Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES-05/04/2004-RegularMay 4, 2004 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, May 4, 2004, 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, Roy, Tharp and Weitkunat. Staff Members Present: Fischbach, Krajicek, Roy. Citizen Participation Ralph Waldo, 2803 East Harmony Road, spoke regarding the Landmark Preservation Commission regulations relating to properties that were more than 50 years old and the impact on the Rule property and similar properties. He suggested that historic farm structures be moved to the City's Martinez Park Farm as was done in Greeley for the moving of historically significant structures to Centennial Village. He stated open space money could be used for the purchase of land for cultural purposes. He asked that Council consider the acquisition of land to create a living museum from the budgeted open space money. He stated he believed that the requirement that any structure older than 50 years be reviewed by the Landmark Preservation Commission could impede good redevelopment projects, especially in the downtown. Tammy Bennett, CSU student, stated she was present with three other students to talk about the lack of information in the community about domestic violence. She stated they had created a pamphlet with information about places to call, places to go, things to remember and things to bring with you when trying to obtain a protection order. She stated the students had worked with Crossroads Safehouse and their legal office to create the brochure. She asked for help in distributing the brochures through placement at City Hall, the Police Department and other locations. Karen Wagner, downtown property owner, thanked the City for implementing early control measures for West Nile. She expressed concerns about a potential chronic wasting disease incinerator east of Wellington and the possible uncovered transportation of diseased wild animal carcasses through the City to the ingester at CSU. She also expressed concerns regarding the possible discharge of byproducts from the ingester into the City's stormwater system. She asked that Council follow-up on her concerns. 241 May 4, 2004 Al Baccili, 520 Galaxy Court, opposed the Soapstone Ranch purchase. Mayor Martinez stated the Soapstone Ranch item was on the agenda for discussion and that the issue could be addressed at that time. Mr. Baccili asked that the entire vendor fee for sales tax collection be eliminated. Greg Snyder, 619 Bear Creek Drive, expressed concerns regarding the possibility of rental licensing. He stated this would be moving the government bureaucracy into a new realm and would result in more fees. He questioned the purpose of rental licensing and asked how a "one size fits all" landlord licensing ordinance would benefit the citizens. He stated many of the existing ordinances regulating rental housing were unenforceable and opposed having the City tell him that he would have to have a license and a permit to be a landlord. He stated landlords might have to discriminate against certain renters in order to meet rental licensing requirements. Citizen Participation Follow-up Mayor Martinez asked for more information on the City's website about the City's emergency protection (48 hour holds) in cases of domestic violence. He asked if some of the other information on the pamphlet prepared by the CSU students could also be included on the website. Mayor Martinez asked for information on the animal carcass transportation issues brought up by Ms. Wagner. City Manager Fischbach stated staff checked on that issue eight months ago and that everything was being handled properly. He stated staff would check on current handling and would provide information to Ms. Wagner and the City Council. Councilmember Roy asked that staff check with CSU to ensure that animal carcasses were being disposed of in an adequate manner through the ingestion process. Councilmember Tharp thanked Mr. Waldo for his creative idea regarding a Centennial Park. Councilmember Kastein asked if the rental licensing task force had spoken about discrimination issues such as those raised by Mr. Snyder. City Attomey Roy stated he would prepare a memo on the subject. Councilmember Weitkunat asked if the duties of the Landmark Preservation Commission fell under the Land Use Code. City Attorney Roy stated the Commission's functions fell under the City Code and that there were Land Use Code provisions that dealt with how new development must handle sites that contained historic structures. Councilmember Weitkunat asked if a discussion was planned on Landmark Preservation Commission issues in the near future. City Attorney Roy stated there had been discussion about having a Study Session regarding the functions of the Landmark Preservation Commission and that 242 May 4, 2004 his office was working with management staff on proposed revisions to the Land Use Code and the City Code to reconcile those provisions and to ensure that they were compatible. He stated staff would be seeking policy direction from the Council at the Study Session. Agenda Review City Manager Fischbach stated item #14 First Reading of Ordinance No. 078, 2004, Amending the Fort Collins Traffic Code to Add an Increase in Penalties for Violations Committed While Using a Mobile Phone had been withdrawn from the agenda for additional work and that the Ordinance that was listed in item #25 (Ordinance No. 076, 2004 Authorizing the Conveyance of Certain Interests in Soapstone Grazing Association Real Property to Be Acquired by the City) had been withdrawn from the agenda and that a Resolution was being substituted for consideration as part of the Discussion Agenda. CONSENT CALENDAR Consideration and approval of the Council meeting minutes of February 17 and March 2, 2004 and the adjourned meeting minutes of March 9, 2004. Postponement of Second Reading of Ordinance No. 057, 2004, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code to Reflect the Adoption of Updated Master Drainage Plans And to Revise the Official Roository of Plan Documents, to June 1, 2004. This Ordinance, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on April 6, 2004, updates current City Code references to the master drainage plans for the various basins in the city by repealing and reenacting Code Section 26-543(a). This item is being postponed to June 1, 2004, to allow the development consultant for a property owner in the West Vine Basin additional time to develop overall development concepts that would work with the stormwater master plan. 9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 064, 2004, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue in the General Fund for the Larimer County Multi -Jurisdictional Drug Task Force. Fort Collins Police Services ("FCPS") applied for grant funds made available through the Rocky Mountain High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area project which is sponsored and funded by the Office of National Drug Control. The application was on behalf of the Larimer County Multi -Jurisdictional Drug Task Force ("DTF") for federal grant monies to help fund the investigation of illegal narcotics activities in Larimer County. The DTF is staffed by personnel from FCPS, Loveland Police Department, Larimer County Sheriff's Department, 243 May 4, 2004 Drug Enforcement Administration, and Colorado State University Police Department. This Ordinance, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on April 20, 2004, appropriates the new federal grant funds. 10. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 065, 2004, Authorizing the Acceptance of a .25 Acre Property Donated by Springfield Subdivision Sixth Filing Joint Venture and Appropriating the Value of Said Donated Property as Unanticipated Revenue in the Natural Areas Fund. This Ordinance, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on April 20, 2004, authorizes the Mayor to accept the donation by Springfield Subdivision Sixth Filing Joint Venture of Tract "A", Overland Hills 1 st Filing. The property is a .25 acre tract of land to be managed as a natural area by the Natural Resources Program. 11. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 066, 2004, Authorizing the Lease of City -owned Property at 222, 224 and 226 West Mountain Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. to Moe Kamandy for up to Five Years. The City and the County purchased the building at 222,224 and 226 West Mountain Avenue in 1985 as part of the Block 31 purchases. In the Intergovernmental Agreement dividing Block 31, this property was quitclaimed to the City. Since the City and County's purchase of this property, these spaces have been leased to commercial customers. The occupants of 222 and 224 have terminated their leases. The current tenant of 226 West Mountain Avenue, Moe Kamandy of the Mountain Cafe, has expressed a desire to expand his dining room into the space at 224 West Mountain Avenue and to use the space at 222 West Mountain Avenue for storage space. The new total square footage for the restaurant area will be 1,055 and the storage area has 315 square feet. These spaces are not presently conducive for use by other City users. Staff recommends leasing these spaces to Moe Kamandy of the Mountain Cafe until this area of Block 31 is needed for future improvements. Ordinance No. 066, 2004, was unanimously adopted on First Reading on April 20, 2004. 12. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 067, 2004, Expanding the Boundaries of the Fort Collins. Colorado Downtown Development Authority and Amending the Plan of Development of the Authority. This Ordinance, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on April 20, 2004, expands the boundaries of the Downtown Development Authority (DDA) District. These boundaries are contained in the Ordinance establishing the District, as previously amended and in the Plan of Development for the DDA. The purpose of the amendment is to include the In -Situ property located on Lincoln Avenue. May 4, 2004 13. First Reading of Ordinance No. 077 2004 Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue in the General Fund for the Operation of the Fort Collins Welcome Center. The Colorado legislature created the Colorado Tourism Board (the "Board") and authorized the Board to operate State Welcome Centers. The Board determined that the State Welcome Center for Fort Collins would be more efficiently and effectively operated by the City of Fort Collins. In August of 2000, the Colorado Tourism Office ("CTO") was created and was authorized to operate State Welcome Centers. Pursuant to Resolution 99-097, the City contracted with Colorado State University for visitor center space at the Environmental Learning CenterNisitors Center, south of Prospect Road, approximately one -quarter mile west of Interstate 25. The City, seeking to attract and welcome visitors to Fort Collins through the activities of its convention and visitor services contractor, the Fort Collins Convention and Visitors Bureau ("CVB"), uses the visitor center space for the Fort Collins Welcome Center. The CVB, in addition to promoting tourism activity, operates the Welcome Center consistent with the City's Intergovernmental Agreement with the Colorado State Board of Agriculture acting by and through Colorado State University. 14. First Reading of Ordinance No. 078, 2004, Amending the Fort Collins Traffic Code to Add an Increase in Penalties for Violations Committed While Using a Mobile Phone. Cell phones, when used while driving a car, distract the driver from the primary task of driving. Responsible driving requires drivers to focus on the operation of the vehicle, the road and any potential hazards when they are behind the wheel. Fort Collins Police Services Traffic Enforcement Unit officers have observed Fort Collins Traffic Code violations by drivers who are talking on cell phones. These include speeding, running red lights and stop signs, improper turning and unsafe lane changes. This Ordinance will not prohibit cell phone use while driving, but instead will increase the penalty for a traffic violation if a Police Officer observes a violation occurring while the driver is using a cell phone. This Ordinance is secondary in nature, and does not allow law enforcement officers to stop drivers merely for cell phone use while driving. A traffic violation must be observed first, and then second, the officer must also observe cell phone use in order for the enhanced penalty to take effect. 245 May 4, 2004 15. First Reading of Ordinance No. 079, 2004, Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins by Changing the Zoning Classification for That Certain Property Known as the Resource Recovery Farm Rezoning This is a request to rezone the property known as the Resource Recovery Farm from the E, Employment District, to the POL, Public Open Lands District. The request is consistent with the recently adopted 1-25 Subarea Plan and City Structure Plan map. 16. Resolution 2004-054 Authorizing the City to Enter into a Contract with Gallagher Benefit Services, Inc. for a Compensation and Benefits Study. Resolution 2003-147 created a two -person Council Committee, comprised of Councilmembers Eric Hamrick and Kurt Kastein, to work with various members of City staff in developing a scope of work and a competitive request for proposals process to obtain the services of one or more employee compensation and benefits consultants. The Committee has completed the selection process in accordance with Section 8-158 of the City Code, and is recommending adoption of this Resolution selecting the best qualified consultant Gallagher Benefit Services, Inc. The consultant(s) will work with the Committee and City staff to generate a final report to Council containing recommendations regarding employee compensation and benefits. 17. Resolution 2004-056 Authorizing the Mayor to Execute a Revocable Permit to US Cable of Coastal -Texas, L.P., a New Jersey Limited Partnership for Existing Cable Television Lines and Appurtenances. It is recommended that a new permit be issued to US Cable granting permission for it to maintain its installation of an underground cable television line and related facilities within City right-of-way and utility easements to serve the Horsetooth and University mobile home parks located at the southwest corner of the Horsetooth Road/Taft Hill Road intersection. It has been determined that the fee may be excessive for the service provided under the existing revocable permit. The fee with the new revocable permit will be one quarter of the amount charged under the current permit. 18. Resolution 2004-057 Expressing City Council Support for the "Cache la Poudre River National Heritage Area Technical Amendments Act of 2004". Over the last 20 years, Congress has established 24 national heritage areas and provided them with millions of dollars in financial assistance through the National Park Service. By providing this designation, the Congress has determined that these areas' local cultures, traditions, history and resources are worthy of being recognized and preserved because of 246 May 4, 2004 their contributions to the nation's heritage. These areas can encompass large tracts of land, and incorporate both public and private property. Once designated, heritage areas can receive funding through the National Park Service's budget, although the agency currently has no formal heritage area program. The Park Service provides technical assistance to the areas, and the Congress appropriates the agency limited funds for heritage area activities. The Park Service allocates funding to the areas through cooperative agreements. These funds are considered to be "seed" money to assist each area in becoming sufficiently established to develop partnerships with state and local governments, businesses, and other non-federal organizations as their principal funding sources. ***END CONSENT*** Ordinances on Second Reading were read by title by City Clerk Krajicek. 9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 064, 2004, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue in the General Fund for the Larimer County Multi -Jurisdictional Drug Task Force. 10. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 065, 2004, Authorizing the Acceptance of a .25 Acre Property Donated by pringfield Subdivision Sixth Filing Joint Venture and Appropriating the Value of Said Donated Property as Unanticipated Revenue in the Natural Areas Fund. IL Second Reading of Ordinance No. 066, 2004, Authorizing the Lease of City -owned Property at 222, 224 and 226 West Mountain Avenue, Fort Collins. Colorado. to Moe Kamandy for up to Five Years. 12. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 067, 2004, Expanding the Boundaries of the Fort Collins. Colorado Downtown Development Authority and Amending the Plan of Development of the Authority. 23. Items Relating to the Prospect East 4th Annexation and Zoning, A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 061, 2004, Annexing Property Known as the Prospect East 4th Annexation. B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 062, 2004, Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the Prospect East 4th Annexation. 247 May 4, 2004 Ordinances on First Reading were read by title by City Clerk Krajicek. 13. First Reading of Ordinance No. 077, 2004, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue in the General Fund for the Operation of the Fort Collins Welcome Center. 15. First Reading of Ordinance No. 079, 2004, Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins by Changing the Zoning Classification for That Certain Property Known as the Resource Recovery Farm Rezoning` 22. Items Relating to the Enforcement of the Nuisance Provisions of the City Code. A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 071, 2004, Amending Sections 20-21 and 20-22 of the City Code Pertaining to Unreasonable Noise. B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 072, 2004, Amending Article VIII of Chapter 20 of the City Code Pertaining to the Abatement of Public Nuisances. C. First Reading of Ordinance No. 073, 2004, Amending Section 4-94 of the City Code Pertaining to the Disturbance of Peace and Quiet. D. First Reading of Ordinance No. 074, 2004, Amending Article III of Chapter 20 of the City Code Pertaining to Weeds, Brush Piles and Rubbish. E. First Reading of Ordinance No. 075, 2004, Amending Article III of Chapter 20 of the City Code Pertaining to the Outdoor Storage of Materials. Councilmember Hamrick made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Weitkunat, 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, Roy, Tharp and Weitkunat. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED Consent Calendar Follow-up Councilmember Kastein stated he would have some questions prior to Second Reading with regard to item # 15 First Reading of Ordinance No. 079, 2004, Amending the Zoning Map of the City offort Collins by Changing the Zoning Classification for That Certain Property Known as the Resource Recovery Farm Rezoning. ME May 4, 2004 Councilmember Reports Councilmember Bertschy noted that Council had adopted item # 18 Resolution 2004-057 Expressing City Council Support for the "Cache la Poudre River National Heritage Area Technical Amendments Act of 2004." He stated he served on behalf of the Council on the Cache la Poudre River Heritage Corridor Task Force and that the group had been working to resolve some technical differences in the legislation that was passed in 1996 by Congress to create the Cache ]a Poudre Heritage Corridor. He stated this corridor promised to be a major attraction for this area and that it could become one of the premier national heritage areas in the country. He introduced Susan Boyle of the National Park Service who served as the liaison to the heritage area. Susan Boyle, National Park Service, gave a brief presentation regarding the heritage area concept. She stated the project was driven by local entities interested in the history of the Cache ]a Poudre River and interpretation and education efforts. She stated interpretation and exhibits would focus on water law and water development (irrigation). She stated this would be one of only two heritage areas in the West. Councilmember Bertschy stated the National Park Service was providing a grant of 14 interpretive signs to be distributed along the trails in Greeley, Windsor and Fort Collins. Councilmember Roy reported that he was part of a panel for a discussion entitled "Nuances on Racism" sponsored by the Human Relations Commission. He stated the theme was taking personal responsibility to ensure that racism did not have the ability to succeed. Councilmember Weitkunat reported that she attended a fund raising event for the Discovery Science Center, an independent nonprofit institution. She stated there was a danger that the location could be lost and encouraged Council to participate in some way to keep this institution in the community. Councilmember Bertschy reported that the Discovery Science Center issue was also discussed by the Downtown Development Authority. Mayor Martinez reported that the Fort Collins Community Foundation presented the Founder's Award to former Mayor Dr. Karl Carson in part because of his generous donation to the Youth Activities Center gym project. Items Relating to the Enforcement of the Nuisance Provisions of the City Code, Adopted. The following is staff s memorandum on this item. 249 May 4, 2004 "FINANCIAL IMPACT The adoption of these Ordinances is not expected to have a significant financial impact on departmental operating budgets. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 071, 2004, Amending Sections 20-21 and 20-22 of the City Code Pertaining to Unreasonable Noise. B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 072, 2004, Amending Article VIII of Chapter 20 of the City Code Pertaining to the Abatement of Public Nuisances. C. First Reading of Ordinance No. 073, 2004, Amending Section 4-94 of the City Code Pertaining to the Disturbance of Peace and Quiet. D. First Reading of Ordinance No. 074, 2004, Amending Article III of Chapter 20 of the City Code Pertaining to Weeds, Brush Piles and Rubbish. E. First Reading of Ordinance No. 075, 2004, Amending Article III of Chapter 20 of the City Code Pertaining to the Outdoor Storage of Materials. These Ordinances are being presented for Council's consideration as a result of the ongoing efforts ofthe Neighborhood Quality ofLife Task Force. This taskforce has been formed to address quality of life issues in the City's residential neighborhoods. The Ordinances would: • Revise the definition of "unreasonable noise" and provide standards for more objectively determining when such noise exists and who may be responsible for the noise; • Amend the public nuisance ordinance to allow staff to file a civil action seeking injunctive relief against a property owner after two separate violations within six months, as an alternative to awaiting further separate violations; • Amend the animal disturbanceprovisions ofthe City Code to eliminatea mandatory warning provision and to add additional circumstances under which a citation can be issued; • Amend the weed and rubbish provisions of the Code to allow for the recovery ofadditional costs and to clarify when violations exist; and 250 May 4, 2004 • Add a provision to the Code dealing with the outdoor storage of materials in residential neighborhoods. BACKGROUND For the past several months, a Neighborhood Quality of Life Task Force, consisting of representatives from various departments of the City, has been meeting regularly to discuss ways in which to improve the City's ability to effectively deal with nuisance violations in residential neighborhoods of the City. As a result of this effort, several ordinances have already been presented to the Council, and various other measures have been undertaken by City staffto enhance the City's enforcement of existing Code provisions. The ordinances previously presented to the Council as part of this effort have dealt with vehicle noise, the parking of vehicles on lawns, and the use or storage of indoor furniture in outdoor locations. Enhanced enforcement efforts have included the augmentation ofpolice resources to combat the problem ofnoisyparties, increased marketing ofthe City's "nuisance hotline" and other system improvements which are described in more detail in the materials attached to this Agenda Item Summary. In addition to the foregoing Code changes and systems improvements, staff is recommending the Ordinances described below. In addition, staffwill be presentingfor Council's consideration at a studysession onApri127th more information explainingtwo optionsfor regulating rentalproperties in residential neighborhoods: rental registration and rental licensing. Unreasonable Noise Ordinance Ordinance No. 071, 2004, will amend the definition of "unreasonable noise" and will make certain other changes to Sections 20-21 and 20-22 of the Code as follows. The definition of "unreasonable noise" would be revised to eliminate thephrase "throughout the City or in any portions thereof. " This phrase is unnecessary and could potentially be used to argue that the City must prove beyond a reasonable doubt the particular portions of the City that are affected by the unreasonable noise. Additional criteria would be added to Section 20-22(b) to provide further guidance to police officers in determining whether unreasonable noise exists. A new subsection © would be added to this Code section stating that, if the owner or tenant or a premises upon which unreasonable noise occurs was present at the time ofthe violation, then that fact shall constitute prima facie evidence that such person was in control of the premises and knowingly permitted the violation to occur. 251 May 4, 2004 Public Nuisance Ordinance The public nuisance ordinance provisions of the Code allow the City to file a civil action against the owner, occupant or property manager of a particular parcel of property in order to obtain an order from the Municipal Court to help deal with a recurring nuisance problem on the premises. At present, the Code requires that three separate violations occur within a period of one year or five within a period of two years before such an action can be commenced. (However, each violation can result in the issuance of a citation to the person actually committing the violation). Occasionally, having to await a third violation can result in an unnecessary delay in dealing with a 'problem property" if the owner or property manager has failed to respond to the first notices of violations. Ordinance No. 072, 2004, will allow the nuisance enforcement officer, in particular situations, to request a hearing before the City Manager or his designee in order to seek authorization to commence a public nuisance action against a property after only two separate violations within a period of six months. The new Code language would require that the property owner, property manager and occupant of the premises be given notice of such hearing and an opportunity to appear and respond. If none of the responsible parties appear at the hearing or, if, upon appearing, they fail to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City Manager that they are genuinely undertaking good faith efforts to deal with the nuisance problems, then the City Manager could authorize the commencement of a public nuisance court action without further delay. Animal Disturbance Ordinance Section 4-94 of the City Code states that no owner or keeper of an animal shall permit such animal to disturb the peace and quiet of any person by barking, whining, howling, yowling, squawking or making any other noise in an excessive, continuous or untimely fashion. That Code provision then goes on to require that, before a citation can be issued for a violation, a member of the household over the age of 18 years must have received a warning from the City ofa previous complaint at least once within the preceding 12 months. Ordinance No. 073, 2004, would make two changes to this section. First, it would amend the substantive language of the section to add a prohibition against allowing any animal to make "unreasonable noise, "that is, noise of such level and duration as to be injurious to human health or welfare or unreasonably interfere with the enjoyment of life or property. This amendment would allow animal enforcement officers to make a determination as to whether unreasonable noise exists in a particular situation without having to prove that the noise actually disturbed the peace and quiet of a particular neighbor. Staff believes this is a helpful amendment because neighbors disturbed by such noise are sometimes reluctant to serve as complaining witnesses and appear and testify in court, for fear of retaliation or further eroding neighborhood relations. 252 May 4, 2004 The second change to this section would be to eliminate the mandatory warning so that the animal enforcement officer would have the discretion, in aggravated situations, to issue a citation on a first offense without a warning if he or she believes that to be in the best interest of the community. Weeds and Rubbish Ordinance Ordinance No. 074, 2004, will amend Section 20-44 of the City Code so as to allow the City, in abating weeds and rubbish, to recover up to 100% of its administrative costs in performing the abatement, in addition to the actual amounts paid to the contractor who provides the abatement services. Secondly, this provision would be revised to clarify that either the owner or the occupant ofthe premises in question can be issued a citation for allowing the weeds or rubbish to accumulate on the property. Outdoor Storage Ordinance Ordinance No. 075, 2004, will add a new Section 20-42.6 to the City Code prohibiting the storage of building materials, household appliances and other kinds of materials not normally kept on residential premises unless such materials are effectively screened from viewfrom the public right- of-way or from the ground level of adjoining properties. In summary, staff believes that this combination of ordinances is consistent with the direction received by the City Council to not only step up the City's enforcement efforts of existing ordinances but to provide new legislation which will enable the City to more effectively deal with nuisance violations that threaten the tranquility and quality of life in the City's residential neighborhoods. " City Manager Fischbach introduced the agenda item. Darrin Atteberry, Assistant City Manager, presented background information regarding the agenda item. He stated Council was being asked to consider on First Reading amendments to five Ordinances. He stated staff was working on increased enforcement, marketing, improved staff communications between departments operating in the arena of Code enforcement, and defining and clarifying Code provisions. He stated the Ordinances presented for consideration would accomplish the Code clarifications. He stated Ordinance No. 071, 2004 would revise the definition of "unreasonable noise" and set additional criteria for police officers in determining whether "unreasonable noise" existed; that Ordinance No. 072, 2004 would amend the Public Nuisance Ordinance to allow staff to file a civil action against a property owner after two separate violations of the Public Nuisance Ordinance within a six month period; that Ordinance No. 073, 2004 would relate to barking dog complaints and remove the requirement for a formal warning to be issued prior to the Animal Control Officer issuing a citation; that Ordinance No. 074, 2004 would allow the City to recover up to 100% of actual costs for administration of nuisance abatements; and that Ordinance 253 May 4, 2004 No. 075, 2004 would prohibit the outdoor storage of materials not customarily stored outdoors in residential areas. Theresa Ramos -Garcia, Fort Collins Board of Realtors, read a statement from the Board of Realtors in support of the high quality of life in the neighborhoods of Fort Collins. She stated the majority of neighborhood concerns arose in specific areas of the City. She stated the Council had already put into place several Ordinances focusing on improving the quality of life in those specific neighborhoods and that existing Ordinances had fallen short of their goals due to the lack of enforcement. She stated the Board of Realtors supported the Council action to enforce the existing Ordinances and to improve handling of complaints through organizational and systems enhancements. She stated the enforcement of these Ordinances would have a positive impact on the community and that the Board supported additional actions to shorten the warning cycle for problem renters to avoid the "resetting of the clock to the school year." She stated it was unclear how the inability to enforce existing Ordinances would be solved by the creation of new Ordinances. She asked that the City should continue to study neighborhood quality of life issues and to monitor the impacts of these Ordinances and properly evaluate any additional action. She stated it was too early to implement additional Ordinances that might result in expensive City programs and have complex ramifications. Greg Snyder, 619 Bear Creek Drive, expressed concerns regarding enforcement of the Ordinances. He asked that the Council consider what problem was being solved and what would be the appropriate solution to the problem. He expressed concerns that someone could be cited for a barking dog without any kind of warning and that the City in general was going on "fishing expeditions for monetary sources." He stated he would like to hear more detail about the proposed Ordinances. Mayor Martinez asked for the rationale for the City recovering the cost for rubbish removal. City Manager Fischbach stated abatement of rubbish in private yards would be accomplished through a private contractor and that there was no reason for the City to have to pay the cost of that abatement. He stated the proposed Ordinance would require the City to recover 100% of the administrative cost and that the theory was that City residents should not have to subsidize irresponsible property owners in cases where the City had to take an abatement action. He stated some people literally used the City as their trash hauler and that those people should pay 100% of the City's cost. City Attorney Roy stated this would also make this fee and the cost recovery consistent with a general provision in Chapter 7.5 that allowed the City Manager to establish administrative fees to defray the cost of City services and the use of facilities up to 100%. He stated the current wording relating to recovery of up to 50% of the administrative cost was inconsistent. Councilmember Weitkunat asked for additional clarification and asked if the City would receive compensation for more than the costs. City Attorney Roy stated the current wording specified that 254 May 4, 2004 up to 50% of the administrative cost could be recovered. He stated the City would be recovering no more than 100% of the City's costs. He stated all administrative fees were limited to cost recovery. Councilmember Weitkunat asked about Ordinance No. 072, 2004 and about the rationale for the change to two violations in six months as opposed to three violations in a year. Beth Sowder, Compliance Inspector, stated the criteria would be two violations in six months and no contact or response from the owner, manager or tenant of the property explaining what was being done to correct the problem. Councilmember Weitkunat asked if the Ordinance spelled out that criteria and asked for clarification about what types of nuisances would be covered. Sowder stated the Ordinance would cover any type of nuisance. Councilmember Weitkunat expressed a concern that the Ordinance would apply to two different violations in the six month period rather than two violations of the same type. She questioned the equity of that aspect of the Ordinance. Councilmember Kastein stated the Council had asked staff to review some of these Ordinances to get "tougher" on some of the issues. He asked if a third violation would be registered if the Ordinance was changed to two violations in six months. City Attorney Roy replied in the negative. Councilmember Kastein asked if the intent was simply to reduce the time to six months with two violations. City Attorney Roy stated the Ordinance would allow the possibility of quicker enforcement when there was no response from the owner, manager or tenant. He stated the Code Enforcement Officer could request a hearing before the City Manager and give notice to the landlord, tenant or property manager and then, if there was no response or demonstration that the problem was being corrected, the City Manager could determine that a nuisance existed and public nuisance proceedings could take place. He stated this was a mechanism for accelerating the process in aggravated situations. He stated this would not preclude the issuance of a third citation or prevent the City from holding people responsible on each individual citation. Councilmember Kastein asked if a third citation would be issued if an effort was being made to evict. City Attorney Roy stated there was a difference between the underlying violations and the citations issued for violation of the City Code. He stated nothing would preclude the issuance of Code citations. He stated the issue with this Ordinance was notices to the property owner of a separate violation for the purposes of commencing the civil action. He stated there would continue to be a 45-day waiting period for the third violation awaiting eviction and that a third citation may not be needed under this process if nothing was being done to correct the problem. Atteberry stated staff had received clear feedback regarding the need to tighten up the processing time to go through the Public Nuisance Ordinance while being respectful of due process when landlords were 255 May 4, 2004 attempting to deal with problem tenants. He stated the amount of time to get through a Public Nuisance Ordinance process was a frustration. Councilmember Kastein asked why the City would not always choose to recover 100% of the administrative cost. Atteberry stated there were two parts of the cost — the abatement cost and the administrative cost. He stated abatement costs were recovered 100% at this time. He stated his opinion was that 100% of the costs should be recovered to allow more enforcement to be done. He stated this was not an effort to recoup more than the City's actual costs. Councilmember Kastein asked how much would be recovered if the City was recovering 50% of the administrative cost. Rich Kopp, Compliance Supervisor, stated the administrative cost per case was approximately $18 and that half of that was being collected at this time. Councilmember Kastein asked about "unreasonable noise" and noted that Denver used a specific decibel level to define "unreasonable noise." He asked if staff had considered something more definable than an officer's judgement of the noise level. Atteberry stated this question could be answered prior to Second Reading. He stated the intent was to give officers more discretion and to allow them to more effectively enforce noise complaints. City Attorney Roy stated the task force discussed use of a decibel meter for these types of noise violations. He stated as a practical matters these kinds of noises, as opposed to industrial noise, did not lend themselves to being measured at the property line by a decibel meter. Councilmember Tharp stated parties could be a nuisance due to a number of factors such as the number of people, enforcement and noise. She stated she had previously heard concerns from residents about the requirement that there must be two witnesses to a barking dog and asked if that requirement was being changed. Atteberry stated this had been a problem for animal control officers and that the officer currently did not have the ability to issue a citation unless there were two witnesses. He stated the task force had discussed cases in which adjacent neighbors were not willing to be a witness. He stated the Ordinance would allow the officer to determine if the noise from a barking dog was unreasonable and issue a citation without a formal complaint by an adjacent property owner. City Attorney Roy stated there would no longer be a requirement that two neighbors would have to make a complaint. He stated the Ordinance would allow the animal enforcement officer to stand at the property line, listen to the barking dog and make a determination that the noise was unreasonable. Mayor Martinez asked if a complaint would have to be received before the officer could take the action. City Attorney Roy stated there was no absolute requirement that the Ordinance be enforced only on a complaint basis but that the typical situation was for a complaint to be received before the officer would go to the location. 256 May 4, 2004 Mayor Martinez stated he would like a clarification to the Ordinance because people walking by a house could cause a dog to bark. He stated he would like to ensure that some kind of complaint was received before the action could be taken by the officer. City Manager Fischbach stated staff could look at a clarification before Second Reading. City Attorney Roy stated it would be unusual to have an Ordinance that would require enforcement on a complaint basis only. He stated the Ordinance would require that the sound be of such "level and duration as to be or tend to be injurious to human health or welfare or unreasonable interfere with the enjoyment of life or property." Mayor Martinez asked why an action would be taken if no complaint had been received. He expressed a concern that there could be perceptions that the Ordinance could be enforced in an arbitrary manner. City Attorney Roy stated a change could be made to the Ordinance on Second Reading if that was the direction of a majority of the Council as expressed in the motion for adoption on First Reading. Atteberry stated Animal Control was not proactively enforcing the provisions about barking dogs. He stated animal control and code enforcement officers worked to mediate between parties on all kinds of issues, including barking dogs. Mayor Martinez stated he would like to see a clarification to the Ordinance requiring a legitimate reason (a complaint) for the officer to be at the location of the barking dog. Councilmember Hamrick asked if there was a violation of an Ordinance if there was no "victim" i.e. could the officer make a complaint about a barking dog if a complaint had not been received from a resident. City Attorney Roy stated an officer could make a complaint. Councilmember Hamrick stated he had the same concerns as those expressed by Mayor Martinez. City Attorney Roy asked for clarification that there should be language inserted to say that no citation would be issued unless that was done pursuant to a third party citizen complaint. Mayor Martinez stated his intent was that a citation could only be issued in response to a complaint. Councilmember Bertschy asked if that would change the intent of the Ordinance. City Attorney Roy stated part of the issue was removing the need for a witness to the barking dog (a neighbor). Mayor Martinez stated he believed that an anonymous complaint should be sufficient and that he felt that there should be some kind of a complaint before a ticket could be written. Councilmember Hamrick asked for additional information prior to Second Reading of Ordinance No. 074, 2004 regarding the difference between what would be allowed under xeriscaping as opposed to ornamental grass. 257 May 4, 2004 Councilmember Tharp asked about the storage of materials in carports when the materials would be visible from the street. City Attorney Roy stated under the Ordinance as written the storage of such materials in carports would be prohibited unless screened from view. He stated the Council might want to consider whether the Ordinance was more prohibitive than desired. Councilmember Roy asked about the definition of "unreasonable noise" in the second WHEREAS in Ordinance No. 071, 2004. He asked if the Ordinance would be stronger with regard to vehicles if it would say"... any sound of such level and/or duration...." He asked if there were limitations with the language that specified "level and duration." City Attorney Roy stated change would be a good idea. Councilmember Bertschy stated he believed that an open carport was a suitable place to store items and asked if there would be a way to incorporate that idea into the Ordinance. City Attorney Roy stated the Ordinance could be rewritten to make carports an exception or to specify that "uncovered" materials would be defined and would constitute a violation. Councilmember Weitkunat stated she would not support altering the Ordinance at this meeting. She stated she viewed the purpose of a carport as covering a car rather than for storage. City Manager Fischbach stated staff could look at different ways to address the issue on Second Reading. Councilmember Kastein asked how complaints were received regarding stored materials. Kopp stated staff received storage complaints on a weekly basis. He stated it was common for communities to have outdoor storage Ordinances. He stated neighbors would probably not complain about storage in carports as much as storage in yards. Councilmember Roy made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Tharp, to adopt Ordinance No. 071, 2004 on First Reading, with an amendment to the second WHEREAS clause to change the words "level and duration" to "level and/or duration." Councilmember Roy stated each Ordinance was an amendment to an existing Ordinance and was an attempt to make the current provision more enforceable. Councilmember Kastein stated this Ordinance would give Code enforcement officers more criteria on which to base decisions about unreasonable noise. Councilmember Bertschy stated these Ordinances were brought about by a task force that involved citizens, police, code enforcement staff, and legal staff working to resolve issues that had been repeatedly brought to everyone's attention. He stated there had been a number of discussions regarding the Ordinances. He thanked the staff and the task force for their work. 258 May 4, 2004 The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Bertschy, Hamrick, Kastein, Martinez, Roy, Tharp and Weitkunat. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED Councilmember Bertschy made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Hamrick, to adopt Ordinance No. 072, 2004 on First Reading. Councilmember Weitkunat made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Roy, to amend the Ordinance in Section 2(c)(2) to insert the words "of a similar nature" in the following sentence: "Notwithstanding the foregoing, a public nuisance may also be considered to exist on a parcel if two or more separate violations of a similar nature ...." Councilmember Weitkunat stated the intent of the motion to amend was to resolve the repetitive nuisance. She stated she did not believe that the purpose of the Ordinance was to deal with two infractions of a different nature. City Attorney Roy asked if the intent was that the two infractions be violations of the same Code section. Councilmember Weitkunat stated her intent was that it would be two violations relating to the same nuisance (i.e. two instances of a barking dog, two parties, etc.). City Attorney Roy stated he understood that the intent was that there must be two separate violations of the same Code section. He asked if the intent was that this would apply only under the expedited process. Councilmember Weitkunat stated was her intent. Councilmember Tharp stated she would not support the amendment because nuisance complaints were cumulative and affected the neighborhood even though they might be dissimilar complaints. She stated she would prefer the Ordinance as written. Councilmember Hamrick asked for staffs perspective on the amendment. Atteberry stated the amendment would be progress over the current situation. He stated there would be limits compared with the Ordinance as proposed. The vote on the motion to amend was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Bertschy, Hamrick, Kastein, Martinez, Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: Councilmember Tharp. THE MOTION CARRIED Councilmember Kastein asked that the Council not approve the Ordinance. He stated there was some discomfort with the philosophy that landlords should be held accountable for tenant behavior and that the "three or more strikes and you're out philosophy" was built into the process. He stated 259 May 4, 2004 this gave landlords a chance to correct problems. He stated he did not support reducing the time available for the landlord to deal with problems. Councilmember Tharp stated the intent was to expedite the process when the tenant or landlord had been non -responsive to two complaints. She stated she favored the Ordinance as written and would accept it as amended. Councilmember Weitkunat stated she did not like this Ordinance and believed in the concept of "three strikes and you're out." She stated she would support the Ordinance because of the addition of the language "of a similar nature" in the amendment. Councilmember Bertschy stated he could support the Ordinance because of the language relating to non -responsiveness. Mayor Martinez stated he did not like the Ordinance and that the Judge could make decisions and impose a fine without the Ordinance. The vote on the main motion as amended was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Bertschy, Hamrick, Martinez, Roy, Tharp and Weitkunat. Nays: Councilmember Kastein. THE MOTION CARRIED Councilmember Tharp made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Hamrick, to adopt Ordinance No. 073, 2004 on First Reading. Mayor Martinez asked if the motion included consideration of the idea that a complaint would have to be lodged before a summons could be issued. Councilmember Tharp replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Kastein made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Hamrick, to amend the Ordinance to require that a warning be issued. Councilmember Weitkunat stated the motion to amend would mean that the Code would be unchanged. Councilmember Kastein stated the Ordinance would still make a change regarding unreasonable noise. He stated he was asking that there be a mandatory warning. City Attorney Roy stated if the deleted language was reinstated he would recommend a slight change to the reinstated language. 260 May 4, 2004 Mayor Martinez stated the amendment would mean that a warning must be issued and that was the language of the existing provision. City Attorney Roy stated it was his understanding that this was the intent of the motion. Councilmember Kastein stated the intent of the motion to amend was to continue to require a mandatory warning and to expand the ways in which a violation could occur. Mayor Martinez stated he would not support the motion to amend. City Attorney Roy stated the policy decision was whether or not to give the officer responding to a complaint the discretion to issue a citation the first time or whether the requirement for a warning before issuance of a citation should be retained. Councilmember Tharp asked what criteria would be used by the officer in giving a warning instead of a citation. City Attorney Roy stated such discretion existed with almost every Ordinance and was inherent with law enforcement responsibilities. Councilmember Tharp asked whether this would mean that the officer would have discretion to determine if there were mitigating circumstances regarding the barking dog. City Attorney Roy replied in the affirmative and stated the officer would have the discretion to issue a warning with the language of the Ordinance as written. Councilmember Tharp stated she would like to give the officer discretion to give a warning if there were mitigating circumstances. Mayor Martinez asked why Councilmember Kastein would support a mandatory warning when it had been shown to be ineffective. Councilmember Kastein stated he did not see the nuisance of barking dogs as being that significant in a big city. He stated he believed that the dog's owner should receive a warning the first time to give an opportunity to change behavior. He stated he would prefer not to have the warning given at the officer's discretion. He stated he believed that a citation could wait until the second occurrence. Mayor Martinez stated this Ordinance was needed because Fort Collins has become a big city. The vote on the motion to amend was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Kastein and Weitkunat. Nays: Councilmembers Bertschy, Hamrick, Martinez, Roy and Tharp. THE MOTION CARRIED 261 May 4, 2004 The vote on the main motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Bertschy, Hamrick, Martinez, Roy, Tharp and Weitkunat. Nays: Councilmember Kastein. THE MOTION CARRIED Councilmember Tharp made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Hamrick, to adopt Ordinance No. 074, 2004 on First Reading. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Bertschy, Hamrick, Kastein, Martinez, Roy, Tharp and Weitkunat. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED Councilmember Weitkunat made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Hamrick, to adopt Ordinance No. 075, 2004 on First Reading. Councilmember Kastein made a motion to table consideration of Ordinance No. 075, 2004 until the next Council meeting so that staff could more fully evaluate the idea that Councilmember Tharp raised about the storage of material in carports. He stated he would like to determine if other cities had similar ordinances. THE MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND Councilmember Tharp suggested looking at whether there were exceptions in the Ordinances of other cities before Second Reading. The vote on the main motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Bertschy, Hamrick, Martinez, Roy, Tharp and Weitkunat. Nays: Councilmember Kastein. THE MOTION CARRIED Items Relating to the Prospect East 4th Annexation and Zoning, Adopted. The following is staff's memorandum on this item. "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 061, 2004, Annexing Property Known as the Prospect East 4th Annexation. KOM May 4, 2004 B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 062, 2004, Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the Prospect East 4th Annexation. On Apri16, 2004, Council unanimously adopted Resolution 2004-046 Setting Forth Findings of Fact and Determinations Regarding the Prospect East 4th Annexation. Ordinance No. 061, 2004 and Ordinance No. 062, 2004, which were unanimously adopted on First Reading on April 6, 2004, annex and zone 21.18 acres located on the south side of East Prospect Road, east of Sharp Point Drive, and west of the Cache La Poudre River. It is currently being used as a farm and calving operation and is in the FA — Farming Zoning District in Larimer County. The requested zoning in the City of Fort Collins is RC —River Conservation. Staff is recommending that this property be included in the Residential Neighborhood Sign District. A map amendment will not be necessary to place this property on the Residential Neighborhood Sign District Map. " City Manager Fischbach introduced the agenda item and stated staff would be available to answer any questions. Dixie Anderson Gibbons, property owner, stated she had no problem with annexation. She objected to the taking of 300 feet of her 21 acres for the river buffer and noted the buffer would involve half of the property. She stated River Conservation zoning was recommended and that she had been told that fanning would be a grandfathered use. She stated her corrals and outbuildings would be located on the buffer. She expressed a concern that a future Council and staff might not see the issue the same way as the current Council and staff. She stated there was nothing in the River Conservation provision relating to the corrals and bringing in winter feed for storage. She stated she had been told that the five buildings would be allowed to remain "subject to review by the Planning and Zoning Board." She stated she did not understand that requirement. She stated she wanted protection that the Planning and Zoning Board could not change the decision regarding whether the buildings were grandfathered. She stated she had been told that she could have fencing and had a concern that the River Conservation zoning provisions called for fences that were two poles high (5 feet) with smooth wire. She stated the cattle would not stay in an area fenced like that. She stated she had been assured that she could keep the fence that she had now. She stated the T-Transition zone would give her family more flexibility and that River Conservation zoning would mean that she could do nothing with the property if she chose to relocate. She stated she would like to see the City buy the property. Lisa Fitzmeyer, extended family member of the landowner, spoke in favor of T-Transition zoning. She stated the annexation had been anticipated but that the zoning to River Conservation had never 263 May 4, 2004 been discussed with the property owner until recently. She stated the property owner had been told repeatedly that the property would be grandfathered in and that the assumption was that the property would continue to be zoned as Agriculture. She stated that after the Apri120 City Council meeting, the property owner first learned from the City Planning Department that there was no Agriculture zoning in the City. She stated rezoning the property as River Conservation was in the best interest of the City but not in the interest of the landowner. She stated the property was used as a calf pasture business and that the regulations attached to the River Conservation Zoning District made "references that were laughable when applied to a livestock operation." She stated River Conservation zoning would place restrictions on the future use and/or saleability of the property by the landowner and future family generations. She stated the River Conservation zoning would provide the City with the protection and insurance of obtaining the land and the much sought after lake for its open space program. She stated the City had taken pieces of the property over the last 25 years for building a dike along the river and for building a bike and jogging trails. She stated River Conservation zoning would include a 300 foot buffer zone from the river and a 100 foot buffer around the lake. She stated other City departments were working on taking more property along Prospect Road in order to widen the road, add a decorative median and move the bike path even further onto this property. She stated the landowner's access to the property would be severely limited to the point where livestock hauling equipment could not get into and out of the property. She stated the landowner continued to lose sections of this property through being forced to donate property needed for City improvements or through the City legally condemning the property so that it could be used for the betterment of the public. She stated the landowner and family members were having their property and livelihood "stolen" by the City. She stated the Planning Office and the City Code indicated that there was no zoning for Agriculture in the City limits, even though there was a City -owned farm in north Fort Collins within the river buffer, horses and livestock operations on CSU property and a feedlot near the new high school. She stated the property owner had been told that the River Conservation district was the only zone to allow Agriculture and that there were no exemptions. She stated the properties mentioned did not conform to local zoning. She stated the City Code appeared to provide exemptions for nonconforming property and special permitted uses. She asked that the Council separate the annexation and the zoning and hear the zoning at a later date. She stated more written information regarding the application of nonconforming properties and special permitted uses was being requested by the property owner. She asked that Council not rezone the property to River Conservation. Councilmember Weitkunat asked staff to explain the T-Transition zone. Steve Olt, City Planner, stated the T-Transition zoning district was an option in the City Land Use Code. He stated T was a "holding zone" and that current ongoing activities and land uses on the property could continue as they existed under the T zone. He stated no further development or new structures or expansion of operations would be allowed under T zoning. He stated at such time redevelopment would occur on the property that the property would have to be zoned into another zoning district that would 264 May 4, 2004 allow the proposed uses. He stated the T-Transition zone was not recommended for this property at this time. Councilmember Tharp asked why staff would not recommend T-Transition zoning since the current use for calving was grandfathered in for as long as the owner wished to use the property for that purpose. Olt stated the River Conservation Zoning District was being recommended by staffbecause it was consistent with the City Structure Plan. He stated under the RC zone, the calving operation was an ongoing permitted use as a Type 1 administrative review if this was a new permitted use. He stated agricultural activities and farm animals were permitted. He read the definition of an agricultural activity: "Agricultural activity shall mean farming, including plowing, tillage, cropping, installation of best management practices, seeding, cultivating or harvesting for the production of food and fiber products, the grazing or raising of livestock except in feedlots, agriculture, sod production, orchards, nurseries." He stated the ongoing calving operation was a permitted use in the RC district. He stated the City had no intention to require that the property owner cease and desist that operation because it was permitted in the zone. Councilmember Hamrick asked what uses would be permitted if the owner wanted to sell the property when they wanted to quit farming and raising livestock. He stated he was supportive of the Structure Plan. Olt stated there were several types of uses in the RC district: residential uses with single-family detached dwellings on 40 acres or larger (large lot residential); institution and public/civic uses such as public facilities, parks and recreation open lands, or golf courses; industrial uses such as composting facilities or resource extraction, processes and sales; accessory and miscellaneous uses such as farm animals and agricultural activities; commercial retail uses such as animal boarding, plant nurseries, greenhouses; or wireless telecommunications equipments and facilities. He stated there were some limitations to commercial and retail development in the RC zone. Councilmember Tharp asked if there was some way to give the property owner a written explanation of the "grandfathering in" of the agricultural use so that a future Council could not change that. Councilmember Bertschy stated the agricultural use was not grandfathered since it was a permitted use. City Attorney Roy stated agriculture was both a permitted use and a nonconforming use. He stated if the property was coming into a zone district that did not permit agricultural activities that it would still be allowed to continue as a nonconforming use unless it was abandoned for 12 months or longer. He stated the proposed zone district did permit agricultural activities. He stated for those two reasons the property was protected. He stated he understood the property owner's concern and noted the statement by the property owner that this was subject to the review of the Planning and Zoning Board. He stated the Board review would apply to any new development and that this did not imply that the existing operation was subject to Planning and Zoning Board review. He stated a future City Council could change the City Code and change permitted uses within a zone district. 265 May 4, 2004 He stated if that happened, the calving operation would become a nonconforming use under current provisions. He stated some case law held that annexation agreements that allowed a use to continue as a condition of annexation for a given period of time were enforceable. He stated there could be a possibility to do an annexation agreement that would better assure the property owner that the existing use could continue for a specified period of time. Mayor Martinez asked if half of the 21 acres was actually being taken over by the buffer. Doug Moore, Environmental Planner, Natural Resources Department, stated staff was working on modifications to Section 3.4.1 of the Land Use Code relating to buffers. He stated the buffer issue did not come into play until there was a development proposal. He stated there were several features listed on the Natural Habitat and Features Inventory Map that prescribed certain distances that would apply. He stated staff was not proposing taking over any of this property and that buffers could be modified. Mayor Martinez asked if the City would have control over half of the 21 acres. Moore stated he was not aware that this would be the case. Mayor Martinez asked why the owner believed that the City was taking over half of the 21 acres. Ms. Gibbons stated she was told by the Planning Department that there would be a 300 foot buffer from the river bank. She stated this would take half the lake and a large area of her property. She stated she would be allowed no use of the property included in the buffer and that this would mean that she could not sell the property. She stated there would also be a 100 foot buffer around the lake. She stated RC zoning would lock her in with little property to sell. Mayor Martinez asked if that was correct. Moore stated if property was proposed for redevelopment that staff would look at the proposal under Article 3 of the Land Use Code. He stated there were buffer standards in Section 3.4.1 that would apply. He stated there would be a Planning and Zoning Board review and that staff would do an analysis to determine if the buffer area could be reduced in size. He stated the current Code called for a 300 foot buffer in that area of the river. Olt stated the 300 foot buffer was not specific to the RC zoning district and that it would apply regardless of the zoning. Moore stated the one exception was the RDR-River Downtown Development. ("Secretary's Note: The Council took a brief recess at this point.) Councilmember Kastein asked if there was anything that was currently being done that the property owner would not be permitted to do after the annexation and zoning. Olt stated the property owner would be entitled to continue doing what was being done as an agricultural activity within the RC district. 266 May 4, 2004 Councilmember Kastein asked if any uses within the 300 foot buffer could continue. Olt replied in the affirmative. He stated the buffer district would not be imposed on the existing uses until such time as there would be new development. Councilmember Weitkunat made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Hamrick, to adopt Ordinance No. 061, 2004 on Second Reading. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Bertschy, Hamrick, Kastein, Martinez, Roy, Tharp and Weitkunat. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED Councilmember Kastein made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Hamrick, to adopt Ordinance No. 062, 2004 on Second Reading. Councilmember Tharp stated it was her understanding that under the River Corridor zoning the property would have many uses and that provided the landowner was there the current uses could continue. She stated she understood that at the point the property owner might decide to sell the property for redevelopment that the other aspects would come into play (buffers, what development could actually occur, etc.). She stated she understood that the T-Transition zone was not appropriate in the staff s view because it was a "holding pattern." She questioned whether that was what should be done because there was no plan for redevelopment at this point. She stated the Structure Plan was a "broad brush" approach and did not always apply to specific sites. She asked if there was a way to keep the property in the T-Transition zone until a future time. Councilmember Weitkunat stated Transition was a "holding pattern." She stated it was already known what the zoning on this property was on the Structure Plan. She stated T zoning would simply be a postponement of changing the property to River Conservation. She stated the property would have to be zoned RC at a future time unless the Structure Plan was amended. Councilmember Tharp stated this would restrict the uses on the property in the future. Councilmember Weitkunat commented that all zoning would impose restrictions. She stated T zoning would delay the inevitable. She stated zoning should be based on characteristics and criteria using the best methodology. Councilmember Kastein stated regardless of the zoning the buffer zone would take effect after annexation. He stated there would be restrictions on future uses in the buffer zone regardless of the zoning and that there would have to be an appeal for some kind of exemption to do any development in the buffer zone. He noted that there was a process for that. 267 May 4, 2004 Mayor Martinez asked what Ms. Gibbons wanted the Council to do to "fix" her concerns. Ms. Gibbons stated she would have to cross the City's trail parking lot to get to her land to use it. She stated she had about eight acres left to use. She asked that the property be zoned T-Transition because RC zoning would "lock her in" with the wildlife, which would be good if the City would buy the property. She stated she could not do anything with the property under RC zoning in the event that she relocated her operation. She stated she would need some financial help in order to relocate. Councilmember Weitkunat asked if the property understood that T-Transition would not allow anything to be done with the property and would not allow any changes to be made. Ms. Gibbons stated her attorney indicated that T-Transition would be the best zoning to avoid her being "locked" into RC zoning and to allow an opportunity for her to see if something could be done with the land. Councilmember Tharp stated the landowner had made a reference to the fact that due to the City's open space there was no access to her property. She asked if there was a way to provide access from Prospect for the property owner. Olt stated annexation and zoning the property RC would not change the current operation in its present form or access to the site. He stated the property owner apparently felt that the RC zoning would in some way change the access or encumber the current use of the property. Mayor Martinez stated he understood the concerns of the property owner and what she had been told by her attorney. He stated regardless of the zoning that there would still be an issue with the buffer. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Bertschy, Hamrick, Kastein, Martinez, Roy, Tharp and Weitkunat. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED Resolution 2004-058 Repealing and Readopting City Plan as the City's Comprehensive Plan, and Repealing Certain Other Obsolete Plans, Adopted. The following is staff s memorandum on this item. "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The adoption of this Resolution will complete a 20 month long process to update City Plan, the City's Comprehensive Plan. City Plan was initially adopted in 1997, along with a commitment to periodically review, and if necessary, update the document. The update results in revisions to the vision, goals, principles and policies, and Structure Plan map of City Plan related to the City's NM May 4, 2004 growth management area, redevelopment and infill development, the City's role in the region's economy, open space and community separators, transportation, and neighborhoods and housing. The update to City Plan was conducted in collaboration with the Transportation Master Plan update, which was adopted by the City Council on March 2, 2004. The update to City Plan received input from the Council, the Council appointed Citizens Advisory Committee, City advisory boards, key stakeholders, and the general public throughout the planning process. The revised City Plan Document distributed on Thursday, March 25, included a coverpage with two different dates. Several of the documents were dated October 15, 2003, and the rest were dated April 6, 2004 (the correct date). The date is the only difference between these distributed documents. A new graphic has been added to the City Plan Document - Community Vision and Goals: Transportation, page 27. This image provides an update to the original graphic by incorporating the latest components of the street system such as transit, bike and pedestrian options for travel and streetscape design. BACKGROUND City Plan and the Transportation Master Plan were both originally adopted in 1997, with a public commitment that both plans would be periodically reviewed and, if necessary, modified to ensure that they remain capable ofachieving their respective goals and objectives. City Plan embraced the concepts ofnewurbanism, including mixed land uses, multi -modal transportation options, fostering pedestrian friendly environments, compact urban form, sustainable economy, and being a responsible steward of the natural environment. The Transportation Master Plan introduced new directions for the City's long-range transportation planning and funding. For the past 20 months, a planning process has been followed designed to address local and regional changes, incorporate other plans adopted since 1997, and to test the City's progress in successfully implementing each planss vision. The updates to City Plan and the Transportation Master Plan were conducted in parallel with one another because land use and transportation issues are so closely related. Key issues were reviewed in the City Plan update process including analyzing the City's growth management strategies and examining what other communities are doing, examining the boundaries of the Growth Management Area (GMA), looking at Fort Collins' relationship in the context of regional growth, examining the relationship between housing density/compact urban form and traffic congestion, exploring more housing options, examining infill and redevelopment policies, and looking at the community's jobs/housing balance. May 4, 2004 Key elements reviewed and integrated into the Transportation Master Plan Update included the Master Street Plan, Bicycle and Pedestrian Plans, Transfort Strategic Plan, Mason Transportation Corridor, andSmartTrips Transportation DemandManagementprograms. Regional travelpatterns and impacts into and out of Fort Collins were also addressed. Part I of the planning process to prepare updates of City Plan and the Transportation Master Plan was to develop a list of characteristics that describe the future size and character of the City of Fort Collins. The list of characteristics was adopted by the City Council on March 18, 2003. The planning process continued with a Part II where revisions to specific vision statements, goals, and principles and policies were developed, including changes to the City Structure Plan map and the Master Street Plan map. The Transportation Master Plan update used the community land use and size information from the City Plan process to conduct a focused analysis of transportation needs, trade-offs, and relative costs. Part II of the planning process culminated with the release of a revised version of the City Plan document dated October 15, 2003. This document was made available to the City Council, general public and distributed to key boards for their review and comment. On October 20, 2003, the Planning and Zoning Board conducted a public hearing and formulated a recommendation to the City Council for the adoption of the update to City Plan, along with their suggested changes. The Board's vote was 5-2 to recommend adoption of the update. Other keyboards have also forwarded their comments on the 10115103 version of City Plan to the Council. The City Council conducted four study sessions during the City Plan update process. Two critical study sessions were conducted on October 28, 2003, and on January 13, 2004. The October 28 Study Session allowed Councilmembers to submit their personal comments and suggested changes to the 10115103 version of City Plan. Staff then organized Council's comments and suggested changes, along with all comments and suggested changes received from the CAC and City advisory boards, into a matrix table that formed the basis for the January 13, 2004 Study Session. At the January 13 Study Session Council gave direction on final changes to the City Plan document. The update to City Plan is, thus, the product of the City Council, the concentrated work by the Council appointed Citizens Advisory Committee, staff and the consulting teams, interviews with stakeholders, City advisory boards, a community survey, and numerous public meetings. Throughout the process issues were grouped and discussed in the following major categories: • Region and Economy • Open Space and Community Separators • Transportation • Development and Redevelopment Patterns 270 May 4, 2004 • Neighborhoods and Housing Region and Economy Policies in this group provide direction as to the role Fort Collins will play in the region's economy and the City government's future fiscal health. Open Space and Communitv Separators Policies in the initial City Plan called for the preservation o%natural areas and maintaining open space corridors that separate Fort Collinsfrom surrounding communities. Most of the policies for the preservation of natural areas were retained, or only needed minor wording changes. A new set of policies were developed and added into a new community separator section. Policies were revised to add clarification of what was envisioned for the edges of the GMA, new policies were added for the Boxelder drainage basin, and policies acknowledge that natural resources protection should include a regional strategy. Transportation Policies in City Plan promoting mobility and safe and efficient multi -modal transportation choices are the focus of the transportation policies. These policies are the same policies included in the Transportation Master Plan. Development and Redevelopment Patterns Throughout the planning process a great deal ofdiscussion focused on the GMA size and boundary. Policies in the update to City Plan indicate the GMA boundary is to be retained as it is generally presently configured, exceptfor thepotential additions ofthe CSUFoothills Campus, the Wildflower Area, and the Fossil Creek Cooperative Planning Area (CPA). Criteria and procedures for GMA boundary amendments in the future have been defined and established. Neighborhood and Housin Policies here deal with infill and redevelopment and minimizing the impacts of character changes within neighborhoods. Additional policies deal with the provision of affordable housing. Public Outreach As indicated, a Council appointed Citizens Advisory Committee was very instrumental in helping develop the update to City Plan. In addition, City advisory boards, key stakeholders, and the 271 May 4, 2004 general public were all involved in the process and had many opportunities to provide input. A resident survey was conducted in December 2002 as another tool to involve the general public and obtain opinions on some of the major issues being addressed in the plan updates. The survey contained questions about the Growth Management Area boundary, transportation, infrastructure, development and redevelopment, housing, andopenspace. Fourgeneralpublic meeting/work shops were also conducted during the planning process. Planning and Zoning Board Recommendation On October 30, 2003, the Planning and Zoning Board conducted a public hearing and formulated a recommendation to the City Council for the adoption of the update to City Plan, along with their suggested changes. The Board's vote was 5-2 to recommend adoption of the update. The negative votes expressed serious concerns with the fundamental issue of not expanding the GMA; not cooperativelyplanning the area outside the GMA; infill and redevelopment would become more difficult because everything would need to be consistent with subarea plans, and the length of time it takes to complete subarea plans would be an effective moratorium; and acquiring open space and increasing fees will force growth outside the GMA that will increase traffic and pollution. " City Manager Fischbach introduced the agenda item. Joe Frank, Director of Advance Planning, presented background information regarding the agenda item. He stated there had been a 21 month process to update the City's Comprehensive Plan that was adopted in 1997. He spoke regarding the planning process, highlighted key directions in the updated plan, described the efforts to get the public involved in shaping the Plan, outlined some of the next steps, and stated a staff team would be available to answer Council's questions. He stated Part 1 of the planning process was to ask people about their vision for the community and to discuss the future size of the community. He state Part 2 was more technical and involved translating the vision into new or updated goals, principles and policies. He stated Part 1 of the visioning process started in August of 2002 with an inventory of existing conditions and an analysis of trends. He stated that led to the development of alternative scenarios and characteristics to describe the ideal Fort Collins in the year 2025. He stated the culmination of Part 1 was the adoption by Council of 23 characteristics that described the future character and the size of Fort Collins. He stated the characteristics established the foundation for Part 2 of the planning process to make detailed changes to the City Plan document and to present those changes for public review and comment. He stated the final step in Part 2 was adoption by Council of the recommended plan. He stated most people agreed that the community was on a good course established by the 1997 City Plan document. He stated some new ideas and concerns were heard as well. He noted that it was learned that most people were not in favor of expanding the Growth Management Area (GMA) boundary at this time and that the plan needed to include more precise procedures and criteria for future discussions about expanding the 272 May 4, 2004 GMA. He stated there was a lot of support for in -fill and redevelopment at strategic locations and that most people supported a more active role on the part of the City. He stated new policies and maps were added in response. He stated a lot was heard about protecting and enhancing existing neighborhoods and that policies were strengthened in response. He stated community separators were seen as important and that the plan needed new principles and policies to describe where and how community separators would be achieved. He stated a lot of concern was heard regarding transportation and mobility and opportunities for all modes of travel. He stated the Council had approved a new Master Transportation Plan in response to those concerns. He stated there was support for the City to continue to be a leader in shaping the future of the region and continued support for protection and enhancement of the river through implementation of existing plans. He stated support was heard for continuing efforts to protect the quality of the environment, including the preservation of open lands, improving air and water quality, and preserving historic resources. He stated support was heard for continuing the City programs regarding safe and affordable housing. He stated a lot was heard about the need to strengthen the local economy through a number of means. He stated concerns were heard about expanding and maintaining the City revenue base, and that one policy in the plan focused on strengthening the City's role as a center for shopping and culture within the region. He stated the update included a new and improved City Structure Plan that would provide more context to local planning efforts by showing what was planned at the City's edges. He stated there was a comprehensive and extensive public process. He stated a key participant was the 23 member Citizen Advisory Committee appointed by Council. He stated the City Council met more than 10 times to discuss elements of the work. He stated many forms of communication were used to inform the public about the process. He stated after Council adopted the updated Plan, the next step was implementation in accordance with the action plan. David Wright, Executive Director of Citizen Planners, spoke in support of the Plan and noted that Citizen Planners appreciated the huge amount of citizen involvement in the process. He stated the Plan as written was a good compromise and was very forward looking. He thanked the Council, staff and the citizens who took part in the process. He asked that Council vote in favor of the Plan as written. Linda Hopkins, Citizen Advisory Committee member, stated one emerging theme being expressed in the community was the benefit of regional efforts on "boundaryless" issues. She stated this theme was in contrast with some of the ideals set forth in City Plan. She stated City Plan in many instances ignored regional issues and that there were constraints in the Growth Management Area as defined. She stated for the record that she was speaking as an individual citizen rather than on behalf of the City Plan committee. She stated the Master Street Plan was typically a reflection of a City Plan and it was awkward that the Master Street Plan had already been adopted in this case. She stated the process had excellent staff support and consulting team. She stated City Plan was an update of the philosophical statement and that the process included very little reflection or evaluation of the existing circumstances brought to the community by City Plan. She stated rather than examining the 273 May 4, 2004 results of the monitoring of City Plan, the philosophical statements were "wordsmithed" by the committee, and that the committee dwindled in numbers (from 23 to often less than 12) and did not reflect broad citizen input. She stated the original City Plan Committee worked hard to achieve consensus and that this Committee proceeded with decision by a majority vote. She stated the Committee did not fully utilize the evaluations offered to it and that there was a tendency toward "pleasant philosophical platitudes." She stated future Councils would struggle with the practical applications of City Plan. She stated there would be conflict relating to issues such as annexations/density, alley houses/density, and neighborhoods/density. She stated the committee never had a thorough discussion of the implications of density. She stated she had with her an e-mail from Committee member Gina Janett, relating to the lack of discussion on density. She stated the Committee agreed 100% not to make an endorsement of the plan. Greg Snyder, 619 Bear Creek Drive, stated he was a participant in the early stages of the public input sessions. He stated he believed that people "heard what they wanted to hear" during the process. He stated Citizen Planner "infiltrated" and steered the public input. He stated to his knowledge there were no public input sessions at which people could address problems with the current City Plan. He stated City Plan was based on a "new urbanism, which was a failed concept." He stated the problem would be in the implementation. He stated there had been a flight of businesses out of Fort Collins since the implementation of City Plan and that there was a resulting decline in revenue. Brigitte Schmidt, Citizen Advisory Committee member, stated the Committee made an effort to try to look at the existing City Plan and the problems or situations that were occurring. She stated the Committee had a bus tour of different projects and how City Plan was presently working. She stated the Committee also looked at Council's input regarding various issues that were on hand. She stated many issues would be addressed in the action plan and that the plan as recommended represented compromises. She stated she believed that the plan was an accurate reflection of community views. She stated she personally supported the plan as written. Glen Colton, Citizen Advisory Committee member and former Planning and Zoning Board member, asked that the Council adopt the plan as written. He stated from his perspective the committee process was a tough one and that there was a diverse group of people representing many different viewpoints. He stated the committee worked on difficult issues such as the size of the City, desired characteristics, and the impacts of trade-offs. He stated the plan was a compromise and was a good vision for the future. David May, Executive Director of the Fort Collins Area Chamber of Commerce, thanked those who worked on this process. He stated this document was coming forward without the recommendation of the Citizen Advisory Committee and that this was indicative of a lack of community consensus. He stated the committee did not discuss what City Plan had done over the past five years. He stated the Chamber of Commerce was particularly interested in the issue of the economy and that there 274 May 4, 2004 were only eight pages out of 300 that dealt with the economy in the plan. He stated economic issues were important to the community and did not receive the attention that was deserved in the plan. He stated regionalism was another issue that did not receive enough attention in the plan. He stated "new urbanism" was being applied in the City Plan update to export the housing demand because it would follow the retail. He stated his comments should not be construed as negative with regard to the entire City Plan. He expressed a concern that the document was presented to the Council without the consensus or a vote of the Citizen Advisory Committee. Kelly Ohlson, 2040 Bennington Circle, stated he served on the original City Plan Committee. He stated he was part of a minority committee report from the original City Plan that said that the population growth projection of 2.2% was too low. He stated since then the minimum average growth rate had been 3.4%. He stated the State Demographer's population projections had been inaccurate in the past and that the 2% projection included in the Plan brought the legitimacy of the document into question. He stated the Plan should have accurate population ranges (low and high). He stated annexation of the CSU Foothills Campus would mean the expenditure of hundreds of millions of dollars for City infrastructure. He stated unless there were new arrangements that CSU would have to pay no fees, would not have to follow City regulations and would be exempt from the City Plan. He stated there would be no positive benefit for the City taxpayers in annexing that land. He questioned why that issue was even on the table for discussion. He stated the most effective and low cost pollution prevention program in the City had been to voluntarily work with industry to reduce pollution. He questioned why there was a reference in the Plan to "cost effective" in connection with that program when there was no such reference to any other City programs. Randy Fisher, Citizen Advisory Committee member, stated the process was grueling and contentious and that the result was a City Plan document that he would characterize as an "agreement wrapped in a compromise, packaged in concessions, punctuated with give-and-take, and printed on consensus." He stated the last few Committee meetings were well attended and that he saw no reason for anyone to make an issue of the fact that the Committee did not take a final vote on the plan. He stated it was time to move on with adoption of the plan. Councilmember Roy asked about references in the agenda material that stated the Growth Management Area boundary would be retained with future expansions according to established procedures and criteria and references to exceptions (i.e. Fossil Creek, CSU Foothills Campus, and Wildflower). He noted that those references had different language than the plan itself and asked if the plan language was accurate. Frank stated City Plan policy specified that one issue to be included in the update was the expansion of the Growth Management Area. He stated the policy provided that the decision at this time was not to expand the GMA and that expansions would take place only as part of the City Plan update, with the exception that the City could consider GMA expansions for Fossil Creek, the Wildflower and CSU Foothills Campus outside of the normal five- year update process. 275 May 4, 2004 Councilmember Tharp stated the Wildflower issue made sense after it had been explained but that it did not appear in the early discussions. She asked that staff explain the issue for the benefit of the audience. Frank stated this was a small 30-40 acre parcel in the southwest part of the City that was not currently in the GMA. He stated it was in an area that would be eligible for consideration by Council as an enclave annexation in December of 2004. He stated current policies would not allow the Council to consider that enclave annexation since it was not in the GMA. He stated the issue was added to the discussion late in the process so that the Council could consider the inclusion of the property in the GMA outside of the normal five-year update process. Councilmember Tharp asked if the property was surrounded by City -owned property. Frank stated there was City -owned property on several sides. Councilmember Tharp asked about references that had been made to problems with the existing City Plan not being addressed by the committee. She asked at what point such problems would be identified and addressed so that they could be corrected. Frank stated discussion on any principle, policy, goal or vision of City Plan was allowed. He stated there was some frustration on the Committee because some members wanted to deal with the Land Use Code at the height of the criticism about the development review process. He stated some people wanted to deal with specific Land Use Code issues rather than City Plan policies. He stated those discussions were not part of this process and that there was a separate review process for those Code issues. He stated the role of the Committee was to deal with the policies that were the foundation for the Code provisions. He stated a record was kept regarding the Code changes that were of interest to the Committee. Councilmember Tharp stated staff had indicated that the action plan would be the next step, and she asked what the action plan was, who would create it, and how it would be implemented. Frank stated staff would create the action plan and would incorporate implementation ideas that surfaced during committee discussions and were placed on a "parking lot" since they were not within the scope of the Committee's review. He stated the action plan would outline what needed to be done, by whom and within what timefiame. Councilmember Tharp asked when the action plan would be seen. Frank stated some of the work had already started and that work would occur over a period of time. Bruce Meighen, EDAW, stated an action plan was phased over a five-year time period and that it would be implemented before the next City Plan update. He stated subarea plan updates dealing with specific issues relating to neighborhood compatibility would be action items. Councilmember Tharp questioned extending the action plan over a five-year period since the principles would be in place after adoption of the Resolution. She asked when Council would look at the actions that this would direct staff to do to determine whether Council was supportive of the actions. Frank stated one way to ensure that action items would be completed was to work them into 276 May 4, 2004 the Council policy agenda process. He stated Council could also request a periodic City Plan monitoring report. Councilmember Tharp stated she would like to see something specific requiring an report back to Council and Council's evaluation of the action taken within a certain timeframe. She stated she would like to see a role for Council in seeing and evaluating the steps taken in the action plan implementation. Councilmember Weitkunat asked if the Appendix could be separated from the report. Councilmember Bertschy stated he viewed this as a statement of the task, the principle it applied to as an implementation strategy and the managing/coordinating department. Councilmember Tharp stated she was looking for some way for the Council to monitor the actions taken. Councilmember Bertschy questioned the need to monitor some of the actions i.e. intergovernmental agreements, Land Use Code updates that would occur every six months, etc. He noted that actions relating to economic development were already underway. Councilmember Kastein contended that the increase in densities in 1997 contributed to more people per square mile, and asked if there had been fewer trips per person as a result compared with what would have resulted from lesser densities. Frank stated vehicle miles traveled were increasing and the number of trips made was increasing. He stated attempts were made to offset that with transit alternatives. He stated the Plan was based not only on higher densities but on mixed uses. He stated vehicle miles traveled were increasing faster than the population growth rate. He stated Fort Collins had one of the highest transit ridership share in the region and one of the highest bicycle trip mode share in the region. He stated most research shows higher density to be abetter land use alternative than sprawl. Councilmember Kastein asked how higher density was better. Mark Jackson, Transportation Planner, stated low density sprawl would preclude transit from being an effective trip choice. Frank stated higher density would reduce the increase in vehicle miles traveled. Mr. Meighen stated the increase in vehicle miles traveled was a national phenomenon and had little to do with land use. Councilmember Weitkunat asked if there was anything in the 2004 document that would be directly in conflict with, or different than, the 1997 City Plan. She asked if anything in the 1997 City Plan would be negated by the new plan. Frank stated the big difference was in the GMA expansion. 277 May 4, 2004 Councilmember Weitkunat asked if this was a contradictory change. Frank stated the City was already physically limited with regard to urban growth area expansion. Mayor Martinez asked for clarification regarding the action taken by the Citizen Advisory Committee. Frank stated the insinuation was made that the Committee never took a vote because there was no consensus. He stated it was true that the Committee did not take a vote on the entire plan but that the Committee did take majority votes on every section of the plan. Councilmember Weitkunat stated she felt that it was time to vote on the Resolution. Councilmember Weitkunat made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Bertschy, to adopt Resolution 2004-058. Councilmember Roy thanked everyone who participated in the process. Councilmember Kastein stated higher density in the lower density neighborhoods was one of the principles of the original City Plan. He stated the idea was that increasing the densities would slow the geographic expansion of the City. He stated there was also a recognition that there was a need to maintain a 20 year supply of land for housing to ensure that housing could stay affordable. He stated the Resolution would be a decision in principle that the Growth Management Area should be frozen and to leave the densities in the lower density neighborhoods as they were set in 1997. He questioned whether there had been enough consideration of this point and whether it was appropriate to both leave the densities higher and freeze the GMA boundary. He asked for Council discussion of leaving densities high and freezing the GMA boundary. Councilmember Weitkunat stated part of that discussion did not belong with the discussion about City Plan. She stated this was a discussion of principles and policies. She stated City Plan was an umbrella guiding document to provide a direction. She stated specific implementation was putting the plan to work. She stated a discussion of density should take place in another venue. She stated 80% of this document was the same as the 1997 document. She stated it would be important to discuss density in depth at another time. She stated she was disappointed that the document did not address the economy in more depth but that there was another mechanism in place to address that issue. Councilmember Tharp stated if the Resolution was adopted, the Council would be adopting the GMA boundary, supporting the concept of separators and recognizing the growth of the County and neighboring cities. She stated the Council was not constricting growth so much as recognizing that the City was confined within a certain land area due to the growth to the east and south. She stated she believed that the Plan was realistic from that point of view. 278 May 4, 2004 Councilmember Hamrick stated much of the development that had taken place since 1997 had come in under the old Land Development Guidance System. He asked what percentage of developments had been done under City Plan. Frank stated the information had not been updated since 2002 at the beginning of the planning process. He stated the recent trend had been toward more City Plan projects and that until 2002 the majority were under the old LDGS. Councilmember Bertschy stated it was time to move forward with the Resolution and thanked those who participated in the process. Councilmember Tharp stated she wanted to ensure that there was a way for the Council to track, monitor and evaluate City Plan on a continuous basis. She stated she wanted the City to keep track of the consequences and results of the adopted policies. Councilmember Weitkunat stated it was a monumental undertaking to engage the community in community building and planning. She stated nobody got everything they wanted and that she viewed the plan as a "living, changing document." She stated the Plan reflected the diversity of the community. Councilmember Hamrick thanked the staff and the Committee for their work on the Plan and stated it was time to move forward. Councilmember Kastein thanked the staff, consultant and committee for their work. He stated he had the same problems with the new City Plan as he had with the old City Plan. He stated those problems related to density. He stated not much of the Plan had changed even though the Land Use Code had changed a lot over time. He stated the main change (freezing the GMA while maintaining the density goals) was a negative in his view. He stated he believed that the GMA should have a cooperative planning area. He stated the transportation plan was different with higher densities and a fixed GMA. He stated he would vote against the Resolution due to major philosophical differences that he had with the Plan. Mayor Martinez thanked everyone who worked on the Plan. He stated City Plan provided a direction and that the difficulties would come with implementation of higher density projects to provide more affordable housing. He stated it would be difficult to live up to the vision when the neighborhoods resisted in -fill development project. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Bertschy, Hamrick, Martinez, Roy, Tharp and Weitkunat. Nays: Councilmember Kastein. THE MOTION CARRIED 279 May 4, 2004 Resolution 2004-059 Authorizing Grazing Leases on the Soapstone Ranch Property To Be Acquired by the City, Adopted. The following is staffs memorandum on this item. "FINANCIAL IMPACT The grazing leases will require the lessees to pay operating costs for the remainder of 2004, and will require them to pay $13 per cow/calf unit per month in 2005. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City is negotiating a contract to acquire the Colorado portion of the Soapstone Ranch, approximately 12,500 acres in size, including State Land Board lease property totaling approximately 3,800 acres, together with a covenant limiting development on the Wyomingportion of Soapstone Ranch adjacent to Colorado. The acquisition and conservation of the Colorado portion of the Soapstone Ranch supports the City's ten-year Land Conservation Framework. The Soapstone Grazing Association corporation will be purchased by a ranching family that currently owns stock in the corporation; and the Grazing Association will keep the Wyomingportion of the Ranch and sell to the City the Colorado portion. The Grazing Association will retain two easements across the Colorado portion ofthe Soapstone Ranch, 1) an access/utility easement along the northern part of the Colorado land to provide access to the Wyoming portion and 2) an agricultural access easement for the benefit of the ranching family, which also owns land on the south side of the Soapstone Ranch, to allow the movement of cattle through the westerly three Sections of Colorado Soapstone into Wyoming and back (i. e. a cattle drive). The easement may also allow access through Colorado strictly for providing agricultural services associated with those cattle (i.e. to drive from their Colorado property to Wyoming to doctor cattle, fix fence, etc). The easement would terminate upon the sale of the Wyoming Soapstone land or the ranching family's land in Colorado, since it is intended to allow the movement ofcattle between those two properties. As a condition of transaction, the City will be obligated to allow the use ofa portion of the Colorado land, including the State Land Board lease land, by the selling members of Soapstone Grazing Association, who currently graze cattle on the property. Also, the City will be obligated to allow the use of one pasture by the ongoing Grazing Association. The initial term of these leases will be through the end of 2004 and will require the lessees to pay the costs associated with operating the Ranch during that period. The leases may be extended by the lessees through December 31, 2005, ►R May 4, 2004 at a charge of $13.00 per cow/calf unit/month grazed for the calendar year 2005. The leases will expire at the end of 2005. The City will need to execute grazing leases on the Soapstone Ranch, including the residence located on the Ranch, as part of the closing of the acquisition, including one lease to those current Grazing Association members who will no longer own an interest in current ranch property, and one lease to the ongoing Soapstone Grazing Association. " City Manager Fischbach stated the agenda item had been revised to change the action from Second Reading of Ordinance No. 076, 2004 to consideration of Resolution 2004-059. He stated the Ordinance was no longer needed. John Stokes, Natural Resources Director, stated efforts to acquire the Soapstone Ranch had continued since the adoption on First Reading of Ordinance No. 076, 2004. He stated the transaction had been greatly simplified. He stated the Resolution would allow the City to convey two grazing leases upon the successful acquisition of the ranch. William Altberg, Soapstone Grazing Association member, stated the vote to sell Soapstone Corporation, the land and its assets had been passed by a majority of the association members. He stated selling the ranch had an impact on agricultural and livestock livelihoods. He stated he had concerns regarding cattle grazing on the ranch after the two-year lease expired. He stated future ranch use had been unclear to several of the association members who wished to continue agricultural and livestock activities, and that they were concerned about the City's long term plans for the Colorado portion of the ranch. Greg Snyder, 619 Bear Creek Drive, stated he had opposed expanding the sales tax for open space purchases. He stated he believed that "fraud has been perpetrated upon the community." He stated proponents of the expanded sales tax had assured the community that the purchase of land at the Wyoming border would never be considered because the purpose of the sales tax would be to create and defend open areas and buffers around the City's growth area. He objected to the purchase of land that was not within eyesight of Fort Collins with minimal public input. He stated the purchase would nearly deplete the fund and that other properties (such as the Rule property and the property on East Prospect discussed earlier) could not be purchased. He asked the Council to reconsider the scope and the depth of this purchase. Glen Colton, 625 Hinsdale Drive, stated the ballot language for the open space sales tax extension mentioned local and regional separators. He stated there was extensive public outreach on that sales tax extension and that he took offense at the comments from the previous speaker regarding "fraud." He asked that Council approve the Resolution. 281 May 4, 2004 David Wright, Executive Director of Citizen Planners, stated he had talked with a number of citizens who were genuinely excited about this purchase. He asked that Council adopt the Resolution. Kelly Ohlson, 2040 Bennington Circle, stated this was a great example of everyone working together on a complex arrangement that would be fair to everyone. He stated there was a well established Land Conservation Plan that took years to develop. He noted that the citizens approved the natural areas tax by a large margin. He encouraged the City to "get the public on the land" as quickly as possible. He suggested open field trips to allow the public to see the property. Craig Harrison, Timnath, asked that the Council vote to approve the Resolution and spoke regarding the Lindenmeier archaeological site on the property. Randy Fisher, 3007 Moore Lane, spoke in favor of the Resolution and stated this was the kind of land purchase that City residents wanted to see. Councilmember Weitkunat asked that staff explain the process for buying land for open space. Stokes stated the Council was not required to approve such open space purchases and that the Council was being asked to approve conveyance of a grazing lease. Councilmember Weitkunat asked if the discussion at the last meeting was not with regard to the purchase of the land but the conditions of the purchase. Stokes replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Weitkunat stated for the benefit of the audience that the Council was not approving the purchase but was being asked to approve grazing rights. Mayor Martinez noted that if the grazing rights were not approved that the deal would probably not go through. Councilmember Tharp asked why Council did not have to approve open lands purchases. City Attorney Roy stated if monies were appropriated for the purchase of open space that particular acquisitions did not require Council approval. He stated lease agreements and easements required Council approval under other provisions of the City Code. He stated the lease and the easement were integral parts of the transaction and that approval was important to allow the transaction to move forward. Councilmember Tharp stated money was already set aside for categories of separators and that Council was not required to approve specific purchases. City Attorney Roy stated was correct. Councilmember Kastein asked for clarification that Council was ultimately responsible for appropriating the dollars and putting a policy plan in place that would presumably match the public intent. City Attorney Roy replied in the affirmative. 282 May 4, 2004 Councilmember Kastein asked that staff describe the purchase price and acreage involved. City Manager Fischbach stated the City was purchasing 12,000 acres for $7.287 million. Stokes stated negotiations were still going on and that was the target purchase price. Councilmember Roy asked about future plans for grazing. Stokes stated ranch would be ]eased for cattle grazing for the next 1'h years pending City acquisition. He stated the City would likely continue grazing management on the property after that time. He stated grazing was compatible with the ecosystem and that it would be appropriate to continue to have cattle grazing on the ranch. Councilmember Hamrick asked when the Natural Areas Policy Plan was approved by the Council. Stokes stated the Plan was revised in April of 2003 to address the issue of regional open space. Councilmember Hamrick asked that a color copy of the Plan be sent to the Coloradoan. Councilmember Bertschy made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Tharp, to adopt Resolution 2004-059. Councilmember Kastein stated he did not support the original open space tax because he felt that there were more pressing infrastructure needs. He stated the tax passed and that the Council went through a public process to approve the Natural Areas Policy Plan that hopefully matched the intent of the voters as stated in the tax initiative. He stated the question was whether this natural area purchase matched the adopted Plan and that he believed that it did match. He stated one-third of the funding was set aside for regional lands which were potentially further away from the City. He stated he believed that this purchase was appropriate and noted that the City did have money to spend on open space. Councilmember Weitkunat stated she would support the grazing leases. She stated she did not support the original purchase because of the convoluted process involved in the negotiations. She stated she did not agree that open space should be purchased at any cost under any conditions. She urged that caution should be taken so that the City did not display "environmental greed." Councilmember Hamrick thanked staff for its work on the negotiations. He stated he was in total support of the transaction. He stated the open space tax was dedicated for the purpose of acquiring open space and could not be used for other purposes. He noted that there were criteria for the purchase of land. Councilmember Tharp stated she wanted the public to understand that the action of buying regional park lands followed the Natural Areas Policy Plan and the wording in the citizen -approved initiative. She stated the money was available and was dedicated for this purpose. 283 May 4, 2004 is Councilmember Bertschy stated this was a fantastic piece of property and that the purchase fit the City's plan. He stated this would be an asset for the future. Mayor Martinez stated he struggled with the meaning of "regional" and whether it meant property at the Wyoming border. He stated the Council was following the legal requirements and was doing what the voters had approved. He questioned whether there was an adequate definition of "regional." The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Bertschy, Hamrick, Kastein, Martinez, Roy, Tharp and Weitkunat. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED Adiournment The meeting adjourned at 10:10 p.m. Mayor • ATTEST: ��P - City Clerk - 284 •