HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES-01/18/2005-RegularJanuary 18, 2005
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
Council -Manager Form of Government
Regular Meeting - 6:00 p.m.
A regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins was held on Tuesday, January 18, 2005,
at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll Call was answered
by the following Councilmembers: Bertschy, Hamrick, Kastein, Martinez, Roy, Tharp and
Weitkunat.
Staff Members Present: Atteberry, Krajicek, Roy.
2004 Report to the Community
City Manager Atteberry presented a video showing the 2004 Report to the Community from the
Mayor and the City Manager.
Citizen Participation
Mayor Martinez stated each participant would have two minutes to speak.
Glenn Colton, 625 Hinsdale Drive, thanked the Council and staff for hosting the Sustainability
Workshop at the Senior Center. He expressed disappointment that the event was not covered by the
Coloradoan.
Courtney Stevens, Director of Community Affairs for ASCSU, spoke in opposition to the "three
unrelated" ordinance. She stated over 200 cards opposing the ordinance were collected in two hours.
She asked the students who were present in opposition to the ordinance to stand.
Ed Stoner, former Mayor and City Councilmember, spoke in favor of retaining the grocery sales tax.
He stated he would prefer to see a continuation of the lower base sales tax (2 V4 cent) and noted that
eliminating the food sales tax would mean an increase in the base sales tax to keep City services.
He stated if the food sales tax was eliminated that services could be cut for the Senior Center,
Library, park and street maintenance, and code enforcement.
Lynn Colter, Applewood Estates, urged the Council to postpone indefinitely consideration of the
southwest enclave annexation. She stated the City needed to focus on issues related to becoming a
healthier and economically viable City. She stated there were many issues more critical to the City
than annexing people who do not want to be annexed.
Mark Anderson, Applewood Estates, opposed the southwest enclave annexation. He stated the
annexation would violate the "spirit' and intent of the enclave annexation law because the enclave
was created by the acquisition of open space after voter approval. He stated the enclave was
"artificial."
401
January 18, 2005
Nick DeEnsenzo, Fort Collins resident, asked that Council take the "three unrelated" ordinance off
the books because it was "discriminatory" for economic and life style reasons.
Jason Hewitt, CSU student, opposed the "three unrelated"ordinance because of its negative impacts
on those who had to share housing with others for many reasons.
Eric Healy, Fort Collins resident, spoke in opposition to the "three unrelated" ordinance. He stated
there were more cars and people at owner -occupied homes than renter -occupied homes. He stated
nuisance violations should be enforced instead through the public nuisance ordinance. He stated an
occupancy limit of three was "arbitrary" and that for safety reasons there should be an occupancy
limit based on number of bedrooms, square footage, bathrooms and parking spaces. He asked that
the "three unrelated" ordinance be taken off the books.
Mark Scholtice, Applewood Estates, spoke against the southwest enclave annexation. He stated the
open space surrounding the enclave was owned by both the City and the County. He stated the
enclave was created using part of Taft Hill Road adjacent to the landfill and unincorporated land.
He stated it appeared to be a "flagpole annexation turned in on itself' and that the courts "frowned"
on such annexations that would not serve a "legitimate public purpose." He stated annexation would
be a "lose/lose" situation for everyone.
Courtney Pensbothia, CSU student, 1014 Andrews Peak Road, spoke against the "three unrelated"
ordinance. She noted that there was a high rental vacancy rate and that the ordinance impacted
students and landlords and other renters.
Nancy Jackson, Fort Collins resident, spoke in favor of retention of the grocery tax at the April
election. She stated there would be "consequences" if the tax was repealed by the voters. She stated
there would be "tremendous cuts" to City services and programs affecting citizen safety,
transportation, and social services. She urged the voters to "read, research and understand" the food
tax issue. She noted that rebate programs were available to low income people.
Greg Snyder, 619 Bear Creek Drive, noted a Coloradoan article about a drive -through coffee shop
in Fort Collins. He stated about six months and more than $200,000 was invested in the
development process, including City fees and architectural plans. He stated such costs "doomed"
such businesses. He stated the City's tax revenue depended on "businesses being successful." He
stated the City had "impediments and barriers" to small business that were "strangling" business.
Evan Hyatt, 2714 Purple Mountain Lane, spoke in support of retention of the grocery sales tax. He
urged the Council to adopt a Resolution opposing the repeal of the tax. He stated all citizens would
lose services they now "took for granted" if the tax was repealed. He stated services that could be
reduced or eliminated included Dial -a -Ride, City support for social services and affordable housing,
and recreational programs.
Dale Maddox, 720 Fossil Creek Drive, Applewood Estates, opposed the southwest enclave
annexation. He stated there would be costs to the City. He stated there was a great deal of
402
January 18, 2005
opposition to the annexation among the 3,000 residents and 26 square miles in the proposed
annexation area.
Kevin Mitchell, Coventry Subdivision, spoke against the "three unrelated" ordinance. He stated the
economic conditions often made it necessary for people to share housing. He stated there had also
been societal changes relating to marriage since the ordinance was adopted.
Tina Vericksoot, Fort Collins resident, spoke in opposition to the "three unrelated" ordinance. She
stated it was discriminatory and outdated. She stated enforcement would have unknown economic
impacts and that this could contribute to sprawl. She noted that students were facing rising costs at
every turn and that students would not be able to afford to come to school here. She stated students
contributed social capital and $621 million to Fort Collins through the university. She stated the real
solution to the problem was to fully fund nuisance enforcement. She asked that the "three unrelated"
ordinance be repealed.
Paul Anderson, Rolland Moore West Neighborhood, stated the neighborhood was submitting a five -
point plan to the City Council to speak to the "ongoing unregulated de facto rezoning of
neighborhoods." He stated landlords had "uncontrollable leverage to change the character of
neighborhoods zoned single-family." He stated the issue was density and character. He stated
almost every university town had zoning restrictions on rentals and numbers of unrelated residents.
He asked that the existing laws be enforced and that "simple registration" be implemented to help
with that enforcement. He stated protecting neighborhoods would prevent loss of revenues to the
City as families moved out, create a positive environment for investors to build commercial housing
for students, and make housing more affordable for single families and groups of renters because
packing too many people in a house artificially inflated rental prices. He stated the neighborhoods
wanted control of the unregulated growth of density via unregulated rentals. He urged all
homeowners to contact their City Council representatives.
Katie Klausen spoke in opposition to the comments made by the previous speaker. She asked the
Council to listen to the opinions expressed by students and young adults.
Mayor Martinez asked Council if they wanted to go over the 30 minutes designated for Citizen
Participation. The consensus was to allow two more speakers.
Al Baccili, 520 Galaxy Court, spoke in opposition to the food sales tax and the vendor fee.
Doug Brobst, 1625 Independence Road, spoke regarding the need to have health and safety
inspections as part of a rental licensing or registration program. He urged the Council to give clear
direction to City staff at the upcoming study session to move forward with the program.
Citizen Participation Follow-up
Mayor Martinez requested a memo on the ownership of the open space surrounding the proposed
southwest enclave annexation and whether that made a difference as far as proceeding with the
403
January 18, 2005
annexation. City Manager Atteberry stated written information would be provided to the City
Council.
Mayor Martinez noted that a speaker urged the Council to adopt a Resolution in opposition to repeal
of the food sales tax and asked if such a Resolution was being brought forward for consideration.
City Manager Atteberry stated the Finance Committee would be bringing forward a Resolution in
two weeks.
Mayor Martinez stated the food sales tax was an important issue and that there were "huge
ramifications" if the measure repealing the sales tax was adopted by the voters in April. He stated
this could create a "volatile" situation that would mean a big cut in the City budget. He stated the
voters needed to "move cautiously" with that decision.
Councilmember Tharp asked if the proposed Resolution could be brought forward sooner than two
weeks. She stated the citizens should be shown the impact and information sooner than that.
Councilmember Bertschy requested an opportunity to give the Finance Committee report. He stated
the Finance Committee wanted to make sure that the Resolution was worded properly and relevant
to the timing of the election. He asked if there would be City records relating to the people who lost
their house as noted by one speaker as a result of the "three unrelated" ordinance. He requested a
follow-up on that issue. He stated a number of speakers referenced the "discriminatory' nature of
the "three unrelated" ordinance and that he would like to have information about that aspect of the
ordinance prior to the Study Session. He stated he would give a Finance Committee report later in
the meeting referencing the Committee's discussions relating to the "serious cuts" that would be
needed if the food sales tax was repealed.
Councilmember Roy stated over 80 communities in Colorado had a food sales tax and that the City
provided a rebate program. He stated the tax amounted to 250 for $100 in spending. He stated he
would like to see the rebate program made more available for citizens. He stated $6 million would
be lost from the City budget and that those who had the least would lose the most due to the types
of cuts that would have to be made. He stated he was looking forward to the Study Session on the
"three unrelated" ordinance and thanked those who spoke on the issue. He stated the "struggles"
facing neighborhoods were critical and that neighborhoods were adversely affected by Code
violations and nuisance problems. He stated the rental issue needed Council action quickly.
Councilmember Kastein stated State law allowed cities to annex property that had become an
enclave. He stated there was an intergovernmental agreement between the City and County that
required the City to analyze such properties for annexation within three years after they were
surrounded. He stated this did not mean that the Council had to annex the property.
Councilmember Weitkunat thanked those who spoke about the "three unrelated" ordinance and "put
a face" on the issue. She stated there were questions about whether the ordinance still fits in current
society. She stated the "three unrelated" ordinance was archaic and was not relevant. She stated it
was time to look at this law in terms of these times and this changing society.
.FME
January 18, 2005
Councilmember Tharp stated she had understood from the written schedule that the Resolution
taking a position on the food sales tax would be coming before Council on February 15 and that she
was happy to hear that it was actually scheduled for February 1. She stated the "three unrelated"
ordinance did not work and that she was looking for alternatives. She stated the intent was to come
up with something that would be "functional" for everyone. She stated much of the issue related to
enforcement of existing ordinances.
Mayor Martinez stated many cities that did not have a grocery sales tax had a higher base tax. He
thanked those who spoke under Citizen Participation.
Aeenda Review
City Manager Atteberry stated the agenda would stand as printed.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Consideration and approval of the regular Council meeting minutes of December 21, 2004.
8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 001, 2005, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue from
Grant Proceeds from the State Office of Energy Management and Conservation in the Capital
Projects Fund - Police Facility- Design Project to be Used for Design Services for the Future
Police Services Facility.
On September 2, 2004, the City applied for a Rebuild Colorado high performance design
grant from the Governor's Office of Energy Management and Conservation for the new
Police Services Building. On October 4, 2004, the Governor's Office awarded the City a
$20,000 grant award for design services for the new Police Services Facility, located on
Timberline Road.
This grant will provide integrated design services that will focus on developing a building
that meets, or attempts to meet, LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design)
"silver" certification. The design work includes design charettes, energy modeling,
daylighting modeling, and other services. Also, the City will provide to the Office of Energy
Management and Conservation any educational/outreach materials and activities about high
performance design (outreach materials and activities may involve web site announcements,
newsletter articles, project overview at workshops, local newspaper articles, press releases,
etc.) Ordinance No. 001, 2005, was unanimously adopted on First Reading on January 4,
2005.
405
January 18, 2005
9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 002, 2005, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue
in the General Fund from the Colorado Department of Transportation Enforcement of
Underage Drinking Laws Program.
Fort Collins Police Services has been awarded a grant under the Colorado Department of
Transportation, Enforcement of Underage Drinking Laws program (EUDL) in the amount
of $26,000. The grant funds will be used for overtime in possession/illegal sales operations,
to provide educational materials for School Resource officers, and to fund educational
programs conducted by TEAM Fort Collins. The grant period begins March 1, 2005 and
ends May 30, 2006. Ordinance No. 002, 2005 was unanimously adopted on First Reading
on January 4, 2005.
10. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 003, 2005, Designating the Dukes/Dunlap House, 501
Stover Street, Fort Collins, Colorado, as a Fort Collins Landmark Pursuant to Chapter 14 of
the City Code.
The owner of the property, Mona Frayer, is initiating this request for Fort Collins Landmark
designation of the Dukes/Dunlap House. Constructed circa 1900, the Dukes/Dunlap House
is a nice example of Folk Victorian/Late 19th-Early 20th Century Vernacular architecture.
The house qualifies for designation as a Fort Collins Landmark under Preservation Standard
3. The property embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, and method of
construction, and contributes to the historical and architectural significance of Fort Collins.
Ordinance No. 003, 2005 was unanimously adopted on First Reading on January 4, 2005.
11. First Reading of Ordinance No. 005, 2005, Authorizingthe he Appropriation of Operating
Funds of the Fort Collins -Loveland Municipal Airport for the Fiscal Year Beginning January
1 2005, and Authorizingthe he Appropriation of Unanticipated Revenue and Prior Year
Reserves for Capital Improvements at the Fort Collins -Loveland Municipal Airport.
The 2005 operating budget for the Fort Collins -Loveland Municipal Airport totals $530,470,
and will be funded from Airport operating revenues, contributions from the Cities of Fort
Collins and Loveland, and interest earnings. This Ordinance appropriates the City's 50%
share of the 2005 Airport budget, totaling $265,235. In addition, this ordinance appropriates
the City's 50% share of capital improvements, not included in the 2005 Airport operating
budget.
12. First Reading of Ordinance No. 006, 2005, Authorizing the Lease of Property to be Acquired
for Wellington Community Separator to Turf Master Ltd., for a Sod Farm and Related Uses.
Pursuant to the City of Fort Collins Land Conservation and Stewardship Master Plan, staff
has negotiated a Purchase & Sale Agreement with Bartran Enterprises, LLC for
approximately 450 acres located in the Wellington Separator Area. The property is currently
operated as a sod farm by Turf Master, LTD., and a condition of the sale of the property is
an assignable Lease Agreement to the existing operator.
EM
January 18, 2005
13. First Reading of Ordinance No. 007.2005,Authorizing the ConveyanceofRi t-of-Way and
Non -Exclusive Utility Easements to the Colorado Department of Transportation for Use for
a New Public Rest Area.
This is a new request from the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) with regard
to the already approved rest area facility and associated access. To meet traffic requirements,
CDOT will need to install a signal and a left turn lane off of East Prospect onto the frontage
road that provides access to the rest area. CDOT also needs to install gas, water and sewer
service lines into the rest area. These items relate to the previous City Council approval of
a voluntary exchange of parcels to allow the Colorado Department of Transportation to
develop a new rest area immediately south of the current Welcome Center on East Prospect
Road near Interstate 25. At the time the exchange was approved, Council also approved
related temporary and permanent easements. The requested conveyances in this item are in
addition to those previously approved.
14. First Reading of Ordinance No. 008, 2005, Authorizing the Conveyance of Certain Real
Property and Authorizing the Grant of a Temporary Construction Easement at Meadow
Springs Ranch to Weld County.
In 1999, the Weld County Public Works Department identified a need to improve
connectivity between US 85 and I-25 in northern Weld County to serve regional
transportation needs as well as local farmers and ranchers. Weld County Road ("WCR")126
was chosen as the route that would connect these principal state highways in an east -west
fashion. This route provided the only connection in a 20-mile segment from WCR 100 north
to the Colorado/Wyoming border.
***END CONSENT***
Ordinances on Second Reading were read by title by City Clerk Krajicek.
8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 001, 2005, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue from
Grant Proceeds from the State Office of Energy Management and Conservation in the Capital
Projects Fund - Police Facility - Design Project to be Used for Design Services for the Future
Police Services Facility.
9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 002, 2005, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue
in the General Fund from the Colorado Department of Transportation Enforcement of
Underage Drinking Laws Program.
10. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 003, 2005, Designating the Dukes/Dunlap House, 501
Stover Street, Fort Collins. Colorado as a Fort Collins Landmark Pursuant to Chapter 14 of
the City Code.
407
January 18, 2005
Ordinances on First Reading were read by title by City Clerk Krajicek.
11. First Reading of Ordinance No. 005, 2005, Authorizingthe he Appropriation of Operating
Funds ofthe Fort Collins -Loveland Municipal Airport for the Fiscal Year BeginningJanuary
1, 2005, and Authorizingthe he Appropriation of Unanticipated Revenue and Prior Year
Reserves for Capital Improvements at the Fort Collins -Loveland Municipal Airport.
12. First Reading of OrdinanceNo. 006, 2005, Authorizing the Lease of Property to be Acquired
for Wellington Community Separator to Turf Master Ltd., for a Sod Farm and Related Uses.
13. First Reading of Ordinance No. 007.2005.Authorizingthe ConveyanceofRight-of-Way and
Non -Exclusive Utility Easements to the Colorado Department of Transportation for Use for
a New Public Rest Area.
14. First Reading of Ordinance No. 008, 2005, Authorizing the Conveyance of Certain Real
Property and Authorizing the Grant of a Temporary Construction Easement at Meadow
Springs Ranch to Weld County.
18. First Reading of Ordinance No. 004, 2005, Amending the Duties and Functions of Certain
Boards and Commissions so as to Allow such Boards and Commissions to Provide Input to
the Decision Maker Regarding Project Development Plans.
Councilmember Weitkunat made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Roy, to adopt and approve
all items on 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 Tharp spoke regarding item #11 First Reading of Ordinance No. 005, 2005,
Authorizing the Appropriation of Operating Funds ofthe Fort Collins -Loveland Municipal Airport
for the Fiscal Year Beginning January 1, 2005, and Authorizing the Appropriation of Unanticipated
Revenue and Prior Year Reservesfor Capitallmprovements at the Fort Collins -Loveland Municipal
Airport. She noted that the airport budget showed the addition of $1,150,000 in federal monies for
airport improvements. She stated she would like to see the airport be self-sustaining.
Mayor Martinez asked if the Airport still required City funding. City Manager Atteberry stated the
irport stood on its own financially.
Councilmember Tharp asked why the City's portion of the Airport budget was $265,000. Ron
Phillips, Transportation Services Director, stated the Cities of Fort Collins and Loveland were each
putting monies into airport operations. He stated the City's share included fees, rentals for hangar
space, royalty fees on fuel sales, etc. He stated the City's part of the budget was $155,000 and that
I1:
January 18, 2005
only $60,000 was from the City's General Fund.
Mayor Martinez asked for clarification. Phillips stated the City was paying out $60,000 from the
General Fund and that the remaining amount of the $155,000 were revenues for fees paid through
the airport.
Mayor Martinez asked when the City would no longer have to pay any money from the General
Fund. Phillips stated the hope was that at some point in the future the two cities would no longer
have to subsidize the Airport.
Mayor Martinez requested a memo regarding when a subsidy would no longer be needed.
Councilmember Tharp stated she would like additional clarification regarding the amounts
referenced in the ordinance. Phillips stated the $60,000 was budgeted as part of the City's
appropriation ordinance last fall. He stated this was a "housekeeping" ordinance relating to the
Airport budget.
Councilmember Bertschy spoke regarding the "good news" of item #12 First Reading of Ordinance
No. 006, 2005, Authorizing the Lease of Property to be Acquired for Wellington Community
Separator to Turf Master Ltd., for a Sod Farm and Related Uses.
Staff Reports
City Manager Atteberry reported that Council had passed item #9 Second Reading of Ordinance No.
002, 2005, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue in the General Fund from the Colorado
Department of Transportation Enforcement of Underage Drinking Laws Program and that there
would be a brief staff report. Joe Gerdom, Police Services, reported that $26,000 was obtained from
CDOT funding and that the intent was to have a multifaceted approach to underage drinking, riot
prevention and education in partnership with CSU, CSUPD, Team Fort Collins, and Poudre School
District.
Mayor Martinez asked for more information about the plan. Gerdom stated strategies included
"Cops in Shops" in which officers would act as sales people at liquor stores and underage
enforcement efforts related to identification. He stated $6,500 of the grant would be used for minors
in possession enforcement in the two weeks prior to CSU graduation and the three weeks prior to
the start of school in the fall. He stated the intent was also to have a strong police presence to
prevent any type of riotous situation from developing.
Councilmember Reports
Councilmember Bertschy reported on Finance Committee discussions relating to the budget impact
scenarios that would result from the repeal of the current food sales tax. He stated the Committee
discussed goals and making a recommendation to the Council relating to the budget impacts. He
stated the sales tax revenues were up slightly because of use tax increases. He stated the ten-year
[me
January 18, 2005
budget projections showed that projected expenditures would run in the negative by 2006. He stated
the Committee agreed that it would be valuable to look at one-time funds and that services must be
provided as efficiently as possible. He stated there was also agreement regarding looking at
alternative sources of revenue. He stated a Resolution would be brought forward to the Council on
February 1. He stated the next Committee meeting would focus on refining the budget impact
scenarios. He stated the Committee discussed impacts such as the continuation of expenses even
if a park would be closed. He stated the Committee discussed efficiencies in City government and
the current food sales tax rebate program. He stated the Committee agreed that a change in the
median income with relation to the rebate would be appropriate.
Councilmember Tharp asked if the rebate would be changed to make more people eligible for the
rebate. Councilmember Bertschy replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Roy asked if any consideration was given to bringing forth the concept of changes
to the rebate program at the same time as consideration of the Resolution. Councilmember Bertschy
replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Kastein reported on discussion of the North Front Range Transportation and Air
Quality Planning Council relating to an amendment to the Transportation Improvement Plan,
election of officers, and a review of the Executive Director.
Councilmember Tharp reported that she attended the Northern Colorado Business Reports Economic
Forecast meeting and that there were mixed reports on the area's economy. She stated one speaker
(John Green) talked about the downtown in negative terms, and that she wanted to correct that
misperception.
Councilmember Roy asked if the data supporting that speaker's contentions could be obtained. He
agreed with Councilmember Tharp that the downtown was "vibrant" but stated he would be
interested in understanding the speaker's "warnings."
Ordinance No. 004, 2005,
Amending the Duties and Functions of Certain Boards and Commissions so as to
Allow such Boards and Commissions to Provide Input to the Decision Maker
Regarding Proiect Development Plans. Adopted on First Reading as Amended
The following is staffs memorandum on this item.
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Council gave staff direction at the October 26, 2004 Study Session to bring forward for Council's
consideration ordinances and other materials that would provide options for expanding the role of
certain City boards and commissions in the development review process.
410
January 18, 2005
This item does the following: (1) it identifies five boards and commissions that would be authorized
to become involved in the development review process; (2) it presents Council with two optional
amendments to the duties and functions of those boards and commissions; and (3) it provides two
administrative alternatives as to how Option 1 of the Ordinance should be implemented by City staff
if that is the version of the Ordinance that Council selects.
Council should decide which, if any of the boards and commissions listed in the ordinance should
be given a role in the development review process, and then indicate which, if either, of the optional
ordinances to adopt. Both options would empower the Landmark Preservation Commission (LPC)
to provide "complimentary design review" to applicants under Chapter 14 of the City Code,
If Option 1 of the Ordinance is adopted, Council should also give direction to staff, by motion, as
to how staffshould support the boards and commissions that are authorized to become involved in
the development review process. The administrative model chosen by Council will then be reflected
in revisions to the City's Development Manual.
BACKGROUND
Currently, the scope of official duties of the City's various boards or commissions are each
separately defined in the City Code sections that establish each board or commission. If a board or
commission acts within the scope of its official duties, its members are protected by the City against
legal challenges. However, if they act outside the scope of their official duties, the City is not
obligated to indemnify them against any legal actions that may arise from their actions.
The City of Fort Collins has twenty-six separate boards and commissions, but only a few were
suggested for consideration of being given an expanded role in development review. These few
boards or commissions are those whose duties most directly relate to the physical characteristics
of the community:
• Natural Resources Advisory Board,
Transportation Board,
• Air Quality Advisory Board,
• Affordable Housing Board, and,
• Landmark Preservation Commission.
These are the boards and commissions that are included in the Ordinance.
Issues
Proponents ofproviding a development review role for policy advisory boards offer several reasons
to support the change, including:
The Land Use Code includes provisions for granting modifications and variances to
defined standards the policy boards helped develop; therefore, these boards would have
411
January 18, 2005
a chance to comment if the standard is being modified;
• Some members of policy boards have significant special expertise that may benefit the
project and review process;
• Involvement of policy boards at an early stage of the project may identify and resolve
issues that might otherwise result in greater costs and delays (such as having the project
appealed to Council) if board members are not aware of the project until much later in
the review process;
• Policy board members represent important elements of the community and these values
should be reflected in the review process;
• Policy board involvement could provide a means to help ensure the consistency and
quality ofstaff review work.
Opponents of providing a development review role for advisory boards offer several reasons to
oppose the change, including:
• Policy boards are appointed to advise Council on development of policy and this
legislation — this f unction should be kept separate from the quasi-judicial development
review process where regulations are applied to specific projects;
• Adding additional boards to the review process increases the complexity of the review
process and has the potential to add increased staff support costs and project delays;
• There is no assurance that policy board members have the appropriate skills and
expertise to provide consistent review comments on projects;
• Policy boards are often perceived to be aligned with certain distinct values sets in the
community, and their involvement has the potential to unduly politicize the review
process.
The significance of each of these arguments for and against providing policy boards an expanded
role in the development review process may depend in part on the administrative model used to
support such an expanded role.
Code Changes
Ordinance No. 004, 2005, would amend the duties andfunctions unction of each of the above -referenced
boards and commissions in order to authorize them to become involved in the development review
process.
412
January 18, 2005
Option 1 ofthe Ordinance would authorize board and commission review ofall project development
plans and would allow each affected board or commission to make recommendations to the Director
of Community Planning and Environmental Services or the Planning and Zoning Board (the
Decision Maker in Type I and Type 2 reviews) regarding any issues or concerns raised by a
particular project development plan.
Option 2 of the Ordinance would not afford the boards and commissions an opportunity to make
recommendations to the Director or the Planning and Zoning Board regarding a project
development plan. Instead, it would authorize the boards and commissions to provide feedback
directly to any applicant regarding that applicant's project development plan if the board or
commission was requested to provide such feedback by either the applicant or by City staff.
Administrative Options
At the October 26, 2004 Study Session, staff identified various administrative models that would
provide support for providing policy boards an expanded role in development review. If Council
adopts Option I of the Ordinance (which would allow boards or commissions to make
recommendations to the Decision Maker regarding project development plans), then two
administrative options exist:
Administrative Option A:
• The board or commission would receive notice of all new development projects and
could attend neighborhood meetings;
• Board and commission members couldseekproject informationfrom theprojectplanner
or the applicant as neighborhood residents can;
• No additional staffsupport or project review activities would be provided to the board
or commission by City staff;
• Board members could make a formal recommendation to the Decision Maker at the
public hearing on the plan.
Administrative Option B - same as Administrative Option 1 extent:
• Staffwould identify the project development plans that would likely be ofinterest to each
board or commission and send notice to the boards and commissions only ofthose plans;
• A majority of board members could request that other projects be brought for board or
commission review;
413
January 18, 2005
If Option 2 of the Ordinance is adopted, then the administrative process would be as follows:
• Staff or applicant could elect to bring a specific project to the policy board for
complimentary review;
• Board or Commission review would be informal;
• Staffand/or applicant could incorporate board or commission advice at their discretion;
• No formal communication by board or commission directly to the Decision Maker.
These options are outlined greater in detail in the Options Matrix contained in Attachment 1.
Board and Commission Recommendations
Staff reviewed this issue and these options with a number of Boards.
The Planning and Zoning Board recommended no change from existing practice.
The Natural Resources Advisory Board Recommended Option 1 of the Ordinance with
Administrative Option B.
The Air Quality Advisory Board recognized that the Land Use Code does not contain any project
specific air quality standards by which the Board could evaluate projects; as a result, there is not
an appropriate role for the Air Quality Advisory Board in the development review process.
However, the Board indicated that it would be of value for other boards, such as the NRAB, to have
a role in the process. The Board also expressed a desire to develop site specific air quality
standards to be included in the Land Use Code.
Transportation Boardmembers indicated they would like to have a role in the development review
process, and recommended Option I of the Ordinance, with Administrative Option A.
The Affordable Housing Board recommended no change to existing practices, not only with regard
its own involvement in the development review process, but also that of all other policy boards.
The Landmark Preservation Commission recommended adding the development reviewfunction to
its official duties (Option 2). At its September 28, 2004, study session, Councilmembers specifically
discussed the roles and responsibilities of the Landmark Preservation Commission and indicated
their support for amending the Commission's duties and functions to allow staff to seek comments
from the LPC on projects involving historic properties reviewed under the Land Use Code (e.g.
Option 2). The LPC is unique among the City's boards and commissions as the only board with
specific requirements for a certain level of expertise in architecture, historicpreservation, or related
disciplines. These requirements result from the City's status as a federally Certified Local
Government. In addition, the LPC is the only quasi-judicial board being considered for expanded
414
January 18, 2005
development review functions and is veryfamiliar and comfortable with the roles, procedures and
regulations of the Land Use Code pertaining to historic preservation. The LPC recommended
adding the development review function to its official duties.
Staff Recommendation
At the October 26, 2004 Study Session, staff recommended no change from existing practices. At
present, staff recommends adding the development review function (Option2) to the duties of the
Landmark Preservation Commission.
Additionally, if Council wants to provide an expanded role for any of the boards listed above; staff
recommends that Option 2 of the Ordinance be adopted and that the same administrative model
(Option A) be used for all affected boards and commissions. "
City Manager Atteberry introduced the agenda item.
Tom Vosburg, Assistant City Manager, stated at the October 26 Study Session Council gave
direction to staff to bring forward ordinances for Council consideration to allow an expanded role
in the development review process for various boards and commissions. He stated at other study
sessions, the Council had directed that staff bring forward ordinances to reestablish the Landmark
Preservation Commission's ability to continue to provide a complementary review regarding
administration of Chapter 14 of the City Code. He stated this agenda item would outline some
choices for Council. He stated staff was providing a list of boards and commissions that could have
an expanded role in the development review process. He stated Council was being asked to
determine which boards, if any, should have such an expanded role. He stated Council also had a
choice regarding the nature of such review or input. He stated Option 1 would empower the selected
boards and commissions to give direct advice to the decision maker in the development review
process (for Type 1 reviews the Hearing Officer or for Type 2 reviews the Planning and Zoning
Board). He stated Option 2 would empower the selected boards and commissions to provide input
to the applicants and staff in the process (a complementary review such as had been historically
provided by the Landmark Preservation Commission). He stated if Council selected Option 1 that
more direction was needed with regard to the type of administrative model that staff would use to
support the process. He stated staff was presenting two administrative model options: Option A to
provide general notice to boards and commissions but not to provide any additional staff support,
or Option B to allow staff to exercise judgment as to which projects would be of interest to any
particular board and to arrange a presentation to the board. He stated staff had reviewed this issue
with a number of boards and commissions as well as community groups that had expressed an
interest. He stated opinions were divided on the proposal and that the agenda item summary
presented a summary of both sides.
Mayor Martinez stated each audience participant would have two minutes to speak.
Ralph Waldo, 2803 East Harmony Road, stated hundreds of jobs had been lost and that the economy
had slowed. He stated $6 million in sales tax revenue could be lost if the grocery tax repeal passed.
415
January 18, 2005
He stated Fort Collins did not have a "business friendly" reputation, in part due to the lengthy
development review process. He stated it made no sense to add five boards and commissions to the
development review process. He stated this would slow down the development review process and
the City's economic recovery even further. He stated boards and commissions members could
already comment on development projects at the Planning and Zoning Board meetings.
Sherry Grant, Fort Collins resident, stated she did not favor expanding the role of City boards and
commissions and that it was important to maintain the current balance in the process. She stated
there would be an administrative cost to adding this layer of review. She stated this would duplicate
processes that should be accomplished by City staff. She stated Fort Collins already had a reputation
as a "cumbersome place to do business." She stated adding review steps for "potentially politically
motivated interests" did not balance qualify of life and economic vitality. She stated there were
many other opportunities for citizen input into the process. She questioned allowing boards and
commissions to advise on policy and have authority in development decisions. She stated this could
create more appeals if the process was not balanced.
Chris Campbell, Fort Collins Board of Realtors, stated the Board strongly supported staffs earlier
recommendation at the October 26 Study Session that there be no changes in the present practices.
Greg Snyder, 619 Bear Creek Drive, questioned the benefit to the citizens, the City and the people
who would be involved. He stated the boards and commissions were not representative of the City
because they had not been picked on a "fair and random" basis. He stated they were "heavily
stacked" and that this was a "power grab" taking power from the elected and giving it to the
"unelected." He stated this would give some a "bigger hammer." He stated the cost of development
would rise if a "layer of unaccountable, unelected bureaucracy" was added.
Nick Oris, President of the Northern Colorado Homebuilders Association, stated the Association
opposed any change to the present practices. He stated the Zucker Report indicated that including
boards or commissions in the development review process would unnecessarily add time to the
process. He stated all boards and commissions members were appointed by the City Council and
were citizen volunteers. He stated staff provided technical expertise. He stated the Zucker Report
stated the development review process should be clear and reasonable to property owners and
citizens. He stated adding even one board to the process would make the process "unpredictable"
Michelle Jacobs, Northern Colorado Homebuilders Association, stated the development review
process should be clear and predictable and should be policy neutral. She stated the Planning and
Zoning Board was the recommending body to City Council. She stated circumventing State statute
by including volunteer citizens in the job that should be done by elected officials sent a negative
message to businesses. She stating that adding even one more board or commission to the
development review process would lessen what had been done to reduce development review time.
She stated the Association took the position that no boards or commissions other than the Planning
and Zoning Board should be included in the development review process.
416
January 18, 2005
Jerry Gavaldon, realtor, 413 North Grant Street, former Planning and Zoning Board member, stated
the Zucker Report clearly addressed development review process delay problems. He stated the
report gave a low priority to involving any other boards and commissions in the development review
process. He stated staff initially recommended leaving the process alone. He supported that
recommendation. He stated improvements were needed to the Landmark Preservation Commission
complementary review process. He stated Council should focus on the higher priorities outlined in
the Zucker Report.
Robert Howe, President of the Board of Realtors, stated the Board strongly opposed the proposed
ordinance to give various City boards new powers over the development review process. He stated
there were concerns about the length of time for project approval and costs. He stated the Zucker
Report indicated that additional board input could unnecessarily add to an already complicated
review process and duplicate some of the Planning and Zoning Board's functions. He stated the
Charter provided that boards and commissions were appointed by City Council "for the purposes of
reviewing and making recommendations to City Council." He stated this proposal would redirect
those recommendations and create a new role for boards to advise fellow boards.
Kelly Wilson -Wallace, realtor, stated the proposal had a potential to "pervert" the role ofboards and
commissions from being policy advisers to the City Council to directly or indirectly making new
policy. She stated boards had the opportunity to comment directly on development applications
within their areas of expertise. She stated the risk would be for boards to make comments that had
not been adopted by City Council. She noted that the Air Quality Advisory Board had recognized
that "the Land Use Code does not contain any project specific air quality standards by which the
Board could evaluate projects. As a result, there is not an appropriate role for the Air Quality
Advisory Board in the development review process." She stated the agenda item summary also
noted that the Affordable Housing Board recommended no change to existing review authority with
respect to itself and other boards.
J. J. Johnston, President and CEO of the Northern Colorado Economic Development Corporation,
stated the Corporation had favored the Zucker Report's recommendation to reduce the development
review time. He stated adding additional boards and commissions to the development review process
would be "counter intuitive" and would not help reduce the review time. He stated this could
contribute to more delays, more complexity in projects, and the addition of costs. He stated this
could also "unduly politicize projects." He asked that Council not lengthen the development review
process.
Glen Colton, Natural Resources Advisory Board member, stated he was representing the "citizens"
of Fort Collins rather than those who would "benefit from the growth." He stated the Zucker Report
stated the NRAB and Air Quality Board should be allowed to comment on selected projects under
certain circumstances. He stated Option 1 and Administrative Option B would accomplish that
recommendation. He stated there should be a balance between development interests and
community interests. He stated many of the Zucker Report recommendations to streamline the
development process were adopted immediately. He stated when he served on the Planning and
Zoning Board there was "pressure" put on the Board and the staff for "certain outcomes." He stated
417
January 18, 2005
there were development proposals on which the NRAB should be allowed to give input, and that this
would probably be only one or two proposals a year. He stated the boards would have an advisory
rather than quasi-judicial role and that this would not impact the process.
Tom Honn, 1601 Quail Hollow Drive, Housing Authority member, stated the development review
process was handled under the City Code. He stated this proposal would change the process. He
stated there was no need to change the Code and that the status quo was appropriate.
Nate Donovan, Natural Resources Advisory Board chair, spoke in favor of expanding the role of the
Board in the development review process. He stated the Board voted 7-2 to reiterate its rationale for
expanding the role of the Board and to reaffirm the points raised in the October 25, 2004 memo to
the Council. He stated such expanded role should not delay the development review process, that
the Board's input should be given early in the process, that this role would be advisory only, and that
such advice would be given on a limited basis. He stated this proposal would allow more
meaningful citizen comment on specific proposals and was not intended to interfere with the advice
of professional staff. He stated this expanded board role should be evaluated after a period of time
to determine if it should continue.
Clint Skutchan, 719 Great Plains Court, Natural Resources Advisory Board members, stated he was
speaking on his own behalf. He stated northern Colorado economy had been "propped up by the
construction industry." He stated this decision would be important in the overall picture. He stated
encumbering the process further would go against the Zucker Report and that this proposal would
not speed up the process. He stated this decision could "undermine" the Fort Collins economy. He
stated this would "further politicize" the boards and commissions process. He stated he did not
believe that there should be an expanded role for the Board. He asked that no change be made to the
process.
Bill Gurski, 7132 Strasburg Drive, stated there was development everywhere along the Front Range
but in the Fort Collins area. He stated people felt that developing in Fort Collins was a "joke." He
stated adding to the development review process would increase the cost and the perception that it
was difficult to do development in Fort Collins. He stated volunteer boards and commissions
members were not necessarily qualified to do development reviews.
Randy Fischer, 16-year board member, stated he was speaking on his own behalf and that the
development review process was "broken." He stated there was a "flaw in the system" because
board members apparently had to give up their First Amendment rights to comment on private
development or face legal challenges. He stated the proposals would not give the boards any
additional power or authority to delay or stop a project. He stated board members would only be
allowed to comment. He stated recent revisions to the Land Use Code made the environmental
protection standards even more subjective.
David May, Executive Director of the Fort Collins Chamber of Commerce, stated the Chamber
opposed the expansion of the role of City boards and commissions in the development review
process. He stated it took a typical project 1 %z years to clear the process. He stated the proposal
Hu
January 18, 2005
would add time to the development process because the agendas of the two monthlyNRAB meetings
were full. He stated the Zucker Report recommended an expanded board role only after Zucker was
"lobbied" by the NRAB. He stated the report (page 32) stated a strong concern about allowing
boards a role in the development review process. He stated that Zucker recommendation #18 was
cited by the NRAB to justify an expanded role. He stated this recommendation stated: "The NRAB
and Air Quality Advisory Board should be allowed to comment on select projects, but only when
modifications exceed a certain percentage and only if comments are offered within the normal time
frame of project approval." He stated the NRAB was "misinterpreting" the Zucker Report by
emphasizing the first half of that sentence. He stated the qualifying statement in the second half was
the key point.
("Secretary's Note: The Council took a brief recess at this point.)
Councilmember Weitkunat asked what role the Natural Resources Department and Transportation
Department played in the development review process. She stated Council had heard from two
boards that wanted to be involved. She asked how the departments fit into the development review
process. Vosburg stated those two departments were represented in the interdepartmental review
process. He stated there was a dedicated staff position in the Natural Resources Department to
review development proposals from the perspective of natural resources issues. He stated a number
of staff members represented transportation interests in the process.
Councilmember Weitkunat asked if the boards contributed to some of the policies that were in place
in the development review process. Vosburg stated the development review process evaluated
projects against the adopted standards in the Land Use Code. He stated those standards were put into
the Code through a legislative process for adoption of City Plan and Land Use Code changes. He
stated board review was solicited as appropriate for such changes.
Councilmember Weitkunat asked for clarification that the boards and commissions made their
contributions at the time of policy development. Vosburg stated that was a fair characterization and
stated they were involved in writing rather than applying the rules to individual projects.
Councilmember Weitkunat noted that Mr. Fischer indicated that he had given up his First
Amendment rights and asked the City Attorney to address that issue. City Attorney Roy stated the
distinction to be drawn was between comments made in an individual or personal capacity and
comments made on behalf of the board. He stated individual boards and commissions members
were free to express their opinions in public on whatever subject they chose including development
proposals. He stated if boards or commissions members wanting to act in an individual capacity on
behalf of the board or commission were advised to stay within the functions and duties assigned by
the Council to that board or commission. He stated the City and State law offered indemnity to
officers or employees who did things within the scope of their duties. He stated in order to have the
City pay for the cost of defense and provide that indemnification that it was important that what they
were doing was within the duties and functions set forward by the Council.
419
January 18, 2005
Councilmember Weitkunat asked if the issue was that some boards wanted to be able to speak as a
board as opposed to individuals within that board and be given legal protection. City Attorney Roy
replied in the affirmative. He stated any board or commission member was free to speak at another
board or commission meeting and indicate that he or she was a board member and was speaking as
an individual. He stated the question was whether Council wanted to authorize boards as a body or
individual members speaking on behalf of a board as a body to make a recommendation or comment
that the board had agreed upon and whether that should be more feasible and under the protection
of governmental immunity and City indemnification.
Councilmember Weitkunat asked if the entire board would need to agree to a position before an
individual could speak for a board. City Attorney Roy stated a board could act in most instances by
majority vote.
Councilmember Tharp stated one speaker indicated that the City has the longest review process and
that staff had done a study that showed a different outcome on that. She asked staff to address that
comment. Cameron Gloss, Director of Current Planning, stated after recent changes the City's
review process was quite competitive with many Front Range communities. He stated the City's
cycle time was similar to Aurora and quicker in most cases than Loveland. He stated the City's
review time had been shortened. He noted that the City was not the fastest because it had very high
standards.
Councilmember Tharp noted that the only reason this was being discussed was the legal aspects of
boards not being able to give their comments. She stated she wanted the public to understand that
most boards and commissions were advisory to City Council. She stated the Planning and Zoning
Board was the decision making body on developments and that Council was not involved in that
process unless there was an appeal. She asked if it was true that comments given to the Council at
that point would not address the concerns of the board. City Attorney Roy replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Tharp stated the Council ordinarily expected boards and commissions to give advice
to the Council in the process of making policy decisions. She asked for clarification that there was
no opportunity for boards and commissions to give advice to the Council in the development review
process. City Attorney Roy replied in the affirmative. He stated if the boards were empowered to
give their recommendations to the Planning and Zoning Board or the hearing officer, if and when
there was an appeal to the Council, the board would become a party -in -interest and could make
comments to the Council.
Councilmember Tharp asked if the issue was whether the boards could comment regarding variances
to policy that the Planning and Zoning Board might be allowing. City Attorney Roy stated in
exercising this new function that the boards would not be addressing policy issues but would instead
be addressing a particular plan and the way in which existing policies should be applied to that plan.
He stated neither of the options limited that input to situations where variances were being sought
and that the boards could speak to any aspect of a project development plan.
420
January 18, 2005
Councilmember Tharp asked staff to explain the change in the ordinance to address the Landmark
Preservation Commission. City Attorney Roy stated the Landmark Preservation Commission under
either option would like to have the authority to give feedback to applicants who were seeking
modification of a historic building. He stated both versions would empower the Commission to give
that feedback to applicants upon request of the applicant or the staff.
Councilmember Tharp asked about staffs recommendation on the Landmark Preservation
Commission issue. Greg Byrne, CPES Director, stated staffs recommendation was that this
authority be formally given to the Landmark Preservation Commission because that had been the
practice for many years. He stated the City was a Certified Local Government, meaning that the
Landmark Preservation Commission met certain standards established by the State and that the State
would delegate certain review authority to the Landmark Preservation Commission. He stated the
practice had been to have a complementary advisory review by the Landmark Preservation
Commission when requested by the applicant or by the staff. He stated this was an attempt to
address conflicts in the Code.
Councilmember Tharp asked if the comments made by any board or commission in the process of
development review discouraged the need for an appeal and whether that would actually help the
development review process. She asked if the early identification of a problem might actually
eliminate the need for an appeal. Vosburg stated this had been raised as a point in favor of the
proposal.
Councilmember Kastein asked if the Landmark Preservation Commission complementary review
was in the Code. City Attorney Roy stated it was not contained in the Code. He stated it was
preferable that any action taken by a board or commission should be authorized by the Council.
Councilmember Kastein asked if Council decided not to give that authority to the Landmark
Preservation Commission, how the Council could stress that the Commission's complementary
review should not occur in the future. City Attorney Roy stated if Council made a decision not to
authorize complementary review, staff would recommend that the Commission not do such reviews.
Councilmember Kastein asked how often such reviews were done. Byrne stated they were
infrequent.
Councilmember Kastein asked where staff could obtain information about historic preservation other
than the Landmark Preservation Commission. Byrne stated the applicant would be asked to hire an
architect or provide responses to staff questions. He stated under the Certified Local Government
process, the City was bound to follow the Department of Interior standards on landmark preservation
and that staff members were not trained in all areas.
Councilmember Kastein asked which option would allow the Landmark Preservation Commission
exclusively to perform a review when asked by staff. City Attorney Roy stated both versions
included that in the section dealing with the Landmark Preservation Commission. He stated if that
421
January 18, 2005
was the only action that Council wanted to authorize, one of the options could be introduced and
everything but that section could be eliminated, or a new ordinance could be prepared to take such
action. Vosburg stated the staff recommendation was that Council adopt Option 2 in regard to the
Landmark Preservation Commission only. He stated Option 2 would establish the complementary
review concept. City Attorney Roy noted that Option 2 gave that authority to all of the boards and
commissions. Vosburg stated the sections of Option 2 relating to other boards besides the Landmark
Preservation Commission could be struck from the ordinance.
Councilmember Roy asked about the makeup of the Landmark Preservation Commission in terms
of professions and disciplines represented. City Attorney Roy stated the Code provided that the
Commission consisted of seven members appointed by the City Council and that appointments were
to be made upon consideration of maintaining a balance of interests and skills in the field of
architecture, landscape architecture, architectural history, structural engineering, general contracting,
urban planning, mortgage lending, and commerce.
Councilmember Roy stated many of the comments that had been made were that boards and
commissions members were average citizens and that as pointed out this commission had many
disciplines represented.
Councilmember Tharp asked if that was the only board that had specific criteria for qualifications.
City Attorney Roy stated the Housing Authority may be the only other one with specified
qualifications.
Mayor Martinez asked if there had been any problems with the way things were set up for the
Landmark Preservation Commission. Byrne stated the system worked very well for the most part.
Councilmember Weitkunat made a motion that the Council not adopt either Option 1 or 2 or
Attachments A or B of Ordinance No. 004, 2005.
THE MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND
Councilmember Tharp made a motion to adopt Ordinance No. 004, 2005 on First Reading to allow
boards and commissions to provide input to the decision maker regarding project development plans.
City Attorney Roy requested clarification that the motion was intended to apply to all boards and
commissions.
Councilmember Tharp indicated that this was the intent.
City Attorney Roy requested clarification that the Ordinance would not be limited only to the boards
and commissions enumerated.
Councilmember Tharp indicated that was the intent.
422
January 18, 2005
City Attorney Roy asked if the motion was for Option 1.
Councilmember Tharp stated it was basically Option 1. She stated the idea was not to create any
"super boards" with additional power but to allow for input by boards and commissions in the
regular course of events during the development review process. She stated she did not want
anything else other than that in the Ordinance.
City Attorney Roy requested clarification of the concept so that the Ordinance could be properly
redrafted for Second Reading. He asked if the language would provide that each board or
commission would read "to provide input to the City decision maker as referenced in the Land Use
Code with regard to any project development plan relevant to that board or commission's area of
expertise."
Councilmember Tharp stated the language could reflect that wording. City Attorney Roy stated he
believed that he understood the concept.
Councilmember Roy seconded the motion.
Councilmember Tharp stated it appeared that the motion would be controversial. She stated this had
become an issue only because of the legal ramifications of boards and commissions wanting to
present the group's information during the development review process. She stated this was the
"only thing we want to fix" and that the intent was not to create "super boards." She stated board
involvement would likely be very limited and would occur only when there were requests for
extreme variances to existing policies. She stated a more general statement could eliminate this
problem. She stated this was a contentious issue and that she did not believe that the Council wanted
to limit input from any group. She stated boards and commissions may present a different
perspective that may have been overlooked. She stated she did not want to limit opportunities for
boards and commissions to give comments.
City Attorney Roy requested clarification about whether the motion would include the separate
authority for the Landmark Preservation Commission to provide that feedback to applicants.
Councilmember Tharp replied in the affirmative. She stated she was concerned about the State
requirement if the Landmark Preservation Commission did not have the authority for that feedback.
Vosburg requested clarification regarding whether there was any intent to give staff direction
regarding how this would be administered. He stated at the study session, staff had indicated that
the manner in which the Ordinance would be administered could have a "profound impact" on
whether or not it would actually create delays or add costs to the development review process.
Councilmember Tharp stated Administrative Option A reflected her intent. Vosburg stated staff
would like Council direction regarding the administrative options.
423
January 18, 2005
Councilmember Weitkunat stated it was not the correct approach to give blanket authority to all of
the boards and commissions. She stated the Affordable Housing Board and Air Quality Advisory
Board saw no need for it and that the Planning and Zoning Board did not see a need for it. She stated
only a few boards and commissions felt that there was a need. She stated this was the wrong
approach to fix the problem. She stated she would rather have the Landmark Preservation
Commission issues come back in a separate ordinance at a later date. She stated the Council was
"mixing ideas" and that this was inappropriate. She stated the intent was to allow a board to
comment legally during the public input time. She stated she would prefer a simpler mechanism.
Councilmember Tharp asked what mechanism was suggested.
Councilmember Weitkunat stated she would like to look again at what had been discussed. She
stated she did not fully understand the reason that a board or commission could not comment. She
stated she would prefer a simple mechanism for simple commentary during the public commentary
statements. She stated the Ordinance would leave the door open for comments on anything that
"promotes or adversely affects" a board or commission. She stated this was "too in depth" and that
the issue was whether the boards should be able to speak, not to recommend, force or change.
Councilmember Bertschy asked if the language that was objectionable to Councilmember Weitkunat
could be eliminated. City Attorney Roy stated eliminating the language "promote or adversely
affect" or "be relevant to their area of expertise would have the effect of empowering comments on
anything. He stated the language was intended to "narrow the field" as to when a board or
commission could comment i.e. the field would be narrowed to the board or commission's area of
expertise.
Mayor Martinez asked if the motion would allow comments but not necessarily staff involvement
or response and if it would be a comment for the record. City Attorney Roy stated the Ordinance
would not obligate staff to do anything. He noted that staff was requesting guidance on how the
Ordinance was to be implemented. He stated the Ordinance would say that each board or
commission could comment to the Planning and Zoning Board if there was a plan that interested the
board or commission.
Mayor Martinez asked if this would be a comment of record. City Attorney Roy stated it would be
an opportunity for the board or commission as a body to "say something of record" about a project
development plan. Vosburg stated the concern from the management perspective was that if it was
made clear that one of the duties of a board or commission was to provide comments that there
would be an expectation that the ability to provide that comment would be supported and facilitated
by staff. He stated if the board or commission was treated as neighborhoods were, it would make
it clear that staff would not be responsible for providing a formal presentation and facilitating the
board comment process. He stated the board or commission would have to take initiative on its own,
similar to the way neighborhood groups participated in the process. He stated in most situations the
staff did everything they could to support the boards and commissions in their work, and that without
clear direction that this was not what was intended with regard to the comment process that the
January 18, 2005
"default response" by staff would involve more work for project presentations and support for the
board or commission comment process.
Mayor Martinez asked for confirmation that this would take more staff time. Vosburg replied in the
affirmative and that clear direction was needed regarding Council's expectation that this need not
be done. He stated staff would like clear direction from Council on the record as to how this should
be administered i.e. Administrative Option A or B. He stated Option A would offer that clarity.
Mayor Martinez stated this could still contribute to more staff work if boards and commissions
wanted staff presentations. He questioned whether the process was broken. He stated the boards
and commissions were established to provide advice to the Council.
Councilmember Roy stated the issue was that legal protection was not afforded to boards and
commissions. He stated there was no intent to create a "super board." He stated he would like to
ensure that boards and commissions members could "speak with complete protection."
Mayor Martinez stated boards and commissions members could comment now as individuals. He
questioned how far "legal protection" should be extended when the boards and commissions were
designed to advise the Council. He questioned whether the boards and commissions should be "in
the middle" of Planning and Zoning Board affairs.
Councilmember Roy stated this would not change anything about anypresentation but would change
whether "legal protection" was available to the citizen who was speaking as a representative of the
board or commission.
Mayor Martinez stated he viewed this to be an "unfunded mandate."
Councilmember Weitkunat stated in order to make a presentation as a board or commission, there
needed to be full board support. She stated this would require time and would "bog down" the
process. She stated she was very concerned about having board or commission comments at
administrative hearings because those administrative hearings were put into place to expedite the
process on projects that had all the groundwork laid. She stated this would open the door to
"convoluting the process" and allowing boards and commissions in the administrative decision
making. She stated this work against what had been accomplished pursuant to the Zucker Report.
She stated this would be "dangerous to the process."
Councilmember Tharp stated some of Councilmember Weitkunat's comments dealt with sections
of the Ordinance that were not being changed. She stated the Council should focus only on the
sections that were being changed rather than the whole section. She stated she did not believe that
this would necessarily increase the staff time and that this would simply allow an opportunity to
comment and would take care of the legal issue that had become a concern.
Councilmember Kastein stated this was a "bad idea." He stated no matter what model was used that
this would not work. He stated he wanted the boards and commissions to advise the Council. He
425
January 18, 2005
stated he appreciated the expertise of the boards and commissions but noted that they were often
"politically charged." He stated he did not want the citizens and staff to deal with this in any kind
of "formal way." He stated this would create an expectation that the staff would support the
comment process and that the boards and commissions would "weigh in heavily" in the process. He
stated in reality the boards and commissions often "overstepped their bounds" in giving advice to
Council and that he had learned how to deal with that. He stated he did not want the citizens, staff
and development review process to have to deal with that. He stated he would not support the
motion.
Councilmember Tharp pointed out that the advisory role to Council did not work because of the
restrictions on the Planning and Zoning Board. She stated the Council did not receive the
information until the appeal process, which delayed the development review process even more than
if the comments were made beforehand. She stated the Planning and Zoning Board was a volunteer
group that followed the policies established by the Council. She stated the Board was in a position
to make decisions "without total input." She stated the comments that could be made by any board
or commission could in fact clarify, avoid an appeal or improve the process. She stated this was a
"simple thing" that could be done. She stated any board or commission could identify a problem
from its unique perspective that was not seen by anyone else. She stated this was a "simple way"
to address the legal issue and to take advantage of the input from boards and commissions. She
stated this would not necessarily delay the process or add staff time.
Councilmember Weitkunat stated the question was the role of the Planning and Zoning Board. She
stated it was a quasi-judicial board set up to follow the rules established by the Council. She stated
the board was there to interpret the Code after receiving expert testimony from the staff and others.
She stated allowing citizen boards and commissions who were not "experts" would "mess up" the
process by allowing them to "change" the policies and process that were already in place. She stated
giving the boards and commissions the "authority to make a more meaningful commentary" or
possibly "changing" what the Council had given as the policy was inappropriate. She stated there
were official Planning and Zoning Board functions and duties that should not come from other
advisory boards and commissions, duplicating information and processes. She stated the process
should be kept "clean" and that adding the other boards and commissions meant that there would no
longer be a "clean process." She stated this would subject this process to the "whims" of the
"political" boards and commissions. She stated the appeals to Council were a sign that the system
was working. She questioned the rationale that boards and commissions should be allowed to
comment so that appeals could be avoided or reduced. She stated the process worked now and that
individual boards or commissions members could already comment. She stated their comments
should not carry any greater "authority" because they were board or commission members. She
stated boards and commissions members should not be "advisers" to another board.
Mayor Martinez stated this would "politicize" the development review process. He stated this would
make the process more "convoluted and confusing" and that this would be an "unfunded mandate"
that would further tax the staff. He stated this would take away from the advisory role of the boards
and commissions. He stated the appeal process was designed for Council to hear the information
at that point.
DL94
January 18, 2005
Councilmember Roy stated unless a board member representing a board could not participate and
that the board member could participate only as a citizen at an appeal.
Mayor Martinez stated this would "damage" the future development review process.
Councilmember Roy stated some comments were that Fort Collins was the only community along
the Front Range not experiencing any construction. He stated Fort Collins had a number of
successful large projects underway (Cortina, Pine Lofts, etc.). He stated one issue was the protection
of citizens and that he believed that the boards and commissions members were "wonderful
volunteers" who did excellent work. He stated some comments indicated that these boards and
commissions would somehow "muck up an economic engine that has given Fort Collins a growth
rate of approximately 3% a year." He stated Fort Collins was a "relatively robust" community doing
a "fairly good job" of dealing with issues. He stated Fort Collins dealt with things proactively. He
stated it was important to protect the boards and commissions members by law to ensure that they
could speak and be part of the process. He questioned that this would be a "pitfall" for the future
economic health of Fort Collins as alleged by some. He thanked those who came out to speak on
the issue.
Mayor Martinez stated no Councilmember had said that the boards and commissions members
should not be protected or that they did not do a good job. He stated there was a lot of "political
sway" on the boards and commissions and that was why they should "answer directly" to the
Council.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Bertschy, Hamrick, Roy and Tharp.
Nays: Councilmembers Kastein, Martinez and Weitkunat.
THE MOTION CARRIED
Items Pertaining to the Adoption of the Northside Neighborhoods Plan as an
Element of the Comprehensive Plan of the City, and
Implementation Recommendation to Amend the City Structure Plan Adopted
The following is staffs memorandum on this item.
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A. Resolution 2005-001 Adopting the Northside Neighborhoods Plan as an Element of the
Comprehensive Plan of the City.
A. Resolution 2005-002 Amending the City's Structure Plan Map to Comport with the
Recommendation of the Northside Neighborhoods Plan.
The Northside Neighborhoods Plan was developed over a twelve month planning process, beginning
427
January 18, 2005
in January 2004, involving local businesses and residents centered around the Buckingham, Alta
Vista, Andersonville and Via Lopez neighborhoods.
The primary Plan elements in Phase I include assessment of existing conditions, opportunities and
constraints analysis, issues identification, and vision and goals. Phase II includes developing a
physical frameworkplan integrating land use, transportation, and open lands into a composite map,
and policy direction. The final phase focuses on identifying specific implementation strategies for
achieving the Plan.
Based on the recommendation from the Northside Neighborhoods Plan, an amendment to the City
Structure Plan Map is needed to include the "Stream Corridor" (Josh Ames Ditch/Dry Creek)
shown on the Framework Plan Map in the Document. The Stream Corridor designation willprovide
appropriate guidance for future development decisions in an effort to preserve existing natural
features along the riparian stream channel.
BACKGROUND
In 1997, City Plan identified the neighborhoods of Buckingham, Alta Vista, Andersonville and Via
Lopez as a priorityfor detailed planning. Also, residents raised issues during the 1999 Northern
Colorado Truck Mobility/SH 14 Relocation Study. In response, City Council identified this area for
a f uture study. As a result, the Northside Neighborhoods Plan is part of the City Managers 2003-
2005 Work Plan. The primaryplan objective is to implement City Plan's perspective to the specific
circumstances within this area.
The Northside Neighborhoods Plan will provide a more specific vision and policyframeworkfor the
neighborhoods, including surrounding commercial, industrial and undeveloped open lands. This
plan will also become an element of City Plan, the City's comprehensive plan.
Framework Plan
The Framework Plan map is a physical plan to guide future development in the area and sets a
foundation for the actions the community will take to achieve the Plan. The Framework Plan
combines several different physical planning elements such as land use, transportation, open lands,
parks and trails.
Key Findings illustrated in the Framework Plan map include:
• Existing neighborhoods and businesses supported and maintained.
• Future development on vacant lands consistent with City Structure Plan.
• New mixed -use transition areas identified between industrial and residential land uses.
• Exploring options to expand Romero Park.
• Off-street trails connect to adjacent Poudre River and Mountain Vista trail system.
• Re -alignment of Vine Drive and Lemay Avenue consistent with the Master Street Plan.
428
January 18, 2005
Re-classify existing Vine Drive and Lemay Avenue to local streets (if re -alignment project is
implemented).
Future Dry Creek Channel located adjacent to re -alignment of Vine Drive.
Transportation
One of the primary issues addressed during the planning process included assessing Lemay Avenue
alignment alternatives, including expanding the existing LemayAvenuetoof llarterialstreet. Staff
received clear direction from City Council to support the previously adopted Master Street Plan re-
alignment of Vine Drive and Lemay Avenue (see attached Council Study Session Summary).
Along with the primary arterial streets as shown on the Master Street Plan, the Northside
Neighborhoods Plan identifies several interim improvements to help ease congestion and improve
safety in the area.
Potential implementation actions to achieve the Plan include:
• Identifying both short and long-term projects such as infrastructure upgrades to local storm
drainage and floodplain mitigation, street upgrades, sidewalks, landscaping, and neighborhood
parks.
• Re-classification of Vine and Lemay to local streets (coordinated with re -alignment projects).
• Funding strategies for public improvements.
• Funding options for building rehabilitation remodeling.
• Access, circulation and pedestrian safety improvements.
• Land Use Code amendments for new development standards (interface areas).
Public Participation Process
Since the Northside Neighborhoods Plan planning process was initiated in the fall of 2004, the staff
and consultant technical team has emphasized providing multiple opportunities for public
participation in helping develop the Plan. A Citizens Advisory Group (CAG) has gathered once a
month to work with the technical team. Newsletters, flyers and direct mailings have been included,
along with individual and group meetings. A project web page has been active since the beginning
of the process providing up-to-date information on the progress of the Plan. Spanish translation
of newsletters, meeting notifications, summaries, and web page information has been provided
throughout the process. In addition, regular updates have been provided to the Growth
Management Lead Team, Transportation Board and Planning and Zoning Board.
Planning and Zoning Board Recommendation
On December 2, 2004, the Board voted (7-0) to support a recommendation to City Council to adopt
the Northside Neighborhoods Plan (see attached Hearing minutes). In addition, as a friendly
amendment, the Board identified the following suggestions for revising the document:
429
January 18, 2005
• Add specific language in the Action Plan Matrix (Chapter 6) to include acquiring land in
addition to stormwater detention facilities for expansion of Romero Park.
Staff response: Staff has added new text to the Table.
• Amend the City Structure Plan Map to include the "Stream Corridor" (Josh Ames Ditch/Dry
Creek) shown on the Framework Plan Map in the document.
Staff Response: Staff has included this amendment with the action to adopt the Plan.
• No change to the Northside Neighborhoods Plan but allow flexibility in the future to not
preclude opportunities for zoning changes for additional commercial uses.
Staff response: This Plan is a living document and staff will be open to potential amendments
in the future. "
City Manager Atteberry introduced the agenda item.
Pete Wray, City Planner, stated there was a Resolution to adopt the Northside Neighborhoods Plan
and a follow-up Resolution to amend the City's Structure Plan Map. He presented an overview of
the area covered by the Plan: the existing businesses and neighborhoods in and around the Vine
Drive and Lemay Avenue intersection area north of the downtown and across the Poudre River,
including the Buckingham/Alta Vista/Andersonville/Via Lopez neighborhoods, Meadows and
Evergreen Park and vacant lands. He stated the process to develop the Plan took place over 12
months. He stated a citizen advisory group met nine times over that period and that a series of public
meetings were held. He stated the Plan was considered by the Planning and Zoning Board on
December 2. He stated the Plan was divided into three key sections: assessing existing conditions,
identifying key issues and establishing a more specific vision and goals for the study area;
development of a framework plan map and policy direction for implementation of the Plan; and
looking at implementation strategies and funding options. He stated key transportation issues
included the impacts of the adopted Master Street Plan and future Vine/Lemay realignment project;
the effects of train traffic on emergency response in this area; infrastructure deficiencies in the
existing neighborhoods; and pedestrian and bicycle safety. He stated other key issues were the
impacts of the Poudre River and Dry Creek floodplain areas and local stormwater projects; land use
compatibility between existing industrial areas and neighborhoods; incorporation of trail connections
to other areas outside of the study area; increased crime and code enforcement activity in the
neighborhoods; historic designation; and funding sources for public improvements. He stated one
of the key elements of this Plan was a framework plan map and specific direction for the City
Structure Plan Map. He stated the map showed existing development pattern, existing
neighborhoods and vacant lands; existing and proposed street network; and trails, parks and open
lands. He stated key findings represented by the framework plan were supporting and maintaining
the existing businesses and neighborhoods within the area; looking at developable vacant lands and
land use designations; identifying new transition areas between the industrial and existing
neighborhood areas; connecting off-street trails; if the realignment of Vine and Lemay is realized,
430
January 18, 2005
looking at changes to the existing street network within the area; and coordinating and identifying
the future Dry Creek channel adjacent to the Vine/Lemay realignment. He stated implementation
strategies were identified in the action plan: ongoing coordination and communication within the
different service areas, businesses and neighborhoods as change moves forward in the study area;
looking at new design standards within the transition areas; and coordinating various housing
programs and funding options for achieving the Plan. He stated short term transportation action
items included turn lane improvements to the Vine/Lemay intersection, improving transit stops in
the area and sidewalk connections to those in the neighborhoods, and adding interim sidewalks along
Lemay and Lincoln, adding an interim traffic signal at Buckingham. He stated long term
transportation action items included reclassifying existing Lemay and Vine to local collector streets
if Lemay and Vine realignment occurred, discouraging cut -through traffic, providing pedestrian
connections, better access into the neighborhoods, and ultimately straightening and providing the
Redwood Street connection. He stated the second Resolution would amend the Structure Plan Map
and that this was a housekeeping recommendation to make the Structure Plan consistent with the
recommendations of the Northside Neighborhoods Plan.
Betty Aragon, Buckingham Neighborhood resident, read a letter from herself, Margaret Guzman,
Lupe Salazar, Lawrence Olivas and Debra Bueno to Pete Wray regarding the process. The letter
stated the citizen advisory group was "appalled" to learn at the special meeting on September 22,
2004 that a vote was requested on the proposal for improving Lemay Avenue on its current
alignment to a four -lane arterial; that the plan had alreadybeen submitted to the Planning and Zoning
Board and the Transportation Board and was to be presented to the City Council Study Session on
September 30; that the group was not involved in this critical decision making process; that the
views of the group and community regarding relocation were misrepresented in statements by one
committee member from the Planning and Zoning Board who had no authorization to speak for the
committee; that consideration must be given to the impacts actions would have on neighborhoods
rather than just costs to the City; that she had chosen to resign from the citizen advisory committee
and that the occurrences outlined above had increased mistrust; that broken promises had contributed
to the feeling that these minority communities did not hold the same importance to the City as
majority communities; that Planning and Zoning Board members should not sit on citizen advisory
committees when there would be a review process by that Board; and that the neighborhoods would
not be "disrespected" or "excluded from the decision making process that so enormously affects our
lives."
Jerry Gavaldon, 413 North Grant Street, stated he was a member of the Steering Committee and
citizen advisory group and also a member of the Planning and Zoning Board at that time. He stated
Ms. Aragon's letter was "quite interesting" but that he would not comment on the letter. He stated
he grew up in that neighborhood and that he could "speak of great eloquence that this was my
neighborhood, too." He commented on the process and stated everyone agreed to work together and
that everyone participated in meetings. He stated the Planning and Zoning Board members who
served on the Committee were endorsed by the Board and that the Committee worked as a whole.
He stated the two Planning and Zoning Board members had no more input than the other committee
members. He asked that the Council focus on what went right with the process and that good work
was done. He stated the City needed to be "fiscally responsible, logical, predictable" and that the
431
January 18, 2005
Committee did a good job. He stated he was proud of the work that was done but that
implementation would not happen overnight.
Councilmember Bertschy asked for clarification that the alternative routing directed by Council was
kept. Wray replied in the affirmative.
Mayor Martinez asked about the lack of participation by the Committee in the process. Wray stated
there were ongoing discussions about transportation and the street network. He stated the issue was
brought up at critical meetings of the committee for exploration of the issue of the Lemay/Vine
alignment as an option to the Master Street Plan. He stated staff continued to express support for
all of the previous efforts that the community and Council had made with regard to the truck route
and the Mountain Vista plan. He stated staff had always been concerned about the potential
significant impacts to the neighborhoods. He stated this issue was discussed at May and June
meetings and at the Planning and Zoning Board. He stated there was no opportunity for a formal
vote by the Committee in June because all of the information was not available. He stated staff
indicated at that time that the issue would be explored and analyzed. He stated the findings were
presented to all of the groups in August and September in support of staff s original recommendation
to support the Master Street Plan. He stated the full Committee, the Planning and Zoning Board and
the Council considered the matter in September. He stated Council ultimately decided to support
the adopted Master Street Plan.
Mayor Martinez asked at what point the information was taken to the Committee. Wray stated the
complete analysis was presented to the committee on September 22.
Councilmember Weitkunat stated this plan was a necessary element to help this area move forward.
She stated one element of the Plan was a new industrial/residential interface, and she asked if this
would be a new type of zoning and whether this would apply only to this area or whether this would
be an application of standards and guidelines. Wray stated the framework plan identified three areas
within the existing industrial zoning for which an overlay would be looked at only for this area. He
stated this would not be a zoning change and that language would be added to the Code for design
standards. He stated there would be a future action to explore some design standards relating to
building architecture, site planning and landscaping for better transition development in those three
areas.
Councilmember Weitkunat asked if the three areas were highlighted in the Plan. Wray stated it is
highlighted in the framework plan chapter and map. He stated input would be received from all
groups on the specific standards during the implementation phase.
Councilmember Weitkunat stated there were three priorities identified (pedestrian paths,
transportation and stormwater) and asked where those fit into the next steps. Mark Jackson,
Transportation Services, stated this plan identified short term, mid term and long term
improvements. He stated the lack of basic infrastructure was a key issue. He stated the intent was
to establish interim asphalt paths and pedestrian ways along the Lemay corridor to enable pedestrians
to safely access the Wal-Mart shopping area, bus stops, etc. He stated there was one year left of
432
January 18, 2005
pedestrian plan funding from Building Community Choices and that other ways were being
considered to achieve the interim improvements.
Councilmember Weitkunat asked if the pedestrian walkways would be similar to the interim
walkways on North College Avenue that had become long term. Jackson stated they would be set
aside from the roadway and could be an asphalt path rather than a full concrete sidewalk because of
other infrastructure (curb and gutter) issues. He stated other interim improvements being considered
until Lemay could be realigned in accordance with the Master Street Plan were right-of-way
preservation at every opportunity, adding turn lanes on Vine Drive, and an interim signal at Lemay
and Buckingham. He stated some improvements could be done concurrent with development or
redevelopment in the area and some funding could come from the pedestrian plan funds.
Councilmember Bertschy made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Tharp, to adopt Resolution
2005-001.
Councilmember Bertschy stated this was the culmination of great planning process. He stated there
had been some controversy but that a lot of creativity had gone into the process. He complimented
the staff and the consultant for their hard work on this plan. He stated the infrastructure needs were
tremendous and that the plan would try to preserve what was best about the neighborhoods while
bringing City services to them.
Councilmember Kastein stated this process began in 2003 and that some of the motivations for this
plan came out during the truck route discussions. He stated this was citizen -initiated and that
everyone did a "great job" in developing the plan while addressing concerns that had been expressed.
Councilmember Roy thanked those involved with this Plan. He stated he looked forward to
completing the Plan.
Councilmember Weitkunat thanked everyone involved in developing this Plan. She stated the Plan
put things on the "drawing board." She stated there were basic needs in the area and that there would
be some kind of sidewalk and pedestrian connections in the near future.
Mayor Martinez agreed that this was a "great plan." He stated he wanted to see the sidewalk issues
taken care of in that neighborhood.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Bertschy, Hamrick, Kastein,
Martinez, Roy, Tharp and Weitkunat. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED
Councilmember Bertschymade a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kastein, to adopt Resolution
2005-002. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Bertschy, Hamrick,
Kastein, Martinez, Roy, Tharp and Weitkunat. Nays: None.
433
January 18, 2005
THE MOTION CARRIED
Resolution 2005-003
Making Findings of Fact and Conclusions Pertaining to the Appeal of the
November 1, 2004, Determination of the Administrative Hearing Officer
Regarding the Adrian Subdivision, First Filing, Project Development Plan, Adopted
The following is staff s memorandum on this item.
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On December 1, 2004, an appeal of the November 1, 2004 decision of the Administrative Hearing
Officer to approve the Adrian Subdivision, First Filing - Project Development Plan was filed by the
Appellants Dr. Steven L. Schaeffer and Ms. Sandy Knox.
On January 4, 2005, City Council voted to uphold the decision of the Administrative Hearing
Officer. In order to complete the record regarding this appeal, the Council should adopt a
Resolution making findings offact and finalizing its decision on the appeal.
BACKGROUND
The Appellants notice of appeal was based on the allegation that:
Relevant laws were not properly interpreted and applied
(A) Division 4.3 RL - Low Density Residential District, Sections (D)(1) and
(D)(2). (D)(1) states that "the minimum lot area shall not be less than six
thousand (6, 000) squarefeet". (D)(2) states that "the minimum lot width shall
be sixty (60) feet for a single-family dwelling".
(B) Division 3.2.3(E)(2) Solar Access, Orientation, Shading - Alternative
Compliance states that "the decision maker shall take into account whether
the alternative design fosters nonvehicular access".
(C) Division 3.3.1(B)(1) states that "no lot in a subdivision shall have less area
than required under the applicable zoning requirements of the city".
(D) Division 3.3.1(B)(2)states that "the general layout oflots, roads, driveways,
utilities, drainage facilities and other services within the proposed
development shall be designed in a way that enhances an interconnected
street system within and between neighborhoods and otherwise accomplishes
the purposes and intent of the Land Use Code".
(E) Division 3.3.3(c) states that "any lands that are subject to high groundwater
434
January 18, 2005
shall not be platted for building lots with basements".
(F) Division 3.6.2(L)(1)(a) states that "a private drive shall not be permitted if
it prevents or diminishes compliance with any other provisions of the Land
Use Code".
(G) Division 3.6.2(L)(1)(b) states that "a private drive, instead of a street, shall
be allowed to provide access to an unusually shaped parcel of land".
At the January 4, 2005 hearing on this matter, Council considered the testimony of City staff, the
Appellants, and the opponents to the appeal and determined that the Administrative Hearing Officer
did properly interpret and apply all relevant laws.
City Council upheld the decision of the Administrative Hearing Officer. "
City Manager Atteberry stated staff would be available to answer questions.
Councilmember Tharp made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Weitkunat, to adopt Resolution
2005-003. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Bertschy, Kastein,
Martinez, Tharp and Weitkunat. Nays: Councilmembers Hamrick and Roy.
THE MOTION CARRIED
Other Business
Councilmember Hamrick asked for information from staff regarding lack of City responsiveness in
discussions between the City and Intel about Intel's possible decision to locate in Fort Collins. City
Manager Atteberry stated this was the first he had heard of any lack of responsiveness on the part
of the City on this matter. He stated he would look into the matter and provide Council with an e-
mail.
Councilmember Hamrick stated it would be in the City's interest for Intel to locate in Fort Collins.
Mayor Martinez requested an update on progress regarding the development review process and how
the new Ordinance on boards and commissions comments fit into the timetable and process.
Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m. f
ayor
ATTE
J��
City Clerk
435