposed E and I zoning were appropriate. Wray
stated the original vision and policy direction from the East Mulberry Corridor Plan identified the
Timberline and Mulberry intersection as one of the primary entryway or gateway hubs of the
corridor. He stated there was a lot of support through the process to incorporate or integrate new
Employment land us in and around that intersection area. He stated this would represent more than
150 acres of future Employment either outside of the airport or within an airport area that could be
redeveloped. He stated one of the primary differences between Employment and Industrial was the
allowance for residential. He stated there were more opportunities and options for mixed use
residential in Employment.
Councilmember Weitkunat asked if it was correct that the applicant still wanted to use Employment
to build a research and development center and that the question was the zoning for the other end
of the property and the appropriateness of residential. Shepard suggested that the staff and the
applicant should both answer the question. He stated the Planning and Zoning Board was concerned
that the Employment zone, despite the public testimony on behalf of this particular applicant, would
allow a greater range of residential. Mr. Torgerson stated the intent was to have a mixed use
environment on the northwest portion of the property, including some mixed use residential. He
stated the Board's concern was that Employment would allow other types of residential uses. He
stated the applicant was open to conditional zoning that would allow the entire parcel to be E with
the only allowed residential use being mixed use residential. He stated he believed that this would
presumably address the Planning and Zoning Board's and staff's concerns.
Councilmember Weitkunat stated mixed use residential was already allowed in the I zone. Mr.
Torgerson stated E zoning was more conducive to the vision for the entire property. He suggested
approval with conditional zoning.
Councilmember Weitkunat stated one of the controversies related to the helicopter operations near
residential and asked that this be addressed. Mr. Jones stated the Employment and Industrial zones
both allowed mixed use dwellings but that such dwellings were allowed in a different way in the two
zones. He stated the Industrial zone allowed up to 50% of the square footage of the building to be
residential on upper floors directly over a primary Industrial use. He stated the Employment zone
allowed no more than 25% secondary use and that the mixed uses could be located anywhere within
the development. He stated the difference was therefore in the calculation of how much mixed use
would be allowed and that Employment would allow more.
September 6, 2005
Councilmember Weitkunat asked if the idea was to be able to use a second or third story to
accommodate residential in the Employment zone. Mr. Jones replied in the affirmative and stated
the other benefit was that there would not be a 50% limit for the mixed use.
Councilmember Weitkunat asked if the helicopter operations were concerned about the height of
buildings and the increased residential presence. Mr. Jones stated it was his understanding that the
helicopter operators' main concern was the potential for noise complaints from the residential units.
He stated the building height safety issue had been addressed in the presentation regarding the flight
path.
Councilmember Kastein stated it appeared that staff believed that from a master planning viewpoint
either option would work and that the main reason for the current staff recommendation was the
helicopter operations. Shepard stated that was correct.
Councilmember Kastein asked if the key issue for the Council was what "harm" a new zone would
bring to an existing zone. He asked what the harm would be to the heliport operations if the zoning
was Employment. Shepard stated the testimony that was heard was that there was a concern with
the glide slope and that staff had not heard that the proposed glide slope was satisfactory to the
heliport operators. He stated the other concern was with future noise complaints i.e. that people
would be "moving to the nuisance." He stated a Code section provided that if residential came to
an industrial area that the burden of buffering would be on the residential developer.
Councilmember Kastein stated he did not see this as a "harm" to the industrial use. Shepard stated
the main concern was with future noise complaints.
Councilmember Kastein asked if there was any way to conclude that the Employment zone would
work next to a heliport. Shepard stated it was not possible to reach such a conclusion until those
issues were addressed in the future planning process. He stated there would be a conceptual site
plan, an illustration of potential open space and building envelopes/heights, and feedback from the
heliport operators.
Councilmember Kastein asked if the "cautious approach" would be better at this point when some
of the issues could be resolved through the development review process. Shepard stated the question
was how to "institutionalize a compatibility process" and that this was the concern of the Planning
and Zoning Board.
Councilmember Brown stated one of the slides indicated that the avigation covenant would limit the
ability of residents to sue over the noise. He stated he had a concern about whether the City could
be "dragged into a lawsuit" if the City approved this project. Deputy City Attorney Eckman stated
he would not be concerned about the City being "dragged" into such a lawsuit. He stated staff
would like to have an opportunity to review the covenant to determine that it would accomplish what
it was represented to do.
Councilmember Brown asked if the residential units and the convention center at this site would be
soundproofed. Wray stated proper design and buffering would take care of sound issues. He stated
285
September 6, 2005
the train whistles in town were at about 110 decibels and that the helicopter noise was at about 100
decibels.
Councilmember Manvel stated it appeared that Century Helicopters was closer to the existing
Employment area than it was to the Industrial area. Shepard stated that was correct.
Councilmember Manvel stated there was therefore a "built-in problem" for any residential. He
stated it was clear that the original zoning overlay made sense and asked if the parcel was only 700-
800 feet wide. He stated he had questions about the feasibility of the development although it was
a "nice vision."
Councilmember Ohlson asked how the applicant's proposal would either fit or not fit with the East
Mulberry Corridor Plan. Wray stated the airport property was about 148 acres and that in the
framework plan overlay the southeastern portion of the property (about 68 acres) would be
Employment with the rest in Industrial. He stated the original framework plan showed
predominantly Industrial to acknowledge the existing airport operation. He stated the Employment
hub was focused around the Timberline intersection, overlapping about 40% of the airport property.
He stated the proposal was for a consolidated parcel of about 148 acres.
Councilmember Ohlson stated plans "should mean something." He asked if there were no helicopter
issues how staff would stand on this issue. Shepard stated the Planning and Zoning Board was
persuaded by the public testimony (primarily from the helicopter operators) at both public hearings.
He stated if that testimony had not occurred that the Board would probably have voted to amend the
plan.
Councilmember Ohlson stated he was interested in knowing the staff s opinion. Greg Byrne, CPES
Director, stated it was a "close call." He stated the two different land use designations were
employment based and were necessary for economic health. He stated staff normally would not
advise the Council to accept conditional zoning but that this was a fairly large parcel. He stated this
kind of situation was seen on Harmony Road where there was an Employment zone that allowed
secondary uses. He stated much Employment ground was converted to straight residential
subdivisions with pressure for more. He stated the Harmony Road situation was part of the basis
of the staff s review of this proposal. He stated the current proposal was beginning to sound like
a "win -win" and that it was still a "close call" between E and I zoning. He stated this would be a
judgment call for the Council.
Councilmember Ohlson asked why the helicopter people were not at this hearing. City Manager
Atteberry asked if the helicopter operators were present. Shepard stated Mr. Hanson and Mr. Dean
were the two primary owners of the two businesses that gave input at the two Planning and Zoning
Board hearings and that they were not present at this meeting. City Manager Atteberry asked if they
were informed about this meeting. Shepard replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Ohlson stated he understood that there would be an 8% reduction in Industrial
zoning and that this was a "chunk" given the amount of Industrial remaining in the City. He asked
if that 8% reduction was an issue to staff. Wray stated staff had assessed the overall inventory of
►.
September 6, 2005
Industrial and Employment lands and was comfortable with the loss of Industrial lands. He stated
this proposal would add 80 acres of Employment land. He stated there was a sufficient inventory
of vacant Industrial land in the East Mulberry Corridor, the Mountain Vista area and on East
Prospect.
Mayor Hutchinson asked if having 80 acres more Employment would offset the loss of 8% of
Industrial land. Wray stated both land uses allowed light industrial and that the key difference was
the amount of the residential mix. He stated the Employment designation had the potential to
provide more jobs than the base Industrial designation. He stated there was clear direction from the
East Mulberry Corridor Plan to look at improving the immediate corridor along Highway 14 and to
eventually transition from outdoor storage and older existing industrial buildings to new commercial
and employment uses. He stated the Employment hub would also provide additional opportunities
to bring in office and mixed use employment parks. Mr. Jones stated the loss would be 8% of the
available vacant Industrial land.
Councilmember Weitkunat stated this was a Resolution to amend the framework overlay plan. She
asked if there were criteria to be considering in making such an amendment. Shepard stated there
were criteria in the City Plan principles and policies that provided guidance. He stated those criteria
were included in one of the applicant's slides and were in the Council packet as an attachment to the
May Planning and Zoning Board's staff report.
Councilmember Weitkunat noted that there were two criteria and asked staff to present those criteria.
(Secretary's Note: The Council took a brief recess at this point.)
Shepard read the following criteria for an amendment to a subarea plan into the record: "The
existing City Plan or any other related element thereof (in this case the East Mulberry Corridor Plan)
is in need of the proposed amendment and the proposed plan amendment will promote the public
welfare and will be consistent with the vision, goals, principles and policies of City Plan and
elements thereof."
Councilmember Manvel stated there had been statements pointing out that the Employment zoning
would allow more flexibility for housing. He stated the applicants had stated they did not intend to
build pure residential and would be happy to agree to covenants stating that the primary uses would
not be residential. He stated there had been a lot of discussion in recent years that businesses were
leaving Fort Collins because they could not find a place to locate. He stated he would like to see
some kind of covenant that the project would not be pure residential.
Councilmember Weitkunat asked if that condition would need to be included in the motion. She
stated there was a concern about the glide zone and that should also be addressed to protect existing
uses. She stated there had also been discussion about building in noise covenants for the residential
uses. Shepard stated the Code would require a 25% limitation for secondary uses. He stated for
clarification purposes that what was being proposed was that the residential dwelling units allowed
in the Employment zone would be limited to the mixed use dwelling unit. He stated if the mixed
use dwelling unit was situated and located in accordance with the Code that it would be a primary
287
September 6, 2005
use and not limited by the 25% limitation. He stated there was a strict definition for "mixed use
dwelling unit." Mr. Jones stated if a mixed use dwelling unit was over a secondary use such as a
restaurant it would count as a secondary use and would be restricted under the 25% limitation. He
stated if it was over a primary use such as an office that the use above that primary use would be
exempt from the secondary use 25% requirement.
Councilmember Kastein made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Brown, to adopt Resolution
2005-098.
Councilmember Kastein stated the Planning and Zoning Board recognized the problems with the
Employment zoning. He stated the developers would bring solutions to the table during the
development review process. He stated the Council should defer to the "pull of the market' in this
case. He stated his intent was to adopt the Resolution and let the issues be handled during the
development review process.
Mayor Hutchinson asked if conditional zoning would be appropriate and whether that kind of
compromise would be useful to mitigate some of the problems. Shepard stated staff would consider
that to be useful.
Mayor Hutchinson asked if that would "trump" the process. Shepard stated adding the condition
would restrict to some extent or set a boundary to the development review process.
Councilmember Ohlson stated he had changed his mind as a result of the discussion. He stated it
would be better policy to place minimal requirements on the project. He stated the Planning and
Zoning Board vote was 6-0 against the staff recommendation and that staff changed their minds as
well. He stated he had been convinced of his position because of that but that based on what was
heard at this meeting he would be willing to completely change his position. He stated he would
be more likely support the motion if there was conditional zoning. Deputy City Attorney Eckman
asked if the proposal was that the conditional zoning would be part of the framework overlay plan
amendment or in the zoning ordinance that would come forward to the Council.
Councilmember Ohlson asked for staff suggestions. Deputy City Attorney Eckman stated the Land
Use Code allowed conditional zonings and that in those cases there would be conditions imposed
on the zoning ordinance. He stated if the Resolution was adopted by the Council that the zoning
would need to comply with the amendment. He stated the zoning ordinance would be considered
prior to any development application being filed with the City.
Councilmember Ohlson stated he would also like to hear the planning viewpoint. Byrne agreed with
the recommendation made by the Deputy City Attorney.
Mayor Hutchinson stated it appeared to be the consensus that there be no amendment to the motion.
Councilmember Weitkunat stated the Resolution would amend the framework overlay plan and that
conditional zoning would be considered when the zoning ordinance was presented to the Council.
WN
September 6, 2005
Councilmember Manvel stated he would support the motion. He pointed out that the Planning and
Zoning Board minutes from July 21 contained comments of interest relating to complaints from a
nearby hotel about the helicopters. He stated the new development planned to have a hotel
conference center and would be closer than the other hotel to the heliports. He noted that the
helicopter companies not represented at this Council meeting testified at the Planning and Zoning
Board hearing that they had been growing rapidly and could become major entities. He noted that
there would undoubtedly be complaints from people moving close to the heliports.
Councilmember Kastein stated the avigation agreement should state that there were noisy existing
uses that would probably become noisier. He supported the direction to let everyone work out the
details of the project as it went forward in the process.
Councilmember Weitkunat stated it was important to have plans in place and that these were the
"best guess" for the future. She stated conditions and the community changed and that was why an
amendment process was needed. She stated the closing of the Airport was something that could not
have been predicted and that this was an "exciting direction" for the area.
Mayor Hutchinson stated there did not appear to be any "killer issues" with either I or E zoning and
that conditional zoning was a good approach.
Councilmember Ohlson stated he would support the motion and that he would never take
overturning a 6-0 Planning and Zoning Board decision lightly.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein,
Manvel, Ohlson and Weitkunat. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Ordinance No. 099, 2005,
Expanding the Boundaries of the Fort Collins, Colorado Downtown Development
Authority and Amending the Plan of
Development of the Authority. Adopted on First Reading
The following is staff's memorandum on this item.
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This annexation would expand the boundaries ofthe Fort Collins Downtown Development Authority
(DDA) District to include the following properties:
City of Fort Collins Transportation Services property (bounded by Linden
Street on the West, Vine Drive on the North, Lemay Avenue on the East and
by the New Belgium Brewing property on the south).
2. Platte Valley Lumber, Inc, 725 East Vine Drive.
September 6, 2005
3. The New Belgium Brewing property on the north side of Buckingham from
Linden to Lemay.
4. 33 acres on the north side of East Vine Drive and directly east of the Platte
Valley Lumber property, owned by Judy Kolz of Buckeye LLC.
5. An additional property owned by Judy Kolz located on the south side of
Buckingham Street just east of the Buckingham neighborhood.
BACKGROUND
The Cityproperty is included in the annexation to gain contiguity with the existing DDA boundary.
There is no negative effect to inclusion ofthis parcel within the Authority district. Thefourprivately
owned properties will experience a five mill increase in their property taxes as a result of the
annexation.
The purpose of the annexation is to make available to the proposed Science and Cultural Campus
the use of tax increment financing. The Campus's primary user will be the Rocky Mountain Raptor
Program (currently apart of CSU's veterinary school). Other potential users include the Rocky
Mountain Bird Observatory, Audubon and the Center for Sustainable Living. The DDA Board
believes these uses will contribute to its larger vision of enhancing and expanding the cultural
amenities of the central business district. "
City Manager Atteberry introduced the agenda item.
Chip Steiner, DDA Executive Director, stated staff was asking for Council's approval of an
annexation of properties to the DDA district. He stated the petition was initiated by the Rocky
Mountain Raptor Program. He stated the raptor program needed a new home because it had been
asked to leave the CSU Veterinary School. He stated the program wanted to locate in or close to
the downtown. He stated the program had purchased about 27 acres on the north side of East Vine
Drive. He stated City, Platte Valley Lumber, New Belgium Brewery and Buckeye LLC property
would also included in the annexation. He presented a map showing the properties that would be
included in the DDA. He stated property owners must request or agree to annexation to the DDA
district. He stated there would be no liability to the City. He stated the Council must approve any
annexations and amend the legal description for the district. He stated the Rocky Mountain Raptor
Program was proposing to develop a living museum with raptors as the focus, develop a program
to interpret natural and cultural heritage of the region, and develop educational programs. He stated
the living museum would be modeled after the Sonoran Desert Museum. He listed potential partners
in the project.
Judy Sherpals, 2519 South Shields Street, Rocky Mountain Raptor Program Executive Director,
spoke regarding the conceptual planning process to make this the "best designed, best run" center
of its kind in the country. She stated the plan included indoor and outdoor facilities. She stated
between 20,000 and 40,000 visitors were estimated per year for the initial years and 100,000 visitors
per year once the facility was established. She stated this would benefit the community and attract
290
September 6, 2005
tourists. She stated the center would be self-sustaining. She stated inclusion in the DDA was
requested for tax increment financing.
Councilmember Manvel commented that there was little information about the program in the
Council material. He stated some of the information presented was different than the information
included in the agenda material. He stated minutes of the DDA meeting were not included in the
agenda material and that no financial analysis was being presented. He stated staff needed to do
some more "homework" on this worthwhile project. He noted some of the differences between the
staff presentation and the agenda material and asked how many acres were involved. Steiner stated
there were 27.5 acres.
Councilmember Manvel asked if the property had actually been purchased. Steiner stated the
closing on the purchase had taken place. City Manager Atteberry requested that prior to Second
Reading that the minutes of the DDA meeting be provided to the Council, along with a financial
analysis. Steiner stated there was no financial analysis because of the limited information about the
project at this point and that there was no tax increment impact associated with the annexation.
Councilmember Ohlson stated the Ordinance included a WHEREAS clause indicating that none of
the previous amendments had substantially expanded the size of the district. He stated this
amendment appeared to substantially add to the size of the district. He stated he would like to see
figures showing the percentage of acreage being added to the DDA.
Councilmember Manvel asked for clarification that the tax increment financing had no relationship
to the existing businesses although this would raise their mill levy. Steiner stated there would be
a five mill increase on the properties that would go to the operations of the DDA. He stated this
would be a "fairly insignificant' amount of money. He stated the tax increment would be generated
by projects developed on the property subsequent to its annexation into the DDA. He stated
information about such projects was not known at this time.
Councilmember Weitkunat made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kastein, to adopt
Ordinance No. 099, 2005 on First Reading.
Councilmember Ohlson stated he would vote against the motion because of the lack of quality
information provided to the Council ahead of time. He stated if there were no financial impacts that
the agenda material should indicate that there were none or that they were unknown. He stated he
hoped to receive adequate information prior to Second Reading. He asked if there were criteria for
annexation to the DDA.
Councilmember Weitkunat stated the raw land did not have a value until it was developed in the
DDA. She stated there had been earlier discussions by the previous Council on the Raptor Program
in conjunction with the North College subarea plan discussions and that this was not a "surprise
request." She stated she believed that this was an appropriate project and that annexation was a first
step. She stated some more in-depth information could have been helpful.
291
September 6, 2005
Councilmember Kastein stated he would support the motion and spoke regarding the concept of tax
increment financing. He stated the decision was whether there was a connection to the downtown
and whether the tax increment that would be captured would benefit downtown. He stated it was
clear in this case that it would do that.
Councilmember Manvel stated this was a positive project and that he hoped that this would be a
successful development.
Councilmember Brown stated he was excited about this project and would vote in favor of the
motion.
Councilmember Ohlson stated this was a great project and that he had made his thoughts known
about the process. He stated he hoped to be able to support the project in the future. He stated he
would like to see any criteria for annexation to the DDA.
Mayor Hutchinson stated this project would fit with the community's core values and that he would
support the motion.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein,
Manvel and Weitkunat. Nays: Councilmember Ohlson.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Resolution 2005-094
Uydatin2 the List of Names For Arterial and Collector Streets Adopted
The following is staff s memorandum on this item.
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Section 24-91 of the City Code requires that all new arterials and collectors be named from the
official list ofstreet names approved by the City Council. The list is adopted by the City Council
and names can be added only by resolution of the City Council.
This Resolution represents an update of the official list of eligible street names in order to keep
current with the pace of new development. With the support of Police Services, Poudre Fire
Authority, U.S. Postal Service and Larimer Emergency Telephone Authority, staff recommends that
four new proper names be added to the list at this time. In addition, 11 names are to be deleted for
having already been used in the Fort Collins Growth Management Area since the last update.
Finally, seven names are to be deleted because they have already been used in other communities
in the emergency calling area.
The attached background report provides a briefhistory of changes made to the list since 2000 and
biographical information on the four new names and the three the potentially affected streets.
292
September 6, 2005
BACKGROUND
Two Previous Actions
In the Spring of 2000, City Council updated the official list to delete nine names that had been
previously selected and added seven new names. Of these seven, five were selected to re -name
existing County Roads in the southeast quadrant of the city. The Board of County Commissioners
then approved an action to continue these newly selected names to the limits of the Growth
Management Area. The affected roads were:
County Road 7
Strauss Cabin Road
County Road 9
Ziegler Road
County Road 11
Timberline Road
County Road 32
Carpenter Road
County Road 36
Kechter Road
In August of 2003, City Council again updated the list to delete the five names that had been
previously selected and added 16 new names. Of these 16, six were selected to re -name existing
County roads in the northeast quadrant of the city, five as arterial streets and one state highway.
In addition, four names were selected to name new collector streets. Again, the Board of County
Commissioners approved continuing the newly selected names for the arterials and state highway
to logical termination points both inside and outside the Growth Management Area. The affected
arterial/minor arterial roads were:
County Road 50
County Road 52
County Road 54
County Road 11
County Road 9
State Highway One
Council Action Required
Mountain Vista Drive
Richards Lake Road
Douglas Road
Turnberry Road
Giddings Road
Terry Lake Road
Staff recommends that Council take action on the proposed Resolution to accomplish two things:
(1) delete 11 previously selected names used in the Fort Collins G.M.A. and seven names used in
Loveland, Johnstown and Estes Park, and (2) add four new names.
A. Delete 11 Previously Selected Names Used in Fort Collins G MA
Bar Harbor
Douglas
Giddings
Nancy Gray
Jerome
Maple Hill
Mountain Vista
293
September 6, 2005
Richards Lake
Terry Lake
Thoreau
Turnberry
B. Delete Seven Names Duplicated by Other Cities in 911 Calling Area
Allison
Loveland
Bailey
Loveland/Estes Park
Crawford
Loveland
Evans
Loveland
Miner
Johnstown
Quinn
Johnstown
Steele
Estes Park
C. Add Four New Names:
Joseph N. Allen
Charles E. Brockman
J. W N. (Bill) Fead
William Neal
Brief Biographical Information and Potential Street Location
A. Joseph N. Allen
This name has been offered by the City of Fort Collins Police Services for naming a
collector roadway adjacent to the newfacility, east of Timberline Road and north of Drake
Road. (See attached map) If this roadway is not able to be so named, then the proposed
name shall remain on the list to be eligible for another roadway. Mr. Allen was a police
officer who was killed in the line of duty in 1907. Officer Allen's name has been placed on
the Colorado Law Enforcement Memorial at Camp George West in Golden, Colorado and
on the National Law Enforcement Memorial in Washington D. C.
B. Charles E. Brockman
This name has been offered by the City of Fort Collins Police Services for naming a
collector roadway adjacent to the new facility, east of Timberline Road and north of Drake
Road. (See attached map) If this roadway is not able to be so named, then the proposed
name shall remain on the list to be eligible for another roadway. Mr. Brockman was a
police officer who was killed in the line ofduty in 1911 at the age of52. Officer Brockman's
name was also placed on the Colorado Law Enforcement Memorial and the National Law
Enforcement Memorial.
294
September 6, 2005
C. J.W.N ("Bill')Fead
This name has been offered by several interested citizens in honoring the contributions of
Bill Fead who served on City Council from 1971 to 1975 and as Mayor from 1974 to 1975.
He was a professor of Civil Engineering at Colorado State Universityfrom 1957 until his
retirement in 1995. He served as the head of the Civil Engineering Department from 1963
to 1984. Upon retirement, he was appointed Professor Emeritus. He was a member of the
American Societyfor Engineering Education and the American Society of Civil Engineers
where he served as Colorado Section President. He is widely recognized for his exemplary
record at Colorado State University, including his key role in moving the Department of
Civil Engineering into the national spotlight and in elevating C.S. U. to a leadershipposition
among land grant universities. There is no specific street at this time designated for this
name at this time.
D. William L. Neal
This name has been offered by the friends and colleagues of Bill Neal. With support of the
developers ofRigden Farm, they desire to honor Mr. Neal by renaming an existing collector
street that is presently named "Coffey" Parkway. (See attached map) A Street Name
Change Resolution accompanies this request. (The name "Coffey" will be returned to the
list as an eligible name)
William B. Neal was instrumental in the conceptualization and development ofRigden Farm,
a 303 acre mixed -use neighborhood that was one of the first projects designed under City
Plan in 1999. As a partner in Wheeler Commercial Property Services, he was also
instrumental in the development of the Miramont, Fairbrooke and Brown Farm
neighborhoods as well as Poudre Valley Plaza at Horsetooth and Shields. He served in the
U.S. Army Intelligence, was a planner for the City of Greeley and served on the State
Highway Commission. He was inducted posthumously into the Colorado State University
Center For Real Estate Hall ofFame. In addition to being a widely -respected businessman,
Mr. Neal enjoyed biking, playing guitar, and composing and performing music at Lorimer
County events.
Citizen Participation
A neighborhood information meeting was held on May 26, 2005for the new Police Services Facility
and there were no issues with the proposed street names. Rigden Farm is a developing mixed -use
neighborhood that is being constructed in phases. No specific neighborhood meeting was held to
discuss the potential change from "Coffey" to "William Neal. " There are only two dwelling units
presently addressed off "Coffey" and these are under construction and unoccupied.
Staff Follow -Up Action Item
A. Staff will provide official notification of Council action to the Larimer Emergency
Telephone Authority, Poudre Fire Authority, Police Services, Sheriffs Department,
295
September 6, 2005
outside utility providers and all other entities, public and private, that maintain
mapping data or G.I.S. data. Please note that in the case of a re -naming, the new
street name change does not affect any legal description of real property and that
mail can be delivered to two addresses for a period of one year.
B. The cost of installing new street signs in new subdivision is charged to the developer.
There is no cost to the City. In the case of Police Services, the cost is borne by the
specific capital project f nd.
Ongoing Efforts
With the deletion of 18 names and the addition offour new names, the official list is left with 32
eligible names. Many of these names have been passed over since the inception of the list for a
variety of reasons. For example, developers have consistently passed over "Coffin " (evokes the
image ofthe noun), "Ghent "(diffculttopronounce), "Clammer " (odd -sounding), "Smiley " (evokes
an emotional image), and "House" (evokes the image ofthe noun). While the passing over of these
names is not meant to disparage the contributions of these individuals, city-wide developers have
told us that the likelihood of these names being selected is minimal.
In addition, since 2000, staff has met with residents of the southeast and northeast neighborhoods
regarding new street names and finds that several of the official names simply are not desired as
a public street name. For example, staffhas tried unsuccessfully to re -name a duplicate street name
in southeast Fort Collins (Cambridge Avenue) to one of the existing names on the list. Recent efforts
have failed to gain a consensus on a new name and staff has not brought forward a Cambridge
Avenue Street Name Change Resolution as a result.
In order to broaden the selection of names, staff is preparing to form a committee to come up with
new names to offer City Council. The criteria will be that found in Section 24-91 of the City Code
which was amended in September of2003 to include "names ofnatural areas, naturalfeatures, and
other names ofplaces, things, or deceased persons as the Council may approve. " Staffanticipates
that after Council adoption of new names, the first order of business will be to rename Cambridge
Avenue in southeast Fort Collins as this is a future signalized intersection with Harmony Road in
a highly visible and rapidly developing area. "
City Manager Atteberry stated staff would be available to answer any questions.
Councilmember Ohlson commented that he believed that the process for selecting names was too
"loose" and that the process should be tightened. He stated he would like to see more "scrutiny" of
proposed street names.
Mayor Hutchinson asked if staff had sufficient guidance on how to proceed. City Manager
Atteberry stated staff had sufficient guidance.
Councilmember Weitkunat made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Manvel, to adopt
Resolution 2005-094. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Brown,
296
Hutchinson, Kastein, Manvel, Ohlson and Weitkunat. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Resolution 2005-097
September 6, 2005
Setting the Dates of the Public Hearings on the 2006 and 2007
Proposed City of Fort Collins Biennial Budget, Adopted
The following is staff's memorandum on this item.
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City will be adopting a biennial budget for the years 2006 and 2007. The City Charter requires
that the City Council set a date for a public hearing on the proposed budget. This Resolution sets
that hearing date for the Council meeting of September 20, 2005. In an effort to receive further
public input, this Resolution also sets an additional hearing date for the October 4, 2005 Council
meeting. "
City Manager Atteberry stated staff would be available to answer questions.
Ray Martinez, 4121 Stoneridge Court, stated he pulled this item from the Consent Calendar because
he wanted to encourage the Council to provide more opportunities for citizen input. He suggested
that the Council hold an additional (third) public hearing to discuss important issues such as police
funding. He stated there was a proposal to add a City passport office and that this new service was
not needed. He stated the employees who were being laid off should have a chance to talk about the
impacts.
Neil Hurst, southwest enclave resident, noted that the City was proposing police cuts for 2006-2007
and should not be considering the costly southwest enclave annexation. He stated the City was also
considering other enclave annexations that would require additional police services. He stated there
needed to be more budget hearings to discuss such issues.
Richard Whittie, 842 Wagonwheel Drive, urged the Council to consider having more than two
public hearings on the budget. He stated he was concerned about funding for transit and Dial -a -
Ride.
City Manager Atteberry outlined the budget schedule through November, which included eight
meetings for budget consideration. He stated staff would dedicate as much time as needed so that
Council could make an informed decision. He stated four of the budget meetings were formal
opportunities for public input.
Councilmember Manvel asked if the public hearings on the budget were for both citizen and Council
discussion. Deputy City Manager Jones stated typically the public hearings were reserved for public
comment.
297
September 6, 2005
Councilmember Manvel stated he did not believe that the need for additional discussion was driven
by the new budget process as much by the "difficult budget." He stated serious cuts would be
needed regardless of the budget process used.
Councilmember Kastein stated there was a unique opportunity for everyone to see a totally
"transparent" budget. He stated there needed to be "education" prior to the budget hearings to help
everyone understand that if something was put back into the budget something else would have to
be cut. He noted that he had a budget input meeting scheduled with District 4 residents on October
13. City Manager Atteberry stated there would be an extensive staff report on the budget process
and the proposed budget prior to each budget hearing. He stated staff could give such a report at the
beginning of each budget meeting.
Mayor Hutchinson stated the Council had indicated a desire to make the September 13 Study
Session an educational effort, i.e. to have a comprehensive staff report on the budget process.
Councilmember Ohlson stated he supported the educational report with the September 13 work
session. He suggested taping that report in advance or taping it at the Study Session. He stated there
would be two public hearings on the budget as well as opportunities for public input at the time of
adoption of the appropriation ordinance. He suggested advertising all of those opportunities as
"budget public hearings." He suggested limiting the staff budget presentation at the regular
meetings because of heavy agendas.
Mayor Hutchinson stated the taped staff report would be rebroadcast as a comprehensive overview
of the budget and staff would be asked to do an executive summary before each of the budget
hearing opportunities.
Councilmember Weitkunat stated there had been a lot of discussion about how to present this to the
public and that a balanced process had been achieved. She stated there would be three opportunities
for Council to adjust the budget if needed and that there would be four other opportunities for public
hearings.
Mayor Hutchinson stated the Leadership Team looked at the budget process carefully and that there
would be budget discussions for five consecutive weeks. He stated another public hearing could be
added during the process if it appeared that there was a need for that. He stated this year's budget
was easy to understand.
Councilmember Kastein suggested looking at an opportunity for the public to ask questions about
the budget i.e. an opportunity for input and staff dialogue.
Councilmember Weitkunat asked if that opportunity would be outside of the regular meeting
schedule.
Councilmember Kastein stated this would be more of an outreach opportunity. City Manager
Atteberry stated this could take the format of an open house.
►W;
September 6, 2005
Mayor Hutchinson stated he would favor an open house instead of adding more hearings. He asked
that staff make a recommendation about adding an open house to the format.
Councilmember Ohlson asked if this budget was already on-line. City Manager Atteberry stated it
would be on-line by the end of the week and that it would also be available at the Public Library.
He stated people would also be able to buy a copy at Kinko's and that the budget was available for
public inspection at the City Clerk's Office.
Councilmember Ohlson asked if there were exceptions for low income people who could not afford
to buy a copy. Deputy City Manager Jones stated a few extra copies would be available for that
purpose in the City Manager's Office.
Mayor Hutchinson suggested listing all hearing opportunities in the agenda material for the future.
Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kastein, to adopt Resolution
2005-097. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson,
Kastein, Manvel, Ohlson and Weitkunat. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Other Business
Councilmember Ohlson stated he would be bringing up the following issues at the first budget Study
Session: the 2005 funding level should be listed next to the recommended 2006-2007 funding level
for items; the number of FTEs before and after cuts and additions should be indicated; there should
be a listing of the 91.5 positions that were being cut; there should be a list of the items that were
above the line and below the line; that there should be more information on the balances in reserve
accounts and amounts being transferred; that there should be an explanation of how confident the
City was in the 2005 budget number because it was the basis for the 2006-2006 budget; and that the
range of salary increases should be explained since he understood that there could be salary
increases as high as 16%. He stated such questions could mean that more than one and a half work
sessions might be needed. He suggested that other items could be delayed to provide more work
session time for the budget.
Mayor Hutchinson stated two and a half work sessions were scheduled for the budget.
Councilmember Weitkunat suggested that Council use a -mails to document such questions.
Mayor Hutchinson stated a meeting of the Wastewater Utility Enterprise Board would convene
following adjournment of this meeting and that the Council would then move to the Council
Information Center to discuss the Council policy agenda at a special work session.
299
Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 9:50 p.m.
Mayo J
ATTEST:
uw
City Clerk
,-
kof
September 6, 2005