HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES-05/21/1996-RegularMay 21,1996
' 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, May 21, 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: Davis, Fischbach, Roy.
Citizen Participation
Steve Dimm, owner of Dimmers Brew Pub, expressed concerns regarding the road blocks on College
Avenue on Friday and Saturday nights. He stated road blocks have dramatically decreased his sales
and stated he did not believe road closures were beneficial. He questioned the rationale especially
as it relates to the efforts the City has made to enhance the appearance of the North College corridor
and include it into the City.
' John Meleski, 1072 Sundering Dr., spoke of his concerns regarding recent amendments to the
Model Energy Code.
Citizen Participation Follow-up
Mayor Azari stated she received a letter from Dimmer's and would provide Councilmembers with
a copy.
Councilmember McCluskey stated he believed it would be valuable to revisit the cruising issue.
Councilmember Kneeland concurred with comments made by Councilmember McCluskey and
stated the Health and Safety Committee needs to review the issue again.
Agenda Review
City Manager John Fischbach stated Item #33, Items Relating to Capital Improvement Expansion
Fees, was revised and included in Council packets.
273
May 21, 1996
***CONSENT CALENDAR*** I
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 #36, Public Pulled Consent Items.
Second Reading of Ordinance No
53 1996 Authorizing the Issuance of
City of Fort
Collins
General Obligation Refunding_
Bonds in the Amount of $2.180.000
for the Purpose
of
Refunding and Providing for
the Payment Of and Refinancing At a
Lower Interest Rate
Certain Outstanding Special Assessment
Refundingand nd Improvement Bonds of the City
and
Providine for the Levv of Ad
valorem Taxes To Pav the Princioal of
and Interest
on the
• 41
The City issued its 1989 Consolidated Special Improvement District Bonds to consolidate
several special improvement districts into one financing structure. The total amount of the
1989 bonds was $13,140,000. The bonds contained the City's general obligation pledge on
the final 25% of the bonds. As of May 1, $2,180,000, about 17% of the original amount, of
the 1989 remained outstanding. Through the proposed refinancing and refunding the City
will reduce its annual interest costs by about $60,000.
The new bonds are expected to carry an interest rate not to exceed 6.0% and the maturities ,
will remain at 2001. The repayment schedule called for interest only payments in 1996 and
1997 with principal to be paid in the remaining years. This will allow the City to sell some
of the special district properties and apply the proceeds to the payment on the new bonds.
Ordinance No. 53, 1996, was unanimously adopted on First Reading on May 7, 1996.
8. Second Reading of Ordinance No 54, 1996. Amending Several Sections of Article XII of
Chapter 26 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins Relating to the Billing Procedures of City
Utilities.
Ordinance No. 54, 1996, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on May 7, 1996
amends several sections of the City Code to recognize the fact that the function of collecting
City revenues belongs to the Financial Officer, and that the Financial Officer can delegate
this ministerial function to other City officials or service areas.
9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 55. 1996, Amending Chapter 3 of the City Code Relating
to Alcoholic Beverages,
Ordinance No. 55, 1996, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on May 7, 1996,
amends Chapter 3 of the City Code relating to alcoholic beverages in order to clarify and '
274
May 21, 1996
' simplify certain provisions relating to modification of liquor licensed premises. These
amendments are made in order to conform with a recent opinion received from the Colorado
Department of Revenue Liquor Enforcement Division regarding application and
interpretation of its regulation relating to modifications.
10. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 56. 1996. Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the
General Fund,
Ordinance No. 56, 1996, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on May 7, 1996,
appropriates the final 1995 Lodging Tax receipts as well as other prior year reserves for
Cultural Development and Programming (CDP). Lodging tax receipts are dedicated in
accordance with Ordinance No. 127, 1989. This appropriation will reduce the General Fund
reserve for Cultural Development and Programming.
11. Second Reading of Ordinance No, 57. 1996, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue from the
Federal Surface Transportation Urban Fund,
The City has received Federal and state approval to use the STU funds totaling $95,000 for
the construction of traffic signals at Mulberry/Meldrum and at CR 32 and US 287. The funds
will be used for the engineering, material procurement, and the construction of the traffic
signals. Ordinance No. 57, 1996 was unanimously adopted on First Reading on May 7,
' 1996, and appropriates Federal Surface Transportation Urban funds.
12. Second Reading of Ordinance No 58. 1996, Authorizing the Mayor to Execute a Deed of
Conveyance for the Exchange of a Portion of Tract B Cedar Village, First Filing. to John L.
and Carolyn B. Bloomberg for That Portion of Lot 90. Cedar Village. First Filing Needed for
the Drake Road Widening and Spring Creek Improvement Project,
This Ordinance, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading, authorizes the exchange
of a portion of the City's Storm Drainage Channel for the portion of the property owner's lot
that is needed for the City's construction project. Appropriate City staff representing the
Stormwater Utility and Engineering have reviewed the land trade and concur with exchange.
13. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 59, 1996. Authorizing the City of Fort Collins to Lease
to The Poudre Landmarks Foundation the City's Historic Water Works Property Located at
2005 North Overland Trail,
Ordinance No. 59, 1996 was unanimously adopted on First Reading on May 7, 1996, and
approves a lease with the Poudre Landmarks Foundation for the property located at 2005
North Overland Trail.
275
May 21, 1996
14. Items Relating to the Railroad Consolidation Project Phase II. '
A. Resolution 96-62 Authorizing the City Manager to Enter into a Contract with the
Colorado Department of Transportation, Union Pacific Railroad Company, and the
Burlington Northern Railroad Company for the Construction of a Portion of Phase
II of the Railroad Consolidation Project.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 63, 1996, Authorizing the City Manager to Enter
into an Agreement with the Union Pacific Railroad Company and the Burlington'
Northern Railroad Company for the Construction of a Portion of Phase 11 of the
Railroad Consolidation Project.
C. First Reading of Ordinance No. 64, 1996, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in
the Capital Projects Fund to be used for the Railroad Consolidation Project.
The scope of Phase H is to construct the new connection track east of College Avenue
between the Burlington Northern Railroad Company's ("BNRR") mainline and the Union
Pacific Railroad Company ("UP") branch line which will become the joint use track east of
that point. Crossing signals with gates and concrete railroad crossing material will be t
installed at the new crossing on Willow Street. The BNRR branch line crossing on College
Avenue and Cherry Street will be removed and the UP crossing on College Avenue and
Cherry Street will be upgraded with new track and crossing material. The new connecting '
track will greatly reduce the traffic delays caused by the trains on College Avenue and the
new crossing surface will improve the ride across the railroad crossings for motorists.
The agreement with the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT), BNRR, and UP
is for the construction of the Willow Street Crossing Improvements, the College Avenue
Crossing Improvements, and the crossing removals on College and Cherry. Federal and State
funds are being used to construct these improvements. As a part of this agreement CDOT
will reimburse the City $196,000 towards expenses Phase II. The total cost of this portion
of Phase II is estimated to be $470,000, and the City's share is $0.
The agreement with the BNRR and UP is for the construction of the connecting track. As
a part of the agreement the City will convey to BNRR a 50' wide easement across the
Northside Atzlan Community Center and across Willow Street. The City will be paid
$108,000 by BNRR and $64,000 by UP for expenses on this portion of Phase II. The total
cost of this portion is $1,232,000 and the City's share is $554,000.
The appropriation ordinance will appropriate the $368,000 to be received from CDOT,
BNRR, and UP as mentioned above. It will also appropriate $52,000 to be received from
CDOT for Phase I, and $170,000 from the Public Service Company for environmental
276 1
May 21, 1996
cleanup costs incurred in Phase II. A total of $590,000 will be appropriated by this
ordinance.
15. Items Relating to the Modification of Several City Code Sections Pertaining to Offenses
Against Public Authority, Public Peace. Nuisances. and the Model Traffic Code,
A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 65, 1996, Repealing and Reenacting Section 17-63
of the City Code Pertaining to Interference with Public Officers.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 66, 1996, Amending Section 17-124 of the City Code
Pertaining to Disorderly Conduct.
C. First Reading of Ordinance No. 67, 1996, Amending Section 20-22 of the City Code
Pertaining to Unreasonable Noise.
D. First Reading of Ordinance No. 68, 1996, Amending Section 17-125 of the City Code
Pertaining to Use of Center Parking Areas.
E. First Reading of Ordinance No. 69, 1996, Repealing Section 17-81 and 17-82 of the
City Code Pertaining to Curfew for Juveniles.
IF. First Reading of Ordinance No. 70, 1996, Repealing Section 17-143 of the City Code
Pertaining to Use of Vulgar, Profane or Indecent Language.
G. First Reading of Ordinance No. 71, 1996, Amending Section 28-17 of the City Code
Relating to Bicycles Riding on Bicycle Lanes as Provided in the "Model Traffic Code
for Colorado Municipalities" 1977 Edition.
The seven ordinances included in this agenda item are being recommended to revise sections
of the City Code that have been determined to be unconstitutional or for which there is some
concern about their constitutionality and to address specific areas of enforcement that are
lacking in the current version of the ordinances.
16. First Reading of Ordinance No. 72. 1996, Designating the Rosenoff/Smith House. 508 West
Olive Street. as a Local Landmark Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the Code of the City of Fort
Collins.
The owner of the property, Mark Johnson, is initiating this request for Local Landmark
designation for the Rosenoff/Smith House, 508 West Olive Street. The building is
significant for its architectural importance, and is an example of the Craftsman bungalow
style of architecture.
1 277
May 21, 1996
17. First Reading of Ordinance No. 73. 1996. Designating the Hiram Pierce House. 510 South '
Howes Street, as a Local Landmark Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the Code of the City of Fort
Collins.
The owners of the property, Douglas and Winifred Wood, are initiating this request for Local
Landmark designation for the Hiram Pierce House, 510 South Howes Street. The building
is significant for its architectural importance, and is an example of the American Foursquare
style of architecture; further, the building is important for its association with Hiram Pierce,
an early Fort Collins contractor and builder, responsible for the construction of many
significant buildings in our city.
18. First Reading of Ordinance No. 74, 1996. Designating,the McGannon-Middleswart House
and Garage. 300 East Elizabeth Street. as a Local Landmark Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the
Code of the City of Fort Collins.
The owner of the property, Jane Welzel, is initiating this request for Local Landmark
designation for the McGannon-Middleswart House and Garage, 300 East Elizabeth Street.
The residence is significant for its architectural importance, and is an example of the Queen
Anne style of architecture; the garage dates to the period of significance and contributes to
the architectural character of the property.
19. First Reading of Ordinance No. 75, 1996, Designating the John M. Riddle House, 530 Smith I
Street, as a Local Landmark Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins.
The owners of the property, Robert and Maureen Hoffert, are initiating this request for Local
Landmark designation for the John M. Riddle House, 530 Smith Street. The building is
significant for its architectural importance. Designed by Montezuma Fuller, the house is an
excellent example of the Queen Anne style of architecture.
20. First Reading of Ordinance No. 76, 1996, Designating the Original 1925 Section of the Saint
Joseph's Catholic School 127 North Howes Street as a Local Landmark Pursuant to Chapter
14 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins.
The owner of the property, the Saint Joseph's Parish/Archdiocese of Denver, by Philip S.
Meredith, Pastor, is initiating this request for Local Landmark designation for the Original
1925 Section of the Saint Joseph's Catholic School, 127 North Howes Street. The school
is significant for its architectural importance, constructed in the Spanish Colonial Revival
architectural style, and for it historical importance to the City of Fort Collins. Please note
that only the original 1925 section of the school is being proposed for nomination.
278
May 21, 1996
21. First Reading of Ordinance No. 77. 1996. Designating the Marion Alice Parker/Frank P.
Stover House. 1320 West Oak Street, as a Local Landmark Pursuant to Chanter 14 of the
Code of the City of Fort Collins.
The owners of the property, Jennifer Kathol and Bruce Biggi, are initiating this request for
Local Landmark designation for the Marion Alice Parker/Frank P. Stover House, 1320 West
Oak Street. The building is significant for its architectural importance, and is an excellent
example of the Tudor Revival style of architecture.
22. First Reading of Ordinance No. 78, 1996, Designating the Ernest Waycott House. 1501 West
Mountain Avenue. as a Local Landmark Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the Code of the City of
Fort Collins.
The owner of the property, Jane Abbott, is initiating this request for Local Landmark
designation for the Ernest Waycott House, 1501 West Mountain Avenue. The building is
significant for its architectural importance, and is an excellent example of the Queen Anne
style of architecture.. The property is listed individually in the National Register of Historic
Places.
23. First Reading of Ordinance No 79. 1996, Designating the William Welscher Residence.
1304 South College Avenue. as a Local Landmark Pursuant to Chanter 14 of the Code of the
City of Fort Collins.
The owner of the property, Robert Siblerud, is initiating this request for Local Landmark
designation for the William Welscher Residence, 1304 South College Avenue. The building
is significant for its architectural importance. Built by Montezuma Fuller, the residence is
an excellent example of the Mediterranean style of architecture.
24. First Reading of Ordinance No. 80, 1996, Designating the William C Stover House, 503
Remington Street, as a Local Landmark Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the Code of the City of
Fort Collins.
The owners of the property, Norman and Linda Burnette and Donald and Sharon Johnson,
are initiating this request for Local Landmark designation for the William C. Stover House,
503 Remington Street. The building is significant for its architectural importance, and is an
excellent example of the Italianate style of architecture; further, the building is important for
its association with William C. Stover, an early Fort Collins pioneer and a highly respected
business leader.
25. Resolution 96-63 Approving the Purchase of a Toro 580D Rotary Mower from L. L. Johnson
Distributing Co as an Exception to the Competitive Purchasing Process.
1 279
May 21, 1996
Based on recent review and evaluation of available mowing equipment, the Purchasing '
Agent has determined that Toro makes the only rotary mower, the Toro 580D mower,
meeting all of these requirements. The Toro 580D is a large rotary mower with separate
cutting units, called wings, mounted outboard of the main cutting unit. By raising the wings
the unit can operate as a trim mower, reducing the need for trim mowing using smaller
mowers. The 580D has the shortest wheelbase of mowers of this type, allowing tighter turns
for closer trimming. The wings on the 580D sweep back when raised, giving the operator
better visibility during transport or trim operations. It has a wider mowing swath than any
competitive product and cuts tall grass without leaving windrows which would have to be
swept up with other equipment. The 580D has the lowest center of gravity for stability on
uneven mowing surfaces. The operator can shut off all implements with one action, instead
of having to shut down each cutting unit individually as some competing units require. Snow
blower and snow broom attachments are available, making the unit usable both winter and
summer. The Toro 580D is a comfortable mower with excellent controls, and the versatility
to operate on almost any type of terrain.
26. Postponement of Resolution 96-55 Approving the Air Quality Action Plan Update for 1996-
1998 to June 18. 1996.
The proposed Air Quality Action Plan update is a set of actions to implement the Air Quality
Policy Plan (AQPP), an element of the Comprehensive Plan adopted in March 1993.
Adopting the resolution completes the first biennial review and redirection of the City's air '
quality programs, as called for in the AQPP. Once approved by City Council, the Action
Plan becomes the basis for staff work programs and budget recommendations.
Because of previous commitments of both staff and Councilmembers, staff is recommending
that action on the Air Quality Action Plan be postponed to June 18. Adoption of the Consent
Agenda will postpone this item to June 18.
27. Routine Deeds and Easements.
A. Power line Easement from Thomas B. Thornton, 1308 Patton, needed to install
underground streetlight service. Monetary consideration: $10.
Items on Second Reading were read by title by Deputy City Clerk Molly Davis.
Second Reading of Ordinance
No 53 1996 Authorizing
the Issuance of
City of Fort
Collins
General Obligation
Refunding
Bonds in the Amount
of $2.180.000
for the Purpose
of
Refunding
and Providing
for the Payment Of and
Refinancing At a
Lower Interest
Rate
Certain Outstanding
Special Assessment Refunding
and Improvement
Bonds of the City
and
Providing
for the Levy
of Ad valorem Taxes To
Pay the Principal of
and Interest
on the
Bond.
280
'
May 21, 1996
' 8. Second Reading of Ordinance No 54 1996 Amending Several Sections of Article XII of
Chapter 26 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins Relating to the Billing Procedures of City
Utilities.
9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 55. 1996, Amending Chapter 3 of the City Code Relating
to Alcoholic Beverages,
10. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 56, 1996, Appropriating,Prior Year Reserves in the
General Fund,
11. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 57, 1996. Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue from the
Federal Surface Transportation Urban Fund.
12. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 58, 1996, Authorizing the Mayor to Execute a Deed of
Conveyance for the Exchange of a Portion of Tract B Cedar Village, First Filing. to John L.
and Carolyn B. Bloomberg for That Portion of Lot 90. Cedar Village, First Filing Needed for
the Drake Road Widening and Spring Creek Improvement Project,
13. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 59, 1996, Authorizing the City of Fort Collins to Lease
to The Poudre Landmarks Foundation the City's Historic Water Works Property Located at
2005 North Overland Trail.
' 32. Items Relating to Camera -Radar and Red -Light Camera Enforcement Systems,
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 60, 1996, Relating to Camera -Radar Speed
Enforcement Under the "Model Traffic Code for Colorado Municipalities," 1977
Edition.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 61, 1996, Relating to the Enforcement of Red-
light Violations Under Section 15-5(c) of the "Model Traffic Code for Colorado
Municipalities," 1977 Edition, by the Use of Automated Red -Light Camera
Enforcement Systems.
C. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 62, 1996 Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue
in the General Fund for the Use of Camera Radar and Red -Light Cameras to Enforce
Traffic Violations.
33. Second 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 Improvement Expansion Fees.
281
May 21, 1996
34. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 52 1996 of the Council of the City of Fort Collins '
Amending the Zoning District Man of the City of Fort Collins by Changing the Zoning
Classification for That Certain Real Property Known as the Country Club Farms
Items on First Reading were read by title by Deputy City Clerk Molly Davis.
14. Items Relating to the Railroad Consolidation Project Phase II.
A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 63, 1996, Authorizing the City Manager to Enter
into an Agreement with the Union Pacific Railroad Company and the Burlington
Northern Railroad Company for the Construction of a Portion of Phase H of the
Railroad Consolidation Project.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 64, 1996, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in
the Capital Projects Fund to be used for the Railroad Consolidation Project.
15. Items Relating to the Modification of Several City Code Sections Pertaining to Offenses
Against Public Authority. Public Peace Nuisances and the Model Traffic Code
A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 65, 1996, Repealing and Reenacting Section 17-63
of the City Code Pertaining to Interference with Public Officers. '
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 66, 1996, Amending Section 17-124 of the City Code
Pertaining to Disorderly Conduct.
C. First Reading of Ordinance No. 67, 1996, Amending Section 20-22 of the City Code
Pertaining to Unreasonable Noise.
D. First Reading of Ordinance No. 68, 1996, Amending Section 17-125 of the City Code
Pertaining to Use of Center Parking Areas.
E. First Reading of Ordinance No..69, 1996, Repealing Section 17-81 and 17-82 of the
City Code Pertaining to Curfew for Juveniles.
F. First Reading of Ordinance No. 70, 1996, Repealing Section 17-143 of the City Code
Pertaining to Use of Vulgar, Profane or Indecent Language.
G. First Reading of Ordinance No. 71, 1996, Amending Section 28-17 of the City Code
Relating to Bicycles Riding on Bicycle Lanes as Provided in the "Model Traffic Code
for Colorado Municipalities" 1977 Edition.
282 1
May 21, 1996
' 16. First Reading of Ordinance No. 72. 1996. Designating the Rosenoff/Smith House. 508 West
Olive Street. as a Local Landmark Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the Code of the City of Fort
Collins,
17. First Reading of Ordinance No. 73, 1996. Designating the Hiram Pierce House. 510 South
Howes Street, as a Local Landmark Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the Code of the City of Fort
Collins,
18. First Reading of Ordinance No 74, 1996, Designating the McGannon-Middleswart House
and Garage. 300 East Elizabeth Street, as a Local Landmark Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the
Code of the City of Fort Collins.
19. First Reading of Ordinance No 75, 1996, Designating the John M. Riddle House, 530 Smith
Street, as a Local Landmark Pursuant to Chanter 14 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins.
20. First Reading of Ordinance No 76, 1996. Designating the Original 1925 Section of the Saint
Joseph's Catholic School 127 North Howes Street as a Local Landmark Pursuant to Chapter
14 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins.
21. First Reading of Ordinance No. 77, 1996, Designating the Marion Alice Parker/Frank P.
Stover House, 1320 West Oak Street, as a Local Landmark Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the
' Code of the City of Fort Collins.
22. First Reading of Ordinance No. 78, 1996, Designating the Ernest Waycott House. 1501 West
Mountain Avenue, as a Local Landmark Pursuant to Chanter 14 of the Code of the City of
Fort Collins.
23. First Reading of Ordinance No 79, 1996, Designating the William Welscher Residence,
1304 South College Avenue. as a Local Landmark Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the Code of the
City of Fort Collins.
24. First Reading of Ordinance No 80, 1996, Designating the William C. Stover House. 503
Remington Street as a Local Landmark Pursuant to Chanter 14 of the Code of the City of
Fort Collins.
Councilmember Smith made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Apt, 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.
1 283
May 21, 1996
Staff Reports
City Manager John Fischbach introduced Darin Atteberry, new Assistant to the City Manager.
Councilmember Reports
Councilmember Janett spoke of the local landmark designations and awards that were presented
prior to the meeting.
Councilmember Smith stated Fort Collins had recently received a Clean Cities Designation plaque
and gave a brief outline of the Clean Cities program.
Mayor Azari reported Councilmembers have access to a natural gas car, made available for Council's
use by Public Service.
Councilmember Kneeland reported on a recent Health and Safety Committee meeting, reporting the
use of tobacco products by minors was discussed. She stated the committee is requesting an
ordinance be presented to Council regarding the issue and commented an open house would be held
in advance to gather questions and comments. She stated the Committee also discussed upkeep of
rental properties. '
Councilmember Apt spoke of the recent Legislative Review Committee's meeting and reported on
discussions regarding legislative funding shortfall and its effect on the Poudre School District. He
spoke of the need for additional growth management planning.
Councilmember Kneeland reported the Organizational Development Committee met and discussed
the proposed Downtown Civic Center Plan, noting the plan would come before Council in June. She
stated public/private partnership was stressed and noted parking issues were discussed.
Councilmember Janett stated the Growth Management Committee met and discussed the upcoming
Parking Plan Study as it relates to the downtown area and neighborhoods surrounding CSU. She
stated the Plan would be presented at an upcoming Study Session. She reported the committee
reviewed the previously adopted Downtown Plan and discussed the possibility of amending the Plan
rezoning various areas. She stated regional Mayors and City Managers from Larimer and Weld
counties discussed different plan issues as well as the development of an intergovernmental
agreement clarifying definitions of various zonings.
Councilmember Janett spoke of a meeting she hosted, "Crime in your neighborhood and what you
can about it" and spoke of the numerous preventative measures and precautions people can take to
protect themselves. She thanked staff for their assistance in delivering fliers to the neighborhoods
FMI
May 21, 1996
' and encouraged citizens to contact the Police Department if interested in holding a meeting of that
type in their neighborhood.
Consideration of the Appeal of the
March 25, 1996, Decision of the Planning and Zoning
Board Denying the Development Projects Known as the
Hearthfire Overall Development Plan (ODP) and the Hearthfire Planned
Unit Development (PUD), Preliminary, Postponed to .tune 18, 1996.
The following is staff's memorandum on this item.
"Executive Summary
On March 25, 1996, the Planning and Zoning Board denied the Hearthfire ODP and the Hearthfire
PUD, Preliminary.
The Hearthfire ODP consists of a request fora two-phase plan for 317 residential dwelling
units (with a mix of low, medium, and high densities), limited commercial/business, and open
space on 105.3 acres. The overall residential density of the ODP is 3.01 dwelling units per
acre.
* The Hearthfire PUD, Preliminary consists of a request for 245 residential dwelling units
(133 single family lots, 44 carriage house units on 44 of the single family lots, and 56 multi-
family units) and commerciallbusiness uses on 77.34 acres. The gross residential density of
this phase is 3.17 dwelling units per acre.
A portion of the property is zoned RLP - Low Density Planned Residential with a PUD condition
and a portion is zoned RLP - Low Density Planned Residential with no conditions. It is located north
and east of Richards Lake, south of Douglas Road, west of County Road I1, and east of Colorado
Highway 1.
On April 8, 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 from Lucia A. Liley, Attorney for the
Appellant Richards Lake Development Company, it is alleged that. -
The Board failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Code and
Charter [Section 2-48(1)].
2. The Board failed to conduct a fair hearing in that it substantially ignored its previously
established rules of procedure (Section 2-48(2)(b)].
285
May 21, 1996
3. The Board failed to conduct a fair hearing by considering evidence relevant to its findings
which was substantially false or grossly misleading [Section 2-48(2)(c)].
4. The Board failed to conduct a fair hearing in that it improperly failed to receive all relevant
evidence offered by the Appellant [Section 2-48(2)(d)].
The procedures for deciding the appeals are described in Chapter 2, Article A Division 3 of the City
Code. "
City Attorney Steve Roy stated the parties -in -interest have made a request to postpone the hearing
to a future date and encouraged Council to consider adopting a motion before hearing the appeal.
Lucia Liley, attorney representing the appellant, requested Council consider postponing the hearing
to a meeting in June. She stated this was a joint request with the developer and surrounding
neighborhoods. She stated the purpose for the request is to allow time to continue discussions with
the neighborhood in an attempt to come back to Council with a mutually acceptable proposal. She
thanked the neighborhood groups for their cooperation and patience in working with the developer.
She stated, for the record, that she waived an objections that could be raised on the 60 day period in
which an appeal is supposed to be heard.
Bridget Schmidt, spokesperson for the Northeast Neighborhood Coalition, confirmed statements by
Ms. Liley stating the neighborhood agrees to a continuance.
Councilmember Smith made a motion, seconded by Councilmember McCluskey, to postpone
consideration of the hearing to June 18. Yeas: Councilmembers Apt, Azari, Janett, Kneeland,
McCloskey, Smith and Wanner. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Janett thanked everyone involved for continuing to talk in an attempt to resolve their
differences, and expressed concerns regarding the Planning and Zoning Board concerns.
Mayor Azari stated she was very pleased that everyone is working together.
286
May 21, 1996
Items Relating to Camera -Radar and
Red -Light Camera Enforcement Systems, Adopted,
The following is staff's memorandum on this item.
"Executive Summary
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 60, 1996, Relating to Camera -Radar Speed Enforcement
Under the "Model Traffic Code for Colorado Municipalities, " 1977 Edition.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 61, 1996, Relating to the Enforcement of Red-light
Violations Under Section 15-5(c) of the "Model Traffic Code for Colorado Municipalities, "
1977 Edition, by the Use of Automated Red -Light Camera Enforcement Systems.
C. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 62, 1996 Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the
General Fund for the Use of Camera Radar and Red -Light Cameras to Enforce Traffic
Violations.
The Police Service's Traffic Unit has tried several approaches to achieve a reduction in the number
and severity of automobile crashes. These approaches have included the more traditional
enforcement method of issuing more tickets and education through the use of the SMART trailer, to
' the more creative approaches of using the "lawn chair" radar officer. Unfortunately, the results are
not encouraging. The fact is we have been unsuccessful in changing the behavior of the motoring
public.
Ordinance No.'s 60 and 61, 1996, were adopted 6-1 on First Reading on May 7, 1996 allow the City
to utilize camera -radar and red-light camera systems, as a tool to address the problem of excessive
speeding and red-light violations in our community, ultimately making our streets safer for all users.
Ordinance No. 62, 1996, which was also adopted 6-1 on First Reading on May 7, 1996,
appropriates unanticipated revenue in the General Fund for the use of camera radar and red-light
cameras. In using camera radar and red-light cameras, the City estimates that it will receiving
approximately $600,000 in unanticipated revenue in the upcoming year. On First Reading of
Ordinance No. 62, 1996, $400,000 was appropriated from the $600,000 for the payments required
under the City's contract with American Traffic Systems and $27,000 was appropriated for an
additional Municipal Court clerk Since First Reading, Ordinance No. 62, 1996, has been amended
to appropriate the remaining balance of unanticipated revenue of $173,000, to pay for any
additional costs which the City's Municipal Court, Police Services, Traffic Engineering and City
Attorney's Office may incur in the future related to the use of camera radar and red-light camera
systems or related to other programs intended to address the City's current traffic problems."
287
May 21, 1996
Lieutenant Lloyd gave a brief presentation on this item and spoke of the anticipated revenue I
expected.
Councilmember Smith asked if citizens would be able to petition the Police Department to have the
camera radar placed in their particular neighborhoods.
Lloyd stated no formal procedure has been designed for camera radar requests and encouraged
citizens to call the Police Department if interested. He clarified payment to American Traffic
Systems, Inc., to purchase these units comes directly from fines imposed.
Bob Gifford, 1813 Essex Drive, supported hiring additional Police Officers and questioned the City's
policy regarding ticketing its employees. He spoke of the difficulty in identifying truck drivers and
college students and opposed the ordinance.
Lloyd spoke of the costs involved in hiring additional officers vs. camera radar. He stated hiring
officers takes money out of the General Fund, but payment for camera radar is paid directly out of
the fines imposed.
Councilmember Janett asked if speed limits are set artificially low and questioned if speed limits on
certain streets could be increased.
Eric Bracke stated he believed there were some areas of town where speed limits are set too low and I
clarified how speed limits are set.
Councilmember Smith spoke of arterial crossing hazards and emphasized the importance of making
sure that all modes of transportation are safe.
Councilmember Smith made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Janett, to adopt Ordinance No.
60, 1996 on Second Reading.
Councilmember Smith spoke in support of the Ordinances and of the need to create civility on the
streets.
Councilmember McCluskey supported the motion and the need for signage informing drivers of the
radar system in an attempt to lower the accident rates.
Councilmember Janett stated injury accidents have recently increased by 43%. She assured Mr.
Gifford that anyone and everyone who breaks the law will get a ticket.
Councilmember Kneeland stated she did not support the motion. She emphasized there has never
been any preferential treatment for City employees. She acknowledged traffic problems but stated
she felt that the majority of citizens do not need to be monitored to see if they are behaving correctly.
288 1
May 21, 1996
I
Councilmember Apt supported the motion.
Mayor Azari supported the motion and stressed this was only one step in controlling traffic
problems.
The vote on Councilmember Smith's motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Apt, Azari,
Janett, McCluskey, Smith and Wanner. Nays: Councilmember Kneeland.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Smith made a motion, seconded by Councilmember McCluskey, to adopt Ordinance
No. 61, 1996 on Second Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers Apt, Azari, Janett, McCluskey, Smith and
Wanner. Nays: Councilmember Kneeland.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember McCluskey made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Smith, to adopt Ordinance
No. 62, 1996 on Second Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers Apt, Azari, Janett, McCluskey, Smith and
Wanner. Nays: Councilmember Kneeland.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
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 Improvement Expansion Fees. Adopted as Amended.
The following is staff's memorandum on this item.
"Executive Summary
Staff noted at First Reading that the figures for the Fire Facilities and Equipment Fee would be
reviewed between First and Second Reading for possible revision. When the fee was initially
calculated, the cost of land acquisition and engines were omitted. Staff has recalculated the fees,
and they have increased by an average of $30 per unit for residential units, and by $0.035 per
square foot for commercial development and $0.01 per square foot for industrial development. The
revised fees and fee calculations are included on pages 31-32 of the Capital Expansion Cost Study,
dated May 21, 1996 A summary of the changes in the fees, the expected fee revenue and
comparative data are included as Attachments A, A and C.
1 289
May 21, 1996
If Council approves these fees on Second Reading, they will become effective on June 3, 1996 Staff '
in the Building and Zoning Department have been working to develop methods far implementing the
program. A press release was issued May 10 to provide additional information about the fees. Staff
also sent a notice about the new fees to 900 individuals who hold contractor licenses. The
contractors were provided notice that all building permits issued after June 3 would be charged the
new fees.
As staff began the implementation work with the Building and Zoning department, they noted that
these small additions may cause an unreasonable increase in fees for homeowners. For example,
under current fee regulations, if a homeowner requests a permit to enclose a porch of 150 square
feet, a permit fee of $15 would be required. With the addition of these fees, the cost could jump by
more than $200. Consequently, another substantive change appears in Sec. 29-692, where the
definition of "building permit" has been revised to exempt remodels that add less than 350 square
feet to an existing residential structure. By adding this exemption for additions of less than 350
square feet, a number of administrative problems can be avoided, without significant losses of
revenue.
BACKGROUND:
Council asked several questions at First Reading. They included the following issues:
Can existing Development Impact Fees be revised to include a sliding fee scale based on the size I
of the residential unit?
The Parks and Recreation Board has already discussed changing the existing Neighborhood
Parkland Fees to reflect the sliding scale methodology. The Board is supportive of asking Council
to change the fee structure when Council next considers modifications to the fees for inflation. This
change will probably be presented to Council in summer, 1996.
The Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Utilities have concerns about modifying the fee structures
for their Plant Investment Fees. The current fee structure is based on the size of the service provided
to an individual residence. Utility staff are concerned that a sliding scale for their fees may not
accurately reflect the cost of providing services. When these fees are reviewed by the Board for
possible increases, they will also discuss the possibility of changing the rate structure. These fees
will be reviewed by City Council for possible changes during Summer 1996
Could the Capital Improvement Expansion Fees be assessed against properties which are
developed outside of the City limits but within the Urban Growth Area?
A current Council Policy Agenda Project includes the review and re -negotiation of the UGA
agreement with the County. County Commissioners and staff have informed staff that they are
unable to re -negotiate the agreement until after the PLUS plan has been completed. City staff will
290 '
May 21, 1996
' include discussions about Development Impact Fees in their agenda for the process when the time
comes. Therefore, no final determination has yet been made with regard to this issue.
Can the Development Impact Fee Program for Affordable Housing apply to the newly adopted
fees?
The program can be amended to include the Capital Improvement Expansion Fees. This will require
the Council formally amending the regulations of the program by resolution at a Regular Council
meeting. A resolution could be brought forward in June to implement this change.
How does the Development Impact Fee Rebate Program for Affordable Housing work?
The Affordable Housing Rebate Program was adopted by City Council in 1994. The program
provides rebates of development impact fees for affordable housing units. Rebates apply to the
following fees:
• Water Plant Investment Fees
• Water Rights Acquisition Fee
• Storm Drainage Fee
• Street Oversizing Fee
• Parkland Fee
' Rebates are made for new housing units based on the initial and on -going affordability of the units.
Rental units must be maintained as affordable for at least 10 years. Affordability is measured by
the gross rent paid by tenants, as compared to Area Median Income levels.
Owner occupied unit rebates are available based on the income of the owner. The median income
in the community is used to set a rebate schedule for new units. Deed restrictions are placed on
units which receive rebates so that affordability must be maintained for at least 5 years.
Can rebates be offered at the time the fee is paid?
Under the current program, rebates are given after a Certificate of Occupancy has been issued.
This process is used to ensure that units meet affordability criteria which can only be determined
from the individual renting or purchasing the unit. An exception to this policy is made for qualified
affordable housing developers. The developer may apply to the City for a deferral of payment of
Impact Fees. These fees would not be payable until the Certificate of Occupancy is issued and the
affordability of the unit is determined.
What cost can be expected if the Affordable Housing Rebate Program is extended to cover the new
Capital Improvement Expansion Fees?
291
May 21, 1996
In 1995, 3 applications, representing approximately 170 units were processed for rebates through '
the program. The total cost of rebates granted was $181,560. In 1996, 5 applications, representing
more than 100 units are expected. Since the new fees average approximately $1,500 per unit, if a
similar number of rebates are granted in 1997, the cost of the program can be expected to increase
from $181,560 to $236,028.
Rebates are currently paid from the City's Affordable Housing Fund. This is a designated reserve
within the General Fund. If rebate requests exceed available funds, it may be necessary for
additional General Fund contributions to be made to the Affordable Housing Fund. Currently there
is approximately $649,940 in the Affordable Housing Fund. Staff anticipates $267,500 being
expended from the Affordable Housing fund in 1996. This would leave a balance of $382,440
The Affordable Housing Board reviewed this issue at a recent meeting and made the following
recommendations:
If the fee increase passed by Council represent a 30% increase, for example, the
Board requests the Council increase the allocation to the Affordable Housing Fund
by an equal 30%, or to an amount of $172,900 on an amoral basis. Also, per unit
rebates currently range from $600 to over $4,200 based on the incomes of the
families occupying the units. The individual per unit rebate amounts should also
increase by the same 30%, for example, or to a range of $780 to $5,460. "
Council Policy Manager Ann Turnquist gave a brief overview of the item. She stated there was not '
adequate revenue to provide for all of the capital needs, and of the effort to close the gap between
revenue, population growth and capital spending. She spoke of the changes made to the Ordinance
between first and second reading and spoke of applications received prior to the amended effective
date, stating they would not be subject to the fees. She reported on fees included in Council packets,
noting the omission of the fire fees and of ongoing issues regarding revisions to the affordable
housing rebate program and the possibility of looking at a sliding scale.
Councilmember Kneeland questioned the logic behind impact fees for additions to existing
structures.
Turnquist clarified the system is size based and the tier structure with residential fees is based on the
size of the unit.
Councilmember Janett reported that information was received from a similar study done in Greeley
noting there was a major discrepancy in the two studies.
Tumquist stated the City participated in Greeley's study, and reported there was a difference in the
timeframe in which the data was collected.
292 ,
May 21, 1996
' City Manager John Fischbach clarified there were additional fees for water, sewer, neighborhood
parks, and street oversizing.
Councilmember Smith made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Apt, to adopt Ordinance No.
51, 1996 on Second Reading.
Dean Miller, 1300 La Eda Lane, thanked Council for their safety concerns and spoke of the traffic
situation on South Shields. He supported the increase in fees and urged the City to work with
Larimer County.
John Meleski, 2619 Featherstar Way, stated he did not support the motion and spoke of the need for
everyone, not just newcomers, to pay for new facilities.
Chris McElroy, 2906 Cortez, opposed the motion and spoke of the impact the fees would put on
home buyers.
Jeff Wolf, 1225 Mansfield Drive, opposed the motion.
Dick Jeffries, 1609 Wagon Tongue Court, questioned the logic regarding impact fees at it relates to
remodeling of existing structures. He opposed the motion.
Tom Jackson, 720 West Willox Lane, spoke in opposition of the motion.
Senator Stan Matsunaka, speaking on behalf of local builders and realtors, questioned Council's
authority to enact the ordinance and urged Council to delay its action.
Jeff Desalle, 1000 W. Horsetooth Road, opposed the motion.
Monica Sweere, 4326 Seneca, opposed the motion.
Eric Lavine, a Fort Collins resident, stated he supported the motion.
Terry Wall, representing CARE Housing, expressed concerns regarding fees and urged Council to
discuss it further.
Curt Schreiber, 3145 Birmingham Drive, opposed the motion and asked Council to reconsider
implementation date.
Tim Johnson, a Fort Collins resident, supported the motion.
Belinda Eskin, 123 E. Drake Road, opposed the motion and stated she believed it singled out a
certain section of the population to pay fees for everyone.
' 293
May 21, 1996
Lou Stitzel, 521 E. Laurel, spoke of the difficulty in meeting the deadlines and opposed the fees. I
Linda Norton, a Fort Collins Realtor, stated this was a band -aid solution and opposed the motion.
Ed Stoner, President of the Board of Realtors, opposed the motion.
Joan Wheeler, a Fort Collins resident, spoke of her opposition to impact fees.
Ken Scavo, local builder and developer residing at 2975 Nell Drive, stated this was a revenue issue
not a growth issue. He opposed the motion.
Paul Harder, a Fort Collins resident, spoke on the cost of building and stated he felt penalized for
living in Fort Collins. He opposed the motion.
Dr. Aberam Eskin, 123 East Drake Road, spoke of his concerns regarding the citizens trust in how
the City conducts its business.
Turnquist clarified the logic behind the 350 sq. ft. exemption and the demand for community
services when new developments are built.
Councilmember Apt questioned how remodeling would impact City services.
Turnquist clarified fees would only be assessed when the square footage of a property is increased. '
Councilmember Apt spoke in support of "grandmother" additions to existing homes to encourage
infill. He commented he was considering an amendment increasing the threshold.
Turnquist clarified fees have never been calculated based on square footage.
City Attorney Steve Roy spoke of the additional option that was presented for Council consideration.
He responded to Mr. Matsunaka regarding issues of legality.
Budget Director Doug Smith spoke of operation and maintenance expenses and spoke of the need
to keep up with general demand for existing services and the new demand caused by the increase in
population.
Turnquist responded to Council questions and reported on public meetings held. She stated an ad
was placed in the paper and spoke of the newspaper coverage. She stated the fees are average with
other fees charged by neighboring counties. She clarified fees for mobile homes would be the same
as for residential units.
294 1
May 21, 1996
' Director of Cultural, Library and Recreational Services Mike Powers responded to Council questions
regarding funding and development of community parks. He spoke of how park land is purchased
and how development of parks is funded.
Councilmember Janett questioned if affordable housing rebates were available only to non-profit
organizations.
Director of Community Planning and Environmental Services Greg Byrne, clarified the program is
available to anyone meeting the standards and providing affordable housing. He stated he would be
reluctant to "back up" the effective date due to the length of time it takes to get through the
development review process as well as the time it takes to apply for building permits. He clarified
it could take up to two years, after final development review, before a permit is issued.
Councilmember Apt made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Wanner, to amend Section 29-
692(a) inserting the following language: "The term building permit, as used herein, shall not be
deemed to include permits required for remodeling, rehabilitation or other improvements to an
existing structure or rebuilding a damaged or destroyed structure".
Councilmember Apt clarified the intent of his motion stating remodeling would not have an impact
on City services.
' Councilmember Smith questioned if, when original building permits are pulled, unfinished
basements are included in the square footage of the house.
After a brief recess City Attorney Steve Roy recommended the amendment remain as originally
stated, emphasizing it captures the intent to limit fees for remodels to only those creating a new
dwelling unit. He explained the definition of dwelling unit and clarified that applications made
before June 3, would not be subject to new fees.
The vote on Councilmember Apt's amendment was as follows: Yeas: Council members Apt, Azari,
Janett, Kneeland, McCluskey, Smith and Wanner. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Apt thanked everyone involved for their work. He commented that citizens have
stressed the need for growth to pay its own way and stated the City is not keeping up. He stated the
increase in housing prices is not due to impact fees, but to rising land prices, labor prices, materials,
etc... He spoke of the Council's commitment to affordable and subsidized housing.
Councilmember Smith made a motion, seconded by Councilmember McCluskey, to amend Section
8 to read as follows: The fees imposed under the provisions of this Ordinance shall take effect on
295
May 21, 1996
July 1, 1996, and shall not apply to any complete applications for building permits filed with the City ,
on or before June 28, 1996.
Councilmember Smith expressed concerns regarding the impact this would have on building permits
as well as potential contract issues.
Councilmember McCluskey concurred with statements by Councilmember Smith.
Ed Stoner spoke in support of the motion.
Curt Schreiber supported the motion.
Councilmember Apt spoke of his reasons for not supporting the amendment.
The vote on Councilmember Smith's amendment to the original motion was as follows: Yeas:
Councilmembers Azari, Janett, Kneeland, McCluskey, Smith and Wanner. Nays: Councilmember
Apt.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Kneeland spoke in support of the ordinance. She spoke of the need to manage
growth and maintain infrastructure. She stated it was important to avoid mistakes made elsewhere I
and maintain the quality of life expected by the citizenry.
Councilmember Smith spoke in support of the ordinance. He stated this was an economic incentive
point system to maintain the quality of life enjoyed by everyone.
Councilmember McCluskey stated he did not support the ordinance. He spoke of the difficulty
involved in implementation and favored a development excise tax.
Councilmember Janett supported the ordinance, reporting she would be requesting support for
direction, under Other Business, concerning affordable housing and suggesting the fees be added to
the rebate program. She spoke of the need for additional services due to increased population.
Councilmember Wanner spoke of the need to create infrastructures to accommodate affordable
housing. He stated the City is currently playing "catch-up" and of the need not to pass the
deficiencies onto the next generation.
Mayor Azari did not support the motion. She thanked Council for listening and attempting to
mitigate issues to find an equitable solution. She expressed her frustration that many people who
want to live in the community can not because of the low wages and the high cost of living. She
spoke of potential loss of jobs if the fees are adopted. '
296
May 21, 1996
' The vote on Councilmember Smith's original motion, as amended, was as follows: Yeas:
Councilmembers Apt, Janett, Kneeland, Smith and Wanner. Nays: Councilmembers Azari and
McCluskey.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Resolution 96-64
Adopting an Amendment to the Financial and Management
Policies for 1997 and Subsequent Years, Adopted.
The following is staff's memorandum on this item.
"Financial Impact
The Financial and Management Policies are used to establish guidelines for budget preparation and
long-range financial planning. The policies reflect Council direction and commitment to sound
financial planning and management. In 1994, Council adopted the Financial and Management
Policies for 1995 and subsequent fiscal years. Those policies as adopted remain in effect and only
amendments to those policies require Council action.
The amendment adopted by this Resolution will become part of the Financial and Management
' Policies for 1997 and subsequent years.
Executive Summary
The proposed amendment to the third paragraph of Section 3.7 Poudre Fire Authority - Revenue
Allocation Formula is necessary if Council adopts the Capital Improvement Expansion Fee for the
Poudre Fire Authority on Second Reading. The third paragraph of Section 3.7 currently dedicates
one mill of the City's total mill levy for funding of PFA capital needs. Because of certain
.requirements that exist with capital improvement expansion fees, the language dedicating one mill
for capital in Section 3.7 must be revised if the PFA capital improvement expansion fee is adopted,
so that fee revenues will not be used to defray the sane kinds of costs that are covered by the mill
levy.
Following is the current version of the third paragraph of Section 3.7 and the proposed amendment
to that paragraph.
. The City's contribution to PFA for operation and
' maintenance will be calculated by the Revenue Allocation Formula. The Revenue
297
May 21, 1996
Allocation Formula allocates to PFA 67.09% of the property tax mills available for '
operations and maintenance and 0.303 of one cent of the City's 2.25 cent sales and
use tax applicable to all taxable sales and uses. The resulting contribution for
operations and maintenance will then be compared to the constitutional growth
limits. The City's operation and maintenance contribution to PFA will be the lesser
of the contribution as determined by the Revenue Allocation Formula pr the
allowable contribution in accordance with the limits imposed by Article X, Section
20 of the State Constitution. In addition, the City will continue its current policy of
funding PFA by dedication of one mill of the City's total mill levy. The revenue
generated by the one mill will be used for operations and maintenance, apparatus
replacement and capital needs not funded, or only partially funded, by the capital
improvement expansion fee for fire protection. The revenue from the dedicated mill
will also be managed according to the property tax mill levy and revenue limitations
of Section 20 of Article X.
The adoption of the capital expansion fee will not create more funds for the PFA for capital
expansion. The reason is that the Authority plans to redirect a portion of the existing mill levy from
it's present capital use to O&M for the purpose of partially funding the ongoing costs of Station 12,
which will service the northern portion of the city (depending on additional funding, the station will
be operational between 1998 and 2000). The amount redirected from the 1 mill for this purpose will
be the amount estimated to be generated by the new fee. In this way, the amount the Authority I
allocates to capital will remain the same as is presently used to fund the 12 year apparatus
replacement program and future facilities.
On several occasions the Authority Board has reviewed this issue in conjunction with the
development of PFA's new strategic plan. Since Station 12 emerged as a high priority in the
planning process, the Authority Board believes that redirecting a portion of the capital from the I
mill to Station 12 O&M is an appropriate use of these resources. The last review of this issue was
at the April 23, 1996 PFA Board meeting. "
Budget Director Doug Smith gave a presentation on this item. He responded to Council questions
regarding potential amounts to be received from property and sales and use taxes.
Councilmember McCluskey made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Wanner, to adopt
Resolution 96-64.
Administrative Assistant Guy Boyd spoke of operation and maintenance needs and responded to
Council questions.
W:3
May 21, 1996
' The vote on Councilmember McCluskey's motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Apt,
Janett, Kneeland, McCluskey and Wanner. Nays: Councilmembers Azari and Smith.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Ordinance No. 52,1996
of the Council of the City of Fort Collins
Amending the Zoning District Map of the City of Fort Collins
by Changing the Zoning Classification for That Certain Real
Property Known as the Country Club Farms, Adopted on Second Reading
The following is staff's memorandum on this item.
"Executive Summary
On April 16, 1996, the City Council voted 5-2 to approve Ordinance No. 52, 1996 as amended on
First Reading to rezone the propertyfrom the T, Transition District to the I-L, Limited Industrial
District with a PUD condition. On May 7, 1996, the City Council considered Ordinance No. 52,
1996 - Options A and B. A motion to approve Option A (placing the property in the I-L District with
a PUD condition) failed by a vote of 3-4. The Council approved a motion to reconsider (7-0) and
then approved a motion to postpone the Second Reading of Ordinance No. 52 until May 21, 1996
' (7-0). The Council specifically directed staff to further research the potential of rezoning the
southern portion of the property with a condition requiring a minimum overall average density; and
to research the possibility of placing the property in two zoning districts.
The Ordinance being considered by the City Council will place the souther: 60.042 acres (Parcel
1) in the I-L, Limited Industrial Zoning District with a PUD condition. The northern 80.049 acres
(Parcel2) will be placed in the R-L-P, Low Density Planned Residential Zoning District with a PUD
condition. An additional condition will be attached to the zoning of Parcel 1 so that any residential
use on this parcel will have a minimum overall average density of six (6) dwelling units per net
developable acre and that the minintum overall average density of any residential development on
both Parcels 1 and 2 shall be six (6) dwelling units per net developable acre. This represents a
gross densityfor the entire property of 4.77 dwelling units per acre.
The adoption of Ordinance No. 52, 1996 does not grant any land use approval for this property.
The PUD conditions on the zoning districts will require any development proposal(s) on this
property to be submitted as a Planned Unit Development subject to the requirements of the Land
Development Guidance System (LDGS). The minimum overall average density conditions may not
be superseded by a Planned Unit Development (PUD).
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, Transition District zone to another zoning district within 60 days '
299
May 21, 1996
from the date the matter is considered by the Planning and Zoning Board. The deadline to rezone '
this property is June 7, 1996. Therefore, a decision to rezone the property must be made at the May
21, 1996 City Council meeting.
APPLICANT. Vaught -Frye Architects
1113 Stoney Hill Drive
Fort Collins, CO 80525
OWNER: Country Club Farms, L.L. C.
c% Vaught -Frye Architects
1113 Stoney Hill Drive
Fort Collins, CO 80525
BACKGROUND:
The current zoning and existing land uses of surrounding properties are as follows:
N.• R-L-P; undeveloped.
B-P; undeveloped.
S: I, 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 Zoning District 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,;
11
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 requested 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 stated in the rezoning justification that "This request
300 1
May 21, 1996
' is to simply prepare the site for development and is not indicative of any specific land use." Staff
and the Planning and Zoning Board recommended that the property be rezoned to the R-L-P, Low
Density Planned Residential Zoning District with a PUD condition.
First Reading of Ordinance No. 52, 1996:
On April 16, 1996, the City Council voted 5-2 to approve Ordinance No. 52, 1996 as amended on
First Reading to rezone the property from the T, Transition Zoning District to the I-L, Limited
Industrial District with a PUD condition. In addition, Mayor Pro-Tem Janett requested that staff
research the potential of placing an additional condition on the zoning which requires any
residential development on this property to have some minimum overall average density of greater
than 3 dwelling units per acre.
May 7. 1996:
On May 7, 1996, the City Council considered Ordinance No. 52, 1996 - Options A and B. A motion
to approve Option A (placing the property in the I-L District with a PUD condition) failed by a vote
of 3-4. Council approved a motion to reconsider (7-0) and then approved a motion to postpone the
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 52 until May 21, 1996 (7-0). The Council specifically directed
staff to further research the potential of rezoning the southern portion of the property with a
. condition requiring a minimum overall average density; and to research the possibility of placing
the property in two zoning districts.
Ordinance No. 52, 1996.7
The Ordinance being considered by the City Council will place the southern 60.042 acres (Parcel
I) in the I-L, Limited Industrial Zoning District with a PUD condition. The northern 80.049 acres
(Parcel 2) will be placed in the R-L-P, Low Density Planned Residential Zoning District with a PUD
condition. An additional condition will be attached to the zoning of Parcel I so that any residential
use thereon will have a minimum overall average density six (6) dwelling units per net developable
acre and that the minimum overall average density of any residential development on both Parcels
I and 2 shall be six (6) dwelling units per net developable acre. The gross density for the entire
property of 4.77 dwelling units per acre.
Staff believes that an overall gross density of 4.77 dwelling units per acre is a good density. Without
the conditions as proposed, the gross residential density would likely be 3 dwelling units per acre
as this is all that is currently required by All Development Criteria A-1.12 of the LDGS. 4.77
dwelling units per acre is higher than the current average gross residential density of the City.
For the purposes of this Ordinance, the term net developable acre shall be defined as "total gross
acreage less any acreage, or part thereof, devoted to one or more of the following uses: public
301
May 21, 1996
schools; utility and stonn drainage easements; access easements or rights -of -way; ditch easements; I
or open space, wetlands, park or buffer areas which are to be permanently dedicated to such use. "
Of the 140.1 total acres being rezoned, there are 81.3 net developable acres. The condition
requiring the minimum overall average density of any residential development on both Parcels I
and 2 shall be six (6) dwelling units per net developable acre will require a minimum total of 488
dwelling units. The condition requiring that any residential use on Parcel I to have a minimum
overall average density six (6) dwelling units per net developable acre will require a minimum of
220 of these units to be located on Parcel 1.
NOTE: The adoption of Ordinance No. 52, 1996 does not grant any land use approval for
this property. The PUD conditions on the zoning districts will require any
development proposal(s) on this property to be submitted as a Planned Unit
Development subject to the requirements of the Land Development Guidance System
(LDGS). The minimum overall average density conditions may not superseded by
a Planned Unit Development (PUD).
Rezoning this 140.1 acre property in the manner described above 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:
From the Goals and Objectives document: I
Promote increased development in the north and northeastern areas of the City.
Provide a rational pattern of land use for the older parts of the City which promotes the
integrated redevelopment and development of business, industrial, and residential areas in
the northern and northeastern areas of the City.
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.
302 ,
May 21, 1996
#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 economicaUfiscal 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 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......
#60 Industrial uses should locate near transportation facilities that offer the required
access to the industry but will not be allowed to create demands which exceed the
capacity of the existing and future transportation network of the City.
#61 Industrial development should locate within the City or consistent with the phasing
plan for the urban growth area, where the proper sizing of facilities such as water,
sewer and transportation has occurred or is planned.
#75 Residential areas should provide for a mix of housing densities.
#78 Residential development should be directed into areas which reinforce the phasing
plan in the urban growth area.
#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.
1
303
May 21, 1996
#80b Higher density residential uses should locate within close proximity to community I
or neighborhood park facilities.
#80c Higher density residential uses should locate where water and sewer facilities can
be adequately provided.
#80d Higher density residential uses should locate within easy access to major
employment centers.
#80e Higher density residential uses should locate with access to public transportation.
In addition, the following statements from the adopted Community Vision and Goals 2015
document could be used to support the proposed rezoning:
Our City will develop in a form that makes comprehensive, convenient, and efficient transit
service possible.
Our neighborhoods will include a variety of housing types to support a diverse population
and allow people of different ages, cultures, races and incomes to live in each neighborhood.
Our neighborhoods will have the environment, amenities, mix of uses, and housing attributes
to support a diverse population.
Fort Collins will promote development of well -designed, compatible, high -quality multi-
family developments and accessory homes throughout the community.
Finally, rezoning the property in the manner described, is consistent with Council direction that the
property should support a higher net density due to its proximity to a future transit route along Vine
Drive.
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", Transition 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 7, 1996. "
City Planner Mike Ludwig gave a presentation on this item and explained how net and gross
densities are calculated.
Councilmember Smith made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Wanner, to adopt Ordinance
No. 52, 1996 on Second Reading.
304
May 21, 1996
' Frank Vaught, Vaught -Frye Architects, spoke of the efforts of everyone involved and believed this
was a flexible proposal addressing Council's desire to establish a minimum density on the site. He
spoke of site constraints.
Councilmember McCloskey spoke of his reasons for not supporting the motion and of the need to
stay with the current rules.
Mayor Azari supported the motion.
The vote on Councilmember Smith's motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Apt, Azari,
Janett, Kneeland, Smith and Wanner. Nays: Councilmember McCloskey.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Resolution 96-65
Making Findings of Fact Regarding the
Appeal of the March 6, 1996 Planning and Zoning Board
Decision Upholding the Approval With Conditions, of Siena Final PUD, Adopted.
The following is staff's memorandum on this item.
' "Executive Summary
On March 20, 1996 and again on April 11, 1996 a Notice and Amended Notice of Appeal was filed
by parties -in -interest with respect to the March 6, 1996 decision of the Planning and Zoning Board
decision approving, with conditions, a residential development known as Siena Final P. U.D.
At the May 7, 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 actions:
Council determined that the Planning and Zoning Board did not fail to hold a fair hearing.
Council determined that the Planning and Zoning Board did not fail to properly interpret
and apply relevant provisions of the Code and Charter.
Council determined that the Planning and Zoning Board did not consider evidence that was
substantially false or grossly misleading.
305
May 21, 1996
In further deliberation. Council added the fallowing conditions to the Siena Final P. U.D.: I
The minimum rear yard setback for hones constructed on Lots 23-43, inclusive, shall
be 30 feet as measured from the rear property line.
2. The backyards of Lots 23-43, inclusive, shall feature two deciduous shade trees, no
less than two inches in caliper, and building foundation shrubs, no less than five
gallon container in size, along the rear of the house. The exact varieties of such
trees and shrubs shall be listed on the P. U.D. Site and Landscape Plan.
Consequently, the March 6, 1996 decision of the Planning and Zoning Board approving, with
conditions, Siena Final P. U.D., was upheld. "
Councilmember Kneeland made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Apt, to adopt Resolution
96-65. Yeas: Councilmembers Apt, Azari, Janett, Kneeland, McCluskey and Wanner. Nays:
Councilmember Smith.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
OTHER BUSINESS
Councilmember Janett made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Wanner, directing staff to add I
the impact fees, adopted earlier, to the rebate program for affordable housing.
After further discussion regarding the need for further study, Councilmember Janett withdrew her
motion. She requested information regarding past information on rebates by project, total amount
of rebate per project and per unit, rebates for profit and nonprofit, and questioned if there was a way
builders could be included in rebate programs. She reported the Growth Management Committee
was considering a special Study Session.
Councilmember Smith requested an update regarding holding a regional meeting with the east
central and southeast neighborhoods.
Councilmember McCluskey requested information regarding contract information between the City
and the Convention and Visitor's Bureau.
Councilmember Kneeland reported speeding continues to be a major concern on Stuart Street.
II•
r'
Meeting adjourned at 12:00 a.m.
307
May 21, 1996
a