HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES-04/16/1996-RegularI
April 16,1996
1
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 16, 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: Apt, Azari, Janett, Kneeland, McCluskey, Smith and Wanner.
Councilmember Absent: None.
Staff Members Present: Fischbach, Roy, Krajicek.
Citizen Participation
John Meleski, 2619 Featherstar Way, spoke of 1995 Model Energy Code concerns and spoke of
several references in the Code that he did not agree with.
Al Baccili, 520 Galaxy Court, spoke of the need for a Civilian Police Review Board and spoke in
opposition of camera radar stating that officers are needed, not machines.
Greg Heck, CSU Student, thanked Fred Jones of the Transportation Department for assisting him
with his questions regarding Transportation Issues.
Citizen Participation Follow-up
Councilmember Smith responded to Mr. Meleski's comments and requested he share his information
with Energy Services Advisor, Doug Swartz. He spoke of the benefits camera radar provides, stating
it enables officers to spend more time on more important matters but still address traffic violations.
He thanked Mr. Heck for speaking to Council on such a positive note.
Councilmember Janett responded to Mr. Baccili stating Council has put more Police Officers on the
streets in the last 2 years and clarified that Council has not received a formal presentation regarding
camera radar.
Agenda Review
City Manager John Fischbach stated there were no changes to the agenda as published.
201
April 16, 1996
Usellis, Public Affairs Manager for U.S. West, requested that Item #16, Resolution 96-47 Adopting
a Telecommunications Policy for the City of Fort Collins, be withdrawn from the Consent Agenda.
***CONSENT CALENDAR***
This Calendar is intended to allow the City Council to spend its time and energy on the important
items on a lengthy agenda. Staff recommends approval of the Consent Calendar. Anyone may
request an item on this calendar to be "pulled" off the Consent Calendar and considered separately.
Agenda items pulled from the Consent Calendar by the Public will be considered separately under
Agenda Item #22, Public Pulled Consent Items.
Second Reading of Ordinance No 41 1996 Authorizing the Sale of a Portion of the
Provincetowne SID Property to PrideMark Development Company, L.L.C. with an
Affordable Housing Component.
This Ordinance pertains to the sale of approximately 170 acres of the Provincetowne SID
property to PrideMark Development Compahy for development, which development would
include 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. Ordinance No. 41, 1996, which authorizes the sale of the 170 acres to
PrideMark, was unanimously adopted by Council on First Reading on April 2, 1996.
8. Second Reading of Ordinance No 42 1996 Appropriating UnariticipaLed Revenue From the '
Colorado Division of Criminal Justice for Fort Collins Police Services Latimer County
Multi -jurisdictional Project.
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, Latimer 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.
Ordinance No. 42, 1996, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on April 2, 1996,
appropriates $23,055 in new federal grant money received in connection with the program.
9. Second Reading of Ordinance No 43 1996 Amending Chapter 8 Article III Division 2 of
the City Code Creating a New Fund for the Home Ptggram and Appropriating Unaulicipated
Revenue for the 1995 1996 Home Program and Transferring 1994-1995 Home Program
Appropriations
202
i
April 16, 1996
' Ordinance No. 43, 1996, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on April 2, 1996,
establishes a new fund, the HOME Program Fund. It was 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.
10. First Reading of Ordinance No 44 1996 Authorizing the Sale of Real Property Known as
Lot 1. Super Block Property,
Resolution 92-91 established the policies for the sale of SID properties. A request for
proposal was issued in compliance with these policies. Only one offer was received. The
offer was from Troutman Office Park Associates, LLC, for $160,000, which offer exceeds
the appraised value of the Property.
11. First Reading of Ordinance No 45 1996 Amending Chanter 1 of the "Design Criteria and
Standards For Streets" dated July, 1986 Pertaining to Pedestrian Ramp Standards.
The "Pedestrian Ramp Design and Technical Criteria" dated April, 1996, ("the Pedestrian
Ramp Criteria") have been prepared to accommodate requirements of the Americans With
Disabilities Act, to provide a functional design standard which meets the needs of all
' pedestrians, and to minimize the financial impact on the City and the development
community. Staff solicited input on conceptual designs and reviewed draft copies with the
City's Commission on Disability, the Fort Collins Chapter of the American Association of
the Blind, the Local and Regional ADA Technical Assistance Centers and the National
Offices of the ADA Barriers and Compliance Board. Draft copies of the Pedestrian Ramp
Criteria were mailed to over 200 developers, contractors, and engineering consultants for
comments, and an open house was held to field input from affected parties.
12. First Reading of Ordinance No 46 1996 Appropriating Reserves in the General Fund for
Police Seizure Activity.
Nearly 100 years ago, Colorado law created a process for the seizure of illegal contraband
used in or gained from criminal activity. The intent is to deter crime and to have criminals
help defray the costs of policing.
State statutes specify that the proceeds from such seizures are to be used for law enforcement
purposes, and require that the governing body (City Council) of the seizing agency (Police
Services) appropriate these proceeds to supplement the seizing agency's budget or forfeit the
proceeds to the general fund of the State of Colorado. The Colorado Supreme Court and the
United States Supreme Court have consistently upheld the constitutionality of these statutes.
203
13
14.
15.
16.
April 16, 1996
First Reading of Ordinance No 47 1996 Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue for the '
HOME Program.
On March 1, 1996, the City of Fort Collins entered into a contract with the Colorado
Department of Local Affairs to receive a grant of $613,000 in State HOME funds. The City
of Fort Collins will loan the State HOME funds to Affordable Housing Partners of Fort
Collins, a Limited Partnership, and owner/developer of The Woodlands, an affordable rental
housing/new construction project at the northeast corner of Shields Street and Harmony
Road.
First Reading of Ordinance No 48 1996 Authorizing the Transfer of a Tract of Land Alone
the Foothills Regional Drainage Channel.
Tract A is a 4,949 square foot tract of land located adjacent to the Foothills Regional
Drainage Channel and Dakota Ridge 3rd Filing. The right-of-way required for the drainage
channel cut through the property of the Dakota Ridge P.U.D. This alignment created an
Outparcel of land on the north side of the channel, which could not be used by the owner.
In exchange for the owner conveying the Outparcel to the City in the channel right-of-way
at no extra cost, the City agreed to transfer Tract A of the channel right-of-way to the Dakota
Ridge property owner. Tract A was not needed for construction, nor is it needed for
maintenance of the channel. In addition, the City required the property owner to obtain an
access easement, which is needed for channel maintenance purposes. '
First Reading of Ordinance No 49 1996 Approving the Terms of a Sublease Agreement for
a Portion of 405 Canyon Avenue to the State Board of Agriculture.
City Council adopted Ordinance No. 23, 1995 approving the terms of a Lease Agreement for
405 Canyon Avenue. The space is being used by the Human Rights Office, Neighborhood
Resource Manager, Municipal Court Prosecutors, and RSVP. RSVP has found space for
fewer dollars and is interested in relocating. CSU's Educational Opportunity Office would
like to sublease the space from the City in the place of RSVP.
If Council approves the sublease, CSU will lease the space on the same terms as the existing
City lease: $11.25 per square foot plus expenses for utilities, routine maintenance, and
janitorial services. The City Space Team reviewed this request at its March 1, 1996 meeting
and recommends approval of the sublease to CSU.
Resolution 96-47 Adopting a Telecommunications Policy for the City of Fort Collins.
Council identified telecommunications as an important issue to the City in its 1996
Legislative Policy Agenda. Staff prepared a draft Telecommunications Policy with input
from the public, the Telecommunications Board, the Council Public Access Committee, a
204 1
April 16, 1996
' telecommunications consultant, and interested community organizations. There is support
and agreement on most elements of the policy by the groups involved. The policy document
was reviewed with Council at the March 26, 1996 Study Session. Staff has incorporated the
suggestions received at the Study Session and now recommends adoption of this Resolution.
17. Resolution 96-48 Approving a Contract with Insituform Plains Inc for the Repair of
Existing Sewer Mains as an Exception to the Use of Competitive Bid or Proposal
Over the past ten years the Water Wastewater Utility has used the Insituform Sleeving
Method (Cured -In -Place -Pipe or "CIPP") to reline and restore over 22,000 lineal feet of
existing six, eight, ten, eighteen and twenty-one inch sewer mains and service connections.
The method has been successful because it does not require any excavation of the street,
minimizing disruption to citizens, businesses and traffic. In addition, there is a cost savings
of between 5 to 40 percent, compared to conventional excavation and replacement methods,
depending on the size and location of the line. This year, funds were budgeted for the
relining of approximately 2,000 lineal feet of sewer mains, at a cost not to exceed $200,000.
The resolution will authorize the contract for Insituform Sleeving (CIPP) as an exemption
to the use of competitive bid or proposal and will allow an extension of the contract for 1997
as provided in Section 8-160(d)(4), unless it is determined that the Insituform Sleeving
Method is no longer the optimum method for relining and restoring the City's sewer mains
and service connections, and necessary funds are available in the 1997 Wastewater Utility
budget.
18. Resolution 96-49 Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to Enter into a Sole Source Contract
with the Humane Society for Animal Control Services
The City of Fort Collins has contracted with the Humane Society for Latimer County for
animal control services for the past fifteen years. The contract requires a wide variety of
equipment and services including: public education, maintaining and equipping a shelter
facility; veterinary care; humane and modern vehicles equipped for transporting animals;
radios; uniforms; administration of the pet licensing program; furnishing humane traps as
appropriate; maintaining adequate liability insurance; quarterly reports to our Director of
Finance; pick-up and disposal of dead animals, and generally respond to animal -related calls
for services within the City. There is no other known organization, entity or individual
capable of performing these services.
19. Resolution 96-50 Renaming a Street in the Overlook at Woodridge PUD. Fourth Filing.
From "Prairieview Lane" to "Trail View Lane".
The developer of Overlook at Woodridge has made a request to change the name of one
' street in the Overlook at Woodridge PUD, Fourth Filing. The change would be as follows:
205
April 16, 1996
Prairieview Lane changed to Trail View Lane. I
The name change is requested in order to 1) reconcile the street name on the subdivision plat
and utility plans with the name on the approved PUD Site and Landscape Plan; and 2)
eliminate a duplication with Prairieview Court in the Overlook at Woodridge PUD, Third
Filing. Homes have not yet been built on the affected street. The owner/developer of the
PUD is aware of the name change and is in agreement.
20. Resolution 96-51 Stating the Cif Council's Support for a Youth Offender Evaluation Center
in Latimer County and Authorizing the City Manager to Work with Latimer County and
Other Local Governments within Latimer Countyto Develop a Plan for a Proposed Facility.
Latimer County is lacking a secure intake and holding facility to temporarily control and
evaluate youth offenders. Presently, when a youth is arrested in Larimer County, law
enforcement agencies have few choices. The offender is taken back to the police building
to wait for a Youth Offender Response Team detention screener to arrive, collect information
and decide if the youth will be kept in a locked facility or released but restricted in some
other way. If the crime is minor, the youth can usually be released to the custody of the
family until the court date. However, a more serious crime may result in the offender being
transported to the Adams County Youth Services Center in Brighton, 60 miles away. Until
the youth leaves the Police building, the officer may be unable to return to community patrol.
To better service the special needs of this population, Larimer County representatives are '
proposing to build a 12-bed youth offender evaluation center on county -owned land near the
Latimer County Detention Center. Provision of this type of facility is traditionally a county's
responsibility, however, various multi -agency funding options are being explored.
21. Routine Deeds and Easements
A. Deed of easement from Poudre Valley Hospital District for the purpose of temporary
access and utility, located south of Harmony Road and east of Timberline Road.
Monetary consideration: $10.
B. Deed of easement from Oak Farm Inc. for the purpose of temporary access, located
south of Harmony Road between County Road 9 and Corbett Drive. Monetary
consideration: $0.
C. Deed of easement from Robert and Wendy Shields for the purpose of permanent
storm drainage, located north of Harmony Road and east of County Road 9.
Monetary consideration: $0.
1
April 16, 1996
' D. Deed of easement from Robert and Wendy Shields for the purpose of permanent
storm drainage, located north of Harmony Road and east of County Road 9.
Monetary consideration: $0.
E. Deed of easement from Robert and Wendy Shields for the purpose of permanent
storm drainage, located north of Harmony Road and east of County Road 9.
Monetary consideration: $0.
F. Deed of easement from Robert and Wendy Shields for the purpose of temporary
construction, located north of Harmony Road and east of County Road 9. Monetary
consideration: $0.
G. Deed of easement from Poudre School District R-1 for the purpose of permanent
storm drainage, located north of Mulberry Street between Taft Hill Road and
Overland Trail Road. Monetary consideration: $0.
H. Deed of easement from Dona L. Hahn for the purpose of temporary storm drainage,
located east of College Avenue, just north of Portner Reservoir. Monetary
consideration: $0.
' I. Deed of easement from Hewlett-Packard for the purpose of permanent storm
drainage, located north of Harmony Road and east of County Road 9. Monetary
consideration: $10.
J. Deed of easement from timberline Star Properties for the purpose of permanent
utility uses, located south of Prospect Road and west of Timberline Road. Monetary
consideration: $0.
Items on Second Reading were read by title by City Clerk Wanda Krajicek.
7. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 41, 1996, Authorizing the Sale of a Portion of the
Provincetowne SID Property to PrideMark Development Company. L.L.C. with an
Affordable Housing Component.
8. Second Reading of Ordinance No 42 1996 Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue From the
Colorado Division of Criminal Justice for Fort Collins Police Services' Latimer County
Multi jurisdictional Project.
9. Second 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.
207
April 16, 1996
Items on First Reading were read by title by City Clerk Wanda Krajicek. '
16. First Reading of Ordinance No 44 1996 Authorizing the Sale of Real Property Known as
Lot 1. Super Block Property.
11. First Reading of Ordinance No 45 1996, Amending Chapter 1 of the "Design Criteria and
Standards For Streets" dated July. 1986 Pertaining to Pedestrian Ramp Standards
12. First Reading of Ordinance No 46 1996 Appropriating Reserves in the General Fund for
Police Seizure Activity.
13. First Reading of Ordinance No 47 1996 Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue for the
HOME Program.
14. First Reading of Ordinance No 48 1996 Authorizing the Transfer of a Tract of Land Alone
the Foothills Regional Drainage Channel.
15. First Reading of Ordinance No 49 1996 Approving the Terms of a Sublease Agreement for
a Portion of 405 Canyon Avenue to the State Board of Agriculture.
25. First Reading of Ordinance No 50 1996 Adding Division 5 to Chapter 24 of the Code of
the City of Fort Collins Related to the Transportation Maintenance Fee '
26. First Reading of Ordinance No. 51. 1996, of the Council of the City of Fort Collins
Amending Chapter 29 of the City Code by the Addition of a New Article VI Pertaining to
the Imposition of Certain Capital Expansion Fees,
27. First Reading of Ordinance No 52 1996 Rezoning Approximately 140 1 Acres from the T.
Transition District to the R-L-P Planned Residential District with a PUD Condition. This
Rezoning Is Known as the CountEy Club Farms Rezoning,
Councilmember McCluskey made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Smith, to adopt and
approve all items not removed from the Consent Agenda. Yeas: Councilmembers Apt, Azari, Janett,
Kneeland, McCluskey, Smith and Wanner. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Resolution 96-47
Adopting a Telecommunications Policy .
for the City of Fort Collins, Adopted.
The following is staff's memorandum on this item.
208 '
April 16, 1996
"Executive Summary
Council identified telecommunications as an important issue to the City in its 1996 Legislative
Policy Agenda. Staff prepared a draft Telecommunications Policy with input from the public, the
Telecommunications Board, the Council Public Access Committee, a telecommunications consultant,
and interested community organizations. There is support and agreement on most elements of the
policy by the groups involved. The policy document was reviewed with Council at the March 26,
1996 Study Session. Staff has incorporated the suggestions received at the Study Session and now
recommends adoption of this Resolution.
BACKGROUND:
During the past several years Council has recognized the need for increased attention and
coordinated planning with regard to telecommunications. A Council Public Access Committee was
formed, and the City adopted a public access policy in 1993 with the objective of creating usable
and sustainable electronic community resources. The public access policy was updated in 1995 and
Council identified telecommunications as an important issue to the City in its 1996 Legislative
Policy Agenda.
The current telecommunications policy initiative is an extension of these earlier efforts. Staff
prepared a draft Telecommunications Policy with input from the public, Telecommunications Board,
Council Public Access Committee, a telecommunications consultant, and other interested commniity
organizations. There is support and agreement on most elements of the policy by the groups
involved. The areas of the policy that have generated disagreement or controversy are identified
later in this background section. The policy document was reviewed with Council at the March 26,
1996 Study Session. A summary of the Study Session is included in Attachment #2. It was agreed that
with the addition of the suggested changes to the Telecommunications Policy, that the policy is ready
to bring to Council for consideration.
The following list of questions and answers provide additional background on the City's
Telecommunications Policy.
What does the term "telecommunications" mean?
A broad term that refers to communication of information of any kind (sound, voice, images, or data)
over a distance by wire, fiber optics, or electromagnetic (i.e., through -the -air) means.
Why is it important for the City to have a telecommunications policy?
In the past, communities have been linked internally, and to the outside world, by roads, highways,
waterways, etc. More and more, people are being interconnected by electronic roads or highways,
' which is made possible by telecommunications technology. The "information superhighway" is not
209
April 16, 1996
so much a physical entity as a metaphor for a wide range of technological changes that are shaping I
society.
Locally, the availability of telecommunications networks and services will increasingly contribute
to the health, safety and welfare of communities, including the economic development. In addition
to technological changes, state and federal regulatory changes will have impacts at the local level.
The City should expect, and therefore plan, to play a greater and more varied role in promoting and
providing telecommunications facilities and services for the community. Consequently, the City
needs a solid policy foundation to guide its discussions and decisions relating to
telecommunications.
What are other cities doing in this area?
Cities are beginning to recognize the importance of addressing telecommunications from a policy
standpoint. In a 1994 survey of local governments, the International City/County Management
Association found that 5.6 percent had a written telecommunications plan and 94.4 percent did not.
Of those that did not, 22.9 percent planned to develop a written telecommunications plan within two
years. More recent estimates state that approximately 10 percent of local governments now have a
written telecommunications plan, and in five years 90 percent of local governments will have such
a plan.
Blacksburg, Virginia and Palo Alto, California are examples of cities that have developed advanced '
community telecommunications resources. On a more regional level, the City of Longmont has
initiated a feasibility study to install a multiple use fiber optic/broadband telecommunications
infrastructure to serve municipal and community needs.
What are main elements of the City's proposed Telecommunications Policy?
Based on input from the public, Telecommunications Board, Council Public Access Committee, a
telecommunications consultant and other interested community organizations, staff proposes
policies and related action steps in seven key areas:
• Public access to information;
• Privacy and security;
• Universal access to telecommunications services;
• Expand telecommunications service opportunities in Fort Collins;
• The City's regulatory role;
• Compensation for use of rights -of -way by telecommunications providers;
• Fort Collins as a user and provider of telecommunications services; and
• Impact state and federal telecommunications reform legislation.
What process was used to develop the proposed Telecommunications Policy?
210 1
April16, 1996
' The policy development effort was formalized as a project in mid-1995. A project team was formed,
and the Council Public Access Committee served as a guidance team for the project. The
Telecommunications Board served as advisors for the policy development. Public outreach and input
from both internal and external stakeholders Were utilized throughout the policy development
process. The project was divided into stages which closely approximate Council's policy
development process. Below is a summary of milestones completed for each project stage.
A. Project Initiation Stage -- 8/95
Project plan
Hired project consultant
B. Problem Definition/Needs Analysis Stage -- 9/95 to 11/95
Public forum and on-line input
Needs assessment of City and key community organization
Analyze legislation and telecommunications providers
C. Policy Scope, Options and Decisions Stage -- 11/95
• Council Public Access Committee work session
• Telecommunications Board work session
D. Prepare Draft of Policy and Review Stage -- 12/95 -- 3/96
What citizen participation was included in process to develop the Telecommunications Policy?
In addition to the involvement of several City departments, the following groups provided input and
were involved in the review of the City's Telecommunications Policy:
• Telecommunications Board
• Council Public Access Committee
• Public Forum/On-line Access on Internet
• Chamber of Commerce Technology Task Force
• Chamber of Commerce Local Legislative Affairs Committee
• Telecommunications Providers
• FortNet
What areas of the proposed policy have generated disagreement or controversy?
In preliminary review and discussions of the proposed Telecommunications Policy, the following
main issues were identified.
211
April 16, 1996
What approach should the City take in charging telecommunications providers for their use I
of the public rights -of -way to engage in private, for -profit enterprise?
What role should the City, particularly the Electric Utility, have in providing
telecommunications infrastructure and/or services for the community?
Impact of telecommunications reform legislation, particularly legislation under
consideration in the Colorado state legislature, on the City's proposed Telecommunications
Policy.
Attachment #2 (March 26, 1996 Study Session Summary) and Attachment #4 (Telecommunications
Board Minutes) provide additional information on these issues.
How will the Telecommunications Policy be implemented?
The proposed policy includes a list of recommended action steps, as well as roles and
responsibilities, to implement the policy statements. The recommended action steps are general in
nature and do not commit the City to a specific level of funding or resources. Once Council adopts
a telecommunications policy, formal work plans and funding to carry out the policy will be
developed as part of City-wide planning activities. The action steps contained in the proposed policy
document include:
• Complete a telecommunications strategic plan; '
• _ Include information technology/telecommunications in City-wide planning;
• Initiate regional telecommunications planning;
• Expand the role of the Electric Utility in telecommunications;
• Enhance rights -of -way management;
• Create new enabling mechanisms;
• Enhance zoning requirements; and
• Determine compensation for use of rights -of -way. "
Doug Finnman gave a brief staff report on this item.
Councilmember Kneeland made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Smith, to adopt Resolution
96-47.
Mark Usellis, Manager of Public Policy for U.S. West, spoke in support of the policy and urged its
adoption. He clarified the definition of "provider of last resort" and of the need for unfettered access
to the rights -of -way.
Councilmember Kneeland spoke of the difficulty in writing the policy because of the constant
changes in technology and thanked staff and the Telecommunications Board for its hard work.
212
April 16, 1996
' The vote on Councilmember Kneeland's motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Apt,
Azari, Janett, Kneeland, McCluskey, Smith and Wanner. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Reports
Councilmember Janett spoke of the two affordable housing items that were adopted on the Consent
Agenda.
Councilmember McCloskey reported on a recent Finance Committee meeting in which the
Committee discussed the Facilities Maintenance Fee, Total Compensation Policy and issues
regarding the City's revenue mix. He stated the Legislative Review Committee reviewed two
legislative bills regarding landuse issues.
Councilmember Kneeland reported on information available in Council packets regarding the recent
Organization Development Committee retreat.
Mayor Azari gave a brief report on a meeting held with the County Commissioners.
' Ordinance No. 50,1996,
Adding Division 5 to Chapter 24 of the
Code of the City of Fort Collins Related
to the Transportation Maintenance Fee, Failed
The following is staff's memorandum on this item.
"Financial Impact
The Ordinance authorizes the establishment of the Transportation Maintenance Fee. The amount
of the fee collected each year will be based on the unfunded balance needed to maintain streets,
alleys, bikeways, and City -owned pedestrian ways. The proposed amount is not available from other
revenue sources. The amount needed in the first year of collection is $3.6 million. Monthly fees
will be established for two residential and five non-residential categories based on the estimated
number of trips within the City each year, the amount of money needed, and the number of fee payers
in each category. The annual calculation of the fee will be part of the City's budget process. Any
fees collected are subject to the revenue and expenditure limitations imposed by Article X, Section
20 of the Colorado State Constitution.
213
April 16, 1996
Executive Summary
The item presented to the City Council is a proposal from the Transportation Services Area to
establish the Transportation Maintenance Fee, patterned after the former Transportation Utility
Fee, as a mechanism for partially funding the maintenance of streets. "Streets" is defined, in part,
to mean the entire width between the dedicated or deeded boundary lines of every way publicly
maintained when any part is open to the use of the public for the purposes of vehicular, bicycle or
pedestrian travel. Staff recommends that the Transportation Maintenance Fee be implemented in
1996 so that collections would begin on July 1, 1996.
BACKGROUND:
In 1984, the City of Fort Collins adopted the Transportation Utility Fee ("TUF") as an alternative
to funding street maintenance from general revenue sources. The premise for the fee is that
maintenance should be funded by the parties most frequently using the streets and most directly
benefitting from their maintenance. The following year a class action suit was filed in Lorimer
County District Court challenging the TUF. The trial court rejected the TUF as an invalid property
tax. However, the City appealed and the Colorado Supreme Court upheld the TUF on appeal as a
"special service fee" for street maintenance, with the proviso that the amount of the TUF must be
cost related and no excess revenue can be used for other governmental purposes.
Collection of the TUF was suspended during the appeal period. Voters approved a 114 cent sales '
tax increase dedicated to street maintenance prior to the final decision of the Colorado Supreme
Court. Subsequently, despite the proven legality of the TUF, Council repealed the enabling
legislation in favor of the sales tax funding option.
Need for the Transportation Maintenance Fee:
The basic premise of the TUF is still valid. (However, the name has been changed to
Transportation Maintenance Fee, since the Transportation Services Area is not presently established
as a "utility. ") Transportation corridors should be maintained by those who impact them. Revenues
from the dedicated sales tax have not been adequate for several years to fund street maintenance at
the current level of service.
There has been an evolution in municipal transportation. It is no longer the exclusive domain of
automobiles. An effective system must provide travel opportunities for pedestrians, bicyclists, bus
riders and those with disabilities. The transportation system should also be safe and efficient.
Several growth factors illustrate why more revenue is necessary to continue the current level of
maintenance: street mileage, traffic signal system, and bike lane mileage. Each has increased
significantly over the last fifteen years. This additional usage has caused a problem. Right now,
50% of all pavement is in good or excellent condition. Pavement has a life cycle of about twenty
214 1
April 16, 1996
' years. If maintenance is performed while the condition is still good, the cost of that maintenance
is one-fourth of the money needed once the pavement falls into poor condition. Projections show
that the current level of funding for the pavement management program, $3.5 million, is not enough
to perform the most effective maintenance. The current system pavement condition can only be
maintained with funding levels exceeding $5 million a year.
The transportation infrastructure is an investment worth $156 million to this community. In 1996,
the cost of street maintenance is budgeted at $8,100,000, (roughly 5% of the value) including the
dedicated sales tax revenue which is expected to generate $3,285,000. Another $3.6 million is
needed to keep the current levels of service. If another revenue source is not identified and
implemented, the City must use other scarce resources like the general fund to make up the
difference. The alternative is to reduce maintenance which is not cost-effective and would present
safety hazards for some alternative modes. Transportation Services faces a funding shortfall of
$122 million over the next ten years for all services. Supplementing transportation maintenance
from current available revenues would only hurt other necessary programs.
Reserves have been used to supplement budgets when emergencies and new programs arise. Those
reserves have not been replenished and are now too low to be a funding option.
Another $3.6 million is needed to keep the current level of service which is based on sound
' maintenance principles and reasonable customer expectations. The only new programs to be added
are traffic calming (funded at a minimal level of $50,000) and the maintenance of bike lanes.
If the Transportation Maintenance Fee is approved, the mix of revenue sources used to fund
transportation maintenance would be strengthened and a portion of the City's street maintenance
costs would against be assessed against the users of the streets on the basis of estimated usage. The
flexibility of the fee also allows the City Council to adjust the rate calculation in the event any
revenue sourceds lost or if additional revenue is received.
1
Approval of the Transportation Maintenance Fee will provide the additional money needed to
preserve the community's infrastructure investment. Without it, there is a clear danger of system
deterioration resulting in greater future cost and citizen dissatisfaction.
TMF Revenues:
Staff has defined the best and most equitable method for calculating the TMF. A base rate is
established from the anticipated unfunded cost of maintenance and the total number of trips
generated each year in Fort Collins. Categories of use were determined and assigned a trip
generation factor based on data from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) and the North
Front Range Household Travel Survey. The base rate will be revised each year based on the amount
of unfunded need and the number of trips made.
215
April 16, 1996
The TMF will be billed each month as part of the City's utility bill. A typical residential bill is
expected to be $3.12 per month ($37.44 per year). Commercial and industrial bills will be higher
based on type of business, the number of trips generated, and the number of fee payers in each
category. The exact amount will be known after each fee payer is identified and placed into a
category of use. Staff worked with the Fort Collins Chamber of Commerce to develop reasonable
estimates. The estimated fees are as follows:
Category
Average Daily Trips
Estimated Monthly Fee
Low
0 to 100
$6.02 - 6.43
Low -Medium
101 to 200
$18.07 - 19.29
Medium
201 to 500
$42.17 - 45.00
Medium -High
501 to 1000
$90.37 - 96.44
High
Over 1000
$450.05 - 602.46
Rebates and Appeals
This fee will be part of the City's utility rebate program so that all or part of the TMF can be
refunded to those fee payers experiencing economic hardships. Fee payers who believe they have
been placed in the wrong category of use can appeal that determination and staff will review
evidence in support of the appeal. "
City Manager John Fischbach spoke of the potential for higher costs in the future if repairs are not '
addressed now.
Transportation Services Director of Administration Ron Phillips gave a brief presentation on this
item.
Policy Analyst Susanne Edminster spoke of the available funding, and the rationalele., signs, signal
systems, pavement markings, traffic calming, seal coat and overlay program. She clarified funds for
the computer system programming and ongoing billing and customer services would be a one time
charge to utility customers. She outlined the fee structure and stated there were 5 categories for
nonresidential ranging from low impact businesses to high impact shopping centers. She stated
adoption of the Transportation Maintenance Fee would not ensure that there would be adequate
funding available for street maintenance and outlined the options available.
Phillips reported on the history of the Transportation Maintenance Fee, he stated reenactment of the
fee has been upheld by the Colorado Supreme Court. He stated implementation of the fee would be
less expensive than a gas tax, property tax or vehicle registration fee. He spoke of the method used
to administer the fee.
216 1
April 16, 1996
Colin Gerety, Transportation Board Chair, stated the Transportation Board considered various issues,
ie., the need for additional money, reduction of funding needs, appropriate methods to fund
transportation and the timing of introducing fees. He urged adoption of the Ordinance and spoke of
funding options. He commented if the item were postponed, overall cost would continue to increase.
Councilmember Smith made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Wanner, to adopt Ordinance
No. 50, 1996 on First Reading.
Councilmember McCluskey clarified the Finance Committee did not make a recommendation
regarding this item.
Phillips responded to Council questions and stated this item was not scheduled during 1996 budget
discussion because discussions had already begun. He stated the amount of funding for staffing the
program is being reviewed further, and if adopted, staff will bring the item back to Council to discuss
funding options.
Councilmember Smith asked if the utility fees would be increased if the 1/4 cent sales tax is not
reinstated and questioned if the City is required to plow and sand streets.
City Attorney Steve Roy stated there is no requirement mandating that the City plow and sand
' streets. He noted decisions on the level of service are up to Council based on available funding, but
emphasized the need to provide those services.
Policy Analyst Susanne Edminster responded to Council questions regarding the Rebate Program,
stating the Transportation Maintenance Fee would be eligible for a rebate.
John Meleski, 2619 Featherstar Way, questioned why there was such a shortfall and how long the
shortfall had existed.
Karen Weitkunat, 1513 North College Avenue, spoke of the impact the fee would have on small
businesses.
Paul Perlmutter, member of the Transportation Board, supported the motion and stated the fee was
an excellent first step.
Paul Valentine, Transportation Boardmember, spoke of the 1996 unfunded requests and of the need
to keep the streets in good condition.
Bob Teuting, 916 Cheyenne Drive, spoke in opposition to the Transportation Maintenance Fee and
stated if the ordinance was adopted he would attempt to rescind it by legal action.
217
April 16, 1996
Dan Gould, 623 West Mountain Avenue, spoke of the need for alternative modes of transportation I
and spoke in support of the Transportation Maintenance Fee.
Dave Hudson, 4513 Goshawk Drive, opposed the Transportation Maintenance Fee.
Mark Egeland, 1313 Green, supported the Transportation Maintenance Fee and spoke of the mix of
business and residential contributions and of how fees would be assessed.
Al Baccili, 520 Galaxy Court, strongly opposed the fee.
Bruce Lockhart, 2500 East Harmony Road, questioned why CSU was exempt from paying the fees
and spoke of his reasons for not supporting the fee. He suggested raising recreation fees so that
people could make a conscious choice whether or not they pay.
Herb Schroeder, 300 West Lake Street, stated there should not have been such a large shortfall. He
opposed the fee and suggested the issue be decided by the voters.
Gerald Warren, 308 Dartmouth Trail, believed this was a tax and not a fee, and concurred with
previous comments regarding presenting the issue to the voters.
Eric Levine, member of the Air Quality Advisory Board, opposed the fee and spoke of the need to
find a more equitable arrangement, ie., "pay as you go". I
Mike Hauser, Chamber of Commerce President, stated the Chamber has taken a neutral position on
this issue. He spoke of the need to support and fund transportation maintenance but believed this
was not an equitable funding solution.
Edminster responded to questions regarding trip generators and stated that counters could be used
at various locations for tracking purposes.
Roy clarified the Courts recognize the Transportation Maintenance Fee as a Special Service Fee and
briefly spoke of the definition of "Fee".
Councilmember Apt stated Council should consider not including Poudre R-1 School District into
the same category as CSU because of its mass transit bus system.
Edminster reported on the amount of funds that have been taken from reserves over the years to
make up for shortfalls.
Krcmarik reported on excess revenue predictions.
218
April 16, 1996
Councilmember Apt offered a friendly amendment to the previous motion to include Transfort
maintenance as a revenue recipient, in the ordinance. Councilmembers Smith and Wanner accepted
the amendment as a friendly amendment to their previous motion.
Councilmember Apt offered a friendly amendment to cut the fee by 50% until the issue is submitted
to City voters.
THE MOTION FAILED DUE TO LACK OF A SECOND.
Councilmember Smith supported the ordinance and the need to review the fee annually.
Councilmember Apt thanked staff and citizens who participated in the process for all their hard
work. He stated he believed the issue should go to the voters with a comprehensive plan putting
transit and multi -modal transportation first, and including transportation maintenance as a part of the
package. He stated he did not believe the plan was equitable.
Councilmember McCluskey opposed the motion and spoke of the need for an ongoing funding
source.
Councilmember Kneeland stated she did not support the motion and stated she believed this should
' be part of the budget discussions and a policy should be developed for financing transportation
maintenance.
Councilmember Janett supported the motion and commented she did not feel the current level of
service regarding street maintenance and light timing was acceptable. She suggested looking at
budget cuts in the 1996 budget to help fund street maintenance.
Councilmember Wanner spoke in support of the motion and concurred with comments made by
Councilmember Janett. He stated the results need to be reviewed after two years and included in the
1998 budget.
Mayor Azari stated this is a public policy issue, not a budget issue and spoke of her reasons for not
supporting the motion and of the need for further discussions.
The vote on Councilmember Smith's motion to adopt Ordinance No. 50, 1996, as amended was as
follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Janett, Smith and Wanner. Nays: Councilmembers Apt, Azari,
Kneeland, McCluskey.
THE MOTION FAILED.
219
April 16, 1996
Ordinance No. 51,1996, '
of the Council of the City of Fort Collins
Amending Chapter 29 of the City Code by
the Addition of a New Article VI Pertaining to
the Imposition of Certain Capital Expansion Fees Adopted Option 1 as Amended
The following is staff's memorandum on this item.
"Financial Impact
The adoption of the proposed fees would result in increased revenue to fund capital improvements
in five areas: Library, Community Parkland, Police Services, Fire Services, and General
Governmental Facilities Services. Total projected revenue if all fees are adopted would be
approximately $1.5 million annually. This projection is based on average development volume over
the past 10 years, and will vary as the amount of new development in the community varies.
A financial concern regarding the project is the priority that projects in these areas will have in the
next Capital Improvement Process. Funds collected through these fees must be appropriated within
7 years and spent to make the relevant capital improvements within 10 years of the date they are
collected, or the fees must be refunded. This means that these projects may receive a higher priority
than other potential capital improvements because of the urgency created by the funding source.
An additional future financial impact will include the operation and maintenance of those capital '
improvements that will be funded with fee revenue. On -going funding of the operation of new
facilities may not be funded through one-time fees, so additional general revenue will need to be
identified when capital facilities are constructed.
A final financial impact of the proposed legislation is the impact on the general fund if the current
affordable housing fee rebate program is extended to cover these fees. This general fund program
would need to be funded to cover eligible residential developments.
Executive Summary
At the February 27, 1996, Study Session, Council gave staff direction to develop a proposed
ordinance to implement several Capital Expansion Fees that Council discussed.
Two ordinances are attached which implement five fees. These fees cover the growth related capital
expansion costs for Library Facilities, Community Parkland, Police Services Facilities, Fire
Facilities and Equipment, and General Governmental Services Facilities.
Why Fees? A capital expansion fee is a form of development exaction imposed on new development.
Its purpose is to encourage orderly development and ensure that development does not outstrip the
220 1
April 16, 1996
' ability of the City to provide the infrastructure necessary to serve the development. The attached
graph illustrates that revenues allocated to capital facilities have not kept pace with the growth
which has occurred in the community in the past 20 years (Attachment A). This shortfall of capital
expansion investment has led to a situation where the current residents of the community must pay
to continue to expand public facilities to meet demand from new residents. Were no growth to occur
in the future, the taxpayers of Fort Collins would only be required to pay for operations,
maintenance, and replacement of existing facilities. They also may choose to fund any expansion
of facilities that are desired for increased levels of service.
How much are the proposed fees? Two fee schedules have been developed for Council
consideration. A five -tiered rate structure for residential development has been proposed in Option
1. This structure is based on the size of the residential unit. Option 2 is a two -tiered rate structure.
These rates are based on single and multi family residential units. For a summary of the fees
proposed in the Capital Expansion Cost Study, see Attachment B. Average projected revenues for
the proposed fees are outlined in Attachment C.
By adopting a capital expansion fee that is tied to new development, new residents and businesses
would bear a proportionate share of the cost of expanding facilities that are required to provide
services to the new development.
' When would fees be implemented?
The earliest the ordinance could be effective would be ten days after second reading which is
scheduled for May 1, 1996. This would be May 11. Staff is now determining the magnitude of
changes that would be required in the Building Permits Office. In Option 1, the step of calculating
square footage of the building or addition, and of calculating increments of fees would be more
complicated than Option 2 for the staff to operationalize.
An unintended consequence of this implementation delay may be that the Building Permit Office
could receive a large volume of permit requests from individuals who hope to have their permit
approved before the implementation of the new fees. Staff will finalize the implementation strategy
prior to second reading and recommend a firm date for the imposition of fees.
BACKGROUND:
In order to implement the fee ordinances that were discussed with Council at the February 27 Study
Session, staff has developed two proposed ordinances for Council consideration. The ordinances
assume that all five fees are being considered by Council. It is important to note that, if Council
wishes to adopt only some of the proposed fees, the ordinance could be amended to delete the fees
which are not desired. The remaining fees could then be implemented.
221
April 16, 1996
Board Input: I
Library Board: On March 14, the Library Board reviewed the proposed capital expansion fee
system for Library Capital Facilities and Materials. They unanimously voted to support the concept.
The board's written recommendation is included as Attachment D to this agenda item.
Parks and Recreation Board: On March 27, the Parks and Recreation Board reviewed the
proposal, and voted 6-2 to support the use of a Community Parkland Fee to fund future needs for
Community Parks. The Board also supports varying fees by residential unit size (Option 1). They
discussed the possibility of extending this methodology to the existing Neighborhood Parkland fee.
If the Community Parkland Fee is approved, the Board will review the methodology for the
Neighborhood Parkland Fee.
Poudre Fire Authority Board: On March 26, the PFA Board reviewed the proposed fees and chose
not to make a recommendation. The Board agreed that, since it represents two different
governmental entities, it would be inappropriate for the Board to take a position on this issue.
Affordable Housing Board: The Affordable Housing Board met on April 4 and discussed the
proposed fees. The Board recommended that Council should not add any new fees to the cost of
housing. They further recommended that, if new fees are imposed, they should be varied by
residential unit size, so that smaller units pay a proportionately lower fee. The Board believes that
this variable fee structure should also be extended to other existing fees such as Neighborhood I
Parkland. The recommendation was approved unanimously.
Natural Resources Board: The Natural Resources Board discussed the capital expansion fee
concept at its March meeting and concluded that it is appropriate to impose these fees. The Board
recommended that this method be used to offset the impact of new development on the community's
infrastructure.
Methodology Change
After the Study Session held in February, staff has worked with the City Attorneys office as well as
outside legal and planning consultants who specialize in impact fees. Based on the consultants
recommendations, staff has changed the methodology which was used to calculate the Police, Fire
and General Governmental Services fees. Previously, the proposed fees were calculated based on
local service usage data.
The consultants suggested that a more accurate and generally accepted method would be to
calculate the fees based on "Functional Population." The functional population methodology
developed by James Duncan and Associates, apportions cost to various land uses based on the
number of people who use each type of development during atypical 24-hour period. For example,
it estimates the number of people who live, work and shop in the community, regardless of the
222 1
April 16, 1996
number of actual residents. This methodology takes into account the fact that many people who do
not live in Fort Collins visit commercial or industrial businesses during a day. For a complete
discussion of the methodology, please refer to the Capital Expansion Cost Study. (Attachment E)
Issues:
Several issues have been raised about the use of impact fees to correct the capital expansion revenue
shortfall. They include the following:
1. If these fees are enacted, they will have the effect of giving these capital needs a higher
priority than other possible capital projects.
The revenues from capital expansion fees may only be used to pay for the costs of expanding
capital facilities that are required because of the new development. This means that fee
revenue may not be used to correct existing deficiencies or to increase the levels of service
to existing residents. This spending requirement may have the effect of increasing the
priority that must be given to some projects in the next Capital Improvement Program. This
may be necessary so that the capital expansion funds can be used within the required 10 year
period. For example, a Police building may need to receive a higher funding priority than
it would have under other circumstances because it would need to begin being constructed
during the next 10 years.
' 2. Factors that have been used to develop the fees may change in the future.
As new data regarding the need for capital facilities is created, and as new service level
standards are adopted, the method for calculating fees may need to change. An example
might be the addition of the Front Range Community College library facility. With the
addition of this service, Council and the Library Board may choose to increase the adopted
service level for Library Services. This may create an opportunity to adjust the capital
expansion fees to be commensurate with the service level. Staff will continue to review data
than has been used in developing fees. If new information becomes available, Council can
adopt changes to the methodology for calculating the fees.
3. Two options for apportioning fees to residential properties.
The attached ordinances present two options for apportioning fees to residential
development. Both are aimed at fairly apportioning costs among residential fee payers and,
at the same time, addressing the affordable housing issues inherent in adding new fees.
Option I apportions the fees base on the square footage of a dwelling unit. According to
Census data, larger units have a proportionately higher number of residents per unit than
do smaller units. This correlation allows us to create a fee schedule that would reduce costs
allocated to smaller units. Five size categories have been created, and fees have been
calculated based on the relationship between the unit's average residents and the overcall
average of 2.43 residents per unit.
223
April 16, 1996
Option 2 creates a two -tiered fee structure with different rates for single-family and multi-
family units. Census data also supports this rate structure because, on average, single-
family units have more residents than do multi family units. This rate structure allows multi-
family units to pay a proportionately lower fee.
As a part of Council's decision making process, one of the two alternatives must be selected
and the attached study must be amended to include only that option. The appropriate
ordinance must also be selected for Council approval.
Features of the Proposed Ordinance:
• The ordinance adopts existing level of service standards for Library, Community Parkland,
Police, Fire and General Governmental Facilities at their curren levels of service.
• Fees would be varied based upon the size of the residential unit constructed and upon the size
of the commercial and industrial building.
• Fees would apply as follows:
Residential Commercial Industrial
Library x
Community Parkland x
Police Facilities x x x
Fire Facilities x x x
General Govt. Facilities x x x
• Capital projects associated with each fee must be commenced within 10 years of the time the fee
is collected.
• Fees are indexed to inflation and will be adjusted annually.
• Fees apply to all new residential units, remodeled residential units which add dwelling units,
new commercial and industrial development, and renovations to commercial or industrial
properties that increase the square footage of the building.
If Council should decide not to implement some or all of the proposed fees, it may choose to consider
implementing this program through a Development Excise Tax. An ordinance placing an excise tax
on the November 1996 ballot could be developed during the coming months. This tax could be used
to recover the cost of development impacts for the same capital improvements as the proposed fees,
as well as for other impacts. Some of these impacts might include recreation and cultural programs,
affordable housing, social services, child care or any other impacts Council wishes to consider.
NEXT STEPS:
L
224 1
April 16, 1996
If Council elects to adopt the proposedfees, several additional actions will be required to complete
the implementation. They include the following actions:
• Amend the existing Financial and Management Policies to add language regarding the PEA
capital mill levy to avoid any "double payment" on the part of the fee payers. Council could
differentiate between the capital expansion fees that will be used to fund development related
demand increases, and the existing PFA mill which will'be used for apparatus replacement and
operations and maintenance needs. This change could be adopted at the same time as second
reading of this ordinance occurs. The change of Financial Policies may also need to be
reflected in an amendment to the 1996 Appropriations Ordinance.
• Amend the code regarding the existing Neighborhood Parkland fee. The method used for
collecting the Neighborhood Parkland fee is different from the one proposed here, and may need
to be changed to maintain consistency. Other changes in this fee may also result from the review
of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan that is currently being updated. These changes would
be brought to Council during 1996.
• When City Plan is adopted, Council should incorporate the Library Master Plan, Facilities
Master Plan, Fire Strategic Plan, and Police Strategic Plan as part of the Comprehensive Plan.
The City has already adopted the Parks and Recreation Master Plan as part of existing
Comprehensive Plan.
• Make the necessary changes to the Affordable Housing Rebate program to allow for rebate of
' the new fees. THIS WILL BEA FUNDING ISSUE, since rebates are currently funded from the
General Fund.
• Consider the impact of collecting additional revenue on the City's Amendment I revenue limits.
The additional revenue generated by these fees may contribute to the City exceeding its revenue
cap in either 1996 or future years. "
City Manager John Fischbach explained the need to extend the second reading date, noting Council
would like the Planning and Zoning Board's recommendation. He gave a brief presentation and
spoke of the fees currently in place and the fees being proposed.
Director of Finance Alan Krcmarik briefly gave a slide presentation and outlined the history of the
item. He spoke of the City's significant revenue growth and increased levels of service, and of the
various options available and outlined fee comparisons.
City Manager John Fischbach responded to Council questions, clarifying if the fees are implemented
the cost of housing would increase $2,500 over the next 5 years.
Councilmember Janett made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Smith, to adopt Ordinance No.
51, 1996, Option 1, on First Reading.
225
April 16, 1996
Linda Norton, a Fort Collins Realtor, reported on housing statistics stating 48% of homes sold in the ,
last year met affordable housing criteria. She opposed the motion and stated if the fees are
implemented, building of affordable housing would dramatically decrease.
Tom Sibbald, member of the Affordable Housing Board, stated he believed the fee was a growth
management tool and spoke of his reasons for opposing the motion.
Lou Stitzel, 521 E. Laurel, expressed concerns regarding affordable housing home ownership.
Scott Mason, 861 Sandy Cove Lane, urged adoption of Option I and spoke of the need for growth
and for new development to pay its way.
Krcmarik responded to questions regarding collection and disbursement of fees currently collected
and stated that there is more flexibility from excise tax proceeds.
Councilmember Kneeland commented on the affordable housing rebate fees. She supported the
motion stating she believed using use taxes as a revenue source in the General Fund is appropriate.
She requested additional information before second reading regarding rebates for affordability.
Councilmember Smith expressed concerns regarding additional needs for operation and maintenance
expenses for the specific areas and potential for future annexations.
Councilmember Apt concurred with comments regarding the need for growth to pay for itself, but '
spoke of the importance of continuing to offer rebates for affordable housing.
Councilmember McCluskey opposed the motion stating he believed this would greatly affect the
affordability aspect. He stated this was too restrictive and believed an excise tax would be more
flexible.
Councilmember Janett spoke of her reasons for supporting the motion and of possible amendments
to the UGA Agreement.
Councilmember Wanner supported the motion and stated the issue of affordability needs to be
researched further. He stated core services provided by the City should be reviewed.
Mayor Azari opposed the motion stating the complete financial policies and the definition of
"affordable" have not yet been adequately defined.
The vote on Councilmember Janett's motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Apt, Janett,
Kneeland, Smith and Wanner. Nays: Councilmembers Azari and McCluskey.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
226
April 16, 1996
Ordinance No. 52,1996,
Rezoning Approximately 140.1 Acres from the
T, Transition District to the R-L-P, Planned Residential
District with a PUD Condition. This Rezoning Is Known
as the Country Club Farms Rezoning, Adopted as Amended.
The following is staff's memorandum on this item.
"Executive Summary
This is a request to rezone approximately 140.1 acres located north of East Vine Drive and west of
Summit View Drive from the T, Transition Zoning District to the R-L-P, Low Density Planned
Residential Zoning District with a PUD condition. The request is in general conformance with the
policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan. The adoption of this Ordinance does not grant any land
use approval for the property. The PUD condition will require any development proposal on this
property to be submitted as a Planned Unit Development subject to the requirements of the Land
Development Guidance System (LDGS). Therefore, this proposed zoning does not guarantee that
the property will be developed in the future as a residential development. According to Section 29-
423 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins, the City Council must change the zoning of a property
in the T zone to another zoning district within 60 days from the date the matter is considered by the
' Planning and Zoning Board. Therefore, the property must be rezoned by June 8, 1996.
i
APPLICANT: Vaught -Frye Architects
H 13 Stoney Hill Drive
Fort Collins, CO 80525
OWNER: Country Club Farms, L.L.C.
do Vaught -Frye Architects
1113 Stoney Hill Drive
Fort Collins, CO 80525
BACKGROUND:
A previous petition for rezoning of this property by Summitview Properties (no relation to Country
Club Farms, L.L.C.) requested R-P, Planned Residential zoning with a PUD condition. On March
27, 1995, the Planning and Zoning Board recommended to the City Council that the property be
zoned I-L, Light Industrial with a PUD condition. The Board also recommended that the City
Council consider the noise impacts of the Fort Collins Airpark on the development of the property.
The City Council approved, on first reading, an ordinance that would have placed the property in
the I-L, Light Industrial zoning district with a PUD condition. However, the rezoning petition was
withdrawn by the previous applicant prior to second reading of the ordinance. Therefore, the
' property remains zoned T, Transition.
227
April 16, 1996
The current zoning and existing land uses of surrounding properties are as follows:
N. r-l-p; undeveloped.
b-p; undeveloped.
S: 1, Industrial (County); industrial uses, railroad yard.
O, Open (County); existing mobile home park (Collins Aire Mobile Home Park).
MM (City); undeveloped.
E: FA-1; Plummer School, farming, undeveloped.
W.- FA-1; farming, undeveloped.
t; undeveloped.
This property was annexed into the City as part of the East Vine Drive 6th Annexation on August
2, 1983 and the East Vine Drive 7th Annexation on August 16, 1983 and was placed in the T,
Transition zoning district.
The T, Transition Zone is for properties which are in a transitional stage with regard to ultimate
development. No development is allowed to occur in the "T" Zone. The only uses permitted on
properties in the "T" zone are those uses that existed on the date the property was placed into the
district.
Petition for Rezoning:
The applicant, Vaught -Frye Architects, on behalf of the owner, Country Club Farms, L.L. C., filed '
a rezoning petition with the City Clerk on February 29, 1996.
The petitioner requests that the City rezone approximately 140.1 acres located north of East Vine
Drive and west of Summit View Drive from the T, Transition Zoning District to the R-L-P, Low
Density Planned Residential Zoning District with a PUD condition. The applicant states in the
rezoning justification that "This request is to simply prepare the site for development and is not
indicative of any specific land use. "
Section 29-146 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins states: "The R-L-P Low Density Planned
Residential District is for areas planned as a unit to provide variation in use, density and building
placement." The requested PUD condition would require any development proposal for this
property to be reviewed against the criteria of the Land Development Guidance System and permit
any land use to be proposed regardless of the underlying zoning (although given the request for
residential zoning, the assumption is that a residential project will be proposed).
The requested R-L-P, Low Density Planned Residential Zoning with a PUD condition is in
conformance with a number of policies contained in the City's Comprehensive Plan. Some examples
from the City's Comprehensive Plan are as follows:
228
April 16, 1996
IFrom the Goals and Objectives document:
• Promote increased development in the north and northeastern areas of the City.
• Encourage increased residential development of the northeastern area in order to support
and direct the redevelopment of the area.
• Encourage residential, commercial, and industrial development in the northeastern area of
Fort Collins in a manner conducive to the desirable redevelopment of North College Avenue
and the Central City, especially downtown.
The above themes are repeated in the following policies from the Land Use Policies Plan:
#3a The City shall promote maximum utilization of land within the City.
#3d The City shall promote the location of residential development which is close to
employment, recreation, and shopping facilities.
#12 Urban density residential development usually at three or more units to the acre
should be encouraged in the urban growth area.
#19 The City shall establish a project impact system as a growth management tool which
would cover:
a. Positive and negative environmental impacts;
b. Positive and negative social impacts;
C. Positive and negative economicalffiscal impacts;
d. Positive and negative impacts on public services and facilities, including
transportation.
(Note: Regardless of the underlying zoning, the PUD condition will require any proposed
land use to be evaluated against the LDGS which is the City's "project impact system".)
#39 The City should direct efforts to promote improved traffic and pedestrian circulation
and public transit to areas north and northeast of the City.
(Note: The Transit Development Plan ("TDP") suggests that transit should follow
development. Any proposed development on the site would be required to make
improvements to traffic and pedestrian circulation and would generate a need for transit.)
#41 The City should encourage residential development in the northeast......
229
April 16, 1996
#75 Residential areas should provide for a mix of housing densities. I
(Note: See above reference to Section 29-146 of the City Code for the definition of the R-L-P
zoning district. In addition, the PUD process will allow the potential for a range of
residential densities.)
#78 Residential development should be directed into areas which reinforce the phasing
plan in the urban growth area.
(Note: The property is already annexed into the City and is not located in the UGA.)
#79b Low density residential uses should locate in areas which have easy access to major
employment centers.
#79d Low density residential uses should locate in areas within walking distance to an
existing or planned neighborhood park and within easy access to a community park.
Policies from the Land Use Policies Plan that do not support residential zoning are as follows:
#50 Mass transit should be used as a tool which leads development patterns, rather than
following growth.
(Note: TDP reflects opposite opinion.) '
#79c Low density residential uses should locate in areas within walking distance to an
existing or planned elementary school.
Staff feels that the requested R-L-P, Low -Density Planned Residential Zoning with a PUD condition
is in general conformance with the policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan. On April 8, 1996, the
Planning and Zoning Board voted 6-0 to recommend R-L-P, Low Density Planned Residential
Zoning. According to City Code Section 29-423, the City Council must change the zoning of a
property in the "T" Zone to another zoning district within 60 days from the date the matter is
considered by the Planning and Zoning Board. Therefore, the property must be rezoned by June 8,
1996. "
City Planner Mike Ludwig gave a staff presentation on this item. He responded to Council questions
regarding a previous request to rezone the property, noting any land use could be considered as a
PUD.
Councilmember Janett asked if conditions could be placed on the zoning to have a higher density,
ie., more than 3 units per acre, which is the standard minimum density for a PUD.
230 1
April 16, 1996
City Attorney Steve Roy spoke of the need for further research regarding minimum density
requirements.
Councilmember Apt made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kneeland, to adopt Ordinance No.
52, 1996, on First Reading and substituting IL Zoning for RLP Zoning with a PUD condition.
Frank Vaught, Vaught -Frye Architects representing the applicant, spoke of the site characteristics
of the area and spoke of a pond and a large wetlands area stating, that these various things take away
from the developable size of the property. He suggested Council take into consideration the net area
of the property not the gross amount.
Councilmember Apt spoke of the reasons for his zoning recommendation. He clarified he proposed
the property be zoning IL - Limited Industrial but could be developed with a PUD for residential
development.
Councilmember Janett supported the motion but requested information before Second Reading on
the possibility of increasing the density with mixed uses.
Councilmember Wanner stated he did not support the motion.
' Mayor Azari stated she supported the Planning and Zoning Board's recommendation for RLP zoning
and would not support the motion.
The vote on Councilmember Apt's motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Apt, Janett,
Kneeland, McCloskey and Smith. Nays: Councilmembers Azari and Wanner.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Resolution 96-52
Making Findings of Fact Regarding
the Appeal of the January 8, 1996
Planning and Zoning Board Decision
Denying the High Pointe P.U.D., Security Gate
Addition Referral of an Administrative Change Adopted.
The following is staff's memorandum on this item.
"Executive Summary
On January22, 1996 a Notice of Appeal was filed by parties -in -interest with respect to the January
8, 1996 decision of the Planning and Zoning Board denying the High Pointe PUD, Security Gate
Addition, Referral of an Administrative Change.
231
April16, 1996
At the April 2, 1996 hearing on this matter, Council considered the testimony of the Planning and '
Zoning Board record, staff, and the appellants. In subsequent discussion, at this hearing, Council
took the following action:
Council determined that the Planning and Zoning Board did not fail to properly interpret
and apply relevant provisions of the Code and Charter.
Consequently, the January 8, 1996 decision of the Planning and Zoning Board, denying the request
for a Security Gate Addition, Referral of an Administrative Change, was upheld. "
Councilmembers Apt and Janett withdrew from discussion on this item because they were not in
attendance during the original discussion.
(Secretary's Note: Councilmember Apt left the meeting at 11:45 p.m.)
Councilmember Smith made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kneeland, to adopt Resolution
96-52. Yeas: Councilmembers Azari, Kneeland, McCluskey, Smith and Wanner. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
OTHER BUSINESS I
Councilmember Janett made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Smith, directing the City
Manager to bring back to Council, a supplemental 1996 budget item addressing high priority needs
identified by the Transportation Maintenance area. Yeas: Councilmembers Azari, Janett, Kneeland,
McCluskey, Smith and Wanner. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Janett spoke of the rebate program for affordable housing and suggested all
correspondence and discussions regarding the rebate program, should include the definition of
affordable housing.
The meeting adjourned at 11:50 p.m.
ATTEST: kL�
City Clerk
ADJOURWENT
232