HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES-03/15/1994-RegularMarch 15, 1994
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
Council -Manager Form of Government
Regular Meeting 6:45 p.m.
A regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins was held on Tuesday,
March 15, 1994, at 6:45 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort Collins
City Hall. Roll call was answered by the following Councilmembers: Apt, Horak,
Janett, Kneeland, and Smith. Councilmembers absent: Azari and McCluskey.
Staff Members Present: Burkett, Krajicek and Roy.
Citizen Participation
Al Baccili, 520 Galaxy Court, asked for information on the General Manager's
salary at Platte River Power Authority and the amount of dues the Authority pays
to the Chamber of Commerce.
Citizen Participation Follow-up
Councilmember Horak stated the salary of the General Manager at Platte River
Power Authority and the amount of the dues paid to the Chamber is public record
and advised City Manager Burkett to provide that information to parties that are
interested.
Agenda Review
City Manager Burkett withdrew Item #36, First Reading of Ordinance No. 48, 1994,
Amending Sections 8-88 and 23-227 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins
Relating to Parkland Fees.
***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 #29 Public
Pulled Consent.
12
13.
Consider Approving the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of February 1 1994.
In August of 1986, the City issued $36,950,000 of Sewer Revenue Refunding
Bonds. These bonds refunded portions of three prior City issues,
including the 1981, 1984, and 1985 bonds. All of the prior bonds were
defeased by the 1986 bonds. The 1986 Bonds carried a net effective
March 15, 1994
14.
15.
16.
interest rate of 7.27% at the time of issue. A portion of the 1986 bonds '
were new bond proceeds to finance improvements to the water reclamation
treatment facilities. The current market rates would provide a net
effective interest rate of approximately 5.10%. The lower interest rate
will provide gross debt service savings of over $1.2 million over the
remaining life of the bonds. This Ordinance which was adopted unanimously
on First Reading on March 1, provides a savings of about $800,000 to the
City of Fort Collins.
Since First Reading, interest rates have risen to approximately 5.50%
thereby reducing the savings from $1.2 million to about $600,000. Staff
recommends that Second Reading be postponed until the market improves.
Abuse Prevention Program.
Police Services has been awarded a grant totalling $19,000 from the
Colorado Department of Transportation, Office of Transportation Safety for
funding a Law Enforcement Assistance Fund project for the prevention of
substance abuse. This prevention program will target underage drinking by
utilizing student involvement, education, and enforcement.
The grant will provide for 100% of salary, benefits, and operating
expenses for this program.
This Ordinance, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on March 1, '
appropriates $19,000 in grant funds for expenditure in the Police Services
1994 Substance Abuse Prevention Program.
Program.
The Concrete Improvement Program provides the opportunity for individual
property owners to cooperate with the City in improving their curb,
gutter, and sidewalk. This voluntary program divides the cost of the
improvements between the City and participating property owners. In the
1994 budget, $107,460 was appropriated for the City's share of the
program. This Ordinance, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading
on March 1, appropriates the amount staff anticipates receiving from
participating property owners (unanticipated revenue) for the 1994
program. This amount is estimated to be $60,000.
(Filing One). P.U.D.
Huntington Hills, First Phase (also referred to as "Filing One") was
originally approved by the Planning and Zoning Board on April 30, 1981.
Subsequently, a portion of Filing One was replatted as Huntington Hills, '
Filing Two and was approved by the Planning and Zoning Board on May 30,
1984.
174
March 15, 1994
17.
In
The streets and easements that were dedicated with Huntington Hills Filing
Two were intended to supersede those dedicated on the original plat of
Huntington Hills, Filing One. However, those streets and easements in
Filing One that were within the area replatted by Filing Two have never
been vacated. As a result, a cloud exists on the title to many of the
lots in Filing Two. Therefore, the developer has requested that the
streets and easements as dedicated on the original plat of Huntington
Hills Filing One be vacated, except for those not within the boundaries of
Filing Two and any streets or easements that overlap with those dedicated
on the Filing Two plat. This Ordinance, which was unanimously adopted on
First Reading on March 1, provides for these exceptions and reservations
to allow the unnecessary portions of the old streets and easements to be
vacated while still retaining those streets and easements that were
dedicated with Filing Two and those that are necessary to accommodate
existing facilities in the portion of Filing One not included in the
replat.
This Ordinance, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on March 1,
approves the request for Local Landmark Designation for the Frank Miller
Stagecoach. A public hearing was held by the Landmark Preservation
Commission on February 17, 1994 at which time the Commission voted to
recommend designation of this property.
Landmark Designation includes designation of significant properties,
classified as buildings, structures, objects, sites or districts. The
Frank Miller Stagecoach is considered a "structure," a term which is used
to distinguish from buildings those functional constructions made usually
for purposes other than creating human shelter.
During calendar year 1993, Fort Collins Police Services has continued to
utilize existing state statutes to seize money and property used in
criminal activity. City Council receives annual reports on seizure
activity and expenditures of funds. By statute, monies allocated by the
court to the seizing agency shall not be considered a source of revenue to
meet normal operating needs. These monies are used, instead, to meet
expenses incurred by the agency in performing duties and meeting
obligations which have not been funded through the routine budget process.
These monies have been deposited in the General Fund and set aside in a
restricted reserve for police expenditure following appropriation. This
appropriation of $109,414 represents the 1992 ending balance of $25,714
plus 1993 income of $83,700. Awards made by the courts during 1994 will
be appropriated in 1995. Police Services continues to use these funds for
training and tools that enhance the department's ability to respond to
crime and for a variety of crime prevention activities.
175
March 15, 1994
19.
20.
21.
First Reading of Ordinance No 38 1994 Appropriating Unanticipated I
Revenue from the Federal Emergency Management Agency for the City of Fort
Collins Emergency Management Program.
Fort Collins Police Services has applied for and been awarded "Emergency
Management Assistance" (EMA) grants for federal fiscal years 1992, 1993
and 1994. These funds are allocated by the Federal Emergency Management
Agency to support emergency management program activities at the local
level. Local jurisdictions must first meet specific program requirements
and must have an established disaster agency and plan.
The Septage Waste Transfer Station at the Mulberry Water Reclamation
facility began operations in 1989. Prior to the construction of this
facility, septage waste was disposed of at the Larimer County Landfill.
The Utility currently issues permits to septage haulers, following
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) guidelines. A permit system allows
the Utility to protect the City's wastewater treatment system and
receiving waters from harmful pollutants.
Concern that the septage hauler permits issued by the Utility might not be
enforceable led the Water Reclamation Division and City Attorney's office
to review the septage waste haulers permit system. The City Code is ;
currently vague on the subject and needs to be amended to support the
program. Staff recommends that a definition of septage waste be 'added to
the Code, as well as language to authorize staff to require haulers to
follow certain operating procedures at the transfer stations.
The proposed ordinance adds a definition of "septage waste" to the Code,
and will require that all commercial septage waste haulers obtain a permit
from the Utility prior to discharging septage waste to the wastewater
utility.
Storck Development Corporation is developing Hampshire Pond P.U.D.
Included in this area will be a 4+ acre regional detention area. The
Stormwater Division is purchasing the needed land for the detention area.
Just north of this proposed detention area and just east of Hampshire Pond
P.U.D. is an unplatted area owned by the City of Fort Collins Light and
Power Department. This area was purchased by Light and Power in the 80's
for a future substation site. Instead of building a substation at this
site, the substation site at Drake Road near the Burlington Railroad
tracks was enlarged to serve the area. Light and Power has no immediate
plans for this site.
176
March 15, 1994
22. Resolution 94-47 Endorsing the Air Quality Action Plan.
The Air Quality Action Plan proposes air quality actions for the City of
Fort Collins. The purpose of these actions is to implement the Air
Quality Policy Plan (AQPP), an element of the Comprehensive Plan adopted
in March 1993. Once approved by City Council, the Action Plan becomes the
basis for staff work programs and budget recommendations.
23. Resolution 94-48 Establishing Rental Rates to be Charged for the City's
Surplus Water.
This Resolution would approve rates for the rental of the City's surplus
raw water. Each year, prior to the irrigation season, the Water Board
makes a recommendation to the Council on the rental rates to be charged
for the City's surplus water. The surplus water rental program was
discussed at the February 18, 1994 meeting of the Water Board. The
proposed rental rates are based on several factors including past rental
rates, assessment rates, and anticipated supply and demand conditions.
24. Resolution 94-49 Urging Federal and State Officials to Support the
Development of a Basin -Wide Recovery Program.
As part of the process of renewing the special use permit for Joe Wright
Reservoir, the United States Forest Service (USFS) determined that the
permit renewal for the Reservoir may adversely affect endangered and
threatened species located along the Platte River in central Nebraska. In
accordance with federal statutes, the USFS requested a review of the issue
by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). In late 1993, the
FWS issued a draft biological opinion stating that the renewal of the
special use permit may adversely affect various endangered species in
Nebraska along the Platte River. Included in the biological opinion were
"reasonable and prudent" alternatives formulated by the FWS which were
intended to mitigate any possible adverse effects of the permit renewal.
Staff and special legal counsel believe that the "reasonable and prudent"
alternatives formulated by the FWS are technically flawed and would be
extremely burdensome, if not impossible, for the City to implement and
would not aid the recovery of the endangered species.
25. Resolution 94-50 Approving and Endorsinq the Nomination of Mayor Ann Azari
The Governor's Office of Boards and Commissions has notified the CDOT-
Division of Aeronautics that it is assembling a group of interested
applicants for future positions on the Colorado Aeronautical Board.
According to the Colorado Revised Statutes 43-10-104 (2), applicants
should reside on the Eastern Slope and represent local governments which
operate airports. The Governor will select from the group as vacancies on
the Board occur.
177
March 15, 1994
27
W.
Resolution 94-51 Appointing a Representative to the Larimer County
Environmental Advisory Board.
A vacancy currently exists on the Larimer County Environmental Advisory
Board due to Will Smith's appointment to the City Council. This
Resolution appoints Bill Miller, currently serving as the City's alternate
member on the Environmental Advisory Board, to fill the vacancy and
appoints Tim Johnson as the new alternate member.
Resolution 94-52 Making Appointments to the Natural Resources Advisory
Board.
A vacancy currently exists on the Natural Resources Advisory Board due to
the resignation of Ryszard Chojnacki. In addition, a second vacancy
exists due to Will Smith's appointment to the City Council on February 17,
1994.
Councilmembers Kneeland and Janett reviewed the applications on file and
reinterviewed nine individuals. The interview team is recommending the
following individuals be appointed to fill the vacancies with terms to
expire as set forth below:
Name Expiration of Term
Donald Tidd July 1, 1996
Philip Murphy July 1, 1997
Routine Deeds and Easements.
A. Powerline Easement from Helen Shelgreen, 609 Cornell Avenue, needed
to install new underground streetlight service. Monetary
consideration: $10.
B. Powerline Easement from the Lydia D. Smith Trust, 1317 Yount, needed
to install new underground streetlight service. Monetary
consideration: $10.
Item on Second Reading were read by title by City Clerk Wanda Krajicek.
14.
15. Second F
Revenue
Program.
16.
178
March 15, 1994
17. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 35, 1994, Designating the Frank Miller
Stagecoach as a Historic Landmark Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the Code of
the City of Fort Collins.
32.
37.
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 27, 1994, Amending Chapter 29 of the
City Code of the City of Fort Collins to Establish a Development
Review Fee Schedule and Authorize a Waiver for Affordable Housing
Projects (Options A and B).
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 28, 1994, Appropriating Additional
Funds for Affordable Housing Purposes and Seeking a Recommendation
from the Staff and Affordable Housing Board Regarding the Use of
Such Funds.
Items on First Reading were read by title by City Clerk Wanda Krajicek.
18. First Reading of Ordinance No. 37, 1994, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves
from Police Seizure Activitv.
19.
20.
21.
33.
34
I\VII- LAU!UJI Vi
Corporation.
Items Relating to the Sherman -Lawler First. Second and Third Annexations
and Zonings.
B. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 42, 1994, Annexing
Property Known as the Sherman -Lawler First Annexation.
C. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 43, 1994, Amending the
Zoning District Map Contained in Chapter 29 of the Code and
' Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the
Sherman -Lawler First Annexation, into the RP, Planned Residential
Zoning District.
179
March 15, 1994
Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 44, 1994, Annexing '
Property Known as the Sherman -Lawler Second Annexation.
Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 45, 1994, Amending the
Zoning District Map Contained in Chapter 29 of the Code and
Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the
Sherman -Lawler Second Annexation, into the RP, Planned Residential
Zoning District.
H. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 46, 1994, Annexing
Property Known as the Sherman -Lawler Third Annexation.
Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 47, 1994, Amending the
Zoning District Map Contained in Chapter 29 of the Code and
Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the
Sherman -Lawler Third Annexation, into the RP, Planned Residential
Zoning District.
35. Items Relating to the Willow Springs Annexation and Zoning_
36.
City.
Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 32, 1994, Annexing
Property Known as the Willow Springs Annexation to the City of Fort
Collins, Colorado.
Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 33, 1994, Amending the
Zoning District Map Contained in Chapter 29 of the Code of the City ;
of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property to
be Included in the Willow Springs Annexation to the City of Fort
Collins, Colorado.
Lester Litton, 2909 Mount Royal Court, pulled Item #22, Resolution 94-47
Endorsing the Air Quality Action Plan, from the Consent Calendar.
Councilmember Kneeland made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Apt, to adopt and
approve all items not removed from the Consent Calendar. The vote on
Councilmember Kneeland's motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers: Apt,
Horak, Janett, Kneeland, and Smith. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
WE$
March 15, 1994
Resolution 94-47
Endorsing the Air Quality Action Plan, Adopted
The following is staff's memorandum on this item.
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Air Quality Action Plan proposes air quality actions for the City of Fort
Collins. The purpose of these actions is to implement the Air Quality Policy
Plan (AQPP), an element of the Comprehensive Plan adopted in March 1993. Once
approved by City Council, the Action Plan becomes the basis for staff work
programs and budget recommendations.
BACKGROUND:
Over the past year, staff and the Air Quality Task Force have drafted an Air
Quality Action Plan containing strategies to achieve the air quality objectives
contained in the Air Quality Policy Plan. Council reviewed the Action Plan at
its 22 February 1994 work session.
The proposed Air Quality Action Plan covers motor vehicle technology, commerce
and industry, wood burning, and indoor air quality. The proposed Action Plan
does not include actions to reduce vehicle miles of travel (VMT) or to reduce
traffic congestion. Rather, these actions will be contained in the Congestion
Management Plan, to be adopted later in 1994. VMT reduction and traffic
congestion actions will become part of the Air Quality Action Plan at that time.
' The Action Plan represents the consensus recommendation of staff and the Air
Quality Task Force.
If City council adopts the attached Resolution, then staff will carry out a work
program based upon the Action Plan. Council will have further opportunities to
fine-tune the Action Plan as staff brings forward the appropriate programs,
ordinances, and budgetary requests for Council approval.
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT SUMMARY
Staff has involved the public throughout the planning process. The draft list
of strategies was mailed to over 400 people in November 1993. Staff has made 12
slide presentations to community groups. Comments from the public have been
documented in a "listening log." Following plan adoption, a response will be
made in writing to each commenter.
City boards have also been involved. The Air Quality Task Force recommends the
proposed plan. At its March 2 meeting the Natural Resources Advisory Board voted
to recommend that City Council adopt the proposed plan. The Planning and Zoning
Board indicated its support for the LOGS components of the plan at its February
25 work session.
EFFECTIVENESS
' At its February 22 work session, Council members asked for additional information
on the effectiveness of the proposed actions and the expected outcomes. We
categorized the effectiveness of the proposed actions as low, medium, or high,
181
March 15, 1994
as indicated in the summary information below. Once adopted, the proposed
actions will be further developed and brought forward as necessary for City
Council action. More detailed estimates of, emission -reduction effectiveness will
be presented at that time.
In recommending priorities for the Action Plan, staff and the Air Quality Task
Force considered effectiveness and "salability" as key factors, but other factors
were also considered. For example, Air Quality Policy Plan (AQPP) policy CP-2
stipulates that implementation priority begins with City leadership, then moves
to voluntary programs and finally to ordinances. Also, some actions follow a
sequence in which each action builds on the one before. And some actions are
needed to implement specific AQPP policies, e.g., the emission sticker ordinance
implements policy UT-3, which calls for the fullest possible enforcement of State
air quality regulations.
PRIORITY ONE -- ACTIONS THAT REDUCE MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSIONS
VT-1 EMISSIONS STICKER ORDINANCE -- This ordinance has been on the
community's list of concerns for six years and won't be hard to
implement. It should be a medium priority, for implementation in
1995. Compliance with emission sticker regulations is estimated to
be only 75Y by students at CSU. A local ordinance will increase
this to the average compliance level of 90% elsewhere in the City
and bring hundreds of cars into the AIR program. It may have a high
impact near campus and only a moderate impact city-wide.
VT-2&3 EMISSIONS TESTING, REPAIR, AND EDUCATION PROGRAM -- This is a high
priority project that should be included in the 1994 work plan.
Under a Denver -style IM 240 program, CO emission reduction would be
doubled and VOC and NOx emission reduction would be tripled compared
to the basic program. Improving the emissions testing and repair
program locally has more potential to reduce emissions than any
other action we could take.
VT-4 ALTERNATIVE FUELS (VT-4.1 Establish a leadership role for the City,
and VT-4.2 Conduct a voluntary fuel conversion program) -- This
strategy is placed in the high priority category for the 1994 work
plan because of the ease in implementation that may result from the
existing City program and the high level of interest that has been
expressed by businesses in converting to alternative fuels.
Effectiveness is low in the near term, high in the long term -- the
program relies on substitution of alternative fuel engines during
the normal replacement of fleet vehicles.
VT-5 STREET SANDING AND SWEEPING -- The use of best management practices
is not a new direction, as the City Streets Department is already
doing a lot. This strategy is a high priority for the 1994 work
plan. Best management practices for street sanding and sweeping can
'significantly reduce PM-10; as much as half of the "brown cloud" in
front range urban areas is caused by street sanding. Measured
improvements in PM-10 levels in recent years are partly a result of
practices that the Streets Department has already implemented.
C
182
March 15, 1994
' VT-6 GASOLINE VAPOR RECOVERY -- It would be a simple process to draft an
ordinance based on the Denver regulations, and tankers are already
equipped to recover vapors, but this strategy would not be scheduled
until 1996, due to staff resource constraints. Effectiveness is
moderate -- vapor recovery systems reduce 90% of the emissions from
gasoline deliveries, which account for less than ten percent of all
organic compound emissions.,
PRIORITY TWO -- ACTIONS THAT REDUCE COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL EMISSIONS
CI-1 POLLUTION PREVENTION PROGRAM -- Pollution prevention should be given
high priority in the 1994 work plan. Effectiveness is high -- the
potential for eliminating pollution through preventive measures is
high and varies by specific applications. This voluntary program
for existing sources also lays the groundwork for the mandatory
program for new sources, below.
CI-2 LOGS: NEW STATIONARY SOURCE REVIEW -- This strategy is part of City
Council's policy agenda, and the priority is high, but it is
scheduled for implementation in 1995-96 to allow time for
implementation of the pollution prevention program for existing
sources. Although the applicable AQPP objective is "to reduce total
emissions... from commercial and industrial sources," this strategy
will act only to reduce the amount of emissions growth caused by new
sources. In combination with voluntary pollution prevention by
' existing sources, it is possible that this strategy could result in
reduced total emissions from commercial and industrial sources.
PRIORITY THREE -- ACTIONS THAT REDUCE RESIDENTIAL EMISSIONS
WB-1,2,
3,4 WOOD BURNING INCENTIVES AND EDUCATION -- Expanding ZILCH is a high
priority for the 1994 work plan. Developing other incentive
measures would be scheduled as low priorities, to be implemented in
the 1996 work plan. Proposed changes in the ZILCH program would
increase its effectiveness by targeting non -certified stove
replacements. Fee and tax reductions would motivate individual
action to make changes to gas appliances. Effectiveness of wood
burning incentives and education is high -- data indicate a 70Y
reduction in peoples' wood consumption and a steady decline in
particulate pollution from wood smoke over the past 10 years.
WB-5 WOOD STOVE POINT -OF -SALE ORDINANCE -- Priority is low, because we
need to exhaust voluntary approaches before moving to regulation.
Effectiveness is high -- it reduces the inventory of uncertified
wood stoves (estimated at about 4,000), which produce more smoke per
unit than certified stoves or fireplaces, over time as homes change
hands. This strategy is scheduled in the 1996-97 time frame,
however, in the event that incentives and education do not increase
the replacement rate of uncertified stoves.
183
March 15, 1994
IA-1&2
INDOOR AIR QUALITY ISSUE PAPER AND EDUCATION PROGRAM -- Medium
priority, to be implemented in 1995 work plan. Since one goal is to
'
reduce indoor air risk through individual action, effectiveness
depends upon the proper design and execution of information
programs.
IA-3
BUILDING CODE CHANGES TO REDUCE INDOOR AIR POLLUTION -- The 1996
timing for the next building code revision puts this project at a
low priority, to be included in the 1996 work plan. It has the
potential to improve air quality for indoor environments, where
people spend up to 80% of their time. Effectiveness is low in the
near term, moderate in the long term, since the strategy affects
only new buildings.
OTHER ACTIONS
IN-1&2
BUILD INTERGOVERNMENTAL PARTNERSHIPS -- Medium, to be implemented in
the 1995 work plan. These are "leverage" strategies designed to
maximize the combined effectiveness of city, county, state, and -
federal resources.
DA-1&2
DATA COLLECTION, BIENNIAL REPORT, AND MONITORING PLAN -- High
priority, to be included in the 1994 work plan. This action is
required to implement policy CC -I which calls for biennial review of
air quality indicators.
ED-2&3
SCHOOL EDUCATION AND LIFE -CYCLE ACCOUNTING -- The scope of this
project and resources constraints this in a low
,
put project
priority, to be implemented in 1996. Effectiveness is speculative,
but potentially high in the long term.
SL-1&2 STATE LEGISLATION TO IMPROVE AIR QUALITY -- Low priority, 1996 work
plan. Legislative changes in the motor vehicle emissions testing
and repair program are high priority, however, and are included in
VT-2, above. Although effectiveness of legislative activity is hard
to predict, some highly effective actions such as changes in motor
fuel composition are only available through state legislation."
Councilmember Smith made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kneeland, to adopt
Resolution 94-47.
Lester Litton, 2909 Mount Royal Court, representative of the Local Legislative
Affairs Committee at the Chamber of Commerce, stated the Committee and the
Chamber have taken a formal position supporting the Air Quality Action Plan. He
stated the Commercial and Industrial portion of the Plan should be presented on
the State Legislature level to adopt stricter standards verses the City
independently adopting stricter standards by Code. He stated requiring separate
filings to the City would create an administrative burden on the business
community and City staff. He stated a cost benefit analysis should be conducted
prior to the adoption of stricter standards. He believed a business focus group
should be formed to review specific strategies for the implementation of the '
Commercial and Industrial portion of the Plan.
184
March 15, 1994
' Councilmember Janett asked the Chamber to submit its information to the Council
for review.
Councilmember Kneeland stated the City's Legislative Review Committee lobbies the
State Legislature for air quality controls that the City of Fort Collins is
interested in participating in.
Councilmember Apt stated the City should review the pollutants or toxins that are
a factor in Northern Colorado and then proceed with lobbying the State
Legislature to add those factors to the bill.
Councilmember Horak believed the State of Colorado would not pass a stricter plan
and that the City's program is reasonable.
The vote on Councilmember Smith's motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers
Apt, Horak, Janett, Kneeland, and Smith. Nays: None
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Staff Reports
City Manager Burkett updated the Council on natural area purchases. He stated
closings have taken place on 7.6 acres of land adjacent to Greenbriar Park, 4.8
acres located next to Legacy Park, and 25 acres of land adjacent to Lincoln
Avenue.
Councilmember Reports
Councilmember Janett stated the bikelanes on Remington are being constructed and
are expected to be completed around April 15th. Construction on the Mountain
Avenue bikelines should start soon after and be completed by May 6th. She
suggested that a tree cutting ceremony take place for the Shields Street widening
project.
Councilmember Kneeland announced her appointment to the Economic Health Policy
Committee from the National League of Cities.. She stated some top issues to be
discussed are economic and environmental health, housing (CDBG funds), and NAFTA.
Councilmember Horak stated he attended the National League of Cities meeting and
that serves on the Energy, Environment, and Natural Resources Committee. He
stated that Committee will review stormwater and watershed management, and
endangered species etc.
185
March 15, 1994
Items Relating to Amending Chapter 15
of the City Code Relating to
Licenses and Business Regulations
The following is staff's memorandum on this item.
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 36, 1994, Amending Chapter 15 of the City
Code Relating to Licenses and Business Regulations.
B. Resolution 94-53 Authorizing the Composition of the Site Selection and
Vending Committee for the Downtown Concessionaire Location.
Outdoor vending in the City has steadily increased over the past few years, and
complaints and conflicts concerning these vendors have also increased. Many of
these problems cannot be adequately addressed under the current City ordinance.
Staff has proposed changes to the current ordinance to help the City better
manage outdoor vending. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 36, 1994, which was
unanimously adopted on First Reading on March 1, 1994, amends Chapter 15 of the
Code and includes the changes proposed by staff.
During Council's discussion of Ordinance No. 36, 1994, different options were
proposed for the composition of the Committee that will be involved in the
selection of sites to be used by concessionaires in the downtown area. Attached
are three resolutions containing different options for the composition of the I
Committee for selection of concessionaire sites in the downtown area. Whichever
option is chosen will be used (with the administrative procedures that were
discussed at the'March I meeting) to implement the ordinance.
Option A is the original proposal for six committee members.
Option B adds one more permanent business representative.
• Option C adds one additional member, the DBA Director.
Throughout the process of amending the outdoor vendor ordinance, the City has
been concerned with fairness so that one side not be given an advantage over the
other. Staff believes that the addition of the DBA Director (Option C) will not
upset this balance, but instead will make the Committee better. The Director is
heavily involved in the special events in the concessionaire area and is a
conduit for information to the Downtown Business Community. The current director
has attended several of the outreach meetings, and is aware of the competing
needs, and concerns of the participants. Therefore, staff believes that fairness
would be maintained, and valuable insight would be gained with this addition.
Consideration has been given to the fact that the current director may leave
someday, and the new director may have a different perspective. Staff believes
that the DBA Director is a vital part of making this process work, and will work
with whomever is in this position.
ID
March 15, 1994
A great deal of thought was given to the Committee composition. The Committee
mix was discussed with customers, permanent vendors, property owners and outdoor
vendors. All had strong feelings about how the Committee should be constructed,
and it was normally tilted toward the side they supported. All did feel that no
one group should have an advantage over the other. Therefore, staff originally
proposed Option A which balanced the representation of indoor and outdoor
vendors. At the Council meeting, additional options were proposed. With this
additional input and after further consideration, staff recommends Option C and
believes that this option will strengthen the Committee and maintain the balance.
The options proposed are:
Option A
1 Permanent vendor representative.
1 Outdoor vendor representative.
4 City staff representatives from departments directly impacted
(Planning, Zoning, Transportation, Treasury).
0
Option B
2 Permanent vendor representatives.
I Outdoor vendor representative.
4 City staff representatives directly impacted
(Planning, Zoning, Transportation, Treasury).
7
Option C
1 Permanent vendor representatives.
1 Outdoor vendor representative.
1 Director of the Downtown Business Association (DBA).
4 City staff representatives directly impacted
(Planning, Zoning, Transportation, Treasury).
7
187
March 15, 1994
The Committee structure will be included in the process and procedural guidelines
that were discussed in the meeting on March 1. Those guidelines also address
criteria for the RFP, tentative criteria for the site selection committee and
mandatory conditions that will be included in either the concessionaire
agreements or the rules and regulations adopted by the Financial Officer for
implementation of the ordinance. This is the current method used for sales and
use tax administration, and it works well due to the varied and changing
situations that occur and that must be addressed in a timely manner."
Bob Eichem, Treasury Administrator, stated there were no changes in the proposed
Ordinance prior to Second Reading. He stated there are three options of the
Resolution. Staff recommends Option C because the DBA Director would be a
valuable addition to the Committee.
Councilmember Kneeland made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Janett, to adopt
Ordinance No. 36, 1994 on Second Reading.
Kay Rios, 160 Circle Drive, believed the Oldtown Plaza should not be excluded
from the Ordinance. She stated the Plaza's agreement should be reworked.
Councilmember Apt asked if the Plaza's agreement could be revised.
Councilmember Horak stated that although the City would participate in revising
the agreement, the other party does not want to revise the agreement.
City Attorney Roy stated it was not in the City's power to change the agreement.
He stated the agreement is contained in covenants that were established at the
time Old Town was rehabilitated.
Councilmember Horak asked,if the City had any recent discussions with the other
party regarding revisions to the agreement.
City Manager Burkett stated there have been recent discussions and some areas
were changed; however, they are not willing to change that specific part of the
agreement.
The vote on Councilmember Kneeland's motion was as follows: Yeas:
Councilmembers Apt, Horak, Janett, Kneeland, and Smith. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Janett made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kneeland, to adopt
Resolution 94-53, Option C.
Councilmember Kneeland stated her appreciation to staff for addressing the needs
of Council with the Resolution.
Councilmember Janett believed the addition of the DBA Director adds another,
viewpoint for the business community at large and provides balance to the
Committee.
1
UE
March 15, 1994
The vote on Councilmember Janett's motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers
Apt, Horak, Janett, Kneeland, and Smith. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Ordinance No. 41, 1994
Repealing and Reenacting Division 1,
Article IV of Chapter 15 of the Code of the
City of Fort Collins Relating to Solicitations and
Repealing and Reenacting Section 17-42 of the
Code Concerning Posting (Options A or B). Adopted
The following is staff's memorandum on this item.
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Pursuant to Council's request, in early 1993 City staff formed a Task Force to
review the City's Green River Ordinance (Section 15-106 of the Code) which
prohibits door-to-door solicitations. The Task Force developed a survey and sent
it to 1,000 City residents to determine their concerns about the ordinance. The
survey results showed 899 favored keeping the ban on door-to-door solicitations;
6Y favored allowing solicitations for perishable goods; 2Y favored regulating but
not banning commercial solicitations and 2% favored repealing the Green River
Ordinance. The survey also asked a question about whether the City should adopt
an ordinance banning "door hangers" if a "No Solicitation" sign were posted. The
results showed 66Y were in favor of such a ban, 34% were opposed.
The Task Force drafted changes to the present Green River Ordinance and also
drafted a prohibition against "door hangers" when appropriate signs are posted.
The door hanger ordinance is included as part of the City's posting ordinance
(Code Section 17-42). Adoption of these changes will:.
1. Clarify that door-to-door solicitations at private residences are
prohibited (with certain exceptions, see #3 below).
2. Clarify that solicitations at places open to the .public are
prohibited only when a "No Solicitation" sign is posted.
3. Clarify that door-to-door solicitations by charitable, political or
religious organizations or for newspapers or magazines are
permitted unless a "No Trespassing" or "No Solicitation" sign is
posted.
4. Clarify that the solicitation of a gift or donation is prohibited
when a "No Trespassing" or "No Solicitation" sign is posted.
5. Prohibit "door hangers" when a "No Trespassing," "No Solicitation"
or "No Posting" sign is posted.
6. Clarify that "door hangers" are permitted at places that are
connected to public rights -of -way by an unobstructed improved
walkway (e.g. a house connected to a public sidewalk by a walkway),
unless the appropriate sign is posted.
W11
March 15, 1994
7. Clarify that attempts to gain an invitation to visit a residence for
the purpose of soliciting is prohibited (Option A) or clarify that
such attempts made by telephone or otherwise are not prohibited
(Option 8).
A copy of the proposed ordinance changes and a letter explaining the changes was
sent to over 30 persons who have been involved with or expressed an interest in
these proposed changes. An open house was also held on March 3, 1994, to receive
input and answer questions about the proposed changes.
BACKGROUND:
The City's Green River Ordinance (Section 15-106 through 15-108 of the City Code)
prohibits door-to-door solicitation for the purchase or sale of goods or services
without an invitation. The ordinance is designed to protect the privacy and
safety interests of City residents. From time to time the City has received
complaints about the Green River Ordinance from vendors who feel the ordinance
is too restrictive. In response to these concerns, the Council directed City
staff to review the Green River Ordinance to determine if it was meeting the
needs of City residents and to propose any necessary or desired changes to the
ordinance.
Task Force Review Process
City staff formed a Task Force to review issues related to the Green River
Ordinance. The Task Force developed a survey and sent it to a random sample of
1,000 City residents. The survey asked whether the City should keep the existing
ban on door-to-door solicitations; change it to allow for introductory
solicitations for perishable goods; change it so that commercial solicitations
would be regulated but not prohibited, or repeal the ordinance. The survey also
included a question asking whether the City should adopt a new ordinance
prohibiting the attachment of "door hangers" when a "No Solicitation" sign is
posted. This question was asked because the City had received complaints about
"door hangers" and because "door hangers" also present safety and privacy issues.
Over 400 completed surveys were returned. Eighty-nine percent (89q) of those
responding were in favor of keeping the City's ban on door-to-door commercial
solicitations in residential neighborhoods. Six percent (6%) were in favor of
allowing solicitations for perishable goods. Two percent (2q) were in favor of
changing the ordinance so that commercial solicitations would be regulated, but
not prohibited, and two percent (2Y) were in favor of repealing the Green River
Ordinance. With regard to the question concerning "door hangers," sixty-six
percent (66%) of those responding were in favor of the City adopting a new
ordinance to prohibit the attachment of "door hangers" when a "No Solicitation"
sign is posted at a residence. Thirty-four percent (34%) of those responding
were not in favor of such an ordinance.
In response to the survey results, input from concerned citizens, and concerns
regarding the present wording of the Green River Ordinance, the Task Force
drafted proposed changes to the Green River Ordinance and modified the Ordinance
pertaining to posting to prohibit "door hangers" when the appropriate sign is
posted.
190
March 15, 1994
General Prohibition
Proposed Sections 15-106, .15-107, and 15-108 (Option A) comprise the new Green
River Ordinance and clarify that door-to-door solicitations at private residences
are prohibited and that solicitations at places open to the public, such as
offices and public buildings, are permitted unless a "No Solicitation" sign is
posted. The privacy and safety interests of private residences are sufficiently
compelling to legally support the prohibition against solicitations. However,
places that are open to the public do not have the same privacy and safety
concerns as private residences and, therefore, the new ordinance requires the
posting of a "No Trespassing" or "No Solicitation" sign to prevent solicitations
in these places.
Exemption for Non-Commercia7.So7icitations
The Green River Ordinance has been changed to clarify that it does not prohibit
door-to-door solicitations by charitable, political, or religious organizations
or newspaper or magazine solicitations unless a "No Solicitation" or "No
Trespassing" sign is posted. This change is required because the U.S.
Constitution provides charitable, political, and religious organizations and
newspapers and magazines greater protection under the First Amendment. However,
solicitations by these organizations can be prevented by the posting of a "No
Solicitation" or "No Trespassing" sign. This change acknowledges the right of
a City resident to prevent solicitations by these organizations by posting a "No
Solicitation" or "No Trespassing" sign. The Green River Ordinance has also been
changed to allow occupants of private and public premises to prevent
solicitations of gifts and donations by posting a "No Trespassing" or "No
Solicitation" sign.
Door Hangers Prohibited by Posting of Sian
The Code change prohibiting door hangers by posting an appropriate sign has been
added to the existing posting ordinance (Section 17-42). Door hangers could be
prohibited when a "No Trespassing," "No Solicitation" or a sign specifically
prohibiting posting is posted. At the open house, representatives of businesses
that use door hangers did not want a "No Solicitation" sign to be construed as
prohibiting door hangers. They felt many people who post "No Solicitation" signs
wish to prevent "door knock" solicitations but do not wish to prevent door
hangers. The Task Force believes that door hangers are a form of solicitation,
and it is necessary to state in the Ordinance that a "No Solicitation" sign will
prohibit door hangers as well as personal solicitation.
The proposed door hanger ordinance also clarifies that door hangers are permitted
if a sign prohibiting them is not posted and if the premises are connected to the
public right-of-way by an unobstructed improved walkway. This clarification is
based on the law which recognizes implied permission to enter upon property for
lawful purposes if there is an unobstructed, improved walkway connecting the
premises to the public right-of-way.
191
March 15, 1994
Options A and B - Whether to Prohibit "Off Premise" Solicitations
Input received at the open house from the business community was strongly opposed
to the existing prohibition against seeking to obtain an invitation to visit a
business or residence by telephone or other methods (Section 15-108). They
explained that it is a common business practice to telephone a potential customer
to gain permission to call on them. They were surprised that this was a crime
under the City Code and questioned the enforceability of the ordinance and the
need for it. Police Services agreed the ordinance is difficult to enforce and
that there have been few, if any, instances where it has been enforced. The
business community did not object to retaining the prohibition against attempting
to obtain an invitation to visit by going door to door. The Task Force is not
opposed to removing the prohibition against obtaining invitations to visit by
telephone or other methods. However, the Task Force believes it is important to
retain the prohibition against attempting to gain such invitations by going door
to door in order to preserve the integrity of the Green River Ordinance.
Both Options A and B preserve the prohibition against attempting to obtain
invitations to visit by going door to door. Option A also prohibits these
attempts at residences when made by telephone or other methods. Option B does
not prohibit these attempts when made by telephone or methods other than going
door to door.
Summary
In summary, the proposed ordinance changes preserve the City's prohibition
against door-to-door solicitations at private residences. The changes also
prohibit such commercial solicitations at public buildings and offices when a "No
Solicitation" sign has been posted. This prohibition is consistent with the
desires of the citizens of Fort Collins as shown by the survey responses. In
addition, the proposed changes prohibit door hangers at public or private places
when an appropriate sign is posted. This too, is consistent with the survey
results and provides citizens with the ability to prevent these door hangers by
posting the appropriate sign. However, "door hangers" will still be allowed upon
premises that have not posted the required sign if there is an improved,
unobstructed walkway to a public right-of-way.
If Council is in agreement with all of the foregoing, the choice to be made
between Options A and 8 is whether to prohibit the "off -premise" solicitation of
invitations to visit residences, e.g., by telephone or mail. If so, Option A
should be chosen. If not, Option B should be chosen."
Diane Jones, Deputy City Manager, stated the Greenriver Ordinance prohibits door-
to-door solicitation for the purpose of selling goods or services without an
invitation. She stated the Ordinance is designed to protect the privacy and
safety interests of the community. She stated a team consisting of staff from
the City Attorney's Office, Police Services, the Sales and Use Tax Office, and
the City Manager's Office identified some questions and concerns with respect to
the wording of the existing Ordinance. She stated the team designed and
distributed a survey to approximately 1,000 City of Fort Collins residents which
addressed door-to-door solicitations and door hangers.. She stated 89% percent
were in favor of keeping the Greenriver Ordinance, 66% believed door hangers
should be prohibited, and 34% did not favor the prohibiting of door hangers.
192
March 15, 1994
Marty Heffernan, Assistant City Attorney, explained current Ordinance provisions
and the substance of the proposed changes. He outlined the steps for which
businesses and citizens to prevent solicitors from coming to the door and the
steps to prevent door hangers.
Councilmember Kneeland asked how the Ordinance would be enforced.
Heffernan stated the Ordinance is enforced on a complaint basis.
Councilmember Smith made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kneeland, to adopt
Ordinance No. 41, 1994 Option A, on First Reading.
Barbara Birdsall, 6610 Debra Drive, believed the survey was not valid. She
stated less than one half of one percent of the residents in Fort Collins
answered the survey. She stated there needs to be separation between door
hangers and door-to-door solicitation. She presented letters to Council from
citizens regarding their concerns about the proposed changes to the Ordinance.
Linda Norton, 2537 Orchard Place, stated she is the President of the Fort Collins
Board of Realtors and believed Option A would have an adverse affect on small
businesses. She stated the phone solicitation aspect of the Ordinance is
redundant since the introduction of the Federal Law regarding Telemarketing
occurred in 1993.
Jerry Valko, 3133 Birmingham Drive and owner of Welcome -Welcome. He stated this
service provides an opportunity for new residents to become better acquainted
with the City. He stated the only way to provide this service to the new
residents is by contacting them by phone and then they indicate whether they
would like to received this service. He stated Option A would close his
business.
Lisa Clay, 1618 Briarcliff Road and representing the Legislative Affairs
Committee at the Chamber of Commerce, stated its support for Option B of the
Ordinance. Option B does not allow door-to-door solicitation accept under
limited circumstances and is beneficial to the community. She stated it allows
door hangers except when there are no trespassing signs visible and those signs
only involve 5 percent of the community. She stated the Committee supports phone
solicitation because it puts the choice in the citizen's hands. She stated the
phone solicitation portion of the Ordinance only affects local businesses,
whereas outside of the City solicitors are federally regulated.
Susan Kirkpatrick, 2312 Tanglewood Drive, stated she supported Option A of the
Ordinance. She stated the proposed changes are an improvement to the current
Ordinance. She believed the residents of Fort Collins are not well informed of
the Ordinance and are vulnerable to many health and safety concerns. She stated
Option A of the Ordinance protects the privacy of the residents in their homes.
Susan Meyers, 6465 Hidden Springs Road, stated she supported Option B of the
Ordinance. She stated small business owners would be severely affected by Option
A of the Ordinance. She stated Option B provides the small business an
opportunity to market its services. She stated the small business has difficulty
meeting the financial requirements of advertising and must resort to less
expensive manners.
193
March 15, 1994
Dan Mackey, 1013 Hinsdale Drive, stated he would support Option C of the
Ordinance which would be a compromise between Options A and B. He stated the
small business owner would disappear from Fort Collins because of the
restrictions that are being placed on them.
Paul Thompson, 705 Cherokee Drive, stated that Option A prohibits the citizen
from saying yes to solicited materials. He stated the citizens should have the
freedom to decide whether or not they would like to receive any type of
materials.
Andra Ramsey, 1729 West Lake, stated she did not support Option A of the
Ordinance. She stated Fort Collins has grown and the adoption of Option A would
be a step backwards.
Al Baccili, 520 Galaxy Court, stated he supported Option A of the Ordinance. He
stated there are sufficient advertising methods for small businesses of this
community.
Heffernan stated that Option A of the Ordinance restates what has already been
adopted and does not prohibit phone solicitations unless the caller asks for an
invitation or to demonstrate a product.
Councilmember Smith stated he would support Option A of the Ordinance. He stated
the Ordinance does not inhibit the business community except when asking for an
invitation to the residents home.
Councilmember Kneeland stated she would support Option A of the Ordinance. She
believed there are other ways to promote business without being in violation of
the Ordinance.
Councilmember Apt stated he would support Option A of the Ordinance. He believed
this Ordinance was not detrimental to the small business owner and did not
believe phone solicitation was being restricted.
The vote on Councilmember Smith's motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers
Apt, Horak, Kneeland, and Smith. Nays: Councilmember Janett.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Items Relating to the Sherman -Lawler First,
Second and Third Annexations and Zonings
The following is staff's memorandum on this item.
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
SHERMAN-LAWLER FIRST
A. Public Hearing and Resolution 94-54 Setting Forth Findings of Fact and
Determinations Regarding the Sherman -Lawler First Annexation and Zoning.
B. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 42, 1994, Annexing Property
Known as the Sherman -Lawler First Annexation.
194
March 15, 1994
C. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 43, 1994, Amending the Zoning
District Map Contained in Chapter 29 of the Code and Classifying for
Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the Sherman -Lawler First
Annexation, into the RP, Planned Residential Zoning District, with two
conditions attached:
1) A11 development requests be processed as a Planned Unit Development
(P.U.D.). The P.U.D. zoning condition requires that all development
proposals be reviewed against the goals and objectives of the City's
Comprehensive Plan and the criteria of the Land Development Guidance
S stem.
2) The property known as the Sherman -Lawler First Annexation be placed
in the Residential Neighborhood Sign District and be subject to all
limitations and requirements of the district as defined in Sections
29-593 and 29-593.1 of the City Code.
This is a request to annex and zone 0.7416 acres located east of Terry Lake Road
(Colorado State Highway No. 1) and North College Avenue between Willox Lane and
Country Club Road. The requested zoning is the RP, Planned Residential District
(with a P.U.D. condition) and staff is recommending that this property be placed
in the Residential Neighborhood Sign District. The property consists entirely
of a portion of the existing Spaulding Lane road right-of-way that has been
dedicated to Larimer County. The property is currently zoned FA, Farming in the
County. This is a voluntary annexation:
APPLICANTS: City of Fort Collins
OWNERS: County of Larimer, State of Colorado
BACKGROUND:
The applicants, being the City of Fort Collins, have submitted a written petition
requesting annexation of 0.7416 acres located east of Terry Lake Road (Colorado
State Highway No. 1) and North College Avenue between Wi11ox Lane and Country
Club Road. The requested zoning is the RP, Planned Residential District (with
a P.U.D. condition) and staff is recommending that this property be placed in the
Residential Neighborhood Sign District. The property consists entirely of a
portion of the existing Spaulding Lane road right-of-way that has been dedicated
to Larimer County. The property is currently zoned FA, Farming in the County.
This is a voluntary annexation.
The property is located within the Fort Collins Urban Growth Area. According to
policies and agreements between the City of Fort Collins and Larimer County
contained in the Intergovernmental Aqreement for the Fort Collins Urban Growth
Area, the City will agree to consider annexation of property in the UGA when the
property is eligible for annexation according to State law. This property gains
the required 116 contiguity to existing City limits from a common boundary with
the Wi11ox Heights Annexation to the south.
SHERMAN-LAWLER SECOND
D. Public Hearing and Resolution 94-55 Setting Forth Findings of Fact and
Determinations Regarding the Sherman -Lawler Second Annexation and Zoning.
195
March 15, 1994
E. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 44, 1994, Annexing Property
Known as the Sherman -Lawler Second Annexation.
F. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 45, 1994, Amending the Zoning
District Map Contained in Chapter 29 of the Code and Classifying for
Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the Sherman -Lawler Second
Annexation, into the RP, Planned Residential Zoning District, with two
conditions attached:
1) A11 development requests be processed as a Planned Unit Development
(P.U.D.). The P.U.D. zoning condition requires that all development
proposals be reviewed against the goals and objectives of the City's
Comprehensive Plan and the criteria of the Land Development Guidance
System.
2) The property known as the Sherman -Lawler Second Annexation be placed
in the Residential Neighborhood Sign District and be subject to all
limitations and requirements of the district as defined in Sections
29-593 and 29-593.1 of the City Code.
This is a request to annex and zone 12.4540 acres located east of Terry Lake Road
(Colorado State Highway No. 1) and North College Avenue between Spaulding Lane
and Country Club Road. The requested zoning is the RP, Planned Residential
District (with a P.U.D. condition) and staff is recommending that this property
be placed in the Residential Neighborhood Sign District. The property is being
used as a large acreage residence. The property is currently zoned FA, Farming
in the County. This is a voluntary annexation.
APPLICANTS: Sandcreek Associates LLC
P.O. Box 9684
'Fort Collins, CO 80525
OWNERS
BACKGROUND:
Raymond E. and Frances Ray Ford
719 Breakwater Drive
Fort Collins, CO 80525
Robert H. and M. F. Pike
403 East Pitkin Street
Fort Collins, CO 80524
Judith F. Gunn
9609 North 26th Place
Phoenix, AR 85028
The applicants, Sandcreek Associates LLC, have submitted a written petition
requesting annexation of 12.4540 acres located east of Terry Lake Road (Colorado
State Highway No. 1) and North College Avenue between Willox Lane and Country
Club Road. The requested zoning is the RP, Planned Residential District (with
a P.U.D. condition) and staff is recommending that this property be placed in the
Residential Neighborhood Sign District. The property is in residential use. The
property is currently zoned FA, Farming in the County. This is a voluntary
annexation.
1
196
March 15, 1994
The property is located within the Fort Collins Urban Growth Area. 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 wi11 agree to consider annexation of property in the UGA when the
property is eligible for annexation according to State law. This property gains
the required 116 contiguity to existing City limits from a common boundary with
the Sherman -Lawler First Annexation to the south.
SHERMAN-LAWLER THIRD
G. Public Hearing and Resolution 94-56 Setting Forth Findings of Fact and
Determinations Regarding the Sherman -Lawler Third Annexation and Zoning.
H. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 46, 1994, Annexing Property
Known as the Sherman -Lawler Third Annexation.
Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 47, 1994, Amending the Zoning
District Map Contained in Chapter 29 of the Code and Classifying for
Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the Sherman -Lawler Third
Annexation, into the RP, Planned Residential Zoning District, with two
conditions attached:
1) A11 development requests be processed as a Planned Unit Development
(P.U.D.). The P.U.D. zoning condition requires that all development
proposals be reviewed against the goals and objectives of the City's
Comprehensive Plan and the criteria of the Land Development Guidance
System.
2) The property known as the Sherman -Lawler Third Annexation be placed
in the Residential Neighborhood Sign District and be subject to all
limitations and requirements of the district as defined in Sections
29-593 and 29-593.1 of the City Code.
This is a request to annex and zone 8.2402 acres located east of Terry Lake Road
(Colorado State Highway No. 1) and North College Avenue between Spaulding Lane
and Country Club Road. The requested zoning is the RP, Planned Residential
District (with a P.U.D. condition) and staff is recommending that this property
be placed in the Residential Neighborhood Sign District. The property is being
used as a portion of a large acreage residence. The property is currently zoned
FA - Farming, R - Residential, and C Commercial in the County. This is a
voluntary annexation.
APPLICANTS: Sandcreek Associates LLC
P.O. Box 9584
Fort Collins, CO 80525
OWNERS: Raymond E. and Frances Ray Ford
719 Breakwater Drive
Fort Collins, CO 80525
Robert H. and M. F. Pike
403 East Pitkin Street
Fort Collins, CO 80524
197
March 15, 1994
Judith F. Gunn
9509 North 26th Place
Phoenix, AR 85028
BACKGROUND:
The applicants, Sandcreek Associates LLC, have submitted a written petition
requesting annexation of 8,2402 acres located east of Terry Lake Road (Colorado
State Highway No. 1) and North College Avenue between Willox Lane and Country
Club Road. The requested zoning is the RP, Planned Residential District (with
a P.U.D. condition) and staff is recommending that this property be placed in the
Residential Neighborhood Sign District. The property is a portion of an existing
residential use. The property is currently zoned FA - Farming, R - Residential,
and C - Commercial in the County. This is a voluntary annexation.
The property is located within the Fort Collins Urban Growth Area. 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 will agree to consider annexation of property in the UGA when the
property is eligible for annexation according to State law. This property gains
the required 116 contiguity to existing City limits from a common boundary with
the Sherman -Lawler Second Annexation to the south.
The surrounding zoning and existing land uses are as follows:
N: R;
existing single
family
residential in
Larimer County
5: C, M1;
existing single
family
residential in
Larimer County
E: FA;
existing single
family
residential in
Larimer County
W: C, M1, R;
Terry Lake and
vacant
land in Larimer
County
The requested zoning for all three annexations is the RP, Planned Residential
District (with a P.U.D. condition). The RP District is for areas planned as a
unit to provide variation in use and building placement. The P.U.D. zoning
condition requires that all development proposals be reviewed against the goals
and objectives of the City's Comprehensive Plan and the criteria of the Land
Development Guidance System. The current dedicated road right-of-way use for
Sherman -Lawler First Annexation is an allowable use in the RP District and the
current residential use for Sherman -Lawler Second and Third Annexations is an
allowable use in the RP District.
Staff is recommending that tl
Neighborhood Sign District, whi
signs for non-residential uses
may be particularly affected
residential use and character.
surrounded by existing urban
believes that it is important
District.
ese properties be placed in the Residential
�h was established for the purpose of regulating
in certain geographical areas of the City which
by such signs because of their predominantly
These sites are adjacent to and completely
and rural residential uses; therefore, staff
for these properties to be included in the
Findings:
1. The annexation of these areas 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.
198
March 15, 1994
11
The areas meet all criteria included in State law to qualify for a
voluntary annexation to the City of Fort Collins.
On February 1, 1994, the City Council approved resolutions which accepted
the annexation petitions and determined that the petitions were in
compliance with State law. The resolutions also initiated the annexation
process for the properties by establishing the date, time and place when
public hearings would be held regarding the readings of the Ordinances
annexing and zoning the areas.
The requested RP, Planned Residential District (with a P.U.D. condition)
is in conformance with the policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the annexations and requested zonings with
conditions stating that all development requests be processed as a Planned Unit
Development (P.U.D.). The P.U.D. zoning condition requires that all development
proposals be reviewed against the goals and objectives of the City's
Comprehensive Plan and the criteria of the Land Development Guidance System and
that the properties known as the Sherman -Lawler First, Second, and Third
Annexations be placed in the Residential Neighborhood Sign District and be
subject to all limitations and requirements of the District as defined in
Sections 29-593 and 29-593.1 of the City Code.
PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning and Zoning Board conducted
zoning requests at its regular monthly
5-0 to recommend approval of all three
the conditions recommended by staff."
a public hearing on these annexation and
meeting on February 28, 1994, and voted
annexations and requested zonings, with
Steve Olt, City Planner, stated the Sherman -Lawler Annexations are comprised of
three annexations and zonings, but will be handled as one item. He described in
detail the differences between the three annexations. He stated the total
property consists of 21.43 acres and the requested zoning for all three
properties is R-P (Planned Residential) with a PUD condition.
Councilmember Apt asked if the property is within the Urban Growth Area.
Olt stated the property is within the Urban Growth Area and approximately 2 miles
south of the northern Urban Growth Area boundary line.
Don Masard, Ford Lane, stated the discussion of annexing this property should
have taken place prior to any submittal. He believed that because a property
lies within the Urban Growth Area doesn't mean that it automatically should be
annexed. He stated Country Club Road is unsafe for residents and is a severe
hazard for children attending Tavelli Elementary School. He stated if the
annexation were to be adopted that an overall master plan should be developed for
the area.
199
March 15, 1994
Janine Hammond, Ford Lane, stated traffic is a major concern for the proposed
annexation and believed a formal traffic study should be completed. She stated
the increased traffic would have a great effect on the area and proposes several
safety concerns.
Councilmember Kneeland asked what the residents of the surrounding properties
obligations would be if the annexations were adopted.
Olt stated those concerns would be reviewed in conjunction with the development
proposal.
Councilmember Kneeland made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Apt, to adopt
Resolution 94-54. The vote on Councilmember Kneeland's motion was as follows:
Yeas: Councilmembers Apt, Horak, Janett, Kneeland, and Smith. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Apt made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Smith, to adopt
Ordinance No. 42, 1994, on First Reading. The vote on Councilmember Apt's motion
was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Apt, Horak, Janett, Kneeland, and Smith.
Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Smith made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kneeland, to adopt
Ordinance No. 43; 1994, on First Reading.
Councilmember Kneeland believed the neighborhoods development concerns would be
addressed adequately during the PUD process.
The vote on Councilmember Smith's motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers
Apt, Horak, Janett, Kneeland, and Smith. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Apt made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Smith, to adopt
Resolution 94-55. The vote on Councilmember Apt's motion was as follows: Yeas:
Councilmembers Apt, Horak, Janett, Kneeland, and Smith. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Kneeland made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Smith, to adopt
Ordinance No. 44, 1994, on First Reading. The vote on Councilmember Kneeland's
motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Apt, Horak, Janett, Kneeland, and
Smith. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Smith made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Apt, to adopt
Ordinance No. 45, 1994, on First Reading. The vote on Councilmember Smith's
motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Apt, Horak, Janett, Kneeland, and
Smith. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
200
March 15, 1994
' Councilmember Kneeland made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Apt, to adopt
Resolution 94-56. The vote on Councilmember Kneeland's motion was as follows:
Yeas: Councilmembers Apt, Horak, Janett, Kneeland, and Smith. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Apt made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Smith, to adopt
Ordinance No. 46, 1994, on First Reading. The vote on Councilmember Apt's motion
was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Apt, Horak, Janett, Kneeland, and Smith.
Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Smith made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Apt, to adopt
Ordinance No. 47, 1994, on First Reading.
Councilmember Horak believed that developing this property up to urban standards
presents a safer environment for the residents and the children to walk to and
from school.
The vote on Councilmember Smith's motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers
Apt, Horak, Janett, Kneeland, and Smith. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Items Relating to the Willow
Springs Annexation and Zoning
This is staff's memorandum of this item.
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A. Public Hearing and Resolution 94-35 Setting Forth Findings of Fact and
Determinations Regarding the Willow Springs Annexation.
B. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 32, 1994, Annexing Property
Known as the Willow Springs Annexation to the City of Fort Collins,
Colorado.
C. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 33, 1994, Amending the Zoning
District Map Contained in Chapter 29 of the Code of the City of Fort
Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property to be Included in
the Willow Springs Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado.
This is a request to annex and zone approximately 119 acres located three-
quarters of a mile south of Harmony Road on the west side of Timberline Road.
The annexation consists of one parcel of land under single ownership. The
property currently contains one farm house with pasture and is zoned FA-1,
Farming, in the County. The proposed zoning is R-L-P, Low Density Planned
' Residential, with a Planned Unit Development (PUD) condition. This is a
voluntary annexation.
201
March 15, 1994
APPLICANT: Trustar, Inc. '
c/o Jim Sell Design
117 East Mountain Avenue
Fort Collins, CO 80524
OWNER: Lyal Nelson Estate
c/o Rodney Nelson Sonja Rose
6312 East Harmony Road 5429 East County Road #58
Fort Collins, CO 80525 Fort Collins, CO 80524
BACKGROUND:
The property is located within the Fort Collins Urban Growth Area. 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 will agree to consider annexation of the property in the UGA when
the property is eligible for annexation according to State law.
One sixth of the property boundary is contiguous to City limits. The property,
therefore, is eligible for annexation into the City of Fort Collins. The
property is contiguous to City limits along the entire north and west property
lines. The property to the north, known as the South Harmony Annexation (406.59
acres), was annexed into the City of Fort Collins in 1985.
N
On the west, the property is bordered by a sliver of land known as the Union
Pacific South Fourth Annexation (76.05 acres) annexed into the City in 1988.
Just west of this railroad right-of-way is the Keenland Annexation (617.60 acres)
which was annexed into the City in 1980. This portion of the Keenland Annexation
is Oak Ridge Village P.U.D., Second Filing, a residential project. Another
property just west of the railroad right-of-way is the Lyal Nelson Annexation
(5.36 acres) annexed in 1989, and currently vacant.
The property to be annexed is made up of one parcel under single ownership. The
current owners are:
Rodney Nelson Sonja Rose
6312 East Harmony Road 5429 East County Road #58
Fort Collins, CO 80525 Fort Collins, CO 80524
Zoning
The property is currently zoned FA-1, Farming, in the County. The proposed
zoning for this annexation is R-L-P, Low Density Planned Residential, with a PUD
condition. The R-L-P District designation is for areas of low density
residential development.
The property to the north is in the R-L-P, Low Density Residential Zoning
District, is in the City, and is vacant. The property to the west is divided
between Oak Ridge Village P.U.D. and the Lyal Nelson Annexation (undeveloped).
The property to the east is Timber Creek P.U.D. and Stetson Creek P.U.D., two
residential filings being part of the Rock Creek Overall Development Plan (1993).
The proposed zoning of the Willow Springs property is compatible with the '
surrounding area.
202
March 15, 1994
. According to Section 1.3 of the INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT FOR THE FORT COLLINS
URBAN GROWTH AREA:
"new residential development in the UGA shall mitigate potential negative
impacts on adjacent existing residential development by maintaining the
character and density of the existing development along common boundaries.
Greater mitigation will be required along simple property boundaries than
where major arterial streets separate projects."
Additionally, policy #12 of the City of Fort Collins Land Use Policies Plan
states: .
"Urban density residential development usually at three or more units to
the acre should be encouraged in the urban growth area."
Further, policy #13 of the Land Use Policies Plan states:
"Rural density residential development usually at one or less units to the
acre shall not be allowed in the urban growth area."
The property is located on the fringe of urban development and has rural county
development on south and a portion of the east side.
Staff is recommending a P.U.D. condition because the property has frontage on an
arterial street and has special buffering needs along the railroad tracks, issues
which are more successfully considered by the P.U.D. process rather than the
subdivision code. Also, the P.U.D. condition will guarantee a minimum density
of three dwelling units per acre.
Residential Neighborhood Sion District
Staff recommends that this property be included in the Residential Neighborhood
Sign District and the map designating this area be amended to reflect this
addition. ,
Findings
1. The annexation of this property is consistent with the policies and
agreements between Larimer County and the City of Fort Collins as
contained in the INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT FOR THE FORT COLLINS URBAN
GROWTH AREA.
2. The area meets all criteria included in State law to qualify for
annexation by the City of Fort Collins.
3. On January 18, 1994, City Council considered and passed a resolution
setting forth the intent to annex this property and establishing the date
of public hearing for the annexation and zoning ordinances.
4. The requested zoning of R-L-P, Low Density Planned Residential with a
P.U.D. condition is in conformance with the policies of the City's Land
Use Policies Plan and the INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT, and is compatible
with the surrounding zoning districts and existing land uses.
"3
March 15, 1994
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: '
Staff recommends approval of the annexation and requested zoning.
PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning and Zoning Board considered the annexation and zoning request at its
regular monthly meeting on February 28, 1994, and voted 5-0 to recommend approval
of the annexation and requested zoning, with the condition that the entire
property be developed as a planned unit development."
Councilmember Janett withdrew from discussion and vote on this item due to a
perceived conflict of interest.
Ted Shepard, Senior City Planner, stated the request is to annex and zone
approximately 119 acres, located on the westside of Timberline Road. He stated
the requested zoning is R-L-P, Low Density Planned Residential, with the
condition that all development occur as a Planned Unit Development.
Jim Sell, representative for the developer, stated the proposed annexation of a
119 acres is part of a 130 acres tract, of which the balance is currently within
the city. He stated the section of the 130 acres that lies within the city is
zoned R-L-P with a PUD condition.
Steve Humann, TST Consulting Engineers, stated the proposed development of the
property would provide for the widening of Timberline to a four lane arterial.
He stated there is an existing sewer line on the property that has adequate I
capacity for the surrounding area. He stated all city facilities are available
to the proposed annexation.
Sell stated the project meets criteria listed in the Land Use Policies Plan. He
stated currently the FA-1 Zone for the property would allow only 1 unit per acre;
whereas, the proposed zoning would allow 3 units per acre.
Vern Mobley stated he was opposed to the annexation and zoning of the property.
He stated the proposed density is too high for the vicinity and proposes a safety
issue. He stated he was opposed to any multi -family housing that may be
developed on the property. He asked that the adoption of the annexation and
zoning requests be delayed until the Fort Collins -Loveland Corridor Study is
completed. He urged Council not to support the annexation and zoning requests.
Kevin Thomas, 5200 McMurry Avenue, stated he was opposed to the extension of
Keenland Drive in Oakridge Village. He stated the traffic flow would increase
from 200 vehicles per day to approximately 4,000 vehicle per day. He stated that
increased traffic proposes an extreme safety issue for the residents of Oakridge
Village. He stated the proposed project would access the Oakridge Village Park
which would create increased maintenance, vandalism and various additional costs
to the residents of Oakridge.
David Osborn, attorney representing the developer, stated that any concerns the
surrounding neighborhoods have regarding traffic etc. should be addressed after I
the annexation has been approved. He stated those types of concerns should be
discussed during the PUD process.
204
March 15, 1994
' Gary Thomas, 1533 River Road Drive, opposed the annexation. He stated the
annexation of the property and the development of the property should be
considered jointly. He stated the neighborhood has corresponded with
Councilmember McCluskey and the Planning and Zoning Board and has not received
any responses to its concerns.
Gerry Dusbabek, 1613 Trailwood Drive, stated there are several safety issues
regarding Keenland Drive. He stated the development of Keenland Drive should be
considered with the annexation and zoning of the proposed project.
Councilmember Kneeland made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Apt, to adopt
Resolution 94-35. The vote on Councilmember Kneeland's motion was as follows:
Yeas: Councilmembers Apt, Horak, Kneeland, and Smith. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Smith made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Apt, to adopt
Ordinance No. 32, 1994, on First Reading.
Councilmember Kneeland. stated the annexation is appropriate for that area and
believed the surrounding neighborhood concerns would be addressed through the PUD
process.
Councilmember Apt stated that annexing the property independent from the PUD
process is more beneficial for the surrounding neighborhoods. He stated that by
considering the annexation and the PUD separately it presents more time for
' public comment on the project.
The vote on Councilmember Smith's motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers
Apt, Horak, Kneeland, and Smith. Nays: None.
_THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Kneeland made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Apt, to adopt
Ordinance No. 33, 1994, on First Reading. The vote on Councilmember Kneeland's
motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Apt, Horak, Kneeland, and Smith.
Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Items Relating to Establishing a
Development Review Fee Schedule and
Reducing Affordable Housing Costs
This is staff's memorandum on this item.
"FINANCIAL IMPACT
To the
City: Option A of Ordinance No. 27, 1994, as adopted on first reading
would recover 80% of the costs incurred
and the revenues received through these
for development review (planning) fees,
increased fees will be applied to offset
'
most of
the costs for development review services. As a result, General Fund
monies
which have been used to cover
these costs can now be used for other
205
March 15, 1994
purposes, e.g., to pay some impact fees for eligible affordable housing projects.
While this may not be perceived as having a detrimental impact to the General
Fund in the short run, subsidizing impact fees may be viewed as a continuing
service that will need to be funded in the future. The fee revenues will be part
of the spending base subject to growth limits under Article X, Section 20 of the
Constitution. Option 8 of Ordinance No. 27, 1994, would reduce the amount of
increase to the General Fund, and, therefore, would reduce the amount available
to subsidize impact fees for eligible affordable housing projects. To Eligible
Affordable Housing Projects: The financial impact would be to reduce some of the
development costs for eligible affordable housing projects.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 27,
Code of the City of Fort Collins t
Schedule and Authorize a Waiver for
A and B).
1994, Amending Chapter 29 of the City
Establish a Development Review Fee
Affordable Housing Projects (Options
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 28, 1994, Appropriating Additional Funds
for Affordable Housing Purposes and Seeking a Recommendation from the
Staff and Affordable Housing Board Regarding the Use of Such Funds.
The proposed ordinances to be considered by City Council will accomplish the
following:
Recover between 40% and 80Y of the costs incurred for development
review (planning) services:
Option A of Ordinance No. 27, 1994, would increase development
review fees to 80% of the costs incurred for development
review functions in City departments excluding Parks and
Recreation, Zoning, Water and Wastewater, and Stormwater.
This is the Option adopted by the City Council on First
Reading on February 15, 1994.
Option 8 of Ordinance No 27, 1994, would increase development
review fees to 80% for larger projects, but would impose lower
fees for smaller projects. An option varying the fee increase
based on size of project was requested by Council on February
15. Second Reading was delayed to March 15 to allow time for
this option to be developed.
Option B varies the fee schedule based essentially on the same
size categories developed in the Neighborhood Compatibility
Ordinance. Residential projects of 100 dwelling units or more
and commercial projects of 50,000 square feet or more would
pay fees at the SOY level. Residential projects between 50
and 100 units, and commercial projects between 25,000 and
50,000 square feet would pay fees at the 64Z level.
Residential projects of less than 50 units and commercial
projects of less than 25,000 square feet would pay fees at the
40% level. Projects consisting only of change of use or an
expansion of existing improvements would also have reduced
fees, depending upon the size of the expansion.
206
March 15, 1994
' 2. Waive development review fees for Affordable Housing projects that
meet certain eligibility requirements.
3. Appropriate funds from unanticipated General Fund revenues for
affordable housing purposes (Ordinance No. 28, 1994). The wording
of this Ordinance has been changed on second reading to specify
that,.in any given year, monies appropriated for affordable housing
purposes and unexpended by year's end would lapse to the Affordable
Housing Reserve.
4. Refer subsidy of affordable housing impact fees to staff and the
Affordable Housing Board for additional analysis and recommendations
(Ordinance No. 28, 1994). The Affordable Housing Board has made the
commitment to complete its work by May 31, 1994, and has appointed
a sub -committee which has begun its work on this issue.
Planning and Zoning Board Recommendation:
At the October 4, 1993, Planning and Zoning Board meeting, the Board voted 4-3
to recommend to recommend that the Cost Recovery Level for Development Review
Fees be set at 20% and that fees be based on the "A11 Costs" category, excluding
those departments that are currently charging fees that recover development
review costs (Parks and Recreation and Zoning). The Board also recommended the
following actions be taken:
1. Establish a means of waiving or reducing fees for small scale
' projects;
2. Review fees on an annual basis for inflation, as well as for the
costs of providing the service;
3. Record data on the time actually spent on projects; and
4. Address the Appeals Fee under the same basis philosophy (determining
costs and establishing level of cost recovery).
At the March 7, 1994 meeting, the Planning and Zoning Board reviewed Ordinances
No. 27, 1994 Options A and B, and Ordinance No. 28, 1994, and reaffirmed its
first recommendation as stated on October 4, 1993. The Board feels the residents
of the City are the primary beneficiaries of the development review process,
therefore, the cost recovery level for Development Review Fees should be set at
20%.
AFFORDABLE HOUSING BOARD RECOMMENDATION
1. At the February 10, 1994, Affordable Housing Board meeting, the Board
recommended Council adopt Ordinance No. 27 with the provision that the
cost recovery level be set at 50%. The Board also recommended that the
distribution plan for whatever funds are available for fee subsidies to
affordable housing projects be referred back to the Board and staff for
' the development of an implementation plan by May 31, 1994. This.motion
passed on a vote of 6-1.
207
March 15, 1994
The Affordable Housing Board disagrees with the philosophy that there is '
no inherent community benefit to the processing of development
applications which necessitates fees to be set at a rate designed to
recover 1009 of costs. The Board is disappointed that a stronger case for
the "community good" is not being made since, from the Board's
perspective, staff and the Planning and Zoning Board reviews development
proposals from the perspectives of adopted City/community goals, plans,
policies, and ordinances.
The Board recommends that a three-tier system of assessing development
review fees be established which takes into account affordable housing
projects, moderately priced housing, and more expensive housing. This
motion passed 7-0."
Ron Phillips, Interim Planning Director, stated the Ordinance addresses concerns
about whether the new fee schedule is aligned with the economic development goals
of the City. He stated staff compiled a graduated scale of projects that would
be affected by the new fee schedule. He stated the development review fees would
be set at 80% of costs recovered. He provided specific information on the
various details of both Ordinances.
Councilmember Apt asked about the differences between the various sized projects.
Phillips stated the recommendations on the fees were based on the Cost of
Development Study. He stated the fees would be the same for various sizes of
projects.
Councilmember Kneeland made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Smith, to adopt
'
Ordinance No. 27, 1994 Option A, directing staff to work with developers on small
developments to come up with an appropriate rate structure.
Mike Bennett, 607 Strachan Drive - representative of the Legislative Affairs
Committee of the Chamber of Commerce, stated that tieing future fee increases to
inflation by Ordinance does not promote governmental efficiency or productivity.
He stated there is no incentive for the department to control its actual expenses
or to lower them if development is reduced or eliminated by economic conditions
or governmental regulations.
Ed Stoner, 2236 Apache Court - representative of the Board of Realtors, stated
a 3 acre parcel versus a 100 acre parcel would take less staff time to evaluate.
He stated variable costs must be reviewed whereas the fixed costs are less
controversial. He believed Option A is less equitable than Option B. He stated
an ideal option would encourage infill and higher density throughout the
community.
Ed Zdenek, 1210 Kirkwood Drive, stated a fixed fee and an additional fee on an
acreage basis should be the preferable alternative. He stated this type of
alternative would better address the small developer's needs.
Linda Norton, President of the Board of Realtors, believed further study on the
affordable housing aspect is needed and should be comprised of local statistics. '
March 15, 1994
' Ray Spencer, 4112 Clayton Court - representative of Northern Colorado
Homebuilders Association, asked Council to table the Ordinance for further study
and more citizen participation. He stated the Ordinance discounts the positive
impacts that development has on the community. He stated the City should not
just try to preserve the quality of life in Fort Collins but strive to make the
quality of life better for the community. He stated this Ordinance leans towards
no growth or anti -growth sentiment.
Bill Bartran, 1601 Lakeridge Court, questioned the connection between higher fees
and affordable housing. He stated there are several ways to address the
affordable housing issue but joining it with an increase in development fees is
not one of those ways.
Betty Maloney, 1309 City Park Avenue - representative of the Larimer County
Affordable Housing Task Force, believed the City has taken some very positive
steps to promote affordable housing. She stated the Task Force endorses the
three tiered fee system based on home costs.
Lou Stitzel, 521 East Laurel, stated materials costs the same for affordable
housing as for any other type of housing; therefore, affordable housing is of the
same quality as many of the other housing projects available to the community.
The accountability is more strict for affordable housing than it is for profit
housing. She supported and urged Council to adopt the Ordinance.
Pat Brown, representative of C.A.R.E. Housing, stated its support for the
Ordinance. She stated City fees imposed on housing projects have an adverse
' affect on strict budgets.
Dick Jeffries, 1609 Wagon Tongue Court - representative of Associated Contractors
of Northern Colorado, believed there were a few technical items contained in the
Ordinance that need to be addressed. For instance, when payments need to be made
or deferred.
Councilmember Kneeland clarified the definition of affordable housing for this
community is based on the national level but applied to local income.
Phillips stated the City definition is based on the national level and the
Affordable Housing Board is reviewing the definition further. He stated staff
will present the Board's recommendation on this issue near the end of May.
Councilmember Janett stated if the rents are higher than the 80% fee structure
then there would be a waiver for something that does not exist.
Phillips stated that is a concern to staff and believed the rent definition needs
to occur prior to the development or funding of an affordable housing project.
Councilmember Kneeland asked how this Ordinance would track such projects.
City Manager Burkett stated there is a separate fund for affordable housing in
the City's budget. He stated the amount of money that goes into the fund and the
amount of money that is expended from the fund will be tracked closely.
Councilmember Apt asked how the fees would be collected.
209
March 15, 1994
Phillips stated there are a number of administrative issues being addressed by '
the Affordable Housing Board that will be presented to Council at a later date.
He stated the issue of collecting the fees will be addressed at that time.
Councilmember Janett believed the Ordinance was reviewed in great detail. She
stated planning review fees and affordable housing issues should be discussed
jointly due to the effects the review fees will have on affordable housing.
Councilmember Apt stated he would support the Ordinance and believed there has
been extensive review on these issues. He expressed his appreciation to the
developers, the community and staff for the efforts put forth on this project.
He stated that affordable housing and the review fees are linked. He believed
staff is trying to reallocate community resources and use them to benefit the
greatest percentage of people and provide affordable housing.
Councilmember Horak stated he would support the Ordinance. He stated the main
people picking up the costs for these projects are the taxpayers.
The vote on Councilmember Kneeland's motion to adopt Ordinance No. 27, 1994 on
Second Reading was as follows: Yeas: Councilmember Apt, Horak, Janett,
Kneeland, and Smith. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Kneeland made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Smith to adopt
Ordinance No. 28, 1994 as amended on Second Reading. The vote on Councilmember ,
Kneeland's motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Apt, Horak, Janett,
Kneeland, and Smith. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Ordinance No. 49, 1994
Amending the Code of the City by the
Addition of a New Section 29-441 Establishing a Procedure
for the Acceptance of Applications for the
This is staff's memorandum on this item.
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The order in which the City accepts petitions for annexation, requests for zoning
and development proposals for annexed property, or property under consideration
For annexation, was discussed by the City -Council on December 7 and 21, 1993.
This was in conjunction with the discussion on the proposed annexation and zoning
of the REA property on South College, and the second reading of Ordinance No.
132, 1993, which put the latest annexation of Fossil Creek Estates (Phases 2 and
3) in the T, Transition Zone. A majority of the Council gave clear direction to
staff that they do not want any future development proposals reviewed or
considered until the annexation and zoning process for the property under '
consideration is complete.
210
March 15, 1994
In light of this direction by the City Council, an administrative policy was
implemented in late December as follows:
1. No development review applications will be accepted prior to final
Council approval of the annexation ordinance and zoning of the land
under consideration.
2. If the land is zoned T, Transition at the time of annexation, no
development review applications will be accepted until final Council
approval is given for zoning which allows development of the land
under consideration.
If the land remains unzoned at the time of annexation, no
development review applications will be accepted until final Council
approval is given for zoning which allows development of the land
under consideration.
Since this is a policy issue, it is appropriate for the City Council to formalize
the policy by amending the City Code. This is particularly necessary since State
law specifically allows development plans to be considered simultaneously with
the annexation and zoning process.
The proposed ordinance provides that if a proposed annexation is within the
boundaries of a neighborhood or corridor planning area where the plan has been
completed and adopted by Council, a development proposal may be reviewed and
acted upon concurrently with the annexation and zoning process. Otherwise, no
' subdivision application will be processed until zoning for the property has been
approved by the Council on second reading.
PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD RECOMMENDATION
The Planning and Zoning Board recommended on January 31, 1994, that the City
Council table the proposed ordinance and begin a public discussion process
involving homeowners associations, neighborhood groups, the development
community, etc., to review this issue in depth and determine what is necessary.
The Board also recommends that the present administrative policy be held in
abeyance until this process can be completed. The Board recommends the process
take no more than 90 days. The vote on this recommendation was unanimous, 5-0.
The Board reviewed the proposed ordinance again on February 28, 1994, and
reconfirmed the previous recommendation with the additional provision that if the
Council proceeds to adopt the ordinance, the Board does support the provision
which allows for the earlier review of subdivision proposals when the property
in question is included within an approved planning area."
Ron Phillips, Interim Planning Director, stated the proposed Ordinance disallows
a subdivision application to be processed prior to the annexing and zoning of
property. .He stated a development proposal may be reviewed and acted upon
concurrently with an annexation and zoning of property only if the property is
within an adopted neighborhood or corridor plan. He stated the Planning and
Zoning Board recommends Council to table the proposed Ordinance: He stated the
f� Board desires some public discussion process involving homeowners associations,
neighborhood groups, and the development industry for further review of this
issue and to determine the necessary steps to take.
211
March 15, 1994
Councilmember Janett asked if a preliminary PUD could be submitted prior to an
annexation or zoning.
Phillips stated the process for a PUD could not commence until after the
annexation and zoning of property took place.
City Attorney Roy stated a the preliminary process could start; however, the
project could not receive final approval until the property has been annexed and
zoned.
Councilmember Kneeland made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Smith, to
postpone Ordinance No. 49, 1994, to begin public discussion involving homeowners
associations, neighborhood groups, the development community etc. and not to
exceed 90 days for that process.
Councilmember Apt stated he would not support the motion. He stated the
guidelines that have been in place since December are a step in the right
direction. He believed a slower process is warranted.
Councilmember Kneeland believed public process is necessary for this Ordinance.
She stated Council, staff, the public and the development community need to spend
the time to review and create an Ordinance which is acceptable to everyone.
Councilmember Horak stated he would support the motion. He believed public
process is necessary.
The vote on Councilmember Kneeland's motion was as follows: Yeas:
Councilmembers Horak, Janett, Kneeland, and Smith. Nays: Councilmember Apt.
,
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Smith made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Janett, to continue
with the current administrative policy, which was implemented in December 1993,
dealing with annexations and zonings and added if a proposed annexation is within
the boundaries of a neighborhood or corridor planning area where the plan has
been completed and adopted by Council, a development proposal may be reviewed and
acted upon concurrently with the annexation and zoning process.
Don Masard, Ford Lane, believed Council should not place any policy changes on
the annexation and zoning procedures until the public process has been completed.
Councilmember Kneeland stated she would not support the motion. She believed the
project needs to be reviewed further prior to any implementation of a temporary
administrative policy.
The vote on Councilmember Smith's motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers
Apt, Horak, Janett, and Smith. Nays: Councilmember Kneeland.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
WIN
March 15, 1994
Other Business
Councilmember Kneeland asked about the timeframe for implementing the
Neighborhood Ambassador Program.
City Manager Burkett stated Council received a memo regarding the program and
will provide a brief memo regarding the schedule and implementation of that
program.
The meeting adjourned at 10:25 p.m.
or
ATTEST:
City Clerk
213