Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES-03/05/1996-RegularMarch 5,1996 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO Council -Manager Form of Government Regular Meeting - 7:50 p.m. A regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins was held on Tuesday, March 5, 1996, at 7:50 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll Call was answered by the following Councilmembers: Apt, Azari, Janett, Kneeland, McCluskey, Smith and Wanner. Councilmember Absent: None. Staff Members Present: Fischbach, Roy, Krajicek. Citizen Participation Michael Schultz, local attorney, stated he believed Council's earlier decision on Registry Ridge was an incredible breach of the faith the public has in Council's ability to make sensible land use decisions for the present and for the future. He stated the public is tired of mindless senseless sprawl, environmental degradation, and the destruction of the land. He encouraged Council to listen to the citizens of the City and County and determine their wants. He suggested ' citizens will use the initiative and referendum process and the litigation process to get their needs met. Denise Prizeler, 412 Diamond Dr., spoke of Council's fear of threatened lawsuits and expressed frustration with the planning process and with the corridor plan. Gerry Horak, 1511 Lakeside Ave., opposed advertisements on Transfort busses. He spoke of the City's sign code and stated there are other ways to raise money. LeAnn Thieman, 6600 Thompson Dr., stated the appeal process has left the neighbors of the proposed Registry Ridge development very confused. She asked why staff and Council enforce the rules that work for the developer who is from out of town instead of the citizens living here. She spoke of contiguity and infill concerns and asked who from the City represents the rights of the citizens of the community. Dean Miller, 1300 La Eda Lane, questioned whether Registry Ridge will maintain and enhance the quality of life for the neighbors. 135 March 5, 1996 Citizen Participation Follow-up Councilmember Apt asked that the P&Z requirement that the Registry Ridge project build a bike path be continued as a requirement. He expressed concerns about planning and asked for information on how advertisements are placed on Transfort busses and how much revenue is generated by the ads. Councilmember McCluskey responded to Mr. Schultz' comments on listening to citizens. He stated hundreds of citizens have participated in the City's comprehensive plan review and this is an example of the City's outreach. If people believe they haven't been involved there are still opportunities to provide input. Councilmember Kneeland spoke of the decisions Council is asked to make and stated they are not arbitrary and are oft times grueling kinds of decisions. She asked for information on whether advertisements on Transfort busses is in conflict with the City's sign code. Councilmember Janett encouraged involvement in the City Plan review and update process. Agenda Review City Manager Fischbach stated there was a new Agenda Item Summary and Resolution for Item No. 27, Resolution 96-38 Opposing SB 96-200 Concerning CDOT Land/Road Disposal Process ' Changes. He asked that the agenda be reordered so that consideration of Item Nos. 34 and 35 followed Item No. 32, Second Reading of Ordinance No. 29, 1996, Establishing a Manufacturing Use Tax Rebate Program for Eligible Manufacturing Firms, and added two options were included for Item No. 32. ***CONSENT CALENDAR*** This Calendar is intended to allow the City Council to spend its time and energy on the important items on a lengthy agenda. Staff recommends approval of the Consent Calendar. Anyone may request an item on this calendar to be "pulled" off the Consent Calendar and considered separately. Agenda items pulled from the Consent Calendar by the Public will be considered separately under Agenda Item #29, Public Pulled Consent Items. Monica Sweere, 4326 Seneca, asked that Item No. 22, Resolution 96-33 Recommending Denial of a Waiver of the UGA Public Street Capacity Phasing Criteria Requirement for the Aurora Hills Subdivision, be withdrawn from the Consent Calendar. 136 1 March 5, 1996 7. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 20. 1996. Adopting Updated Rules and Regulations Governing Grandview and Roselawn Cemeteries, The City's Cemetery Rules and Regulations have proven to be effective and comprehensive in governing cemetery operations. This update primarily involves "housekeeping" changes except for the new sections regulating the mausoleum and columbarium. Ordinance No. 20, 1996, was unanimously adopted on First Reading on February 20, 1996 and approves the changes needed to the original Rules and Regulations in accordance with Section 23-156(b) of the City Code. Second8. :. ! of Ordinance No- 21, 1.96 Appropriating•u th -LI--r Fund for the"Four• Ue 1- 1! . 11.• .u1- omplex" at Grandview Cemetely. Sales of niches in the new, not yet completed, columbariums at Grandview Cemetery have far exceeded projections and there is an immediate need of more niches. At the time initial projections of demand were made, no area data was available. As a result, that projection (that eight crypts and nine niches would be sold in the first year) was well below what actual experience has shown. In just four months, eight crypts and 43 niches have been sold. These sales represent over one-third of the total number of the niches presently being constructed, 96, and have generated revenue of over $57,000. Ordinance No. 21, 1996, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on February 20, 1996, provides funding for 96 more niches which will be added to the east end of the mausoleum. 5. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 22, 1996, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in th Transportation Administration Services Fund and General Fund Reserves to be used for Transportation rogramming. On March 6, 1995, an organizational model for Transportation Services was implemented whereby the Service Area was divided into two working groups and an administrative unit. Transportation Administration was created to provide overall direction, planning, organization, coordination, supervision, and leadership of the newly created Service Area. Staff has been working to identify needs within the Transportation Administration function, and identify funding sources to support those needs. $48,000 is available in the Transportation Reserve for the funding of Transportation Administration in 1996. In 1995, $19,000 was budgeted but not spent by Transportation Administration. This amount is still available because support in the form of office furniture, computers, telephone charges, and other basic needs was provided by the Streets Department in 1995. In addition, staff minimized conference and training expenditures and did not have to pay consulting fees in 1995 as originally budgeted. Ordinance No. 22, 1996, was unanimously adopted on First Reading on February 20, 1996. 137 March 5, 1996 10. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 23, 1996- Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in th General Fund for the Regional Conference "At Risk Victims of Crime: Broadening Our Horizons". Ordinance No. 23, 1996, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on February 20, 1996, appropriates unanticipated grant and conference fee receipts in the total amount of $22,250 for the regional conference: "At Risk Victims of Crime: Broadening Our Horizons" to take place June 27 and 28, 1996. The conference is a comprehensive effort to offer information and skills development to law enforcement officers, health care professionals and social service personnel, working with the elderly, children, persons with disabilities, hate crime victims and other special populations. A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 24, 1996, Establishing the Landmark Rehabilitation Grant Program as an Ongoing Project of the City of Fort Collins. B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 25, 1996, Appropriating Prior Year Reserve Funds in the General Fund for the 1996 Rehabilitation Grant Program. Ordinance No. 24, 1996, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on February 20, 1996, establishes the Landmark Rehabilitation Grant Program as an ongoing project of the I City of Fort Collins. Ordinance No. 25, 1996, which was also unanimously adopted on First Reading on February 20, 1996, sets up new application deadlines of December 15 of each year, with the notification of grant awards on or before the first day of March. Since 1987 coordination of emergency management planning for the City has been handled by Police Services. A full time Emergency Management Coordinator was hired in June of 1989 and was responsible for developing, implementing and maintaining an emergency preparedness program for the City. The individual who was performing the function of Emergency Management Coordinator has assumed other duties with the City and there is currently no one filling the position. Because of its role as a primary responder to a wide variety of emergencies, it is recommended the responsibilities of emergency management be transferred to the Poudre Fire Authority (PFA). The PFA has a high level of training and expertise in dealing with large scale 138 1 March 5, 1996 ' emergencies. Ordinance No. 26, 1996, was unanimously adopted on First Reading on February 20, 1996. Ordinance No. 27, 1996, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on February 20, 1996, amends the Code to include the Standards and Guidelines for the North College Avenue Corridor to the list of standards referenced in Section 29-525. �t1waTzaWtvil A 60 foot right-of-way that runs into Regency Drive in The Ridge P.U.D. was previously dedicated for potential vehicular access, which is no longer desired. However, a 12 foot strip is needed for the desired pedestrian access. Ordinance No. 28, 1996, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on February 20, 1996, vacates the remaining 48 feet to be used as common open space and managed by The Ridge Homeowners Association. No other City departments or area utilities identified a need for the vacated portion. 15. First Readin2 of Ordinance No. 30. 1996 Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the Conservation Trust Fund and Authorizing the Transfer of Existing Appropriations for the Poudre River Implementation Plan PEqiect, In 1995, the City was awarded a $45,000 grant from Great Outdoors Colorado to develop a plan and strategy for gravel mine reclamation, water augmentation and land acquisition along the Poudre River from Overland Trail Road to Interstate 25. The study area will include about 3,200 land acres of gravel resources. The two major objectives of this study will be to develop: 1) Specific plans for gravel mine reclamation, water augmentation and land preservation in the Poudre River Corridor. 2) A strategy to acquire sites which the Plan identifies as having significant public value. This Project is part of Council's Policy Agenda (95-97). Approval of this Ordinance will allow staff to proceed with this Project. This Project is part of Council's Policy Agenda (95- 97) relating to the Poudre River Land Use Framework. This Project will help us clear up and improve the River and better integrate the River into the fabric of the City. ' 16. Items Relating to Library Services. 139 March 5, 1996 A. Resolution 96-27 Authorizing the Mayor to Enter into an Intergovernmental ' Agreement with Latimer County for the Purpose of Providing Library Services to Residents of Latimer County. B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 31, 1996 Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the General Fund for the Library Outreach Program. Latimer County provides funds to each of the six library service providers in the County. The payment of $113,957 is Fort Collins' part of the total contribution to provide library services to County residents. This Resolution authorizes the Mayor to enter into an agreement for the City's Library outreach services to the homebound and economically disadvantaged and service the remote bookdrops throughout the community. The Ordinance appropriates $28,489 for these purposes. The remaining $85,468 in General Services revenue is a ten percent increase over the projected amount in the 1996 budget. 17. Resolution 96-28 Authorizing the Purchase of Forty Acres of Land for Natural Area Purposes, Resolution 96-28 authorizes the purchase of approximately 40 acres of land for public natural area purposes. If acquired by the City, the site would be known as Redtail Grove Natural Area. The land is located in south Fort Collins, just west of Highway 287 along the Fossil Creek drainage. The parcel was identified as a high priority acquisition site in the Natural ' Areas Policy Plan and is also identified as part of an open space and trail corridor in the Parks and Recreation Master Plan. Acquisition would further the adopted goals of both of these plans. Resolution 96-28 also directs staff to further investigate the potential to resell or exchange up to three acres of land at the northeast corner of the property and report back to Council on the pros and cons of this alternative within 180 days. r �1/ ' .! • 11 .1IMP091MR1111. �� 1._ e1. ..r �- - 1111-1 In May of 1994, the City of Fort Collins received designation as a Participating Jurisdiction in the Housing and Urban Development (HUD) HOME Program. The intent of the HOME Program is to expand the supply of decent, safe, sanitary, affordable housing in the community, to strengthen the ability of local government to provide housing and to expand the capacity of nonprofit community -based housing development organizations to provide affordable housing. Funding requests for the Fort Collins HOME program are received on an ongoing basis and reviewed by the CDBG Commission which then provides a recommendation for funding to Council. The City of Fort Collins has received one request for a grant from The Resource Assistance Center (TRAC) to build twelve townhome units 140 1 March 5, 1996 which are targeted for purchase by residents of Pioneer Mobile Home Park. The townhomes will be located on SID Property purchased from the City at the comer of Troutman and JFK Parkway. The CDBG Commission has recommended that TRAC receive regular HOME construction funds and funds reserved for Community Housing Development Organizations from the FY95 allocation for a total of $115,000. This grant would allocate all remaining project funds from the FY95 HOME allocation. These funds are in addition to the $35,000 of CDBG funds recently allocated for mobile home assistance. Stephen J. Roy was appointed City Attorney for the City of Fort Collins on June 7, 1988. On December 17, 1991, the City entered into a revised employment agreement with the City Attorney. The employment agreement specified (in Section 2) that the term of the agreement would continue until March 31, 1994 with a possible automatic extension for an additional two (2) years. An addendum to the employment agreement was executed on January 19, 1995. The term of the current contract expires March 31, 1996. 1 Resolution •.-31 Authorizing the Purchase of • •n Street Sweeper for1 Exception to the Competitive The Johnston Model 2V3000 JDSP Mechanical Street Sweeper is the same type sweeper which was purchased as an exception to the competitive bid process in 1989 as an AMC Vanguard 3000. Johnston Company purchased the sweeper division of AMC and manufactures this unit, which is sold through Macdonald Equipment Company, the Colorado distributor of Johnston products. The previous sweeper was a 1990 model which cost $75,545. Macdonald Equipment has offered a new Johnston 2V 3000 JDSP Mechanical Street Sweeper to the City for $76,152, an increase of less than 1 % over the new unit purchased in 1989. No other manufacturer produces a unit with all the same features and Macdonald Equipment is the only distributor of the sweeper in this area. 21. Resolution 96-32 Establishing Rental Rates to be Charged for the City's SuIplus Water fo the 1996 This Resolution would approve rates for the rental of the City's surplus raw water. Each year prior to the irrigation season, the Water Board makes a recommendation to the Council on the rental rates to be charged for the City's surplus water. The surplus water rental program was discussed at the February 16, 1996 meeting of the Water Board. The proposed rental rates are based on several factors including past rental rates, assessment rates and anticipated ' supply and demand conditions. 141 March 5, 1996 22. • •1 Recommending Denial of a Waiver of the UGA Public Street Capacity Phasing Crilfda Requirement for the Aurora Hills Subdivision. I This is a waiver request by the developer of the Aurora Hills Subdivision to exempt the project from the street improvement requirements of the Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA). The waiver request pertains to the proposed Aurora Hills Subdivision, consisting of 32 dwelling units on 7.5 acres, located west of College Avenue, east of Constellation Drive, south of Skyway Drive, and north of Trilby Road in unincorporated Larimer County (see attached map). The request for the waiver from the public street capacity phasing criteria requirement is not justified under the terms of the Intergovernmental Agreement with Larimer County for the Fort Collins Urban Growth Area. 23. Resolution 96-34 Authorizing a Waiver of the UGA Public Sewer Capacity Phasing Criteria . Requirement for the Proposed AutQ Qutlet of Fort Collins Rezoning. The waiver request pertains to the proposed Auto Outlet of Fort Collins Rezoning. Formerly, the property was used for the sales of used cars, followed by a produce stand on the south side of the lot. The site is located on the west side of North College Avenue (US 287), at the intersection of State Highway 1 and College Avenue, and the address is 1945 North College Avenue. It is proposed to rezone the property from a conditional C-Commercial zoning for the produce sales facility to a conditional C-Commercial zoning for an used automobile sales facility. The property is currently unused/vacant with an existing wood frame structure. ' The site is located within the service area of the City of Fort Collins Water and Wastewater Utility Department. City water lines extend onto the site and would be utilized by the proposed development. The nearest available sewer service hook-up location is approximately 400-500 feet to the south-southwest of the site's southwest comer. Thus, it would be economically unfeasible for the applicant to tie into this system at the present time. There is an existing on -site septic system which has been studied and found to be in safe and usable condition. The applicant understands, and has no objection to, the need to sign an annexation agreement by which the applicant agrees to tie into the City sewer system when it becomes feasible. The request for a waiver from the Public Sewer Capacity Phasing Criteria Requirement is justified under the terms of the Intergovernmental Agreement with Larimer County for the Fort Collins Urban Growth Area. ' 1 ' 1 • . 1 . • • 11 O • 1. � • { ' 1 • ' • • 142 1 March 5, 1996 ' There are two telecommunications related bills that are currently under consideration by the Colorado General Assembly. They are SB 10 and SB 187. Both of these bills will adversely affect the City of Fort Collins if they are passed into law. The State Senate recently passed SB 10. It is now under consideration by the State House. SB 10, as it currently stands, would not allow the City full cost recovery related to the use of public rights -of -way by telecommunication companies providing telephone services. When telecommunication companies occupy City streets, their activity results in various costs to the City such as degradation of the street surface. Under SB 10, the City could not recover a fair share of these costs from telecommunication companies. Furthermore, this bill would not allow the City to collect reasonable compensation for the benefit provided to a telecommunication company through its occupancy of public property for the purpose of private commerce. SB 10 will result in the public subsidizing private telecommunication providers. SB 187 was recently introduced in the State Senate. As with SB 10, SB 187 proposes to narrowly limit the costs that the City can recover from telecommunication providers using the public rights -of -way. In addition, SB 187 applies to all telecommunication services, while SB 10 applies only to telephony services. Again, to the extent that the City cannot obtain full cost recovery from telecommunication companies, the local taxpayers will be ' subsidizing these companies' use of the public rights -of -way. Both bills would result in the City not only losing significant revenues from telecommunication companies, but the City will also lose the opportunity to negotiate with telecommunication companies for in -kind services that would benefit the community. 25. Resolution '. . Appointing a Representativeto the Larimer• Open Lands Advisou Board, In the November 1995 election, the voters of Latimer County approved the "Help Preserve Open Spaces" initiative for a county -wide 1/4-cent sales and use tax specifically earmarked for open space, natural areas, wildlife habitat, regional parks and trails. The initiative requires the Larimer County Board of Commissioners to create an Open Lands Advisory Board to make recommendations regarding the County's share of the sales and use tax. The initiative stipulates that the Advisory Board "at a minimum shall consist of one (1) elected official or appointee from the municipalities of Berthoud, Estes Park, Fort Collins, and Loveland; one (1) member from the Larimer County Planning Commission; and four (4) citizens appointed at large". The Commissioners are currently forming the Advisory Board and have requested that the Council appoint the City's representative by March 7, 1996. Resolution 96-36 appoints Tom Shoemaker, Natural Resources Director, as the representative of the City of Fort Collins to the Larimer County Open Lands Advisory Board. 143 March 5, 1996 F_ 6. Resolution 96-37 Supporting Amendments to SB 96-197 Concerning the FY 1996-97 Appropriation from the State General Fund Reserves . ..i, .i The Colorado General Assembly adopted BB 95-1174 into law last year which appropriated $75 million for state highway improvements in FY 1995-96. SB 96-197 would appropriate $115 million to the Colorado Department of Transportation in FY 1996-97 for capital projects, again only for state highways. SB 96-197 also does not include the 60% state-22% counties-18% municipalities shareback formula as established by Section 43-4-205(6) of the Colorado Statutes for the allocation of Highway Users Tax Funds, and does not include the provision that these funds be flexible in order to be used for regional transportation priorities including multi -modal transportation needs. This Resolution supports the approval of SB 96-197 regarding the FY 1996-97 appropriation from the State general fund reserves for transportation improvements in the amount of $115 million, if the bill is amended to include the following provisions: 1. SB 96-197 funds be flexible in order to be used for regional transportation priorities including multi -modal transportation needs as approved in the Statewide Transportation Plan as adopted by the Colorado Transportation Commission. 2. SB 96-197 funds be allocated on the 60% state, 22% counties, 18% municipalities shareback formula. ' 27. Resolution 96-38 Opposing SB 96-200 Concerning Colorado Department of Transportation Land/Road Disposal Process Changes. Current state law provides local governments with the first right of refusal for purchasing excess right-of-way/property owned by the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). This first right of refusal is currently provided contingent upon the local government making a written declaration that the property will be used for certain specific public uses such as "scenic beauty", "rest areas", or "greenbelts". Current state law also provides that the cost of such sale to local governments will be no more than what CDOT paid for it. SB 96-200 would repeal these provisions which give preferential status to local governments for purchasing excess CDOT right-of-way/property for specified continued public uses. SB 96-200 would also create the situation where local governments would: 1. Have to pay fair market or more for such excess property. 2. Have to bid against other potential buyers which has the potential to increase the cost even more. 144 1 u March 5, 1996 WINEFITUMl - A. Deed of Easement from Landvest, a Colorado Corporation, for the purpose of temporary vehicle turnaround located on Lot 10, Hampshire Ponds PUD First Replat, at the corner of Marshwood Drive and Featherstar Way. B. Deed of Easement from Bret Larimer Ltd. for the purpose of temporary pedestrian access located at the southwest corner of Drake Road and Taft Hill Road. C. Deed of Easement from Robert and Wendy Shields for the purpose of permanent right-of-way located east of County Road 9 between Harmony Road and Horsetooth Road. D. Deed of Easement from Jensen Enterprises Inc., for the purpose of permanent utilities located south of Trilby Road between College Avenue and Shields Street. E. Power line Easement from Jimmy G. Norris, 610 South Loomis, needed to underground existing overhead electric services. Items on Second Reading were read by title by City Clerk Wanda Krajicek. 7. • . Reading of Ordinance N• 1 •'• AdoptingUpdated Rules .l1 Regulations Governing Grandview and Roselawn Cemeteries, 11. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 21. 1996. Appropriating Prior Year Reserves'01 ravie Cemetea Fund for the "Four Seasons Mausoleum/Columbarium/Feature Complex" at 5. Grandview Second Reading Cemetery, of Ordinance No. 22, 1996. Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the Transportation Services Fund andGeneral Fund Reserves t• 1' used for Transl2ortation 1 Administration •1! Reading Programming, of Ordinance No. '•1 Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue 1 thGeneral Fund for the Regional Con rerence "At Risk Victims of Crime: Broadening Ou • •1 MINENT10,070M l 1 1 1 • . 1 • 1 A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 24, 1996, Establishing the Landmark Rehabilitation Grant Program as an Ongoing Project of the City of Fort Collins. 145 March 5, 1996 B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 25, 1996, Appropriating Prior Year Reserve Funds I in the General Fund for the 1996 Rehabilitation Grant Program. 14. d Readiniz of Ordinance No. 28. 1996, Vacatir)gYgtia--m�,0-'StreetRieht-of-Waxi-n-t—he Ridge P.U.D. Program 1 • Manufacturing Firms. Items on First Reading were read by title by City Clerk Wanda Krajicek. 15. First Reading of Ordinance No. 30. 1996 Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the 'Conservation Trust• and Authorizing 1 " Transfer of Existing Appropriations f/ 1 Poudre River Implementation Plan PrQiect, 16. First Readin2 of Ordinance No. 31, 1996 Unanticipated Revenue in the General 1 • • . • 1 ' • • . L1Appropriating 33. First Reading of Ordinance No 3 1996 Amending Chanter 5 of the City Code to Allow Council to Consider Approval of Rebate Requests from Projects Located Outside the City. Limits, Councilmember Wanner made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Smith, to adopt and approve all items on the Consent Calendar, except Item No. 22. The vote was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Apt, Azari, Janett, Kneeland, McCluskey, Smith and Wanner. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Resolution 96-33 Recommending Denial of a Waiver of the UGA Public Street Capacity Phasing Criteria Requirement for the Aurora Hills Subdivision, Adopted as Amended. The following is staff's memorandum on this item. 146 1 March 5, 1996 I"Financiallmpact The financial impact of waiving the requirement to construct or fully improve off -site streets to the standards indicated on the City's Master Street Plan would typically be mitigated by charging a fee of $700 per residential dwelling unit, which would be collected by Larimer County at the time of building permit issuance. With the 32 units proposed, this fee would generate a total of $22,400. While this sum would defer a portion of the costs associated with the ultimate street improvements, it may not cover the entire need. Should additional funds be necessary to fully improve the off -site streets, an unplanned public expense would be incurred. l Ji IA• This is a waiver request by the developer of the Aurora Hills Subdivision to exempt the project from the street improvement requirements of the Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA). The waiver request pertains to the proposed Aurora Hills Subdivision, consisting of 32 dwelling units on 7.5 acres, located west of College Avenue, east of Constellation Drive, south of Skyway Drive, and north of Trilby Road in unincorporated Lorimer County (see attached map). The request for the waiver from the public street capacity phasing criteria requirement is not justified under the terms of the Intergovernmental Agreement with Larimer County for the Fort Collins Urban Growth Area. Specifically, the request does not meet the following intentions and requirements of the IGA: ' Section 2.4: "To achieve, in developments not eligible for immediate annexation, design standards which conform to the Lorimer County urban street and site design criteria and standards so that the area may eventually be annexed as they become eligible without extensive capital improvements or costs to the citizens of Larimer County. " • Section 5.4, C, 5 (Minimum waiver conditions for adjacent and off -site public streets): "Where the conditions of the off -site streets, street drainage, sidewalks and/or bike lanes are found to be deficient, improvements shall be required to construct the streets, sidewalks, or bike lanes to a level capable of handling projected traffic volumes with a pavement structure equal to that required by the Larimer County urban street criteria standards. " • Appendix B, Street Capacity: "Access to an improved arterial is defined as streets that have adequate width and pavement thickness to handle the projected traffic for a length of twenty years with minor maintenance. " • Appendix D, Waiver Process: "The waiver process is ... not designed to allow development without the eventual provision of all urban services and facilities. " BACKGROUND: According to the UGA Agreement, development proposals in the UGA which, at the time of development, are not eligible for annexation into the City are required to address a series of phasing ' criteria, including the provision of public water and sewer utilities, construction of on -site, adjacent, 147 March 5, 1996 and off -site streets, and contiguity to existing development. Given the level of existing development ' in some portions of the UGA, it was recognized that new development proposals in these areas would likely not be able to satisfy one or more of the phasing criteria. A major goal of many of the policies of the UGA Agreement is to encourage "infill " projects where public services and facilities exist versus development proposals in essentially undeveloped portions of the UGA requiring the extension of services andfacilities. In effect, while it was highly desirable to encourage development of these infill sites, the strict enforcement of the phasing criteria essentially precluded their development. Therefore, a process was established (pursuant to 5.4(a)(3-7) of the IGA) whereby one or more of the phasing criteria could be waived, provided that the waiver would 1) not result in unplanned public expense for provision of public services, improvements, or facilities; 2) be consistent with the intent and purpose of the county and adjoining municipalities' comprehensive plans and policies; 3) be consistent with the intent and purposes of the Supplemental Regulations (Sections 2.1 - 2.8 of the IGA, see attached copy); 4) be justified by exceptional circumstances applying to the property which do not apply to other property located inside the Urban Growth Area; and, 5) not create unsafe traffic conditions, undesirable sanitary conditions or adverse environmental influence in the area. The Aurora Hills Subdivision qualifies as "infill" development, a key element in determining the appropriateness of the waiver request. In this case, however, the fact that the Aurora Hills subdivision qualifies as "infill" development serves to also work against the waiver request. That ' is, as most of the surrounding lands are already developed, it is not anticipated that the requirement to improve Skyway Drive and Constellation Drive will be assigned to any other development(s) in the near future. In other words, Skyway Drive and Constellation Drive should be improved in order to accommodate the traffic impacts of this development. If this is not required, the general public will eventually incur costs that should be borne instead by this development. Thus, granting of this waiver would likely result in unwarranted, unplanned public expense, thereby violating Section 5.4 (a)(3) of the IGA. The Colorado Department of Transportation considers a twenty percent (20%) increase in traffic volumes to be a "major increase. " Using ITE trip generation rates (CDOT uses the ITE data), a 32 unit development would generate approximately 320 vehicle trips per day, which was not considered to be a major increase. If 320 trips per day does not qualify as a "major increase, " then current traffic volumes at the intersection of Skyway Drive and U.S. 287 must be greater than 1600 trips per day (320 is 20% of 1600). With the increase of 320 trips per day, this intersection will have traffic volumes in excess of 1920 trips per day, or almost 2000 trips per day. An intersection carrying almost 2000 trips per day should not be left unimproved. Without improvements, it is questionable as to whether or not the streets can handle the projected traffic 'for a length of twenty years with minor maintenance. " 148 1 March 5, 1996 ' The site is planned for development at urban level densities (4.26 dwelling units per acre), and is situated approximately 300 feet outside the City's boundary. It is likely that this development will eventually annex into the City; all roads into and within the development should meet or exceed the standards indicated on the City's Master Street Plan. After all, it is the intent of the IGA "to achieve, in developments not eligible for immediate annexation, design standards which conform to the Lorimer County urban street and site design criteria and standards so that the area may eventually be annexed as they become eligible without extensive capital improvements or costs to the citizens of Larimer County, " (Supplemental Regulation 2.4). In affect granting of this waiver would result in substantial detriment to the intent and purposes of the Supplemental Regulations. 1 City staff does not believe that the Aurora Hills Subdivision's request for a waiver from the public street capacity phasing criteria is justified under the terms of the Intergovernmental Agreement with Lorimer Countyfor the Fort Collins Urban Growth Area. Public water and sewer will be provided to the development by the Fort Collins -Loveland Water and South Fort Collins Sanitation Districts, respectively. The necessary off -site street improvements should be made with this development, at the developer's expense. Staff believes that granting the request would likely result in unplanned public expense, and would compromise the intent and purpose of the UGA Agreement. Furthermore, leaving these streets unimproved could have the potential of jeopardizing the public health, safety, and welfare. " Mitchell Haas, City Planner, stated this waiver request is to exempt Aurora Hills Subdivision from street improvement requirements of the intergovernmental agreement between Larimer County and Fort Collins. He described the proposed subdivision, showed slides of the area located in unincorporated Latimer County and described why the request does not meet the intentions and requirements of the IGA. He reminded that the City is recommending that the County Commissioners deny the waiver. Councilmember McCluskey asked if staff has looked at anything on an infrastructure basis for small builders such as sliding scales, etc. Bob Blanchard, Director of Current Planning, responded that staff has not looked at sliding scale fees for provision of utilities based on the size of the project. Gary Diede, Transportation Operations and Projects Group Leader, suggested one solution might be for the County to look at a SID for the improvement of Skyway Dr. and Constellation Dr. Road improvements are estimated at $50,000 while reconstruction costs are estimated at $80,000. Another possibility might be for the applicant to discuss maintenance costs for Skyway Dr. with the County and suggest the developer use the County's funds earmarked for the area to help maintain the road which is partially a County responsibility. 149 March 5, 1996 Councilmember Jarrett asked if it would be possible to have conditional approval of the resolution. The condition would state Council is conditioning its support of the street waiver and the $700 fee upon those dollars being earmarked for Skyway Dr. City Attorney Roy stated this is a recommendation to Larimer County and it is difficult to condition a recommendation. Staff would need to look at the agreement with the County to determine if there is a mechanism to reach some agreement as to how the proceeds of the fees can be used, rather than approach it on a case by case basis. Councilmember Apt made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Smith, to adopt Resolution 96-33. Monica Sweere, owner/developer of Aurora Hills Subdivision, stated the subdivision would have a 14% impact on the traffic. She added that $700 per lot is almost twice the just and fair fee for the subdivision's prorated share of the traffic in the area. She spoke of her plans to build affordable housing units. Matt Delich, traffic engineer/consultant, addressed some of the staff reasons for recommending denial of the waiver. He spoke of the traffic studies he conducted. Rick Zier, attorney representing the developer, spoke of the policies in the UGA agreements. He stated the UGA Review Board is intended to shorten and simplify the development application and review process and provide for consistent interpretation of the goals, policies, design standards, phasing criteria, supplemental regulations and other provisions of the UGA Agreement. He stated the County planning staff has recommended that the waiver be granted and the City planning staff has recommended that it not be granted. The UGA Review Board unanimously approved the waiver. He stated he did not believe it was fair for this development to pay to improve the entire road when it is inadequate today. He stated phasing criteria should not apply to infill areas. Don Frederick, consultant representing the developer, spoke of the benefits of the project and stated he believed those benefits should outweigh the problems with the UGA agreement. He stated granting the waiver would allow the development to proceed and provide those benefits. City Attorney Roy stated he believed there was nothing to prevent the Council from conditioning its recommendation upon the use of the money in a certain fashion. It would be up to the County as to whether it would honor that condition. Councilmember McCluskey asked if development in the UGA is eligible to apply for affordable housing monies through the City. Greg Byrne, Director of Community Planning and Environmental Services, replied that during a later agenda item, Council would have the opportunity to decide whether one City program would apply to qualified affordable housing projects outside the City limits. A recent policy decision determined 150 1 March 5, 1996 CDBG funds may be used outside the City limits for projects which benefit the housing area. He added the affordable housing criteria did not figure into the staff recommendation on this item. No information was submitted relative to affordable housing. Councilmember Wanner asked if adjoining subdivisions have paid similar amounts. Mike Herzig, Development Review Manager, responded that other subdivisions have not because they were developed before the fee was established. However, those subdivisions were responsible for the original road construction. Councilmember Kneeland stated she would support the Resolution and added she believed recommending a waiver would add to the problems the City is already experiencing from granting earlier waivers. Councilmember Janett made a motion, seconded by Councilmember McCluskey, to amend Resolution 96-33 by adding language to recommend the dollar amount of the capital costs for improvements to the streets not exceed $50,000. The vote was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Azari, Janett, Kneeland, McCluskey, Smith and Wanner. Nays: Councilmember Apt. THE MOTION CARRIED. I The vote on Councilmember Apt's motion to adopt Resolution 96-33, as amended was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Apt, Azari, Janett, Kneeland, McCluskey, Smith and Wanner. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Reports Councilmember McCluskey reported on the recent PFA meeting and spoke of the cooperation between the PVH Board and the PFA Board on working through emergency medical system issues in common to both entities. Councilmember Kneeland reported on the Public Access Committee discussion of SB 10 and SB 187. She stated the Committee believed the two bills would have an extremely negative impact on the City's ability to enter the new arena of telecommunications. She stated an open house on the design plan for the new joint use library will be held on Monday, April 1 at Front Range Community College. She called attention to the Riverwall sculpture at Poudre High School and encouraged the public to view the sculpture. Councilmember Janett reminded of the P&Z Board Public Hearing to be held on March 6 in the Council Chambers on City Plan's Vision and Goals document. 151 March 5, 1996 Mayor Azari spoke of the new assistive technology equipment now in place at the public library. ' The equipment will allow persons with vision impairments to read newspapers and other documents. She encouraged citizens to view the equipment. Ordinance No. 29,1996, Establishing a Manufacturing Use Tax Rebate Program for Eligible Manufacturing Firms Adopted as Amended on Second Reading The following is staff's memorandum on this item. The financial impact of waiving the requirement to construct or fully improve off -site streets to the standards indicated on the City's Master Street Plan would typically be mitigated by charging a fee of $700 per residential dwelling unit, which would be collected by Larimer County at the time of building permit issuance. With the 32 units proposed, this fee would generate a total of $22,400. While this sum would defer a portion of the costs associated with the ultimate street improvements, it may not cover the entire need. Should additional funds be necessary to fully improve the off -site streets, an unplanned public expense would be incurred. Executive Summary This is a waiver request by the developer of the Aurora Hills Subdivision to exempt the project from ' the street improvement requirements of the Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA). The waiver request pertains to the proposed Aurora Hills Subdivision, consisting of 32 dwelling units on 7.5 acres, located west of College Avenue, east of Constellation Drive, south of Skyway Drive, and north of Trilby Road in unincorporated Larimer County (see attached map). The request for the waiver from the public street capacity phasing criteria requirement is not justified under the terms of the Intergovernmental Agreement with Larimer County for the Fort Collins Urban Growth Area. Specifically, the request does not meet the following intentions and requirements of the IGA: Section 2.4: "To achieve, in developments not eligible for immediate annexation, design standards which conform to the Larimer County urban street and site design criteria and standards so that the area may eventually be annexed as they become eligible without extensive capital improvements or costs to the citizens of Larimer County. " Section 5.4, C, 5 (Minimum waiver conditions for adjacent and off -site public streets): "Where the conditions of the off -site streets, street drainage, sidewalks and/or bike lanes are found to be deficient, improvements shall be required to construct the streets, sidewalks, or bike lanes to a level capable of handling projected traffic volumes with a pavement structure equal to that required by the Larimer County urban street criteria standards. " 152 1 March 5, 1996 IAppendix B, Street Capacity: "Access to an improved arterial is defined as streets that have adequate width and pavement thickness to handle the projected traffic for a length of twenty years with minor maintenance. " Appendix D, Waiver Process: "The waiver process is ... not designed to allow development without the eventual provision of all urban services and facilities. " BACKGROUND: According to the UGA Agreement, development proposals in the UGA which, at the time of development, are not eligible for annexation into the City are required to address a series of phasing criteria, including the provision of public water and sewer utilities, construction of on -site, adjacent, and off -site streets, and contiguity to existing development. Given the level of existing development in some portions of the UGA, it was recognized that new development proposals in these areas would likely not be able to satisfy one or more of the phasing criteria. A major goal of many of the policies of the UGA Agreement is to encourage "infill" projects where public services and facilities exist versus development proposals in essentially undeveloped portions of the UGA requiring the extension of services and facilities. In effect, while it was highly desirable to encourage development of these inf ll sites, the strict enforcement of the phasing criteria essentially precluded their development. t Therefore, a process was established (pursuant to 5.4(a)(3-7) of the IGA) whereby one or more of the phasing criteria could be waived, provided that the waiver would 1) not result in unplanned public expense for provision of public services, improvements, or facilities; 2) be consistent with the intent and purpose of the county and adjoining municipalities' comprehensive plans and policies; 3) be consistent with the intent and purposes of the Supplemental Regulations (Sections 2.1 - 2.8 of the IGA, see attached copy); 4) be justified by exceptional circumstances applying to the property which do not apply to other property located inside the Urban Growth Area; and, 5) not create unsafe traffic conditions, undesirable sanitary conditions or adverse environmental influence in the area. fl The Aurora Hills Subdivision qualifies as "infill" development, a key element in determining the appropriateness of the waiver request. In this case, however, the fact that the Aurora Hills subdivision qualifies as "infill" development serves to also work against the waiver request. That is, as most of the surrounding lands are already developed, it is not anticipated that the requirement to improve Skyway Drive and Constellation Drive will be assigned to any other development(s) in the near f ture. In other words, Skyway Drive and Constellation Drive should be improved in order to accommodate the traffic impacts of this development. If this is not required, the general public will eventually incur costs that should be borne instead by this development. Thus, granting of this waiver would likely result in unwarranted, unplanned public expense, thereby violating Section 5.4 (a)(3) of the IGA. 153 March 5, 1996 The Colorado Department of Transportation considers a twenty percent (20%) increase in traffic ' volumes to be a "major increase. " Using ITE trip generation rates (CDOT uses the ITE data), a 32 unit development would generate approximately 320 vehicle trips per day, which was not considered to be a major increase. If 320 trips per day does not qualify as a "major increase, " then current traffic volumes at the intersection of Skyway Drive and U.S. 287 must be greater than 1600 trips per day (320 is 20% of 1600). With the increase of 320 trips per day, this intersection will have traffic volumes in excess of 1920 trips per day, or almost 2000 trips per day. An intersection carrying almost 2000 trips per day should not be left unimproved. Without improvements, it is questionable as to whether or not the streets can handle the projected traffic 'for a length of twenty years with minor maintenance. " The site is planned for development at urban level densities (4.26 dwelling units per acre), and is situated approximately 300 feet outside the City's boundary. It is likely that this development will eventually annex into the City; all roads into and within the development should meet or exceed the standards indicated on the City's Master Street Plan. After all, it is the intent of the IGA "to achieve, in developments not eligible for immediate annexation, design standards which conform to the Lorimer County urban street and site design criteria and standards so that the area may eventually be annexed as they become eligible without extensive capital improvements or costs to the citizens of Lorimer County, " (Supplemental Regulation 2.4). In affect granting of this waiver would result in substantial detriment to the intent and purposes of the Supplemental Regulations. City staff does not believe that the Aurora Hills Subdivision's request for a waiver from the public ' street capacity phasing criteria is justified under the terms of the Intergovernmental Agreement with Lorimer Countyfor the Fort Collins Urban Growth Area. Public water and sewer will be provided to the development by the Fort Collins -Loveland Water and South Fort Collins Sanitation Districts, respectively. The necessary off -site street improvements should be made with this development, at the developer's expense. Staff believes that granting the request would likely result in unplanned public expense, and would compromise the intent and purpose of the UGA Agreement. Furthermore, leaving these streets unimproved could have the potential of jeopardizing the public health, safety, and welfare. " Councilmembers Kneeland and McCluskey withdrew from discussion and vote on this item because of a perceived conflict of interest. City Manager Fischbach gave a brief staff presentation. He stated the objectives of the program are to keep it simple since it is temporary, to provide close monitoring so that if adverse collections occur in the 18-24 months staff can recommend corrective action, to design the program as a rebate of the manufacturers use tax, to restrict participation in the program to businesses operating in the City for three years, to provide the rebate only for equipment used in the manufacturing process, and to offer the rebate program to all manufacturers regardless of size. Staff has tried to create an interim program that will provide wealth to the community and is a simple, fair and equitable policy. 154 1 March 5, 1996 t City Attorney Roy reviewed the two options and reviewed the differences proposed between First and Second Readings. He read two new "Whereas" clauses proposed for Option A. Councilmember Wanner made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Smith, to adopt Ordinance No. 29, 1996, Option B, as amended on Second Reading. Councilmember Apt asked about performance measures whereby staff could look at individual rebates and determine whether the City would incur significant impacts in services to be provided, such as major impacts on sewage or water treatment. City Manager Fischbach replied such review would be possible if the manufacturing use tax rebate is made a permanent policy. Performance criteria are not included in this interim policy. Assistant City Manager Frank Bruno called attention to compliance criteria included in the program. Al Baccili, 520 Galaxy Ct., opposed the ordinance. Eric Levine, 145 N. Meldrum, Air Quality Board member, spoke of the need for performance standards to mitigate the impacts of the expansion of manufacturing techniques. ' Councilmember Apt made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Smith, to amend the ordinance to add language "that such rebates be considered on a case by case basis to assure taxpayers that no major negative impact on City services will occur that is equal to or greater than the rebate as a result of the retooling, in such cases the rebate would be voted on by Council". City Attorney Roy proposed the amendment language in Section 5 read as follows: "That the City Manager shall monitor the rebate program and its projected costs and impacts on a monthly basis throughout the term of the program and if the City Manager determines from that review or from any other information, that the rebate program poses a financial, environmental, or other threat to the well-being of the City, the City Manager shall report such determination to the Council with recommendations for changing or eliminating the program as necessary to address the concerns presented". Councilmember Wanner stated he considered City Attorney Roy's language as a friendly amendment to his original motion. Councilmember Apt stated that although the amendment improves the ordinance, he would not support it. The City has too many unfunded financial liabilities and the cost of services measures have not been adopted. 155 March 5, 1996 The vote on Councilmember Warmer's motion to adopt Ordinance No. 29, 1996, as amended on , Second Reading was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Azari, Janett, Smith and Wanner. Nays: Councilmember Apt. THE MOTION CARRIED. Resolution 96-16 Adopting the Transit Development Plan (TDP) 1996-2002 for Fort Collins, Colorado, Adopted. The following is staff's memorandum on this item. // d No immediate financial impact will result from the adoption of the Transit Development Plan 1996- 2002. However, there are costs associated with each component of the Plan the City chooses to implement. Transfort's 1996 budget, including its Dial -A -Ride operation, is $4,800,000. Full implementation of Transit Development Plan 1996-2002 would cost in excess of a total annual average of $9,800,000 over the seven-year period (in constant 1996 dollars). Executive Summary The Transit Development Plan 1996-2002 is a plan for the development of transit services in the ' Fort Collins Urban Growth Area. Staff is asking City Council to adopt this Transit Development Plan as the city's guide to the implementation of transit services for the seven year period. The attached Executive Summary briefly describes each of the eleven chapters in the Transit Development Plan and is provided as a condensed version of the Plan itself. Beginning on page 8 of the Executive Summary is a discussion of the Transit Development Plan's Preferred Service Plan which details the overall recommended service improvements. Other key aspects of the Plan described in the Executive Summary include an implementation model and suggestions concerning appropriate next steps which will be necessaryfor the implementation of this Transit Development Plan. BACKGROUND: The Transit Development Plan process began in December of 1994. It has been a joint effort of Fort Collins, Loveland, and Lorimer County. Loveland and Lorimer county will also be considering subarea plans during February 1996. Additional background for the Plan is provided in the attached Executive Summary." John Daggett, Transportation Planner 11, gave the staff presentation. He spoke of the process leading up to Council consideration and of the three subarea plans for Fort Collins, Loveland and Latimer 156 ' March 5, 1996 t County. He pointed out the level of cooperation among the three entities, the citizen advisory committees, and staff of the three entities. 0 Councilmember Smith made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Janett, to adopt Resolution 96- 16. Councilmember Janett asked about the differentials in the amount of passengers produced from a geographic area based on income or lot size. She asked for recommendations on how to encourage able senior citizens to use Transfort rather than Dial -A -Ride. Susanne O'Neill, Transit Expert Consultants, replied that there are differentials based on a variety of factors such as auto ownership, density, and income levels. She stated the Plan contains basic recommendations for increasing senior participation in Transfort. One is to set up a task force to look at tailoring some of the fixed route services to the needs of seniors. Tom Frazier, Multi -modal Group Leader, spoke of the training program designed to help clients use Transfort instead of Dial -A -Ride. He spoke of the travel training program completed by the drivers and stated after the Plan is adopted, the training task force will be reactivated to deal with individuals targeted as prime candidates for bus service. Ray Sanderson, 300 Remington, Chairperson of the Commission on Disability, spoke of the training conducted several years ago. He spoke of the simplicity of the training and stated he believed it should be continued. He suggested sensitivity training for the bus drivers. He spoke of the need for evening service and for more frequent service. Angela Byrne, 3300 Stanford Rd., Commission on Disability member, agreed with Mr. Sanderson and spoke of delays encountered by clients. Paul Perlmutter, Transportation Board member, supported the Plan and stated he believed it was realistic. Amy Scott, ASCSU President, stated this Plan is an extremely important issue to students. She stated the Plan addresses some of student's most important needs such as frequency of service and evening service. The vote on Councilmember Smith's motion to adopt Resolution 96-16 was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Apt, Azari, Janett, Kneeland, McCluskey, Smith and Wanner. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. NOTE: Councilmember Apt left the meeting at this point. 157 March 5, 1996 Resolution 96-17 Approving the North Front Range ' Transportation Demand Management Program, Adopted The following is staff s memorandum on this item. T11 1 ff�,. There is no immediate financial obligation from adopting the North Front Range TDM Program. Financing for the first three years components would be based on a combination of $1,000,500 of local funds (public and private) as well as $1,072,000 of regional public funds administered by the North Front Range Transportation & Air Quality Planning Council (MPO). The current 1996 City budget includes funding via Congestion Mitigation & Air Quality (CMAQ) dollars to maintain the existing level of ridesharing services (Commuter PooWanGo). To enhance Fort Collins' TDM programs, new long-term local funding sources would need to be identified. For example, Transportation Services is currently exploring new funding opportunities to fulfill the City's commitment to a multi -modal street system and this could include dollars to enhance TDM-related measures. Executive Summary The goal of the TDM Program is to design and implement a plan to achieve a 10% reduction in single occupant vehicle (SOV) trips by 2015 as specified in the Regional Transportation Plan. The ' North Front Range TDM Program is sponsored by the MPO and is a collective effort of the cities and counties of the North Front Range, as well as the Colorado Department of Transportation. The program allows municipalities to customize their TDM strategies to fit their local objectives and community character. The attached materials represent key decision points in order to carry out the recommendations for the North Front Range TDM Program. Implementation would be phased in over time, with biennial "Mobility Report Card" evaluations to monitor progress toward the 10% SOV trip reduction target (pgs. 1-2). Sixteen high -priority strategies have been recommended based on the field research completed in 1995 and on computer analysis of North Front Range travel patterns (pgs. 3-10). These strategies would be pursued through eleven program components for which 1996, 1997, and 1998 budgets have been estimated (pgs. 11-16). The proposed TDM Program also includes a recommended structure to carry out the "regionally coordinated, locally implemented" theme of this project (pgs. 17-20). In addition, the TDM Marketing Plan is attached as Appendix "A". Staff requests that Council approve the North Front Range Transportation Demand Management Program. Final adoption of the TDM Program by the MPO is scheduled for March 7, 1996. " Eric Bracke, Traffic Engineer and representing the MPO, stated the Program was a direct outgrowth of the Regional Transportation Plan and the Congestion Management Plan. He spoke of the outreach 158 1 March 5, 1996 ' done and stated the Transportation Board has encouraged Council to approve the Program. He addressed concerns raised by the Air Quality Advisory Board. Jim Charlier, Charlier Associates, spoke of the goal to design and implement a plan to achieve a 10% reduction in single occupant vehicle trips by 2015 as specified in the Regional Transportation Plan. He stated the best way to achieve this goal is to put it in place a piece at a time. Start with the framework and some of the things that will lay the groundwork for future phases. He spoke of the need for education and public information which is included in the earlier years of the Plan. The more difficult steps are in the outer years. He discussed the primary short term actions and the measurement items. Mary Wolf, marketing expert, stated the marketing plan was developed by a committee that included representatives from Fort Collins' staff, CSU, Loveland, Greeley, and CDOT. She stated the regional marketing plan will be implemented locally and is designed to change the culture of the north front range. She stated the name for the program is "Smart Trips" and spoke of transportation fairs to be held at various employers' sites. Kathleen Reavis, Transportation Demand Management Manager, spoke of the partnership with CSU in the effort to develop the overall marketing plan for the TDM. ' Councilmember McCluskey made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kneeland, to adopt Resolution 96-17. Eric Levine, 145 No. Meldmm, Air Quality Board member, addressed the reasons the Board did not support the Program. He stated the Board does not believe the public process was adequate and there was not adequate time to review the Program. He stated the Program is set up to achieve a good early success with ride -sharing and does not address the fundamental problem such as the transportation/land use connection. Councilmember Janett stated she appreciated the emphasis on marketing as well as education. Marketing will help achieve behavioral results. The vote on Councilmember McCluskey's motion to adopt Resolution 96-17 was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Azari, Janett, Kneeland, McCluskey, Smith and Wanner. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Items Relating to the City's Development Impact Fee Rebate Program Regarding Out -of -City Rebate Requests, Adopted (Option A). The following is staff's memorandum on this item. 159 March 5, 1996 "Executive Summary ' Option A A. Resolution 96-7 Amending the Administrative Regulations of the Development Impact Fee Rebate Program by Adding Criteria for Council Approval of Out -of -City Rebate Requests. B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 3, 1996, Amending Chapter 5 of the City Code to Allow Council to Consider Approval of Rebate Requests from Projects Located Outside the City Limits. A. Resolution 96-7 Amending the Administrative Regulations of the Development Impact Fee Rebate Program by Requiring All Projects Requesting Rebates to be Developed Within the City Limits. Two options are presented for making amendments to the Administrative Guidelines for the City's Development Impact Fee Rebate Program regarding out -of -city rebate requests. The first option would reconcile the current wording differences between the City Code and the Administrative Guidelines about out -of -city rebate requests and would establish new criteria for evaluating out -of- I cityrequests. The second option would limit rebate requests to projects which developed inside the city limits. Only "Option A" would have a financial impact on the City's rebate program. Expansion of the program to out -of -city requests could increase the amount of rebates the City would make from the allocated budget. Council approval would be required for out -of -city requests. Also, if the proportional rebate suggestion presented in the new criteria is followed, the rebates would be comparatively less than rebates granted inside the city limits. BACKGROUND: On October 4, 1994, the City Council passed Ordinance No. 145, 1994, amending Chapter 5 of the City Code to add an article permitting the rebate of City development impact fees for the purpose of promoting affordable housing. Adopted as part of Ordinance 194, 1994, was Section 5-356 authorizing the City Manager to develop Administrative Regulations for the rebate program. Also on October 4, the Council passed Resolution 94-167 adopting the Administrative Regulations for the rebate program. The wording in City Code Section 5-355 indicates that the purpose of the Rebate Program is for "the provision of affordable housing for low income citizens of the city. " This Code provision has 160 1 March 5, 1996 ' been interpreted to limit rebates to projects located inside the city limits. It could be argued, however, that a project located outside the city limits would also provide affordable housing for low income citizens of the city. The Administrative Regulations for the Rebate Program contains a "Program Requirements" section which states, "all units must be located within the city limits of Fort Collins unless otherwise authorized by the City Council. " Some projects located outside the city limits could receive City water and/or sewer utility services and, thus, pay some City development fees. There are two options presented for Council's consideration: Option A: Allow the Council to consider approval of rebate requests from projects located outside the city limits which meet certain criteria. Option B: Limit rebate requests to only those projects which develop affordable housing units inside the city limits. The first option, "Option A", would reconcile the wording in the City Code and the Rebate Program's Administrative Regulations and allow the Council to consider approval of rebate requests from projects located outside the city limits which meet certain criteria. The passage of the amendments proposed in Resolution 96-7 (Option A) and Ordinance No. 3, 1996, would bring consistency to the wording contained in the City Code and Administrative Regulations and establish ' new criteria for the granting of out -of -city rebate requests. The second option, "Option B", would limit rebate requests to only those projects which developed affordable housing units inside the city limits, thus, eliminating any project located outside the city limits from making a rebate request, even if such a project were to receive some City services and pay some City development impact fees. Staff would recommend the following criteria limitations be an integral part of "Option A" and be used to evaluate rebate requests for affordable housing projects located outside the city limits: -0;=0 f i In order to be eligible for consideration for rebates, a project must be located within the boundaries of the Fort Collins Urban Growth Area. 1 161 March 5, 1996 2. Received City Water andlor Sewer Utilities and Pi Appropriate PlantInvestment ai i _!y III At a minimum, the project must receive City water and/or sewer utilities, and must have paid the appropriate plant investment and tap fees. This reinforces the policy position that the City operates a rebate program and not a program which waives development impact fees. Also, by receiving City utilities, the project owner would be required to sign an annexation agreement allowing the City to annexed the project site when it becomes eligible for annexation according the State's annexation laws. Even though the project is located outside the city limits, the project should be evaluated against any fi.y phasing criteria in effect at the time of the rebate request. This evaluation should include items such as a Land Development Guidance System "Density Chart" analysis to verify residential density against the established criteria. If the project fails the evaluation, the Council could decide not to make the requested rebates. 4. Proportional Rebate Based on What the Project Actual(,y Paid to the City in Terms of Development Impact Fees and What the Project Would Have Paid Had the Project Been Located Within the City Limits Projects in the UGA pay a series of development impact fees, some, such as City utility fees, ' would be collected directly by the City, while others would be collected by the County as a part of their Building Permit process. The amount of the rebate granted by the City should be proportional based on what the project actually paid to the r& and what the project would have paid had the project been located inside the city limits. The Rebate Program was developed based on the assumption that projects would be located inside the city limits and pay all of the City's development fees. As indicated, projects in the UGA would pay the City a lesser amount. For example, if a project in the UGA paid the City $4,000 per unit in utilityfees, but would have been required to pay $8,000 per unit in utility and other development impact fees had the project been located inside the city limits, then the project would only be eligible for 50% of any applicable rebates. Continuing the example, if a unit were then rented to a family with an income at 40% of the AMI, thus eligible for a $3,000 rebate if located in the city, the actual rebate would only be $1,500, or 50% of what could have been rebated in the city. Staff believes the above criteria limitations are fair and essential for rebate requests made from projects located outside the city limits. The issue was discussed by the Affordable Housing Board at its regular monthly meeting on November 2, 1995. The Board voted unanimously to recommend that the Council extend the Rebate Program to projects located outside the city limits within the 162 1 March 5, 1996 ' UGA and that Council establish certain conditions for out of city rebate requests (see attached November 2, 1995, Board minutes). At the January 16, 1996, meeting, the Council tabled consideration of this item because of questions related to the proposed criteria. It was not clear whether or not a rebate would be mandatory if an applicant met the criteria, or if the decision to approve a rebate was discretionary on the part of the Council. The City Code (Section 5-358) on the Rebate Program is clear concerning the discretionary decision making powers of the Council regarding the program. The section states the following: Sec. 5-538. No entitlement established. The provisions of this Article shall not be construed as establishing any right or entitlement to a rebate of any impact fees on the part of any applicant. The approval of any rebate plan shall be entirely discretionary with the City Council, and shall be subject to appropriation. Thus, under Option A, the Council would use the proposed criteria as a decision making guide, but the criteria do not require the Council to grant a rebate to any applicant. However, just to make it more clear, several minor changes were made to Ordinance No. 3, 1996, so that no implication of an obligation to authorize a rebate could be drawn. " ' Ken Waido, Chief Planner, gave the staff presentation. He stated these items rectify some wording discrepancies between the City Code and the program regulations for the rebate program. He presented the two options and answered questions. Councilmember McCluskey made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Smith, to adopt Resolution 96-7. The vote was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Azari, Janett, Kneeland, McCluskey, Smith and Wanner. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember McCluskey made a motion, seconded by CouncilmemberSmith,, to,adoptOrdinance No. 3, 1996, on First Reading. The vote was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Azari, Janett, Kneeland, McCluskey, Smith and Wanner. Nays: None. YY�i�lu[i7111Ti � ::: 1 � 163 March 5, 1996 Other Business I Mayor Azari asked for information on a joint communications center to be used by the City and Latimer County. Mayor Azari spoke of frustrations with intergovernmental work with the UGA and the issues around joint fee structures. She asked that a letter making that point be sent to Latimer County along with the denial of the Aurora Hills waiver. Mayor Azari spoke of the need to discuss meeting management strategies. Councilmember Smith asked why consideration of camera radar has been deferred to May 7. Councilmember Kneeland responded that the issue had been discussed at the Health and Safety Committee meeting. There are unanswered questions that need to be addressed. Councilmember Janett asked for a two -page memo on the possibility of an ordinance to rescind old ODPs that are out of date. Councilmember Janett asked for a two -page memo with a status report on how the corridor plan is being implemented. Adjournment ' The meeting adjourned at 12:10 a.m. ATTEST: 11� City Clerk ,. Mayor 164 1