HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES-12/15/1992-Regularli
December 15, 1992
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
December 15, 1992, 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, Edwards, Horak, Kirkpatrick, -Maxey and Winokur.
Staff Members Present: Burkett, Krajicek, Roy.
Citizen Participation
Al Bacilli, 520 Galaxy Court, asked Councilmembers to vocalize their views on the
vendor fee issue. He stated the vendor fee issue is pirating money from the
taxpayers of Fort Collins. He questioned why the business community should be
able to keep the money they collect from sales tax.
Robbie Guidry, Scrap Happy Quilters, presented a handmade quilt to Mayor
Kirkpatrick and Mayor Pro Tem Azari for permanent display at the Farm at Lee
Martinez Park. She stated the center part of the quilt represents the Barn at
Lee Martinez Park and the surrounding blocks represent donations from the people
of Fort Collins and Loveland.
Citizen Participation Follow-up
Mayor Kirkpatrick stated there is a formula that determines how much of the sales
tax each vendor is allowed to retain as the vendor fee.
Agenda Review
City Manager Burkett stated Item 13, on the Consent Calendar, is a public hearing
and any member from the audience could comment on that item. Item 20 is a new
resolution and Item 44 is a revised resolution. He pulled Items H,I, and•J,
under Deeds and Easements, to be considered individually by Council.
Councilmember Horak pulled Item 7, Second Reading of Ordinance No. 119, 1992,
Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to Enter into an Agreement for the Lease -
Purchase Financing of Vehicles and Equipment and Item 15, Items Relating to the
Phillips Annexation and Zoning:
A. Resolution 92-179 Setting Forth Findings of Fact and Determinations
Regarding the Phillips Annexation and Zoning.
B. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 133, 1992, Annexing
Approximately 1.73 Acres, Known as the Phillips Annexation.
Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 134, 1992, Zoning
Approximately 1.73 Acres, Known as the Phillips Annexation, into the '
H-B, Highway Business, Zoning District, subject to a Planned Unit
Development condition.
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 will be considered separately under Agenda Item #28, Pulled
Consent Items.
VD,
The City solicited proposals from 32 firms for lease -purchase financing
for the City's vehicle and equipment requirements. The proposal meeting
all City requirements and offering the lowest net effective interest rate
of 4.9% for 7 years was received from First Interstate Bank, First
Interstate's bid was received on November 6, 1992, staff believes
acceptance of this interest rate is in the City's best interest.
This Ordinance, which was unanimously adopted ,on First Reading, on ,
November 17, authorizes the Purchasing Agent to enter into a lease -
purchase financing agreement with First Interstate Bank at 4.9% percent
interest rate for the purchase of the required vehicles and equipment.
This lease -purchase financing is consistent with the financial policies of
the City of Fort Collins.
Since First Reading a new Section 3 has been added to the Ordinance to
clarify that the monies in the escrow account are appropriated. Adoption
of the Consent Calendar will adopt the Ordinance in its amended form.
Items Related to the Nordick Annexation and Zoning.
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 120, 1992 of the Council of the City
of Fort Collins Annexing Property Known as the Nordick Annexation to
the City of Fort Collins, Colorado.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 121, 1992, of the Council of the
City of Fort Collins 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 Nordick Annexation
to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado.
On November 17, Council unanimously adopted Resolution 92-167 Setting
Forth Findings of Fact and Determinations Regarding the Nordick
Annexation.
264 1
' On November 17, Council also unanimously adopted on First Reading
Ordinance No. 120, 1992 and Ordinance No. 121, 1992, which annex and zone
approximately 2.18 acres located south of Harmony Road and west of the
Burlington Northern Railroad tracks west of College Avenue. The requested
zoning is the B-L, Limited Business, District. The property is presently
developed with an office use and a small animal veterinary clinic. The
property is currently zoned C-Commercial in the County. This is a
voluntary annexation.
9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 125, 1992 of the Council of the City of
Fnrt rniiinc Gmnndinn Ccrtinn 79-79(n) of tho rnda of the rite of Fnrt
Collins to Provide for the Imposition of
a Twenty-five Hundredths Percent
(0.25%) Sales and Use Tax on all Taxable
Items Except Food for the Purpose
of Acguiring, Constructing, Enhancing
and Maintaining Trail Systems,
Wildlife and Other Natural
Areas, to be
Effective January 1, 1993..
At the November 3 election, the voters approved an additional quarter -cent
sales tax for natural areas. This Ordinance, which was unanimously
adopted on First Reading on November 17, codifies the additional tax.
10. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 127, 1992, Amending Section 2-581 of the
Code of the City of Fort Collins and Fixing the Compensation of the City
Attorney.
11.
12.
13.
City Council met in Executive Session to conduct the performance appraisal
of City Attorney, Stephen J. Roy. This Ordinance, which was unanimously
adopted on First Reading on November 17, establishes the 1993 salary for
the City Attorney at $77,175.
City Council met
of City Manager,
adopted on First
the City Manager
in Executive Session to conduct the performance appraisal
Steven C. Burkett. This Ordinance, which was unanimously
Reading on November 17, establishes the 1993 salary for
at $88,000.
City Council met in Executive Session to conduct the performance appraisal
of Municipal Judge, Kathleen M. Allin. This Ordinance, which was
unanimously adopted on First Reading on November 17, establishes the 1993
salary for the Municipal Judge at $57,000.
265
The City of Fort Collins has historically adopted the Uniform Fire Code as '
its primary code for the identification and abatement of fire safety
hazards. This model code is developed and published by the International
Fire Code Institute ("IFCI") on three year cycles. The 1988 edition is
currently adopted by the city. Poudre Fire Authority is requesting that
City Council adopt the 1991 edition with certain local amendments.
This Code and local amendments have been reviewed and endorsed by a Fire
Code Review Committee appointed by the PFA Board of Directors. At its
October meeting, the PFA Board of Directors approved this Code and
directed staff to pursue adoption through the City and Fire District. In
accordance with Council policy, the Fort Collins Fire Board of Appeals
(Building Review Board) also reviewed and endorsed this Code.
14. Items Relating to the Greenstone Annexation and Zoning.
A. Resolution 92-178 Setting Forth Findings of Fact and Determinations
Regarding the Greenstone Annexation and Zoning.
B. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 131, 1992, Annexing
Approximately 188 Acres, Known as the Greenstone Annexation.
C. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 132, 1992, Zoning
Approximately 188 Acres, Known as the Greenstone Annexation, into
the R-L-P, Low Density Planned Residential, Zoning District, subject
to a Planned Unit Development condition and subject to a condition
that the first residential phase be allowed to develop at a density '
of less than 3.0 dwelling units per acre (DU/ac) provided that the
gross density of the residential portion of the Overall Development
Plan (ODP) be at least 3 DU/ac.
This is a request to annex and zone approximately 188 acres located
approximately one mile south of Trilby Road, east of Lemay Avenue, north
of County Road 32, and west of County Road 11 (Timberline Road). The
annexation consists of two parcels of land under single ownership. The
property is currently vacant and zoned FA-1, Farming, in the County. The
proposed zoning is R-L-P, Low Density Planned Residential, with a Planned
Unit Development (PUD) condition and with a condition that the first
residential phase be allowed to develop at a density of less than 3.0
DU/ac provided that the gross density of the residential portion of the
ODP be at least 3 DU/ac. This is a voluntary annexation.
15. Items Relating to the Phillips Annexation and Zoning.
A. Resolution 92-179 Setting Forth Findings of Fact and Determinations
Regarding the Phillips Annexation and Zoning.
Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 133, 1992, Annexing
Approximately 1.73 Acres, Known as the Phillips Annexation.
F.zi.1
C. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 134, 1992, Zoning
Approximately 1.73 Acres, Known as the Phillips Annexation, into the
H-B, Highway Business, Zoning District, subject to a Planned Unit
Development condition.
This is a request to annex and zone approximately 1.73 acres located
approximately 150' west of I-25 on the north side of Prospect Road. The
area to be annexed consists of three parcels with three property owners.
The property is currently vacant and zoned C, Commercial in the County.
The proposed zoning is H-B, Highway Business, with a Planned Unit
Development (PUD) condition. This is the annexation of an enclave area.
16. Items Relating to the Wuerker Annexation and Zoning.
17.
A. Resolution 92-180 Setting Forth Findings of Fact and Determinations
Regarding the Wuerker Annexation and Zoning.
B. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 135, 1992, Annexing
Approximately 14.54 Acres, Known as the Wuerker Annexation.
C. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 136, 1992, Zoning
Approximately 14.54 Acres, Known as the Wuerker Annexation, into the
R-L-P, Low Density Planned Residential, Zoning District, subject to
a Planned Unit Development condition and subject to a condition that
the minimum allowable density be 1.5 dwelling units per acre.
This is a request to annex and zone approximately 14.54 acres located west
of South Shields Street approximately one mile south of Harmony Road, at
the southwest corner of South Shields Street and Fossil Creek Drive
(extended). The annexation consists of one parcel of land under single
ownership. The property is currently vacant and zoned FA-1, Farming, in
the County. The proposed zoning is R-L-P, Low Density Planned
Residential, with a Planned Unit Development (PUD) condition and with a
condition that the minimum allowable density be 1.5 dwelling units per
acre. This is a voluntary annexation.
Fort Collins Police Services.has applied for and been awarded an Emergency
Management Assistance ("EMA") grant for federal fiscal year 1992. These
funds are allocated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency to support
emergency management program activities at the local level. Local
jurisdictions must first meet specific program requirements and must have
an established disaster agency and plan.
The City has received notification of a grant award in the amount of
$10,665 for the time period from January 1, 1992 to September 30, 1992.
This grant requires a 50/50 match in funds. These matching funds are
currently included in Police Services' 1992 budget, primarily under the
Emergency Management Coordinator position.
267
III
19.
Police Services plans to receive similar EMA grant amounts on a regular
basis in the future to help fund the Emergency Management Program.
The purpose of this Ordinance is to reinstate a subparagraph of Section
22-97 of the Code, pertaining to the manner of disposition of the proceeds
of the sale of special improvement district properties, which was
inadvertently deleted through prior amendments to the Code.
A. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 139, 1992 Amending
Section 22-97 of the Code Relating to the Reduction of Statutory
Redemption Interest Accruing on Tax Certificates of Purchase Held by
the City for Special Improvement District Assessments.
1
B.
Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 140, 1992 Repealing and
Reenacting Subsection (c) of Section 23-111 of the Code Relating to
the Requirements and Notice Provisions for the Sale of a Tax Sale
Certificate of Purchase Held by the City for Special Improvement
District Assessments.
If
entitled
a special assessment is not paid by a property owner, the City is
to sell the lien on the property at the annual tax sale held by
'
the
county treasurer. Customarily, those parcels that are not purchased
by
private investors are given by default to the City. The lien is
evidenced
by a tax certificate of purchase. The entire lien earns
interest
from the date of issuance at a rate established by state statute.
The
rate is higher than most investments and that attracts buyers to the
tax
sale.
Item A amends Section 22-97 of the City Code and permits the City Council
to approve, by resolution, a reduction in the statutory redemption
interest rate under certain circumstances. These circumstances are that
such statutory redemption interest rate not be reduced below the highest
rate of interest owed on any of the bonds which are paid with assessments
collected from the property described in the certificate of purchase, and
that the City Council finds that such reduction will not impair payment of
the principal and interest owing under the affected bonds and that such
reduction is in the best interests of the City. Staff believes that this
change is advisable because it would, in appropriate circumstances, allow
property owners to redeem their properties at a reduced penalty rate,
while still protecting the interests of the bondholders.
268
' Item B amends Section 23-111(c) of the Code to streamline the notice
requirements that the City must satisfy whenever it is considering selling
a certificate of purchase for less than its face value. The specific
change that is being made is to only require that notice be sent to
bondholders if, in the judgment of the Financial Officer, the proposed
sale and assignment of the certificate of purchase will impair in any way
the payment of any principal or interest owing to the bondholders of the
bonds which are paid with assessments collected from the property
described in the certificate of purchase the City is proposing to sell.
As Section 23-111(c) currently reads, notice to bondholders is required in
all circumstances regardless of whether payment of the bonds would be
impaired. Therefore, this proposed change will make future sales of tax
certificates of purchase easier to accomplish.
20.
21.
22.
The City completed three bond issues that provided funding for new capital
improvement projects in 1992. Not all of the bond proceeds for these
projects will be expended in 1992. The City also completed three (3)
refunding issues that will provide savings in 1992. Legal counsel has
advised that to be sure that these funds are available in 1993 and
subsequent years they should be designated as additions to reserves.
The City also completed the refunding of the Downtown Development
Authority outstanding debt to effect savings in 1992 and thereafter.
Legal counsel has advised that these monies should also be designated as
additions to reserves.
This agreement between the City, Poudre R-1 School District and South Taft
Hill Investments, LTD, formalizes and clarifies the collection and
disbursement of Horsetooth Road Improvement costs as mentioned in the July
25, 1989 Letter of Intent between the City and the PR-1.
This Resolution specifically pertains to the Department of Corrections,
Colorado State University, the Eighth Judicial District, and the Internal
Revenue Service.
M-111
23.
24.
Currently, Police Services makes use of the Indoor Police Training '
Facility, which includes an indoor shooting range, classroom and physical
skills training area. This facility is used by Police Services to train
officers in critical job skills, i.e., firearms training and proficiency;
arrest control, defensive tactics and baton training; CPR and First Aid
training; crime scene and communication skills training. Management and
use of the facility is coordinated through the Fort Collins Police
Services training unit. Historically, under the intergovernmental
agreements, the use of the facility for law enforcement related training
by other agencies will be formally approved and ratified. Mutual police
training need can be enhanced by permitting inter -agency use of the
facility. Police Services continues to be approached by other regional
law enforcement agencies seeking to use the facility.
The agreements specify the number of hours each agency may use the
facility, fees charged, permitted weapons and ammunition, permitted use of
the facility, and, to the extent possible, indemnification provisions.
The Utility Customer Information System provides billing and accounting
functions. It also serves as the repository for all customer and premise
information necessary to operate the Utilities. Stone & Webster was
originally selected by competitive process to assist the city with the CIS '
project and has been involved since 1987. The firm's primary
participation was in 1987/1988 when user and system requirements were
being defined, and again in 1992 for the purpose of conducting a
management level review of the installed system. Staff intends to use
Stone & Webster to provide overall project guidance during the Phase 2 of
system modifications and enhancements. Phase 2 is budgeted at $407,000 in
1993 (which include the Stone & Webster contract) and $294,000 in 1994.
The consultant's intimate knowledge of the project and the system
software, combined with high quality work and extensive industry specific
knowledge of customer service software packages justifies an exception to
the competitive process for these services in accordance with Section 8-
160 (d)(1)(b) and (c) of the City Code.
This waiver request pertains to the Kotin Subdivision, which is a request
to divide a 5.27 acre parcel into two lots. The site is located in
Applewood Estates, which is 1/4 mile east of Shields Street and 3/4 mile
south of Harmony Road and is zoned FA-1 Farming. There is an existing
residence on the 5.27 acre site. Of the four Urban Growth Area Phasing
Criteria, the proposed subdivision meets the requirements for public water
capacity, public sewer capacity and contiguity to existing development.
A waiver is being requested for the public street capacity requirement.
The site is not eligible for annexation.
270
1
25.
26
27
The death of Councilmember Cathy Fromme on November 16, 1992, created a
vacancy on the Council which, under the City Charter, is to be filled by
appointment until the next regular City election on April 6, 1993, at
which time a successor is to be elected for the remainder of Councilmember
Fromme's term. The Charter provides that the individual(s) appointed and
elected to fill this vacancy should be from the same district which was
represented by Councilmember Fromme. Because the boundaries of District
No. 4 have changed since the date of election of Councilmember Fromme, the
purpose of this Resolution is to define the boundaries of that district
for the purposes of the appointment and election of a new councilmember.
Resolution 92-188 Renaming Farm Tree Road to Wallenberg Drive.
This is a street name change request to rename Farm Tree Road to
Wallenberg Drive. Farm Tree Road is a short spur, about 100 yards in
length, that connects the Arthur C. Sheely Subdivision with the Hill Pond
on Spring Creek, Second Filing, Subdivision. There are no homes that take
an address from Farm Tree Road. In contrast, there are approximately 40
homes that take an address off Wallenberg Drive.
Routine Deeds and Easements.
Deed of Easement from Mountain Range Baptist Church for right-of-
way, drainage, and utility purposes over portions of tracts 11 and
12 Skyline Acres Subdivision.
Deed of Easement from Mountain Range Baptist Church for drainage and
utility purposes over portions of tracts 11 and 12 Skyline Acres
Subdivision.
Deed of Easement from Eric A. and Susan M. Peterson for streets and
utilities over portions of Lot 5 Terry Ridge Subdivision.
Deed of Easement from Spring Creek Farms for utilities and
construction access over a portion of the Northwest 1/4 of Section
32, Township 7 North, Range 68 West of the Sixth P.M., City of Fort
Collins, CO.
e. Deed of Easement from NCP, Inc., for emergency fire access over a
portion of land adjacent to the southeast corner of Lot 11, Block 1,
Warren Farms Second Filing.
f. Deed of Easement from N. Larry Royval for a permanent access
easement over a portion of Lot 12, Fairway Two at SouthRidge Greens
PUD.
271
g. Deed of Easement from Classic Custom Builders, Inc., for storm '
drainage purposes over a portion of Lots 5 and 6, Block 1, Reapplied
of Evergreen Park 2nd Filing.
h. Deed of Easement from Poudre Valley Hospital District for stormwater
detention over a portion of land in the Southeast 1/4 of the
Northeast 1/4 of Section 13, Township 7 North, Range 69 West of the
Sixth P.M., City of Fort Collins, CO.
i. Deed of Easement from Poudre Valley Hospital District for utility
purposes over a portion of land in the Southeast 1/4 of the
Northeast 1/4 of Section 13, Township 7 North, Range 69 West of the
Sixth P.M., City of Fort Collins, CO.
j. Deed of Dedication from Poudre Valley Hospital District for right-
of-way purposes over a portion of land in the Southeast 1/4 of the
Northeast 1/4 of Section 13, Township 7 North, Range 69 West of the
Sixth P.M., City of Fort Collins, CO.
k. Deed of Easement from Thomas K. Moore for storm drainage purposes
over a portion of land in the block adjacent to Riverside Ave. and
Lincoln Ave.
1. Deed of Easement from GMC Amigos Corporation - Fort Collins, a
Nebraska Corporation, for storm drainage purposes over a portion of
Lot A, Riverside Shopping Center Subdivision.
M. Deed of Easement from PB Partnership, a Colorado Partnership, for '
sidewalk adjacent to the east side of Seneca Street along the
Westbrooke PUD, 1st Filing.
n. Deed of Easement from Kingston Associates for sanitary sewer across
a portion of Lots 22 and 23 of the Kingston Woods PUD, 1st Filing.
o. Powerline Easement from Galatia, A Colorado General Partnership, to
install new electric facilities to transfer Galatia Annexation to
city facilities.
P. Deed of Easement from Heatheridge Lakes Condominiums, 1705
Heatheridge Road, in accordance with the Canal Importation Master
Drainage Plan, the City is acquiring a 4.7147 Acre permanent
drainage and utility easement.
Items on Second Reading were read by title by City Clerk Wanda Krajicek.
7.
272
8. Items Related to the Nordick Annexation and Zoning.
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 120, 1992 of the Council of the City
of Fort Collins Annexing Property Known as the Nordick Annexation to
the City of Fort Collins, Colorado.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 121, 1992, of the Council of the
City of Fort Collins 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 Nordick Annexation
to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado.
a
10.
11. Second R
Code of
Manager.
12.
i
35.
36.
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 129, 1992, Amending Section 2-606 of the
Code of the City of Fort Collins and Fixing the Compensation of the
Municipal Judge.
Items Related to the Timberline Annexation and Zoning.
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 122, 1992, Annexing Approximately
435 Acres, Known as the Timberline Annexation.
Items on First Reading were read by title by City Clerk Wanda Krajicek.
13.
14
Items Relating to the Greenstone Annexation and Zoning.
A. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 131, 1992, Annexing
Approximately 188 Acres, Known as the Greenstone Annexation.
273
Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 132, 1992, Zoning
Approximately 188 Acres, Known as the Greenstone Annexation, into i
the R-L-P, Low Density Planned Residential, Zoning District, subject
to a Planned Unit Development condition and subject to a condition
that the first residential phase be allowed to develop at a density
of less than 3.0 dwelling units per acre (DU/ac) provided that the
gross density of the residential portion of the Overall Development
Plan (ODP) be at least 3 DU/ac.
15. Items Relating to the Phillips Annexation and Zoning.
Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 133, 1992, Annexing
Approximately 1.73 Acres, Known as the Phillips Annexation.
Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 134, 1992, Zoning
Approximately 1.73 Acres, Known as the Phillips Annexation, into the
H-B, Highway Business, Zoning District, subject to a Planned Unit
Development condition.
16. Items Relating to the Wuerker Annexation and Zoning.
17.
19.
Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 135, 1992, Annexing
Approximately 14.54 Acres, Known as the Wuerker Annexation.
B. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 136, 1992, Zoning
Approximately 14.54 Acres, Known as the Wuerker Annexation, into the
R-L-P, Low Density Planned Residential, Zoning District, subject to
a Planned Unit Development condition and subject to a condition that
the minimum allowable density be 1.5 dwelling units per acre.
A. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 139, 1992 Amending
Section 22-97 of the Code Relating to the Reduction of Statutory
Redemption Interest Accruing on Tax Certificates of Purchase Held by
the City for Special Improvement District Assessments.
B. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 140, 1992 Repealing and
Reenacting Subsection (c) of Section 23-111 of the Code Relating to
the Requirements and Notice Provisions for the Sale of a Tax Sale
Certificate of Purchase Held by the City for Special Improvement
District Assessments.
`i IJ
1
Councilmember Azari made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Edwards, to adopt
' and approve all items not removed from the Consent Calendar.
The vote on Councilmember Azari's motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers
Azari, Edwards, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Maxey, and Winokur. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Ordinance No. 119, 1992
Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to
Enter into an Agreement for the Lease -Purchase
Financing of Vehicles and Equipment. Adopted.
The following is staff's memorandum on this item.
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City solicited proposals from 32 firms for lease -purchase financing for the
City's vehicle and equipment requirements. The proposal meeting all City
requirements and offering the lowest net effective interest rate of 4.9% for 7
years was received from First Interstate Bank, First Interstate's bid was
received on November 6, 1992, staff believes acceptance of this interest rate is
in the City's best interest.
This Ordinance, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading, on November 17,
authorizes the Purchasing Agent to enter into a lease -purchase financing
agreement with First Interstate Bank at 4.9%.percent interest rate for the
purchase of the required vehicles and equipment. This lease -purchase financing
is consistent with the financial policies of the City of Fort Collins.
Since First Reading a new Section 3 has been added to the Ordinance to clarify
that the monies in the escrow account are appropriated. Adoption of the Consent
Calendar will adopt the Ordinance in its amended form."
Councilmember, Maxey made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Azari, to adopt
Ordinance 119, 1992.
Councilmember Horak was concerned with the City purchasing brand new equipment,
instead of used equipment.
City Manager Burkett responded that Equipment Services carefully reviews the
equipment replacement schedules. He stated the Police Service vehicles schedule
was extended from 4 years to 5 years. He commented that City vehicles are
maintained very well and that the majority of them are not new.
Councilmember Horak suggested reviewing that policy with the 1994 budget.
The vote on Councilmember Maxey's motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers
Azari, Edwards, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Maxey, and Winokur. Nays: None.
' THE MOTION CARRIED.
275
Items Relating to the Phillips Annexation and Zoning
The following is staff's memorandum on this item. '
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A. Resolution 92-179 Setting Forth Findings of Fact and Determinations
Regarding the Phillips Annexation and Zoning.
B. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 133, 1992, Annexing
Approximately 1.73 Acres, Known as the Phillips Annexation.
C. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 134, 1992, Zoning Approximately
1.73 Acres, Known as the Phillips Annexation, into the H-B, Highway
Business, Zoning District, subject to a Planned Unit Development
condition.
This is a request to annex and zone approximately 1.73 acres located
approximately 150' west of 1-25 on the north side of Prospect Road. The area to
be annexed consists of three parcels with three property owners. The property
is currently vacant and zoned C, Commercial in the County. The proposed zoning
is H-B, Highway Business, with a Planned Unit Development (PUD) condition. This
is the annexation of an enclave area.
APPLICANT: City of Fort Collins
OWNERS: Phillips Petroleum Co. '
210 E. Park Ave. #2400
Oklahoma City, OK 73102
Leroy K. Smith
3500 Carlton Ave. #W52
Fort Collins, CO 80525
K-Z Enterprises
2345 7th St.
Denver, CO 80211
BACKGROUND:
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 AGREEMENT FOR THE FORT COLLINS URBAN GROWTH
AREA, the City will agree to consider for annexation, property in the UGA when
the property is eligible for annexation according to State law.
Enclave areas become eligible for annexation when they have been completely
surrounded, by properties annexed into the City, for at least three years. The
area to be annexed has been a county enclave for at least three years and is
therefore eligible for annexation. The area became completely surrounded by the
City of Fort Collins through the following annexations:
276
N: Interstate Lands First Annexation, April 4, 1989;
' E: Interstate Lands First Annexation, April 4, 1989;
S: Sludge Farm Annexation, June 7, 1988;
W: Interstate Lands First Annexation, April 4, 1989.
The property became eligible for involuntary annexation into the City on April
4, 1992. On October 1, 1992, staff sent a letter to the property owners
informing them of the pending annexation, potential zoning district designation,
and the various meeting dates for review by the Planning and Zoning Board and the
Fort Collins City Council.
There are three parcels in this annexation. The properties are currently vacant.
This annexation will not increase the total number of off -premise signs that
currently exist in the City of Fort Collins. There are no development plans for
these properties at this time.
Zonin
The property is currently zoned C, Commercial, in the County. The proposed
zoning for this annexation is H-B, Highway Business with a Planned Unit
Development condition. The surrounding properties to the north, east and west
are zoned H-B, with a PUD condition. The property to the south is zoned R-C,
River Corridor. The Highway Business Zoning District is for automobile oriented
businesses.
Findings
1. The annexation of this area is consistent with the policies and agreements
between Larimer County and the City of Fort Collins as contained in the
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT FOR THE FORT COLLINS URBAN GROWTH AREA.
The area meets all criteria included in State law to qualify for
annexation to the City of Fort Collins.
On November 3, 1992, City Council considered a resolution setting forth
the intent to annex this property and initiating the annexation process by
establishing the date, time and place when a public hearing will be held
regarding the readings of the Ordinances annexing and zoning the area.
The requested zoning of H-B, Highway Business, with a PUD condition, is in
conformance with the policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the annexation and requested zoning.
PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning and Zoning Board, at its regular monthly meeting on November 16,
1992, voted 6-0 to recommend approval of the annexation and requested zoning."
1 277
Councilmember Horak stated he would withdraw from vote and discussion on this
item because of a potential conflict of interest. '
Councilmember Azari made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Edwards, to adopt
Resolution 92-179.
The vote on Councilmember Azari's motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers
Azari, Edwards, Kirkpatrick, Maxey, and Winokur. Nays: None. Councilmember
Horak withdrawn.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Azari made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Edwards, to adopt
Ordinance No. 133, 1992, on First Reading.
The vote on Councilmember Azari's motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers
Azari, Edwards, Kirkpatrick, Maxey, and Winokur. Nays: None. Councilmember
Horak withdrawn.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember
Edwards made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Maxey, to adopt
Ordinance No.
134, 1992,
on First Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers Azari, Edwards,
Kirkpatrick,
Maxey, and
Winokur. Nays: None. Councilmember Horak withdrawn.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Routine Deeds and Easements
'
The following
is staff's
memorandum on this item.
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
h. Deed of Easement from Poudre Valley Hospital District for stormwater
detention over a'portion of land in the Southeast 114 of the Northeast 114
of Section 13, Township 7 North, Range 69 West of the Sixth P.M., City of
Fort Collins, CO.
i. Deed of Easement from Poudre Valley Hospital District for utility purposes
over a portion of land in the Southeast 114 of the Northeast 114 of
Section 13, Township 7 North, Range 69 West of the Sixth P.M., City of
Fort Collins, CO.
j. Deed of Dedication from Poudre Valley Hospital District for right-of-way
purposes over a portion of land in the Southeast 114 of the Northeast 114
of Section 13, Township 7 North, Range 69 West of the Sixth P.M., City of
Fort Collins, CO."
Councilmember Edwards withdrew from discussion and vote on these items because
of a potential conflict of interest. '
278
Councilmember Winokur made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Azari, to accept
items h, i, and j on the Routine Deeds and Easements.
The vote on Councilmember Azari's motion was as follows: Yeas: Azari, Horak,
Kirkpatrick, Maxey, and Winokur. Nays: None. Councilmember Edwards withdrew.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Staff Reports
City Manager Burkett stated the City Line has been implemented as a convenience
to the community.
Liz Stroh, ICS Department, explained the City Line is a 24-hour automated
information service for the citizens of Fort Collins. She stated all City
departments have participated in the project, which consists of over 400 topics
available for the citizens. She stated there will be a public demonstration at
the Senior Center on January 15, 1993, at 11:00 a.m.
Councilmember Reports
Councilmember Winokur complimented staff on continuing the research on Tax
Certificates of Purchase Issued for Delinquent Special Assessments. He was also
pleased with the water meter program.
Councilmember Edwards stated there were several items on the Consent Calendar
that consisted of annexing or zoning property with a density of less than 3 units
per acre. He stated if that was a sign of an emerging trend in the marketplace,
then information must be complied on what the cost of delivering urban services
might be and what the ramifications would be if those low -density properties were
on the edge of the Urban Growth Area.
Councilmember Horak stated in meeting with the Northern Front Range
Transportation Council, it was apparent to him the importance of planning a
Regional Bike Path between Fort Collins, Loveland and Greeley. He stated he
would like to see a plan of action in place as soon as possible. He stated the
NFRT Council discussed the structure of voting and mentioned changing the
structure from weighted voting to slots for the major players in the area. The
Council believed having the slots for the major players would create a body that
would be easy to obtain a quorum and represent the important components.
Councilmember Maxey stated that four members of the City Council attended the
National League of Cities conference and discussed several issues in regard to
the Fort Collins community. He stated it was a great opportunity to attend and
discuss such issues as: transportation, cable TV franchises, cruising, and
police patrols on horseback.
Mayor Kirkpatrick stated the Intermediate Processing Center (IPC) at the Larimer
County Landfill is a remarkable achievement for Northern Colorado. She
encouraged citizens to go view the IPC. She brought attention to the remodeling
of Council Chambers and noted the Chambers are now handicapped accessibile. She
' congratulated City staff on a job well done.
279
Resolution 92-162
Authorizing Adjustments to the Fare Charged '
to Patrons of the Transfort Bus System, Adopted.
The following is staff's memorandum on this item.
"FINANCIAL IMPACT
This action authorizes making adjustments in Transfort fares. Revenues are
projected to increase 41% through 1995 in the Transfort budget.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The last major Transfort fare increase was made in January 1985. This action
adjusts fares consistent with the proposed fare structure in the attached
resolution. The new fare structure would be effective January 25, 1993.
The strategy being employed with this action is designed to reward frequent
Transfort riders by providing affordable passes well below the cash farebox
price. However, the fare increase also addresses an equity issue. In the spring
of 1992, Colorado State students raised their student fee for Transfort service
from $3.60 to $9.44 per student per semester. Failure to increase fares will
cause the inequity between CSU student fees and fares charged to the general
public to continue and may also cause serious difficulties in future negotiations
between the City and Colorado State students.
A.public hearing for this fare increase is scheduled for the City Council meeting I
of December 15, 1992.
BACKGROUND
Recently Transfort staff surveyed thirty (30) transit properties across the
country in cities and bus systems of approximately the same size to assess the
appropriateness of a fare increase.
Fare increases tend to produce losses in ridership. The bus industry's rule of
thumb is with each three percent increase in fare there is a corresponding one
percent decrease in ridership. In order to negate this ridership loss,
Transfort is employing a strategy of holding passes in most categories at 1992
levels and additional passes are being offered to afford the consumer an
opportunity ride Transfort at rates below the actual cash fare cost.
Transfort has increased its level of service to the community with the
implementation of the first phase of the Transit Development Program 1991-1995
(TDP) in August 1991. The percentage increase in fare is consistent with the
percentage increase in service hours available as a result of the action in 1991.
The City will increase service again in 1993 with the addition of one new route.
The fare increase is also consistent with the public testimony of citizens and
bus patrons who participated in surveys and public hearings during the
development of the Transfort Strategic Plan and the Transit Development Program
1991-1995.
280 1
The following is a comparison of
the current and proposed
fare structures:
Category
Current
Proposed
Fares:
Adult
$ .55
$ .75
Senior
$ .25
$ .35
Disabled
$ .25
$ .35
Youth
$ .30
$ .35
Passes:
Annual
Senior
$
15.00
$
15.00
Annual
Disabled
$
15.00
$
15.00
Annual
Youth
N/A
$
15.00
Adult
Commuter
$
9.00
$
10.00
Adult
Monthly
$
16.00
$
15.00
Adult
10-Ride
$
4.50
$
5.00
Employer's Annual
N/A
$125.00"
Tom Frazier, General Services Director, explained the adjustments to the
Transfort fares. He stated the community agreed to pay more for a significant
increase in service. The General Fund contribution has increased, CSU fees have
increased, but the general public fare was not increased. He indicated the
projected total ridership for 1992 is close to 800,000. He stated that 95,000
' of those riders are general fare and the target for 1993 is to move 12Yo over to
the pass program in 1993. The other categories are a combination of fares and
monthly passes which would not be impacted in 1993.
Councilmember Horak asked if the percentage of the projected 95,000 riders would
remain the same or decrease, and what is projected if the fares were to remain
the same. He asked if the individual fares did not change and the pass fares did
change, what differences would there be for the amount of money collected from
monthly passes versus the amount of money collected for single fares.
Frazier responded that the 95,000 figure would remain the same due to increased
ridership, however, the percentage would decrease. If the fares were not to
change in 1993, that particular portion of.ridership would increase 3-4 percent.
The revenue difference would be about $6,000.
Councilmember Azari asked how the individual pricing was proposed. She asked if
there were any transportation systems that charge $1.
Frazier replied that the increase from 55 cents to 75 cents was based on a survey
taken of other transportation systems within the state and nationally. He stated
that the systems that have higher commuter ridership have significantly higher
fees.
Mayor Kirkpatrick asked what the cost is to CSU students per ride.
' Frazier stated the projected cost in 1993 will be $1.00 per ride.
281
Sandy Lemberg, 6851 Poudre Canyon Highway, asked that a provision be placed in
the Resolution which states that change must be given back to riders. '
Al Bacilli, 520 Galaxy Court, asked what the disabled would be charged on a per
ride basis. He believed the disabled should not be charged.
Councilmember Maxey made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Edwards, to adopt
Resolution 92-162.
Councilmember Maxey asked if any change would be given if a rider over paid the
fare.
Frazier responded that change would not be given and there is no recommendation
to change that policy. He stated the policy is standard throughout the nation,
because carrying money creates a target for crime.
Councilmember Edwards asked what the General Fund increase has been over the past
seven years.
Frazier stated the General Fund's proposed 1993 operating costs for Transfort
will be over a million dollars. He stated in 1988 it was $325,000.
Councilmember Winokur stated that the pass proposal structure is fine, however,
he has a problem with the increase in the individual fares. He believed the loss
of 3-4 percent of ridership is not beneficial to the community. He stated the
loss of those commuters would create 3-4 percent more pollution and. traffic.
Councilmember Azari stated that equity is important and believed the idea of ,
increasing ridership on a regular basis is a good one. She stated the whole idea
is to build a public transit system in Fort Collins that is equitable for
everyone.
Councilmember Edwards commented that he
Transfort system. He believed it was
increase its subsidy of Transfort by 3
increase in user fees.
supports the pricing strategy for the
unrealistic to have the General Fund
times over a five year period with no
Councilmember Horak stated that if the $6,000 figure is not considered a big
increase then why should the individual rates be raised. He believed there has
been no overwhelming evidence presented to support changing the rates. He agreed
with the change in strategy to go to the passes, but the individual fare increase
is not reasonable.
Mayor Kirkpatrick stated in the long run it is to the City's advantage
strategically to raise the per ride adult fare to 75 cents.
The vote on Councilmember Maxey's motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers
Azari, Edwards, Kirkpatrick, and Maxey. Nays: Councilmembers Horak and Winokur.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
282 '
Resolution 92-189
' Adopting the Recommendations of the
Northeast Area Transportation Study
Citizens Advisory Committee, Alternative 1 Adopted.
The following is staff's memorandum on this item.
"FINANCIAL IMPACT
The financial impact of the approval of the recommendations of the Northeast Area
Transportation Study cannot be fully determined at this point. The financial
impact on the bike, auto, transit and pedestrian components will need to be dealt
with in future City budget planning. The issue regarding the northeast arterial
is one that will require ongoing cooperation between the State, the County and
the City.
The opportunity for federal or state funding for the northeast arterial project
will be dependent on a local commitment to the project and development of
regional planning and project prioritization through the regional transportation
planning process of the North Front Range Transportation and Air Quality Planning
Council.
This Resolution identifies the recommendations of the Northeast Area
Transportation Committee.
Adoption of this Resolution would incorporate
the
recommendations as a part
of the City's Comprehensive Plan. In the case of
the
Auto Plan and the Northeast Arterial Plan, Council would be replacing
the
existing street network in
Exhibit E's. Depending
the City's Master Street Plan. Staff has included
on which alternative for the northeast arterial
two
is
'
selected, the appropriate
Exhibit E can be included in the Resolution.
In December of 1991, the City Council commissioned a Northeast Area
Transportation Study and established a Citizen's Advisory Committee to look at
transportation in the northeast area of the City.
This Committee, along with the consulting firm of Howard Needles Tammen and
Bergendoff and City staff worked for the first eight months of 1992 to identify
the transportation issues and problems, gather and review pertinent
transportation data, and develop recommendations to the City Council to deal with
transportation in the northeast area of the community.
The Committee has met with City Council at two work sessions to review and
discuss the progress and findings of the Committee. At the second work session
in August of this year, Council requested feedback on the Committee's work from
existing citizen boards and commissions. Staff has met with these boards and
commissions, and the Boards have provided Council with their comments and
recommendations concerning the work of the Northeast Area Study Citizen
Committee. Copies of the written comments from these Boards and Commissions are
attached (Attachment "A"). Also included, are minutes from the Board and
1 283
Commission meetings at which this issue (Attachment B) was discussed. The
following is a list of the boards and commissions that have reviewed the '
Northeast Area Transportation Study Summary of Key Findings:
Planning and Zoning Board . Transportation Board
Downtown Development Authority . Air Quality Task Force
Landmark Preservation Commission m Natural Resources Board
The Citizen Committee's Key Findings include a recommended bikeway system and
street system to meet the transportation needs of the northeast area. There are
also recommendations on pedestrian improvements and transit improvements. The
Key Findings are all brought to the Council based on a consensus recommendation
from the Northeast Area Study Citizen's Committee. These five recommendations
are attached (Exhibits A-E).
With regard to the northeast arterial issue, the Committee has a majority and a
minority opinion. The description of the majority and minority opinion, taken
from the Key Findings document, follows:
MaJority View
Build Alternative 3 which is anticipated to adequately serve traffic needs
to about the year 2020.
Immediately begin studies to determine a specific alignment and right -of- '
way for a transportation corridor somewhere between Douglas Road and Owl
Canyon (northern route) to serve transportation needs after the year 2020.
Minority View
Build Alternative 1 (Riverside/Jefferson upgrades and Lemay realignment)
which is anticipated to adequately serve traffic needs in the
Riverside/Jefferson corridor to about the year 2000.
Immediately begin studies to determine a specific alignment and acquire
right-of-way as soon as possible for a transportation corridor somewhere
between Douglas Road and Owl Canyon to serve transportation needs after
the year 2000.
The majority and minority views have two common elements. They are: (1)
construction of the Lemay realignment with an overpass of the railroad and Vine;
and, (2) post-25 year reliance on a northern bypass.
The majority and minority opinions differ according to the solution to meet
traffic needs over the next 25 years. The majority opinion holds that: (1) the
cost of a northern bypass can't be justified at this time based on low traffic
volumes and would likely not be funded by CDOT; (2) so few vehicles would use a
northern bypass that existing problems with congestion on Riverside, with
284
' traffic -related impacts to the downtown, and with truck cut -through traffic up
Lemay, would not be alleviated; and (3) Alternate 3 would have utility even after
construction of a northern route.
The minority opinion holds that: (1) since the post-25 year solution is the
northern solution, it should be built now instead of later; (2) Alternative I
should be built as an interim solution to last 8 to 10 years; (3) since
Alternative 1 would only last for about 8 to 10 years, the City and County would
be forced to build a northern alternative more quickly than with Alternative 3;
and (4) Alternates 2 or 3 would have adverse quality of life impacts on
neighborhoods.
Where Do We Go From Here?
The selection of a Northeast Arterial Plan (Alternative 1 or 3) will allow staff
to develop an implementation plan for the chosen alternative. Staff will include
in the plan, a phasing plan as well as options regarding funding. Staff will
work with the Colorado Department of Transportation and Larimer County to develop
the implementation strategies.
The adoption of the Bike, Auto, Pedestrian, and Transit Plans will incorporate
these plans into the City's Comprehensive Plan. The plans will then be used to
give direction to all new transportation planning for this area of the
community."
Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Edwards, to adopt
' Resolution 92-111, Exhibits A-D.
City Manager Burkett stated that this particular issue has been discussed and
debated by the community for 27 years. He stressed the issue is -very complex,
emotional, and one where there is not an obvious solution.
Rick Ensdorff, Transportation Director, updated Council on the various
recommendations that the Committee made since the last worksession.
Ed Secor, Citizen Planners, supported the inclusion of new infrastructure for
alternative modes of transportation in the Northeast Area Transportation Plan.
He pointed out that as long as land use and site design are dependent on
automobile traffic, there will be extensive amounts of traffic. He stated that
area is relatively undeveloped and urged the City to address the land use and
site design issue as development and growth occurs.
John Weaver, Greenbriar Subdivision resident, asked if Willox Lane is going to
be widened. He asked about the term, minor arterial.
Mayor Kirkpatrick responded that minor arterial means a 2-lane arterial and asked
staff if Willox Lane will be widened.
Ensdorff replied that Willox will not be widened.
1 285
Councilmember Horak commented that this is the first study to review
pedestrian/bikeway plans. Earlier studys focused on the Northeast Bypass. He '
stated that this was not just another study, but that it was a study dealing with
a whole range of in depth transportation issues for the northern area of the
City. He believed more partnerships and joint funding need to take place.
Councilmember Azari stated that cooperation with the County as well as the
citizens and the UGA residents is very necessary in developing this plan.
Councilmember Edwards commended the Citizens Advisory Committee and all those who
worked on this plan. He believed that a great deal of progress has been made.
Mayor Kirkpatrick noted that dividing the Resolution into two discussion areas
allows the Council to focus on the portion of the plan that required a lot of
work and participation between the various groups.
The vote on Councilmember Horak's motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers
Azari, Edwards, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Maxey, and Winokur. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Azari made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Maxey, to amend and
adopt Resolution 92-189 to incorporate Exhibit E (Alternative 3).
Ensdorff stated the Committee reviewed traffic volume studies, land use
projections, population projections, and an inventory of environmental concerns
in order to make a strong recommendation to adopt Alternative 3. However, there '
are two alternatives before Council, Alternative 1 received the minority opinion
-
and Alternative 3 received the majority opinion. Both alternatives will be
presented.
Earl Wilkinson, representative of the majority opinion, stated the Committee -
donated between 500-600 hours while reviewing several plans. He stated the
Committee reviewed options such as Owl Canyon, Douglas Road, Riverside/Jefferson
Streets, and all other areas that might be impacted or affected in some way by
this issue. He commended the staff and the consultants who put in a tremendous
amount of time to furnish the Committee with information. He explained that
within the next 10 years Fort Collins is going to reach gridlock on Mulberry,
Riverside/Jefferson, and North College. He stated the majority opinion believes
that action on Alternative 3 must start immediately in order to avoid a crisis.
He stated that Alternative 3 for a long-range solution recommends looking to the
north.
Mel Schamberger, representative of the minority opinion, stated the Committee
failed to reach a consensus on where to locate the bypass, which simply reflects
that there has not been a good comprehensive plan put together. He stated that
Alternative 3 should only be considered as a quick fix and not a well thought-out
long-range plan. He stated the impact on the surrounding residential community
is great and that commercial truck traffic should not intermingle with
residential traffic. Air quality in the Andersonville/Alta Vista subdivisions
is of good quality now and if two bypasses are constructed on either side of that
9M
community, the air quality could become extremely poor. The opposing view
believes that Alternative 3 is very -short sighted and fails to reflect the
comprehensive planning that is needed to keep Fort Collins as a quality city.
Mayor Kirkpatrick asked what the State would do if the City did nothing.
Ensdorff replied there were several discussions on what the State might do to the
transportation issue there. He stated the District Engineer for the State would
not make a commitment on either side of the issue.
Councilmember Maxey stated that both the majority and the minority opinions
recommended that the project be constructed east of Andersonville/Alta Vista and
asked if that project would have separate funding capabilities relative to the
overpass.
Ensdorff stated there are funding sources that the City could attempt to apply
for from the Public Utilities Commission.
Councilmember Edwards asked if the forecast of gridlock takes into account the
railroad relocation project.
Ensdorff stated the railroad issue and its impact on traffic consists of one hour
a day and over 22 crossings. He stated the railroad improvement project would
cut that in half; however, that was not factored into the issue of the capacity
constraints on the roadways in the future.
Councilmember Maxey asked what is anticipated in the long run for Phase II or
' Phase III of the State's bypass plan.
Ensdorff stated the Committee made a conscious decision not to include the work
that the Colorado Department of Transportation has done in the past. He stated
the Committee only wanted to address this issue within the study area.
Councilmember Edwards asked if the majority opinion could give its reasons why
it does not favor Alternative 1.
Chuck Bowling stated that the whole Committee agrees the bypass should be north.
He stated it comes down to a question of timing and traffic counts. He stated
the Committee was informed that within 7-10 years,a gridlock situation will occur
and a solution is needed to address that situation. The Committee was also
informed that traffic counts within 15 years would not merit the cost of going
north to complete a connection through Owl. Canyon, which would then mean the
State would not participate in funding the bypass. He stated if a solution is
not determined now, the funding may not be there in the future.
Mayor Kirkpatrick asked if having no truck traffic in 25 years was reviewed.
Ensdorff stated that the Committee's approach was to use the current statistics
in order to predict future truck traffic.
287
Mike Riley, 1115 Lindenwood Drive, stated that funding would be available for one
alternative and it would be more logical to go with the long range plan than to
go with a quick fix.
Abe Ramos, 205 Buckingham Street, was concerned with the decreasing property
values in the neighborhoods that surround this project. He stated that residents
in the Andersonville/Alta Vista/Buckingham neighborhoods were not informed of
this meeting and asked that Council table this item until all of the residents
were informed.
Joe Solomon, minority opinion member, stated the Committee focused on a
transportation plan without strongly considering the ramifications of future
development around the corridor. He stated the City's interest in developing
North College is dependent upon the residential growth in order to support retail
growth. He stated the Council has the obligation to consider the secondary
effects of this major public works project.
Marilyn Roberts, representative of the downtown area, stated leaving truck
traffic on Jefferson Street deteriorates the buildings and the quality of the
neighborhood.
James Alarid, 608 9th Street, stated the intersection of Lemay and Vine Drive
should be closed after the bypass is constructed. He stated that running the
bypass in the Andersonville/Alta Vista/Buckingham neighborhoods causes more
problems for the residents.
John Goldey, 3409 Shore Road, opposed the plan for the bypass. He believed that
it would be a waste of money. '
Sandy Lemberg, 6851 Poudre Canyon Highway, stated Council should decide what is
best for the community and not make a decision contingent on State funding. He
stated Fort Collins has a history of bad street planning in the City and the
surrounding County areas.
Charlotte Trujillo, 732 Martinez, opposed the project. She expressed concern
about the increase in noise and traffic and about the safety of the children in
the surrounding neighborhoods.
John Schanz, 1808 Nedrah Drive, stated that the State's reaction to this plan
should be considered. He stated the plan needs to be reviewed more carefully to
determine what is.best for the future of the Fort Collins Community.
Ed Secor, Citizen Planners, stated the traffic should be routed outside of the
City and that upgrading the streets within the City would also help the local
congestion. He believed that future land use needs to be carefully reviewed in
order to reach compatibility with the transportation infrastructure.
Linda Hopkins, 1809 Rangeview and President of the Nedrah Acres Greenbelt
Association, stated that residents in the northeast have expressed their fears
and frustrations with the increasing truck traffic in the residential areas. She
RM
stated that Alternative 3 does not move truck traffic, but creates a structure
' that is only a short-term solution. She urged Council to look at alternatives
that are more long-term, creative, and offer a safe environment.
Dick Brackenbury, 6 Forest Hills Lane, presented a number of petitions from
residents in the northeast area that are opposed to the Alternative 3 bypass
proposal.
Dick Scott, 405 Peterson, stated that Alternative 3 moves. an industrial road to
a residential environment and believed that is not compatible.
Barry Feldman, 141 South College Avenue, opposed the bypass because it is not
worth the money and it is not efficient to the transportation for the City.
Howard Coopersmith, 1205 Steeplechase Court, strongly opposed Alternative 3 and
believed it was going against the best interests of the residents and taxpayers
of Fort Collins.
Harry Roberts, 1300 Steeplechase Drive, stated the total traffic that would be
removed and routed on the bypass is only 30 percent. He stated that unless the
traffic patterns are addressed in the downtown area, the problem would not be
solved by the bypass. i
Carolyn Byser, Lindenwood resident, stated that residents in the northeast area
are concerned about the potential for undesirable secondary growth along the
truck route. She asked what assurances could be made that there will not be
' highway associated developments in the surrounding residential areas. She stated
the current plan is obsolete and no longer fits into the existing developments
of the northeast area.
Sandy Stashack, 5 Forest Hills Lane, stated that increased traffic and congestion
in the residential area will clearly increase the noise levels of the surrounding
neighborhoods. She believed the traffic will reduce the quality of life in the
northeast sector. She stated that Andersonville/Alta Vista must currently deal
with airport traffic and a train switching station, why should they add a major
truck route that would completely reduce the quality of life in that
neighborhood.
John Smith, 1305 Lindenwood Drive, stated the residents of the northeast want to
work with the City to propose a transportation plan that will suit everyone's
needs. He was concerned that the proposal converts land that is currently zoned
residential or open space to commercial use. He urged Council to defeat
Alternative 3 and to review other alternatives that would be compatible for the
area.
Dana McBride, 1510 Hillside Drive, stated that Alternative 3 appears to be the
best solution. It is a benefit to the truck drivers and not to the community.
Sandy Carson, 8 Forest Hills Lane and President of the Lindenwood Homeowners
Association, stated that several people who supported Alternative 3 recognized
that it was not the best solution but a short-term solution. She stated the
1 289
concerns of the residents have been overlooked and not taken into consideration.
She recommended that the bypass be constructed outside of the City and out of the I
residential areas.
Susan Cole, 723 North Shields, stated that Alternative 3 will alienate the
residents in north Fort Collins. She believed that the bypass would reduce
property values and stated if the property values decrease then the City would
be losing a source of revenue. She stated it was not just the northeast area's
problem, but that it was the whole community's problem.
Bill Stashack, 5 Forest Hills Lane, stated Alternative 3 only moves the traffic
problem a half mile north. He stated the current proposal does not look into the
future, but only creates a short-term solution for a long-term problem. He
stated the project is not comprehensive, it is not a long-term solution, and it
is not compatible with the surrounding residential areas.
Gordon Madsen, 1300 Lindenwood Drive, stated the project should not be placed in
a residential area and should be reviewed more closely before any decisions are
made. He stated the bypass is going to create more pollution in the northeast
area and is most undesirable to the residents.
Don Schlagel, 1131 Lindemeier Road, thought it was a priority of Fort Collins and
the City Council to upgrade North College Avenue to benefit the City. He stated
it did not make sense to move 1,100 trucks off North College to travel through
a residential district. He stated the community and the Council should look to
the future and not to a quick solution.
Jim Quinlan, owner of Jax Surplus, stated this issue has been detrimental to '
growth in north Fort Collins for a very long time. He urged Council to actively
pursue the future plan and not pursue a short-term solution.
David Massey, Lindenwood Resident, stated the residents in north Fort Collins do
not want the proposed project to be approved and hope the Council looks to the
future for the permanent solution.
Councilmember Azari asked for someone to address the issue of the closure of
Lemay if it is realigned.
Ensdorff stated that in the early 80's Council approved a future realignment of
Lemay to bypass the Andersonville/Alta Vista neighborhoods. It was decided that
the intersection of Lemay and Vine was to be left alone until Lemay was
realigned.
Councilmember Azari asked how much input the Committee received from the
residents of Andersonville, Alta Vista and Buckingham.
Ensdorff stated the input received was minimal. There was a meeting at the
Aztlan Center open to the public and only 4 residents showed up.
290
Councilmember Edwards asked if Council would still be facing the realignment of
Lemay to the east and an overpass over the railroad if Alternative 3 was not on
the table. He asked if Council adopted Alternative 3 could the project be
completed thoroughly from a funding standpoint.
Ensdorff replied that any major street improvement at this level is going to be
difficult and time consuming process to secure funding. He stated that the
Committee decided that having the traffic volume closer to town would make the
limited funds more available for the project. He stated the difficulty with a
roadway north of Douglas Road is the decrease in the traffic volume; therefore,
creating difficulty in receiving limited state funds.
Councilmember Maxey asked about the cost of the railroad relocation. He asked
how much time the relocation would buy to solve the congestion in the area of
Jefferson and College.
Ensdorff stated the relocation is approximately $2 million, which would be shared
between the City and the two railroads. He stated the railroad impact is random
and would buy a minimal amount of time.
Councilmember Winokur asked if there was a way to prohibit trucks from driving
on Riverside if Alternative 3 was adopted.
Ensdorff stated that if Alternative 3 was adopted, the existing Riverside would
become a City street and posted "no truck traffic along this route."
' Councilmember Maxey stated that it does not appear that practical factors of wear
and tear have ever entered into any discussion. He stated that the truck traffic
would impact the surrounding area significantly from the noise level to the
pollution level.
Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Winokur, to amend
the previous motion to substitute Alternative 1 for Alternative 3.
Councilmember Azari asked, as a part of the motion, of Council would be
supportive of the Lemay realignment.
Councilmember Horak stated he has been supportive of the Lemay realignment since
1982.
Councilmember Horak stated there is too much emphasis on the Council decision
versus the future direction that needs to be taken. He stated the County needs
to be a more active planning partner in this project. He commented that the
long-term discussion should include looking for funding and deciding on a route
that best suits the City and the surrounding areas.
Councilmember Azari stated the City of Fort Collins has been in turmoil over the
relocation of Highway 14 for some period of time. She believed that some
decisions need to be made to alleviate the turmoil that has been caused over this
issue. She stated a decision needs to be made on what route is proper for the
City and then communicate the City's decision to the State. She stated she
P411
believed Alternative 1 is no change, but if it was adopted, it would mean the
upgrade of buildings, it would mean. reinforcing the viability of North College,
and the upgrade of the quality of life in the BAVA neighborhoods.
Councilmember Edwards stated that this project may bypass downtown, but it does
not bypass the community. He stated that Alternative 3 only appears to be a
detour and acknowledged that it is an interim solution for a long-term problem.
Councilmember Winokur stated that if Alternative 3 were to be built it would only
be a diversion and not a solution. He stated the worst gridlock in that area is
when the trains switch. He was concerned with the effect to the Lemay
neighborhoods both now and in the future. He believed there is more of an
opportunity to sit down with the County and the State to come to the best
solution for the City.
Councilmember Maxey stated the City should take a leading position on
transportation issues.
Mayor Kirkpatrick stated she was glad that the Committee came before Council with
only two alternatives instead of four. She stated that downtown Fort Collins is
the core of the City and is not an industrial sector of the community. She
stated that quality of life in the downtown area needs to be improved
significantly, but did not believe that Alternative 3 would achieve the support
of the community.
Councilmember Azari stated the community needs to be planning now for the future
and needs to work with the City's partners.
Councilmember Horak stated that it should not just be the City, the County, and '
the State Transportation Department working on this issue, but it should also
include the State Representatives.
Councilmember Winokur stated that Council should suggest to the State Legislators
that their participation is warranted on this issue.
The vote on Councilmember Horak's amendment to the original motion was as
follows: Yeas: Azari, Edwards, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Maxey, and Winokur. Nays:
None.
The vote on Councilmember Horak's motion as amended was as follows: Yeas:
Azari, Edwards, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Maxey, and Winokur.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
P4TA
1
Appeal of the November 16, 1992
Final decision of the Planning and Zoning Board
approving the Marine Sports West and
Harris Machine PUD, Preliminary and Final, Overturned.
The following is staff's memorandum on this item.
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On November 16, 1992 the Planning and Zoning Board voted 4-2 to approve the,
Marine Sports West and Harris Machine PUD- Preliminary and Final.
On November 19, 1992 an appeal of the final decision was made by John J.
Haggerty, Attorney, resident of Prospect Springs, a residential area east of the
subject property.
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
Marine Sports West and Harris Machine PUD is a 2,000 square foot boat engine
mechanic repair and machine shop in an existing accessory shop building -on a 0.5
acresite located at 921 E. Prospect Road. The principal use of the property is
as an existing single family residence, which will continue to be occupied by the
property owner. The accessory building will be leased to the two owners of the
repair and machine shop business.
The proposed PUD was evaluated against the Auto Related and Roadside Commercial
Point Chart and the A17 Development Chart of the Land Development Guidance
' System. The PUD achieved a score of 50Y on the Auto Related Point Chart, which
is the minimum required score. Planning staff found that the proposed PUD
addressed the applicable criteria of the A17 Development Chart of the LOGS.
Furthermore, the concerns raised by the neighborhood at a Neighborhood
Information Meeting held on October 14, 1992, had been addressed by the
applicants. On this basis, staff recommended approval of the PUD with one
condition related to expiration of the PUD.
In voting to approve this proposal, the Planning and Zoning Board concurred with
staff findings and recommendations and believed that the applicants had addressed
both the staff's and individual concerns about compatibility.
The Planning and Zoning Board voted 4-2 to approve the Marine Sports West and
Harris Machine PUD, Preliminary and Final with the following condition:
Because of the existing residential character of the neighborhood, and
because of the potential for future residential development in the area,
the Marine Sports West and Harris Machine PUD shall expire should the
business discontinue for a period of 12 consecutive months. After a
discontinuation period of 12 consecutive months, any repair or machine
shop use, or any use not allowed by the R-P zone, must be re -reviewed and
subject to the PUD process.
This condition was similar to one applied to a previous PUD (Altair PUD) which
was approved by the Planning and Zoning Board in 1990 for a retail business.
1 293
THE APPEAL
The appellant has filed the appeal on the following grounds: '
1. The Planning and Zoning Board abused its discretion in making an arbitrary
decision without the support of competent evidence in the record.
2. The Planning and Zoning Board failed to properly interpret and apply
relevant provisions of the Code and Charter.
These grounds of appeal are valid as set forth in Section 2-48 of the Code.
SCOPE OF COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
The issues that Council must resolve in this appeal are as follows:
1. Did the Board abuse its discretion in that its decision was arbitrary and
without support of competent evidence in the record.
2. Did the Board fail to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of
the Code and Charter in making its decision."
Councilmember Winokur made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Horak, to hear
Appeal of the Marine Sports West and Harris Machine PUD, Preliminary and Final.
The vote on Councilmember Winokur's motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers
Azari, Edwards, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Maxey, and Winokur. Nays: None. '
Kirsten Whetstone, Project Planner, gave a brief description of the project. She
stated the plan was evaluated and received a 50 percent score against the Auto-
Related/Roadside Commercial Point Chart and the All Development Criteria of the
Land Development Guidance System. She stated the Planning and Zoning Board voted
4-2 to approve the project with a condition related to expiration of the PUD.
Mayor Kirkpatrick asked what the mixed use quality of the project is.
Whetstone replied residential use and commercial use are the two significant land
uses on this PUD.
John Haggerty, appellant and Prospect Springs Resident, stated the PUD process
began because the business was operating illegally. He stated Prospect Springs
residents notified the Zoning Department of the business which resulted in the
shop owners receiving a violation notice. He stated the owners, in order to
correct the violation, submitted an application for a PUD. He alleged that the
Planning and Zoning Board abused its discretion in making an arbitrary decision
without the support of competent evidence. He believed that this type of
business is not a non -conforming use and that it was not compatible with the
residential character of the neighborhood. He stated the Planning and Zoning
Board did not comply with the Auto -Related section of the Code. He stated that
section implies that all repair work must be completed within the confines of a
building. He contended that was not occurring at this particular business.
294
Bruce Evans, Owner of Marine Sports West, stated the business plans to abide by
' all the rules and regulations set forth in the PUD. He stated that 90 percent
of the work is done inside. He stated most of the neighbors don't mind the
business operating at that site. He stated the PUD process was started when the
business started operating; however, there were a few complications and the
process was set aside.
Ron Brown, Owner of Marine Sports West, stated that it is not the intention of
the business to disrupt the neighborhood. He stated that the business plans to
honor to all the provisions set forth in the PUD.
John Keulen, 921 East Prospect, stated the property in which the PUD is planned
is completely paid for. He asked Council to uphold the decision of the P & Z
Board.
John Haggerty stated it was not his intent to force the shop out of business, but
believed the PUD does not meet all the criteria of the Land Development Guidance
System. He stated that at the time he purchased his home the shop was not in
place and it was not until last spring that the homeowners were made aware of the
business. He stated he is opposed to the pollution and the noise and believed
that having only 90 percent of the business conducted inside does not meet the
specific criteria.
Bruce Evans stated it was mostly the noise and the smoke that created the problem
for the neighborhood. He stated the shop has stopped creating that problem and
has honored the neighbor's request. He stated the 10 percent outside usage is
minimal. He stated the PUD has changed the way the business operates and
believed it would not impact the neighborhood to the extent it did last summer.
Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Winokur, to overturn
the November 16, 1992 decision of the Planning and Zoning Board.
Councilmember Horak believed that Criteria No. 2, of the Land Development
Guidance System, has not been addressed.
Councilmember Winokur asked if noise measuring devices or pollution measuring
devices were sent to the site to obtain information to decide whether the PUD is
in conformance with the Land Development Guidance System.
Whetstone stated that the Planning Department has a noise meter; however, it was
not used for this PUD. She stated that she stood on the property line and could
not hear the engine noise over the traffic on Prospect Road. There were no
actual measurements done on the noise or the toxic odors.
Mayor Kirkpatrick stated she believed that Criteria No. 2 has not been met. She
stated there possibly is an option of amending the Planning and Zoning Board
decision to add additional conditions requiring the hoist, test tank, and boat
storage to be completed in a covered facility.
Councilmember Winokur stated that the absolute criteria has not been met and was
concerned with the potential of noise pollution or smoke pollution.
295
Councilmember Edwards asked if the motion was based on the Planning and Zoning I
Board abusing its discretion or failing to properly interpret the relevant
provisions of the Code.
Councilmember Horak replied that Criteria No. 2 was not met. He believed that
the Planning and Zoning Board failed to properly interpret the, relevant
provisions of the Code.
The vote on Councilmember Horak's motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers
Edwards, Horak, Kirkpatrick, and Winokur. Nays: Councilmembers Azari and Maxey.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Ordinance No. 141, 1992
Amending the Sign Code Relating to Limitations
for Non-residential Uses in the Residential
Neighborhood Sian District, Adopted.
The following is staff's memorandum on this item.
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
While the Sign Code has generally worked well, there has been growing concern
about signage as it applies to non-residential land uses in predominantly
residential areas. This concern was affirmed in the City Council 1991 - 1993
Work Plan and the 1990 Audit of the Land Development Guidance System wherein '
staff was directed to review the Sign Code and prepare necessary changes to
address these concerns. The City Planning Department and Building Permits and
Inspection Division staff, with the assistance of a local consulting firm has
prepared changes to the Sign Code to address these concerns. In general, the
recommendations are.two-fold: First, new standards are being recommended for the
Sign Code which will regulate the amount, location and design of signs for non-
residential land uses in residential areas. Second, these provisions only apply
to non-residential developments located in the "Residential Neighborhood Sign
District", which is considered to be those areas of the community that are
predominantly residential in use and character. This District excludes
predominately commercial areas, such as, College Avenue, Downtown and portions
of Harmony Rdad and Prospect Road.
Several years ago, the City enacted regulations to control the location and
design of signage on private property. While the Sign Code has been well
received by both the business industry and public, there has been growing concern
that these regulations do not adequately control signage as it applies to
shopping centers and free-standing auto, -related and business service uses located
in predominantly residential areas. This concern was affirmed in the City
Council 1991-1993 Work Plan and the 1990 Audit of the Land Development Guidance
System (LDGS) wherein staff was directed to review the Sign Code and prepare
necessary changes to address these concerns. In general, the concerns include
the amount of signage allowed under the current Code, appearance and aesthetics, '
296
and compatibility with neighborhood quality and character. Some specific issues
which have been identified include the size and finish of freestanding/ground
' signs, illumination, window signage, and architectural compatibility.
This is not a criticism of existing businesses or sign companies. Rather, staff
research has found that many businesses located in or near residential areas of
the community are already sensitive to these issues and have, in many cases, been
doing a good job in designing and controlling signage. In fact, many of these
projects have been used as models for development of the proposed regulations.
The proposed Sign Code changes are intended to reduce or eliminate opportunities
for abuse of the existing Code which could result in signage which is
incompatible with an adjoining residential neighborhood.
The Land Development Guidance System currently includes a provision which allows
the Planning and Zoning Board to impose more restrictive signage requirements
than the Sign Code in Planned Unit Developments. The Planning and Zoning Board
and staff have used this provision to regulate signs in new Planned Unit
Developments. The proposed Sign Code provisions are compatible with the
requirements imposed by the Planning and Zoning Board in the recent past.
It has become apparent is that consistent and documented standards and criteria
for approving signage in shopping centers and free-standing retail/office uses
located in predominantly residential areas are lacking in the LDGS and Sign Code.
The proposed additions to the Sign Code are intended to address this problem.
Under the proposed changes, the amount and design of signage will be regulated
by the Sign Code through the addition of new requirements specifically prepared
to address the issue of neighborhood character and compatibility. The review and
approval of permits for individual signs will be by the City Building Permits and
Inspection Division staff. The Planning and Zoning Board will continue to review
signage in Planned Unit Developments only to the extent that the location of
flushwall signs relate to the architectural character of the associated
buildings. All other aspects of signage in this District will be controlled
under the new Sign Code provisions.
Staff believes the explicit listing of signage requirements in the Sign Code and
LDGS should make the decision -making process more predictable and consistent from
project to project. This should help all parties to better understand the basis
for decision -making in advance. Most importantly, signage should be better
designed and made more compatible with its residential surroundings. More
precise criteria should also help reduce City administrative costs in the review
and approval of signs.
This project is not intended to address other "community -wide" concerns about
signage or other issues related to specific geographic areas outside of the
"Residential Neighborhood Sign District". It does not change the authority of
the Board to review signs in predominantly commercial areas located outside of
the "Residential Neighborhood Sign District" as provided for in the Sign Code and
LDGS. These issues and others will be considered during an upcoming "audit" of
the Sign Code which will be undertaken by City staff in 1993.
297
Recommended Changes:
Staff, with the assistance of a local consulting firm, has prepared changes to '
the Sign Code to address the above issues. The recommended, changes are attached
and are indicated in UPPER CASE LETTERS. An explanation (in italics) follows
each specific Code change. In general, the recommendations are two -fold:
First, clear and consistent standards are recommended for the amount, location
and design of signs in the "Residential Neighborhood Sign District" which will
guide staff in the approval of individual tenant sign permits. These provisions
will be incorporated into the Sign Code. The Planning and Zoning Board will
retain its ability to review proposed signage only to the extent that the
location of f7ushwa7l signs are compatible with the architectural character of
the building.
Second, these provisions shall only apply to non-residential developments located
in an area known as the "Residential Neighborhood Sign District" as indicated on
the attached map. This District includes areas of the community which are
considered by the City as being predominantly residential in use and character.
This district excludes predominantly commercial or industrial areas, such as
College Avenue, downtown, and portions of the Harmony Road and Prospect Road
corridors. Existing signs in this District will be made to conform to these
regulations whenever such signs are erected or remodeled pursuant to a permit
after the date of enactment of these regulations. Existing signs will not be
subject to the more restrictive sign allowance provisions of these regulations.
Citizen Participation Process
Many opportunities for citizen comment were provided during the planning process. '
An advisory .committee composed of representatives of major sign companies
operating in the Fort Collins area was formed to provide guidance to staff on the
technical aspects of the project. This Committee met several times with staff
between October, 1991 and.August, 1992, including meeting with the Planning and
Zoning Board in a special work session on June 16, 1992.
Last June, over 175 letters were mailed to sign companies, developers, design
professionals, neighborhood organizations and interested citizens about the
proposed changes and invited them to a public meeting on June 4. This letter
also included an invitation to speak at the Planning and Zoning Board hearing on
June 22, 1992. No member of the public attended the June 4 public meeting.
More recently, approximately 30 letters were sent to owners and/or managers of
existing shopping centers and/or businesses located in the "Residential
Neighborhood Sign District" informing them of the recent changes in the proposed
Sign Code which relate to existing signs.
In addition, staff has had several conversations with individuals about the
proposed Code changes, and the Planning and Zoning Board met in work session on
four different occasions to discuss the project and conducted public hearings on
June 22, 1992 and September 28, 1992.
pal
Finally, notices of the open house and public hearings on the matter were
' published in a local newspaper.
RECOMMENDATION:
On September 28, 1992, the Planning and Zoning Board voted 7 - 0 to recommend to
the City Council the adoption of the proposed amendments to the Sign Code (see
attached minutes). Staff also recommends adoption."
Joe Frank, Assistant Planning Director, stated this project was on Council's
1991-1993 Work Plan. He gave a brief history of the Ordinance and stated that
the community was heavily involved in reviewing this project.
Councilmember Maxey asked if any negative comments were made in regards to this
project.
Peter Barnes, Code Administrator, stated the sign industry believed it was
important that the Planning and Zoning Board no longer take part in regulating
signage throughout the City. He stated those issues will be reviewed in 1993
with the audit of the sign code.
Councilmember Azari made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Winokur, to adopt
Ordinance No. 141, 1992, on First Reading.
The vote on Councilmember Azari's motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers
Azari, Edwards, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Maxey, and Winokur. Nays: None.
' THE MOTION CARRIED.
Ordinance No. 126, 1992
Adopting the 1993 City of Fort Collins
Total Compensation Plan, Adopted.
The following is staff's memorandum on this item.
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Ordinance, which was adopted 4-1 on First Reading on November 17, adopts the
1993 City of Fort Collins Total Compensation pay plan which sets the salaries of
classified City employees. City Council adopted a Financial Policy regarding
salaries and benefits which takes into consideration the salary paid to employees
and the cost of providing benefits. Several changes were made in the plan
development for 1993, including changes in the way medical insurance and sick
leave are incorporated into the model, and in the make-up of the market survey."
Councilmember Azari made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Edwards, to adopt
Ordinance No. 126, 1992, on Second Reading.
Councilmember Maxey asked if any obstacles have come up since first reading of
the Ordinance.
1 299
City Manager Burkett stated that no obstacles have been presented to him
involving this Ordinance. '
Councilmember Winokur stated the 1994 impacts of Amendment 1 really need to be
considered at this time. He stated the implications of this Ordinance on the
1994 Budget are going to be significant.
The vote on Councilmember Azari's motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers
Azari, Edwards, Kirkpatrick, and Maxey. Nays: Councilmembers Horak and Winokur.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Items Related to the Timberline Annexation and Zoning
The following is staff's memorandum on this item.
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 122, 1992, Annexing Approximately 435
Acres, Known as the Timberline Annexation.
B. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 123, 1992, Zoning Areas within
the Timberline Annexation Into Approximately 24 Acres of the I-P,
Industrial Park, District and 411 Acres of the T-Transition, District.
This is an annexation and zoning of an enclave area approximately 435.237 acres
in size located generally east of the Union Pacific Railroad tracks, north of
East Drake Road, and south and west of the Burlington Northern Railroad tracks.
'
The suggested zonings include 23.99 acres of the I-P, Industrial Park, District,
and 411.247 acres of the T-Transition, District. The property is mostly
undeveloped, although located along the west side of Timberline Road are the
(vacant) Fort Collins Pipe Co. and ENCOAT (Energy Coatings Co.). Existing
commercial signs located on these properties will have to conform to the City's
Sign Code at the conclusion of a five year amortization period.
OWNERS: Spring Creek Farms, Inc.
c/o Glen Johnson
3432 Carlton Ave.
Ft. Collins, CO 80525
Cargill, Inc.
P.O. Box 9300
Dept. 5
Minneapolis, MN 55440
General Steel Industries, Inc.
c/o Randall, Rudolph & Assoc., Inc.
P.O. Box 610026
Dallas, TX 75261
,
300
Energy Coatings Co., Inc.
' c/o Randall, Rudolph & Assoc., Inc.
P.O. Box 610026
Dallas, TX 75261
Fort Collins Pipe Co.
P.O. Box 300
Lone Star, TX 75668
BACKGROUND
The property is located within the Fort Collins Urban Growth Area. According to
the policies and agreements between the City of Fort Collins and Larimer County
contained in the INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT FOR THE FORT COLLINS URBAN GROWTH
AREA, the City will consider and pursue the annexation property in the UGA when
the property is eligible for annexation according to State law. The specific
wording from the UGA Agreement is as follows:
Policy 1.6
That the policy of the City is to consider the annexation of all
properties within the unincorporated area of the Urban Growth Area as soon
as said property becomes eligible for annexation.
Agreement 2.10 C
The City agrees to pursue involuntary annexation of any undeveloped parcel
' or parcels, or any undeveloped, partially developed, or developed
subdivision, planned unit development, special review case, or any other
development approved by the Larimer County Board of Commissioners prior to
January 1980, when State statutory requirements for involuntary
annexations have been met.
At the November 17, Council meeting, the Council requested additional background
information on the UGA Agreement. The goals of the UGA include: to define areas
where urban densities and uses are appropriate; to achieve the orderly
development of land within such areas; to achieve common urban design standards;
to encourage the annexation of land; and to minimize the provision of urban
services by Larimer County.
The City and County have agreed ...
... to establish an urban growth area surrounding the City of Fort Collins
and that the UGA is appropriate for the location and development of urban
land uses and urban residential densities.
... to establish a Fort Collins UGA Review Board to act as the single
recommending body to the Larimer County Board of Commissioners concerning
development applications within the unincorporated portion of the UGA.
... that all County Regulations and procedures apply to development
' proposals within the UGA.
301
. that the City is not obligated to annex developments approved by the
County after January 1988 which do not conform to UGA urban development '
standards.
The County agrees ...
... to limit urban development outside the UGA to areas designated as
Municipal Expansion Areas, Employment Center Reserves, and Urban
Development Areas on the Larimer County Land Use Plan.
not to accept any development application for a property which is
eligible for voluntary annexation to the City.
the City Council reserves the right to review and comment on
development proposals which propose waiver requests to the UGA Phasing
Criteria.
. to establish a Park Fee within the UGA equivalent to the Park Fee
collected by the City.
. to establish a Drainage Basin Fee within the UGA consistent with
Drainage Basin Fee collected within the drainage basin in the City.
... that the City may annex outside the UGA.
to require a binding Annexation Agreement as a condition of approval
of any development proposal within the UGA not eligible for voluntary
annexation into the City. '
The City agrees ...
the Board of Commissioners may waive UGA Phasing Criteria for "in -
fill" development proposals.
... to consider the annexation of any parcel in the UGA when the parcel
qualifies according to State law for voluntary annexation.
.. to pursue involuntary annexation of areas . when State law
qualifications have been met.
... to apply its Off -Site Street Improvement Policy to developments within
the city which have an impact on County roads outside the city.
The above agreements represent a series of "trade-offs" between the City Council
and County Commissioners related to growth management and the provision of public
services within the UGA. It is difficult for staff to gauge the relative
importance of specific items in relationship to other items for each elected
body. Staff does believe, however, that the City's willingness to annex property
within the UGA is a key consideration to the County's continued participation in
the UGA Agreement.
302 1
The area to be annexed is a county enclave. Colorado annexation laws allow a
' municipality to annex enclave areas (which are areas which are entirely contained
within the boundaries of a municipality). An enclave area must be so surrounded
for a period of not less than 3 years to become eligible for annexation as an
enclave. While State law allows a municipality to annex an enclave, State law
does not require a municipality to annex an enclave. Also, a municipality may
annex any contiguous portion of an enclave without annexing the entire enclave.
The following annexations to the City of Fort Collins created the enclave in
question:
N: East Prospect Road First Annexation; September 6, 1973.
E: Rigdon Farm Annexation, August 16, 1988.
East Prospect Road First Annexation, September 6, 1973.
S: Blue Spruce Farm Annexation, October 6, 1987.
Greenwalt Tenth Annexation, June 21, 1977.
Rigdon Farm Annexation, August 16, 1988.
W: Union Pacific South Second Annexation, May 17, 1988.
This area has thus been eligible for involuntary annexation into the City since
August 16, 1991. On September 19, 1991, staff sent a letter to the property
owners informing them of the pending annexation, potential zoning district
designation, and meeting date of review by the Planning and Zoning Board. Staff
received several questions from Spring Creek Farms, Inc., the largest single
property -owner (352 acres) within the annexation. No subsequent contact was made
from other the property owners. A17 property owners were renotified, on
September 2, 1992, of the new October 19, 1992, Planning and Zoning hearing date.
Annexation represents the most effective way for the City to guide its own
future. Annexation allows the City to increase its land area to accommodate new
growth and development and to expand its tax base.
Following annexation, the City can manage growth through the application of its
land use regulations, including zoning, PUD, sign code, etc., to new development
proposals. The City, thus, through annexation acquires the final decision making
authority regarding new development proposals.
The annexation of property can be a source of additional revenue to the City
through the collection of additional property tax, sales and use taxes, licenses,
and development fees.
The City also provides services to newly annexed areas including, but not limited
to, water and sewer utilities, storm drainage management, police protection,
street maintenance, mass transit, and parks and recreational programs.
Undeveloped property usual7y does not require a great expansion of City services.
Also, tax revenues generated by vacant property are relatively minimal.
303
Staff believes that enclave areas, those areas entirely contained within the
boundaries of the City, do have an impact on the provision of City services. '
Generally, a "hole" in the City's service area creates inefficiencies in City
services. Among the most major concerns with enclave areas are questions related
to police jurisdiction and road maintenance.
When parts of a street or road are inside and outside the city limits, the City
and County generally enter into a "maintenance agreement" indicating which entity
will maintain the street (fix pot holes, plow snow, etc.). Obviously, when an
area is annexed, the City absorbs the maintenance responsibility for any roads
included within the annexation.
Similarly, when parts of a street or road are inside and outside the city limits,
or an area includes properties both inside and outside the city limits, law
enforcement jurisdictional problems may arise. The most serious jurisdictional
problem relates to responses to emergency situations. The communications center
must relate to a map in order to dispatch a response from the correct agency,
either the City's Police Department or the County Sheriff's Office.
Mr. Glen Johnson of Spring Creek Farms, Inc., a major farming operation, met with
staff and requested information related to pesticide application, stormwater
management, ditch maintenance, and the paying of "urban" improvements. Spring
Creek Farms, Inc., also owned property which was included in the Harmony No. 4
Annexation (1977). At that time, an agreement was reached between Spring Creek
Farms Inc., and the City of Fort Collins dealing with farming activities and the
payment of "urban" improvements related to the Harmony No. 4 Annexation. Mr.
Johnson has requested that a similar agreement be developed related to the '
Timberline Annexation. Planning staff prepared an agreement for use in
conjunction with this annexation (draft copy attached). The City Attorney's
office has indicated that because this is an involuntary enclave annexation which
the City can accomplish without the consent of the property owner, any agreement
to exempt the subject property from future assessments should be supported by
some other consideration besides the annexation of the property. In order to
provide such consideration, Spring Creek Farms, Inc., might dedicate arterial
streets rights -of -way along either or both Drake and Timberline Roads.
Staff and Spring Creek Farms have resolved several other issues related to the
annexation, including the impacts of farming operations, pesticide application,
and storm drainage fees. Agreement has not been reached with regard to the
issues of exemption from the payment of assessments for street improvements; the
ability to lease. lands for hunting; and exemption from City Sales Tax for farming
operations. Mr. Johnson spoke in opposition to the annexation at Council's
November 17 meeting.
In regard to the hunting issue, staff contacted the cities of Loveland, Greeley,
Longmont, Thornton, Northglenn, Aurora, and Colorado, Springs to determine if
these cities allowed hunting within their city limits. Of the cities contacted,
only Greeley does not have an outright prohibition against hunting within its
city.
304
If the Council should decide to allow hunting within the city limits, staff
suggests that ordinance changes be made to be applied on a city-wide basis rather
than on a case -by -case basis within individual annexations.
The issue of irrigation ditches is usually not addressed during the processing
of an annexation. Ditches become an item of concern during the review of
specific development plans for a property.
For the most part, ditches are typically incorporated into open space areas
within a development. Sometimes a minor relocation of the ditch is necessary in
order to conform to the overall development plan for the property. Some
developments cover ditches along their entire route through a developing
property.
Ditch companies are notified of all development proposals affecting their
property. Ditch companies review the development plans and are required to sign
off on utility plans related to the development of a specific property.
Essentially, nothing can happen in regards to a ditch without the ditch company's
approval.
The City, at the time of development, requires dedication of street rights -of -way
consistent with the functional classification of streets on the City's Master
Street Plan. An arterial street, for example, requires the dedication of 100
feet of right-of-way, 50 feet from center -line to be dedicated by property
adjoining each side of the street. In cases where, due to existing development
or other unique circumstances to an area, more right-of-way is required from one
side of the street than the other, the City pays for the additional right-of-way
with monies from the Street Oversizing Fund.
In cases when an irrigation ditch runs parallel to a road, or in close proximity
to a road, which needs to be widened, the ditch typically is relocated as part
of the road widening project.
Zoning.
The suggested zonings for this annexation include 23.99 acres of the I-P,
Industrial Park, District, and 411.247 acres of the T-Transition, District.
The I-P District designation is for light industrial park areas containing
controlled industrial uses located in proximity to areas zoned for residential
use and/or along arterial streets. The sites of Fort Collins Pipe and Energy
Coating companies are suggested for the I-P zone. The areas to the west of these
companies are zoned R-L-P, Low density Planned Residential, and R-P, Planned
Residential, and are developed as the Parkwood East Subdivision and the Parkwood
East Apartments. Timberline Road is planned to be a major (6-7ane) arterial
street. Also, located to the west is EPIC and Spring Creek Park. The existing
uses would become legal non -conforming uses under the I-P Zone. The existing
uses may continue under the I-P Zone and even expand through the "expansion to
a non -conforming use process" which requires a hearing by the Planning and Zoning
Board. New uses will have to conform to the requirements of the 1-P Zone or be
processed as a Planned Unit Development (PUD) and be reviewed according to the
305
criteria of the LAND DEVELOPMENT GUIDANCE SYSTEM (LDGS . These properties will
probably eventually redevelop with industrial uses which could require greater '
public scrutiny than the former uses received.
The T-Transition, District designation is for properties which are in a
transitional stage with regard to ultimate development. The only uses allowed
within the T Zone are the uses which existed at the time the T Zone was placed
on the properties. The agricultural areas within the annexation, including the
properties owned by Spring Creek Farms, Inc., are suggested to be placed into the
T Zone. When urban development is proposed on these properties they would have
to be rezoned to a zone which allows development.
Findings
1. The annexation of this area is consistent with the policies and agreements
between Larimer County and the City of Fort Collins contained in the
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT FOR THE FORT COLLINS URBAN GROWTH AREA.
2. The area meets all criteria included in State law to qualify for annexa-
tion by the City of Fort Collins.
3. On October 6, 1992, the City Council passed a resolution setting forth the
intent to annex this property and scheduling a public hearing for the
consideration of the annexation and zoning ordinances related to the
annexation.
4. The requested I-P, Industrial Park, and T, Transition, Zoning Districts I
are in conformance with the policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the annexation and suggested zoning.
PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning and Zoning Board, at its regular monthly meeting on October 19,
1992, voted 5-0 to recommend approval of the annexation and suggested zonings.
A copy of the Board's minutes is attached."
Councilmember Maxey made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Edwards, to postpone
consideration of the Items Related to the Timberline Annexation and Zoning until
the January 5th meeting to allow time to amend the description of the property
west of Timberline.
Councilmember Winokur asked if the intent is to only take out a piece of the
enclave and only annex that part.
Councilmember Maxey replied that was the intent of the motion.
City Manager Burkett stated two options will be presented. The first option will
be the current documents and the second option will be the portion of the
property west of Timberline. ,
306
The voted on Councilmember Maxey's motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers
' Azari, Edwards, Horak, and Maxey. Nays: Councilmembers Kirkpatrick and Winokur.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Resolution 92-190
Establishing a Process for the Selection of
Special Legal Counsel for the City in Cases of
Conflict of Interest. Adopted Option B.
The following is staff's memorandum on this item.
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Occasionally, the City Attorney is required under the provisions of the City
Charter to declare a conflict of interest regarding the handling of certain
matters on behalf of the City. This situation requires the selection of special
legal counsel to represent the interests of the City. The proposed Resolution
would provide a mechanism for the selection of legal counsel when the situation
arises.
BACKGROUND
The City's conflict of interest provisions, which are contained in the City
Charter, apply to the City Attorney as well as other officers and employees of
the City. In relevant part, those provisions require the City Attorney to file
' a conflict of interest disclosure statement and refrain from attempting to
influence any City decision in which he or she has either a "financial" or
"personal" interest, as those terms are defined in Article IV, Section 9 of the
City Charter.
Because the Charter conflict of interest rule would not permit the City
Attorney's participation in such matters, even with the Council's consent, it is
inevitable that. the City will occasionally need to employ special counsel in
these kinds of situations.
The City Charter also speaks to the manner in which outside counsel is to be
retained by the City. Article VI, Section 3 of the City Charter provides as
follows:
Section 3. Special Counsel.
The Council may, upon the request of the City Attorney in special
cases, employ special counsel if deemed necessary and advisable
under the circumstances.
Historically, the services of outside counsel have been needed not only in
conflict of interest situations but also in dealing with specialized matters such
as bond issues, water rights litigation and certain other kinds of litigation.
In order to provide a standardized and efficient method for obtaining outside
counsel on such occasions, the City Council has adopted Resolution 89-183,
307
attached as Exhibit "A," which approved the use of particular firms in certain
areas of the law. (These firms were identified through an RFP process). Section '
3 of the Resolution also authorizes the City Attorney to exercise his or her
discretion in retaining outside counsel to advise or represent the City if deemed
necessary or advisable because of extraordinary circumstances.
While the guidelines established in Resolution 89-183 have proved to be adequate
for selecting outside counsel when special expertise or assistance is needed by
the City Attorney's Office, it is questionable whether they are adequate to
address the situation involved here, i.e., when outside counsel is needed to
"replace" the City Attorney in cases of conflict of interest, rather than to
merely augment his or her services.
ALTERNATIVE PROPOSALS
The following alternative processes for selecting special counsel in conflict of
interest situations have been identified. The Council could:
Alternative No. 1. Authorize the City Attorney, by resolution, to
select special counsel according to his or her discretion. The
advantage of this alternative is that it would enable the City
Attorney to immediately obtain outside counsel as necessary to
protect the interests of the City. It would also alleviate the need
for formal Council review and approval in each case. On the other
hand, this alternative could leave the selection process (and the
City Attorney) subject to challenge under the City Charter, because
the City Attorney's selection of outside counsel might be construed
as an attempt to "influence" the matter in question. ,
Alternative No. 2. Formally approve each selection by resolution or
motion, based upon the recommendation of the City Attorney. Under
this alternative, special counsel would not only be "employed" by
the Council as required by the Charter, but would also be directly
selected by the Council. Obviously, this alternative has the
advantage of ensuring that the selection would be acceptable to a
majority of the Council. The primary disadvantage of the
alternative is that the selection of outside counsel would have to
await the next regular Council meeting, even if the legal matter
involved might be in need of immediate attention.
Alternative No. 3. Authorize the City Attorney, through an inter-
governmental agreement, to utilize the services of other municipal
attorneys on a reciprocal basis. Like Alternative No. 2, this
alternative would allow for the immediate selection of special
counsel. An added advantage is that the services of another
municipal attorney could likely be procured at less cost to the City
than if private counsel were retained. The disadvantage of this
alternative is that the needed assistance might not always be
available from another municipal office, since other municipal
attorneys might not have the expertise needed to handle certain
kinds of highly specialized cases, or the demands of the
representation might interfere with the municipal attorney's ability '
308
to perform his or h
' or the negotiatio
n
Each of the alternatives discussed above has merit in certain kinds of
situations, but none seems entirely satisfactory. Consequently, the City
Attorney is recommending the following procedure, which combines certain aspects
of each of the alternatives discussed above:
First, the City Attorney would be authorized to
negotiate agreements with such other front range cities
as may be interested in the reciprocal use of staff
attorneys. When a conflict of interest arose, the City
Attorney would first determine whether another municipal
attorney had the time, expertise and resources to handle
the matter.
b. If representation by another municipal office was not
possible, the City Attorney would then consider
utilizing the services of one of the firms previously
approved by the Council in Resolution 89-183 (or any
subsequent amending resolution). If a firm was
tentatively selected, the City Attorney would
' immediately notify the Council of his or her selection
and afford councilmembers a reasonable period of time
within which to indicate any desire to be formally
involved in the selection in that particular case. If
no such indication was forthcoming, the firm would be
retained on such terms and conditions as the City
Attorney considered to be in the best interests of the
City.
If there were a councilmember request that the selection
be presented to the full Council, or if the City
Attorney recommended that the matter not be handled by
another municipal attorney or by a firm identified in
Resolution 89-183, then the decision would be presented
to Council by way of a formal resolution at the next
regular Council meeting, in which case the City Attorney
would provide Council with the names of no less than
three qualified attorneys, together with any background
information which would assist Council in making the
selection.
I - 309
OPTIONS A AND B
At the Council work session on November
24, it was suggested that two
Option A the entire
options be
three -step
'
presented for Council's consideration.
presents
process as outlined above. Option
B deletes the second step
(using the
previously -approved list of firms). Thus, under Option B, if the services of
another municipal attorney could not be
utilized, the selection would
go directly
to the City Council.
Council,also indicated a desire to define and limit the circumstances under which
the services of the City Attorney would be utilized by another municipality.
Both options include a provision which would enable the City Attorney to decline
a request to assist another municipality in a conflict of interest situation if
the legal matter in need of attention was considered to be so complex or time
consuming that it would interfere with the City Attorney's performance of his or
her ordinary duties on behalf of the City."
City Attorney Roy gave a brief description of both the options that were
presented.
Councilmember Winokur made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Horak, to adopt
Option B of Resolution 92-190.
Councilmember Winokur stated this particular issue will occur in rare situations
and believed that the Council should be able to select temporary replacement for
the City Attorney's office for those few occasions.
The vote on Councilmember Winokur's motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers ,
Azari, Horak, Maxey, and Winokur. Nays: Councilmembers Edwards and Kirkpatrick.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Resolution 92-191
Designating a Representative From the City to Serve
on the Board of Directors of the
Platte River Power Authority, Adopted.
The following is staff's memorandum on this item.
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Organic Contract for the provision of wholesale electrical power by the
Platte River Power Authority (PRPA) to the Cities of Fort Collins, Loveland, and
Longmont, and the Town of Estes Park defines an eight member Board of Directors
that shall be the governing body of the Authority. Each municipality shall be
represented by two members on the Board of Directors who shall be appointed as
follows:
a) The Mayor of each Municipality, or their designee from the governing
board of such Municipality, to serve concurrently with their term as
Mayor. '
310
b) Additionally an Appointed Director shall be selected by the
' governing body of each of the Municipalities to serve a four year
term, selection shall be based on "judgement, experience and
expertise which makes them particularly qualified to serve as the
Director of an electric utility."
Rich Shannon, Utilities Director, was appointed by Council Resolution 86-120
(July 15, 1986) to fill the unexpired term of Bill D. Carnahan through December
31, 1988. Subsequently Mr. Shannon was re -appointed to an additional four year
term to expire December 31, 1992. Mr. Shannon has served as the Chairman of the
PRPA Board of Directors since January, 1990.
This Resolution appoints Mr. Shannon to a new four-year term on the PRPA Board
with an expiration date of December 31, 1996. He will serve on the Board with
Mayor Susan Kirkpatrick."
Councilmember Edwards made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Azari, to adopt
Resolution 92-191.
City Manager Burkett stated the Resolution reappoints Rich Shannon to the Board
of Directors at PRPA.
Councilmember Winokur believed Rich Shannon was doing an outstanding job and
congratulated him as chairperson of the Board. He noted that three out of the
four cities directly elect their mayors who are members of the Board.
' Mayor Kirkpatrick stated that after serving on the PRPA Board for 2-111 years,
there is a remarkable difference between the availability and commitment of the
elected officials and the appointed officials.
Councilmember Winokur stated the meetings are complicated and very detailed. He
stated the Board spends most of its time on discussion of financial issues. He
believed the Board worked with a very competent technical staff on several policy
issues.
Councilmember Horak stated.the PRPA Board is supposed to be a policy making board
and believed any elected official could serve as chairperson just as well as a
qualified staff person. He stated the argument that the chairperson needs to be
an expert is not valid.
The vote on Councilmember Edwards motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers
Azari, Edwards, Kirkpatrick, and Maxey. Nays: Councilmembers Horak and Winokur.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
311
Resolution 92-192
Authorizing the Mayor to '
Nominate A Representative from the City to the
Larimer Emergency Telephone Authority, Adopted.
The following is staff's memorandum on this item.
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The previously signed Intergovernmental Agreement concerning the Implementation
of E911 Emergency Telephone Service authorizes the City to nominate one person
to the Larimer Emergency Telephone Authority. The term of the City's current
representative, Councilmember Loren Maxey, expires December 31, 1992. The
Larimer County Board of Commissioners, upon receiving the City's nomination in
writing, will make the appointment based on the City's recommendation.
City Council may choose its representative from among the elected members of
Council or from the City staff. Police Services will provide necessary staff
support to the representative.
Providing technical support for the design, development and implementation of the
emergency telephone system is a responsibility of the Board, as a whole, and is
not a requirement for the City of Fort Collins to meet independently. Technical
support is available to the Board from a variety of existing resource areas in
local government. Furthermore, the board may choose to contract for additional
services as needed."
Councilmember Winokur made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Azari, to adopt I
Resolution 92-192 inserting the name of Loren Maxey to serve as the
representative.
Councilmember Maxey noted that Dave Berseen and Bill Wagner each represent small
communities and not the cities themselves.
Councilmember Winokur asked about the length of the term of the appointment.
Councilmember Maxey replied the term was two years.
Councilmember Azari stated she was pleased to have an elected official serve on
this Board.
The vote on Councilmember Winokur's motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers
Azari, Edwards, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Maxey, and Winokur. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED. .
Other Business
Councilmember Horak asked about the rationale for the 24-hour time period for
parking enforcement. He asked if the parking enforcement issue was going to come
back before Council to discuss in further detail.
City Manager Burkett responded he did not recall a request for staff to bring
' back information on the Ordinance or proposed revisions to the Ordinance. He
stated the purpose of the Ordinance is to discourage abandoned cars from taking
up space on the street.
Councilmember Horak asked who in the City would put together the PR-1 nominations
for the Fort Collins Consensus Institute.
City Manager Burkett stated there was an individual letter sent out to several
people and that it was envisioned that City Council would make the decision of
how to respond to the letter or how they would nominate people to attend. He
stated the City Manager's Office would be coordinating who is interested within
the City staff to attend the Institute.
Councilmember Horak stated he believed it was not necessary for anyone to attend
the Institute and noted the cost of the Institute is. $2,000 per,persom:.
Councilmember Azari stated there was a meeting to explain the concept of the
Institute. She explained the School Board is looking at a better way of
gathering a community consensus about the direction for education.
Diane Jones, Deputy City Attorney, stated the concept is about using a
facilitator with the community to review local educational issues. She stated
the Institute would build consensus skills and communication skills among people
who are interested in the community.
Mayor Kirkpatrick stated the School District on a number of occasions, asked
for
input on the idea of
the Institute. She asked that any Councilmember who wishes
'
to comment on the letter
or the Institute speak with Councilmember Azari
or
herself.
Councilmember Azari
believed it was difficult to relate to the letter because
it
was written to the
business community. She stated the information on
the
Institute appeared
to promote a personal training program with the focus
on
educational issues.
Councilmember Horak stated that he was not sure what the City's interest was in
training people at this Institute. He stated it was not the City's primary
mission and believed money should not be spent to attend this Institute.
Mayor Kirkpatrick stated she would be interested .in obtaining a community
analysis of community impacts of the Larimer County Enterprise Zone application.
She stated the City's Economic Development Policy in regards to Street Oversizing
Fees should be re-evaluated in lieu of the passage of Amendment 1.
Councilmember Maxey made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Winokur, to adjourn
this meeting to December 29 at 6:30 p.m.
313
The vote on Councilmember Maxey's motion was as follows
Horak, Kirkpatrick, Maxey, and Winokur. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED
Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 12:40 a.m.
ATTEST:
314
Yeas: Azari, Edwards,
4�z
yor PfoTem