HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES-01/07/1997-RegularJanuary 7, 1997
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, January 7, 1997,
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: Azari, Kneeland, McCloskey, Smith and Wanner.
Councilmembers Absent: Apt and Janett.
Staff Members Present: Fischbach, Roy, Krajicek.
Citizen Participation
Bob McCulley, 317 Parkway Circle North, president of the Fossil Creek Homeowners Association,
spoke of an existing sign in his neighborhood that is in need of repair and requested a sign variance
be granted allowing the Homeowners Association to replace or repair the sign at no cost to the City.
Yolanda C. Nicely, Trilby Mobile Home Park #40A, spoke of the need to remember "blue collar"
workers and their contributions to society. She requested a proclamation proclaiming April 22 as
"Worker's Day".
Mary Bates, 609 Duke, complimented the cities of Fort Collins and Loveland for using nonlethal
weapons when confronting dangerous situations.
Citizen Participation Follow-up
Councilmember McCluskey requested information regarding the status of the Fossil Creek
Homeowners Associations request.
Councilmember Kneeland concurred with comments by Mrs. Bates regarding the Police
Department's proactive approach to community problem solving.
Agenda Review
City Manager John Fischbach reported a legal description and recommendation from the Affordable
Housing Board for Item #14, Resolution 97-3 Setting Forth the Council's Intent to Issue Multi -
Family Housing Revenue Bonds for the Bull Run Project, was included in Council's "Read Before
the Meeting" folder. He stated Item #22, Consideration of the Appeal of the October 9, 1996,
215
January 7, 1997
Determinations of the Current Planning Director Regarding the Conditions of Ordinance No. 143,
1995, Pertaining to the Dry Creek Mobile Home Park, has been withdrawn from the Agenda and
postponed to January 21, 997, and #25, Items Pertaining to the REA Annexation and Zoning, has
also been withdrawn from the Agenda to be considered on February 4, 1997.
City Attorney Steve Roy clarified the above mentioned items could be heard first on the agenda so
that a formal motion could be made to postpone them.
Al Baccili, 520 Galaxy Court, requested Items #9, Items Relating to the Fort Collins Good
Samaritan Village Annexation and Zoning, be withdrawn from the Consent Agenda.
Craig Howe, 2417 Stanford Road, requested Item #11, First Reading of Ordinance No. 2, 1997,
Amending Sections 29-43 and 29-44 of the Code of the City Regarding Amendments to the Zoning
District Map, be withdrawn from the Consent Agenda.
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 #20, Public Pulled Consent Items.
7. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 156, 1996, Authorizing- the Granting of a Non -Exclusive
Storm Drainage Easement on Legac /�Sa1 erOpen Space to Charles L. Meserlian and
Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the Conservation Trust Fund - Acquisition and
Development.
The development of "Levon's Warehouse and Office Building" will require stormwater
flows to cross the Legacy/Salyer Open Space. The easement is along the easterly 150 feet
of the site, which will allow storm drainage sheet flows to follow historical patterns across
the Legacy/Salyer Open Space. A topographic survey indicates there is a natural, subtle
depression across the Open Space that would discharge eventually to the Poudre River, about
1200 feet south. Ordinance No. 156. 1996 was unanimously adopted on First Reading on
December 17, 1996.
8. Second Reading of Ordinance No 157 1996 Approving the Terms of the Lease Agreement
for 151 South College Avenue, Suite H.
This Ordinance, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on December 17, 1996
authorizes the terms of the lease for 151 South College Avenue and will.permit the Larimer
216
January 7, 1997
County Treasurer's office to remove the leased property from the tax rolls in accordance with
C.R.S. 31-15-(801 & 802).
9. Items Relating to the Fort Collins Good Samaritan Village Annexation and Zoning.
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 158, 1996, Annexing Property Known as the Fort
Collins Good Samaritan Village Annexation.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 159, 1996, Amending the Zoning District Map
Contained in Chapter 29 of the Code and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the
Property Included in the Fort Collins Good Samaritan Village Annexation to the City
of Fort Collins.
On December 17, 1996, Council unanimously adopted Resolution 96-149 Setting Forth
Findings of Fact and Determinations Regarding the Fort Collins Good Samaritan Village
Annexation.
On December 17, 1996 Council also unanimously adopted Ordinance No. 158 and Ordinance
No. 159, 1996. These Ordinances annex and zone approximately 15.210 acres (includes
public right-of-way) located at the northwest corner of West Trilby Road and Constellation
Drive. The requested zoning is R-L-P, Low Density Planned Residential with a PUD
condition. The existing, 4-story, Fort Collins Good Samaritan Village building is located on
the property. This is a 100% voluntary annexation to the City. The annexation of this area
is consistent with the policies and agreements between County and the City contained in the
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT FOR THE FORT COLLINS URBAN
GROWTH AREA.
10. Second Reading of Ordinance No 160, 1996 Amending Chapter 14 Article III by the
Addition of a New Subsection 14-48 5 Re ae rdinQ Administrative Approval of Changes That
Are Not Detrimental to Designated Landmarks.
This Ordinance, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on December 17, 1996,
allows for administrative approval of certain kinds of minor building alterations including
color selection, awning recovering and changes that would not affect the historic,
architectural or cultural character of a property. Language has been added to the Ordinance
on Second Reading to change all references in Chapter 14 to the "Director of Development
Services" to read the "Director of Community Planning and Environmental Services," which
is the current title of the Director.
11. First Reading of Ordinance No 2, 1997 Amending Sections 29-43 and 29-44 of the Code
of the Citv Regardin4 Amendments to the Zoning District Map.
217
January 7, 1997
This Ordinance amends the City Code to address property owner notification and property
posting requirements for large area rezonings typically associated with City comprehensive
planning programs.
12. Resolution 97-1 Authorizing the Mayor to Enter into an Intergovernmental Agreement with
Larimer County for the Provision of Social Services and Authorizing the Allocation of Funds
for These Services in 1997.
This contract with the Larimer County Department of Human Development is consistent
with the Human Services Policy, adopted in August of 1992. This intergovernmental
agreement provides for services for low-income, disabled, elderly, youths and others in need
throughout the City and in Larimer County.
The total 1997 funding for the Human Resource Grant Program will be $541,215. The City
of Fort Collins will contribute $348,554, slightly more than a 10% increase from 1996. The
City of Loveland is contributing $92,921 in 1997, an increase of 4% from 1996. Larimer
County is contributing $99,740, a decrease of more than 15% from 1996.
13. Resolution 97-2 Approving the Allocation of the City's 1997 Private Activity Bond
Allocation to the Country Ranch Multi -Family Housing Project.
The proposed Country Ranch Project is a low to medium income multi -family rental housing
project. It is to be located at the southwest corner of County Road 9 and Harmony Road.
The site is approximately ten acres in size.
On August 6, 1996, the Council approved an inducement resolution and awarded its 1996
allocation of private activity bonds for this project. The project's proponents also secured
Larimer County's 1996 private activity bond allocation of $1,514,175. Both of the 1996
allocations have been carried forward for use in 1997. The project had hoped to secure
monies from the 1996 statewide balance of unused allocation. However, sufficient allocation
was not available. This resolution will add the City's $2,532,900 1997 private activity bond
allocation. If Council approves this resolution, the project will have $6,509,850 of bond
capacity, an amount sufficient for the project to begin in 1997, pending the project obtaining
final PUD approval.
14. Resolution 97-3 Setting Forth the Council's Intent to Issue Multi -Family Housing Revenue
Bonds for the Bull Run Project,
On December 2, 1996, the City received a proposal from Brisben Companies, Inc. for the
City to issue private activity bonds for the purpose of acquiring property, constructing and
go
0
January 7, 1997
equipping a multifamily housing project in Fort Collins. The Bull Run project is a low
income rental housing project. The project is located in north east Fort Collins. The total
number of units is expected to be 176. The site is approximately 16 acres. All units will be
for individuals or households making no greater than 60% of the area median income.
Passage of the Inducement Resolution would allow the City to issue $9.3 million in tax
exempt private activity bonds for the purpose of constructing the project. The proposal is
consistent with the City's adopted policies regarding the issuance of multifamily rental
housing bonds. The project has been reviewed by the Affordable Housing Board and has
been found to be consistent and supportive of the Council's goal of increasing the quantity
of affordable housing in the City. The project proponent is in the process of securing a
private activity bond allocation from Larimer County and additional allocation from the State
of Colorado. No City private activity bond allocation is available for the project, however,
the City will support the project proponent in its application to the State allocation board for
a State allocation. The deadline for applications to the state for allocations is January 15,
1997.
15. Resolution 97-4 Authorizing the Mayor to Enter into an Intergovernmental Agreement with
the United States Geological Survey for the Provision of Water Quality and Flow Data in
1997.
The Resolution authorizes the Mayor to enter into a contract with the USGS to conduct water
flow and water quality surveys in the Cache la Poudre River. These surveys are necessary
to assess the impacts of wastewater discharge on the river.
16. Resolution 97-5 Reappointing Richard Shannon to the Platte River Power Authoritv Board
of Directors.
The Platte River Board of Directors is comprised of two representatives from each of the four
member cities. The Mayor (or Mayor's designate) fills one slot and the second
representative is appointed by the Council. In December 1994, Council adopted Resolution
94-210 appointing Richard Shannon to serve on the Platte River Power Authority Board of
Directors as the City's representative for the remainder of former Councilmember Gerry
Horak's unexpired term. The term expired December 31, 1996.
The Resolution appoints Richard Shannon to a new four-year term on the Platte River Power
Authority Board of Directors with an expiration date of December 31, 2000. He will serve
on the Board with Mayor Ann Azari.
17. Resolution 97-6 Making an Appointment to the Parks and Recreation Board
A vacancy currently exists on the Parks and Recreation Board due to the resignation of
Sylvia Cranmer. Councilmembers Bob McCluskey and Chris Kneeland conducted
219
January 7, 1997
interviews and reviewed the applications on file. The interview team is recommending
David Hughes be appointed to fill the vacancy with a term to begin immediately and to
expire June 30, 1999.
18. Routine Deeds and Easements.
A. Deed of Easement from Mary Magdalen Cordova Pena, for the purpose to
underground overhead electric services located at 317 North Loomis. Monetary
consideration: $10.
Items on Second Reading were read by title by City Clerk Wanda Krajicek.
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 156, 1996, Authorizing the Granting of a Non -Exclusive
Storm Drainage Easement on Legacy/Salyer Open Space to Charles L. Meserlian and
Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the Conservation Trust Fund - Acquisition and
Development.
8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 157, 1996, Approving the Terms of the Lease Agreement
for 151 South College Avenue, Suite H.
9. Items Relating to the Fort Collins Good Samaritan Village Annexation and Zoning
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 158, 1996, Annexing Property Known as the Fort
Collins Good Samaritan Village Annexation.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 159, 1996, Amending the Zoning District Map
Contained in Chapter 29 of the Code and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the
Property Included in the Fort Collins Good Samaritan Village Annexation to the City
of Fort Collins.
10. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 160, 1996, Amending Chapter 14, Article III by the
Addition of a New Subsection 14-48.5 Re ag rding Administrative Approval of Changes That
Are Not Detrimental to Designated Landmarks.
23. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 161, 1996, of the Council of the City of Fort Collins
Providing for the Review and Processing of Pending Land Use Applications and Establishing
a Temporary Delay in the Acceptance of Certain Land Use Applications Through March 31.
1997.
220
January 7, 1997
25. Items Pertaining to the REA Annexation and Zoning_
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 162, 1996, Annexing Property Known as the REA
Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado. (Option B)
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 163, 1996, Amending the Zoning District Map
Contained in Chapter 29 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins and Classifying for
Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the REA Annexation to the City of Fort
Collins, Colorado, Into the HB-Highway Zoning District, with a PUD Condition.
(Option A)
Items on First Reading were read by title by City Clerk Wanda Krajicek.
11. First Reading of Ordinance No. 2. 1997, Amendine Sections 29-43 and 29-44 of the Code
of the City Regarding Amendments to the Zoning District Map.
Councilmember Smith made a motion, seconded by Councilmember McCluskey, to adopt and
approve all items not withdrawn from the Consent Agenda. Yeas: Councilmembers Azari,
Kneeland, McCloskey, Smith and Wanner. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Consideration of the Appeal of the October 9, 1996,
Determinations of the Current Planning Director Regarding
the Conditions of Ordinance No. 143, 1995 Pertaining
to the Dry Creek Mobile Home Park Postponed to January 21 1997
The following is staff's memorandum on this item.
"Executive Summary
This matter was continued to this date, upon the stipulation of the parties, from the Council
meeting on December 3, 1996. The appeal arises not under the provisions of the City Code, but
under the provisions of Ordinance No. 143, 1995 ("the Ordinance"). By adoption of the
Ordinance on November 21, 1995, the Council placed the subject property of this appeal, known
as the Dry Creek Annexation (`the Property "), into the MM, Medium Density Mobile Home
District. The property is zoned UM -Medium Density Mobile Home. It is located west of Summit
View Drive, south of East Vine Drive, north of East Mulberry Street, and east of the Fort Collins
Downtown Airport. The proposed development project for the Property, known as the Dry Creek
Mobile Home Park, is located on 52.5 acres and will consist of 241 mobile home spaces in Phase
1, with a possible second phase with an unknown number of spaces.
221
January 7, 1997
By adoption of the Ordinance, certain conditions were attached to the zoning of the Property, as
permitted by Section 29-45 of the City Code. The conditions were intended to ensure that any
development of the Property, including the Dry Creek Mobile Home Park, would adequately
address concerns related to: (1) the traffic that would be generated by the Property, (2) the on -site
and off -site wetlands located on and near the Property, and (3) particular landscaping needs
associated with the proposed development of the Property as a mobile home park. The Ordinance
required the developer of the Property to submit to the Director of Community Planning and
Environmental Services ("the Director") certain studies and reports related to each of the
foregoing concerns. Upon receipt of the studies and reports, the Director was to notify affected
property owners (within a 1,000 foot radius of the Property) of the existence of the studies and
reports so that they could have an opportunity to review the same and comment upon them prior
to the Director determining whether the conditions of the Ordinance had been satisfied. After
making those determinations, the Director was to then send additional notices to the same affected
property owners so that they could decide whether to appeal any or all of his determinations. The
determinations to be made by the Director were, in fact, delegated to the Director of Current
Planning ("the Planning Director").
The Planning Director's determinations were made on or about October 9, 1996. Notice of those
determinations were sent to the affected property owners and an appeal was filed by four parties -
in -interest on October 29, 1996. The appellants are: James A. Dinsmore, on behalf of Ultimate
Support Systems, Inc.; A. J. Glaser; Ed and Jean Laudick; and Gene Barker.
The Planning Director determined that the traffic study, wetlands study, and siteRandscape plan for
the Property are adequate for a conceptual level of evaluation of the proposed development, in
compliance with the Ordinance. The determination stated that the next step in the process is for the
applicant to submit a subdivision plat and the required detailed documentation for review.
The attached documents include:
* the appeal
* Ordinance No. 143,1995
* the Current Planning Department response to the appeal
* Letter to Residents, dated September 3, 1996, from Stephen Olt, Current Planning
Department, noting them of the City's receipt of documentation submitted to the
Cityfor review in compliance with Ordinance No. 143, 1995
* Response letter to Don Parsons, dated October 9, 1996, from Robert Blanchard,
Current Planning Director, with a determination on the documentation submitted to
the City for review
222
January 7, 1997
* Letter to Residents, dated October 11, 1996, from Stephen Olt, Current Planning
Department, notifying them of the City's determination on the documentation
submitted for review. The Affected Property Owners list is attached. This same list
was used to mail the letter on September 3.
* Traffic Analysis for the Dry Creek Mobile Home Park
* Conceptual Wetlands Mitigation Plan for the Dry Creek Mobile Home Park
* Set ofplans consisting of
- Dry Creek Site Plan Option A
- Dry Creek Site Plan Option B
- Dry Creek Conceptual Cul-De-Park Layout
- Dry Creek Conceptual Landscape Plan
- Dry Creek Enhancement Plan, Figure 1
In deciding the appeal, the Council should receive and consider the reports and studies considered
by the Planning Director, as well as the evidence and arguments advanced by the parties -in -interest.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the Council should decide whether to uphold, overturn or mods
the Planning Director's decision. Alternatively, the matter could also be remanded by the Council
with direction to finrther consider any particular issues raised during the appeal in light of the
evidence presented to the Council. "
Councilmember Smith made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Wanner, to postpone
consideration of this item to January 21, 1997. Yeas: Councilmembers Azari, Kneeland,
McCluskey, Smith and Wanner. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Items Pertaining to the REA
Annexation and Zoning, Postponed to February 4, 1997
The following is staff's memorandum on this item.
"Executive Sunnmary
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 162, 1996, Annexing Property Known as the REA
Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado. (Option B)
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 163, 1996, Amending the Zoning District Map Contained
in Chapter 29 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes
223
January 7, 1997
the Property Included in the REA Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado, Into the
HB-Highway Zoning District, with a PUD Condition. (Option A)
On December 17, 1996 Council voted unanimously to adopt Resolution 96-153 Setting Forth
Findings of Fact and Determinations regarding the REA Annexation.
Also on December 17, 1996, Council unanimously adopted Ordinance No. 162, 1996, and
Ordinance No. 163, 1996 by a vote of 4-3, annexing and zoning 9.39 acres located on the west side
of South College Avenue, south of Harmony Road and the Arbor Plaza Shopping Center, and north
of Fossil Creek Nursery. The Burlington Northern Railroad is adjacent along the west property line.
The requested zoning is CL - Limited Commercial Zoning District with no PUD condition. The
expressed purpose of this request is to develop an automobile sales business for the Spradley-Barr
dealership that currently operates at the southwest corner of South College Avenue and Drake Road.
The property is developed, having been the headquarters for Poudre Valley REA for many years,
and it is in the Business and Commercial Zoning Districts in Lorimer County. This is a 100%
voluntary annexation.
APPLICANT. • Spradley-Barr
c% Cityscape Urban Design, Inc.
3555 Stanford Road, Suite 105
Fort Collins, CO. 80525
OWNER: Poudre Valley REA
7649 REA Parkway
Fort Collins, CO. 80528"
Councilmember Kneeland made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Smith, to postpone Second
Reading consideration of Ordinance Nos. 162 and 163, 1996, to February 4, 1997. Yeas:
Councilmembers Azari, Kneeland, McCloskey, Smith and Wanner. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Items Relating to the Fort Collins Good
Samaritan Village Annexation and Zoning, Adopted on Second Reading.
The following is staffs memorandum on this item.
"Executive Summary
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 158, 1996, Annexing Property Known as the Fort Collins
Good Samaritan Village Annexation.
224
January 7, 1997
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 159, 1996, Amending the Zoning District Map Contained
in Chapter 29 of the Code and Classing for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the
Fort Collins Good Samaritan Village Annexation to the City of Fort Collins.
On December 17, 1996, Council unanimously adopted Resolution 96-149 Setting Forth Findings
of Fact and Determinations Regarding the Fort Collins Good Samaritan Village Annexation.
On December 17, 1996 Council also unanimously adopted Ordinance No. 158 and Ordinance No.
159, 1996 These Ordinances annex and zone approximately 15.210 acres (includes public right-of-
way) located at the northwest corner of West Trilby Road and Constellation Drive. The requested
zoning is R-L-P, Low Density Planned Residential with a PUD condition. The existing, 4-story, Fort
Collins Good Samaritan Village building is located on the property. This is a 100% voluntary
annexation to the City. The annexation of this area is consistent with the policies and agreements
between County and the City contained in the INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT FOR
THE FORT COLLINS URBAN GROWTHAREA. "
Councilmember McCloskey made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Smith, to adopt Ordinance
No. 158, 1996 on Second Reading.
At Baccili, 520 Galaxy Court, stated he did not object to the annexation but objected to additional
traffic on Constellation Drive stating the street is in need of substantial repairs.
The vote on Councilmember McCluskey's motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Azari,
Kneeland, McCluskey, Smith and Wanner. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Kneeland made a motion, seconded by Councilmember McCluskey, to adopt
Ordinance No. 159, 1996 on Second Reading. Yeas Councilmembers Azari, Kneeland, McCluskey,
Smith and Wanner. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Ordinance No. 2, 1997
Amending Sections 29-43 and 29-44 of the Code of the City
Regarding Amendments to the Zoning District Map, Failed.
The following is staff s memorandum on this item.
225
January 7, 1997
"Executive Summary
This Ordinance amends the City Code to address property owner notification and property posting
requirements for large area rezonings typically associated with City comprehensive planning
programs.
BACKGROUND:
In all likelihood, the implementation of City Plan will result in the need to rezone substantial areas
of the City to bring the zoning into conformance with the Structure Plan. In considering the process
that will be undertaken, issues arose regarding the number ofproperties that will be affected by the
proposed rezonings and City Code requirements for notification of affected property owners,
publication of notification for public hearings and the posting of signs on affected property.
Sections 29-43(e) and 29-44 of the Code address the procedural conditions relating to public
hearings held by the City Council and Planning and Zoning Board for rezonings. Those sections
read as follows:
Sec. 29-43. Amendments to Zoning District Map
(e) Upon completion of any hearing by the Planning and Zoning Board on an
application to rezone any parcel of land or upon consideration of initial zoning in
the case of lands being annexed to the city, the City Clerk shall cause the hearing by
the City Council to be placed on the agenda for a future City Council meeting and
shall give notice of such hearing. The public hearing before the City Council shall
be held after at least seven (7) days notice of the time and place of such hearing shall
have been given by at least one (1) publication in a newspaper ofgeneral circulation
within the city.
Sec. 29-44. Special procedures for amendments
Before submitting a report and recommendation on any proposed amendment to this
Chapter, the Planning and Zoning Board shall hold a public hearing on the proposed
amendment with the following special conditions required:
(1) For proposed amendments to the Zoning District Map, the Planning and Zoning
Board shall send a written notice of the hearing at least seven (7) days prior to the
hearing date to the property owners of most recent tax record within the area
requesting rezoning and to the owners of property adjacent to the area proposed for
rezoning. Failure to mail such notice to every property owner due to clerical
omissions shall not affect the validity of any hearing of determinations of the board;
226
January 7, 1997
(2) In addition, the Planning and Zoning Board may order notices posted at least seven
(7) days prior to the hearing date on the property requesting rezoning. When so
ordered, such notices shall be readable from public streets and shall contain the
following: `Planning Review Requested. "
As written, this Code language requires for all rezonings, regardless of the number of affected
parcels, the mailing of written notice to all affected property owners and those "adjacent" to the
properties proposed for rezoning (typically, the notification distances outlined in the Land
Development Guidance System are followed) as well as the posting of all properties with a
"Development Under Review" sign. As noted above, a significant area of the City will be rezoned
after City Plan is adopted This will be necessary to bring the zoning into compliance with the
Structure Plan. The rezoning will be conducted as a single project rather than parcel by parcel or
area by area. Given the scope of the rezoning project associated with the implementation of City
Plan, and the associated costs in time and money, it is recommended that the Code be amended to
differentiate between the notification procedures for large area rezonings and smaller actions
associated with individual petitions.
It is difficult to identify a threshold that would separate "large area rezonings" that would not
require individual notification from smaller actions that would Notification should certainly
continue to be required when property owners petition the City for a rezoning. (This has been
infrequent in the past since rezonings to allow a change of use on property has been supplanted by
the LDGS which allows any use through a Planned Unit Development, but property owner petitions
may become more frequent with the proposed implementation of City Plan with a site specific zoning
map). However, when large areas are proposed for rezonings as a result of a City planning exercise
such as the East Side and West Side Neighborhood Plans (the East Side Neighborhood Plan was
adopted in 1986 and the West Side Neighborhood Plan was adopted in 1989 with the associated
rezoning of both neighborhoods occurring in 1991) or City Plan, notification of individual property
owners is excessive. .
While the City Code requires that written notification be delivered to individual property owners
prior to the Planning and Zoning Board hearing, State law does not. In addition, the City Code
requires newspaper publication of Council hearings at least seven days prior to the hearing. In this
case, City requirements differ from the State law which says publication must occur at least 15 days
prior to the Council hearing. There is no differentiation in either the City Code or State law
between large area rezonings (a quasi -legislative act) or single parcel or small -area rezonings (a
potentially quasi-judicial act).
Because of the need to differentiate between larger and smaller area rezonings, the need to
differentiate between quasi -legislative acts and quasi-judicial acts and the need to reconcile
differences between State law and City requirements, the following amendments to the City Code
are recommended:
227
January 7, 1997
Section 29-43
Amend the Code to require 15 days advance notice by publication in a newspaper ofgeneral
circulation rather than the present seven days. This would remove the inconsistency between
State law and City requirements and provide an extended period of time for citizens to gain
information about the proposed rezonings and prepare for the hearing. This single
publication requirement in Section 29-43 is sufficient to ensure that the City has met all of
its constitutional "due process" obligations.
Section 29-44
Provide a codified distinction between quasi -legislative rezonings (large area) and quasi-
judicial rezonings (small area) with the threshold of one square mile (640 acres). This will
establish the basis for different notification requirements for large area and small area
rezonings.
Eliminate the requirement that written notice must be delivered to anyone for quasi -
legislative (large area) rezonings. Notification would still be given through publication in
a newspaper ofgeneral circulation.
Add a requirement that (with respect to both large and small area rezonings) notification
must be given through publication in a newspaper ofgeneral circulation at least seven days
prior to the Planning and Zoning Board hearing. This would ensure that some public
notification would be given for all rezonings prior to the Planning and Zoning Board
hearing.
Retain the requirement that written notice must be delivered to all property owners and
owners of property within 500 feet of the area proposed for rezoning for quasi- dici I
(small area) rezonings. Change the phrase 'owners of property adjacent to the area
proposed for rezoning" to "property owners of most recent tar records within 500 feet of
any point on the perimeter of the area proposed for rezoning. " The term "adjacent" is too
vague to provide direction. A 500 foot rule is consistent with the current notification
requirementsfor development applications.
Remove the provision that authorizes the Planning and Zoning Board to order the posting
of signs on property being rezoned. This recommendation relates to the posting of signs for
all rezoning actions but is especially pertinent to quasi -legislative rezonings. This would
remove the potential controversy over why the Board did not order signs posted, how many
should be posted, where they should be located and what effect theft or vandalism of the
signs has on compliance with this posting requirement. "
228
January 7, 1997
Director of Current Planning Bob Blanchard gave the staff presentation on this item and outlined the
proposed changes. He believed public outreach was an acceptable means of providing notification
along with publishing the notices in the newspaper. He clarified this would only apply to rezonings
and stated under the new system more rezonings are anticipated. He stated the Code currently states
residents are notified by mailed notice and placement of signs where the rezoning is proposed.
Councilmember Kneeland questioned why the standard would be changed.
Blanchard spoke of the cost to mail notification and spoke of staffs dilemma with regards to what
should be included in the mailing. He stated currently when rezonings occur, the property subject
to the rezoning is posted and notice is sent to residents within a minimum of 500 feet. He stated
public notification would remain a part of the proposed development review process
Councilmember McCluskey expressed concerns about the large amount of non-resident owners and
how they would receive notification.
Councilmember Smith suggested using the utility billing system stating it would provide notification
to a large number of citizens.
Blanchard responded to Council questions and stated the Ordinance would clarify the definition of
"adjacent" in the Code. He stated the Code currently states that notification be mailed to all affected
property owners and that the property be properly posted.
Councilmember Smith made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Wanner, to adopt Ordinance
No. 2, 1997 on First Reading.
Craig Howe, 2417 Stanford Road, representing the Fort Collins Board of Realtors, expressed
concerns that the proposed changes would affect property values in many areas and believed this was
a violation of due process. He stated if the Ordinance is adopted without change, the Board of
Realtor's will encourage and participate in a class action lawsuit to stop it and will pursue a
restraining order.
Sanford Thayer, 1827 Michael Lane, questioned if adoption of the Ordinance would affect other
ordinances, specifically street vacations and how notice is given.
Mary Harnett, 4028 Cherry Hills Drive, opposed the motion and stated she believed zoning mailings
protect her right as a property owner.
Mark Lotto, 2212 Vermont Drive, New West Planning Consultants, stated he supported inclusion
of rezoning notices in utility bills and opposed the motion.
229
January 7, 1997
Yolanda C. Nicely, Trilby Mobile Home Park #40A, stated it was impossible to please everyone and
spoke of the need for the City to find ways to save money.
Assistant City Attorney Paul Eckman clarified that as far as constitutional due process is concerned
publishing notice in the paper is sufficient.
Councilmember Smith suggested inserting a postcard in the utility bills that would duplicate the
information published in the paper.
City Manager John Fischbach stated if the Ordinance is adopted on First Reading, staff could bring
back cost estimates for Council review before adoption on Second Reading.
Councilmember Kneeland spoke in opposition of the motion stating it lowers the City's notification
standard.
Councilmember McCloskey opposed the motion.
Councilmember Wanner stated he was not satisfied with the proposal and would not support the
motion. He suggested looking at what is done in other cities and what is customary in area -wide
zoning changes.
The vote on Councilmember Smith's motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Smith. Nays:
Councilmembers Azari, Kneeland, McCloskey and Wanner.
THE MOTION FAILED.
Staff Reports
City Manager John Fischbach introduced the new Chief of Police, Dennis Harrison.
Ordinance No. 161, 1996
of the Council of the City of Fort Collins Providing
for the Review and Processing of Pending Land Use
Applications and Establishing a Temporary Delay in
the Acceptance of Certain Land Use Applications
Through March 31, 1997, Adopted as Amended on Section Reading_
The following is staffs memorandum on this item.
230
January 7, 1997
"Executive Summary
On December 17, 1996, the City Council adopted by a vote of 4-3 on First Reading Option C of
Ordinance 161, 1996, with an amendment to exempt certain qualified affordable housing projects
from the provisions of the Ordinance. Option Chad been recommended by the Growth Management
Committee based on public and staff input on the published Options A and B. Council, during
discussion, also directed staff to investigate other options for amendments to the version adopted
on First Reading. Specifically, the questions presented to staff were:
(1) Should prior investment in infrastructure of a certain magnitude exempt a project
from the delay in acceptance of processing applications, or offer some other form of
relief?
(2) Should all previously approved ODPs have more time in which to file preliminary
submittals?
(3) Should the term "completed application, " as used in the Ordinance, be interpreted
and defined to allow for a situation where the applicant is unable to complete an
application due to some action or inaction on part of the City staff
For Second Reading, therefore, the staff is presenting the Ordinance as adopted on First Reading,
with three additional options for the Council to consider.
BACKGROUND:
Ordinance No. 161, 1996, adopted on First Reading (referred to as Option C at the meeting of
December 17, 1996) establishedfor the expiration ofcertain land use approvals; set periods of time
during which new applications must be filed to maintain activity on a project; established a period
(between January 17, 1997 and March 28, 1997) during which new overall development plan,
preliminary PUD, and preliminary subdivision applications would not be accepted; exempted
certain affordable housing projects from the provisions of the Ordinance; and provided a vested
rights determination process for property owners claiming a statutory or common law right to
develop in spite of the provisions of the ordinance.
Staffs recommendation is that the affordable housing exemption in the Ordinance be limited to an
exemption from the delay in accepting new applications. To qualify for this exemption, affordable
housing projects would have to meet three criteria under the staffs recommended wording: (1) the
project would have to be predominantly residential in character, set at 75% or more of the land
area; (2) at least 30% of the units would have to be affordable under the previously accepted
standards for affordability established by the City; and (3) building permits issued pursuant to a
final approval ofa project granted the processing exemption would have to be issued_frur affordable
231
January 7, 1997
units in the same proportion that they are issued for market rate units, and the affordable units
would have to be built in the initial phase of the project if it is to be developed in phases.
The options the Council directed staff to evaluate, and referred to above in the Executive Summary,
are presented here in greater detail, and are set forth as potential amendments to the Ordinance.
Any combination of amendments may be incorporated into the ordinance.
Option 1 would establish a longer period for the filing ofpreliminary and final PUD applications
for only those projects where infrastructure improvements have been installed for at least 20% of
the land area of the entire project. This situation occurs when there is an approved ODP for a
large, phased project, and portions of the project have been granted final approval, and construction
has begun. Under these circumstances, the period of time allowed to submit final applications under
the LDGS would be extended to 18 months.
Option 2 would grant all projects which have been granted ODP approval prior to the effective date
of the ordinance to continue to submit preliminary applications up to the point when the New Land
Use Code takes effect. In effect, this would grant certain developments a little more than two
additional months to submit preliminary applications. It would not affect projects for which no ODP
approval has been granted.
Option 3 would define a "complete application " in a new way. Council heard testimony that there
may be cases when a developer cannot submit a completed application because of some action or
inaction by the City staff. For example, two City departments might need to coordinate their
activities, give guidance to an applicant, who would then be in a position to complete his or her
application. This amendment would set forth various criteria under which the applicant would be
granted more time to complete an application.
The ordinance retains the opportunity for any applicant to apply for a vested rights determination
for a property owner claiming a statutory or common law right to develop in accordance with the
currently existing applicable provisions of the City Code, notwithstanding the provisions of the
ordinance. This process would be in addition to the specific relief contained in Option]. Additional
criteria have been added to the process to guide the discretion of the hearing officer. Also,
participation in the process has been limited to the applicant and the City, rather than the general
public, since the point of the process is not to test the desirability of the project but to make a legal
and equitable determination as to whether that right to build the project has vested. "
Director of Community Planning and Environmental Services Greg Byme gave the staff presentation
on this item and explained the options available. He gave the definition of vested rights
determination process stating if a developer has acted in good faith and spent money on an approval
they could continue with the work started.
232
January 7, 1997
City Attorney Steve Roy suggested when a motion is made, Council pause so that the intent of the
motion can be clarified and staff could comment on proposed amendments by Ms. Liley and Mr.
Osborne.
Byrne spoke of the factors involved and the amount of time it takes to build out a project.
City Attorney Steve Roy reviewed issues raised on First Reading directing staff, to include
exceptions for affordable housing projects. He stated those projects would have until March 28,
1997 to file new applications making them exempt from the delay. Staff was directed to present an
option giving consideration to Overall Development and Preliminary Plans for which a final had
been approved and substantial investments have been made in infrastructure and consider ODPs that
have received approval and to consider exempting preliminary plans for those ODPs.
Councilmember Smith made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Wanner, to adopt Ordinance
No. 161, 1996 as adopted with the addition of Option 3, on Second Reading.
City Attorney Steve Roy clarified which components from the suggested changes that staff had made
and those that were received from others. He explained the various suggestions pertaining to Otion
3 and the main ordinance and gave recommendationswith regard to those changes that were received
from others. He asked for clarification on whether the motion would include the new sections 7 &
8 that would incorporate an Exhibit B that has the various submittal requirements.
Mayor Azari asked Councilmember Smith if that was his intent.
Roy stated staff recommends the change and added Section 7 would clarify the submittal
requirements on Exhibit B have to be met in order for there to be a complete application.
Smith responded that City Attorney Steve Roy's changes were acceptable and were also acceptable
to the seconder.
Roy stated one additional correction has been suggested to Exhibit B. On Exhibit B, under the
submittal requirements for a subdivision plat, #2 states that a development agreement must have
been submitted prior to submission of the final plan. The revision would instead state that after the
Planning and Zoning Board approval of the final Planned Unit Development plan and prior to
recording of the subdivision plat, the agreement would be entered into. He asked if the change to
Exhibit B was acceptable.
Councilmembers Smith and Wanner agreed.
Roy stated Mrs. Liley has made a suggestion that staff has reviewed and believes is acceptable. The
change would provide that in Section 5 of the ordinance, among the kinds of applications that will
233
January 7, 1997
be accepted by the City, prior to March 28, not only amendments to final plans but also amendments
to ODPs that are required by the final plats or plans would be permitted.
Councilmembers Smith and Wanner agreed.
Roy stated the phrase "or mobile home park spaces", has been added to the definition of residential
dwelling units. This has to do with the test for an affordable housing project where at least 75% of
the gross acreage to be developed under the plan is to be developed as residential dwelling units.
This would ensure that mobile home park spaces are included.
With regard to the timelines for the vested rights determination procedure that have been suggested,
language has been added to Exhibit A - Vested Rights Determination Procedure. The suggestions
establish periods of time within which each step of the process would occur. A provision has been
added to Section 8 that says that timeframes may be waived upon receipt of a stipulation. There is
also a proposed change on Page 4 that staff is not recommending. It would add to the various criteria
that the hearing officer would use in making a decision as to whether a vested right exists the
criterion that he or she should consider the effect on the applicant's existing development loans of
the application of Ordinance No. 161, 1996 to the project. Staff believes that while this evidence
could be introduced at the hearing, it needn't be incorporated into all of the criteria.
Councilmembers Smith and Wanner agreed that the change should not be included.
Kathleen Kilkelly, 920 Iverness Road, expressed concerns regarding ODPs and requested special
consideration for projects already underway. She spoke of the difficulties in arriving at acceptable
solutions between developers and residents.
Mike Nicely, Trilby Mobile Home Park #40A, stated it would be to difficult to run two parallel
systems concurrently and stated a timeframe needs to be defined to change from one system to
another.
Lucia Liley, 110 E. Oak, spoke of the need to achieve minimal impact. She spoke of the purpose
of the vested rights process and expressed concerns from various lenders regarding the impact on
existing loans and the security issues. She stated lenders indicated that development loans could be
called early. She urged the makers of the motion to consider inclusion of Option 1, she stated
allowing 18 months was not an adequate amount of time when considering a large ODP, stating 18
months would not even allow one additional phase to be done. She stated this was not a solution and
the only thing that it would allow is to not impair the marketability of their sites, and not affect
development loans and orderly transition into the new City Plan. She urged Council consider
providing a period for this very limited number of projects, it would only allow them to do one or
possibly two phases and not create such a critical impact.
234
January 7, 1997
Yolanda C. Nicely, Trilby Mobile Home Park #40A, stated adoption of the Ordinance would greatly
slow down development and spoke of the impact that would have on job opportunities.
Dan Jensen, Jensen Homes 5105 Mail Creek Lane, stated he was concerned about the 18 month
timeframe for filings, stating he originally had 10 years to develop his 254 acre project. He spoke
of costs involved for filings and infrastructure improvements. He urged Council consider a 3 year
plan.
Bill Bartran, Bartran Homes, 2619 Bison Road, concurred with statements by Mr. Jensen and urged
adoption of a 3 year plan stating it takes a tremendous amount of time to run a project through the
process.
Eldon Ward, Cityscape Urban Design, believed the transition to be premature stating there were too
many unknowns. He requested that Options 1 and 2 be included.
Kelly Ohlson, 2040 Bennington Circle, expressed concerns regarding managing growth and making
development pay its own way. He commended Council for its commitment to alleviate growth
issues. He recommended that options not be considered and if Council were to adopt Option 1, the
timeframe should be reduced to 6 months.
Lou Stitzel, 521 E. Laurel, member of CPAC, spoke of the need for more time in the process.
Aletha Langum-Godwin, President of the Homebuilder's Association of Northern Colorado, spoke
of City Plan's impact on the homebuilding industry and emphasized 18 months is not an adequate
amount of time. She urged Council to reconsider the timeframes.
Laura Davis, 1718 Scarsborough Drive, expressed growth and environmental concerns and
questioned if predictability is what the City wants to achieve. She urged Council to reject a
moratorium of any type.
Dave Osborne, attorney 217 W. Olive, urged adoption of Options 1, 2 and 3.
Scott Mason, 861 Sandy Cove Lane, spoke of the need for a transition period stating it would
provide for an orderly process, and stated infrastructure investments would not be wasted, suggesting
that the remaining land would be developed under the new land development ordinance. He urged
Council adopt Option 3 as presented.
Kimberly Maevers, Director of Governmental Affairs for Northern Colorado Homebuilder's
Association, supported staff's recommendation for Option 1 and a portion of item 7 of Option 3,
stating this would allow for time for projects with some measure of occurring development and
incorporate applicability of vested rights hearings into the process. She stated this would allow for
the continuation of processing for affordable housing projects.
235
January 7, 1997
Jeff Ducell, a Fort Collins resident, expressed opposition to the moratorium stating it would cause
him to loose his job.
Tom Horn, 1601 Quail Hollow Drive, agreed with the need for a transition period but expressed
concerns regarding the process and suggested City Plan be tested and reviewed after 6 months. He
believed that adoption of the Plan is premature and spoke of the need to determine if the Plan will
work.
Byrne responded to Council questions reviewed charts regarding existing ODP's and new ODP's
and explained how a 10 week moratorium would occur. He clarified there would be a timeframe that
applications, under the LDGS, would not be accepted and stated finals and building permits would
continue to be issued. He stated there would be an exemption for affordable housing. He clarified
the timeframe is not for build out of the project, but for acceptance of applications
Mayor Azari expressed concerns regarding transitioning.
Councilmember Kneeland offered an amendment to the previous motion to include Option 1, and
including under Section 3 in Option 1, language to read: the time period within which to file a
preliminary or final PUD, would be extended from 18 days from the effective date of the Ordinance
to 3 years.
Councilmember Smith as maker of the motion did not accept Councilmember Kneeland's
amendment as a friendly amendment.
Councilmember Kneeland made a motion, seconded by Councilmember McCluskey, to amend
Ordinance No. 161, 1996, including Option 1 and under Section 3 in Option 1, extending the amount
of time within which to file a preliminary or final PUD from 18 months from the effective date of
the Ordinance to 36 months. She clarified her intent was meant for parcels over 100 acres.
Kelly Ohlson, 2040 Bennington Circle, opposed the amendment.
Yolanda C. Nicely, Trilby Mobile Home Park #40A, spoke in support of the amendment
Scott Mason, representing City Planners, encouraged all citizens to review a draft of City Plan.
Lucia Liley, attorney, stated it is not known how the Land -Use Plan will affect properties of her
clients until implementation occurs in March.
Eldon Ward, CityScape Urban Design, spoke to the proposed amendment.
Councilmember Kneeland stated she would prefer making the transition after the Plan is adopted.
236
January 7, 1997
Councilmember Smith opposed the amendment and believed 5 years was too long for transitioning.
Councilmember Wanner stated he would not support the amendment but would support Option 1
as written.
Councilmember McCluskey spoke of the input received and expressed concerns regarding
community support.
Mayor Azari spoke of Council's commitment to the process and of the need for a transitional plan
with specific guidelines.
The vote on Councilmember Kneeland's motion to amend Ordinance No. 161, 1996 on Second
Reading was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Azari, Kneeland and McCluskey. Nays:
Councilmembers Smith and Wanner.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
The vote on Councilmember Smith's original motion to adopt Ordinance No. 161, 1996, on Second
Reading as amended was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Azari, Kneeland and McCluskey.
Nays: Councilmembers Smith and Wanner.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Resolution 97-7
Specifying Projects to Be Included in the
Building Community Choices Capital Improvement Program
Ballot Item for the April S. 1997 Municipal Election, No Action Taken.
The following is staffs memorandum on this item.
"Executive Suurntary
On December 17, 1996, City Council met in Study Session to review the proposed Capital
Improvement Program, Building Community Choices. Council discussed the projects which remain
on the project list, directed staffto prepare a resolution for its consideration which included a tar
term of 8 years, rather than the originally proposed 6 years. Council feedback at the Study Session
indicated that seven projects should be eliminated from further consideration, including the three
large scale projects, the construction of a Police Building, New Main Library, and Performing Arts
Facility.
The resulting "short list" after this meeting totaled approximately S106,000, 000 in 1996 dollars.
Over the past few weeks, staJJ'has worked to evaluate the financial impact of this project list, taking
237
inflation and revenue projections into account.
January 7, 1997
An 8 year tax term is expected to yield
approximately S120,200, 000 over the period. This revenue projection is based on moderate growth
projections over the period, which averages approximately 6.25% per year.
Staff recommends that Council include the projects recommended in Attachment A as the final
project listfor the Building Community Choices Capital Program. Though the initial "short list"
as of December 17 totaled $106 million, funding issues for the additional two years of the Street
Maintenance and Open Space Programs and inflation costs were not taken into account. Therefore,
staff offers a reduced list for Council's consideration. This project list includes the following
changes from the December 17th list:
• Increase Natural Areas allocation from S22 million to the 528.1 million
originally requested by the Natural Resources Board
• Increase the Street Maintenance and Overlay program by S3.66 million per year
for each of the additional years, totaling 529.3 million.
• Increase the estimated cost of the Burlington Northern Railroad Multi -modal
Corridor project from S2 million to $5.5 million, to further implement this
project. Funding for this project is traded off for funding of the Transit
Development Plan implementation.
• Reduce finding for the Pedestrian Plan from S4.8 million to 52.4 million.
• Eliminate fundingfor the two lowest ranking projects, including Performing Arts
Center Land and EPIC enhancements.
• Assume that the vendor fee cap revenue allocated to capital projects in the
Choices 95 program will continue to be allocated to the Building Community
Choices program. This increases revenue projections by approximately S4
million over the 8 years tax term.
When the impact of inflation on construction costs is factored into the program costs, over S14
million must be set aside to reasonably assure that adequate funding will be available when the
projects are constructed This assumes an average inflationary increase of 4.3% each year between
1996 and 2005. "
City Manager John Fischbach gave the staff presentation on this item, spoke of the amount of
outreach that has been done and reviewed the history of the project. He reported a recommended
list of projects has been included in the Resolution. He addressed misunderstandings regarding
proposals, clarifying the Northside Atzlan Center is being proposed as a new building but a site has
not yet been determined. He spoke of the proposal for an additional building for the Performing Arts
238
January 7, 1997
Center and clarified after Council makes its selections, a study session will be held to discuss
packaging of the projects and ballot language. He stated adoption of the resolution would not have
any legal implications and noted members of the Capital Improvements Team would be available
for Council questions.
Director of Cultural Services and Facilities Dave Siever gave a brief update regarding CSU's
participation in a Performing Arts Center, stating CSU is currently reviewing information regarding
renovation of the old Fort Collins High School.
Councilmember Smith expressed concerns that the Youth Activities Center would have to be
relocated if the Performing Arts Center is placed at the Old Fort Collins High School.
Fischbach stated CSU has not yet completed its study and at this time did not object to leaving the
Youth Activities Center at the Old Fort Collins High School. He stated funding for land purchase
is necessary, and spoke of the various ways joint -use with Poudre R-1 may be achieved.
Councilmember McCloskey expressed concerns that recommendations seem to be an inflation of
what currently exists and opposed extending the 6 year tax term to 8 years.
Policy Analyst Susanne Edminster responded to Council questions and concerns regarding the multi -
modal corridor. She stated it is still not known how much rights -of -way would cost and spoke of
the transit component which is included in the project. She spoke of staffs vision for the project,
stating it would represent a true transportation corridor. She spoke of a grant received from the
Office of Energy Conservation to be used for looking at renovating the old depot site for a possible
transfer/pick-up center.
Mayor Azari stated she wanted to see finding for EPIC enhancements.
City Attorney Steve Roy clarified adopting the Resolution directs staff to include the
recommendations in the proposed Ordinance, then Council would choose what ultimately would be
placed on the ballot.
Councilmember McCloskey concurred with comments made by Mayor Azari regarding EPIC and
supported land purchase for the Performing Arts Center.
Councilmember Smith made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kneeland, to adopt Resolution
97-7 directing staff to include the acquisition of land for the Performing Art Center and EPIC
enhancements.
City Manager John Fischbach responded to Council comments and noted many of the projects,
which were not recommended are projects that would be considered during the normal budget
process.
239
January 7, 1997
Assistant to the Director of Cultural, Library and Recreational Services Marty Heffernan clarified
funding is not available from development fees for deficit parks.
Jodee Lowry, representing Twice the Ice, spoke in support of the proposed EPIC Center
enhancements stating she believed it would promote tourism in the City.
Joey Dowd, a Fort Collins resident and figure skater, spoke in support of a 2nd sheet of ice and
spoke of the difficulty of getting time on the ice.
Janet Lettang, 5425 Saratoga Circle, concurred with previous comments and thanked Council for
its consideration. She supported using Building Community Choices funding for recreation options.
Lan Lewmans, a Fort Collins resident, supported the proposed Multi -Modal Corridor Plan.
Rhonda Rodriguez, 4215 Creekside Court, supported EPIC Center enhancements.
Bruce Freestone, 701 Pear, Executive Producer of the Open Stage Theater Company, supported land
acquisition for the Performing Arts Center.
Sandra Kaiser, 1301 University Avenue, spoke in support of EPIC Center enhancements.
Bruce Hendee, 2830 Mercury Drive, supported land acquisition for the Performing Arts Center and
supported a 6 year tax term.
Jennifer Beccard, Chairperson of the Cultural Resources Board residing at 1425 Pikes Peak Avenue,
encouraged Council to include funding for the Performing Arts Center and commented on two
studies that address the need for additional cultural facilities in Fort Collins.
Ken Merritt, 2701 Maroon Court, supported EPIC enhancements.
Bruce Lockhart, 2500 East Harmony Road, expressed TABOR concerns and urged that
enhancements proposed for EPIC be rejected since the voters have rejected the issue twice. He
stated if there is such a great demand for an additional rink, the private sector would build it.
After Council discussed its preferences for proposed projects, additional avenues for funding, and
length of the tax term, Councilmember Kneeland offered an amendment to the previous motion to
direct staff to develop two project lists based on a 6 year and 8 year budget. Councilmember Smith,
as maker of the original motion, accepted the amendment as a friendly amendment.
City Manager John Fischbach suggested adjourning the meeting allowing staff time to balance the
figures and time to provide Council a list of 6, 7, and 8 year tax terms.
240
January 7, 1997
Councilmember Kneeland made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Wanner, to adjourn the
meeting to January 14 at 6:30 p.m. Yeas: Councilmembers Azari, Kneeland, McCloskey, Smith and
Wanner. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
The meeting adjourned at 12:05 a.m.
ATTEST:
L"
City Clerk
Adjournment
241