HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES-12/18/1990-RegularDecember 18, 1990
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
Council -Manager Form of Government
Proclamations and Presentations - 6:15 p.m.
a. Proclamation Naming December 18 as Colorado Teacher of the Year Day, was
presented.
b. Proclamation Naming December 29 as CSU Rams Day, was presented.
c. A Plaaue to Mr. & Mrs. Harold S. Fisher for donation of 23 acres of Coen
Space, was presented.
Regular Meeting - 6:30 p.m.
A regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins was held on Tuesday,
December 18, 1990, at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers in the City of Fort
Collins City Hall. Roll call was answered by the following Councilmembers:
Azari, Edwards, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Mabry, Maxey and Winokur.
Staff Members Present: Burkett, Krajicek, Roy.
' Citizen Participation
Joe Stern, 1221 LaPorte Avenue, spoke of the progress in gaining signatures in
the Middle East Peace Initiative petition.
Beatriz Alonzo, 2630 Brookwood Drive, requested a response from Council regarding
a previous inquiry. She reported that she had performed volunteer services for
the City and was unhappy to discover the volunteer coordinator did not have
records regarding her services.
Kendall .Youngfeldt, 1967 Sandalwood, representing the Fort Collins Prolife
Community, requested permission to use the park area at the Mulberry Wastewater
Treatment Facility on January 19, 1991 at 9:00 a.m., to hold an outdoor memorial
service.
Chuck Patton, 1229 Teakwood Drive spoke of the Land Development Guidance System
stating it was obsolete and is no longer applicable to todays problems. He
stated the LDGS needs to be brought into compliance with City policy.
416
December 18, 1990
Aaenda Review
City Manager Steve Burkett requested item #13, Resolution 90-178 Authorizing the
City Manager and the Downtown Development Authority to Work Jointly to Implement
Development Projects within the Central Business District, and item #14,
Resolution 90-179 Authorizing the Mayor to Enter Into an Oil and Gas Lease with
Bright and Company, be withdrawn from the Consent Calendar.
Burkett stated that item #13 should not have appeared on the Consent Agenda and
noted that City Attorney Steve Roy had made changes to item #14.
City Attorney Steve Roy stated that item #14 is an Ordinance not a Resolution,
and reads the same with the exception of the following: the title will read
"Ordinance No. 148, 1990", in the NOW THEREFORE clause adding "BE IT ORDAINED"
deleting "BE IT RESOLVED", the final paragraph would read "Introduced and
considered favorably on First Reading and ordered published this 18th day of
December A.D., 1990 and to be considered for final passage on the 15th day of
January A.D., 1991.
Councilmember Edwards requested item #15, Resolution 90-180 Authorizing the
Purchase of Land Located at 725 East Vine Drive for a Streets Department
Facility, be withdrawn from the Consent Calendar.
Councilmember Horak requested item #14, Ordinance No. 148, 1990 Authorizing the
Mayor to Enter Into an Oil and Gas Lease with Bright and Company, be withdrawn
from the Consent Calendar.
Mayor Kirkpatrick reported the Wastewater Treatment Plant demonstration, the
Lincoln Center indoor pool discussion and the Highway 14 relocation plans would
be considered under Other Business which is the last item on the Agenda.
Consent Calendar
This Calendar is intended to allow the City Council to spend its time and energy
on the important items on a lengthy agenda. Staff recommends approval of the
Consent Calendar. Anyone may request an item on this calendar to be "pulled"
off the Consent Calendar and considered separately. Agenda items pulled from
the Consent Calendar will be considered separately under Agenda Item #17, Pulled
Consent Items.
Consider approval of the minutes of the regular meeting of November 20.
Items Relating to Penalties and Rules for Traffic Infractions.
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 104, 1990, Amending Section 1-15(b)
of the Code Relating to General Penalties for Traffic Violations.
417 1
I
December 18, 1990
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 105, 1990, Amending Chapter 19 of
the Code to Include Rules for Traffic Infractions.
These Ordinances were unanimously adopted on first reading on December 4.
Item A is an Ordinance that amends Section 1-15(b) of the City Code to
clarify what violations of the Model Traffic Code are considered traffic
infractions rather than misdemeanors. Item B is an Ordinance that adopts
rules and procedures applicable to traffic infractions.
Since the first reading of Ordinance No. 105, 1990, a few changes have been
made to it, which are highlighted in the Ordinance.
This Ordinance, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on December
4, appropriates $961,400 of special assessment revenue in the Special
Assessments Debt Service Fund and increases the 1990 appropriations to
$2,737,000. This money will be used to call bonds and reduce outstanding
bonds from $18,595,000 to $15,858,000.
9. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 139, 1990, Amending the Code
Pertaining to Council Appeals.
The Ordinance would revise the provisions of the City Code pertaining to
the procedure for appeals heard by City Council by permitting rebuttal
presentations to be made by parties -in -interest.
10.
A. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 140, 1990, Amending
Chapter 12, Article II of the Code Relating to Garbage and Refuse.
B. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 141, 1990, Amending
Chapter 20 of the Code Relating to Weeds, Brush and Rubbish.
C. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 142, 1990 Amending Chapter
24, Article II of the Code Relating to Sidewalks.
There are three substantive changes proposed, which will affect the way
in which the Code is administered.
418
11.
12.
December 18, 1990 '
1) In all three chapters, the administrative fee added to weed, rubbish,
and sidewalk snow abatement bills will increase from 10% to 20%. This
increase will allow the City to more fully recover the cost of abatement.
2) An appeals procedure will be added to Chapters 12, 20, and 24. This
will allow property owners who received an abatement bill for weeds,
rubbish, or sidewalk snow to appeal the bill to the Director of Utility
Services, or his designee.
3) A new article will be added to Chapter 20, making it illegal for
business owners to put snow from private lots into the public right-of-
way. When snow is pushed off business parking lots into the public right-
of-way, a hazard for pedestrians and motorists can be created.
In addition, there are a few minor changes to Chapter 12, 20, and 24, which
will clarify the ordinances, but not change the way these programs are
administered.
A. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 143, 1990, Authorizing
an Agreement with Joseph W. Nance to Provide Golf Professional and
Concession Services at Collindale Golf Course for a Term of up to
Five Years.
B. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 144, 1990, Authorizing
an Agreement with James H. Greer to Provide Golf Professional and
Concession Services at City Park Nine Golf Course for a Term of up
to Five Years.
Existing agreements with Collindale Golf Professional Bill Metier and City
Park Nine Golf Professional Jim Greer will expire on January 31, 1991.
In prior years, the City has negotiated periodic contracts of one -to -three
years in length for Collindale and City Park Nine with the golf
professionals serving as independent contractors. A Request for Proposal
package was prepared for both Collindale and City Park Nine golf
professionals for 1991, with annual renewal options for the years 1992
through 1995 (if desired by both parties). After thorough review of the
proposals submitted, staff and the Golf Board recommend Council approval
of these two agreements with Joseph W. Nance at Collindale and James H.
Greer at City Park Nine for terms of up to five years.
419
13.
December 18, 1990
During the past two years the City has entered into two different
agreements with the Fort Collins -Loveland Water District regarding the sale
or exchange of treated water. The first agreement dated November 16, 1989,
involved the exchange of treated water between the City and the District.
The second agreement, dated May 31, 1990, involved the sale of drinking
water to the District. This agreement provided for the sale of up to 3
million gallons per day (mgd) of water to the District for a period of 3
years.
Recently the District decided to delay any major expansion of its treatment
facility and asked the City to enter into a longer term water sale
agreement. With the development of a new long term water sale agreement,
the previous two agreements could be terminated. The proposed agreement
stipulates that the City will sell the District treated water up to a
maximum of 5 million gallons per day. The District would provide the raw
water. It specifies that the cost of treating the water would be set at
the rate of 50 cents per 1000 gallons for 1991 which is based on the
District purchasing a minimum of 400 million gallons and incorporates a
table of rate factors to be used in the subsequent years.
Adoption of the Resolution would set in motion a high priority program of
the City Council authorizing the City Manager, in consultation with the
DOA, to develop a list of priority downtown projects for subsequent
implementation using a wide array of financing tools available to the City
and the DDA.
The fiscal impact of individual projects will be considered and evaluated
at such time as the City Council is presented a list of eligible, priority
projects in the central business district (CBD). Each recommended priority
project will include a plan of financial support utilizing combined public
and private resources to implement the recommended project.
14. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 148, 1990, Authorizing the Mayor
to Enter Into an Oil and Gas Lease with Bright and Company.
On June 5, 1990, the Council authorized Resolution 90-74 approving the
purchase of land for the proposed future regional wastewater treatment
plant. The purchase consisted of 160 acres approximately two miles east
of I-25 along the Poudre River adjacent to Ptarmigan Golf Course. The City
owns the mineral rights for the 100 acres west of the river.
Recently, the City has been approached by a representative of Vantage
' Resources Company, an agent for Bright & Company, concerning the possible
420
15.
December 18, 1990 '
lease of oil and gas rights on the property. The proposed lease provides
for a 13% royalty, no surface occupancy without written consent,
indemnification of liability, a shut-in gas provision of five years, and
a lump sum payment of $40 per acre for the lease of 100 net acres of the
parcel.
The proposed Resolution authorizes the purchase of land located at 725 East
Vine Drive for the development of a new Streets Department facility. Over
the past several years, several issues have developed which have
exacerbated the need to begin looking for a new Streets Department
facility. These issues have impacted the service the Department provides
the community and the ability of the Department to meet the demands
accompanying future growth of the city. To address these concerns, the
Streets Department began developing a master plan for a new facility a
couple of years ago. The site at 725 East Vine Drive offers several
advantages for a new facility: future growth needs are met, current
buildings are usable, site improvements should result in positive
neighborhood impacts, sand/salt is currently stored on site, access is
good, buildings on the site are historical, Street operations are
consolidated, surrounding area has similar uses, and possible opportunities
for joint uses with the County and State.
16. Routine Deeds and Easements
a. Powerline easement from Jean A. Gaye and Yvonne I. Gaye, 112 S.
Grant, needed to set secondary electric vault to underground existing
overhead electric services. Monetary consideration: $10.
b. Donation by Jack Williams of a 1.4 acre parcel near the intersection
of Highway 14 and Lemay.
C. Powerline easement from Ione S. Parkins, 1806 Whedbee St., needed
to install oval electric vault to underground existing overhead
electric system. Monetary consideration: $60. (10' x 3' @ $2/sq.
ft.)
d. Powerline easement from Marvin L. Bush and Jean L. Bush, 1714 Whedbee
St., needed to set oval electric vault to underground existing
overhead electric system: Monetary consideration: $112.-(8' x 7'
@ $2/sq. ft.)
Ordinances on Second Reading were read by title by Wanda Krajicek, City Clerk.
421
Item #7. A.
B.
Item #8.
Item #26.
December 18, 1990
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 105, 1990, Amending Chapter
19 of the Code to Include Rules for Traffic Infractions.
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 137, 1990, Fixing the Salary of the
City Attorney.
Ordinances on First Reading were read by title by Wanda Krajicek, City Clerk.
Item #9.
Item #10
Item #11
Item #14
Item #21
Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 139, 1990, Amending the
Code Pertaining to Council Appeals.
A.
B.
C.
A.
11
Professional and Concession Services at City Park Nine Golf
Course for a Term of up to Five Years.
Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 148, 1990, Authorizing
the Mayor to Enter Into an Oil and Gas Lease with Bright and Company.
B. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 131, 1990, Annexing
Property Known as the Galatia Annexation.
C.
Known as the Zoning Ordinance, and Classifying for Zoning
422
December 18, 1990
Item #22.
Item #24.
Councilmember Azari made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Maxey, to adopt
and approve all items not removed from the Consent Calendar. Yeas:
Councilmembers Azari, Edwards, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Mabry, Maxey and Winokur.
Nays: None.
Resolution 90-178 Authorizing the City
Manager and the Downtown Development
Authority to Work Jointly to Implement
Development Projects within the
Central Business District, Adopted
"FINANCIAL IMPACT
No immediate fiscal impact. Staff support for the program will be within the
approved 1991 City operating budget.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Adoption of the Resolution would set in motion a high priority program of the
City Council authorizing the City Manager, in consultation with the DDA, to
develop a list of priority downtown projects for subsequent implementation usi
ng a wide array of financing tools available to the City and the DDA.
The fiscal impact of individual projects will be considered and evaluated at
such time as the City Council is presented a list of eligible, priority projec
is in the central business district (CBD). Each recommended priority project
will include a plan of financial support utilizing combined public and private
resources to implement the recommended project.
BACKGROUND:
Attached is a proposed Resolution authorizing the City Manager and the DDA to
work jointly on Council approved downtown projects. The Resolution calls for
the development of a project specific priorities list of potential downtown
projects and authorizes consideration of "all necessary resources to realize
projects that positively affect the CBD."
423
1
r
December 18, 1990
On December 6, 1990 the Downtown Development Authority reviewed the Resolution
and recommends adoption. The changes referred to in the attached letter from
DDA Chairperson, Jim Martell, have been incorporated into the Resolution. The
intent of the Resolution is to encourage the City Manager and the DDA to pursu
e joint development of priority projects in the CBD that will have a contribut
ing and positive effect on the economic revitalization of the city center.
The process outlined would include the formation of an ad hoc committee
consisting of two representatives from the City Council, two representatives from
the DDA, and the City Manager. The committee would be charged to identify
candidate, priority projects and implementation plans suitable for consideration
in a joint City Council/DDA work session. Authorization to proceed with
project(s) implementation shall be by formal approval by both the City Council
and the DDA.
The attached resolution provides space for the City Council to identify two
members of the Council who would serve on the ad hoc committee. The DDA has
appointed Ms. Lucia Liley and Mr. Steve Fobes to serve on the ad hoc committee
as its representatives."
Councilmember Azari made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Maxey, to adopt
Resolution 90-178 inserting the names of Ann Azari and Dave Edwards.
' Councilmember Maxey expressed his concern that Councilmember Azari's nomination
to the Ad Hoc Committee might pose a conflict of interest since she currently
serves on the DDA Board.
Councilmember Edwards stated that Councilmember's currently serve as
representatives on similar boards and he did not perceive any conflict.
City Manager Steve Burkett commented the committee was designed as a brief
committee that would only hold one or two meetings. He noted that given their
background knowledge of the plan, it would be valuable for members of the DDA
and a Council representative to the DDA to serve on the committee.
Councilmember Azari withdrew her name from nomination.
Councilmember Maxey made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Edwards, amending
Resolution 90-178 inserting the names of Dave Edwards and Loren Maxey.
Bruce Lockhart, 2500 E. Harmony Road, questioned the need for public/private
partnerships in the downtown area. He noted that historically when the City has
been involved the partnerships have not been financially successful.
Councilmember Horak opposed the Resolution stating the original motion including
Councilmember Azari's nomination made more sense because of her current
' involvement with the DDA.
424
December 18, 1990
1
The vote on Councilmember Maxey's motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers
Azari, Edwards, Kirkpatrick, Mabry and Maxey. Nays: Councilmembers Horak and
Winokur.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Ordinance No. 148, 1990
Authorizing the Mayor to Enter
Into an oil and Gas Lease with
Bright and Company. Adopted on First Reading
The following is staff's memorandum on this item.
"FINANCIAL IMPACT
The lease provides for a lump sum payment of $4,000 with a 13 percent royalty
clause if gas or oil is produced from the premises.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On June 5, 1990, the Council authorized Resolution 90-74 approving the purchas
e of land for the proposed future regional wastewater treatment plant. The
purchase consisted of 160 acres approximately two miles east of I-25 along the
Poudre River adjacent to Ptarmigan Golf Course. The City owns the mineral rights
for the 100 acres west of the river.
Recently, the City has been approached by a representative of Vantage Resources
Company, an. agent for Bright & Company, concerning the possible lease of oil
and gas rights on the property. The proposed lease provides for a 13% royalty,
no surface occupancy without written consent, indemnification of liability, a
shut-in gas provision of five years, and a lump sum payment of $40 per acre for
the lease of 100 net acres of the parcel.
The lease is on a standard "Producers 88" form, which is the most commonly used
form of oil and gas lease."
Councilmember Edwards made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Mabry, to adopt
Ordinance No. 148, 1990.
Councilmember Horak questioned if there were any assurances regarding
environmental parameters.
Water and Sewer Director Mike Smith stated the lease provided for no disturbance
to the surface and he was confident there would be no environmental concerns.
The vote on Councilmember Edward's motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers
Azari, Edwards, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Mabry, Maxey and Winokur. Nays: None.
425
December 18, 1990
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Resolution 90-180 Authorizing the
Purchase of Land Located at
725 East Vine Drive for a Streets
Department Facility. Adopted as Amended
The following is staff's memorandum on this item.
"FINANCIAL IMPACT
Purchase price for the property is $947,000. Monies for the purchase and
subsequent development of the property have been appropriated into a capital
projects fund during the 1990 and 1991 budgets. Total appropriations for the
two years equal $1.3 million.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The proposed Resolution authorizes the purchase of land located at 725 East Vine
Drive for the development of a new Streets Department facility. Over the past
several years, several issues have developed which have exacerbated the need to
begin looking for a new Streets Department facility. These issues have impacted
the service the Department provides the community and the ability of the
Department to meet the demands accompanying future growth of the city. To
address these concerns, the Streets Department began developing a master plan
for a new facility a couple of years ago. The site at 725 East Vine Drive offers
several advantages for a new facility: future growth needs are met, current
buildings are usable, site improvements should result in positive neighborhood
impacts, sand/salt is currently stored on site, access is good, buildings on the
site are historical, Street operations are consolidated, surrounding area has
similar uses, and possible opportunities for joint uses with the County and
State.
Over the past several years, several issues have developed which have exacerbated
the need to begin looking for a new facility for the Streets Department. These
include:
The Department is currently spread out and located primarily in four
different areas, all of which are rented or borrowed from other
departments.
The Car Barn, which is used for materials and inside equipment storage,
is in poor repair and structurally unstable. Additionally, rent for the
Car Barn is projected to increase from $700 per year this year to $21,000
next year.
o The facilities located at the Utility Service Center at 700 Wood Street
' are master -planned to be occupied by the Water and Wastewater Department
426
December 18, 1990
and Stormwater Utility as part of their long-term expansion.
o Multiple locations promote operational inefficiencies and "dead time."
Adequate inside storage is not available. Much of the Department's
equipment carries water which will freeze in the winter if not properly
stored, thus severely damaging the equipment. Other pieces of equipment
and certain materials are particularly sensitive to cold weather and won't
function properly unless adequately stored. The Department must also be
able to respond quickly during snow storms to ensure the safety of the
city's travelers. Hard -starting diesel engines and frozen hydraulic
systems, resulting from inadequate storage, don't make for quick response
times.
o Inadequate space creates environmental problems with paint storage and lack
of wash -down areas for equipment.
o Access to arterial streets is poor from the current Streets facility on
Wood Street. Operations directly impact the neighborhood as heavy vehicles
and equipment travel through residential areas en route to arterials.
Unfortunately, during the winter months in particular, operations continue
24-hours per day at times.
The demand for increased maintenance resulting from the growth in the
number of city street miles and an increased level of service due to the
voter -approved sales tax for the annual overlay program cannot be
adequately met with the current facilities.
To address these concerns, the Streets Department began developing a master plan
for a new facility a couple of years ago. As part of this plan, Fleet
Maintenance Consultants, Inc. did a needs assessment study to determine the
current and future (20-year) facility needs of the Department, including
equipment and material storage, maintenance, and administration. The study
identified the need for approximately 20 acres to meet the year 2010 requirements
of the Department. Of this 20 acres, approximately 10 would comprise the
Department's asphalt operations, including the storing, crushing, and recycling
of asphalt used in patching and alley improvements. The remaining acreage
includes:
Administration and crew areas 12,000 s.f.
Shop space 19',000 S.F.
Equipment and material storage 400;000 s.f.
(including sand and salt
storage)
The East Vine Drive site provides sufficient area (approximately 30 acres) to
consolidate the Department's resources while addressing the concerns discussed
above. This site offers several advantages for a new facility: future growth '
427
December 18, 1990
needs are met, current buildings are usable, site improvements should result in
positive neighborhood impacts, sand/salt is currently stored on site, access is
good, buildings on the site are historical, Streets operations are consolidated,
surrounding area has similar uses, and possible opportunities for joint uses with
the County and State.
Following discussions with the neighbors in the vicinity of Wood Street, most
would not support the expansion of the existing facilities. Of particular
importance is the amount of vehicle traffic generated from Streets Department
operations. The West Side Neighborhood Plan specifically addresses traffic
issues and the concerns of the neighborhood with increased traffic loads along
arterials and collectors. The neighbors have also expressed their concerns with
all-night operations, which necessarily occur during snow storms.
The final purchase of the Vine Drive site will be contingent upon the outcome
of a comprehensive environmental audit of the site. If the audit identifies
problems from previous uses of the site that cannot reasonably be mitigated, the
offer to purchase the site will be withdrawn.
Future environmental issues that will be addressed during final site development
include drainage, salt storage and leaching, noise, paint and petroleum based
products (asphalt, crackseal, etc.) storage, fuel storage, and run-off from
' washing down vehicles. A detailed site plan will necessarily address each of
these.
To finance the purchase of the site, the 1990 and 1991 Streets Department budgets
set aside $600,000 and $700,000, respectively, for purchase and development of
a new facility. The project will eventually include renovation of the building,
substantial site improvements, and construction of an administration/crew
building. Total costs are estimated to be $3.5 to $4 million. An exact
financing plan has not yet been developed, but one will be put together as more
detailed information becomes available. However, no new money will be requested
from Council. Funds will be earmarked from the existing and projected budgets.
Proceeds from the 114 cent sales tax for street maintenance are not being relied
upon to fund this project. The Streets Department receives only 8% of the 114
cent sales tax proceeds to support the annual overlay program managed by the
Engineering Department."
J
Councilmember Edwards made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Azari, to adopt
Resolution 90-180.
Superintendent of Streets Larry Schneider gave a brief explanation regarding
site criteria and stated the proposed location best suited the needs of the City.
James Alarid, 608 9th Street, representing 3 neighborhoods, requested that
Council table the Resolution.
428
December 18, 1990
Steve Barbier, Executive Director of Neighbor to Neighbor Inc., 522 E. Elizabeth,
recommended the issue be tabled. He asked Council for a commitment to improve
the northeast sections of Fort Collins.
Al Scott, 940 N. Shields, spoke in support of the Resolution commenting the
location will have a minimal impact on the area.
Bruce Lockhart, 2500 E. Harmony Road commented on past unplanned purchases and
stated that if the P&Z Board placed restrictions on the site, the cost of the
project could increase substantially. He questioned the project's cost
effectiveness and stated the financial aspects need to be considered.
Councilmember Maxey stated the site met all pertinent criteria and supported
the Resolution.
Councilmember Horak stated he was undecided about continuing or tabling the
discussion. He felt Council and administration need to seriously examine the
site concerns and make a commitment dealing with those concerns.
Schneider assured Council that before additional alterations to the site were
made, a long range site plan would be brought back before the neighborhood for
its review and input.
Councilmember Mabry recommended including a detailed costing of implementation 1
in the final plan. He asked that the completed package return to Council for
final approval.
Councilmember Mabry suggested the Resolution be amended in the "NOW THEREFORE"
clause, in the third sentence to strike the word "purchase" inserting "complete
the planning, detail the project cost and satisfy the contingencies of the letter
of understanding on" then reading "the property at 725 East Vine Drive" deleting
the remainder of the paragraph, inserting "and to return to Council for
consideration for the purchase once completed".
Councilmember Edwards as maker of the motion and Councilmember Azari as the
seconder to the motion accepted Councilmember Mabry's suggestion as a friendly
amendment.
City Attorney Steve Roy stated the intent of the amendment is that the plans be
finalized and approved by the Planning and Zoning Board subject to the normal
appeal procedures.
Councilmember Winokur offered; City Attorney Steve Roy's explanation as an
amendment, Councilmember Edwards' accepted it as a friendly amendment.
The vote on Councilmember Edward's motion as amended was as follows: Yeas:
Councilmembers Azari, Edwards, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Mabry, Maxey and Winokur.
Nays: None. '
429
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Reports
December 18, 1990
Mayor Kirkpatrick stated that Beverly Schmitt, had attended the meeting earlier
in the evening and was to be presented a Proclamation in honor of her nomination
for Teacher of the Year, but was unable to stay for the presentation.
Mayor Kirkpatrick reported that she has been invited to participate in a special
seminar in New Mexico at the Whip Facility.
Public Hearing on the Planning and
Zoning Board Adopted Harmony Corridor
Plan and Associated Implementing Package
The following is staff's memorandum on this item.
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Three focus areas are outlined in the Proposed Harmony Corridor Plan -- LAND USE,
URBAN DESIGN and THE GATEWAY. Together, the three focus areas create a vision
' for the future of the corridor. The Plan establishes policies to guide land use
decision -making and to promote the establishment of a unified urban design theme
and landscape character along Harmony Road. The Plan also defines implementation
tasks needed to turn the vision into reality.
The specific implementation actions outlined in the Plan include: design
standards and guidelines; a new EP Employment Park zoning district with an
administrative process for technical plans; and, the rezoning of approximately
440 acres of property to EP Employment Park District. These documents were
included in the briefing material provided to the Council previously.
The City's LAND USE POLICIES PLAN (1979) represents a decision -making guide for
community -wide land use issues. Since its adoption, the City has continued to
refine the plan policies for strategic areas of the community where more specific
direction is needed. Past examples include the Downtown Plan, Eastside and
Westside Neighborhood Plans and the adoption of land use policies for the
location of neighborhood convenience shopping centers.
In August of 1989, City Council reviewed and accepted the.1990-1991 Consolidated
Work Program for the Development Services Department, which included the Harmony
Corridor planning effort. On August 28, 1989, the Planning and Zoning Board
adopted Resolution #9-89 endorsing commencement of the Harmony Corridor planning
effort. City staff, property owners and interested citizens worked on the Plan
' between September 1989 and October 1990. The HARMONY CORRIDOR PLAN is the
430
December 18, 1990
product of this effort. It was adopted by the Planning and Zoning Board on
October 1, 1990 following a duly advertised public hearing. The Planning Board
has recommended to City Council the approval of the Plan. This public hearing
is preparatory to formal consideration of the Plan by the Council.
THE PLAN
The Plan begins with a description of the existing physical and cultural
conditions in the corridor. Analysis of existing conditions helped define three
focus areas -- LAND USE, URBAN DESIGN, and THE GATEWAY. Each focus area was
addressed independently. Issues were described, problems and opportunities
defined, and alternative directions for the future were analyzed. The discussion
concludes with a plan in the form of a goal statement and policies, followed by
recommended implementation actions. Traditional elements such as transportation
and the environment were held back due to extensive work underway with the area
wide Transportation Plan and the Environmental Management Plan. Those plans,
when adopted,.011 become elements of the City's COMPREHENSIVE PLAN just as the
HARMONY CORRIDOR PLAN will become an element of the COMPREHENSIVE PLAN once it
is approved by the City Council.
The Land Use Plan element strives to make the Harmony Corridor a major business
center in northern Colorado by the attraction of desirable businesses and
industries which would serve a regional market. Land use policies encourage the
development of industries and businesses that enhance the local economy. A mix
of housing types and densities are also encouraged. Policies emphasize
coordinated planning through large scale master development plans and discourage
strip commercial. development by requiring commercial/retail development to be
located in planned centers near major arterial intersections with less intense
development between major intersections. This is consistent with existing City
and State Highway Department policy as expressed in the adopted HARMONY ROAD
ACCESS PLAN. The policies also highlight the importance of maintaining the
residential neighborhoods within and adjacent to the corridor.
The Urban Design Plan element seeks to guide development in the corridor in order
to create a unified urban design theme and landscape character along Harmony
Road. The Harmony Oaks design theme uses naturalistic berming, a meandering
trail system, groves of trees and wildflower masses to create a landscape
character that would be attractive in every season. Urban design policies
promote the development of extensive recreational trails and a commuter bike
system. The Urban Design Plan also highlights the historical heritage associated
with the original community of "Harmony."
Finally, the Gateway Plan element was developed to encourage the City to pay
special attention to the iand area near I-25 and the Poudre River. Protection
of natural resources, enhancement of natural scenic qualities, establishment of
a we11-planned and attractive gateway, and the advantage of recreational and
educational opportunities were all part of the gateway planning effort promoted
in the Plan. '
431
December 18, 1990
IMPLEMENTATION
A series of recommended implementation actions are included and made a part of
the public hearing. These include: Design standards and guidelines, the new
EP Employment Park zoning district and its administrative review process for
technical plans.
The Design Standards and Guidelines will implement the Harmony Oaks Design
Concept promoted in the Plan by creating an urban design framework that addresses
setbacks, grading, sidewalk/trail alignment, plant material, planting design,
fencing, lighting and signage. They are intended to be used as a design aid by
developers proposing projects in the Harmony Corridor and as an evaluation tool
by the Planning and Zoning Board and City staff in their review process.
The proposed EP Employment Park zoning district and the Administrative Review
Process for Technical Plans are implementation strategies that have been
developed in order to encourage targeted businesses and industries to locate in
the Harmony Corridor. The EP zone designation on the City's zoning map
establishes the corridor as a preferred location for these uses. Targeted land
uses include research facilities, testing laboratories, light industrial and
office uses. The new zone offers two other advantages to targeted businesses
and industries: cost savings through reductions in street oversizing fees and
a more flexible development review process.
Other recommendations for implementation include several public improvement
projects that require additional planning and/or design work.
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning and Zoning Board recommends that the City Council:
* Adopt the HARMONY CORRIDOR PLAN as an element of .the City's
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
* Adopt the Harmony Corridor Design Standards and Guidelines.
* Adopt the EP Employment Park Zoning District.
* Adopt the Administrative Guidelines for the EP Employment Park
Technical Plan Review.
* Rezone approximately 440 acres from T Transition, IP Industrial
Park, and BP Planned Business zoning districts to the EP Employment
Park Zoning District.
This public hearing is for the purpose of soliciting public comment on the Plan
and the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Board.
432
December 18, 1990
Following the public hearing the City Council may wish to hold additional work
sessions on the proposed plan and associated implementation packages prior to
providing direction to the Planning and Zoning Board on additions, modifications
or deletions considered appropriate and necessary prerequisites for City Council
approval of the final Plan and implementation ordinances and resolutions."
Planning Director Tom Peterson gave a slide presentation and a brief staff
report on this item.
Jim Klataski, Chairman of the Planning and Zoning Board, read a brief prepared
statement regarding Harmony Corridor Plan and urged Council to endorse the Plan.
Will Smith, 2930 Middlesborough Court stated he commended the Fort Collins
Development Services and the Planning and Zoning Board for their efforts, but
opposed the Plan.
Fred Gardner, 713 Westshore Court, spoke of concerns relating to on -premise
signs and presented a brief slide presentationof existing on -premise signs in
the corridor. He urged Council to delete the private sector signage portion of
the Plan.
Christine Ferguson, Natural Resources Advisory Board Alternate, commended
Council and the Planning and Zoning Board staff for their efforts in creating
the Plan. She raised concerns regarding the type of image the City is
attempting to achieve and requested that Council continue to solicit community
input regarding the Plan.
Bill Swetts, 4801 E. Harmony Road, stated he felt the City was infringing on the
Urban Growth Plan that was adopted by Timnath several years ago. He said the
citizens need to have more input on the development of the Plan and urged
Council to do nothing.
Gina Janett, President of Citizen Planners, spoke of concerns regarding policy
issues and asked Council to reevaluate existing land use policies to determine
if there are conflicts.
Jack Swetts, 4735 S. County Road #5, spoke in opposition to the Plan.
Ed Secor, 242 North Sunset, opposed the adoption of the Plan without a specific
section that would address transportation issues.
Harold Swope, 4925 Hogan Drive, opposed the Plan and expressed energy
conservation concerns relating to the placement of street lights along the
corridor.
Tom McKenna, 3500 Rolling Green representing the Poudre Canyon Sierra Club,
recommended the Plan be revised to include alternative transportation issues. '
433
I
December 18, 1990
John Siebeck, 705 E. Drake, Co-founder of the Choice City Cycling Coalition,
stated the Plan has an opportunity to become a model for alternate forms of
transportation.
Scott Mason, 861 Sandy Cove Lane, opposed the Plan and asked that the decision
making process be left to the appointed voluntary Citizen Planning and Zoning
Board.
Ed Stoner, 4409 West County Road 52E, stated he felt there was a definite 2need
for a plan but did not agree with the proposed one.
Peter Kast, representing G.T. Lands, urged Council to adopt the Harmony
Corridor Plan stating that although it isn't an ideal plan, it is a step in the
right direction.
Councilmember Horak commented that issues relating to the street oversizing
waivers, lighting, bikeways and alternative transportation need to be addressed.
Councilmember Winokur stated he would like further clarification from staff on
street oversizing fees.
Mayor Kirkpatrick spoke of her concerns regarding the private sector signage
,issue.
Councilmember Horak asked staff to develop alternative options regarding the
above listed items.
Councilmember Azari expressed concern that too much time and effort is being put
into the development of the Plan with the end result of nothing be accomplished.
Councilmember Maxey addressed the urban growth issue regarding boundaries.
Mayor Kirkpatrick stated a meeting is scheduled with Development Services and
as a result of the meeting there is the possibility of scheduling a worksession
addressing alternatives.
City Manager Steve Burkett noted there was a need for a worksession to get the
list of concerns on the table.
THE PUBLIC HEARING CONCLUDED.
434
December 18, 1990 '
Ordinance No. 145, 1990,
Amending Chapter 29 Hearing
and First Reading of the Code
of the City of Fort Collins
Relating to Off -Premise Signs,
Postponed to January 15, 1991
Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Edwards to postpone
this item because of the lateness of the hour until January 15, 1991 to be the
first item after Consent.
The vote on Councilmember Horak's motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers
Azari, Edwards, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Mabry, Maxey and Winokur. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Items Pertaining to the
Galatia Annexation and Zoning, Adopted
The following is staff's memorandum on this item.
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A. Resolution 90-165 Setting Forth Findings of Fact and Determinations
Regarding the Galatia Annexation.
Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 131, 1990, Annexing Property
Known as the Galatia Annexati.on.
Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 132, 1990, Amending Chapter 29
of the Code of the City of Fort Collins, Commonly Known as the Zoning
Ordinance, and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in
the Galatia Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado.
This is a request to annex and zone approximately 235.5 acres located north of
East Prospect Road and east of Interstate 25. The requested zonings are for
H-B, Highway Business (28.0 acres), and I-P, Industrial Park (91.9 acres), to
the north and east of the interchange area; R-P, Planned Residential (64.5
acres) on the eastern part of the property, and T-Transitional (51.1 acres) for
the central portion of the property. The H-B, I-P, and R-P zonings would carry
a PUD condition. The property is presently, for the most part, undeveloped, with
the exception of a new residence at the far southeast corner of the property and
a few older residential and farm structures located along the frontage road of
I-25. The property is currently zoned FA-1 Farming in Larimer County. This is
a voluntary annexation.
On November 13, the applicant, Eldon Ward of Cityscape Urban Design, submitted '
435
December 18, 1990
a letter requesting postponement of consideration of this item to December 18.
Mr. Ward has since been able to complete legal descriptions of the proposed
zoning districts for the annexation.
APPLICANT: Pavlakis Realty OWNERS: Galatia Partnership
c/o Cityscape Urban Design c/o George Pavlakis
3030 S. College Ave #200 5670 E. Evans Ave.
Ft. Collins, CO 80525 Denver, CO 80222
BACKGROUND:
The applicant, Eldon Ward of Cityscape Urban Design, on behalf of the owner,
Galatia Partnership (Pavlakis Realty has power of attorney), has submitted a
written petition requesting annexation of approximately 235.5 acres located
north of East Prospect Road and east of Interstate 25. The requested zonings are
for H-B, Highway Business (28.0 acres), and I-P, Industrial Park (91.9 acres),
to the north and east of the interchange area; R-P, Planned Residential (64.5
acres) on the eastern part of the property, and T-Transitional (51.1 acres) for
the central portion of the property. The H-B, I-P, and R-P zonings would carry
a PUD condition. (See attached map for locations of proposed zonings.) The
property is currently zoned FA-1 Farming in the County. This is a voluntary
' annexation. Any existing commercial signs on the property will have to conform
to the City's Sign Code (as it is proposed to be amended) at the conclusion of
a five year amortization period.
The property is divided by the current Fort Collins Urban Growth Area (UGA)
boundary. Approximately 78 acres (the eastern portion of the property) is
located outside the UGA. According to policies and agreements between the City
of Fort Collins and Larimer County contained in the INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT
FOR THE FORT COLLINS URBAN GROWTH AREA, the City can consider the annexation of
property outside the UGA by giving the County sufficient notice (35 days) of the
intent to annex the property. According to the UGA Agreement, annexation of
property outside the UGA by the City of Fort Collins automatically amends the
UGA boundary to conform to the boundaries of the annexation.
Larimer County responded to the City's,notice of the proposed annexation in a
letter dated September 11, 1990 (copy attached). The County requested that all
adjacent street rights -of -way be included in the annexation. (All street
rights -of -way are included as required by state annexation laws.) The County
letter also contained a general comment that plans for extensions of urban
services should be in place before annexations occur, particularly when an
annexation will go beyond the UGA boundary. Copies of the City's Master Street
Plan and the Water and Sewer Master Plans were provided to the County with the
City's notice to the County of the pending annexation. These plans show the
planned extension of services for this area. Water service could be made
available to this site from both the City or the ELCO Water District. Sewer
service is available from the Boxelder Sanitation District. (The availability
436
a
0
December 18, 1990 '
of services is covered in greater detail in the next paragraph.) The County
indicates the annexation of this property will not create any negative impacts
on County facilities and services. The County recommends approval of the
annexation.
In considering utility services, an existing 24" Boxelder Sanitation District
sewer main crosses the property at its northwestern corner. An existing 2" ELCO
Water District water main is located one-half mile to the north. The City's
Water Master Plan anticipates that a 16" water main will be extended east of
1-25 along Prospect Road and then turn north dividing the subject property along
the current UGA boundary. Staff believes that adequate utility services either
currently exist or will be made available to this site in the near future by the
City or by other utility service providers. Electric utility service to the
site is currently available from Public Service Company and Poudre Valley REA.
If the property is annexed, electric utility service would be provided by the
City. The costs of extending water, sewer, and electric utility services would
be paid by the developer except for facilities needed on an area -wide basis
(oversizing)..
City Departments' and other agencies reviewed the request and submitted the
following comments regarding the proposed annexation:
Storm Drainage: A small portion of the site, in the northwest corner, is located
in the Boxelder Creek Basin. Due to restrictions at 1-25, Boxelder Creek backs -
up and forces some storm water to leave the main channel. This overflow then
heads to the south and will have to be taken into account when the property
develops.
Advance Planning: Recommend PUD condition on H-B zone.
Water and Wastewater: Utility service from the City is not available for this
property at this time.
Light and Power: Requests a 15' utility easement along all roadway frontages,
including both sides of the Frontage Road where it curves around the north side
of Prospect.
Note: The property owner is negotiating with Light and Power for the provision
of this easement under a separate legal instrument.
Zoning: No comments.
Parks: No comments.
Fire Department: The area is not presently served by a water supply system
capable of supporting significant development.
Engineering Department: No comments.
437
December 18, 1990
Transportation: No comments.
Natural Resources: No comments.
Police Department: The property will have minimal impact on police services
until the time of development.
Public Service Company: No comments.
Poudre Valley REA: No comments.
This property is eligible for annexation according to state law. The property
gains the required 116 contiguity to existing city limits from a common boundary
with the Interstate Associates Annexation to the south and the Highway I-25
Second Annexation to the west. In addition, C.R.S. 31-12-105 (1)(a)(b) of state
law regarding annexations indicates that land under single ownership (whether
in one tract or more than one tract) cannot be divided for the purposes of
annexation without the consent of the property owner. The property owner does
not wish to divide the property for the purposes of annexation. The property
owner intends eventually to develop the area under a single unified planned unit
development.
The UGA Agreement also contains a provision prohibiting the County from
accepting a development application for property which is eligible for voluntary
annexation into the city. However, if the City rejects the annexation request,
the owner's only option would be to seek authorization from the County to
develop the property.
The surrounding zoning and existing land uses are as follows:
N: FA-1, Farming County zoning, residential subdivision, and C, Commercial
County zoning; largely undeveloped.
E: FA-1, Farming County zoning; farmland.
S: H-B, Highway Business with PUD condition; Interstate Associates
Annexation, undeveloped, and C, Commercial County zoning; partially
developed, and FA-1, Farming, existing single family houses.
W: B-P, Planned Business with PUD condition; Highway 1-25 Annexation and H-
B, Highway Business with PUD condition; Interstate Lands Annexation,
undeveloped.
The two 114 sections adjacent to I-25 located north and, south of the subject
property are zoned C, Commercial zoning in the County. The County C zone is a
very permissive commercial zoning district allowing essentially all types of
commercial uses short of industrial uses. Some uses allowed in the C zone
include, automobile sales, automobile repair, builder's supply yards, mobile
home sales, storage warehouses, and farm implement dealers. East Mulberry
' Street is, for the most part, zoned C. The subject property is currently zoned
438
December 18, 1990
FA-1, Farming.
However, staff believes, a strong
case could be made by the
property owner
to rezone the western portion of the
property to the C zone in
the County. The
C zone could allow the development
of some uses which may not
be appropriate
at a major gateway into the city, in
staff's opinion.
The requested zonings are for H-B, Highway Business (26.5 acres), and I-P,
Industrial Park (91.9 acres), to the north and east of the interchange area; R-
P, Planned Residential (64.5 acres) on the eastern part of the property, and T-
Transitional (51.1 acres) for the central portion of the property. The H-B, I-
P, and R-P zonings would carry a PUD condition. The H-B District designation
is for automobile -oriented businesses. The 1-P District designation is for
light industrial park areas containing controlled industrial uses. The I-P
district is designed for industrial uses in proximity to areas zoned for
residential use and along arterial streets. The R-P District designation is for
residential areas planned as a unit to provide a variation in use and building
placement. The T-Transitional zone is for areas which are in transition from
rural to eventual urban uses. At this time the applicant does not wish to
designate a developable zone for the T zone areas.
The property will probably eventually develop with a combination of auto related
commercial businesses on the 28.0 acres at the interchange of I-25 and Prospect
Road, a combination of light industrial and business uses on the 91.9 acres to
the north and east of the commercial uses, and a variety of residential uses on
the eastern 64.5 acres. According to the City's LAND USE POLICIES PLAN,
commercial, business, and industrial uses should locate near transportation
facilities that offer the required access to the uses but will not create
demands which exceed the capacity of the existing and future transportation
network of the city. The City's Plan also encourages a mixing of residential
densities to allow for a variety of housing opportunities throughout the
community. This site addresses these locational policies. There are no
immediate development plans for the property. The T zoned areas could develop
with a variety of uses depending on the eventual development of other parts of
the property.
The Council has several options in dealing with this annexation:
Annex and zone the property as requested by the applicant. Annexation of
the property would place all future development decisions concerning the
property under the control of the City. Annexation of the property as
requested would also add about 78 acres into the UGA boundary. Zoning
the property with a PUD'condition would require all development proposals
to be reviewed under the criteria of the LAND DEVELOPMENT GUIDANCE SYSTEM.
The LDGS process would also allow for the further involvement of adjacent
property owners and residents as the property develops.
2. Deny the annexation as submitted by the applicant and request future
annexation requests include a specific plan for development which could
be subjected to detailed fiscal analysis. Fiscal analysis based on '
439
December 18, 1990
proposed zonings; or the general nature of a master plan, is difficult to
accomplish because.of the wide variety of possible uses for the area.
3. Deny the annexation as submitted but indicate to the applicant the City
is interested in the annexation of the portion of the property currently
within the UGA boundary and request the annexation petition be amended
accordingly. The applicant desires the entire property be considered for
annexation and intends to develop the property under a unified development
plan. Annexation of the portion of the property within the UGA would
place future development decisions for the areas immediately adjacent to
the I-25 highway and interchange under the control of the City while
leaving the eastern portion under the jurisdiction of the County. Placing
a PUD condition on the zoning of the property would require all
development proposals to be reviewed under the criteria of the LOGS.
Annex and zone the property in a manner other than that recommended by the
applicant, as deemed appropriate by the Council. Several zoning options
are presented below for Council's consideration. If Council selects a
zoning district other than the district legally advertised by the City
Clerk, the zoning process would need to be extended and conducted
independent of annexation. The City has 90 days to complete the zoning
on annexed property.
Findings
1. The annexation of this area is consistent with the policies and agreements
between Larimer County and the City of Fort Collins contained in the
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT FOR THE FORT COLLINS URBAN GROWTH AREA.
The area meets all criteria included in State law to qualify for a
voluntary annexation to the City of Fort Collins.
The requested H-B, I-P, and R-P Districts are in conformance with the
policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan.
Staff recommends approval of the annexation and requested zonings. Staff
believes the annexation of this area is consistent with the policies and
agreements between Larimer County and the City of Fort Collins contained in the
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT FOR THE FORT COLLINS URBAN GROWTH AREA. Staff also
believes that it is in the City's best interest, from a long range planning
perspective, to gain control over the future development of the property due to
its strategic location at an I-25 interchange, which will become a major gateway
into the community. If the property were to remain in the County, and be
rezoned to the C, Commercial, zoning district, staff'believes uses may develop
which may not be appropriate at a major gateway into the city.
1 440
December 18, 1990
Zoning Options
J
The City Council may zone property within the city limits in any manner deemed
appropriate to protect the public health, safety, and welfare, and to encourage
and facilitate orderly development of the city. Orderly development of the city
is usually defined by the policies contained in the elements of the City's
Comprehensive Plan. The Council may also impose reasonable conditions on the
zoning of a property related to use of that property. Zoning conditions may
limit the uses otherwise allowed in a particular zoning district or limit the
density or intensity of allowed uses.
However, conditional zoning cannot be used to authorize uses within a zoning
district which are not otherwise allowed in that district. Nor can conditional
zoning be used to limit and/or require "design" type elements of development on
a property. Examples of design type elements which could not be applied as
zoning conditions include a condition to limit access points to a property, or
a condition to require that certain landscape buffer areas be provided when a
property develops. Such design elements are appropriate and can be considered
within the planned unit development (PUD) process, however.
Option #1: R-E Estate Residential Zoning:
This option proposes that the areas of the Galatia property adjacent to the
Kitchell and Homestead Estates Subdivisions be placed in the City's R-E, Estate
Residential, zoning district. The R-E zone restricts development to single-
family homes with a minimum lot size of 2.29 acres. The PUD process, which
could be used to propose other uses and provide for detailed site plan review,
is not allowed in the R-E zone. Approximately III acres of the property would
be placed in the R-E zone (the areas proposed to be zoned T and R-P by the
applicant, see Attachment A). About 48 residential units could eventually be
developed on the property under this option. Since the PUD process is not
allowed in the R-E zone, development proposals under this option would have to
be submitted and reviewed under the City's subdivision regulations. The
subdivision process does not allow for much citizen input in terms of allowing
comments about proposed uses or subdivision plat design. Once the minimum
standards of the zoning ordinance and subdivision regulations have been met, the
City, basically, has to approve the development proposal.
Option #2: R-L-P Zoning, With Two Conditions:
1) Single-family only
2) 1 acre minimum lot size'
The second option proposes that' the Ill acres adjacent to the Kitchell and
Homestead Estates Subdivisions" be placed in the City's R-L-P, Low Density
Planned Residential, zoning district with conditions which would limit '
441
December 18, 1990
development to single-family homes and establish a minimum lot size of I acre
per unit. Several of the letters from adjacent property -owners have indicated
that they would consider one acre lots to be compatible with their development
within their subdivision (see attached letters). About 111 residential units
could eventually be developed on the property under this option. As in Option
#1, development proposals under this option would have to be submitted and
reviewed through the subdivision process.
Option #3: R-L-P Zoning, With Three Conditions:,
1) Single-family only
2) 222 units maximum
3) All development must be a PUD
This option proposes limiting development to single-family homes, as in Option
#1, but allowing the number of future residential units to be increased to 222
units, a gross density of about 2 units per acre, the minimum residential
density allowed by policy in the UGA AGREEMENT. A third condition requires all
development to be approved through the PUD process. This option, with the PUD
requirement, allows for greater design flexibility for future development of the
Galatia property. It also allows for greater citizen input, through required
' neighborhood meetings, to provide comments concerning the ultimate design of
proposed development. The gross density of the area would be 2 units per acre
but individual project phases could cluster the residential units with a net
density that would approach the typical city single-family subdivision densities
of 4-5 units per acre. The PUD would be utilized to involve adjacent property -
owners to assure that proper transitions and buffers were achieved with adjacent
uses.
Option #4: R-L-P Zoning, With Three Conditions:
1) Single-family only
2) 333 units maximum
3) A11 development must be a PUD
This option is the same as Option #3 except the number of future residential
units is increased to 333 units, a gross density of about 3 units per acre, the
minimum residential density allowed by policy in the City's LAND USE POLICIES
PLAN and the LAND DEVELOPMENT GUIDANCE SYSTEM. The PUD process, again, allows
for greater citizen input.
Option #5: R-L-P Zoning, With the Following Condition:
1) A17 development must be a PUD
442
December 18, 1990 '
This fifth option proposes the 111 acres be zoned R-L-P with a condition that
all development must proceed as a PUD. This option is similar to the zoning
requested by the applicant. The R-L-P, Low Density Planned Residential, zone
sets an expectation for lower density residential development than the R-P,
Planned Residential, zone although technically there are no differences between
the two zones. The specific types of residential uses, their densities, the
locations of buffer areas, etc. would all be generally established at the PUD
Master Plan stage of development, and justified at the time of Preliminary Plan
approval. As with the other options presented above which require the PUD
process, this option allows for greater citizen participation over the standard
subdivision process.
Option #6: R-E and R-L-P Zoning
This option proposes that a strip of R-E zoning be established within the
Galatia property along the southern and western borders of the Kitchell
Subdivision to provide a buffer between that subdivision and eventual
development of the balance of the Galatia property. This R-E strip would be
about 315 feet wide and cover approximately 29 acres (essentially covering large
portions of areas G, K, and L on the conceptual zoning plan, see Attachment B).
About 13 units could be built within the R-E zoned area. The remainder of the 1
property, about 82 acres, would be zoned R-L-P. Staff believes a similar R-E
zoned strip is not necessary to buffer the Homestead Estates Subdivision from
development within the Galatia property. Homestead Estates is located south of
Prospect Road. Along the north side of Prospect Road is the Poudre Reservoir
Inlet Ditch No. 2. Together, the road and ditch provide 110+ feet of buffer
area between the subdivision and the Galatia property.
The R-L-P zone would allow development of single-family subdivisions, with a
minimum lot size of 6,000 square feet. Such typical single-family subdivisions
in the city produce a density of 4-5 units per acre, or a potential of 410 units
on the 82 acres. Any other type of residential, or non-residential use, within
the R-L-P zone must be proposed as a PUD.
Since the R-L-P zoned area could be developed either as a standard subdivision
or as a PUD, the amount of citizen involvement would be consistent with the
development process used and discussed previously in the above options.
There are a plethora of zoning possibilities which could be proposed. Staff
believes, however, that the aforementioned options represent a realistic field
of choices for Council to consider if the Planning and Zoning Board zoning
recommendation is rejected.
Planning and Zoning Board Recommendation
The Planning and Zoning Board reviewed the Galatia annexation and zoning ,
443
December 18, 1990
requests at its September 24, and October 22, 1990, monthly meetings. On
October 22, 1990, the Board voted 7-0 to recommend approval of the annexation
and zoning requests. Copies of the Board's minutes from each meeting and all
written materials submitted to the Board are attached."
Chief Planner Ken Waido gave a brief presentation and responded to Council
questions. He clarified there are no growth limitation policies for the
northern and eastern sections of the City.
Councilmember Winokur made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Maxey, to adopt
Resolution 90-165.
The vote on Councilmember Winokur's motion was as follows: Yeas:
Councilmembers Azari, Edwards, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Mabry, Maxey and Winokur.
Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Edwards made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Mabry, to adopt
Ordinance No. 131, 1990 on First Reading.
Assistant City Attorney Paul Eckman clarified that if the property owner is not
satisfied with the zoning, he may refuse the annexation but only if the right
' to withdraw the petition is reserved within the petition itself.
The vote on Councilmember Edward's motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers
Azari, Edwards, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Mabry, Maxey and Winokur. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Mabry made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Edwards, to adopt
Ordinance No. 132, 1990 on First Reading.
Cheri Nichols, 1601 Meadowaire Drive and informal representative of homeowner's
in Homestead Estates, expressed concerns regarding potential increase in
traffic, noise and crime and urged Council to apply the PUD condition to Option
#2.
Jim Martell, Attorney representing Kitchell Properties, stated the property
should be zoned R-E.
Eldon Ward, Planning Consultant for the applicant, opposed the R-E zoning
stating it was too limited.
Edie Stout, 1801 Meadowaire Drive, gave a brief slide presentation of homes in
Homestead Estates and said if the density is kept low, the residents lifestyle's
will not be threatened by the future development of the Galatia property.
444
December 18, 1990
Barry Nichols, 1601 Meadowaire Drive, opposed the annexation.
Councilmember Winokur made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Horak, amending
the Ordinance adopting Option #2, R-L-P Zoning with a single family dwellings
only, 1 acre minimum lot size and a PUD condition for the 115.6 acres.
Chief Planner Ken Waido clarified Option #2 would include zoning around the
Kitchell property and Homestead Estates.
Eldon Ward stated it would be a better plan if a maximum density was established
rather than a minimum lot size.
Randy Stout, 1801 Meadowaire Drive, expressed his concerns regarding growth
density in Homestead Estates.
Councilmember Winokur amended his motion, changing from a one acre minimum lot
size to a one dwelling unit per grass acre maximum density. Councilmember
Horak, as seconder, stated he would accept the amendment as a friendly amendment
to the original motion.
Councilmember Azari spoke in support of the Ordinance adding the City needs to
remain conscious of the surrounding communities..
Mayor Kirkpatrick expressed her pleasure with the process, adding the City must
take into consideration the north and east Urban Growth Areas and the need to
be compatible with its neighbors.
The vote on Councilmember Winokur's motion as amended was as follows: Yeas:
Councilmembers Azari, Edwards, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Mabry, Maxey and Winokur.
Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
The vote on Councilmember Mabry's motion to adopt Ordinance No. 132, 1990 as
amended was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Azari, Edwards, Horak,
Kirkpatrick, Mabry, Maxey and Winokur. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Resolution 90-177 Authorizing the
Acquisition by Eminent Domain
Proceedings'of Certain Lands for
Airport Runway Improvements. Adopted
The following is staff's memorandum on this item.
445
December 18, 1990
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This resolution would authorize City staff to use the City's eminent domain
powers to acquire approximately eight acres of property located north of the
Fort Collins -Loveland Municipal Airport. The acquisition of the property is
made necessary by the runway extension project which was begun in 1988. This
particular property is within the clear zone for the runway approach.
BACKGROUND:
This proposed acquisition of the approximately eight acres located north of the
Fort Collins -Loveland Airport is being made in connection with the runway
extension project begun in 1988. The procedure for the acquisition is governed
by the Federal Aviation Administration ("FAA"). Representatives of the Airport
Authority and (after the dissolution of the Authority) the City of Fort Collins
have unsuccessfully attempted to reach a negotiated settlement with the
landowners, Richard and Connie E. Muniz.
The landowners have sought to negotiate a settlement for an amount above the
property value approved by the FAA. Available alternatives have been identified
and explored by the parties but have not, thus far, resulted in settlement.
Throughout the course of negotiations, the Authority and the City have suggested
' that the landowners hire their own appraiser in order to document their opinion
of the property's value. The landowners indicated an intention to do so in
October 1990.
On November 29, 1990, the City was served with an inverse condemnation suit by
the landowners, which seeks to have the landowner's property acquired by the
Cities of Loveland and Fort Collins and an award of damages paid for the
nuisance allegedly caused by the flights in and out of the Airport over the
property. In response, the Cities have sought dismissal of the suit and are
seeking approval to commence eminent domain proceedings.
In order to ensure that the Cities are acting in concert on this subject, the
resolution presented to Council is contingent upon the City of Loveland's
passage of a similar resolution or ordinance."
Councilmember Maxey withdrew from discussion on this item due to a perceived
conflict of interest.
Councilmember Azari made a motion, seconded by Mayor Kirkpatrick, to adopt
Resolution 90-177.
City Attorney Steve Roy gave a brief presentation on this item.
The vote on Councilmember Azari's motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers
Azari, Edwards, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Mabry and Winokur. Nays: None.
446
December 18, 1990
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Ordinance No. 147, 1990,
Amending Section 26-128
of the Code Regarding Water Plant
Investment Fees Adopted on First Reading
The following is staff's memorandum on this item.
"FINANCIAL IMPACT
The proposed increase in Water Plant Investment Fees is 8% for a single family
home on an average size lot, ranges from a decrease of 1.3% to an increase of
16.9% for multi -family units, and ranges from 3.8% to 20.8% for various sizes
of non-residential meters. The revenue generated from the proposed increase is
estimated at about $200,000 in 1991. This revenue will pay for growth related
capital construction including the installation of meters.
On February 20, 1990, City Council adopted Resolution 90-24 establishing the
Water Demand Management Committee and appointing three members to serve along
with representatives of the Water Board. The purpose of the Committee was to
develop a plan for implementing the installation of meters and to consider other
demand management policies. On November 20th City Council adopted a Resolution
endorsing the findings of the Water Demand Management Committee with regard to
metering. The Resolution stated that an increase in the Water Plant Investment
Fee would be brought to Council for implementation in January 1991. The
Committee will continue to meet to develop recommendations to improve the rate
structure for flat rate customers and to consider other demand management
policies.
PIFs are intended to recover the actual cost of providing the treatment and
distribution system capacity that will be used by each new customer. There are
several methodologies and infinite variations that are used by communities has
been continuously refined over many years.
The recommended increases for each customer class are shown in the table below.
Customer Category Proposed
(a)
Typical Single Family! 2,464
447
Water PIF Y Increase
8.0%
L
I
December 18, 1990
Typical Dup7ex2 2,764 7.0%
Commercial - 314" Meter 2,215 6.0Y
Commercial - 1" Meter
5,867
14.7%
Commercial - 1 112" Meter
12,700
19.0y<
Commercial - 2" Meter
20,300
20.8Y
Commercial - 3" Meter
33,100
3.8Y
Four Unit Multi -Family'
3,160
-1.3%
Eight Unit Mu7ti-Family3
5,800
10.8Y
Twelve Unit Multi -Family$
8,200
16.9%
100 Unit Mobile Home Park
96,500
130%
1 $400 + $.24 per square foot
of lot area (]ot
area = 8,600 sq ft)
Y $700 + $.24 per square foot
of lot area (lot
area = 8,600 sq ft)
'
3 $1,000 + $600 per living unit
1 $965 per mobile home
Single family and duplex PIFs are proposed to increase 7% to 8%. This represents
a modest increase in capital construction costs plus the cost of the meter that
was formerly a separate charge. The Committee believed that having one charge
would simplify the permitting process.
Commercial PIFs are proposed to increase at a fixed percentage for each meter
size based on the historical water use of customers with each size meter. The
current PIF charge underestimates the average water use of commercial customers
with 314" to 3" meters. It is proposed that the PIF be determined on a case -by
case basis For commercial customers who require a 4 inch or larger meter. Water
usage varies too much among customers with larger meters to determine a
meaningful average. Only a few meters of larger sizes are installed during a
year.
The cost of service analysis for multi -family customers indicates that water
demand has been underestimated except for fourplex units. The proposed PIFs are
based on the historical water use of various sizes of multi -family buildings.
In the past, mobile home parks have been treated as multi -family customers in
assessing PIFs. However, the water use in mobile home parks is more similar to
448
December 18, 1990
single family units than to multi -family units. The proposed increase for mobile
home parks is substantial, 1301'. It has been many years since a mobile home park
permit was issued.
The proposed PIFs represent a refinement of the cost of service approach to
setting PIFs. There has not been an increase in PIFs since 1985 (see attached
table I.) Water PIFs continue to be reasonable compared to PIFs charged by
communities along the Front Range. (See attached table II.) Costs associated
with treatment capacity comparison are lower than normal because of the recent
capacity optimization projects and efficiencies in plant process implemented by
the staff.
The Water Board considered the proposed PIFs at its November 16 meeting and voted
unanimously to recommend Council approval of the PIF ordinance subject to review
by the City Planning staff. The issue of concern was the change in rates related
to development with and without common areas.
At the present time homes with common areas are charged $420 more for the PIF
than homes without common areas. This charge is to pay for the water demand of
the irrigation system for the common area. There are problems with this approach
because in a 100 unit development, the revenue is $42,000 while in a ten unit
development, the revenue is $4200. These charges to do not reflect the cost of
service of about $20,000 (for a 2" meter.) The proposed PIF structure would
charge directly for the irrigation tap based on the size of the meter. This
change would require that the PIF be paid by the developer rather than by each
individual homeowner. Planning staff was provided with copies of the report
explaining the proposed PIFs and will address the irrigated common area issue
in the next revision of the Land Development Guidance System.
Homebuilders have been notified of the proposed change in PIFs through the
Homebuilders Association of Northern Colorado newsletter, sent to about 300
homebuilders and contractors. A direct notification was sent to 36 homebuilders
who have taken out permits in the past two years. In addition, developers, the
Chamber of Commerce, Fort Collins, Inc., the Board of Realtors, and others were
advised by mail of the proposed changes. The only response has been from the
Poudre R-I School District. Further discussion with the District is planned
although it did not express opposition to the PIF increase."
449
1
Table I
WATER PIFs HISTORY OF ADJUSTMENTS
Average Single % Average Single %
Year Family PIF (S) Increase Year Family PIF (S) Increase
1970
185
0.0%
1981
1,278
5.6%
1971
185
0.0%
1982
1,788
39.9%
1972
185
0.0%
1983
1,788
0.0%
1973
i 480
159.5%
1984
1,788
0.0%
1974
I 515
7.3%
1985
2,192
22.6%
1975
650
26.2%
1986
2,192
0.0%
1976
734
12.9%
1987
2,192
0.0%
1977
1,100
49.9%
1988
2,192
0.0%
1978
1,100
0.0%
1989
2,192
0.0%
1979
1,100
0.0%
1990
2,192
0.0%
1980
1,210
10.0%
1991
2,4641
8.0%
1 Cost of meter included in proposed single family PIF
450
December 18, 1990
December 18, 1990
Table 11
1990 WATER PLANT
INVESTMENT FEE COMPARISON
SINGLE FAMILY
COMMERCIAL CUSTOMER
INDUSTRIAL CUSTOMERS
UTILITY
RESIDENTIAL PIF
1" WATER METER PIF
3" WATER METER PIF
Fort Collins
(Current Fees)
S2,060
$5,000
$30,000
Fort Collins
2,464
5,867
33,100
(Proposed 1991)
Loveland
1,876
2,620
15,700
Greeley
2,311
4,109
36,979
ELCO/Boxelder
2,000
5,000
30,000
FCLWD/SFCSD
2,000
5,000
30,000
Pueblo
1,766
1,709
23,217
Colorado Springs
3,399
3,963
15,810
Aurora
5,8301
12,1501
119,4001
Thornton
3,000
7,500
48,000
Northglenn
----
-----
----
Westminster
4,966
8,358
49,287
Water and Sewer Director Mike Smith, summarized this item outlining the proposed
PIF's.
Ed Stoner, 4409 W. County Road 52E, representing Fort Collins Inc., stated the
Fort Collins Inc. Board was concerned about the high fees. He asked for
clarification on how surrounding communities amortize wastewater PIF's noting.
their rates are much less than Fort Collins'.
Smith said the disparity is because various surrounding communities do not
include interest costs of bonds in their PIPS, resulting in the rate payer
paying for the interest and development for the up front capital. He stated
other communities are not in the phase of capital construction Fort Collins is
in.
Mayor Kirkpatrick noted that if it is permissible within the Code, the Water
Demand Management Committee needs to look into a policy for time payments in
order to evaluate the benefits and burdens.
451 1
' December 18, 1990
Councilmember Edwards made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Maxey, to adopt
Ordinance No. 147, 1990 on First Reading.
The vote on Councilmember Edward's motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers
Azari, Edwards, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Mabry, Maxey and Winokur. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Resolution 90-175 Authorizing
the Mayor to Nominate the
City's Representative
to the Larimer Emergency
Telephone Authority, Adopted
The following is staff's memorandum on this item.
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The previously signed Intergovernmental Agreement concerning the implementation
of E911 Emergency Telephone Service authorizes the City to nominate one person
to the Larimer Emergency Telephone Authority. The Larimer County Board of
Commissioners, upon receiving the City's nomination in writing, will make the
' appointment based on the City's recommendation.
City Council may choose its representative from among the elected members of
Council, from City staff, or from the community. If Council decides to make this
appointment from within Police Services and is uncomfortable appointing an
unnamed position such as Police Chief, it is recommended that Bud Reed, Commander
of the Information Services Division, be selected. Should the appointment be
made from among Council members or the community, Police Services will provide
the necessary staff support to the representative.
Providing technical support for the design, development and implementation of
the emergency telephone system is a responsibility of the entire Board and is
not a requirement for the City of Fort Collins to meet independently. Technical
support is available to the Board from a variety of existing resource areas in
local government. Furthermore, the Board may choose to contract for additional
services as needed. There is no intention of relying exclusively upon vendor
input in system design and implementation."
Acting Chief of Police Dave Feldman summarized the above item.
Councilmember Maxey said that he would accept the nomination to the Larimer
Emergency Telephone Authority.
The vote on Councilmember Winokur's motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers
Azari, Edwards, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Mabry, Maxey and Winokur. Nays: None. .
452
December 18, 1990 '
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Ordinance No. 137, 1990,
Fixing the Salary of the City
Attorney, Adopted on Second Reading
The following is staff's memorandum on this item.
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
City Council has met in Executive Session to conduct the performance appraisal
of City Attorney Steve Roy. This Ordinance, which was adopted 4-1 on First
Reading on December 4, establishes the 1991 salary for the City Attorney at
$70,000 per annum."
Councilmember Edwards made a motion, seconded by Mayor Kirkpatrick, to adopt
Ordinance No. 137, 1990 on Second Reading.
The vote on Councilmember Edward's motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers
Azari, Edwards, Kirkpatrick, Mabry, Maxey and Winokur. Nays: Councilmember
Horak.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Resolution 90-181 Making
Appointments to the
Zoning Board of Appeals, Adopted
The following is staff's memorandum on this item.
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Vacancies currently exist on the Zoning Board of Appeals due to the creation of
two additional regular positions on the Board. These positions were created to
replace the two alternate positions on the Board, which were eliminated by
adoption of Ordinance No. 110, 1990 in October. A vacancy also exists on the
Board due to the resignation of Jane Thede.
Applications were solicited in November to supplement applications on file.
Councilmembers Kirkpatrick and Edwards conducted interviews of new applicants
on December 12 and will announce their recommendations for appointment at this
meeting."
Councilmember Edwards made a�motion, seconded by Councilmember Mabry, to adopt
Resolution 90-181 inserting the' name of Robert Gustafson for a term to expire
July 1, 1993 and David Anastasio for a term to expire July 1, 1994.
453 1
' December 18, 1990
The vote on Councilmember Edward's motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers
Azari, Edwards, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Mabry, Maxey and Winokur. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Other Business
Councilmember Maxey made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Winokur,. to
reconsider Item N13, Resolution 90-178 Authorizing the City Manager and the
Downtown Development Authority to Work Jointly to Implement Development Projects
within the Central Business District.
The vote on Councilmember Maxey's motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers
Azari, Edwards, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Mabry, Maxey and Winokur. Nays: None.
Councilmember Maxey made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Edwards, to adopt
Resolution 9.0-178, inserting the names of Ann Azari and Dave Edwards.
The vote on Councilmember Maxey's motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers
Azari, Edwards, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Mabry, Maxey and Winokur. Nays: None.
' THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Horak stated he would like a policy developed for the use of public
facilities.
1
Councilmember Azari asked about developing administrative policies for use of
public facilities which would cover property that is not ordinarily used for
demonstration purposes.
Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Edwards, instructing
staff to work with the Prolife group that is requesting the use of the Wastewater
Treatment Facility to ensure safety at the site, and then draft a policy for
Council review that would be applicable on an all City basis.
The vote on Councilmember Horak's motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers
Azari, Edwards, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Mabry, Maxey and Winokur. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Horak reported he had received correspondence from Larimer County
in reference to the landfill. The County does not believe it will be able to
do volume based rates and asked for assistance from the City.
Mayor Kirkpatrick noted there was a legislative meeting on December 21, which
would address the issue.
454
Councilmember Winokur made a mo
staff to, prepare a resolution
indoor pool renovation, which
alternatives in regards to the
following two stipulations: 1)
in having two pools; 2) There
of the options.
December 18, 1990
Lion, seconded by Councilmember Azari, directing
to be placed on the April ballot regarding the
would provide Council the flexibility to study
renovation. The Resolution is offered with the
The City will continue to examine alternatives
will be no increase in taxes or fees as a result
The vote on Councilmember Winokur's motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers
Azari, Edwards, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Mabry, Maxey and Winokur. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Maxey requested direction regarding the status of the Highway 14
relocation project and the Highway 287 traffic plan and questioned if it is
appropriate to consider resolutions on the above items.
Mayor Kirkpatrick recommended postponing further discussion on the Highway 14
relocation until the Transportation Plan discussion is completed.
Councilmember Azari made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Winokur, to adjourn
the meeting to January 15, at 5:30 p.m. to consider adjourning into Executive
Session to continue the City Manager's annual performance evaluation.
The vote on Councilmember Azari's motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers
Azari, Edwards, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Mabry, Maxey and Winokur. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 12:10 a.m.
ATTEST:
i
455
Mayor