HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES-04/05/1994-RegularApril 5, 1994
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
April 5, 1994, at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort Collins
City Hall. Roll call was answered by the following Councilmembers: Apt, Azari,
Janett, Kneeland, McCluskey and Smith.
Councilmembers Absent: Councilmember Horak arrived at 9:00 p.m.
Staff Members Present: Burkett, Davis, Roy.
Citizen Participation
Al Baccili, 520 Galaxy Court, stated the Platte River Power Authority should stop
paying dues to the Chamber of Commerce and commented on the General Manager of
the Platte River Power Authority's salary.
David Roy, 1039 West Mountain, thanked Council for the recent Congress of
Neighborhoods event.
Emily Smith, President of the Prospect/Shields Street Neighborhood Association,
spoke of the South Shields Street project and questioned if the original decision
to widen the street was still a viable option. She urged Council to reconsider
removing trees until all other alternatives have been investigated and suggested
Shields Street improvements be delayed until commuter bike lane options have been
investigated.
Jenny Conahan, Fort Collins resident, commented that replacing mature trees with
seedlings is not a viable solution and urged Council to save the trees.
Maggie Conahan, a Fort Collins student, spoke of the need to save the trees and
suggested constructing bike paths and streets around the trees.
Scott Allen, representing Fort Collins RELEAF, spoke of his commitment to the
trees and thanked the engineering staff and City Forester for their willingness
to consider other options.
Greg Long, President and co-founder of Fort Collins RELEAF, presented Council and
the City Manager with a document showing a model for establishing a Community
Tree Board and spoke of the work RELEAF has done in the Fort Collins area.
Lloyd Walker, 1756 Concord Drive, spoke of the lack of bicycle and pedestrian
facilities on South Shields. He stated the project should proceed and suggested
the City work with CSU to redesign the streetscape.
214
April 5, 1994
1
Paul Valentine, 2404 Sheffield Circle East, expressed the need for bike lanes on
Shields Street and stated the issue has been discussed by the Transportation
Board.
Ken Bonetti, a Fort Collins resident, spoke of the change in citizenry that has
occured since the street plan was devised. He spoke of the need to examine
alternative modes of transportation that would encourage citizens to use them.
He requested Council place a moratorium on these types of projects until the
transportation policy is reformulated and an integrated land -use transportation
policy is developed.
Mona Mooney, a Fort Collins resident, expressed concerns regarding development
issues within the community and opposed the project. She believed completion of
the project would greatly increase traffic on Shields Street.
Ward Luthi, 1630 West Swallow, spoke of air quality and transportation issues.
He suggested putting the bike lanes in the CSU parking lot which would save money
and the trees.
Dale Reed, a Fort Collins resident, spoke of pedestrian and bicycle safety and
suggested looking at alternatives to keep healthy trees and remove the unhealthy
ones. He urged Council to delay the project to allow time to examine additional
alternatives. '
Citizen Participation Follow-up
Councilmember Janett spoke in support of the Shields Street project and spoke of
the need of alternative modes of transportation. She stated at the Other
Business portion of the meeting she would be requesting a 2 week delay to
determine if sidewalk locations could be modified in an effort to save the trees.
Councilmember Smith supported the project going forward, stating it is in the
long term best interest of the City to begin remediation of facilities which
originally only catered to motor vehicles.
Councilmember McCluskey stated he believed safety is the main issue and spoke in
support of the project. He stated if delaying the process 2 weeks would save
additional trees he would support the delay.
Councilmember Apt concurred with Councilmember McCluskey's comments and commended
staff and the boards and commissions who have been involved with the project.
Councilmember Janett commented that as part of the project the CSU sign would be
set back farther from the roadway.
215
1
April 5, 1994
Agenda Review
City Manager Steve Burkett clarified that Item #14, Items Relating to the Spring
Creek Farms 4th Annexation and Zoning, was on the Consent Agenda and if someone
from the audience wanted to pull it they needed to do so before adoption of the
Consent Calendar. He stated Item #27, First Reading of Ordinance No. 57, 1994,
Amending Article VII of Chapter 5 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins so as
to Permit the Rebate of Fees for the Purpose of Economic Development-, had been
withdrawn from the agenda.
Consent Calendar
This Calendar is intended to allow the City Council to spend its time and energy
on the important items on a lengthy agenda. Staff recommends approval of the
Consent Calendar. Anyone may request an item on this calendar to be "pulled" off
the Consent Calendar and considered separately. Agenda items pulled from the
Consent Calendar will be considered separately under Agenda Item # 20, Pulled
Consent Items.
7.
R1
In August of 1986, the City issued $36,950,000 of Sewer Revenue Refunding
Bonds. These bonds refunded portions of three prior City issues,
including the 1981, 1984, and 1985 bonds. All of the prior bonds were
defeased by the 1986 bonds. The 1986 Bonds carried a net effective
interest rate of 7.27% at the time of issue. A portion of the 1986 bonds
were new bond proceeds to finance improvements to the water reclamation
treatment facilities. The current market rates would provide a net
effective interest rate of approximately 5.10%. The lower interest rate
will provide gross debt service savings of over $1.2 million over the
remaining life of the bonds. This Ordinance, was unanimously adopted on
First Reading on March 1. At that time a savings of about $800,000 to the
City of Fort Collins was expected to be realized.
Since First Reading, interest rates have risen thereby significantly
reducing the savings. Staff recommends that Second Reading be postponed
indefinitely until the market improves.
Funds have been deposited in the General Fund and set aside in a
restricted reserve for police expenditure following appropriation. This
appropriation of $109,414 represents the 1992 ending balance of $25,714
plus 1993 income of $83,700. Awards made by the courts during 1994 will
216
9.
10.
April 5, 1994
be appropriated in 1995. Police Services continues to use these funds for
training and tools that enhance the department's ability to respond to
crime and for a variety of crime prevention activities. Ordinance No. 37,
1994 was unanimously adopted on First Reading on March 15.
Fort Collins Police Services has applied for and been awarded "Emergency
Management Assistance" (EMA) grants for federal fiscal years 1992, 1993
and 1994. 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.
Police Services plans to receive EMA grant amounts on a regular basis in
the future to help fund the Emergency Management Program. Ordinance No.
38, 1994 was adopted unanimously on First Reading on March 15.
The Septage Waste Transfer Station at the Mulberry Water Reclamation
facility began operations in 1989. Prior to the construction- of this
facility, septage waste was disposed of at the Larimer County Landfill.
The Utility currently issues permits to septage haulers, following
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) guidelines. A permit system allows
the Utility to protect the City's wastewater treatment system and
receiving waters from harmful pollutants.
Concern that the septage hauler permits issued by the Utility might not be
enforceable led the Water Reclamation Division and City Attorney's office
to review the septage waste haulers permit system. The City Code is
currently vague on the subject and needs to be amended to support the
program. Staff recommends that a definition of septage waste be added to
the Code, as well as language to authorize staff to require haulers to
follow certain operating procedures at the transfer stations.
Ordinance No. 39, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on March
15, defines the meaning of "septage waste" to the Code, and will require
that all commercial septage waste haulers obtain a permit from the Utility
prior to discharging septage waste to the wastewater utility.
217 1
12.
13.
April 5, 1994
During the planning process, the need for a turnaround was identified at
the end of Water Blossom Lane. This turnaround will be needed by Storck
Development Corporation until the Light and Power area develops. At that
time, this non-exclusive temporary turnaround easement will terminate.
Storck Development Corporation has agreed to pay all costs associated with
the construction and removal of the turnaround and to restore the premises
to a condition comparable to its present condition. Ordinance No. 40,
1994 was adopted on First Reading on March 15.
Corner Barn.
Resolution 93-113 specified that: 1) the Barn be relocated to private
property within the Urban Growth Area; 2) an RFP be issued to identify
those parties interested in obtaining the Barn for private use and to
select an appropriate site for the Barn; and 3) the relocation of the Barn
be funded from the Historic Preservation Account within the Capital
Projects Fund. On December 7, 1993, the Council adopted Ordinance No.
149, 1993, which authorized the relocation of the Barn to the historic
Brown Farm site owned by Mr. Brad Pace.
On September 28, 1993, the City applied for a State Historical Fund Grant
in the amount of $5,000 (the "Grant") for the relocation of the Barn. The
Grant was not approved in the September round but was approved in January
of 1994. Contract documents were prepared by the Grants Administrator and
signed by the City on February 7, 1994. Now that the Barn has been
relocated, the City may request the Grant payment.
Total cost of the Barn relocation project is expected to be approximately
$20,000. This Ordinance authorizes the appropriation of the Grant to
offset the total cost of the relocation. The balance will be expended
from the Historic Preservation Account within the Capital Projects Fund.
The deed that conveyed the Brown Farmhouse property (the "Property") to
Mr. Brad Pace contained three deed restrictions: 1) that Mr. Pace apply to
have the Property designated as a landmark pursuant to Chapter 14 of the
City Code; 2) that Mr. Pace restore the Property and its improvements to
218
14.
April 5, 1994
their historic condition within two years of the date of conveyance; and,
3) that no farm animals and livestock be kept.on the Property. Failure to
comply with any of these restrictions could result in the City being
lawfully entitled to retake possession and title to the Property. Mr.
Pace applied for and was granted landmark designation on May 18, 1993.
Since that time he has worked to renovate the Property in compliance with
the landmark designation. The restoration has been reviewed by City
Planning staff who agree that it is complete except for repainting and is
in compliance with the requirements of Chapter 14 of the Code.
Mr. Pace requests that the City delete the first and second deed
restrictions since he has applied for financing to complete the interior
improvements to the farmhouse. The lender will not authorize the
financing with these two deed restrictions in place. Since the Property
has been designated as a landmark and since restoration is nearly complete
and the landmark designation allows the City an avenue of enforcement if
necessary, the City should not be harmed in releasing these deed
restrictions. This Ordinance authorizes the Mayor to execute such deeds
and instruments as are necessary to waive these two deed restrictions.
The third deed restriction prohibiting the keeping of farm animals and
livestock on the Property will not be waived by this Ordinance.
Items Relating to the Spring
Creek Farms 4th Annexation
and Zoning.
A. Public Hearing and
Resolution 94-57 Setting Forth
Findings of Fact
,
and Determinations
Regarding the Spring Creek Farms 4th Annexation.
B. Hearing and First
Reading of Ordinance No. 52,
1994, Annexing
Approximately 199
Acres, Known as the Spring
Creek Farms 4th
Annexation.
C. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 53, 1994, Zoning
Approximately 199 Acres, Known as the Spring Creek Farms 4th
Annexation, Into the E-P, Employment Park, District.
This is a request to annex and zone approximately 199 acres located north
of Harmony Road and west of County Road #9. The requested zoning is the
E-P, Employment Park District. The property is presently undeveloped.
The property is currently zoned FA-1, Farming in the County. This is a
voluntary annexation.
APPLICANTS: Glenn and Calvin Johnson
3432 Carlton Avenue
Fort Collins, CO 80526
219 1
April 5, 1994
In 1981, an agreement between the State of Colorado and the City of Fort
Collins was entered into, in which the State agreed to pay the City
approximately $14,000 for performing routine maintenance on those portions
of Highways 287 and 14 that are within the city limits. Routine
maintenance includes snow removal operations, filling potholes, painting
bridges, minor asphalt work, and other minor repairs to safeguard the
traveling public. The contract arrangement has worked well.
Unfortunately, the 1981 contract did not include provisions for increasing
the dollar amount to keep pace with inflation. The proposed agreement
includes a provision for an automatic increase or decrease in the rate of
future monies paid to the City based on adjustments to the State's
operating budget.
The Streets Department has reviewed the costs of providing the types of
maintenance set forth in the contract, and believe the compensation
amounts to be appropriate. The State's intent is to provide an amount to
compensate a municipality for performing the level of service the State
would provide. So, for example, because the State does not routinely
sweep highways, compensation for our doing so is not included.
16. Resolution 94-59 of the Council of the City of Fort Collins Amending the
Zero Interest Loan Program Procedures.
On March 16, 1993, City Council approved Resolution 93-37, authorizing a
zero interest loan program for customers of the Water and Wastewater
Utility. The loan program was developed to assist metered customers who:
(1) have galvanized, inferior, or corroded service lines that are in need
of replacement, as determined by Utility representatives; (2) have leaking
pipes or plumbing fixtures in need of repair; or (3) wish to reduce their.
water consumption by installing ultra -low flush toilets (less than or
equal to 1.6 gallons/flush). To date, 39 loans have been issued,
totalling $37,015.
Procedures for obtaining a zero interest loan were adopted as part of
Resolution 93-37. These procedures set forth the eligibility criteria
necessary for a customer to obtain a loan. One criterion requires that
the applicant "have had no delinquent charges due on any utility service
provided by the City for the past five years". Recent experience in
administering the loans has demonstrated that this criterion is too strict
and needs to be changed. This Resolution would require simply that the
applicant have no current delinquency charges pending for any City utility
' service. This change is consistent with the objectives of the program.
220
17.
V
April 5, 1994
One of the recommendations in the "Cultural Diversity Task Force Report"
was to create a Multicultural Commission. This was to be done through a
partnership of the founding organizations -- City of Fort Collins,
Colorado State University, Poudre R-1 School District and the Chamber of
Commerce.
Given the recommendation, the staff from the four sponsoring organizations
has worked with the elected and appointed officials of these organizations
to lay the groundwork for formally establishing a local Multicultural
Commission.
Resolution 94-60 authorizes the City to enter into an intergovernmental
agreement to establish a Multicultural Commission and outlines the
Commission's general duties and functions, composition, sources of
resource support, accountability, reports, and other operating guidelines.
Postponement of Items Relating to the Overland Trail Annexation and
Zoning.
A. Postponing of Public Hearing and Resolution 94-61 Setting Forth ,
Findings of Fact and Determinations Regarding the Overland Trail
Annexation.
B. Postponing of Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 54, 1994,
Annexing Approximately 282 Acres, Known as the Overland Trail
Annexation.
Postponing of Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 55, 1994,
Zoning Approximately 212 Acres of the Overland Trail Annexation Into
the R-F, Foothills Residential, District and Placing the Remaining
70 Acres Into the R-L-P, Low Density Planned Residential, District.
The applicant, John Spillane, has requested that consideration of the
Overland Trail Annexation and Zoning request be postponed until the May 3,
1994, Council meeting. The applicant would like to have an opportunity to
meet with adjacent property -owners and present preliminary development
plans for the property. Many of the citizens who spoke at the Planning
and Zoning Board requested information regarding the potential development
of the property. The applicant will meet with the adjacent property -
owners sometime during the month of April.
This is a request to annex and zone approximately 282.33 acres located
west of Overland Trail and north of Prospect Road (extended). The
requested zoning is for 212 acres of the R-F, Foothills Residential
District, and 70 acres of the R-L-P, Low Density Planned Residential '
221
April 5, 1994
District. The property is presently undeveloped. The property is
currently zoned E-1, Estate, and FA-1, Farming, in the County. This is a
voluntary annexation of property located within the Fort Collins Urban
Growth Area.
APPLICANT: John M. Spillane, Esq.
Deutsch, Spillane & Reutzel, P.C.
7730 East Belleview Avenue
Suite 206
Englewood, CO 80111
OWNERS: Wallace R. Noel
900 Breakwater Drive
Fort Collins, CO 80525
Fort Collins -Loveland Water District
4700 South College Avenue
Fort Collins, CO 80525
19. Routine Easements.
A. Powerline Easement from Melvin L. and Dorothy J. Slagle, 2212 Purdue
Road, needed to underground new streetlight service. Monetary
consideration: $10.
B. Powerline Easement from Myrtle R. Anderson, 157 Yale, needed to
install new underground streetlight service. Monetary
consideration: $10.
Items on Second Reading were read by title by Deputy City Clerk Molly Davis.
14
Q
10.
11.
222
April 5, 1994
23. Items Relating to the Willow Springs Annexation and Zoning.
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 32, 1994, Annexing Property Known as
the Willow Springs Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 33, 1994, 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 to be
Included in the Willow Springs Annexation to the City of Fort
Collins, Colorado.
C. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 42, 1994, Annexing Property Known as
the Sherman -Lawler First Annexation.
D. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 43, 1994, Amending the Zoning
District Map Contained in Chapter 29 of the Code and Classifying for
Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the Sherman -Lawler First
Annexation, into the RP, Planned Residential Zoning District.
E. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 44, 1994, Annexing Property Known as
the Sherman -Lawler Second Annexation.
F. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 45, 1994, Amending the Zoning '
District Map Contained in Chapter 29 of the Code and Classifying for
Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the Sherman -Lawler Second
Annexation, into the RP, Planned Residential Zoning District.
G. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 46, 1994, Annexing Property Known as
the Sherman -Lawler Third Annexation.
H. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 47, 1994, Amending the Zoning
District Map Contained in Chapter 29 of the Code and Classifying for
Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the Sherman -Lawler Third
Annexation, into the RP, Planned Residential Zoning District.
25.
Items on First Reading were read by title by Deputy City Clerk Molly Davis.
12.
223
13.
14
26.
27.
' 28.
29.
April 5, 1994
Items Relating to the Spring Creek Farms 4th Annexation and Zoning.
A. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 52, 1994, Annexing
Approximately 199 Acres, Known as the Spring Creek Farms 4th
Annexation.
B. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 53, 1994, Zoning
Approximately 199 Acres, Known as the Spring Creek Farms 4th
Annexation, Into the E-P, Employment Park, District.
First Reading of Ordinance No. 58, 1994, Creating a Youth Advisory Board.
Councilmember McCluskey made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Smith, to adopt
and approve all items not removed from the Consent Calendar. Yeas:
Councilmembers Apt, Azari, Janett, Kneeland, McCluskey and Smith. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Reports
Councilmember Janett stated she recently attended an Economic Development
Committee meeting at Larimer County. She stated the committee will be commenting
on enterprise zones and reported state tax credits for enterprise zones could be
used by current businesses. She reported she also attended a meeting of the
Larimer Land Trust, a non-profit private organization working to preserve open
space and agriculture land in the front range.
224
April 5, 1994
,
Items Relating to the
Willow Springs Annexation and Zoning.
The following is staff's memorandum on this item.
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 32, 1994, Annexing Property Known as the
Willow Springs Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 33, 1994, 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 to be Included in the Willow
Springs Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado.
On March 15, Council unanimously adopted (4-0) Resolution 94-35 Setting Forth
Findings of Fact and Determinations Regarding the Willow Springs Annexation.
On March 15, Council also unanimously adopted (4-0) Ordinance No. 32, 1994 and
Ordinance No. 33, 1994, which annex and zone approximately 119 acres located
three-quarters of a mile south of Harmony Road on the west side of Timberline
Road. The annexation consists of one parcel of land under single ownership. The
property currently contains one farm house with pasture and is 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. This is a
voluntary annexation.
APPLICANT: Trustar, Inc.
c/o Jim Sell Design
117 East Mountain Avenue
Fort Collins, CO 80524
OWNER: Lyal Nelson Estate
c/o Rodney Nelson Sonja Rose
6312 East Harmony Road 5429 East County Road #58
Fort Collins, CO 80525 Fort Collins, CO 8052424 A-F"
Councilmember Janett withdrew from discussion on this item due to a perceived
conflict of interest.
Councilmember Kneeland made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Smith, to adopt
Ordinance No. 32, 1994 on Second Reading.
Councilmember McCloskey spoke of the need to look at the differences between the
annexation and PUD process. He stated he has received several calls regarding
traffic concerns and requested staff examine traffic concerns as well as impact
to the surrounding area. '
225
April 5, 1994
' The vote on Councilmember Kneeland's motion was as follows: Yeas:
Councilmembers Apt, Azari, Kneeland, McCluskey and Smith. Nays: None.
(Councilmember Janett withdrawn)
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Smith made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Apt, to adopt
Ordinance No. 33, 1994 on Second Reading.
Councilmember Apt spoke of the need to involve the neighborhood earlier in the
process.
The vote on Councilmember Smith's motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers
Apt, Azari, Kneeland, McCluskey and Smith. Nays: None. (Councilmember Janett
withdrawn)
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Items Relating to the Sherman -Lawler First,
Second and Third Annexations and Zonings.
The following is staff's memorandum on this item.
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 42, 1994, Annexing Property Known as the
Sherman -Lawler First Annexation.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 43, 1994, Amending the Zoning District Map
Contained in Chapter 29 of the Code and Classifying for Zoning Purposes
the Property Included in the Sherman -Lawler First Annexation, into the RP,
Planned Residential Zoning District.
On March 15, Council unanimously adopted Resolution 94-54 Setting Forth Findings
of Fact and Determinations Regarding the Sherman -Lawler First Annexation and
Zoning.
On March 15, Council also unanimously adopted Ordinance No. 42, 1994 and
Ordinance No. 43, 1994 on First Reading which annex and zone 0.7416 acres located
east of Terry Lake Road (Colorado State Highway No. 1) and North College Avenue
between Wi11ox Lane and Country Club Road. The requested zoning is the RP,
Planned Residential District (with a P.U.D. condition) and staff is recommending
that this property be placed in the Residential Neighborhood Sign District. The
property consists entirely of a portion of the existing Spaulding Lane road
1 226
April 5, 1994 '
right-of-way that has been dedicated to Larimer County. The property is
currently zoned FA, Farming in the County. This is a voluntary annexation.
APPLICANTS: City of Fort Collins
OWNERS: County of Larimer, State of Colorado
M E
C. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 44, 1994, Annexing Property Known as the
Sherman -Lawler Second Annexation.
D. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 45, 1994, Amending the Zoning District Map
Contained in Chapter 29 of the Code and Classifying for Zoning Purposes
the Property Included in the Sherman -Lawler Second Annexation, into the
RP, Planned Residential Zoning District.
On March 15, 1994 Council unanimously adopted Resolution 94-55 Setting Forth
Findings of Fact and Determinations Regarding the Sherman -Lawler Second
Annexation and Zoning.
On March 15, 1994 Council also unanimously adopted Ordinance No. 44, 1994 and
Ordinance 45, 1994, which annex and zone 12.4540 acres located east of Terry Lake '
Road (Colorado State Highway No. 1) and North College Avenue between Spaulding
Lane and Country Club Road. The requested zoning is the RP, Planned Residential
District (with a P.U.D. condition) and staff is recommending that this property
be placed in the Residential Neighborhood Sign District. The property is being
used as a large acreage residence. The property is currently zoned FA, Farming
in the County. This is a voluntary annexation.
APPLICANTS: Sandcreek Associates LLC
P.O. Box 9684
Fort Collins, CO 80525
OWNERS: Raymond E. and Frances Ray Ford
719 Breakwater Drive
Fort Collins, CO 80525
Robert H. and M. F. Pike
403 East Pitkin Street
Fort Collins, CO 80524
Judith F. Gunn
9609 North 26th Place
Phoenix, AR 85028
227 1
April 5, 1994
E. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 46, 1994, Annexing Property Known as the
Sherman -Lawler Third Annexation.
F. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 47, 1994, Amending the Zoning District Map
Contained in Chapter 29 of the Code and Classifying for Zoning Purposes
the Property Included in the Sherman -Lawler Third Annexation, into the RP,
Planned Residential Zoning District, with two conditions attached:
On March 15, Council unanimously adopted Resolution 94-56 Setting Forth Findings
of Fact and Determinations Regarding the Sherman -Lawler Third Annexation and
Zoning.
On March 15, Council also unanimously adopted Ordinance. No. 46, 1994 and
Ordinance No. 47, 1994 which annex and zone 8.2402 acres located east of Terry
Lake Road (Colorado State Highway No. 1) and North College Avenue between
Spaulding Lane and Country Club Road. The requested zoning is the RP, Planned
Residential District (with a P.U.D. condition) and staff is recommending that
this property be placed in the Residential Neighborhood Sign District. The
property is being used as a portion of a large acreage residence. The property
is currently zoned FA - Farming, R - Residential, and C - Commercial in the
County. This is a voluntary annexation.
APPLICANTS:
OWNERS
Sandcreek Associates LLC
P.O. Box 9684
Fort Collins, CO 80525
Raymond E. and Frances Ray Ford
719 Breakwater Drive
Fort Collins, CO 80525
Robert H. and M. F. Pike
403 East Pitkin Street
Fort Collins, CO 80524
Judith F. Gunn
9609 North 26th Place
Phoenix, AR 85028"
Councilmember Kneeland made a motion, seconded by Councilmember McCluskey, to
adopt Ordinance No. 42, 1994 on Second Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers Apt,
Azari, Janett, Kneeland, McCluskey and Smith. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
1
228
April 5, 1994
Councilmember McCluskey made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Smith, to adopt
Ordinance No. 43, 1994 on Second Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers Apt, Azari,
Janett, Kneeland, McCluskey and Smith. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Apt made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kneeland, to adopt
Ordinance No. 44, 1994 on Second Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers Apt, Azari,
Janett, Kneeland, McCluskey and Smith. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Smith made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kneeland, to adopt
Ordinance No. 45, 1994 on Second Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers Apt, Azari,
Janett, Kneeland, McCluskey and Smith. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Apt made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Smith, to adopt
Ordinance No. 46, 1994 on Second Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers Apt, Azari,
Janett, Kneeland, McCluskey and Smith. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED. '
Councilmember Apt made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kneeland, to adopt
Ordinance No. 47, 1994 on Second Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers Apt, Azari,
Janett, Kneeland, McCluskey and Smith. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Ordinance No. 41, 1994,
Repealing and Reenacting Division 1,
Article IV of Chapter 15 of the Code of
the City of Fort Collins Relating to
Solicitations and Repealing and Reenacting Section 17-42
of the Code Concerning Posting, Adopted Option C on Second Reading.
The following is staff's memorandum on this item.
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Pursuant to Council's request, in early 1993 City staff formed a Task Force to
review the City's Green River Ordinance (Section 15-106 of the Code) which
prohibits door-to-door solicitations. The Task Force developed a survey and sent
it to 1,000 City residents to determine their concerns about the ordinance. The
survey results showed 89% favored keeping the ban on door-to-door solicitations;
6% favored allowing solicitations for perishable goods; 2Y favored regulating but
not banning commercial solicitations and 2% favored repealing the Green River '
229
April 5, 1994
Ordinance. The survey also asked a question about whether the City should adopt
an ordinance banning "door hangers" if a "No Solicitation" sign were posted. The
results showed 66Y were in favor of such a ban, 34Y were opposed.
The Task Force drafted changes to the present Green River Ordinance and also
drafted a prohibition against "door hangers" when appropriate signs are posted.
The door hanger ordinance is included as part of the City's posting ordinance
(Code Section 17-42). Ordinance No. 41, 1994 was adopted 4-1 on First Reading
on March 15."
Councilmember McCluskey withdrew from discussion on this item due to a perceived
conflict of interest.
Councilmember Janett made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kneeland, to adopt
Ordinance No. 41, 1994 Option C on Second Reading.
Assistant City Attorney Marty Heffernan gave a brief description of options
available. He clarified for Council the term "otherwise".
Councilmember Apt stated he believed first amendment rights were well protected
and stated a no solicitation sign also applies to charitable, political and
religious organizations.
Heffernan clarified that Option C was not a suggestion by the task force but was
suggested by the Better Business Bureau and staff believed it was a good
suggestion.
Gail Hoffman, District Manager for Avon Products in Larimer County residing at
3318 Dunbar, urged Council to adopt Option C and spoke of the need for Avon
representatives to be able to leave brochures. She commented on the various
charitable efforts performed by Avon.
Melanie Hein, representing the Fort Collins Chamber of Commerce, encouraged
Council to adopt Option C. She spoke of the impact the ordinance would have on
businesses if another option were adopted.
Laura Cogg, 2833 McKeag Drive, opposed elimination of door to door solicitations
stating she believed "no solicitation" signs were sufficient.
Owner of Pop In's Maid Service, stated Option A was too restrictive and she was
pleased to see that Option C had been added.
Jodie Martin, owner of Merry Maids, supported Option C and spoke of impacts on
small business owners.
Linda Norton, 2537 Orchard Place, supported Option C and stated she was glad to
see the process works.
1 230
April 5, 1994 '
Jeff Jensen, Farm Bureau Insurance agent, urged Council to adopt Option C.
Susan Joclema, representing Western Welcome Greeting Service, located at 155
North College, stated Option A closes a lot of doors to businesses and supported
Option C.
Councilmember Kneeland spoke in support of Option C, stating Option C protects
the essence of the Green River Ordinance.
Councilmember Smith noted none of the options eliminate telephone solicitations
and stated some people feel telephone solicitation is an intrusion on their
privacy.
Councilmember Apt supported Option C and spoke of the number of comments he
received from citizens requesting the ordinance be more restrictive. He
emphasized Option C would not prevent charitable, political or religious
organizations from going door to door.
Councilmember Janett spoke of new regulations regarding telephone solicitation
by the Federal Communications Commission.
Councilmember Smith reported the Natural Resources Department had information
available to assist people with removing their names from mail and telephone I
solicitation lists.
The vote on Councilmember Janett's motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers
Apt, Azari, Janett, Kneeland and Smith. Nays: None. (Councilmember McCluskey
withdrawn)
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Ordinance No. 56, 1994,
Amending Chapter 14 of the Code
Pertaining to the Maintenance of Landmarks
and to the Demolition or Relocation of Historic
Buildings and Sites -Not Designated as Local Landmarks
The following is staff's memorandum on this item.
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Last December, City Council asked the Landmark Preservation Commission and City
staff to prepare an ordinance which would impose a waiting period for the
demolition of historic structures. The purpose of the recommended ordinance is
to give the Landmark Preservation Commission, neighborhood groups and general
citizens time to document the existence and historic significance of the property
231
April 5, 1994
and to explore the impact that will occur to the site and surrounding
neighborhood, as well as to explore the proposed new plan for development. The
demolition ordinance applies to structures over 50 years of age and which are
considered "historic" according to established criteria. The ordinance will
delay, not prevent the demolition of historic structures. The minimum
maintenance provision applies to only local landmark structures and is intended
to prevent owners from letting the building deteriorate to the point that the
building loses its historic integrity.
BACKGROUND:
Currently, Chapter 14, Landmark Preservation, provides that any demolition of any
local landmark structure be approved by the Landmark Preservation Commission.
Also, the Building Department informs the Planning Department of any requests for
demolition permits that are not local landmarks. This informal agreement has in
most cases allowed time for staff to photograph the building before it is
demolished.
Many communities have enacted demolition ordinances to delay or prevent
demolition of historic structures from occurring. A demolition delay ordinance
is a mechanism whereby demolition permits for certain buildings throughout the
community are delayed for a specified period of time. Generally, a demolition
' delay ordinance is triggered by an application for a demolition permit on an
historic property.
Traditionally, demolition ordinances delay the granting of a demolition permit
for a set period of time -- six months, for example, in order to allow
preservation solutions to be considered. This delay period gives the local
preservation commission, neighborhood groups, and general citizens time to
contact the owner who may not be aware of the property's significance or of the
potential benefits of preservation, and to develop alternative proposals or to
seek other outside assistance for preserving the structure including local
landmark designation. Since the ordinance does not prevent demolition, it does
not alter the property owner's right to use the property as he/she sees fit.
Generally, demolition delay ordinances specifies that certain categories of
"historic" properties be automatically included under its provisions. In most
cases, the local planning commission must review the permit application to
determine if the property is one they consider significant. Permits for
buildings found not to be significant can then go forward without delay.
In some communities, property owners who either have been denied a demolition
permit or do not wish to bother with the permit application process have avoided
restrictions on the demolition of historic buildings imposed by preservation
ordinances by refusing to maintain landmark buildings. As a consequence of this
refusal, these buildings are, in effect, demolished by neglect if they become a
health or safety hazard which must be condemned by local health or building
1 232
April 5, 1994 '
officials. A growing number of municipalities have tried to counter this
situation by adopting "minimum maintenance", "anti -neglect" or "affirmative
maintenance" provisions in their codes.
The issue of demolition of historic structures is not new. Since 1968, the City
Code has required the approval of the, Landmark Preservation Commission of
demolitions of locally designated historic landmarks. The adopted Eastside
Neighborhood Plan (1986) recommended that criteria be developed for issuing
demolition permits for historic structures. The Westside Neighborhood Plan
(1989) recommended improving the notification process for demolitions and
allowing time for the public to review requests and assist in finding ways to
preserve them. The adopted Historic Resources Preservation Program Plan (1993)
recommended a demolition delay ordinance, as well as minimum maintenance
requirements for locally designated landmarks.
Highlights of Recommended Ordinance
Some highlights of the proposed ordinance are as follows:
Section 14-57 - Minimum Maintenance Requirements. This provision prevents an
owner of a designated local landmark from letting the structural elements
(members which support the roof, floor or wa11s) of the building decay or
deteriorate from lack of maintenance to the point that the building facade loses '
its historic integrity.
Article IV - Demolition/Relocation Ordinance. This provision would delay the
granting of a permit for demolition or relocation of a building considered
historically important. The delay would be for a period not to exceed seven (7)
days if the structure was determined not to be "historic" or for an additional
60 days from the date of submittal of required information if the structure is
determined to be historic. During the 60-day delay period, a public hearing
would be held on the demolition/relocation permit. At the end of the delay
period, the permit would be granted, with or without conditions, by the Landmark
Preservation Commission.
This provision would apply to structures over the age of 50 years and structures
which meet the criteria for local landmark designation. This provision does not
apply to demolitions of unsafe or dangerous buildings or structures or any
portions thereof which lack any historic interest or do not contribute to the
historic integrity of the structure or surrounding neighborhood.
The recommended ordinance also:
a. Establishes fees to help defray the City's administrative costs for
reviewing applications for demolition under this provision.
233 1
April 5, 1994
b. Establishes minimum information
requirements that
an applicant
seeking demolition/relocation must
satisfy before
the Landmark
Preservation Commission will hold
its public hearing.
One of these.
requirements is an approved plan
for redevelopment
(allowing the
property to He vacant or fallow does
not constitute "redevelopment"
under the ordinance).
C. Establishes a notification process
for surrounding property owners;
and
d. Establishes a list of conditions that the Landmark Preservation
Commission may impose upon approval of a demolition or relocation
permit.
Public Participation Process:
On February 17, 1994, the Landmark Preservation Commission held a public
information meeting and hearing on the proposed amendments. Written notice of
this meeting was mailed to all owners of properties which have been locally
designated. Written notices were also sent to house moving/demolition
contractors, major historical groups, Chamber of Commerce, Board of Realtors,
Citizen Planners, Downtown Development Authority, and the neighborhood
associations in the core area neighborhoods. In addition, the letters were sent
to a list of architects, land planners, engineers, realtors and developers who
are very active in the Fort Collins area. A copy of the draft ordinance was made
available at the Public Library. On February 10, the Triangle Review included
a lengthy article on the ordinance.
There were approximately 15 persons in attendance at the February 17, 1994 (see
attached minutes). Overall, there was support for the ordinance. However, some
attendees expressed concern about the cost of the demolition delay process
including fees and the information requirements, notably the plan for
redevelopment. There was also concern. expressed about the impact of truck
traffic on the maintenance of historic structures located along Jefferson Street
in the Old Town Historic District. The Landmark Preservation Commission
considered and addressed these concerns in the final draft ordinance to the
extent possible (see minutes of March 8).
The Landmark Preservation Commission has met in work session on several occasions
to review and comment upon several different versions of the recommended
ordinance. On March 8, 1994, the Landmark Preservation Commission (4 - 1)
recommended that the City Council adopt the minimum maintenance requirements and
demolition ordinance as presented in the attached ordinance.
Staff Recommendation
While staff is supportive of the proposed ordinance, there is concern about the
' impact of the ordinance on the historic preservation program's workload. As
234
April 5, 1994
citizens and property owners have become more interested in the preservation of
historic buildings so has the demand grown for staff time and resources. It is
estimated that there will be 5 - 10 applications for demolition/relocation each
year. Although the number of applications is relatively small, it will have a
negative impact on staff's ability and/or timeliness to accomplish other work
program demands. The $50 and $200 review fees will help cover some but not all
of the additional staff time needed. While this issue should not prevent the
adoption of the ordinance, Council should be aware that the ordinance will have
a long term impact on the historic preservation work program and that staff may
be seeking additional staff resources in the future."
**Secretary's Note** City Attorney Steve Roy was absent and Assistant City
Attorney Paul Eckman was present for discussion of this item.
Jennifer Carpenter, Chair of the Landmark Preservation Commission, gave a brief
overview of this item and spoke of various building demolitions over the years.
She stated a longterm solution to truck traffic along Jefferson Street is vital
to the preservation of the historic buildings.
Councilmember Kneeland made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Smith, to adopt
Ordinance No. 56, 1994 on First Reading.
Councilmember Smith asked if the ordinance precludes any internal work on the '
buildings.
Assistant Planning Director Joe Frank clarified that the ordinance only addresses
the building exteriors, not the historic interiors.
Councilmember Janett asked if the neighborhood and interested citizens were
notified early in the process.
Frank outlined the timeframe for the process.
Councilmember Janett suggested notice be sent out earlier to allow more time for
review and input from the neighborhood.
Wayne Sundberg, 1108 Lynnwood, spoke in support of the motion. He spoke of the
need for adequate time to salvage any materials before demolition.
Councilmember Kneeland supported the motion and commended staff and the Landmark
Preservation Commission for its efforts.
Councilmember McCluskey concurred with Councilmember Kneeland's comments and
stated it is a good example of how the process works.
235
April 5, 1994
Councilmember Janett supported the motion and
spoke of possible rehabilitation
P
grants available for the businesses along Jefferson Street.
Mayor Azari thanked staff and the Landmark Preservation Commission for its work.
Assistant City Attorney Paul Eckman recommended if Council was interested in
notifying historical preservation groups then an amendment to paragraph 4 on page
4 which reads as follows: "known representatives of neighborhood groups and
organizations..." be amended to read: "known representatives of historic
preservation groups in the City and neighborhood groups and organizations...".
Councilmembers Kneeland and Smith accepted the amendment as a friendly amendment
to their previous motion.
The vote on Councilmember Kneeland's motion as amended was as follows: Yeas:
Councilmembers Apt, Azari, Janett, Kneeland, McCluskey and Smith. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Ordinance No. 58, 1994,
Creating a Youth Advisory Board Adopted as Amended
The following is staff's memorandum on this item.
' "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Liaison duties, expected to take a minimum of 6 staff hours per month, will be
absorbed using existing staff.
During the February 22 worksession Council discussed establishing a Youth
Advisory Board and indicated that staff should draft an ordinance creating such
a board. This ordinance is in response to that worksession.
Below is the suggested structure and duties of the Youth Advisory Board. Council
members may wish to modify these terms and/or board duties:
• The Board would consist of 9 members appointed by the City Council.
• Board members over the age of 21 would serve a term of four years.
• Board members under the age of 21 would serve a term of no less than 1
year and no more than 4 years. A member over the age of 21 at the time
such member's term expires shall be eligible to apply for I additional
term of 4 years.
1 236
April 5, 1994 I
The Board would have the following functions:
(1) To gather information from, and otherwise communicate with other groups,
organizations and agencies regarding youth -oriented issues and problems.
(2) To document and discuss issues of importance to youth in the Fort Collins
community, specifically as they affect City -operated services.
(3) To review and discuss legislation that may affect youth.
(4) To recommend to City Council local legislation and policy actions or
changes which would enhance the status of youth in the Fort Collins
community.
At the February worksession, Council members expressed a desire to work with the
Youth Leadership Committee. The Youth Leadership Committee is a volunteer
community group comprised of 10 to 12 local youths 14 to 19 years old, with
diverse socio-economic backgrounds. The proposed duties of the Youth Advisory
Board would allow the Board to communicate and coordinate with the Youth
Leadership Committee.
The Human Relations Commission, the Commission on the Status of Women (COSW), and
the Parks and Recreation Board have discussed establishing a Youth Advisory I
Board, and are supportive.
Once the ordinance has been adopted on second reading, recruitment will begin and
boardmembers will likely be appointed late June or early July.
BACKGROUND:
At the February 22 worksession, the problem was defined as follows: "The City has
no mechanism for receiving input from youth on City policies, services and
activities which affect youth." Two options for soliciting youth input were
discussed at the worksession: 1) establishing a Youth Advisory Board and 2)
working with the Youth Leadership Committee. Following the Policy Development
Model, the identified objectives were:
• To allow Council and staff to solicit input from a specified group of
citizens interested in youth issues.
• To develop a formal or defined mechanism for receiving input from youth on
a regular basis.
• To send a message to the community regarding the City's commitment to
addressing youth issues in Fort Collins."
Councilmember Horak arrived at this time.
237 '
April 5, 1994
Director of Cultural, Library and Recreational Services Mike Powers gave a brief
history of the item clarifying the proposed ordinance suggests creation of a
Youth Advisory Board.
Councilmember Kneeland made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Apt, to adopt
Ordinance No. 58, 1994 on First Reading and amending Section 2-437 under section
(a) second sentence adding the language to read as follows: "At least two (2)
such members shall also be members of the Youth Leadership Committee or such
other local volunteer youth group as may from time to time be designated by the
City Council by resolution."
Councilmember Smith requested the following language remain in Section 2-437 in
addition to the proposed amendment: "At lease seven (7) of the members of the
board including the chair and vice chair, shall be under the age of twenty-one
(21) years at the time of appointment." Councilmembers Kneeland and Apt accepted
the amendment as a friendly amendment to their previous motion.
Councilmember Kneeland spoke of the need to involve youth in the community in a
positive way.
Councilmember Smith spoke in support of creating a Youth Leadership Committee and
spoke of the importance of reaching out to youths from all walks of life.
Councilmember Janett spoke in support of the motion and stated she hoped the
committee would investigate skateboarding and a skateboarding facility.
Councilmember Horak disagreed with the language that potential members have to
have served on either the Youth Leadership Committee or another local youth
group.
Councilmember Smith spoke of his reasons for membership and term issues.
Councilmember Janett questioned if the language requiring involvement with the
Youth Leadership Team could be deleted.
Councilmember Horak offered an amendment to the previous motion, to delete the
following language: "At least two (2) such members shall also be members of the
Youth Leadership Committee or such other local volunteer youth group as may from
time to time be designated by the City Council by resolution". Councilmember
Janett seconded the motion.
Councilmember Apt believed it was important to acknowledge the importance of
other groups and spoke of the problem with duplicating efforts.
The vote on Councilmember Horak's motion to amend Ordinance No. 58, 1994 was as
follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Azari, Horak and Janett. Nays: Councilmembers
Apt, Kneeland, McCluskey and Smith.
1 238
April 5, 1994 '
THE MOTION FAILED.
Councilmember Horak made a motion to delete the following language: "At least
seven (7) of the members of the board, including the chair and vice chair, shall
be under the age of twenty-one (21) years at the time of appointment."
MOTION FAILED DUE TO LACK OF SECOND.
The vote on Councilmember Kneeland's motion to adopt Ordinance No. 58, 1994 as
amended was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Apt, Azari, Horak, Janett,
Kneeland, McCloskey and Smith. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Ordinance No. 59, 1994,
Amending Chapter 2, Article II, Division 3,
of the Code Pertaining to the Presentation
of Appeals to the City Council, Adopted Option B.
The following is staff's memorandum on this item.
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY '
This Ordinance would make certain changes to the Code provisions which prescribe
the procedure for appeals to the City Council from boards or commissions of the
City. Three options are being considered for Council's consideration. The
Options differ only with respect to the grounds upon which an appeal may be
filed. The Options are identical in all other respects.
Option A would leave the grounds for appeal intact but would clarify Council's
role in hearing appeals, depending upon the kinds of grounds that are alleged in
the notice of appeal. Option B would eliminate the "abuse of discretion" grounds
for appeal. Option C would eliminate the "failure to properly interpret and
apply" grounds for appeal.
BACKGROUND:
An increasing number of appeals are being filed with the City Council, primarily
dealing with decisions of the Planning and Zoning Board. During the course of
hearing those appeals, a number of procedural questions have arisen. The most
significant of these is the question of whether Council is free to substitute its
judgment for that of the Planning and Zoning Board in determining how the
provisions of the Land Development Guidance System ("LDGS") should be applied to
a particular development proposal. At present, the answer to this question about
Council's role and the scope of its review depends upon the kinds of grounds that
are asserted by the appellant. '
239
April 5, 1994
The Code presently provides in Section 2-48 that, in addition to alleging that
a board or commission failed to conduct a fair hearing, an appellant can assert
two kinds of "substantive" concerns. First, the appellant can allege that the
board or commission abused its discretion in that its decision was arbitrary and
without the support of competent evidence in the record. Under this kind of
allegation, Council's role is limited to determining whether there is any
competent evidence in the record to support the board's decision. (If so, under
this standard, the decision would be upheld and the appeal denied, at least as
to the abuse of discretion grounds.)
Secondly, an appellant can choose to allege that the board failed to properly
interpret and apply the relevant provisions of the Code or Charter. Under this
kind of allegation, Council may substitute its judgment for that of the board or
commission and decide how the Code or Charter provisions (usually the LDGS)
should be applied to the particular situation reviewed by the board or
commission. The fact that Council's role on appeal varies depending upon the
grounds contained in the notice of appeal has created considerable confusion
during recent appeals.
Option A of the proposed ordinance would address this concern by leaving all
grounds for appeal intact but adding language in Section 2-56 to clarify the
differences in Council's scope of review and role with regard to each of the
grounds for appeal. Option B would eliminate the "abuse of discretion" grounds
for appeal. This would mean that, apart from determining whether a fair hearing
' had been held (and whether the matter should be remanded to the board for a
rehearing), the only substantive grounds for appeal would be that the board or
commission failed to properly interpret and apply the relevant Code or Charter
provisions. This, in turn, would mean that Council would regularly substitute
its judgment for the board or commission and decide whether the relevant Code or
Charter provisions had been properly interpreted and applied..
Option C would do just the opposite of Option B by eliminating the "failure to
properly interpret and apply" grounds for appeal. This would mean that Council
would review the record on appeal only to see whether there was any competent
evidence to support the decision of the board or commission.
In summary, the three Options would have the following effect:
Option A
would leave alternative grounds for appeal in place and explain how
Council's role differs, depending upon the grounds for appeal chosen
by the appellant.
Option B
would eliminate the "abuse of discretion" grounds, so that Council
would regularly be called upon to substitute its judgment for that
' of the lower board or commission.
240
Option C
April 5, 1994
would eliminate the "failure to properly interpret and apply"
grounds, so that Council's role would be limited to determining
whether the decisions of its boards and commissions are supported by
some competent evidence in the record.
PROS AND CONS
OPTION A
OPTION B
OPTION C
M
Leaves both grounds
for appeal available
to appellants, while
clarifying Council's
role and , scope of
review as to each.
M
Would permit the
Council to substitute
its judgment for that
of the lower board or
commission (unless the
only allegation is
that the board or
commission denied the
appellant a fair
hearing).
M
Would likely reduce
the number of Council
appeals because the
abuse of discretion
standard is easily
satisfied and is
unlikely to result in
decisions of lower
boards or commission
being overturned.
CON
May still be confusing
and cause inconsistent
outcomes on appeal,
depending upon the
grounds for appeal
chosen by a particular
appellant.
CON
Could invite more
Council appeals, since
the Council might come
to be viewed as a
"super Planning and
Zoning Board." (Note,
however, that the
appeal hearing would
still be more limited
than the hearing
before the board or
commission, because it
would be an appeal on
the record and no new
evidence would be
permitted.)
CON
Would preclude Council
from substituting its
judgment for that of
other boards or
commissions.
241
April 5, 1994
OTHER CHANGES
In all other respects, the changes proposed by the three options are identical.
Those changes are as follows:
Section 2-51. Amended notice of appeal permitted.
This section has been amended to clarify that if an amended notice of appeal is
filed, the amendments need not be limited to those defects, if any, which have
been identified by the City Attorney in his or her review of the original notice
of appeal. This change is intended to address a procedural question that has
arisen on occasion.
Section 2-53. Record on appeal.
This change was recommended by Councilmember Horak. It would require a verbatim
transcript to be produced for every Council appeal, with the cost of the
transcript to be borne by the City. At present, a verbatim transcript of the
proceedings is part of the record on appeal only if a party - in- interest orders
such a transcript and is willing to bear the cost of preparing the transcript.
Section 2-55. Procedure at hearing.
At present, the Council is called upon at the beginning of each hearing to
determine whether the grounds for appeal conform to the requirements of the Code.
The purpose of including this provision in the Code was to eliminate frivolous
appeals that have no legal or factual basis. Another section of the Code
(Section 2-50) requires the City Attorney to review each notice of appeal for any
"obvious defects in form or substance." Because of this preliminary review by
the City Attorney, notices of appeal filed with the Council almost always contain
at least one ground for appeal which is sufficient to warrant hearing the appeal
on its merits. For that reason, this preliminary motion by the Council as to the
sufficiency of the grounds no longer seems to be necessary, and the proposed
amendment would eliminate this part of the procedure.
Section 2-56. New evidence; scope of review; alternative actions available
to the City Council; and date of final action.
In subparagraph (a) of this section, language has been added to clarify that
Council is to consider an appeal not only based upon the record on appeal and the
relevant provisions of the Code and Charter, but also the grounds for appeal
stated in the notice of appeal. In Option A of the proposed ordinance, a new
subparagraph (b) would be added. This subparagraph would differentiate between
CounciV s role in considering allegations of abuse of discretion as opposed to
allegations of a failure to properly interpret and apply the provisions of the
Code or Charter. If Option B or C were adopted by the Council, the wording of
this provision would be modified to reflect the appropriate scope of Council
review.
Finally, in the last subparagraph of this
section,
a change
is proposed so
that
'
Council would always remand a decision
back to
a board
or commission
for
rehearing if it found that the appellant
had been
denied a
fair hearing.
At
242
April 5, 1994
present, it is discretionary with the Council whether to remand a decision when
such a finding was made. This change is suggested by the City Attorney because,
in his opinion, it would be inappropriate to decide the merits of an appeal
(i.e., whether a decision should be upheld, overturned or modified) when the
appellant had been denied a fair hearing on those questions before the board or
commission. In other words, before the Council can make a determination on the
merits of a proposal, it must first ensure that all parties - in- interest have had
a fair hearing.
SUMMARY
The recommendations of the boards and commissions which would be affected by
these proposed changes are as follows:
Planning and Zoning Board
The Planning and Zoning Board met on February 28 and voted unanimously to
recommend to Council the adoption of Option A. The Board recommended that
Council consider adjusting the fee structure for appeals in the context of how
other development review fees have been increased.
Zoning Board of Appeals
The Zoning Board of Appeals met on January 13 and voted 4-1 to recommend to '
Council the adoption of Option C. The motion also included the recommendation
that Section 2-53 be left as is, thereby requiring any party - in- interest to
continue to pay for the cost of a verbatim transcript.
Building Review Board
The Building Review Board met on January 27 and voted unanimously to recommend
to the Council the adoption of Option A, with the exception of the City bearing
the cost of a verbatim transcript. The Board felt the appellant should cover
those costs.
Storm Drainage Board
The Storm Drainage Board met on January 13 and voted unanimously to recommend to
the Council the adoption of Option A. The Board did emphasize, in making its
decision, that it has had limited exposure to the City's appeals process and
feels the final decision of the Council for either of the Options depends on how
the Council views the function and authority of its boards and commissions.
Landmark Preservation Commission
The Landmark Preservation Commission met on February 2 and voted unanimously to
recommend to Council the adoption of Option A. The Board recommended Council
review the issue of fees for appeals. Concern was raised that the current $75
fee may not cover the costs of an appeal. The LPC was also concerned that the ,
fee not be set so high as to restrict an ordinary citizen from exercising his/her
right to appeal a decision of a board or commission to Council.
243
April 5, 1994
' In choosing between the Options, the Council should determine the role that it
wishes to perform in reviewing the decisions of its boards or commissions. If
Council wishes to vary its role depending upon the grounds chosen by the
appellant, it should adopt Option A. If Council wishes to make its own
determination on appeal about the merits of a particular decision, it should
adopt Option B. If Council wishes to limit its role to that of determining
whether the decision of the board or commission is supported by any competent
evidence in the record, then it should adopt Option C."
City Attorney Steve Roy outlined the appeal process and proposed options. He
stated the purpose of the amendment is to eliminate the confusion regarding the
types of reviews. He clarified only two boards recommended the costs continue
to be paid by the appellant.
Councilmember Janett stated it was important that the language in the ordinance
be written in terms understandable by the general public.
City Attorney Steve Roy stated there was a brochure on appeals available in the
City Clerk's office.
Councilmember Apt spoke of the difficulty in determining if the board abused it
discretion.
City Attorney Steve Roy clarified all options contained the opportunity for the
appellant to claim they were denied a fair hearing.
Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Apt, to adopt
Ordinance No. 59, 1994 Option B on First Reading.
Councilmember Horak spoke of his reasons for supporting the motion and the need
for rules and procedures that make sense to citizens.
Councilmember Apt spoke in support of the motion.
Councilmember McCluskey opposed Option B stating it would circumvent current
boards. He stated he supported Option A.
Councilmember Kneeland opposed Option B and spoke in support of Option A. She
stated Option B could result in the evolution of two (2) Planning and Zoning
Boards.
City Attorney Steve Roy briefly outlined Option B and explained circumstances in
which new evidence could be presented.
The vote on Councilmember Horak's motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers
Apt, Azari, Horak, Janett and Smith. Nays: Councilmembers Kneeland and
McCluskey.
I
THE MOTION CARRIED.
244
April 5, 1994
OTHER BUSINESS
Councilmember Smith spoke of concerns raised during Congress of Neighborhoods and
of the need to help neighborhoods with self policing. He suggested equipment
such as traffic cameras be made available to citizens and spoke of the need to
examine design alternatives to mitigate traffic issues. He stated there needs
to be additional street signs requiring vehicles to yield to pedestrian traffic.
He requested a two page memo concerning these issues.
Councilmember Apt requested a two page memo summarizing the visibility data
gathered from the visibility monitors so the information could be made available
to the public.
Councilmember Janett made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Horak, to grant a
2 week delay on the Shields Street project, tree cutting, allowing staff
additional time to examine alternatives in sidewalk locations or widths in
consultation with RELEAF.
Councilmember Apt offered a friendly amendment to the motion, that staff also
examine bike lanes, turn lanes, school crossing zones and intersection width
issues.
Councilmember Janett and Councilmember Horak as makers of the original motion
accepted the amendment as a friendly amendment to their previous motion with the '
exception of the bike lane information.
Councilmember Apt clarified he wanted information on all turn lanes in the
project.
Director of Engineering Gary Diede spoke of the impact of the delay. He stated
new plans would have to be drawn up if design changes are made, which would delay
the bid opening date.
Civil Engineer Mark Sears spoke of CSU's flexibility stating the change would
save more trees. He clarified an earlier option was to remove the bikelanes from
the streets, stating that option was not pursued due to its impact on the
eastside of the street.
Ward Luthi, 1630 West Swallow, urged Council to consider examining the bikeways
if the project is delayed. He stated he met with Mr. Bomotti of CSU and reported
CSU is interested in working cooperatively with the City to develop an integrated
bike plan. He suggested the bike paths be taken off the streets and put in the
parking lots.
David Roy, 1039 West Mountain, spoke of the need to address safety concerns and
spoke of the cost of putting in turning lanes. He suggested sidewalk widths be
studied and consider eliminating the turn lanes.
Councilmember Kneeland opposed the motion and spoke of the ballot language I
adopted by the voters.
245
April 5, 1994
Councilmember Smith stated the City does not have an efficient bicycle transit
system and spoke of the need for extra time to examine different sidewalk designs
and/or elements. He requested the motion on the floor be read.
Deputy City Clerk Molly Davis read the motion on the floor as follows: "a two
(2) week delay with the intent of looking at the sidewalk locations in
consultation with RELEAF. Friendly amendment to include looking at all turn
lanes and gathering information on traffic hazards situation in turn lanes and
school zone, not to include bike lanes."
Councilmember McCluskey stated the main objective was safety.
Councilmember Horak supported a two (2) week delay. He acknowledged that the
project was adopted by the voters but stated it was important to examine the
advantages and disadvantages of the turn lanes.
Councilmember Janett stated she was interested in hearing how the turn lanes
would affect pedestrian and bicycle travel.
Mayor Azari opposed the motion stating she did not believe a two week delay would
make a significant difference.
The vote on Councilmember Janett's motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers
' Apt, Horak, Janett and McCluskey. Nays: Councilmembers Azari, Kneeland and
Smith.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Horak requested a 2 page memo regarding land -use planning.
Councilmember Smith spoke of an upcoming District outreach meeting he and
Councilmember McCluskey would be holding to discuss Shields Street, the new Fort
Collins High School effects, and crime in the neighborhoods.
Councilmember Kneeland stated residents in the neighborhood of Spring Creek will
be meeting to discuss what type of trees will be planted to replace the Russian
Olives recently removed.
Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 10:35 p.m.
11-�.*V U1
' City Clerk
246