HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES-11/05/1996-RegularNovember 5,1996
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
Council -Manager Form of Government
Regular Meeting - 6:30 p.m.
A regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins was held on Tuesday, November 5,
1996, at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll Call was
answered by the following Councilmembers: Apt, Azari, Janett, Kneeland, McCluskey, Smith and
Wanner.
Staff Members Present: Fischbach, Roy, Krajicek.
Citizen Participation
Mike Marsh, representing the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Golden, Colorado, spoke
in support of the Wind Power Pilot Program and stated he would be available for Council questions.
David Hughes, 4432 Westridge Drive, expressed concerns regarding Pineridge open space and the
need for its preservation.
Citizen Participation Follow-up
Councilmember Kneeland responded to Mr. Hughes, noting Pineridge has received a lot of interest
and spoke of the importance for people to interact in the area.
Councilmember Smith responded to comments from Mr. Hughes and reported the Natural Resources
Board and the Parks and Recreation Board would soon be meeting to discuss area usage.
Mayor Azari thanked Councilmembers and staff for their leadership regarding the Wind Power Pilot
Program
Councilmember Apt thanked staff and the Electric Board for its work.
Agenda Review
City Manager John Fischbach stated Item #13, Items Relating to the Establishment of Northern
Colorado Community Housing, Ltd., had been pulled from the Agenda to be reconsidered at a future
time not yet determined.
105
November 5, 1996
Councilmember Apt requested Item 47, Second Reading of Ordinance No. 130, 1996, Amending
Section 20-1 of the Code of the City Regarding Air Pollution Nuisances, be withdrawn from the
Consent Calendar.
***CONSENT CALENDAR***
This Calendar is intended to allow the City Council to spend its time and energy on the important
items on a lengthy agenda. Staff recommends approval of the Consent Calendar. Anyone may
request an item on this calendar to be "pulled" off the Consent Calendar and considered separately.
Agenda items pulled from the Consent Calendar by the Public will be considered separately under
Agenda Item 919, Public Pulled Consent Items.
7. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 130, 1996, Amending Section 20-1 of the Code of the
Citv Re ag rdine Air Pollution Nuisances.
At the July 23 Study Session, Council approved staff's recommendation not to proceed with
an ordinance requiring change out of high polluting wood stove and fireplaces at point of
sale, but rather, to continue the wood smoke reduction program (ZILCH, complaint line,
information) and to enhance the program to increase turnover of wood stoves and to build
upon changing attitudes pertaining to woodburning. Council also directed staff to proceed
with review of City ordinances relating to wood smoke pollution and to make revisions
where necessary. Ordinance No. 130, 1996, was adopted by a vote of 4-3, on First Reading
on October 15, 1996.
8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 131, 1996, Amending Section 26-280 of the Code of the
Citv of Fort Collins Relating to Rates for Category I Customers of the City's Wastewater
Utility.
Wastewater rate increases were implemented in January, 1995 and January, 1996,
respectively, for the City's various categories of wastewater customers. However, the Code
still reflects the pre-1995 rate of $1.39 per 1,000 gallons of winter quarter water use for its
Category I customers. Ordinance No. 131, 1996, which was unanimously adopted on First
Reading amends that rate, increasing it to $1.57 per 1,000 gallons of winter quarter water
use, in order to accurately reflect the City's costs to provide wastewater services to its
Category I customers and to bring it in line with the previous rate increases for the other
customer categories.
While the 1995 and 1996 water rate increases are not reflected in the Code for Category I
customers, Colorado State University, currently the City's only Category I customer, paid
106
November 5, 1996
the increased rates for 1995 and 1996. Colorado State University has been notified of the
City's oversight in not previously amending its Code to reflect these rate increases and was
notified of this Ordinance being presented to Council.
First Reading of Ordinance No. 138, 1996, Rescinding the Designation of the
Rosenoff/Smith House, 508 West Olive Street, as a Local Landmark Pursuant to Chapter 14
of the Code of the Citv of Fort Collins.
On June 4, 1996, the City Council designated the Rosenoff/Smith House as a Local
Landmark. The owner of the property, Mark Johnson, has initiated this request for the
rescission of Local Landmark designation. The Landmark Preservation Commission
believes that the public benefits accruing in maintaining this property on the list of individual
Local Landmarks do not outweigh the negative impact of insisting upon such designation in
the face of the owner's desire.
10. First Reading of Ordinance No. 139, 1996, Authorizing the Return of the City Park World
War I Cannon to the American Legion, George Beach Post No 4
The cannon was given to the City in 1932 by the American Legion, George Beach Post No.
4 to be displayed in memory and honor of World War I veterans. The cannon was
subsequently affixed to a concrete slab at City Park for public viewing. The playground was
expanded in 1982 and the cannon is now in the middle of the playground. City staff has
determined that removal of the cannon will improve the safety of playground users and make
the playground easier to use. Staff has attempted to identify other locations or appropriate
uses for the cannon, but none have been found.
Curt Cameron, 1 st Vice Commander of the American Legion approached the Parks Division,
has requested that the cannon be returned to the American Legion and moved to the local
American Legion Hall to be displayed and shown the proper respect originally intended.
City staff has concluded that this course of action is in the best interest of the City and the
community and will best serve the original intent of the donors of the cannon and will
preserve the City's intent in accepting the cannon in 1932. The American Legion will
become the owner of the cannon, will move the cannon from City Park at no cost or expense
to the City, and will be responsible for any further care, maintenance or use of the cannon.
11. First Reading of Ordinance No 140 1996 Amending Ordinance No 26 1993 Substituting
A Bond Surety Agreement for the Previously Required Reserve Fund
107
November 5, 1996
In 1986, the City of Fort Collins refunded all of its outstanding sales and use tax bonds and
issued additional new bonds to achieve savings in annual debt service and to consolidate
several interim financing structures. The 1986 bonds were issued prior to Tax Reform Act
of 1986 that imposed several federal tax reform measures pertaining to municipal finance.
The 1986 bonds were not subject to limits on how the bond proceeds could be invested. In
1993, the City advance refunded the 1986 bonds to achieve additional interest savings.
Under the advanced refunding, the 1986 bonds are to be called on December 1, 1996. The
1993 bonds will be subject to the federal limitations as to how much interest bond reserve
funds may earn.
In the course of refunding the sewer revenue bonds just one month ago, bond insurance
companies made very low bids on insurance and surety bonds that replaced reserve funds in
the Wastewater Fund. With the assistance of bond counsel and the City's investment
bankers, Finance Department staff explored the concept of acquiring a surety for the sales
tax bonds even though the City is not refinancing them at this time. The 1993 bond
ordinance allows the substitution of a surety through an amendment to the bond ordinance.
The proposed Ordinance makes the required changes. The bottom line in that the City will
be able to continue to invest the reserve funds at the higher rate, saving the City about
$84,000 annually.
12. First Reading of Ordinance No. 141, 1996, Vacating Portions of Riglits-of-Wav for
Battlecreek Drive and White Willow Drive as Dedicated on the Willow Springs PUD Plat.
On December 12, 1994, the Planning and Zoning Board gave final approval to the Willow
Springs PUD, Phase 1, located west of Timberline Road and south of Harmony. At that time
it was anticipated that a future public street would loop from Battlecreek Drive to White
Willow Drive to serve the proposed multifamily units. The rights -of -way for those future
intersections were dedicated on the Willow Springs PUD. However, the developer has since
submitted a replat of the multifamily area ("The Villages at Willow Springs") which utilizes
private driveways for access. The driveways intersect Battlecreek Drive and White Willow
Drive at locations different from those previously proposed. Therefore, the rights -of -way
for the old intersection locations are no longer necessary and are proposed for vacation at this
time.
13. Items Relating to the Establishment of Northern Colorado Community Housing, Ltd.
A. Resolution 96-130 Authorizing the City Manager to Execute an Agreement With
Northern Colorado Community Housing, Ltd.
1:
November 5, 1996
B. Resolution 96-131 Expressing Continued Financial Support for Funding Partners for
Housing Solutions in the Amount of $250,000.
Resolution 96-130 authorizes the City Manager to enter into an Agreement committing the
City to participate along with various other public entities in northern Colorado (including
the City of Loveland, Larimer County, and Colorado State University) in funding the
administration of NCCH, doing business as Funding Partners for Housing Solutions, for the
remainder of 1996, with provisional extensions of the Agreement for up to two years. The
Agreement provides for the use of the City and other contributed funds to develop an
administrative program to establish a capital funding mechanism and technical advisory
resource to support the provision of affordable housing in the Fort Collins area, in exchange
for the City's contribution.
Resolution 96-131 expresses the CounciI's support to provide additional funding support to
NCCH for program costs (non -administrative) with the requirement that non-public monies
must be received or committed. Through its administrative efforts, the NCCH expects that
private foundations and companies, including local banks and businesses, will provide
grants, donations, low -interest funding to the cause of providing local affordable housing.
The purpose of the Council in this resolution is to demonstrate the City is willing to match
a portion of the private and non-profit monies that might be available.
14. Resolution 96-132 Approving the Purchase of Various Insurance for the Benefits Program
from Sun Life of Canada, FHP Health Plan, Vision Service Plan and Delta Dental Plan
Human Resources staff recently received proposals for a joint purchasing project with the
City of Loveland, Town of Estes Park, Poudre School District, Platte River Power Authority,
and Larimer County. The bids included, services for the following insurances:
Life/Accidental Death & Dismemberment, Long Term Disability, Dental, Vision, and Stop
Loss. (Life/Accidental Death & Dismemberment, Long Term Disability Insurance from
Sun Life of Canada in an amount estimated to be $274,000; Stop Loss Insurance from FHP
Health Care in an amount estimated to be $120,000; Vision Insurance from Vision Service
Plan in an amount estimated to be $68,000; Dental Insurance from Delta Dental Plan in
amount estimated to be $35,000.)
In order to process these Request For Proposals in time to meet the administrative needs of
the organization, the Purchasing Agent is requesting approval of an exemption from the
competitive purchasing process.
November 5, 1996
15. Resolution 96-133 Finding Substantial Compliance and Initiating Annexation Proceedings
for the Fort Collins Good Samaritan Village Annexation.
The property being considered for annexation is approximately 15.210 acres in size and is
located at the northwest corner of Trilby Road and Constellation Drive. The Evangelical
Lutheran Good Samaritan Society has voluntarily requested to be annexed into the City of
Fort Collins as a 100% voluntary annexation. The property is currently zoned R-2,
Residential, in the County. The proposed zoning for this annexation is R-L-P, Low Density
Planned Residential with a Planned Unit Development Condition.
The proposed Resolution determines that the annexation petition complies with the
Municipal Annexation Act. The Resolution also determines that a hearing should be
established regarding the annexation and directs that notice be given of the hearing. The
hearing will be held at the time of First Reading of the annexation and zoning ordinances on
December 17, 1996.
16. Resolution 96-134 Finding Substantial Compliance and Initiating Annexation Proceedings
for the REA Annexation.
The applicant, Spradley Barr, on behalf of the property owner, Poudre Valley Rural
Electrical Association, Inc., has submitted a written petition requesting annexation of 9.39
acres located south of Harmony Road and west of South College Avenue. The property
contains an existing large building (previously the Poudre Valley REA headquarters and
facilities) which is currently vacant. The requested zoning for this annexation is CL - Limited
Commercial. City staff is recommending that the property be zoned HB - Highway Business
with a planned unit development condition. The surrounding properties are zoned HB -
Highway Business (to the north), BL - Limited Business (to the east) in the City and FA1 -
Farming (to the west), T - Tourist (to the south) in Larimer County.
The property is located within the Fort Collins Urban Growth Area. According to policies
and agreements between the City of Fort Collins and Larimer County contained in the
Intergovernmental Aareement for the Fort Collins Urban Growth Area, the City will agree
to consider annexation of property in the UGA when the property is eligible for annexation
according to State law. This property gains the required 1/6 contiguity to existing City limits
from a common boundary with the East Vine Drive 6th Annexation to the north.
110
November 5, 1996
17. Resolution 96-135 of the Council of the City of Fort Collins Fixing Ratifying and Affirming
a Telephone Exchange Access Facility Charge for the Latimer Emergency Telephone
Authority Pursuant to an Intergovernmental Agreement Dated November 14 1990
The Larimer Emergency Telephone Authority (L.E.T.A.) was created pursuant to Colorado
Revised Statute 29-11-101 by an intergovernmental agreement between the City of Fort
Collins and nineteen other government entities in Larimer County.
The telephone exchange access facility charge of fifty cents ($.50) per month became
effective January 1, 1991, by approval of Fort Collins City Council. This fee has remained
the same each year by annual approval of the L.E.T.A. Board.
This surcharge to telephone subscribers is necessary to continue and adequately fund the
Emergency 911 telephone service in the City of Fort Collins throughout 1997.
18. Routine Deeds and Easements.
A. Deed of Easement from Housing Authority of the City of Fort Collins to
underground existing overhead electric services located at 3.06 Whedbee. Monetary
consideration: $10.
B. Deed of Easement from Donald D. Banks to underground existing overhead electric
services located at 812 Peterson. Monetary consideration: $10.
C. Deed of Easement from Kenneth G. and Mary May Walters to install transformer to
underground existing overhead electric services behind and east of 100 Grandview
Avenue. Monetary consideration: $36.
Items on Second Reading were read by title by City Clerk Wanda Krajicek.
Second Reading of Ordinance No 130, 1996 Amending Section 20-1 of the Code of the
CitRegarding Air Pollution Nuisances.
8. Second Reading of Ordinance No 131, 1996. Amending Section 26-280 of the Code of the
City of Fort Collins Relating to Rates for Category I Customers of the Citv's Wastewater
Utility.
November 5, 1996
Items on First Reading were read by title by City Clerk Wanda Krajicek.
9. First Reading of Ordinance No. 138, 1996, Rescinding the Designation of the
Rosenoff/Smith House. 508 West Olive Street, as a Local Landmark Pursuant to Chapter 14
of the Code of the City of Fort Collins.
10. First Reading of Ordinance No. 139, 1996, Authorizing the Return of the Citv Park World
War I Cannon to the American Legion, George Beach Post No. 4.
11. First Reading of Ordinance No. 140, 1996, Amending Ordinance No. 26, 1993. Substituting
A Bond Surety greement for the Previously Required Reserve Fund
12. First Reading of Ordinance No. 141, 1996, Vacating Portions of Rights -of -Wad
Battlecreek Drive and White Willow Drive as Dedicated on the Willow Springs PUD Plat.
Councilmember Apt made a motion, seconded by Councilmember McCluskey, to adopt and approve
all items not removed from the Consent Agenda. Yeas: Councilmembers Apt, Azari, Janett,
Kneeland, McCluskey, Smith and Warmer. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Reports
Councilmember Apt stated the Growth Management Committee met and discussed the city Plan
Principles and Policies document and addressed issues presented by the Planning and Zoning Board,
CPAC Committee and home builders. He stated level of service issues were discussed as well as
issues relating to alternative modes of transportation.
Councilmember Kneeland stated the Health and Safety Connnittee met and discussed changes to the
human rights ordinance, and reported the youth access to tobacco issue would be discussed at the
next meeting.
Councilmember Wanner stated during the Health and Safety Committee meeting traffic calming
measures were discussed.
Councilmember McCluskey commented on development of partnerships in neighborhoods for traffic
calming.
112
November 5. 1996
Councilmember Janett spoke of a joint purchase of insurance that was on the Consent Agenda and
spoke of the amount of money that would be saved. She reported an open house would be held to
discuss designs and alternatives on the Timberline project. She spoke of radon test kits currently
available from the Natural Resources Department.
Mayor Azari spoke of a recent presentation she made to the South Platte Forum group.
Councilmember Apt stated takings legislation was discussed at a recent meeting he attended with
the Colorado Municipal League Policy Committee.
Consideration of the Appeal of the
August 26, 1996 Decision of the Planning and
Zoning Board Denying the Harbor Walk Estates PUD,
Referral of an Administrative Change for a Sound Abatement Wall,
Decision of the Planning and Zoning Board Upheld
The following is staff s memorandum on this item.
"Executive Summary
On August 26, 1996, the Planning and Zoning Board denied a request known cis Harbor PValk
Estates PUD, Referral of an Administrative Change fora Sound Abatement Wall. The request was
to construct a solid wood fence, varying in height from five to three feet, on the west side of Lemay
Avenue and on the east side of Harbor Walk Drive. The fence would be 747 feet long and run in
front of Lots 7 through 15 of the Harbor I'Valk Estates P. U.D. Landscaping improvements between
the sound wall and the sidewalk on Lemay Avenue accompanied the request.
On September 9, 1996, the Notice of Appeal of Sollenberger Development Corporation, the
applicant, was received by the City Clerk's Office regarding the decision of denial by the Planning
and Zoning Board. In the Notice of Appeal, it is alleged that:
The Board failed to conduct a fair hearing in that the Board exceeded its authority or
jurisdiction as contained in the Code or Charter.
2. The Board failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Code and
Charter.
113
November S. 1996
The attached documents include the Notice of Appeal and the Planning Department summary of the
Board's action in response to the Appeal. Also attached is the Planning Department Staff Report
that was received by the Planning and Zoning Board as part of its information packet. In addition,
minutes and a verbatim transcript of the August 26, 1996 Planning and Zoning Board meeting are
included Videotapes of the hearing have been made available through the City Manager's Office.
The procedures for considering and deciding the Appeal are described in Chapter 2, Article 11,
Division 3 of the City Code. "
City Attorney Steve Roy briefly outlined the process and the options available.
Senior City Planner Ted Shepard gave the staff presentation on this item, briefly outlining the
project.
Lucia Liley, attorney representing Sollenberger Development Corporation, asked to submit a packet
of information stating the majority of information was taken from verbatim transcripts, the City
Code and staff Agenda Item Summaries. She requested a ruling on submitting an Administrative
Change Approval dated 1990 for the first 5 lots of the project, and the 1996 Administrative Change
Request and Approval. She stated the items that she would like to submit relate to the position of
both the applicant and the appellant.
City Attorney Steve Roy stated Council would make the final decision. He suggested parties -in -
interest opposed to the appeal be given an opportunity to review the above referenced documents.
Mayor Azari stated the appellant should have time to review the materials and allowed 5 minutes
for them to do so.
After a brief recess, Ms. Liley stated members of the neighborhood group agreed to allow the
previously discussed materials to be submitted into the record. She stated the developer discussed
the fencing issue with the neighborhood and made substantial design modifications to meet their
concerns. She stated after a replat of the property was submitted, to increase lot sizes for lots 1-5,
a condition of approval of the replat stated fencing would not be put up adjacent to Lemay Avenue
without Planning and Zoning Board review. She emphasized the note regarding "no" fencing only
applied to those first 5 lots and the lots adjacent to Lemay Avenue are lots 7-15.
Linda Ripley, Ripley and Associates and project planner/landscape architect for the project,
presented slides showing the lots in question, outlining the area where the fence would be
constructed. She spoke of the purpose and design of the fencing.
114
November 5, 1996
Ms. Liley stated she believed the fencing height was insignificant and urged Council to overturn the
decision of the Planning and Zoning Board upholding the original administrative decision.
Opposed
Bob Nichols, representing the neighborhood group, read a letter from Sandra Newlin into the record
requesting Council uphold the decision of the Planning and Zoning Board. He stated residents were
assured they would be notified of the changes to the PUD but were not. He requested Council
uphold the decision of the Planning and Zoning Board.
Gene Little, appellant, stated staff failed to notify adjacent property owners that a sound abatement
wall was going to be considered by the Planning and Zoning Board. He reported the Board
determined the wall was necessary and it was rejected and commented that he believed the wall
would separate the neighborhood from the rest of the community.
Rebuttal
Ms. Liley spoke of the definition of administrative changes and fencing notes, stating the fencing
note was a result of a condition of the minor subdivision replat, approval of lots 1-5. She spoke of
the property boundary fence in Nelson Farms Subdivision and why fencing individual lots would
not be effective sound barriers. She stated the fence was not designed to separate the neighborhood
from the community and noted it did not run continuously throughout the entire PUD.
Mike Sollenberger, applicant, responded to Council questions and clarified a guardrail was put up
to ensure the safety of passerbys at the end of the, then, temporary cul-de-sac on Harbor Lane. He
spoke of similar fencing in other neighborhoods and stated the proposed fencing is not located on
public right-of-way but on the Homeowner's Association greenbelt for the Harbor Walk Estates
Phase H.
Ms. Liley stated it was Mr. Sollenberger's desire to overturn the decision of the Planning and Zoning
Board but to not go back to the original approval, approving the fence with the design modifications
that were summarized in the staff report.
Ms. Ripley show slides depicting what the fence would look like.
Rebuttal:
Bob Nichol requested the appeal be denied.
115
November 5, 1996
Gene Little stated the issue is sound abatement, not fencing issue. He spoke of the lack of evidence
supporting the need for sound abatement, stating he believed the applicant wanted to hide the
property from the community.
Senior City Planner Ted Shepard reported the 1996 Administrative Change was made in error and
admitted he had overlooked the above referenced fencing note. He outlined the sequence of events
leading up to the Planning and Zoning Boards hearing on this issue.
Assistant City Attorney John Duval stated this has never been a situation where the developer was
told a certain decision would be made out of the administrative hearing, clarifying the developer
made the decision to refer the request to the Planning and Zoning Board.
Shepard clarified the note did not refer to any specific lot numbers, however, he stated the subject
of the replat in 1990 referenced lots 1-5. He stated in his opinion, if the line of sight is blocked from
the sound source acoustic buffering would occur.
Councilmember Smith made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Wanner, that the Planning and
Zoning Board conducted a fair hearing. Yeas: Councilmembers Apt, Azari, Janett, Kneeland,
McCloskey, Smith and Wanner. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Kneeland made a motion to overturn the decision of the Planning and Zoning Board
upholding the Administrative Decision to approve the fence as proposed based upon the Board not
properly interpret criterion A2.2.
THE MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF SECOND.
Councilmember Apt made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Smith, that the Planning and
Zoning Board did properly interpret the relevant provisions of the Code.
Councilmember Kneeland stated she would not support the motion and stated she believed there was
adequate evidence to prove this type of fence would abate noise. She stated that because of its
design, the fence mitigates the feeling of intrusiveness.
Councilmember McCluskey supported the motion expressing neighborhood compatibility issues.
116
November 5, 1996
The vote on Councilmember Apt's motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Apt, Azari,
Janett, McCluskey, Smith and Wanner. Nays: Councilmember Kneeland.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Resolution 96-136
of the Council of the City of Fort Collins
Adopting the City Plan Principles and Policies as an
Element of the Comprehensive Plan of the City, Adopted
The following is staff's memorandum on this item.
"Executive Sunumary
The City has wrapped up the "visioning" segment of City Plan with the adoption of the Community
Vision and Goals 2015 document. On Judy 2, the City Council adopted the City Structure Plan - a
map that lays out the basic framework for the community over the next 20 years. The next step in
the process is the preparation ofguiding principles and policies. City Plan Principles and Policies
are about providing answers to the questions, "How do we do it?" and "What will it look like?"
Thus, City Plan Principles and Policies defines a direction and a way to make that direction happen.
The City Plan Principle and Policies phase is important, if City Plan is to be successful. The City
Council is being asked to approve a resolution adopting the document as an element of the City's
comprehensive plan.
COMMENTS:
City Plan Principles and Policies will add the next level of detail to the Community Vision and
Goals 2015 document and the City Structure Plan. They will state what needs to be done in order
to achieve the goals and advance the ideals described in City Plan. City Plan Principles and Policies
are about providing answers to the questions, "How do we do it? " and "What will it look like? "
By definition, a "principle" is a "general or fundamental rule, doctrine or assumption. " A "policy"
is defined as a "definite course or method of action selected to guide and determine present and
future decisions. " Thus, City Plan Principles and Policies defines a direction and a way to make
that direction happen.
The City Plan Principles and Policies builds upon the City Structure Plan. There are specific
principles and policies related to each of the four basic kinds of places described in the City
Structure Plan -- neighborhoods, districts, corridors and edges. Other principles and policies
117
November 5, 1996
build directly upon the eight categories in the Community Vision and Goals 2015 document and are
"citywide" in scale -- land use, transportation, community appearance and design, economy,
housing, environment, open lands, and growth management. Many of the principles and policies
are new -- others have been extracted from previously adopted elements of the comprehensive plan
pulling together a lot of successful, past efforts.
City Plan is about doing things differently and better: City Plan Principles and Policies are where
the "rubber meets the road. " Changes will occur, if City Plan is successful in where we live, how
we move around, how we define "city", and how we define "destination", such as:
Where we live...
Meeting more of our needs closer to hone
New residential developments will form more complete neighborhoods --not just
subdivisions or complexes.
Highlights: easy walking distance to basic services and daily activities: public
gathering spaces; and variety in housing and other land uses.
How we move around..
• More streets, bikeways, and sidewalks connecting.
• Complete `travel corridors" that allow for cars, bikes, pedestrians and transit.
• High frequency transit service between major destinations.
• Equal status for all means of travel.
How we define "city"...
As areas keep evolving beyond our current City limits, we'll continue agreements
with Larinter Comity which guide and manage growth and ensure:
♦ adequate services --for basic needs such as roads
♦ adequate development standards -- for future urbanized areas
♦ adequate "edge" to our outskirts --for community identity and separation
118
November 5, 1996
The intergovernmental agreement will establish a two -stage urban growth area
boundary:
Stage I - area which accommodates growth requirements for the next 20 - 25
years.
Stage 2 - area which would preserve opportunities to accommodate growth
requirements beyond 20 to 25 years, when the need comes, if at all.
How we define "destinations"...
• Continereial strips are "out. "
• Town -like districts and centers are "in."
• !Whether it's shopping, working or entertainment -- you'll go to a place.
• Instead of negotiating a "sea ofparking", you'll be able to move around easier and
more safely, whether on foot, on a bicycle, in an automobile, or by bus.
• You'll be able to take care of several needs in one trip.
The City Plan Principle and Policies phase is important. The City Plan Principles and Policies is
intended as precursor to the implementation phase of City Plan. Specifically, many of the policies
will be used by the City in updating its zoning and land development regulations. Other actions
described will be implemented, over time, through existing and future programs and activities of
other City departments and outside agencies.
When adopted, the document will replace the Land Use Policies Plan (1979) in its entirety and will
lead to changes in other existing plans. Although the document will be used as a basis for creating
specific development regulations for land use and development, the document itself will not be used
to review applications for specific development proposals. The document does not establish a
specific legal duty to perform a particular act, accept a particular approach/proposal, or undertake
a program or project.
119
November 5, 1996
Review Process
There have been many opportunities over the past four months for comment by the public including
meeting with various City boards and commissions, Lorimer County Commissioners, Poudre and
Thompson School District staff, Lorimer County Planning Commission, civic/social clubs, and
special interest groups; holding a public workshop (August 7); holding public open houses
(September 20, 22 and 23); meeting with the Council Growth Management Committee; publishing
information in the City Plan newsletter, Cityline and Internet; and Cable TV, newspaper and radio
coverage. More than 1600 letters were sent to interested citizens on the City Plan mailing list,
inviting them to comment on the working draft. In addition, the Planning and Zoning Board held
one public hearing, two special study sessions and have had at least two members attend CPA
meetings.
Last August, the City Plan Advisory Committee divided into five subcommittees for the purpose of
reviewing and revising the document. Each of the subcommittees met seven to 10 times in addition
to participating in full committee discussions. On October 9, 1996, the City Plan Advisory
Committee recommended approval of the City Plan Principles and Policies on a vote of 10-3, and
one abstention (voting yes included Carpenter (by telephone), Chapman, Gould, 1-lixon, Mason,
Ohlson, Smith, Trock and Weitkunat; voting no included Everitt, Sibbald, and Slezak, and; Ward
abstained). The Committee recommended some additional changes to the document which have
been incorporated in the Final Draft. In addition, CPA gave flexibility for staff to continue final
editing of the document to make it more readable and complete.
There have been issues and concerns raised during the preparation of the document. CPAC and
City staff have considered these comments and addressed them to the extent possible in the final
draft document. Some new comments and suggestions have been just recently received and not
resolved in the final draft. The adopting Resolution provides for a process following adoption
wherein final amendments to the document can be made before City Plan, in its entirety, is formally
adopted by City Council next February. During the next four months, CPAC and City staff, will
continue to edit the document and work with affected boards and commissions, and the public, to
discuss and resolve the remaining issues.
Planning and Zoning Board Recommendation
On October 29, 1996, the Planning and Zoning Board recommended approval with conditions and
concerns, on a vote of 6-0, and 1 abstention (Chapman). The conditions and concerns of the Board
will be delivered to City Council under separate cover.
120
November 5, 1996
Next Stems
The next phase of the process is already underivay -- updating the City's land development
regulations. In parallel to this phase, the City staff, ivith the assistance of CPAC, will "package "
the Community Vision and Goads 2015 document, City Structure Plan, and City Plan Principles and
Policies, for final adoption next February by City Council. Included in this phase will be final
editing, incorporating final changes/additions, and preparation of an "executive summary "-type
version of City Plan far public consumption and distribution. "
Director of Advanced Planning Joe Frank introduced CPAC members.
Ben Hermann, representing Balloffet and Associates, spoke of the purpose of the Principles and
Policies document. He spoke of the various categories and subcategories of the Principles and
Policies stating they creates a bridge between the Vision and Goals, the Structure Plan, and
implementation of regulations for City Plan.
Dan Gould, CPAC member, commented on community -wide principles and policies and the
importance of adopting the document. He briefly outlined the various sections of the document.
Alex Chapman, CPAC member, reported on the neighborhood section of the Principles and Policies
document. He stated the intent of this section is to concentrate on moving away from cluster
developments, focusing on building neighborhoods. He commented on density issues and of the
amount of time it may take to see the benefits of the Plan.
Don Gould, CPAC member, spoke of the various corridors (transportation, water, Poudre River and
1-25) and edges (UGA, foothills, and rural open lands). He stated one intent of the Principles and
Policies document is to identify the importance of transportation corridors and how mobility should
be maintained. He spoke of the importance of keeping Fort Collins separate from surrounding
communities.
Alex Chapman, CPAC member, stated the document would need additional "tweaking" but believed
all issues and concerns were addressed and clarified revisions would be sure to be made in the future.
He spoke of concerns from various members of CPAC regarding policy restrictions on mixed -use
neighborhoods.
Frank responded to Council questions and stated the basis for transit comes from the Air Quality
Plan goals, stating costs would be addressed through the Capital Improvement Program. He stated
part of the solution regarding air quality goals is an investment through transit.
121
November 5, 1996
Gould stated the current transit system is not effective due to lack of concentration and stated the
concept is transit oriented development.
Councilmember McCluskey expressed concern that less than 50% of CPAC members approved the
document and stated he did not believe the process was adequately completed.
Frank responded to Council questions and stated implementation of the Plan would be significantly
affected if sent back to the Committee for an additional review. He stated the document would need
to be "cleaned -up", but with no significant changes or directions.
Gould spoke of how the policy would be implemented and stated several issues would not be able
to be resolved until the implementation phase.
City Planner Clark Mapes responded to Council concerns and noted the portion of the Plan regarding
security issues could be removed from the Plan.
Alex Chapman spoke of the need to plan for future expansion of the Urban Growth Area.
Councilmember Apt made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Warier, to adopt Resolution 96-
136.
Councilmember Apt offered a friendly amendment to his previous motion to include amendments
made by the Growth Management Committee to the Principles and Policies document. He read the
amendments. All Councilmembers concurred with the proposed amendment.
Bridget Schmidt, 932 Iverness Road, stated she supported many aspects of the Principles and
Policies and supported the amendment. She spoke of the difficulty in making the Plan work.
Tom Honn, independent consultant and urban planner, stated he believed this was a good draft, but
did not believe it was ready for adoption. He expressed concerns regarding the reliance upon a
transit system as a solution stating he did not believe there was enough density to make the Plan
successful.
Ralph Waldo, representing the Fort Collins Board of Realtors, spoke of the need for the community
to support the process and expressed concerns regarding the lack of full support of the Plan by CPAC
members. He expressed concerns regarding how the citizenry would be affected and notified of the
total rezoning.
122
November 5, 1996
Lindy Brat, representing the Legislative Affairs Committee of the Chamber of Commerce, spoke
of the need for additional review by CPAC and expressed concerns regarding unrealistic timelines.
He suggested Council accept, but not adopt, the document.
Kathleen Kilkelly, 920 Ivemess Road, questioned if issues could be resolved if the document were
approved and spoke of the need for additional public involvement.
Betty Maloney, 1309 City Park Avenue, representing the Affordable Housing Task Force, spoke in
support of the motion and expressed concerns about how affordable housing issues would be
addressed. She stated the success of the Plan depends on implementation and commented the
document contains several good policies.
Kimberly Mavers, Director of Government Affairs for the Homebuilders Association of Northern
Colorado, thanked staff for the time devoted to meet with her to discuss the document. She
expressed concerns regarding the lack of public input on the final draft document and spoke of the
many versions of documents which are in existence. She expressed concerns that a moratorium on
development would occur until the City Plan is adopted and requested Council consider comments
and questions which were presented to staff by the Homebuilders Association.
Ed Stoner, 2236 Apache Court, expressed process concerns and suggested Council was attempting
to micro -manage the issues.
Margaret Phillips, a Fort Collins resident, thanked CPAC members for their efforts and expressed
concerns regarding the Urban Growth Area. She spoke of the lack of representation from Larimer
County, and spoke of other communities who currently have a plan in place similar to what is being
considered.
Councilmember Janett stated the proposed document is not a final document, but a beginning which
will be amended several times. She stated she was surprised by the amount of public participation
and outreach that was done and commented on the lack of full support by CPAC.
Councilmember Smith supported the document and thanked everyone for their hard work and spoke
of the need to move forward.
Councilmember Apt supported the motion and noted Larimer County representatives have been
involved in the process and have attended several meetings.
123
November S, 1996
Councilmember Kneeland stated she believed the Principles and Policies document is the general
direction the community wants to proceed and spoke of the additional work that needs to be done
and how implementation would occur. She thanked staff for taking time to discuss questions and
concerns with her.
Councilmember McCluskey stated although he supported the general direction of the Plan he would
not support the motion. He expressed concerns regarding downtown redevelopment, affordable
housing and the process.
Councilmember Wanner spoke in support of the Plan and thanked everyone who participated in the
Plan.
The vote on Councilmember Apt's motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Apt, Azari,
Janett, Kneeland, Smith and Wanner. Nays: Councilmember McCluskey.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Resolution 96-137
Making Findings of Fact Regarding the Appeals
of the Planning and Zoning Board's Approval of the
Provincetowne Amended Overall Development Plan, #73-8211
Remanding the Decision of the Board to Approve the Provincetowne
Amended Overall Development Plan, 473-82R for Further Consideration
of Collector Street Access to the Property, Postponed to November 12, 1996.
The following is staff s memorandum on this item.
"Executive Summary
Amended Notices of Appeal of the August 26, 1996, decision of the Planning and Zoning Board
granting approval of the Provincetowne Amended Overall Development Plan were filed by the
following Appellants: CDL Partnership on September 20, 1996; Brittany Knolls Homeowners on
September 23, 1996; and Neighbors of Eagle Tree on September 24, 1996.
On October 22, 1996, the City Council voted 4-3 to remand the decision of the Planning and Zoning
Board to approve the Provincetowne Amended Overall Development Plan #73-82R for further
consideration of collector street access to the property. In order to complete the record regarding
this appeal, the Council should adopt a Resolution making findings offact and finalizing its decision
124
November 5, 1996
on the appeal. In light of subsequent input received from the developer of the Project, three
alternative resolutions have been provided for Council's consideration.
BACKGROUND:
The Appellants based their appeals on the grounds set forth in City Code Sections 2-48(b)(1); 2-
48(b) (2)a.; 2-48(b) (2)b.; and 2-48(b) (2)c. The grounds for appeal set forth in these Code sections
can be summarized as follows:
• The Planning and Zoning Board failed to properly interpret and apply relevant
provisions of the Code and Charter (Section 2-48[b][I]).
• The Planning and Zoning Board failed to conduct a fair hearing in that the Board
exceeded its authority or jurisdiction as contained in the Code or Charter (Section
2-48[b][21a.).
• The Planning and Zoning Board failed to conduct a fair hearing in that the Board
substantially ignored its previously established rules of procedure (Section 2-
481b][21b.).
• The Planning and Zoning Board failed to conduct a fair hearing in that the Board
considered evidence relevant to its findings which was substantially false or grossly
misleading (Section 2-481b][21c.).
At the October 22, 1996 hearing on this matter, the City Council considered the testimony oj'City
staff the Appellants, and those who opposed the appeal. At the conclusion of the hearing, the City
Council determined by a vote of 4-3, that the Amendcd Overall Development Plan should be
remanded to the Planning and Zoning Board for fio-ther consideration of collector street access to
the property.
The City Council subsequently received correspondence from the developer of the Provincetowne
Project indicating the developer's willingness to have the matter remanded to the Planning and
Zoning Board for a broader rehearing. Therefore, three draft Resolutions have been presented for
Council's consideration, each of which varies in terms of the breadth of the rehearing upon the
remand. These Options are outlined as follows:
125
November 5, 1996
• OPTIONA: This option only remands to the Planning and Zoning Board
the matter of the number and location of the collector streets. It also directs
staff to expand the notice area for all future hearings.
• OPTIONB: This option remands to the Planning and Zoning Board the
matter of the number and location of the collector streets and also allows
parties -in -interest in the expanded notice area to make presentations at the
hearing regarding the overall Project if they did not appear at the previous
hearings on the Overall Development Plan.
• OPTION C. This option is a fill remand to the Planning and Zoning Board
on all issues."
City Attorney Steve Roy gave a brief history of this item and recommended postponing
consideration to an adjourned meeting on November 12, 1996. He reported that the Developer
requested a broader remand of this issue, stating staff has drafted 2 possible resolutions for
consideration. He reported the attorney for the developer had not received all the information and
was concerned about his clients not receiving Mr. Harmon's recommendations.
Jim Harmon, Developer residing at 8791 Wolf Court, Westminister, Colorado and representing
PrideMark Development, spoke of concerns regarding notice of the hearing and expressed concerns
that this issue would finally be heard and decided.
Councilmember Wanner made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Apt, to postpone
consideration of Resolution 96-137 to November 12, 1996 at 6:00 p.m. Yeas: Councilmembers
Azari, Apt, Kneeland, Janett, McCluskey and Wanner. Nays: Councilmember Smith.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Ordinance No. 132, 1996
Approving and Authorizing a Rebate of Development
Fees Associated with the Construction of a New 180,000
Square Foot Office Facility for Hewlett-Packard. Adopted on Second Reading.
The following is staffs memorandum on this item.
126
November 5, 1996
"Executive Suntnrary
In August 1994, City Council adopted Ordinance No. 123, 1994 which amended Article VII Chapter
5 of the Code so as to permit the rebate offfees for the purpose of economic development. Prior to
the adoption of Ordinance No. 123, 1994, City Council had authorized a development fee waiver
program for consideration on a case -by -case basis. The rebate modification ivas suggested by staff
in order to further protect the City by linking the payment of an incentive to the peuformance of the
company requesting the incentive.
The last incentive offered to a basic industrial company was an approximate S440,000 development
fee rebate extended to Symbios Logic in September 1996 in conjunction with the construction of its
new office facility. Ordinance No. 132, 1996, which was adopted 6-0 on First Reading on October
15, 1996, approves and authorizes a Rebate of Development Fees Associated with the construction
ofa new office building for Hewlett-Packard. "
Councilmember Kneeland withdrew from the discussion on this item due to a perceived conflict of
interest.
Councilmember Janett made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Smith, to adopt Ordinance No.
132, 1996 on Second Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers Azari, Apt, Janett, McCluskey, Smith and
Wanner. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
ITEMS RELATING TO THE 1997 BUDGET
BUDGET CONSENT ITEMS
Items Numbers 26 through 30 are being presented together in the Consent Calendar format. These
items have been reviewed and discussed at Budget Study Sessions and are being presented in this
manner to expedite their adoption. As with the regular Consent Calendar, any item may be
withdrawn for discussion by any member of the Council, staff or public and will be considered after
the balance of the Budget Consent is adopted.
26. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 133, 1996, Amending Chapter 26, Article VI, Division
4 of the City Code Setting Rates and Charges for Electric Services
127
November 5, 1996
This Ordinance, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 15, 1996,
aligns electric charges among customers and classes of customers in accordance with cost
of service and is revenue neutral to the Electric Utility.
27. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 134, 1996, Amending Section 26-514L1(b) of the Code
of the City of Fort Collins Relating to the Determination of Stormwater Utility Fees
Ordinance No. 134, 1996, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 15,
1996, increases the monthly capital fee for Dry Creek Basin by 20%, or $0.60 per month for
the typical single-family residence. The current monthly rate of $2.98 has been in effect
since 1995. Initially, 15% and 5% fee increases were proposed for 1996 and 1997,
respectively. However, direction on the financing of the Dry Creek improvements with
Latimer County had not been developed when the 1996 budget was submitted, and the
decision was made to delay a fee increase until 1997. The Dry Creek diversion channel will
be funded through a Larimer County local improvement district. The local improvements
will be funded by the Dry Creek Basin storm drainage fees.
28. Items Relating to the 1997 Downtown Development Authority Budget.
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 135, 1996 of the Council of the City of Fort
Collins Being the Annual Appropriation Ordinance Relating to the Annual
Appropriations and Approving the Budget of the Downtown Development Authority
for the Fiscal Year Beginning January 1, 1997, and Ending December 31, 1997, and
Fixing the Mill Levy for the Downtown Development Authority.
This Ordinance, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 15, 1996,
represents the annual appropriations and approves the Downtown Development Authority
(DDA) Operating Budget for 1997.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 136, 1996, Appropriating Revenue in the
Downtown Development Authority Debt Service Fund for Payment of Debt Service
for the Year 1997.
This Ordinance, which was also unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 15, 1996,
appropriates funds for the payment of Downtown Development Authority debt service for
1997.
128
November 5, 1996
29. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 137, 1996, Being the Annual Appropriation Ordinance
Relating to the Annual Appropriations and Adopting the Budget for the Fiscal Year
Beginning January 1 1997 and Ending December 31 1997 and Fixing the Mill Levv for
Said Fiscal Year.
Ordinance No. 137, 1996, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 15,
1996, represents the annual appropriation and adopts the total City Budget for 1997,
including the Fire Fighters' Pension Fund ($2,351,756), in the amount of $304,682,407 and
sets the City mill levy at 9.797 mills.
30. First Reading of Ordinance No. 142, 1996, Adopting the 1997 City of Fort Collins Total
Compensation Plan.
Historically, in conjunction with the annual budget process, the City has made across the
board Labor Market Adjustments effective the beginning of each calendar year. These
adjustments are approved by the City Council based on the adopted Human Resource and
Productivity Policy. During a March study session with the City Council, staff was directed
to complete a city-wide pay & classification study. An RFP was issued in April and awarded
to the consultant group of Watson Wyatt Worldwide in June. During their September 10
Budget Study Session, Council once again affirmed their support for a city-wide study.
The City-wide study will take approximately one (1) year to complete and will entail audits
of all classified positions in the City, including unclassified management, with more detailed
analysis of select positions as well as an evaluation of the survey data used to established pay
lines.
This year, we are recommending that instead of completing surveys for City positions, we
provide a "Cost of Living" increase. We recommend a flat increase of 3% for all employee
groups in order to not fall behind the labor market and to help keep employee salaries at the
rate of inflation. All increases will be within the 1997 recommended Budget of 3.2%.
Items on Second Reading were read by title by City Clerk Wanda Krajicek.
26. Second Reading of Ordinance No 133, 1996 Amending Chapter 26 Article VI Division
4 of the City Code Setting Rates and Charges for Electric Services
27. Second Reading of Ordinance No 134 1996 Amending Section 26-514(1(b) of the Code
of the City of Fort Collins Relatinz to the Determination of Stormwater Utility Fees
129
November 5, 1996
28. Items Relating to the 1997 Downtown Development Authority Budget.
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 135, 1996 of the Council of the City of Fort
Collins Being the Annual Appropriation Ordinance Relating to the Annual
Appropriations and Approving the Budget of the Downtown Development Authority
for the Fiscal Year Beginning January 1, 1997, and Ending December 31, 1997, and
Fixing the Mill Levy for the Downtown Development Authority.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 136, 1996, Appropriating Revenue in the
Downtown Development Authority Debt Service Fund for Payment of Debt Service
for the Year 1997.
29. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 137, 1996, Being the Annual Appropriation Ordinance
Relating to the Annual Appropriations and Adopting the Budget for the Fiscal Year
Be ig nning January 1. 1997, and Ending December 31, 1997, and Fixing the Mill Levy for
Said Fiscal Year.
Items on First Reading were read by title by City Clerk Wanda Krajicek.
30. First Reading of Ordinance No. 142, 1996, Adopting the 1997 City of Fort Collins Total
Compensation Plan.
Councilmember Wanner made a motion, seconded by Councilmember McCluskey, to adopt and
approve all items not removed from the Consent Agenda. Yeas: Councilmembers Azari, Apt,
Kneeland, Janett, McCluskey, Smith and Wanner. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Ordinance No. 130, 1996
Amending Section 20-1 of the Code of the City
Regarding Air Pollution Nuisances. Adopted on Second Reading.
The following is staff s memorandum on this item.
"Executive Summary
130
November 5, 1996
At the July 23 Study Session, Council approved staffs recommendation not to proceed with an
ordinance requiring change out of high polluting wood stove and fireplaces at point of sale, but
rather, to continue the wood smoke reduction program (ZILCH, complaint line, information) and
to enhance the program to increase turnover of wood stoves and to build upon changing attitudes
pertaining to woodburning. Council also directed staff to proceed with review of City ordinances
relating to wood smoke pollution and to make revisions where necessary.
Councilmember Apt withdrew this item from the Consent Agenda in order to draw attention to the
impact of overall wood smoke pollution in Fort Collins, especially as it relates to wood stoves. As
regards the cottonwood burning ban recision, Council was concerned that such an action would
cause wood smoke pollution to increase in the City. However, Natural Resources staff, the City
Forester, and the Colorado State Forest Service do not believe this will be the case and support
recision of the ban. They note that wood smoke pollution is not so much associated with the fuel
burned, in this case cottonwood, as with the type of appliance and the manner in which it operated.
Ten years ago, when the cottonwood burning ban was initiated, there were many more dirty -burning
units than there are today. Since that time, the City has also instituted a very successful wood smoke
reduction program, which goer directly to the source of the wood smoke problem, individual
residences. Overall, wood smoke pollution continues to decrease due to better woodburning
practices, greater non-use of units, conversions to gars, and federal and state laws restricting
emissions from new wood stoves (since 1986).
Ordinance No. 130, 1996, was adopted by a vote of 4-3, on First Reading on October 15, 1996. "
Councilmember Kneeland made a motion, seconded by Councilmember McCluskey, to adopt
Ordinance No. 130, 1996 on Second Reading.
Councilmember Apt expressed concerns about considering this issue.
Environmental Education Specialist Linda Devocelle spoke of the history of the item. She stated
the issue is not the type of wood being burned, but how people are burning it. She spoke of the
difficulty in determining if cottonwood is being burned and stated many residents are not aware of
the cottonwood burning ban. She stated the State Forester said that all wood has an odor if burned
improperly and stated the majority of complaints received are regarding wood smoke.
The vote on Councilmember Kneeland's motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Azari,
Kneeland, McCluskey and Smith. Nays: Councilmember Apt, Janett and Warmer.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
131
November S, 1996
Other Business
Councilmember Kneeland requested a 2 page memo regarding the creation of an additional category
for natural area designations.
Councilmember McCluskey thanked the citizenry for supporting the City's revenue retention issue
that was voted on hours earlier during today's election.
Councilmember Smith requested a report addressing the issue of what can be done with Municipal
Court, stating it did not appear that the Justice Center issue had been approved on tonight's ballot.
Adjournment
Councilmember Janett made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Wanner, to adjourn to
November 12, 1996 at 6:00 p.m. to hear the appeal of the Planning and Zoning decision on the
Provincetowne amended ODP. Yeas: Councilmembers Azari, Apt, Kneeland, Janett, McCluskey,
Smith and Wanner. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
ATTEST:
City Clerk
132
November 12, 1996
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
Council -Manager Form of Government
Adjourned Meeting - 6:00 p.m.
A adjourned meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins was held on Tuesday, November 12,
1996, 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: Azari, Janett, Kneeland, McCluskey, Smith and
Wanner.
Councilmembers Absent: Apt.
Staff Members Present: Fischbach, Krajicek, and Roy.
Resolution 96-137
Making Findings of Fact Regarding the Appeals
of the Planning and Zoning Board's Approval of
the Provincetowne Amended Overall Development
Plan, #73-82R Remanding the Decision of the Board to
Approve the Provincetowne Amended Overall Development
Plan, #73-82R for Further Consideration of Collector Street
Access to the Property. Adopted as Amended Option C.
The following is staff s memorandum on this item.
"Executive Summa-a
Amended Notices of Appeal of the August 26, 1996, decision of the Planning and Zoning Board
granting approval of the Provincetowne Amended Overall Development Plan were filed by the
following Appellants: CDL Partnership on September 20, 1996; Brittany Knolls Homeowners on
September 23, 1996; and Neighbors of Eagle Tree on September 24, 1996.
On October 22, 1996, the City Council voted 4-3 to remand the decision of the Planning and Zoning
Board to approve the Provincetowne Amended Overall Development Plan #73-82R for further
consideration of collector street access to the property. 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. In light of subsequent input received from the developer of the Project, three
alternative resolutions have been provided for Council's consideration.
133
November 12, 1996
BACKGROUND:
The Appellants based their appeals on the grounds set forth in City Code Sections 2-48(b) (1); 2-
48(b) (2)a.; 2-48(b) (2)b.; and 2-48(b) (2)c. The grounds for appeal set forth in these Code sections
can be summarized as follows:
• The Planning and Zoning Board failed to properly interpret and apply relevant
provisions of the Code and Charter (Section 2-48[b][1]).
• The Planning and Zoning Board failed to conduct a fair hearing in that the Board
exceeded its authority or jurisdiction as contained in the Code or Charter (Section
2-48[b][2]a.).
• The Planning and Zoning Board failed to conduct a fair hearing in that the Board
substantially ignored its previously established rules of procedure (Section 2-
481b][2]b.).
• The Planning and Zoning Board failed to conduct a fair hearing in that the Board
considered evidence relevant to its findings which was substantially false or grossly
misleading (Section 2-48[b][2]c.).
At the October 22, 1996 hearing on this matter, the City Council considered the testimony of City
staff, the Appellants, and those who opposed the appeal. At the conclusion of the hearing, the City
Council determined by a vote of 4-3, that the Amended Overall Development Plan should be
remanded to the Planning and Zoning Board for further consideration of collector street access to
the property.
The City Council subsequently received correspondence from the developer of the Provincetowne
Project indicating the developer's willingness to have the matter remanded to the Planning and
Zoning Board for a broader rehearing. Therefore, three draft Resolutions have been presented for
Council 's consideration, each of which varies in terms of the breadth of the rehearing upon the
remand. These Options are outlined as follows:
• OPT/oNA: This option only remands to the Planning and Zoning Board
the matter of the number and location of the collector streets. It also directs
staff to expand the notice area far all fitture hearings.
• OPTioNB: This option remands to the Planning and Zoning Board the
matter of the number and location of the collector streets and also allows
parties -in -interest in the expanded notice area to make presentations at the
134
November 12, 1996
hearing regarding the overall Project if they did not appear at the previous
hearings on the Overall Development Plan.
• OPT101v C: This option is a full remand to the Planning and Zoning Board
on all issues. "
Councilmember McCluskey made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Wanner, to adopt
Resolution 96-137 Option C.
City Attorney Steve Roy stated Option C was a total remand and the resolutions being considered
were the same as the ones received at the last meeting.
Jim Harmon, representing PrideMark Development, supported sending the issue back to the Planning
and Zoning Board and spoke of his expectation that another appeal would be filed regardless of the
outcome. He requested the remand not be absolutely unconditional so that once it is adopted by the
Planning and Zoning Board, PrideMark could come back to Council to inform them of how the
development would proceed.
Rick Zier, attorney for CDL Partnership, spoke in opposition to the process and opposed options in
the packet which were different from Council's decision at the first hearing on October 22. He spoke
of Council's decision to remand, and expressed concerns that it was improper for Council to receive
written communications from the developer before this hearing. He stated the evidence regarding
density.was irrefutable and that the densities would not be compatible either in the area or City-wide.
City Attorney Steve Roy responded to Mr. Zier's concerns and spoke of the findings resolution
requirement, noting the intent_of the resolution is to ensure that Council finalizes and formalizes its
decision. He clarified the intent of the provision is not to limit Council to the initial decision made
at the conclusion of the hearing, and noted Option C was a different from the decision made at the
hearing. He stated Mr. Zier should be given an opportunity to summarize any prejudices he believes
to be a result of the remand.
Councilmember McCluskey made a motion, to withdraw the motion made at the end of the first
appeal hearing, rescinding Council's previous decision, and adopt Resolution 96-137, Option C.
Councilmember Wanner as seconder of the motion, accepted the amendment as a friendly
amendment.
City Attorney Steve Roy stated the intent is not to rehear the merits of the development but clarified
all parties -in -interest could address all options presented.
Rich Zier, representing the appellant, objected to PrideMark's communications with the City after
the hearing and believed the developer was attempting to persuade Council to consider another
135
November 12. 1996
option than what was originally decided on in an attempt to prevent a court appeal. He restated the
appellants' intent was to remand the issue back to the Planning and Zoning Board with specific
recommendations. He stated given the original decision by Council and the options available, he
believed Council had no choice but to adopt Option A - the original decision.
City Attorney Steve Roy clarified the definition of a remand, stating it was an opportunity for the
Planning and Zoning Board to rehear the issue.
Christine Culver, 900 Benson Lane, stated after the adjourned meeting of October 22, she overheard
a conversation in which the developer was mocking residents of Brittany Knolls and Eagle Tree and
questioned his concern regarding the City and area residents. She believed she was treated
disrespectfully and questioned the developer's business ethics.
Dan Culver, 900 Benson Lane, concurred with comments made by Mr. Zier regarding receipt of
PrideMark's communications in a timely manner.
Patricia Roberts, 931 Deerhurst Circle, opposed the process stating she believed it was highly
irregular.
Mark Cheesbrough, 815 Courtney Circle representing residents of Brittany Knolls, did not believe
the developer had a vested interest in the community and believed his motivation to be based on
profit. He expressed concerns that the project could be abandoned at any time and there would not
be any penalties imposed.
Jim Harmon, representing PrideMark Development Company, denied allegations regarding negative
remarks made to appellants. He stated the remand to the Planning and Zoning Board should be
broadened. He expressed the need to move forward with the project and stated it was his desire to
avoid a court appeal. He responded to concerns regarding mailing of correspondence and stated
when the issue is reheard, staff and the appellants would see that PrideMark has attempted to address
all concerns which have been raised.
Lou Stitzel, 512 E. Laurel, spoke in support of the project and stated remanding the issue on a
broader scope would reinforce the fact that the entire community is being heard.
Mayor Azari speaking on behalf of Council, stated these type of matters are not taken lightly and
it is Council's intent to be fair and bring a satisfactory conclusion in the best interests of all residents.
Councilmember Janett spoke of the importance of communicating to the Planning and Zoning Board
that the primary concern is the location and number of collector streets.
136
November 12. 1996
Councilmember Janett offered a friendly amendment to the motion: "that the Planning and Zoning
Board receive and consider additional information on the number and location of collector streets
that access and provide circulation within the project". Councilmember McCloskey accepted the
motion as a friendly amendment to his previous motion.
Councilmember Smith clarified residents who were not able to speak during the previous hearings
would have an opportunity to speak their concerns due to the expanded notice boundary.
The vote on Councilmember McCluskey's motion as amended was as follows: Yeas:
Councilmembers Azari, Janett, Kneeland, McCluskey, Smith and Wanner. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Consideration of the Appeal
of the September 9, 1996 Decision of the Planning and Zoning
Board Approving the Park South Amended Overall Development
Plan. #46-88F. Decision of the Planning and Zoning Board Upheld.
The following is staffs memorandum on this item.
"Executive Summary
On September 9, 1996, the Planning and Zoning Board voted 3-2 to approve the Park South
Amended Overall Development Plan, 946-88F.
On September 23, 1996, Notice of Appeal ivas received by the City Clerk's Office regarding the
decision of the Planning and Zoning Board from the following parties:
1. Betty and Jack Aggers
720 Arbor Avenue, #15
Fort Collins, CO 80526
2. Earl Noel
720 Arbor Avenue, 916
Fort Collins, CO 80526
3. Joseph and Eldine Maixner
720 Arbor Avenue, #18
Fort Collins, CO 80526
137
November 12, 1996
The September 23, 1996, Notice ofAppeal was substituted for a previous Notice ofAppeal filed by
the appellants Jack and Betty Aggers with the City Clerk on September 20, 1996.
An Amended Notice ofAppeal was received by the City Clerk's Office on October 23, 1996 from the
Appellants, identifying Betty Aggers as the party to whom notices and other documents were to be
sent regarding the same decision.
The appellants cite the following Sections of the City Code as the basis for the appeals:
Section 2-48(b)(1): The appellants allege, that the Planning and Zoning Board failed to properly
interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Code and Charter.
Section 2-48(b)(2)c: The appellants allege that the Planning and Zoning Board failed to conduct
a fair hearing in that the board considered evidence relevant to its findings
which was substantially false or grossly misleading.
The attached documents include the Notice ofAppeal andAmended Notice ofAppeal; the Planning
Department response to the Amended Notice of Appeal; and the information packet that was
received by the P & Z Board for the September 9, 1996 meeting. In addition, a verbatim transcript
and videotape recording of the P & Z Board meeting are included The procedures for considering
and deciding the Appeal are described in Chapter 2, Article 11, Division 3 of the City Code. "
City Attorney Steve Roy briefly outlined the background and process for hearing the appeal and
spoke of Council's options.
City Planner Mike Ludwig gave the staff presentation on this item, summarizing the history of the
property, and showing slides of the area. He spoke of the allegations contained in the appeals and
of the section of the Code each allegation relate to. He commented staff would be available to
answer Council questions.
Appellant Testimony:
Mike Schultz, attorney representing the appellants, stated in its amended form the development does
not meet the criteria of a Planned Unit Development and urged Council to either reverse, modify or
remand the decision of the Planning and Zoning Board. He stated the Planning and Zoning Board
never found the amended Plan to be in conformance with the City's Comprehensive Plan. He stated
there have not been significant changes in the area to justify changes in the allowable land -uses and
emphasized that the Plan was not in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and did not meet the
Land -Use Policy Plan. He believed affordability issues were a major part of the Planning and
Zoning Board's decision and stated affordable housing issues are not to be reviewed at the ODP
stage, stating no indication has been made that the housing is affordable and no method exists to bind
138
November 12, 1996
the applicant to provide affordable housing. He stated the proposal does not conform with the 1997
policies set out in the Land -Use Policy Plan and concurred with the Board's original support for
mixed -use housing. He urged Council to reverse the decision of the Planning and Zoning Board and
to find the amended Plan is not in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan, with one suggestion
to find that the parcel to the west remain as is.
Eldine Maixner, 720 Arbor Avenue #18, expressed frustrations regarding notification of the
development and opposed 2-story single-family development.
Applicant Testimony
Lucia Liley, attorney for the developer, reported the property is located in the most actively
developed square mile in the City with a large variety of mixed uses. She stated this type of
development fills many needs ie., moderately priced homes for first time home buyers and affordable
homes for moderate income residents. She stressed there is no need for additional commercial
development in the area, and commented that ODPs are routinely amended and it is the developer's
expectation that amendments will occur. She stated if any part of the project were to be compared
to the general policies in the Comprehensive Plan, the project clearly meets all of the criteria. She
stated uses are compatible with the location and the entire PUD meets the LDGS density chart
regarding residential uses.
Linda Ripley, Ripley and Associates and project planner/landscape architect for the project,
presented slides showing the mixed -uses as well as various land -uses. She stated the slides clearly
show the project meets locational criteria as stated in the Land -Use Policy Plan.
Ms. Liley spoke of affordable housing and traffic issues and stated the project does not expect to
receive points which are customarily given to low income projects. She opposed the statement
regarding traffic issues as being misleading, noting the number of trips are significantly different
when comparing commercial uses to residential uses.
Appellant Rebuttal:
Mike Schultz reported the applicant, in 1991, proposed mixed -use development with a variety of
housing types. He spoke of the additional concentration of traffic that would occur in local
commercial areas. He spoke of compatibility and buffering issues and of flaws in the development
process. He believed too much emphasize was placed on the affordable housing aspect of the
project. He proposed three options for Council to consider: 1) Reverse the decision of the Planning
and Zoning Board and deny the amended ODP; 2) approve the amendment as it relates to the eastern
parcel of the property, allowing single-family homes, and that the parcel to the west continue with
plans for either duplex or office use; or 3) impose a condition that the western most boundary of
homes, backing up to the existing homes, be single story duplex units.
139
November 12, 1996
Applicant Rebuttal:
Lucia Liley, attorney for the developer, reviewed the section of the Code relating to amending
previously adopted ODP's, stating as long as there is not an approved preliminary final on the area
that is being requested to amend, developers are free to amend. She stated amendments are also
acceptable if what is being amended conforms to the Comprehensive Plan and stated there is no
evidence to support that affordable housing issues were considered by the Planning and Zoning
Board. She stated the setback proposed is greater than was original proposed and clarified according
to the original CDP, 2-story buildings could still be constructed.
Matt Delich, traffic engineer, spoke of comparisons of vehicle trips, commercial vs. residential.
Mike Elliott, 425 Walden Way, stated single family housing would not generate the amount of traffic
volume that would be generated by commercial development. He spoke of the need for affordable
single-family housing.
Stephanie Smart, 500 Walden Way, spoke of the need for affordable housing.
John Poletti, 430 Walden Way, spoke of the amount of growth in the area noting it is primarily
commercial use.
Phillip Brown, 3831 Stream Court, stated he did not believed there was a need for additional
commercial development and spoke of the high concentration of children in the area.
Mr. Delich responded to Council questions regarding where the traffic trips are generated from and
spoke of the number of trips currently going to commercial developments in the area.
City Planner Mike Ludwig clarified zoning in the area had not changed within the last 5 years. He
stated current land -use policies were in effect at the time the original CDP was approved in 1991
and spoke of the concentration of mixed -use developments. He stated one of staffs major concerns
was access to commercial developments that cross major arterial.
Director of Current Planning Bob Blanchard responded to Council questions and clarified the Poudre
Valley Plaza mixed -use development does not represent a true commercial component stating it is
more service oriented and contains residential dwellings.
Councilmember Smith made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Wanner, that the Planning and
Zoning did conduct a fair hearing.
Councilmember Smith stated he believed that all policies of the Land -Use Policy Plan and its intent
were followed.
140
November 12, 1996
The vote on Councilmember Smith's motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Azari,
Kneeland, Janett, McCloskey, Smith and Wanner. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Kneeland made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Wanner, to uphold the
decision of the Planning and Zoning Board.
Councilmember Kneeland stated the Planning and Zoning Board did comply with the Land-Usc
Policy Plan, in particular that location in close proximity to commercial development, schools, and
parks.
Ludwig responded to Council questions and clarified the development criteria for neighborhood
compatibility would be used before adoption of the PUD.
Councilmember Wanner expressed concerns regarding changes to existing ODPs.
Councilmember Smith offered an amendment to the previous motion, seconded by Councilmember
McCloskey, to modify the decision that Parcel B remain as stated in the 1991 ODP, and Parcel A
remain single-family housing as requested in the amended ODP.
The vote on Councilmember Kneeland's motion to uphold the decision of the Planning and Zoning
Board was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Azari, Janett, Kneeland and Wanner. Nays:
Councilmembers McCluskey and Smith.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Other Business
Items Relating to the Establishment of
Northern Colorado Community Housing, Ltd, Adopted.
The following is staff's memorandum on this item.
"Financiallmpact
The proposed contract with Northern Colorado Community Housing ("NCCH) calls for the City
to pay S30, 000 in the current quarter and in each of the next four quarters, a total of SI50,000 to
NCCH for administrative support. The Affordable Housing Trust account within General Fund
Reserves was established in 1993 and has a current balance of S344, 440. If Council approves
Resolution 96-130, authorizing execution of the proposed Agreement, the available balance in the
141
November 12, 1996
account would be 5194, 440. Using the reserves for ArCCH would result in less money available for
affordable housing fee rebates. Staff projects that zip to 400 units of affordable housing could be
eligible for waivers over the next 2 % years. At S2, 000 per unit, the estimate of demand for rebates
would be about S800, 000.
Executive Summary
A. Resolution 96-130 Authorizing the City Manager to Execute an Agreement With Northern
Colorado Community Housing, Ltd
B. Resolution 96-131 Expressing Continued Financial Support for Funding Partners for
Housing Solutions.
Over the last few years, City Council and staff members have been participating in an effort to
develop a community development corporation or similar organization that would facilitate
affordable housing efforts within the community. These discussions included participation by local
banks, corporations, housing developers, both for- and non-profit, Colorado State University
Lorimer County and other organizations. Asa result of those discussions, and building on previous
study and development of ideas, the City has an opportunity to work with these various other entities
as participants in Northern Colorado Community Housing, Ltd. ("NCCH'), a nonprofit
organization that has been formed to foster the development and retention of housing affordable to
low and moderate income individuals and families living in the Loveland and Fort Collins areas.
NCCH seeks to identify, obtain and develop nontraditional funding sources to support can increase
in the stock of housing affordable to below median income families.
Resolution 96-130 authorizes the City Manager to enter into an Agreement committing the City to
participate along with various other public entities in northern Colorado (including the City of
Loveland, Lorimer County, and Colorado State University) in funding the administration of NCCH,
doing business as Funding Partners for Housing Solutions, for the remainder oj' 1996, with
provisional extensions of the Agreement for up to two years. The Agreement provides for the use
of the City and other contributed funds to develop an administrative program to establish a capital
funding mechanism and technical advisory resource to support the provision of affordable housing
in the Fort Collins area, in exchange for the City's contribution.
Resolution 96-131 expresses the Council's support to provide additional funding support to NCCH
for program costs (non -administrative) with the requirement that non-public monies must be
received or committed. Through its administrative efforts, the NCCH expects that private
foundations and companies, including local banks and businesses, will provide grants, donations,
low -interest funding to the cause ofproviding local affordable housing. The purpose of the Council
in this resolution is to demonstrate the City is willing to match a portion of the private and non-
profit monies that might be available.
142
November 12, 1996
BACKGROUND:
In the spring of 1994, Mayor Azari convened a meeting of community bankers to discuss how they
could help the City address affordable housing and community development needs. The meeting was
well attended with most local banks represented As a result of that meeting, staff explored the
requirements of the Community Reinvestment Act and how community development corporations
might help address the City's perceived needs.
In subsequent meetings and discussions, representatives of the Affordable Housing Board, Council,
local banks and staff identified the possibility of establishing one or more community development
corporations. With City resources, a consultant group, Progressive Urban Management Associates
(PUMA), was retained to help the various public and private organizations further develop the
concept of a community development corporation.
PUMA issued a report of its findings, entitled "The Fort Collins Business Plan for a Community
Development Corporation, " on September 28, 1995. Included in that Plan is a suggested budget,
which is substantially similar to that upon which NCCH has based its finding and spending
requirements. In other communities throughout the nation, a majority of the start-up costs oj'
comparable organizations are provided by governmental participants. The Articles oflncorporation
of NCCH provide for City of Fort Collins representation on the Board of Directors of the
organization.
It is anticipated that capital contributions by the City will be sought in order to assist with the
establishment of meaningfid finding opportunities to facilitate development of affordable housing.
NCCH will be in the process of interviewing Executive Director candidates during the next several
weeks, and it is expected that the hiring of an Executive Director will enable the organization to
begin developing the mechanisms and plans needed to successfully provide financial and technical
advice related to the establishment of affordable housing in the community.
Resolution 96-130, if adopted by the Council, will authorize the City Manager to execute an
agreement with NCCH whereby the City will provide up to S150, 000. 00 through 1998 to help fund
the operations of NCCH The City's obligations under the agreement will be subject to the annual
appropriation offunds by the Council. Periodic reports will be submitted to the City by NCCH to
enable the City Council to determine whether such additional appropriations should be made. The
reports will be based, in part, upon certain performance measures to be established by the parties
no later than March 31, 1997. Those performance measures will include information about the
staffing levels of NCCH (including, most importantly, the hiring of a director), fundraising levels,
and the number and kinds ofprojects that have been commenced and completed by NCCH.
The City Council 's earlier resolutions evidencing its intention to support NCCH have emphasized
the need for participation by other Northern Colorado public and private entities in helping tofund
143
November 12, 1996
the administration and operation of NCCH. To date, the City of Loveland has pledged $50, 000 to
help defray NCCH's administrative costs, and has provided approximately S2, 500 worth of in -kind
services and materials. Larimer County has made office space available to NCCH through 1998
at an approximate value of S25, 000 and has also contributed furnishings valued at approximately
57,500. To date, private sectors partners have also pledged office furniture and computer
equipment. NCCH is committed to ongoing fundraising efforts in the private sector, and the success
of those efforts will, as mentioned above, be a significant factor to be considered by the City in
determining whether ongoing finding pursuant to the agreement is appropriate. "
Councilmember Janett made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Wanner, to adopt Resolution
96-130.
Councilmember Janett spoke of the amount of money pledged by the City of Loveland and stated
Larimer County has provided office space and furnishings through the end of 1998. She stated
private sector partners have contributed office furniture and computer equipment and clarified
funding for the project would be allocated from the Affordable Housing Trust account in the General
Fund.
Councilmember Smith supported the project, but expressed frustration regarding contributions from
the private sector.
Councilmember Janett clarified funding for the program could be terminated at any time.
Finance Director Alan Krcmarik responded to Council questions and spoke of how funds would be
allocated and of the amount of money needed to begin operating.
Councilmember Wanner questioned provisions for termination of the agreement.
City Attorney Steve Roy stated two provisions are available to either terminate the agreement or
withdraw funding.
Councilmember Janett spoke of the need to help fund the organization to get started, but emphasized
if partners do not come forward the program should not proceed.
Councilmember Smith spoke of his skepticism and stated he believed the City has qualified staff
available to administer the Community Reinvestment Act Program.
The vote on Councilmember Janett's motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Azari, Janett,
Kneeland, McCluskey, Smith and Wanner. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
144
November 12, 1996
Councilmember Janett made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Smith, to adopt Resolution 96-
131. Yeas: Councilmembers Azari, Janett, Kneeland, McCluskey, Smith and Wanner. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
The meeting adjourned at 10:05 p.m.
ATTEST:
Adiou1'nmrnt
145