HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES-04/02/1996-Regular' April 2,1996
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
Council -Manager Form of Government
Regular Meeting - 6:30 p.m.
A regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins was held on Tuesday, April 2, 1996,
at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll Call was
answered by the following Councilmembers: Azari, Kneeland, McCluskey, Smith and Wanner.
Councilmembers Absent: Apt and Janett.
Staff Members Present: Fischbach, Roy, Krajicek.
City Manager Fischbach read two changes to the "Community Vision and Goals 2015"
document which was Item No. 26 on the agenda. He stated the changes were reviewed and
approved by the Growth Management Committee.
***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 #22, Public Pulled Consent Items.
The structural design and submittal standards for soils reports and pavement designs have
been revised to help minimize premature street maintenance and street failures mostly
attributed to poor soil conditions. The proposed "Pavement Design and Technical
Criteria" replace Chapter 2 of the City of Fort Collins "Design Criteria and Standards for
Streets," dated July, 1986, and include basic structural criteria and design procedures for
roadway pavements. Ordinance No. 32, 1996 was unanimously adopted on First Reading
on March 19, 1996.
Rev
. . • . r i . . Board,
EN
ft
April 2, 1996
Section 2-353(2) of the Code provides that the Planning and Zoning Board has the function '
of exercising the authority vested in it by state planning and zoning laws. Although it was
never the intention of the City that the state planning and zoning laws supersede conflicting
provisions of the City's Code or Charter, there are provisions in the state law that do not
comport with either the law of the City or its long established practice.
Ordinance No. 33, 1996, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on March 19,
1996, amends Section 2-353 to provide that the Planning and Zoning Board does not have the
power to adopt the Comprehensive Plan but rather has the obligation to advise and make
recommendations to the City Council so that the City Council can have the best information
available to it prior to its adoption of the Comprehensive Plan. The new subsection (a) of the
Ordinance would do that.
Second Readine of
Ordinance No. 34. 1996.
Designating
the George
W. Coffin House, 525
Smith Street. as a
Ucal Landmark Pursuant
to Chapter
14 of the
Code of the City of Fo
Collins.9.
Ordinance No. 34, 1996, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on March 19,
1996, grants a Local Landmark designation for the George W. Coffin House, 525 Smith
Street. The building is significant for its architectural importance. The house is an excellent
example of a vernacular gabled ell "homestead" dwelling.
10. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 35.1996. Designating the E.M. Dodd / Frank Ghent House.
638 Whedbee Street. as a Local Landmark Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the Code of the City of
•r Collins,
The owner of the property, Jan Kopald, is initiating this request for Local Landmark
designation for the E.M. Dodd / Frank Ghent House, 638 Whedbee Street. The building is
significant for its architectural and historical importance. The house is a representative
example of the bungalow style of architecture. Ordinance No. 35, 1996, was unanimously
adopted on First Reading on March 19, 1996.
11. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 36. 1996.
House and Bam. 308 East Myrtle Street, as a Local Landwark. Iirsua-a to C�aDler:A4-oft�e
Code of the City of Fort Collins,
The owner of the property, Helen Woodard, is initiating this request for Local Landmark
designation for the H.F. Elliott/Carl Anderson House and Barn, 308 East Myrtle Street. The
buildings are significant for their architectural and historical importance. The house is a
representative example of the vernacular Queen Anne style of architecture. The barn,
constructed in a vernacular style, dates from the period of significance and contributes to the
historic character of the property. The property is associated with Carl Anderson, a newspaper
181 1
April 2, 1996
publisher and town builder, who lived in the house from 1919 until his death in 1943.
Ordinance No. 36, 1996, was unanimously adopted on First Reading on March 19, 1996.
12. Second Reading of Ordinance No 37 1996 Designating the J. F. Farrar House and Garage
304 Fast Myrtle Street, as a Local Landmark Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the Code of the City
of Fort Collins.
The owners of the property, Arvin and Judy Lovaas, are initiating this request for Local
Landmark designation for the J. F. Farrar House and Garage, 304 East Myrtle Street. The
buildings are significant for their architectural importance. The house is a representative
example of the vernacular Queen Anne style of architecture. The garage, constructed in a
vernacular style, dates from the period of significance and contributes to the historic character
of the property. Ordinance No. 37, 1996, was unanimously adopted on First Reading on
March 19, 1996.
Second13.
.. r Ordinance
99. Designating
theWilliarn
E. Greffenius
House
and
Garaze.
824 Remineon
Street.
as a Local Landmark
Pursuant to
Chapter
14
of the
Code o
the
City
of Fort Collins.
The owner of the property, Jeff Benjamin, is initiating this request for Local Landmark
designation for the William E. Greffenius House and Garage, 824 Remington Street. The
buildings are significant for their architectural importance. The house is a representative
example of the English Cottage style of architecture. The garage, constructed in a vernacular
style, dates from the period of significance and contributes to the historic character of the
property. Ordinance No. 38, 1996, was unanimously adopted on First Reading on March 19,
1996.
14. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 39. 1996. Designating the Charles A. Lory House and
Outbuildings, 903 Stover Street, as a Local Landmark Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the Code o
the City of •rt Collins.
The owners of the property, Joanne Fish and Wade Satterfield, are initiating this request for
Local Landmark designation for the Charles A. Lory House and Outbuildings, 903 Stover
Street. The buildings are significant for their historical and architectural importance. The
property is associated with Charles A. Lory, fifth president of Colorado Agricultural College,
now CSU. Furthermore, the house is an excellent example of the Craftsman -influenced
bungalow style of architecture. The outbuildings date from the period of significance and
contribute to the historic character of the property. Ordinance No. 39, 1996, was unanimously
adopted on First Reading on March 19, 1996.
182
April 2, 1996
15. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 41 1996. Designating the M. G. Nelson House and
Carriaze House. 700 Remington Street, as a Local Landmark Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the
/•' of 1' City of Fort• 1
The owners of the property, Colleen A. and Carie A. Conway, are initiating this request for
Local Landmark designation for the M. G. Nelson House and Carriage House, 700 Remington
Street. The buildings are significant for their architectural importance. The house is a
representative example of the Dutch Colonial Revival style of architecture. The carriage
house, constructed in a vernacular style, dates from the period of significance and contributes
to the historic character of the property. Ordinance No. 40, 1996, was unanimously adopted
on First Reading on March 19, 1996.
f 6. First
Readiniz of
Ordinance
No.
42, 1996 Appropriating
Unanticipated
Revenue
From the
Colorado
Multi-iurisdictional
Division
of Criminal
Justice for Fort
Collins Police Services'
Larimer Count
. •
.
For the past eight years, Fort Collins Police Services has applied to the Colorado Division of
Criminal Justice for federal drug grant monies to help fund investigations of illegal narcotics
activities. This year Fort Collins once again joined with the Loveland Police Department,
Larimer County Sheriffs Department and Colorado State University Police Department in one
application for funding for the multi jurisdictional task force. This year, Colorado State
University Police Department joined the long standing task force. '
This appropriation is not a request to identify new dollars for Police Services' 1996 budget.
This appropriation simply appropriates the $23,055 in new federal grant money received in
connection with the program.
-Il :-_ W-1 1 1- .. `• ■.•U._:6 1 n-1 a
A. Resolution 96-42 Adopting the Home Investment Partnership Program for Fiscal Year
1995-96.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 43, 1996, Amending Chapter 8, Article III, Division 2
of the City Code Creating a New Fund for the Home Program and Appropriating
Unanticipated Revenue for the 1995-1996 Home Program and Transferring 1994-1995
Home Program Appropriations.
The HOME Investment Partnership Program is an ongoing grant program funded by the
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). 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
183
April 2, 1996
of local government to provide housing and to expand the capacity of nonprofit community -
based housing development organizations to provide affordable housing. All of the HOME
funds must benefit low and very low income households which are defined by the Department
of Housing and Urban Development as having a total household income not to exceed 80%
of the area median income. The level of funding is dependent on the total amount of funds
allocated to the program by Congress and on a formula developed by HUD. The HOME
Program Fund is created to segregate the revenues and expenditures of Federal and State
HOME Investment Partnership Program grants. The City's HOME Investment Partnership
Program grant for FY 1995-96 is $455,000 from the Federal FY95 Budget. There are no
General Fund dollars used for the HOME Program.
.� `. I• �! • u .S. .
This FAA entitlement grant will fund 90% of the project, with the Airport providing the
remaining 10% (City of Fort Collins 5% and City of Loveland 5%). This project was
originally identified in the 1993 Five Year Airport Master Plan Update, the 1994 Joint
Planning Conference (a meeting of the Airport Manager, airport users, and FAA personnel,
that identified and prioritized grant projects), and the Airport Operating and Development
Policy adopted by the Fort Collins and Loveland City Councils in July of 1994, as "Construct
Holding Apron on R/W 33 End" and "Construct By -Pass T/W on R/W Ends." The two
projects have since been combined and the FAA has renamed the project. The combined
projects are now referred to as: "Construct Taxiway D,,,.
` Resolution 96-44 Amending Resolution `. . Authorizing Acquisition by Eminent
Domain Proceedings of Certain Additional Lands for the Drake Road Widening and Spring
Creek Improvement Project,
The construction of a transportation/storm drainage/recreation trail project --the Drake Road
Widening and Spring Creek Improvement Project --is currently scheduled for the summer and
fall of 1996. The proposed capital improvements include: (1) the construction of two Choices
95 transportation projects --the Drake/Taft Hill Intersection, and Drake Road from Canterbury
to Taft Hill; (2) a Stormwater Utility project to construct a new bridge on Drake Road at
Spring Creek and rechannelization and rehabilitation of Spring Creek; and (3) a Parks &
Recreation project to extend the Spring Creek Trail under the new bridge.
Construction of the proposed improvements will require the acquisition of additional
permanent right-of-way (ROW) and/or temporary construction easements from 12 properties.
Staff has initiated the ROW acquisition process --discussing the project with the property
owners, obtaining appraisals, preparing offers and negotiating for the required ROW. Staff
will continue good faith negotiations and expects that most, if not all, of the negotiations will
' be successful.
184
April 2, 1996
To make certain the City has possession of the necessary ROW to begin construction in June, '
it was necessary to begin the eminent domain process while negotiations were still underway.
In February 1995, City Council passed a resolution authorizing the use of eminent domain if
necessary to obtain the ROW. After passage of that resolution, during the course of finalizing
the design, descriptions of several of the parcels changed. These changes were necessary to
allow for relocation of various utilities, removal of an existing structure, and other
construction details.
_
The construction of a Choices 95 transportation project --the College/Drake Intersection
project --is currently scheduled for the summer and fall of 1996. The proposed capital
improvements include the construction of double left turn lanes on College, a right turn lane
at the southeast corner, medians and on -street bicycle lanes on Drake, curb and gutter,
sidewalks, landscaping, and related improvements.
Construction of the proposed improvements will require the acquisition of additional
permanent right-of-way (ROW) and/or temporary construction easements from 14 properties.
Staff has initiated the ROW acquisition process --discussing the project with the property
owners, obtaining appraisals, preparing offers and negotiating for the required ROW. Staff
will continue good faith negotiations and expects that most, if not all, of the negotiations will I
be successful.
To make certain the City has possession of the necessary ROW to begin construction in June,
it was necessary to begin the eminent domain process while negotiations were still underway.
In February 1995, City Council passed a resolution authorizing the use of eminent domain if
necessary to obtain the ROW. After passage of that resolution, during the course of finalizing
the design, the description of one of the parcels changed. This change was necessary to allow
for relocation of an electric transformer.
A. Deed of easement from Rex S. Miller for the purpose of permanent right-of-way,
located at Prospect Road and Overland Trail. Monetary consideration: $10.
Items on Second Reading were read by title by City Clerk Wanda Krajicek.
6=1 IN 1110 ON
185 '
April 2, 1996
8. Second Reading Qf Ordinance No. 33 1996. Amending Section 2-353(2) of the MY Code
Regarding the Functions of the Planning and Zoning Board.
9.
Second Reading of
Ordinance No. 34. 1996,
Designating
the George W. Coffin
House.
525
Smith Street, as
a Local Landmark Pursuant
to Chapter
14 of the Code of
the City of Fort
10.
Collins.
Second Reading
of Ordinance No- 35.
1996, Designating
the E.M. DQdd
/ Frank Ghen
House. - 638 f " 1
1 .. Street.1
11 _ a Pursuant
to Chapter 1 ' of
1 -Code of
1.
oCity f • •t Collins,
Second11. Reading
of Ordinance N• 1
". Designating
the H.F.1
Anderson
12.
House and Bam.
Code of
Second Reading
308 East Myrtle Street.
of • • Collins.
of Ordinance No. 37, 1996.
as a Local Landmark
Designating
Pursuant to Chgpter
the J. F. Farrar House
14 of
and Garage.
the
304 East Myale Street,
as a Local Landmark
Pursuant
to Chapter 14 of the
Code of the
City
13.
of •rt Collins,
Second Reading
of Ordinance No. 38- 1996.
Designating
the William E,.Greffenius
House
and Garam. 824
Remington Street, as a
Local Landmark
Pursuant to Chapter
14 of the Co
14.
of of •r
Second Reading
of Ordinance No. 39,
1996. Designating
the Charles A.
Lory House
and
Outbuildings. 91
• -r Street. as a LocalLandmarkPursuant
toChapterof
Code
15d
of 1Fort
Second Reading
Collins,
of Ordinance No. 40,
1996, Designating
the M. G. Nelson
House
and
Carriage House.
700 Remington Street.
as a Local Landmark
Pursuant to Chapter
14 of
the
•1" of 1' City
of •1 Collins.
Items on First Reading were read by title by City Clerk Wanda Krajicek.
16. First Reading of Ordinance No. 42- 1996 Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue From tk
Colorado Division of Criminal Justice for Fort Collins Police Services' Latimer Count
onal '
17. First Reading of Ordinance No. 43,1996. Amending Chapter 8. Article M. Division 2 of the
City Code Creating a New Fund for the Home Program and Appropriating Unanticipated
Revenue for the 1995-1996 Home Program and Transferring 1994-1995 Home Prog[aju
Appropriations,
10
April 2, 1996
27. First Reading of Ordinance No. 41, 1996, • • • 1• •. • ••. u_. Authorizing• •.n •u..i 1 +�
Affordable Housing Component.
Councilmember McCluskey made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Smith, to adopt and
approve all items on the Consent Calendar. The vote was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Azari,
Kneeland, McCluskey, Smith and Wanner. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Kneeland reported on Health and Safety Committee meeting discussion of the
Larimer County juvenile intake facility. The Committee has requested the preparation of a resolution
expressing Council's interest in working with the County further. She stated the Committee is
looking at improvements to the City's citizen liaison program and at Police Services' forcible use
policy. She stated camera radar will be considered by Council the first week in May.
Councilmember Wanner reported on the Growth Management Committee meeting. He stated the
Committee approved the changes in the vision and goals statement and looked at an update of the
structure plan schedule.
Councilmember Kneeland reported on the Organizational Development Committee meeting. She '
called attention to a draft paper containing options on how issues are brought forward from Council
and stated the Committee has begun planning for the April 30 retreat.
Mayor Azari reported on the recent meeting with the County Commissioners. She stated that
because of the many areas of partnership, it was decided that there is a need for a standing meeting
of the Mayor, City Manager, Chair of the County Commissioners and the County Manager. The
group agreed to meet bimonthly.
Appeal of the January 8,1996, Decision of
the Planning and Zoning Board Denying
the High Pointe PUD Security Gate Addition,
Referral of an Administrative Change,
Planning ,and Zoning Board upheld
The following is staff s memorandum on this item.
187 1
April 2, 1996
"Executive Summary
On January 8, 1996, the Planning and Zoning Board denied a request known as High Pointe P. U.D.,
Security Gate ' Addition, Referral of an Administrative Change. The request was for an
Administrative Change to install an automatic security gate across the intersection of Boardwalk
Drive and High Pointe Drive (private street). High Pointe P.U.D. is located east of Boardwalk
Drive, north of Troutman Parkway.
On January 22, 1996, a Notice of Appeal was received by the City Clerk's Office regarding the
decision of the Planning and Zoning Board. In the Notice of Appeal, it is alleged that:
The Board failed to properly interpret and apply the relevant provisions of the Code and
Charter as stated in Section 2-48 (1) of the City Code.
The attached documents include the Notice of Appeal and the Planning Department summary of the
Board's action in response to the appeal. Also attached is the Planning Department Staff Report
that was received by the Planning and Zoning Board as part of its information packet. In addition,
minutes of the January 8, 1996 Planning and Zoning Board meeting are included. Video tapes of
the hearing have been made available through the City Manager's Office.
' The procedures for considering and deciding the Appeal are described in Chapter 2, Article IT
Division 3 of the City Code. "
City Attorney Roy explained the process for the hearing of appeals from the Planning and Zoning
Board.
Ted Shepard, Senior City Planner, showed slides shown to the P&Z Board to familiarize Council
with the site of the proposed gate. He stated all materials presented to the P&Z Board were included
in the agenda packet and stated he was available to answer questions.
Lucia Liley, attorney representing the High Pointe Homeowners' Association, which is made up of
100% of the homeowners in the High Pointe PUD, introduced Carroll Jantzen, President of the
Association.
Carroll Jantzen, High Pointe Homeowners' Association President, 362 High Pointe Drive, spoke of
the reasons for requesting a gate for their private street. He cited traffic, abandoned vehicles,
motorcycle parties, incidents involving four-wheel drive vehicles, and a steady stream of drive
through and turn around traffic as reasons. He pointed out High Pointe Drive has no destination
other than the driveways of the homeowners. He stated the Association has no intention of keeping
bike or foot traffic out but wants to cut down on unnecessary vehicular traffic that causes undue
damage to the streets that the Association must pay to repair and maintain because they are private
' streets. He spoke of the time and money involved in processing this request and stated he believed
188
April 2, 1996
the planning staff recommendation and the P&Z Board decision were driven by general distaste for '
and fear of a gating phenomena in Fort Collins rather than this specific request. He asked Council
to reconsider the P&Z Board decision.
Lucia Liley stated the High Pointe request appears to have been caught up in an ad hoc policy that
says gates within a community are never permissible under any circumstances with no consideration
given to the particular factors of that project. She stated it is clear that staff has a strong dislike of
gated communities and that that kind of categorical opinion sometimes gets in the way of evaluating
a specific project against the specific criteria in the LDGS. The purpose of the appeal is to ask
Council to look at the uniqueness and specific circumstances surrounding this project and look at
what LDGS criteria do and do not apply and then make a decision as to whether the P&Z decision
is justified. She stated the only pieces of evidence submitted to the P&Z Board to support the staff
recommendation for denial were a number of articles generally denouncing gated communities. The
articles are not a basis for denial of the request. She called attention to a staff memo stating the
factors contained in the articles may not be cited as review criteria but are helpful in learning more
about the gated subdivision phenomenon. She stated the neighborhood questions why, if the articles
go beyond the review criteria and may not be used or cited as a basis for denial, were they included
as a part of the record given to the P&Z Board. She stated that from the transcript, the only negative
comment about gated communities was not about this specific proposal, but was about articles that
indicated gated communities were offensive. There is a question about what was really being
discussed or evaluated, a policy about gated communities in general or about this specific
neighborhood request. She stated there was no discussion by the Board about the specific criteria '
upon which this proposal was denied. The discussion at the time of the vote revolved around the
need, was the gate really needed or would another solution work. She stated that when talking about
private property and what a neighborhood determines is important for its neighborhood, the only
issue is, is there a regulation in the City Code that applies that would prevent it. It's not about
whether anyone agrees there is a need, it's about whether the request is consistent with the criteria.
She spoke to the orientation of the project and provided maps showing its location. She stated the
project orients towards the Post Office not the residential neighborhoods to the east or to Warren
Lake. The project does not physically connect or integrate into any other neighborhood directly. In
addition, all the streets are privately owned and maintained and there was no grant to the public of
any right of access. The streets were intended only for the use of residents and guests. She
addressed the LDGS criteria that were stated to be the basis for the denial and stated the criteria were
not applicable. She asked that the project be judged on its own merit and not on general
considerations or personal preferences.
Councilmember Smith made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kneeland, to uphold the
decision of the Planning and Zoning Board.
Councilmember Smith stated he was looking at criterion A2.2 that considers neighborhood character.
He stated High Pointe is one of the defining residential developments in that area. It begins to
189 1
April 2, 1996
' establish the character for much of the area and because of that, the proposed gate does not consider
the full neighborhood character.
Councilmember Kneeland stated her decision was based on criterion 2.2 relating to neighborhood
compatibility. When the criterion was adopted, integration meant a flow between the multi uses in
a neighborhood and not to put barriers between those uses.
Councilmember McCluskey stated he would support the motion because he did not believe the gate
was compatible with the rest of the larger neighborhood.
Councilmember Smith asked that the appropriate City department take a look at the appropriate
signage at the entrance to the development so that it is clear that it is a private property, limited
access road, no outlet.
Mayor Azari stated she would not support the motion because it is not clear that this is a
neighborhood compatibility issue.
The vote on Councilmember Smith's motion to uphold the P&Z Board decision was as follows:
Yeas: Councilmembers Kneeland, McCluskey and Smith. Nays: Councilmembers Azari and
Wanner.
' THE MOTION CARRIED.
City Attorney Roy stated he would prepare a resolution for Council's consideration at its next
meeting that will finalize the decision.
Resolution 96-46 Adopting the
"Community Vision and Goals 2015" Section of
the Fort Collins City Plan as an Element of
the Comprehensive Plan of the City. Adopted,
The following is staff's memorandum on this item.
The Community Visions and Goals 2015 is the first of several products which will be prepared and
adopted as part of updating the city's comprehensive plan, known as City Plan. This document is
a "picture" of our community that will be true, over time, if City Plan is successful. The document
is the product of a large body of work performed by thousands of citizens, either directly involved
in developing City Plan over the past nine months, or as part of other planning efforts that led to
the adoption of the many plans and studies upon which this document is based. It includes many
190
April 2, 1996
points of view represented in our community. The vision and goals provide the direction for the rest I
of the City Plan process.
On March 19, the City Council held a public hearing on the document and provided direction to
staff on changes to the document. Also, staff has received changes from the Council Growth
Management Committee and from a few individual Councilmembers. These changes are indicated
in the revised draft.
BACKGROUND:
On April2, the City Council will hold a public hearing and consider adoption of a resolution making
the Community Vision and Goals 2015 document an element of the City's Comprehensive Plan,
known as City Plan.
The attached draft represents the most recent revisions based upon comments staff has received from
many sources including the City Plan Advisory Committee (CPAC), Planning and Zoning Board,
City Council, Council Growth Management Committee, City staff, and the general public.
The Community Vision and Goals 2015 is the first adoptable "product" of City Plan. It is important
as it will serve as the foundation for the next steps in developing City Plan. The document is general
in nature to allow some flexibility in ways to achieve it. Its perspective is city-wide and defines the
terms of its future in citywide terms. It is a "picture" of the community that will be true, over time, '
if City Plan is successful. Upon completion of City Plan, it will replace the current Goals and
Objectives document which was prepared nearly 20 years ago.
Community Vision and Goals 2015 was prepared from a synthesis of adopted plans and policy
documents. In addition, this document integrates input from City Council and Planning and Zoning
Board, Council Growth Management Committee, the City Dialogue process, the Visual Preference
Survey, public workshops and presentations, and several months of meetings between the City Plan
Advisory Committee and the professional planning team (see attached).
From this work, a set of core community values has emerged -- along with a general vision and
goals tied to the values. While part of the vision is to continue the qualities people value most about
living in Fort Collins today, its focus is on what the community could be like 20 years from now, in
the year 2015. The Vision is:
To make change work for Fort Collins while protecting the best of what we have and
recognizing who and what Fort Collins will become by preserving a sense of community
identity and pride. Fort Collins will confront and mitigate the influences of the car on our
lives. Fort Collins will share in the region's responsibilities.
191 1
April2, 1996
' The vision is based on four core community values: Sustainability, Fulfillment, Fairness and
Choices. These values establish the connecting themes for City Plan.
The goal statements are the "meat" of the document. They describe the "end" toward which future
effort is directed. The goals are organized into eight categories -- Land Use, Transportation,
Housing, Community Appearance and Design, Economy, Open Lands, Environment, and Growth
Management. While the goals focus mostly on our physical surroundings, they contain implications
that affect environmental, economic and social concerns.
Community Vision and Goals 2015 is the product of opinions and suggestions from thousands of
citizens, either directly involved in its preparation or as part of the planning process that led to the
adoption of the many other plans and studies upon which this document is based.
On February 28, the City Plan Advisory Committee (CPAC) completed its review and editing of the
document. CPAC has recommended that the document be adopted by the Planning and Zoning
Board and City Council. A minority opinion, representing three CPAC members, is attached. Staff
is comfortable with the document and recommends adoption.
PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD RECOMMENDATION
' On March 6, 1996, the Planning and Zoning Board unanimously (5-0) approved the document and
recommended to City Council that it be adopted as an element of the City's Comprehensive Plan.
The Board did not recommend any changes to the document but did ask that the issues they
discussed at their hearing be conveyed to City Council. Attached is"a copy of the Board's resolution
and draft minutes. "
Joe Frank, Director of Advance Planning, gave a brief overview of the "Community Vision and
Goals 2015" document. He stated the document is the first of several products which will be
prepared and adopted as part of developing City Plan. The document is a picture of the community
that will be true over time if City Plan is successful. It will become the foundation for the next
detailed steps in developing City Plan. He stated the document is an advisory document and will not
directly be used for the review of individual land use proposals. He stated the structure plan and the
policies and principles document will begin to produce some useful products and that
implementation will begin in the fall with changes to the UGA agreement, changes to zoning
regulations, adoption of design criteria, and phasing concurrency requirements. He stated members
of the City Plan technical team were available to provide additional information.
Councilmember Smith made a motion, seconded by Councilmember McCluskey, to adopt
Resolution 96-46, including the changes to the document referred to by City Manager Fischbach
under the City Manager's review of the agenda.
192
April 2, 1996
Betty Maloney, 1309 City Park Ave., representing the Affordable Housing Task Force, expressed '
appreciation for the City's emphasis on affordable housing issues and of the references to affordable
housing in City Plan and stated the Task Force endorsed the Plan.
The vote on Councilmember Smith's motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Azari,
Kneeland, McCluskey, Smith and Wanner. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Ordinance No. 41,1996, Authorizing the Sale of a
Portion of the Provincetowne SID Property to
Pridemark Development Company, LLC, with an
Affordable Housing Component. Adopted on First Reading.
The following is staff's memorandum on this item.
According to the Agreement negotiated with PrideMark, the City will finance the sale of the
Provincetowne property over a five (5) year period. The City will receive $1,800,000 with the
unpaid principal balance accruing interest at 7.5% per annum. PrideMark will make a $300,000
down payment at closing and a second payment of $300,000 at the beginning of the second year. '
Thereafter, eight (8) installment payments of $192,935 are due semi-annually.
In addition to the proceeds from the sale of a portion of the SID property to PrideMark for
development, additional proceeds will be realized by the sale of the remaining portion of the
property to Natural Resources. Finance staff estimates that the natural areas and wetlands on this
site have an approximate value of between $850,000 and $1,250,000. The proceeds from these two
sales will not cover the total SID cost for the property.
a n ,
Council has directed staff to attempt to market the Provincetowne SID property with an affordable
housing "demonstration component. " At the February 7, 1996, Finance Committee meeting staff
was directed to negotiate with PrideMark. PrideMark has increased its offer to the City to
$1,800,000 payable over six years at.7.5%. It has also clarified the affordable housing component
and has agreed that at least 30% of the project will be affordable housing.
This action pertains to the sale of approximately 170 acres of the Provincetowne SID property to
PrideMark Development Company for development including an affordable housing demonstration
component. The remaining approximately 160 acres will be separately purchased by the City's
Department of Natural Resources to be used as a natural area.
193 '
April 2, 1996
IBACKGROUND:
Request for Proposals:
Council has directed staff to attempt to market the Provincetowne SID property with an affordable
housing "demonstration" component. A request far proposal was mailed on November 3, 1995 to
over 171 realtors, developers, the top twenty regional residential architects and others known to
have an interest in the property or past experience in other areas of the country with affordable
housing projects. Two proposals were received on January 16, 1996 from McStain and PrideMark.
An evaluation committee composed of Ron Mills, Right -of -Way Officer, John Duval, Assistant City
Attorney, Alan Krcmarik, Financial Officer, Tom Vosburg, Policy Analyst, Ken Waido, Chief
Planner, and Jim O'Neill, Director of Purchasing and Risk Management rated the proposals.
The committee rated the proposals on the rating criteria which were: Scope of the Project, the
Financial Capacity of the Firm, Firm Capability, Time Frame to complete the project and the
amount of Financial Return to the City. In order to receive points under "The Scope of the
Proposal, " proposers were required to show greater than 20% of the housing to be affordable and
respond to the demonstration component. Affordable housing is defined as those living below 80%
of the median family income and not spending more than 30% of their income on housing including
utilities. The demonstration component was defined as: "Does the proposal intend to provide the
' City with significant information and understanding relating to measures that can be taken by the
City to assist in the production of affordable housing elsewhere in Fort Collins?"
The better overall scope of project and the better financial return to the City was determined by the
committee to be from PrideMark.
How do the PrideMark and McStain proposals meet the objectives and criteria for this sale?
The objectives of the sale of the Provincetowne property as outlined to Council on October 3, 1995
are:
1. To satisfy the City's fiduciary responsibilities to the SID bondholders and recover as much
of the City's costs as possible;
2. To retain or acquire ownership of those lands needed for public purposes such as natural
areas and park sites; and
3. To create an affordable housing demonstration project without the City being the developer.
PrideMark offers a better return to the City.
Both PrideMark and McStain would meet objectives 2 and 3.
The affordable housing demonstration project objectives/outcomes are:
WE
April 2, 1996
1. To demonstrate acceptability of dispersed, mixed housing in a design that can be replicated '
in other privately developed projects;
2. To gather data, test and evaluate impact of changes to development standards that have been
identified by the Affordable Housing Board, City staff and others;
3. To demonstrate how a community development corporation can play a part in financing
affordable housing;
4. To develop a package of regulatory, administrative and financial incentives to offer
developers of affordable housing; and
5. To determine affordable housing development and location criteria that are acceptable to
all neighbors.
PrideMark meets objectives 1, 2, and 4, and possibly objective 3. Objective 5 will be determined
by the planning process.
McStain meets objective I and possibly objectives 2 and 4. It is unknown whether McStain meets
objectives 3 and 5.
The rating committee felt that Prideldark's proposal was the better proposal.
What is PrideMark's affordable housing commitment?
PrideMark has agreed that when it applies to the City for approval of PrideMark's intended '
development of the property, that its application for development shall contain a proposal to build
as affordable housing, at least 30% of all residential units proposed to be constructed in the
development. PrideMark has also agreed that not less than two-thirds (213) of all of the affordable
housing units it builds in the development shall be restricted by covenant, deed or contract to remain
affordable housing for at least 25 years. With respect to the remaining one-third (113) of the
affordable housing units to be built, PrideMark has also agreed that such units shall be restricted
by covenant, deed or contract to remain affordable for at least 25 years, provided, however, that
some reasonable third-partyfinancing is available for such affordable housing units. If such third -
party financing is not available, the remaining one-third (113) of affordable housing units to be built
shall be restricted by covenant, deed or contract to remain affordable housing for at least 5 years.
To enable the City to enforce these affordable housing requirements, PrideMark has agreed that the
City will not be obligated to issue more than two certificates of occupancy for non -affordable
housing units for every one certificate of occupancy issued for an affordable housing unit. For
example, if two certificates of occupancy have been issued for two affordable housing units,
PrideMark shall only be entitled to receive four certificates of occupancy for non -affordable housing
units. Therefore, PrideMark will find it necessary to build at least one-third (113) of all its units as
affordable in order to obtain enough certificates of occupancy for the other two-thirds (213) of the
non -affordable housing units it builds. Also, before the City is required to issue a certificate of
occupancy for any unit of affordable housing, PrideMark must obtain the City's approval of the type
195 '
April 2, 1996
and terms of the covenant, deed or contract restriction which is to be used so that the City can be
reasonably guaranteed that the affordable housing unit will remain affordable for the time period
that PrideMark has agreed to.
What are the elements of the demonstration component being proposed by PrideMark?
At least 30%, or 300 units with in the entire project will be guaranteed affordable. About two thirds
(213) of these affordable units (20% of the project) will be apartments financed by State tax credits.
The remaining 10% of the total project (or 113 of the affordable units) will be other types of housing
including cottages, townhomes and single-family homes.
There are a variety of methods that PrideMark may employ in providing the continuing affordability
of the 10 percent of units not included in the apartment phase of the project. One method being
considered by PrideMark is to transfer ownership of specific lots to the Larimer County Community
Land Trust. This land trust is administered by The Resource Assistance Center (TRAC), a local non-
profit organization. Under this option, the units would remain affordable in perpetuity, and TRAC
would administer the monitoring and enforcement of the continuing affordability of the units. TRAC
has never worked with a private developer before in this kind of arrangement, and details remain
to be worked out regarding the practicality of this arrangement.
' There are other options that PrideMark is investigating as well regarding how to ensure the
continuing affordability of these units. These options include PrideMark establishing its own land
lease program, developing a portion of the single family homes as HUD financed rental units, and
working with other local non -profits such as Habitat for Humanity.
1
Because these various options are still being evaluated by PrideMark, the agreement does not
specify which specific means of providing affordable housing and for monitoring its enforcement
will be employed. However, a specific program will need to be selected and committed to by
PrideMark in the development process in order to satisfy the LDGS affordable housing base point
requirement.
What is innovative and unique about the PrideMark proposal?
A variety of different types of affordable housing will be produced including apartments, townhomes,
cottages, and single family homes.
There will be both rental and owner -occupied affordable housing.
There will be a mix of product types with in the Village Center phase of the project.
101
April 2, 1996
It is likely that the affordable single-family portion of the project will employ a method or program '
for ensuring continuing affordability that has not yet been used in Fort Collins (The TRAC land trust
or other land lease option).
The Village Center phase and market rate Co -housing will also be innovative in terms of
implementing urban design concepts outlined in the Community Visions and Goals 2015 document
being developed through City Plan.
How does the project contribute to demonstrating ways to make affordable housing more
acceptable to the neighborhood?
The Multi family will be built first. This rarely happens in Fort Collins.
The affordable single-family and townhome units will be dispersed throughout the market rate
housing within each phase of the development. It will, therefore, be developed concurrently and
difficult to distinguish from the market -rate housing.
The overall development will be attractive and have a high level of amenities including a park and
an extensive bike path system - this should ensure that property values of surrounding market rate
housing are not impacted by the affordable elements of Provincetowne.
How does the project contribute to demonstrating ways to make affordable -housing production I
more practical for the developer to provide?
The successful development of the project will demonstrate the practicality of providing affordable
housing in this manner. At this point, PrideMark appears confident that meeting these goals is
practical and reproducible.
In particular, this project will demonstrate how single-family PUDs can practically claim and
comply with the LDGS affordable housing base points requirement.
How will the project contribute to producing administrative and policy changes to promote
production of affordable housing?
The sales agreement includes a requirement that PrideMark provide the City with detailed
information regarding the costs the developer will incur in developing the property, so that City staff
can evaluate how City standards and administrative requirements affect the cost of housing.
With each phase of its development, PrideMark will be required to disclose, in sufficient detail to
enable the City to conduct its intended affordable housing policy analysis, the following types of
information:
197 1
April 2, 1996
A. An itemized breakdown of PrideMark's estimated infrastructure and engineering costs
associated with developing buildable lots so that the cost impacts of alternative development
standards can be evaluated;
B. An itemized breakdown of PrideMark's estimate of dwelling unit costs so that the cost
impacts of alternative building code requirements can be evaluated,
C. An itemized breakdown of PrideMark's legal, planning and other consulting costs associated
with project development so that the cost impacts of the City's development review
requirements can be evaluated;
D. An itemized breakdown of PrideMark's plan review fees, plant investment fees and all other
development impact fees that are charged by the City, other governmental entities, and
private utilities so that their impact on development can be evaluated;
E. A description of the terms and requirements of any development financing obtained for the
project so that the cost impacts of various financing methods concerning the proposed
housing can be evaluated; and
F. Such other data and information as that the City may reasonably request and reasonably
' need in connection with its evaluation of its applicable development policies and standards.
A report transmitting the above information will be provided to staff by the developer with the final
PUD submittal of each phase. "
1
Jim O'Neill, Purchasing Agent, made the staff presentation. He showed slides of the site and gave
a history of the acquisition of the property. He explained the City's SID sales policy and spoke of
the affordable housing demonstration component included in the sale. He spoke of the RFP review
process and stated the highest ranked proposal was received from Pridemark. The Finance
Committee gave direction to negotiate with Pridemark. The negotiations with Pridemark have
resulted in a return to the City of $1.8M at 7% over 5 years. There will be a 30% affordable housing
component, two-thirds will be apartments for 25 years and one-third will be owner occupied with
the affordable range of from 5-25 years depending on financing.
Jim Harmon, 8791 Wolf Ct., Westminster, CO, representing Pridemark Development Company and
Pridemark Homes, spoke of the proposed uses for the property. He spoke of the company's history
in building affordable homes and stated the plan for Provincetowne represents many different and
diversified housing types. He stated the project will start with an affordable rental project that will
be complemented with some cottage homes geared towards empty nesters and followed by a normal
single-family entry level development which will include a mix of land trust and market for sale
homes.
10
April 2, 1996
Rick Volpe, principal planner for the project, discussed the concept of the village center as an '
important component of the project. He described the village center as the centerpiece of the
development and spoke of its important focus to the project. The 14 acre mixed use village center
will include a variety of moderate to higher density residential products as well as recreation, open
space opportunities and community functions. The area will include townhomes, small lot single
family cottage homes as well as the potential for a co -housing neighborhood. He spoke of the 5-acre
neighborhood park adjacent to the natural area and stated some of the architectural features will
emphasize the. importance of the pedestrian.
Alan Krcmarik, Financial Officer, presented financial information on the sale and stated staff had
used the market value established in the RFP process as the basis for its analysis. He stated the
payback is about $3.1M and that in order to do the affordable housing demonstration project, the
City will subsidize the project by about $200,000.
Councilmember Wanner made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kneeland, to adopt Ordinance
No. 41, 1996, on First Reading.
Roger Prenzlow, 1337 West Vine Dr., stated he doubted this project could qualify for development
under the City's new phasing criteria.
Tom Vosberg, Policy Analyst, stated the project will be reviewed against the current LDGS criteria
and added staffs initial evaluation of different scenarios of how the property could be developed I
indicates that those requirements can be complied with. Much depends on the individual
components of the specific plan submitted by Pridemark.
The vote on Councilmember Wanner s motion to adopt Ordinance No. 41, 1996, on First Reading
was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Azari, Kneeland, McCluskey, Smith and Wanner. Nays:
None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Other Business
Councilmember Kneeland asked for information on a composting facility. City Manager Fischbach
stated staff will be presenting low cost alternatives for the public that would be effective this year.
There will not be a total composting option this year. Mayor Azari stated she had assumed that with
the passage of the volume based trash rates, composting would be available for citizens this spring.
She stated that if some alternative was not available, she would be interested in putting the volume
rates in abeyance until a composting option is available. She asked for a strong staff
recommendation to solve the problem.
199 '
April 2, 1996
Mayor Azari reported on the Legislative Review Committee meeting and gave an update on the
legislation the Committee is monitoring, including land use, transportation and telecommunications
issues and the property rights "takings" bill.
The meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m.
ATTEST:
City Clerk I N
I
Adjournment
200