Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
COUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 06/15/2004 - CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE COUNCIL MEETING
ITEM NUMBER: 7 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY DATE: June 15, 2004 FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL STAFF: John Fischbach SUBJECT Consideration and approval of the Council meeting minutes of April 20, May 4 and May 18, 2004 and the adjourned meeting minutes of April 29, 2004. April 20, 2004 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO Council-Manager Form of Government Regular Meeting- 6:00 p.m. A regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins was held on Tuesday, April 20, 2004, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll Call was answered by the following Councilmembers: Bertschy, Hamrick, Kastein, Martinez, Roy, Tharp and Weitkunat. Staff Members Present: Fischbach, Krajicek, Roy. Citizen Participation Marilyn Pedri, 4916 Chippendale Drive, formally requested that the Cooper Slough buffer be changed from 300 feet to 100 feet. She stated this would have considerable impact on her property. She stated a 300 foot buffer was inconsistent with other City stream corridors and that this was discriminatory to a few land owners. She stated if the buffer remained 300 feet that approximately 16 acres of her land would be included in this buffer area. Charlie Lanter, 2902 Rigden Parkway, stated his company managed homeowners' associations in Fort Collins. He stated the Council should look at the issue of homeowners' association "transparency" i.e. new buyers and existing homeowners being able to see enough information (reserve studies,bylaws,rules and regulations,collection policies,etc.)to make informed judgments on homeowners' associations. He stated the majority of homeowners' associations had a lack of transparency. He stated homeowners' associations were"quasi governmental entities issuing rules and regulations, collecting dues with no government oversight." Tom Loran, 2207 Wakefield Drive, stated rental property in residential neighborhoods should be considered to be a commercial activity. He stated there was a double standard because his small catering kitchen was regulated while rental properties had no regulation whatsoever even though rentals were detrimental to neighborhoods. Chuck Darst, representing the Paragon Point Homeowners' Association, asked the Council to reconsider the decision made approximately six months ago relating to the location of the Fossil Creek trail. He asked that the trail be moved to a southern route due to the liability to the property owners due to having a regional trail bisect a mature neighborhood. He presented a petition that surveyed the homeowners and stated over 90%of the petition signers asked the Association's Board to advocate moving the trail. 204 April20, 2004 Melissa Anderson,Rolland Moore West Neighborhood resident,spoke in favor ofrental registration and licensing. She stated it would be cost effective to have rental licensing for single-family neighborhoods to improve the quality of life in the central part of Fort Collins. She stated student rentals were challenging the neighborhood character in that area. She stated out-of-town property owners who were renting out properties were not required to list their mailing address in the official records. She stated landlords were not currently required to have tenants sign a lease. She stated irresponsible landlords rarely faced consequences of any kind. She stated licensing would be a method of identifying and censoring irresponsible landlords so that neighbors and City staff were not serving as"property managers by default." She stated saving neighborhoods from`rental blight' would have enormous economic benefits for everyone. Henry Dij ack,property owner west of the Pedris(Imu-Tek Health and Laboratories),spoke regarding the Cooper Slough buffer. He stated his two buildings were within the proposed 300 buffer. He stated he would not be able to expand his business if this buffer was imposed. He stated he had been advised that his property was grandfathered and that he would be able to add 50,000 square feet and that expansion would have to be within the 300 foot buffer. He stated the approval of the buffer would take away his ability to expand and would also take away his zoning. He asked that Council consider this buffer closely because it would put him out of business. Ray Japluski, Fort Collins resident, spoke in support of rental property licensing in low density single-family neighborhoods. He stated the neighborhoods were seeing a"free for all'with regard to conversion of single-family homes to multifamily housing. Herbert Pedri, 4916 Chippendale Drive, stated he was part of a family trust that owned a 36 acre parcel that included the 1,800 to 1,900 feet of Cooper Slough. He stated the land taken away for the buffer would be the width of the creek plus 600 feet. He stated this would affect three landowners. He questioned why this would be the only creek in town that would warrant a 300 foot setback on either side. He stated the size of the buffer would limit the ability of the property owners to sell the land. Craig Peel,3025 Alamo Avenue,representing the Thundermoor Neighborhood Association, spoke in support of rental licensing in single-family neighborhoods. He stated the rental house across from his residence at 3024 Alamo Avenue had at least 15 people live there in the last few years. He stated the rental company had not responded to complaints. He stated the unsupervised rental compromised the quality of the neighborhood and family life. Citizen Participation Follow-up Councilmember Bertschy asked for a two-page memo on the Cooper Slough issue. He also asked for information about regulations for businesses in neighborhoods. 205 April20, 2004 Councilmember Roy asked that staff determine if other communities had provisions relating to transparency of homeowners' associations. Councilmember Tharp thanked those who spoke about rental licensing and noted that Council was working on alternatives regarding the current situation. She stated the issue and various options would be discussed at the April 27 Study Session. Councilmember Weitkunat asked for clarification regarding whether the Cooper Slough buffer change was in the proposed Code changes. City Manager Fischbach stated he would check. Councilmember Kastein asked for a staff memo on the status of the Fossil Creek trail relocation. Mayor Martinez requested that the City Attorney explain the process to be followed for Council reconsideration of an item. City Attorney Roy stated three Councilmembers would need to request that the matter be brought forward and scheduled on a Council agenda for consideration. Councilmember Kastein asked if the three requesting Councilmembers must be from the prevailing side. City Attorney Roy replied in the negative. Agenda Review City Manager Fischbach stated staff was recommending that item #28Items Relating to the 2003 International Residential Code, 2003 International Mechanical Code, and the 2003 International Fuel Gas Code be approved on First Reading at this meeting and scheduled for Second Reading on July 6, 2004. He stated staff wanted to review some new information regarding cost savings with the appropriate boards and commissions. He stated this was a long agenda and that item#30Items Relating to the Enforcement of the Nuisance Provisions of the City Code may not be considered and that it could be rescheduled as the first item on the agenda for May 4, 2004 if it was not considered at this meeting. Mayor Martinez withdrew item #10 Second Reading of Ordinance No. 057, 2004, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code to Reflect the Adoption of Updated Master Drainage Plans And to Revise the Official Repository of Plan Documents from the Consent Calendar. CONSENT CALENDAR 7. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 054, 2004, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the General Fund for Police Seizure Activity. Colorado state law requires that the proceeds from successful asset seizure and forfeiture actions are to be used for law enforcement purposes and that the governing body of the 206 April20, 2004 seizing agency appropriate these proceeds to supplement the seizing agency's budget or, in the alternative, forfeit the proceeds to the general fund of the State of Colorado. Colorado state law also authorizes the creation of the Forfeiture Committee which must consist of the Mayor, District Attorney and Chief of Police, or their designees. The Committee oversees and approves the seizure budget and spending decisions made by the Chief of Police. This Ordinance which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on April 6,2004, appropriates prior year reserves in the general fund for police seizure activity. 8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 055,2004,Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in Capital Projects Fund - Natural Areas Capital Proiect for Transfer to the Natural Areas Fund and Authorizing the Transfer ofAppropriated Amounts to be Used for Natural Areas Acquisition, Construction, Enhancement and Maintenance. The Building Community Choices ("BCC") sales tax stipulates that revenues remaining unencumbered after completion of projects set forth in the ordinance shall be used for natural areas acquisition,construction,enhancement and maintenance. The unspent revenues in this fund as of December 31, 2003 were $4,400,000. The recommendation is that these funds now be appropriated for the above stated purposes. Ordinance No. 055, 2004, was unanimously adopted on First Reading on April 6, 2004. 9. Second Reading of Ordinance No.056,2004,Amending the Land Use Code to Allow Small Scale Reception Centers in the Urban Estate Zone District,Clarifying the Definition of Such Centers and Adopting Performance Standards as Supplemental Regulations Relating Thereto. On December 2, 2003, during consideration of the Fall 2003 Land Use Code Revisions, Council voted to remand this issue back to the Planning and Zoning Board for further consideration. Since that time, staff has worked closely with two private parties on expanding and refining the performance standards that would be necessary in order to ensure neighborhood compatibility within the Urban Estate District. This Ordinance, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on April 6,2004,allows small scale reception centers in the Urban Estate District, and clarifies the definition of such centers. 10. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 057, 2004, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code to Reflect the Adoption of Updated Master Drainage Plans And to Revise the Official Repository of Plan Documents. This Ordinance,which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on April 6,2004,updates current City Code references to the master drainage plans for the various basins in the city by repealing and reenacting Code Section 26-543(a). 207 April20, 2004 11. Second ReadineofOrdinanceNo.058,2004,Designatin thg eJudgeClaudeC.CoffinHouse as a Fort Collins Landmark Pursuant to Chanter 14 of the City Code. The owner of the property,Anne T. Stewart,initiated this request for Fort Collins Landmark designation for the Judge Claude C.Coffin House. The residence is individually eligible for landmark designation under City of Fort Collins Landmark Preservation Standard(2),for its association with Judge C.C. Coffin,a nationally noted avocational archaeologist known for the discovery of the Lindenmeier Site; and Landmark Preservation Standard (3), for the home's architectural significance as a very well preserved representation of the Folk Victorian style of architecture. Ordinance No.058,2004,was unanimously adopted on First Reading on April 6, 2004. 12. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 059, 2004, Designating the Dr. C. E. Honstein House/ Diane Louise Johnson Cultural Center,and the Honstein/Johnson Carriage House,Pool,and Pump House as a Fort Collins Landmark Pursuant to Chanter 14 of the City Code. The owners of the property, Don L. and Margaret Webber, initiated this request for Fort Collins Landmark designation for the Honstein/Johnson House, Carriage House, Pool and Pump House. The buildings and structures are individually eligible for landmark designation under City of Fort Collins Landmark Preservation Standards 2 and 3, for their association with the lives of Dr. C. E. Honstein, a distinguished Fort Collins physician, and with noted educator and former Superintendent of Schools, Don Webber; and for their architectural merits as excellent examples of a vernacular colonial revival dwelling and carriage house, with very good integrity; also significant under Standards 2 and 3 are the metal swimming pool, likely the earliest residential swimming pool to be constructed in Fort Collins, and its associated pump house. This Ordinance was unanimously adopted on First Reading on April 6, 2004. 13. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 060,2004,Designating the Charles H. Sheldon House as a Fort Collins Landmark Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the City Code. The owners of the property, Jack and Maryann Blackerby, initiated this request for Fort Collins Landmark designation for the Charles H. Sheldon House. The property is individually eligible for landmark designation under City of Fort Collins Landmark Preservation Standard 2, for its association with Charles H. Sheldon,an early day banker of Fort Collins;with Arthur M.Garbutt,a prominent architect in the Fort Collins area;and with Herman W. Schroeder, one of the most important contractors and builders in Fort Collins. The Sheldon House is also significant under Standard 3, as a good representation of the American Foursquare style of architecture. The property contains a non-historic garage which does not contribute to the historic character of the property and is not a part of these designation proceedings. This Ordinance was unanimously adopted on First Reading on April 6, 2004. 208 April20, 2004 14. First Reading of Ordinance No. 064, 2004,Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue in the General Fund for the Larimer County Multi-Jurisdictional Drop Task Force. Fort Collins Police Services ("FCPS") applied for grant funds made available through the Rocky Mountain High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area project which is sponsored and funded by the Office of National Drug Control. The application was on behalf ofthe Larimer County Multi-Jurisdictional Drug Task Force("DTF")for federal grant monies to help fund the investigation of illegal narcotics activities in Larimer County. The DTF is staffed by personnel from FCPS,Loveland Police Department, Larimer County Sheriff's Department, Drug Enforcement Administration, and Colorado State University Police Department. The City recently received notification of the grant award in the amount of$64,312. A total of$39,312 will be applied to the purchase of equipment to be used in narcotics investigations by the DTF. The balance of funds, $25,000,will be allocated to the individual departments based on the number of personnel each department dedicates to the DTF and will be used to defer the overtime costs associated with narcotics investigations. As administrator of this grant,FCPS will reimburse the other participating agencies of the DTF for their share of the federal funds applied to overtime. 15. First Reading of Ordinance No. 065, 2004, Authorizing the Acceptance of a .25 Acre Property Donated by Springfield Subdivision Sixth Filing Joint Venture and Appropriating the Value of Said Donated Property as Unanticipated Revenue in the Natural Areas Fund. This Ordinance authorizes the Mayor to accept the donation by Springfield Subdivision Sixth Filing Joint Venture of Tract "A", Overland Hills 1 st Filing. The property to be conveyed is a.25 acre tract of land to be managed as a natural area by the Natural Resources Program. The City's Natural Resources staffhas reviewed the resource,natural heritage and open space values of the property and has determined that the property will provide a valuable opportunity to advance the objectives of the Natural Areas Policy Plan. The property is located along Spring Creek and is adjacent to the City's Pineridge Natural Area. The City will maintain this .25 acre tract, and due to its proximity with the Pineridge Natural Area, there will be no appreciable increase in annual maintenance costs. 16. First Reading of Ordinance No. 066, 2004, Authorizing the Lease of City-Owned Property at 222, 224 and 226 West Mountain Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado, to Moe Kamandv for up to Five Years. The City and the Countypurchased the building at 222,224 and 226 West Mountain Avenue in 1985 as part of the Block 31 purchases. In the Intergovernmental Agreement dividing Block 31, this property was quitclaimed to the City. Since the City and County's purchase of this property,these spaces have been leased to commercial customers. The occupants of 209 Apri120, 2004 222 and 224 have terminated their leases. The current tenant of226 West Mountain Avenue, Moe Kamandy of the Mountain Cafe,has expressed a desire to expand his dining room into the space at 224 West Mountain Avenue and to use the space at 222 West Mountain Avenue for storage space. The new total square footage for the restaurant area will be 1,055 and the storage area has 315 square feet. These spaces are not presently conducive for use by other City users. Staff recommends leasing these spaces to Moe Kamandy of the Mountain Cafe until this area of Block 31 is needed for future improvements. 17. First Reading of Ordinance No. 067, 2004, Expanding the Boundaries of the Fort Collins, Colorado Downtown Development Authority and Amending the Plan of Development of the Authority. Adoption of the Ordinance will expand the boundaries of the Downtown Development Authority(DDA)District. These boundaries are contained in the Ordinance establishing the District, as previously amended and in the Plan of Development for the DDA. The purpose of the amendment is to include the In-Situ property located on Lincoln Avenue. 18. Resolution 2004-051 Repealing Resolutions 2003-145 and 2004-013 Finding Substantial Compliance and Initiating Annexation Proceedings for the Trailhead Annexation. The Trailhead Annexation is an annexation,zoning and structure plan amendment for 91.25 acres of land located north of East Vine Drive, west of the Waterglen Subdivision. The parcel is contiguous to existing City boundaries by the Buderus Second Addition and the Vine Business Park Annexation. The requested zoning is Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (LMN). The proposed Resolution states it is the City's intent to annex this property and directs that notice be given of the Council public hearing date to consider the annexation ordinance.The public hearing for the annexation ordinance must occur no less than 30 days and no greater than 60 days from adoption of the resolution finding compliance with State Statutes. This Resolution will schedule the public hearing and first reading of the annexation ordinance on June 1, 2004. This Resolution was previously adopted by Council at its February 3, 2004 meeting. However,the applicant requested delay of the annexation,which has delayed the previously scheduled first reading date. Thus, the Resolution must be re-enacted with a new hearing date. A new Annexation Petition has been filed with the City. 210 Apri120, 2004 19. Resolution 2004-052 Approving Expenditures from the Art in Public Places Reserve Account in the Cultural Services and Facilities Fund to Commission an Artist Team to Create Sculptural Elements for the West Elizabeth Street Project. This Resolution will approve expenditures of$16,733 for design, fabrication, installation and contingency for this project. Design Tria will create art elements including banners, bollards, and lamp post skirts. 20. Resolution 2004-053 Approving Expenditures from the Art in Public Places Reserve Accounts in the Light and Power, Water, Wastewater and Storm Drainage Utility Funds to Commission an Artist to Create a Sculptural Entryway Piece for the Utility Service Center. This Resolution will approve expenditure of$80,000 for design, fabrication, installation and contingency for a project to install a sculptural art piece by James Haire at the entrance to the Utility Service Center. 21. Resolution 2004-055 Making an Amendment to the Boards and Commissions Manual Relating to Residency Requirements. On June 4,2002,Council adopted Resolution 2002-062 making amendments to the Boards and Commissions Manual relating to the recruitment and appointment process for boards and commissions. With regard to membership limitations,the residency requirements of the manual were changed to state that applicants must be registered voters(except those under 18 years of age) and must have resided within the Fort Collins Growth Management Area for at least one year prior to their appointment. In order to avoid a negative impact on currently seated members, these changes were applied only to individuals appointed,or reappointed, after August 1,2002. It was recently brought to staffs attention that the language in Resolution 2002-062 was also inadvertently applied to Council's long-standing requirement that board and commission members must reside within the Fort Collins Growth Management Area during their term of service. The revisions made by Resolution 2004-055 will clarify that the only requirements that were intended to apply to individuals appointed, or reappointed, after August 1, 2002, are the requirements that all appointees must be registered voters (except those under 18 years of age) and must have resided within the Fort Collins Growth Management Area for at least one year prior to their appointment. ***END CONSENT*** 211 April20, 2004 Ordinances on Second Reading were read by title by City Clerk Krajicek. 7. Second Reading of Ordinance No.054,2004,Appropriating_Prior Year Reserves in the General Fund for Police Seizure Activity. 8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 055, 2004, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in Capital Proiects Fund - Natural Areas Capital Project for Transfer to the Natural Areas Fund and Authorizing the Transfer of Appropriated Amounts to be Used for Natural Areas Acquisition, Construction, Enhancement and Maintenance. 9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 056, 2004, Amending the Land Use Code to Allow Small Scale Reception Centers in the Urban Estate Zone District. Clarifying the Definition of Such Centers and Adopting Performance Standards as Supplemental Regulations Relating Thereto. 10. Second Reading of Ordinance No.057,2004,Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code to Reflect the Adoption of Updated Master Drainage Plans And to Revise the Official Repository of Plan Documents. 11. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 058,2004,Designating the Judge Claude C. Coffin House as a Fort Collins Landmark Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the City Code. 12. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 059,2004,Designating the Dr.C. E.Honstein House/Diane Louise Johnson Cultural Center, and the Honstein/Johnson Carriage House, Pool, and Pump House as a Fort Collins Landmark Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the City Code. 13. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 060, 2004, Designating the Charles H. Sheldon House as a Fort Collins Landmark Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the City Code. 25. Items Relating to the Prospect East 4th Annexation and Zoning. A. Second Reading of Ordinance No.061,2004,Annexing Property Known as the Prospect East 4th Annexation. B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 062,2004,Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the Prospect East 4th Annexation. 26. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 063,2004,Amending the Land Use Code to Address Issues Pertaining to Carriage Houses and Accessory Buildings Within the NCL,NCM and NCB Zone Districts. 212 April20, 2004 27. Items Relating to Solid Waste Collection and Recycling Service. A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 025,2004,Amending Chapter 15,Article XV of the City Code Relating to Solid Waste Collection and Recycling Services. B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 053, 2004, Amending Chapter 12, Article II of the City Code Relating to Collection of Garbage and Refuse. Ordinances on First Reading were read by title by City Clerk Krajicek. 14. First Reading of Ordinance No. 064, 2004,Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue in the General Fund for the Larimer County Multi-Jurisdictional Drug Task Force. 15. First Reading of Ordinance No. 065 2004 Authorizing the Acceptance of a 25 Acre Property Donated by Springfield Subdivision Sixth Filing Joint Venture and Appropriating the Value of Said Donated Property as Unanticipated Revenue in the Natural Areas Fund. 16. First Reading of Ordinance No.066,2004 Authorizing the Lease of City-Owned Propertyat 222 224 and 226 West Mountain Avenue, Fort Collins Colorado to Moe Kamandyfor up to Five Years. 17. First Reading of Ordinance No. 067, 2004, Expanding the Boundaries of the Fort Collins Colorado Downtown Development Authority and Amending the Plan of Development of the Authority. 28. Items Relatingto the 2003 InternationalResidential Code,2003 InternationalMechanical Code, and the 2003 International Fuel Gas Code. A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 068,2004,Amending Chapter 5,Article 2,Division 2, of the City Code for the Purpose of Making Certain Amendments to the Uniform Building Code. B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 069, 2004,Amending Chapter 5,Article 2, Division 2, of the City Code for the Purpose of Adopting the 2003 International Residential Code (IRQ(&, with Amendments. C. First Reading of Ordinance No. 070,2004,Amending Chapter 5, Article 4, of the City Code for the Purpose ofRepealing the 1991 Uniform Mechanical Code and Adopting the 2003 International Mechanical Code, with Amendments and Adopting the 2003 International Fuel Gas Code, with Amendments. 213 April 20, 2004 29. First Reading of Ordinance No. 076, 2004,Authorizing the Conveyance of Certain Interests in Soapstone Grazing Association Real Property to Be Acquired by the City. 30. Items Relating to the Enforcement of the Nuisance Provisions of the City Code. A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 071,2004,Amending Sections 20-21 and 20-22 of the City Code Pertaining to Unreasonable Noise. B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 072,2004,Amending Article VIII of Chapter 20 of the City Code Pertaining to the Abatement of Public Nuisances. C. First Reading of Ordinance No. 073, 2004, Amending Section 4-94 of the City Code Pertaining to the Disturbance of Peace and Quiet. D. First Reading of Ordinance No. 074, 2004, Amending Article III of Chapter 20 of the City Code Pertaining to Weeds, Brush Piles and Rubbish. E. First Reading of Ordinance No. 075, 2004, Amending Article III of Chapter 20 of the City Code Pertaining to the Outdoor Storage of Materials. Councilmember Bertschy made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Roy, to adopt and approve all items not withdrawn from the Consent Calendar. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Bertschy, Hamrick, Kastein, Martinez, Roy, Tharp and Weitkunat. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED Consent Calendar Follow-up Councilmember Tharp spoke regarding item#18 Resolution 2004-051 Repealing Resolutions 2003-145 and 2004-013 Finding Substantial Compliance and InitiatingAnnexation Proceedings for the Trailhead Annexation. She asked that Council be particularly aware of the requested low density mixed use neighborhood zoning, noting that the property was currently set aside in the Structure Plan as Employment zoning. She spoke regarding the need to keep Employment parcels available. Mayor Martinez asked for updated information regarding the number of Employment parcels available in the City. Staff Reports City Manager Fischbach reported on the grand opening for the Gardens at Spring Creek scheduled for Saturday, May 8, 2004. 214 Apri120, 2004 Councilmember Reports Councilmember Tharp reported on the 1-25 corridor policy committee discussions relating to the environmental impact statement being prepared by the Department of Transportation for the north Front Range corridor. She stated Council should discuss the Growth Management Area in the area of Highway 392 because of the interest of other municipalities in that same area. She also reported on discussions of the Legislative Review Committee relating to proposed State legislation. Councilmember Bertschy reported on the CSU/City liaison committee discussions relating to CSU's technology transfer program and an open house for the new theater at old Fort Collins High School. Councilmember Hamrick asked if the policy committee discussions regarding the I-25 setbacks were in line with the I-25 corridor plan. Councilmember Tharp stated the two did not match and noted that the participating municipalities had only a memorandum of understanding regarding consideration of the I-25 corridor plan. Councilmember Hamrick stated this could possibly be an agenda item in an upcoming meeting with the City of Loveland and Larimer County. Councilmember Kastein reported on discussions of the alternative funding subcommittee of the MPO regarding CDOT's zero allocations for 2006 and the bleak outlook for funding for the next 15 years. Mayor Martinez reported that the Association of Records Managers and Administrators held a seminar on April 16 in Fort Collins,that the Lions Club had a convention, and that there was a Bravo Company military welcome home at City Park. He reported that he attended the Denver Hispanic Association awards ceremony at which students from Fort Collins High School were recognized. Councilmember Tharp stated she also attended the Bravo Company welcome home ceremony. Executive Session Authorized Councilmember Bertschymade a motion,seconded by Councilmember Tharp,to adjourn into Executive Session pursuant to City Code Sections 2-31(a)(])(2) and (3)for the following purposes: to discuss the possible acquisition ofreal property,to discuss personnel matters and to confer with special legal counsel John Frey regarding legal matters. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Bertschy, Hamrick, Kastein, Martinez, Roy, Tharp and Weitkunat. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED 215 April20, 2004 ("Secretary's Note: The Council adjourned into Executive Session at 6:45 p.m. and reconvened following the Executive Session at 9:05 p.m.) Mayor Martinez spoke regarding the Executive Session and stated a portion of the Executive Session was to retain John Frey as special legal counsel to conduct an inquiry about a complaint made by the Fraternal Order of Police. Item Relating to the Prospect East 4th Annexation and Zoning,Postponed The following is staffs memorandum on this item. "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A. Resolution2004-046SettingForthFindingsofFactandDeterminationsRegardingtheProspect East 4th Annexation. B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 061, 2004,Annexing Property Known as the Prospect East 4th Annexation. C. First Reading of OrdinanceNo. 062,2004,AmendingtheZoningMapoftheCityofFortCollins and Classifyingfor Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the Prospect East 4th Annexation. This is a request to annex and zone 21.18 acres located on the south side of East Prospect Road, east of Sharp Point Drive, and west ofthe Cache La Poudre River.It is currently being used as a farm&calving operation and is in the FA —Farming Zoning District in Lorimer County. The requested zoning in the City of Fort Collins is RC—River Conservation. Staff is recommending that this property be included in the Residential Neighborhood Sign District. A map amendment will not be necessary to place this property on the Residential Neighborhood Sign District Map. APPLICANT. City of Fort Collins OWNER: Lucille Anderson Land 714 East Elizabeth Street Fort Collins, CO 80524 216 April 20, 2004 BACKGROUND This in an involuntary annexation, initiated by the City ofFort Collins. The area to be annexed is the entirety of an enclave that has been surrounded by the City ofFort Collins for more than three years; therefore, no annexation petition is required for this annexation. In accordance with CRS 31-12-106Annexation ofEnclaves,Partially Surrounded Land,and Municipally Owned Land, when any unincorporated area is entirely contained within the boundaries of a municipality, the governing body may by ordinance annex such territory to the municipality without complying with: • CRS 31-12-104 Eligibility for Annexation; or • CRS 31-12-105 Limitations; or • CRS 31-12-108 Setting Hearing Date; or • CRS 31-12-109 Hearing, if said area has been so surrounded for a period of not less than three years; except that notice of the proposed annexation ordinance shall be given by publication as provided by Section 31-12-108; however,for notices o/annexation petitions and resolutions initiating annexation proceedings,no public hearing on the proposed annexation ordinance shall be required, and thefirst publication ofnotice shall be at least thirty days prior to the adoption of the ordinance. The property is located within the Fort Collins Growth ManagementArea(GAM).According to policies and agreements between the City ofFort Collins and Larimer County contained in the Intergovernmental Agreements, the City will agree to consider annexation of property in the GAM when the property is eligible for annexation according to State Law. Pursuant to the Intergovernmental Agreements the following sections are relevant to the Prospect East 4th Annexation and Zoning: Section 8-Annexations Section 8.A. It is the City's intent to annex properties within the GMA as expeditiously as possible. Section 8.D. The City agrees to pursue involuntary annexation of any parcel that becomes eligible for involuntary annexation. This property complies with State regulations by meeting the requirement for 116 contiguity to existing city limits. This property is an enclave(completely surrounded by the City ofFort Collins since 1999) and gains the required 116 contiguity to existing city limits from common boundaries with the Prospect Land Company Annexation (September, 1992) to the north, the Cottonwood Hollow Annexation 217 April20, 2004 (January, 1999) to the east, and the East Prospect First Annexation (September, 1973)to the west and south. The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: N.• E, RC in City of Fort Collins; existing employment/office uses E. POL in City of Fort Collins; Cache La Poudre River S: POL in City of Fort Collins; existing employment/industrial uses W.- E, POL in City of Fort Collins; existing employmentlindustrial uses The recommended zoningfor this annexation is the RC-River Conservation Zoning District. There are numerous uses permitted in this District, subject to either administrative review or review by the Planning and Zoning Board. The City's adopted Structure Plan, a part of the Comprehensive Plan, suggests that a Poudre River Corridor designation is appropriate in this location. Staff is recommending that this property be included in the Residential Neighborhood Sign District, which was established for the purpose of regulating signs for non-residential uses in certain geographical areas of the City which may be particularly affected by such signs because of their predominantly residential use and character. A map amendment will not be necessary to place this property on the Residential Neighborhood Sign District Map. Findings: 1. The annexation of this area is consistent with the policies and agreements between Larimer County and the City of Fort Collins contained in the Intergovernmental Agreements. 2. The area meets the eligibility requirements included in State law to qualify for an involuntary annexation to the City of Fort Collins. 3. On March 2, 2004, the City Council considered a resolution determining that the proposed annexation process for this property by establishing the date, time, and place when a public hearing will be held regarding the readings of the Ordinances annexing and zoning the area. Public hearing and first reading of the Ordinances annexing and zoning the property will be considered by the City Council on April 6, 2004. 4. The RC - River Conservation Zoning District is appropriate for this site based on adjacent zoning and existing land uses and is in conformance with the policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan. 218 April20, 2004 STAFF RECOMMENDATION. Staff recommends approval of the annexation and requested zoning. Staff is recommending that this property be included in the Residential Neighborhood Sign District. A map amendment will not be necessary to place this property on the Residential Neighborhood Sign District Map. PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD RECOMMENDATION: The Planning and Zoning Board, at its regular monthly meeting of March 18, 2004, voted 6-0 to recommend approval of the annexation and requested zoning as part of the Board's Consent Agenda. The Planning and Zoning Board voted 6-0(as part of the Board's Consent Agenda)to recommend that this property be included in the Residential Neighborhood Sign District." City Manager Fischbach introduced the agenda item. Steve Olt, City Planner,presented background information regarding the agenda item. He stated the Prospect East 4th Annexation was 21 acres on the south side of Prospect Road between the Cache la Poudre River and Sharp Point Drive. He stated Council voted unanimously on April 6 to approve the annexation of the property and the recommended zoning of R-C River Conservation. Dixie Anderson Gibbons,property owner,stated she had been assured by the Planning and Zoning office that there was nothing on the April 6 Council agenda relating to this annexation. She stated she was not notified about this hearing. She stated this annexation was"railroaded through"and that the zoning for the property should be left FA-Farming. She stated she felt the City was"taking over"with RC-River Conservation zoning. Mayor Martinez asked if there was a notice requirement for such hearings. Olt stated letters were mailed to the affected property owners at least 14 days prior to the Planning and Zoning Board hearing. City Attorney Roy stated the only required notice for annexations was publication. Councilmember Bertschy asked if property was currentlyunder agricultural use whether that use would be "grandfathered in" upon annexation to the City. Olt stated was the case and that agricultural and farming uses were permitted in the RC - River Conservation Zoning District. Councilmember Bertschy asked if the current use was therefore a permitted use in the RC zone. Olt replied in the affirmative. 219 April20, 2004 Councilmember Bertschy asked how long that use would be permitted. Olt stated was a permitted use under the Land Use Code even if it was not the current use. Councilmember Bertschy asked if anew owner could continue the use. Olt replied in the affirmative and stated the use would be able to continue indefinitely on that property. Councihnember Bertschy asked if there would be any other prohibitions on the property with the requested zoning. Olt stated he would need to check the Code requirements. City Attorney Roy stated the publication requirements for the zoning ordinance were met. City Clerk Krajicek stated the notice was published for the Prospect East 4th annexation and zoning four consecutive weeks prior to First Reading on April 6. She stated individual notices were required when such a matter was scheduled for the Planning and Zoning Board hearing. Councilmember Kastein asked if the owner was required to receive a letter prior to the Planning and Zoning Board hearing. Olt stated a notification was sent as required to the Lucille Anderson Land as property owners for the Planning and Zoning Board public hearing. Councilmember Kastein stated it appeared that there was some confusion about the notification process and the permitted uses in the new zoning. He asked if this matter could be postponed to afford the property owner an opportunity to learn about the permitted uses. Olt stated the matter could be postponed. Councilmember Kastein made a motion,seconded by Councilmember Tharp,to postpone consideration of the items relating to the Prospect East 41°Annexation and Zoning until May 4,2004. The vote on the motion was as follows:Yeas: Councilmembers Bertschy, Hamrick,Kastein, Martinez,Roy,Tharp and Weitkunat. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED Mayor Martinez asked that staff contact the land owner about this matter. Ordinance No. 063,2004 Amending the Land Use Code to Address Issues Pertaining to Carriage Houses and Accessory Buildings Within the NCL.NCM and NCB Zone Districts.Adopted on Second Reading The following is staffs memorandum on this item. 220 April20, 2004 "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Ordinance No. 063, 2004, was unanimously adopted on First Reading on April 6, 2004, making various amendments to the Land Use Code related to the design and construction ofdwelling units and accessory buildings located along alleys within the Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods. The Land Use Code changes are a response to issues raised in a moratorium approved by City Council in January 2004. This Ordinance reflects Council's direction to prohibit the subdivision of an individual lot to create a new separate lotfor a carriage house. This change is found in the definition. Water and sewer services can still be extended from a principal dwelling to a carriage house, but, based on this change, all references to extending water and sewer services to a newly-created separate lot have been deleted in all three zones. Also, the standards related to eave height have been added to the N-C-L zone consistent with the N-C-L and N-C-B zones. Omitting these standards at First Reading was inadvertent." City Manager Fischbach introduced the agenda item and stated staff was available to answer any questions. James Swanson, 240 Wood Street, stated there should not be an all encompassing blanket provision against subdivision. He suggested that there were no subdivision issues with comer lots. He stated allowing subdivision of lots could help some people become homeowners instead of renters. He stated Boulder and Windsor allowed subdividing. He stated property values would go up if subdividing was not allowed. Eric Odell, 617 West Myrtle Street, stated the creation of the carriage house development standards represented hours of work by Council,City staff,boards,citizens and business people to reach a"healthy compromise." He urged Council to vote unanimously in favor of the Ordinance. Chris Campbell, Fort Collins Board of Realtors, spoke regarding the position of the Board regarding subdivision. He stated the Board supported the further ability of owners to subdivide lots to accommodate front and alley units on separate lots in the N-C-L, N-C-M and N-C-B zoning districts. He stated subdivision created more of an opportunity for ownership of affordable and obtainable housing within the Old Town area. He stated owners would have no obligation to subdivide. He stated neighbors and neighborhoods could be assured of permanent rentals in place of long term homeowners if property owners were denied the ability to subdivide. Meegan Flenniken,617 West Myrtle Street,asked that Council unanimously support the Ordinance. She stated health, safety and historical characteristics of Old Town neighborhoods would be preserved through adoption of these standards. 221 April20, 2004 Gina Janett, 730 West Oak Street, stated this had been a problem for many years. She thanked the Council for working on this issue to protect the neighborhoods. She stated Old Town was a "unique commodity'and had historic qualities that were not seen anywhere else. She stated the subdivision of large lots would encourage multiple ownership and potentially increase the number of absentee landlords. She encouraged the Council to approve the Ordinance as adopted on First Reading. Councilmember Kastein stated some citizens had raised the issue of prohibition of multifamily units in alley homes. He asked if such units were allowed now and what the rule would be under the new Ordinance. Cameron Gloss,Director of Current Planning,stated prior to the moratorium there could be requests to the Planning and Zoning Board for additional building size and multiple units (duplexes, triplexes,etc.). He stated there were examples of such units built i.e.611 Peterson Street. He stated the impact of multiple units on alleys (parking, privacy, noise and architectural compatibility) and the intensity of use prompted much of this discussion. He stated during the process it was determined that it was inappropriate to have multiple units along alleys and that it would be more appropriate to have structures that would evoke the historic carriage house. Mayor Martinez asked for the current views of the Poudre Fire Authority and Police Services regarding the subdivision of lots. He noted that a memo had been received from the PFA indicating that the PFA was opposed to subdivision of lots due to issues relating to fences, access, street addresses, and the difficulty of fighting fires from alleys. Ron Gonzales,Poudre Fire Authority,stated the memo represented the views of the PFA. Mayor Martinez asked about Mr. Gloss' statement at the last meeting that the PFA's position had changed slightly. Gloss stated he had indicated that the public safety providers were opposed to subdivision and had elaborated on their concerns. Mayor Martinez stated he thought that Mr. Gloss had a discussion with the PFA that indicated that subdivision would be workable. Gloss stated he had received additional comments from the PFA relating to vehicular access for fire trucks to and from alleys. He stated was a major PFA concern at the Planning and Zoning Board hearing and that subsequent discussions and the memo received by Council indicated that alley access was less important to fighting fires. He stated issue would be addressed through other means,such as fire sprinkler systems and water supply from the front. Gonzales stated PFA opposed subdivision at the time of the Planning and Zoning Board hearing because of alley access issues. He stated it was the position of the PFA that the alley was not designed for emergency services due to lack of water supply,lack of space,obstructions,etc. He stated the Planning and Zoning Board voted in favor of an amendment to the subdivision concept to address safety issues. He stated the position of PFA was set out in the memo that Council had received with regard to resolving safety issues (sprinkler systems, addressing of back units with the letter `B"). He stated subdivision of lots would result in obstruction of access from fences. 222 April20, 2004 Mayor Martinez asked if some of the actions that could be taken to resolve some of the safety issues meant that subdivision was a good idea. Gonzales stated the PFA opposed subdivision of lots due to problems with fences,poor access through alleys, and lack of water supply along alleys. Mayor Martinez asked if such problems could lengthen the emergency response time. Gonzales replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Kastem asked if fences should be disallowed if those were an issue. He stated those would still be an issue even if subdivision was not allowed. Gloss stated there would be a potential for fencing if a carriage house was built on the back of a lot. He stated fences would be less likely if there was not separate ownership. Mayor Martinez asked about the differences between having carriage houses and subdividing. Gonzales stated the difference was the opportunity to create a fence. Mayor Martinez asked if prohibiting fencing would resolve the issue. Gonzales stated there were many reasons for fencing i.e. gardens, dogs, etc. Mayor Martinez asked for the police viewpoint. Joe Gerdom, Police Services Planning and Research, stated subdivision could contribute to the creation of barriers. He stated another issue was parking in alleys and intensification of problems with getting access. He stated Police Services opposed the subdivision provision for carriage houses. Mayor Martinez asked what impact subdivision would have on crime. Gerdom stated subdivision increased the likelihood of more calls for service relating to alley parking. Mayor Martinez asked about the impact on crimes per capita if the population base increased. Gerdom stated when population density increased that there would be a related increase in the number of crimes. He stated the main issue with regard to subdivision for the police department was the creation ofbarriers that would decrease the response time,contribute to officer safety issues,and create parking complaints and calls for services. He stated there were also issues with lighting and the impact of alley configuration on access for emergency services. He stated Police Services therefore took the position that subdivision would not be an appropriate part of the carnage house proposal. Mayor Martinez asked how much the population could increase in the area if subdivision was allowed. Gloss stated about 620 units could be created and that the population could increase by about 1,200 people if there were two people per unit. Mayor Martinez asked what kinds of crimes could occur in that part of town. Gerdom stated most common calls in that area were for noise, parking, first degree criminal trespass (car break ins), and suspicious circumstances. 223 April20, 2004 Mayor Martinez asked how many victims there were per 100 people. Gerdom stated that information would have to be compiled. Councilmember Roy made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Hamrick, to adopt Ordinance No. 063, 2004 on Second Reading. Councilmember Weitkunat stated she would support the motion. She supported revisiting the Ordinance periodically to see if it was working properly. She stated there should be follow-through relating to the attainability of housing and the deterioration of the downtown for other reasons. She stated it might be necessary to change the Ordinance over time as conditions in the City changed. Councilmember Bertschy thanked staff and the citizens from the Eastside and Westside neighborhoods for their work on this issue. He stated he believed that the improvements made to the Ordinance since First Reading were good. Councilmember Tharp stated she would support the motion. She stated she liked the idea of ownership compared to rentals but that she was convinced by the arguments made by the historic neighborhood point of view and the health and safety perspective. Councilmember Kastein stated he would support the motion and thanked those who worked on the issue. He stated he did disagree on the subdivision part of the decision because he felt that the issues that had been raised applied both to alley homes that were rented and to lots that were owned. He stated the only difference might be the parking issue for lots that were separately owned. Mayor Martinez stated he would support the motion. He stated his primary concern was emergency services. He stated he would be interested in seeing more data from Police Services. He stated he believed that the PFA statement against subdivision was compelling. The vote on the motion was as follows:Yeas: Councilmembers Bertschy,Hamrick,Kastein,Martinez, Roy, Tharp and Weitkunat. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED Items Postponed City Manager Fischbach spoke regarding the estimated time for the remaining agenda items. Councilmember Tharp stated it would be helpful to let the audience know if some items were going to be postponed. 224 April20, 2004 Councilmember Weitkunat stated there were questions regarding item #28 and that it would be appropriate to postpone that item. Councilmember Weitkunat made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Tharp, to postpone consideration of item#281tems Relating to the 2003International Residential Code, 2003International Mechanical Code, and the 2003 International Fuel Gas Code to July 6, 2004 and to postpone consideration of item#30]term Relating to the Enforcement ofthe Nuisance Provisions ofthe City Code to May 4, 2004. Councilmember Kastein noted for the public that the reason for postponement of those items was that item #29 First Reading of Ordinance No. 076, 2004, Authorizing the Conveyance of Certain Interests in Soapstone Grazing Association Real Property to Be Acquired by the City was an important land acquisition item that was time sensitive. The vote on the motion to postpone was as follows:Yeas:Councilmembers Bertschy,Hamrick,Kastein, Martinez, Roy, Tharp and Weitkunat. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED Items Relating to Solid Waste Collection and Recycling Service.Adopted as Amended. The following is staffs memorandum on this item. "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A. SecondReadingofOrdinanceNo. 025, 2004,Amending Chapter 15,ArticleXVofthe City Code Relating to Solid Waste Collection and Recycling Services. B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 053, 2004,Amending Chapter 12,Article 11 ofthe City Code Relating to Collection of Garbage and Refuse. Since it was adopted in 1996, the pay-as you-throw(PAY7)Code provisions governing the provision of solid waste collection services have been implemented by trash haulers as a condition of their City license, with one amendment made in March 2000 to establish an audit system for the City's use. Clarification ofthe Code language is proposed to specifically state that all singlefamily and two-family residences in Fort Collins are subject to unit-based(PAY7)trash rates, including those participating in group accounts for trash service. By including group accounts in the PAYT Ordinance, staff estimates 10,000 more residences (approximately 19%of residences in Fort Collins)will participate in the unit- 225 April20, 2004 based trash system,preventing up to 15,000 cubicyards ofmunicipal solid wastefrom beingsent to local landfills for disposal. Staff also expects to see a 4-6% increase in recycling in these residences. Code language is also being added to Chapter 12, requiring that persons arranging group accounts for trash service do so in a manner consistent with the PAYT requirements. These Ordinances were unanimously adopted on First Reading on April 6, 2004. Two changes have been made since first reading of these ordinances. First, Ordinance No. 53, 2004, which imposes a duty upon persons soliciting solid waste collection services for group accounts, has been revised to require such persons to: (a)notify all of their residential customers of the availability of volume capacity categories and volume based rates within 30 days after receivingsuch information from a solid waste collector, and(b)notify new customers in the group account within ten days after theyjoin the account. Secondly, Ordinance No. 25, 2004, has been revised to reflect changes in the subsection numbers of Ordinance No. 53, 2004, and to delete reference to notices being given annually to members of group accounts, since, by reason of the changes to Ordinance No. 53, 2004, those notices would now have to be given more frequently. " City Manager Fischbach introduced the agenda item. Susie Gordon, Senior Environmental Planner, Natural Resources Department, presented background information regarding the agenda item. She stated questions were raised on First Reading regarding the deadline for trash haulers to bring their long term contracts into compliance. She stated for the three trash haulers that provided the most specialized service to group accounts the contracts were well distributed over the next three years. She stated roughly 20% of contracts were long term. Nate Donovan, 2400 Hampshire Square, spoke in support of the proposed Ordinance and the changes proposed for Second Reading. He asked that the "grandfather date" set out in the footnote 1 of Ordinance No.025,2004 be changed to January 1,2005. He stated the length of the long term contracts was irrelevant because this process had been ongoing since 2000. Ray Meyer, Ram Waste Systems employee, stated trash haulers were in a competitive market and that the haulers were supportive of the PAYT Ordinance. He spoke regarding the work done by the staff and the haulers to arrive at this workable solution. He asked that the Council support the Ordinance as written. Kelly Ohlson, 2040 Bennington Circle, thanked Council for its support of the PAYT Ordinance. He asked that the Ordinance be implemented quickly because of the length oftime it took to get to this point. He requested that the deadline for compliance be set at January 1, 2005. He stated one remaining problem was that if a 4-5 year contract was negotiated that new residents would not receive a yearly notice regarding the availability of PAYT services. He also suggested that Homeowners' Associations 226 Apri120, 2004 be required to keep records of the notices sent and to provide those records if requested. He expressed appreciation for the trash hauling industry. David May,Fort Collins Area Chamber of Commerce,stated the haulers and the staffhad worked toward a reasonable solution to the problems with the PAYT program. He recommended that Council adopt the Ordinance. Randy Fisher,3007 Moore Lane, spoke in support of the Ordinance. He asked that the effective date of the Ordinance be changed to January 1, 2005. He stated it was adopted Council policy to achieve 35% diversion of solid waste through recycling efforts by the year 2004. He stated one of the keys to that effort was an effective PAYT Ordinance. He stated the current diversion rate was in the low 20%range. He asked for more immediate action in order to meet the goals. Mark Glorioso, general manager of Gallegos Sanitation, stated a cutoff date of January 1, 2005 would be unreasonable for long term contracts. He stated he had over 9,200 customers that could solicit services from his competitors if he approached them to break a contract. He stated there were capital expenses in the equipment provided to those customers and that the purpose of the long term contracts was to recoup some of that cost. He stated a deadline of January 1,2007 was reasonable. He noted that his company was already developing literature to encourage customers to make informed decisions regarding PAYT. Matt Gallegos, Gallegos Sanitation, stated PAYT was a successful program that had been supported by the haulers. He stated many of the long term customers were within the limits on trash. Councilmember Bertschy made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Tharp, to suspend the rules relating to ending the meeting at 10:30 p.m.to ensure that the Soapstone agenda item would be heard at this meeting. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Bertschy, Hamrick, Kastein, Martinez, Roy, Tharp and Weitkunat. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED Councilmember Tharp stated it was not known how many households were involved in the 20% of customers that had long term contracts. She asked if a January 1,2006 deadline would be a reasonable compromise. She asked what kind of hardship that would impose on the haulers. Gordon stated the haulers were in a better position to answer that question. Mayor Martinez stated the haulers had already spoken about their need to try to honor contracts. Councilmember Tharp stated she understood the haulers to say that a deadline of 2005 was a hardship and that she wanted to know if 2006 would be workable. Mr.Glorioso stated they would still have about 227 April20, 2004 1,400 customers that would have contracts continuing from 2006 to 2007. He stated 81% of the company's contracts would expire by January 1, 2006. Councilmember Weitkunat asked that Council look at the "big picture" regarding what had been accomplished. She stated the "big picture" was a win-win situation for the entire community with a cooperative venture from all parties. She asked if the long term contracts could be"grandfathered in"for a period of time. Councilmember Bertschy stated questions had been raised regarding the notification to existing customers about available options and their ability to change options. He cited the provisions relating to notifications of customers and stated he would like to ensure that customers had the option to switch services and that they were informed that options were available to them. He asked if the language of the Ordinance accomplished those two things. City Attorney Roy stated a notice requirement would exist for all haulers each year and that the notice would contain information about the available choices. He stated the concern that had been expressed was that the requirement might not be effective if there was a grace period until 2007 for contracts to come into compliance. He stated the concern appeared to be that people with existing contracts would not have the same motivation or opportunity to change service as would individuals with new contracts. Councilmember Hamrick asked if the language of the Ordinance would require annual notice to accounts. City Attorney Roy replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Hamrick asked if the responsibility of the haulers would be to notify the group account. City Attorney Roy replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Hamrick asked where Ordinance No.053,2004 gave the Homeowners'Association the responsibility to give notice to individual members on an annual basis. City Attorney Roy stated was not an annual obligation and that the group account representatives under Section 12-19(b)would be required to give notice within 30 days after the group account representatives received their notice from the haulers. He stated new members must be given individual notices within 10 days after becoming a member. Councilmember Hamrick asked if the language was clear enough for the Homeowners'Associations to understand. City Attorney Roy stated he believed that the language was clear. Councilmember Hamrick asked how enforcement would take place with regard to the Homeowners' Associations responsibilities. City Attorney Roy stated the language of the Ordinance could be strengthened to require the Homeowners' Association to retain the notices or the form of the notice. Councilmember Hamrick stated he would like to see that language included in the Ordinance. City Attorney Roy suggested that the following language be included in Section 12-19 of OrdinanceNo.053, 228 April20, 2004 2004 at the end of the provision regarding required notices: "A copy of the form of each such notice, a list of the recipients of the notice, a record of the date and manner of distribution shall be retained by the person providing the notice for a period of five years from the date each notice was provided, and shall be made available to the City for inspection upon request during said period of time." Councilmember Hamrick stated he thought that language was reasonable. Councilmember Hamrick asked if the contracts that had been written by the haulers in the last several years would reflect the PAYT philosophy. He asked why the haulers would have to go back to break and rewrite contracts if PAYT language had been included in the contracts. City Attorney Roy stated there was some difference ofopinion regarding what the Ordinance originally required and that some contracts may have been drafted with that different understanding of the PAYT philosophy as applied to group account customers. Councilmember Hamrick stated the haulers indicated that they were supportive of PAYT concepts but that the contracts may not have been written that way. Councilmember Tharp asked where the 2007 deadline was specified in the Ordinance. City Attorney Roy stated it appeared in the footnote. Councilmember Roy made a motion to adopt Ordinance No.025,2004 on Second Reading as amended to change the date January 1, 2007 to January 1, 2005. Councilmember Bertschy offered a friendly amendment that the motion be to adopt the Ordinance, followed by a motion to amend the date. Councilmember Roy accepted that as a friendly amendment. Councilmember Bertschy seconded the motion with regard to adoption of the Ordinance. Councilmember Hamrick made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Roy, to change the date to January 1, 2005. Councilmember W eitkunat spoke in opposition to the motion to change the date to January 1,2005. She stated the Ordinance as written was a workable solution and that the 2007 timeframe for implementation was not unreasonable. She spoke regarding the timeframe for changing the sign code. She stated it was important to honor the contracts and the good working relationship between staff and the trash haulers. She stated she could not support the amendment. 229 Apri120, 2004 Mayor Martinez stated an agreement had been worked out between the haulers and staff. He stated he did not support "changing the rules midstream." He stated the date would affect the haulers and their customers. Councilmember Roy stated 19% of Fort Collins residences did not participate in PAYT. He spoke regarding the impact on the landfill and stated the City's policy goals included diversion of more solid waste from the landfill. He stated for eight years the PAYT Ordinance had not been totally enforced. He stated this was not a"surprise attack"and that it was not unreasonable to expect enforcement by January 1, 2005. He stated enforcement"should have been going on for the last eight years." Mayor Martinez spoke regarding the progress that had been made with PAYT. CouncilmemberKastein stated encouraged the Council to honor the agreement made between the haulers and staff regarding the 2007 deadline. He stated the Ordinance was approved on First Reading with that date. He stated it was important not to"alienate an entire industry"in the City by changing to a different date than the one approved on First Reading. He stated the number of accounts that would extend past 2006 were minimal. He stated he believed that the 2007 was fair and reasonable. Councilmember Weitkunat stated there were misunderstandings regarding the original Ordinance. She stated the trash haulers in good faith had homeowners' associations as commercial accounts to which PAYT did not apply. She stated there was a change in definitions and that she did not believe that the haulers should be penalized for differences in interpretation regarding the original Ordinance. Councilmember Tharp stated the Council adopted the Ordinance unanimously on First Reading but that she had asked at that time how many accounts would be affected by the 2007 date. She stated the information received was percentages rather than numbers of accounts. She stated contracts could cover any number of households. She stated she did not view 20%as being a small number of accounts. She stated approval on First Reading was"conditional." Councilmember Hamrick agreed with Councilmember Tharp's comments and stated he had expressed reservations on First Reading about the 2007 date. He expressed a concern than some residents were "held hostage by higher rates"when then had no option to change service options. He stated this issue was about saving the environment,giving customers a choice and saving taxpayer money in the long run. Councilmember Bertschy stated he supported the January 1,2005 deadline. He stated this was a matter of fairness and that it was time to begin to attain the City's goals. Mayor Martinez stated it was a matter of fairness to allow the private sector to honor their contracts with customers. He noted that the haulers had testified that they had to purchase equipment to serve customers and that the cost was recovered over a number of years. He stated he did not support destroying what the trash haulers and staff had worked out at Council's request. 230 April20, 2004 The vote on the motion to change the date to January 1, 2005 was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Bertschy, Hamrick and Roy. Nays: Councilmembers Kastein, Martinez, Tharp and Weitkunat. THE MOTION FAILED Councilmember Tharp made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Hamrick, to change the date to January 1, 2006. Councilmember Kastein stated the Council unanimously supported the Ordinance on First Reading and that the Council needed to be careful not to "alienate certain industries." Mayor Martinez stated he saw no reason to break the agreement between staff and the haulers. The vote on the motion to change the date to January 1, 2006 was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Bertschy, Hamrick, Roy and Tharp. Nays: Councilmembers Kastein, Martinez and Weitkunat. THE MOTION CARRIED Councilmember Weitkunat stated the entire Council was in agreement with PAYT and that she had hoped that the entire Council could support the Ordinance. She stated she could not support the Ordinance because she believed that the haulers were being held"hostage on a minuscule point." She expressed a concern with the"Council's ability to honor private enterprise's need to do business." The vote on the main motion to adopt Ordinance No. 025,2004 on Second Reading as amended by the change in the date to January 1, 2006 was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Bertschy, Hamrick, Roy and Tharp. Nays: Councilmembers Kastein, Martinez and Weitkunat. THE MOTION CARRIED Councilmember Hamrick made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Tharp,to adopt Ordinance No. 053,2004 on Second Reading with the following additional language: "A copy of the form of each such notice, a list of the recipients of the notice, a record of the date and manner of distribution shall be retained by the person providing the notice for a period of five years from the date each notice was provided,and shall be made available to the City for inspection upon request during said period oftime." The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Bertschy,Hamrick,Kastein, Martinez, Roy, Tharp and Weitkunat. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED 231 April20, 2004 Ordinance No. 076,2004 Authorizing the Conveyance of Certain Interests in Soapstone Grazing Association Real Property to Be Acquired by the City,Adopted on First Reading. The following is staff's memorandum on this item. "FINANCIAL IMPACT The City's total outlay for ownership of the Colorado portion of the ranch as well as a conservation easement on the Wyoming portion is $7.7 million. Future management of the Colorado portion of the ranch could include: (1) continued ownership of the ranch by the City with a lease for grazing and recreation opportunities for the public; (2)sale of the ranch and retention of a conservation easement and recreation rights; and(3)some combination of(1)and(2). EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City has a contract to close on the 23,000 acre Soapstone Ranch. In order to achieve the closing, and to obtain the 12,000 acres in Colorado that it wishes to retain, the City must take several actions: 1. Acquire the corporation that owns the ranch. 2. Agree to sell the 11,000 acre Wyoming portion of the ranch, encumbered by a conservation easement. The conservation easement would allow up to twelve divisions of the property and twelve primary residences with one associated secondary residence each. Permitted activities include grazing and hunting. No intensive commercial uses are allowed. No structures would be allowed on the Wyoming property that would be visible from the City's Colorado property. 3. Execute a grazing lease through 2005 with the current owners of the Soapstone Ranch. The lease is a condition of the sale of the ranch to the City. 4. Grant three right-of-way easements. a. Two easements through the City's Meadow Springs Ranch and the Colorado Soapstone Ranch from the south. The easements would be used to access the Wyoming portion of Soapstone. See attached map for a description. b. An easement to the buyer of the Wyoming Soapstone property for the benefit of a ranching family that owns land on the south side ofthe Soapstone Ranch to move cattle 232 April20, 2004 through the westerly three Sections of Colorado Soapstone into Wyoming and back(i.e. a cattle drive). The easement may also allow access through Colorado strictly for providing agricultural services associated with those cattle (i.e. to drive from their Colorado property to Wyoming to doctor cattle,fix fence, etc). The easement would terminate upon the sale ofthe Wyoming Soapstone land or the ranchingfamily's land in Colorado. " City Manager Fischbach introduced the agenda item and complimented the work done by staff on this complex issue. He endorsed and recommended approval of this Ordinance. Greg Byrne, CPES Director, made introductory remarks. John Stokes, Natural Resources Director, stated staff had been working for several months on the possible acquisition and conservation of the 23,000 acre Soapstone Ranch. He described the natural resources of the property. He stated the City had a purchase contract for the ranch for$7.7 million and that the transaction was structured so that the City could close on the entire ranch,which included about 11,000 acres in Wyoming and 12,000 acres in Colorado. He stated as soon as the City closed on the transaction, the City would be required to immediately sell the Wyoming property and convey several right-of-way easements to the new owners of that portion. He stated the buyers had agreed to convey a conservation easement to the City. He stated any disposition of City land required Council approval and that staff was seeking authorization to sell the Wyoming portion of the ranch as well as authorization to convey the right-of-way easements. He stated the overall transaction was complex and that staffbelieved that it represented the City's best opportunity for conserving the ranch in a timely matter and at a reasonable value. He stated if the City was successful in acquiring the ranch that there were three options for the future ownership and management ofthe ranch,including: continued ownership and management of the ranch for its recreational, agricultural and conservation values; sale of the ranch and retention of a conservation easement and recreation rights; or some combination of those two options. Randy Fisher, 3007 Moore Lane, spoke in support of adoption of the Ordinance. He stated this was a once-in-a-lifetime opportunities for the City and that the ranch was worthy of conservation because it was one of the more pristine large tracts of native shortgrass prairie anywhere in this region. He stated this area was within the land conservation focus area map that had been adopted by the Council,that the price was reasonable, and that such an opportunity might never come again. Nate Donovan,chair ofthe Natural Resources Advisory Board,read for the record the position statement of the Board in support of the approval of the acquisition of the Soapstone Ranch. He stated the Board did not take a position regarding the method for acquiring the property. David Wright,Citizen Planners,expressed support for the purchase of the property. He stated there was broad based support for open space. He stated this was a tremendous opportunity for the City. 233 April20, 2004 Linda Stanley, 2040 Bennington Circle, spoke in support of acquisition of the Soapstone Ranch. She stated this would be an opportunity to preserve one of the last short prairie habitats in this area. She stated the property had recreational and educational value. Dian Sparling,324 Jackson Avenue,asked the Council to vote in favor of the Ordinance. She stated this was a unique opportunity for the City to be able to preserve that land for future generations. Cordelia Stone,4512 Moccasin Circle,spoke in support ofthe Ordinance and the acquisition of this large contiguous area. She stated the property was within the City's land conservation focus area map and that this was well within the boundaries of the open space program that was approved by two-thirds of the voters of Fort Collins. Kelly Ohlson, 2040 Bennington Circle, stated this property was panoramic and contained valuable habitat. He urged the Council to adopt the Ordinance. John Gascoyne, 718 West Mountain Avenue, spoke in support of adoption of the Ordinance and asked that the Council acquire this property as a legacy to future generations. He stated the property was a tremendous bargain at the price. Gina Janett, 730 West Oak Street, supported the purchase of the Soapstone Ranch. He stated this was an opportunity that was akin to Denver's acquisition of Red Rocks and other mountain parks in 1918. She stated people would be willing to drive the 45 minutes to get to this property. Karen Wagner, 437 Pelican Bay, spoke in support of the Ordinance. She stated this would be a "monumental decision" for the Council, and she encouraged the Council to go forward with the acquisition. She stated $335 per acre was an amazing price and that the alternative was 35-acre ranchettes. Ramon Ajero,3712 Soderburg Drive,urged the Council to move forward on this acquisition. He stated this acquisition was within the spirit of the open space tax. He asked the Council to seize this "golden opportunity." Greg Gamble, 423 North Loomis Avenue, Northeast Colorado Program Manager for the Nature Conservancy, spoke in support of the acquisition of this property. Craig Harrison,Timnath,stated he was the"deal maker in this transaction"and pointed out some of the unique opportunities associated with acquiring this property. He spoke regarding the history of this property and stated the 20 shareholders had all signed a contract to sell to the City. He stated this was the third largest private tract of land in the region and that the property included the oldest finding of man in an organized hunting camp (the Lindenmeier site). 234 T Ayri120, 2004 Councilmember Weitkunat asked if the ability to offer recreational opportunities to the citizens of Fort Collins was written into this transaction. She stated had been one of the areas of controversy with regard to the purchase ofopen lands. She asked ifrecreational opportunities would be guaranteed to the citizens. Stokes stated was addressed in the Agenda Item Summary within the financial impact statement that outlined three options for the ranch. He stated all options included recreation. He stated the intent was to provide recreational access and amenities on this property (possibly mountain biking, equestrian activities, hiking, or overnight camping). Councilmember Weitkunat asked if this was a guarantee that recreation would be allowed. Stokes stated it was guaranteed. Councilmember Weitkunat asked how this$7.7 million purchase would impact the open lands budget. Stokes stated the City would be unable to acquire any other open lands in this budget year. He stated there were a number of pending projects on which the City would close this year. He stated the acquisition of this property fit within the budget for the 10 year land conservation framework. He stated the City planned to spend about $54 million on land conservation for regional, local and community separator projects. Councilmember Bertschy asked if there were water rights associated with the purchase. Stokes stated there were no adjudicated water rights and that there were some intermittent streams on the property. He stated the City would be acquiring all water rights for the ranch. Councilmember Tharp asked about the easements that would be granted would affect the wildlife and the pristine nature of the property. Stokes stated there would be an impact and that under the terms of the conservation easement the Wyoming property would have the possibility of 12 primary residences and 12 guest homes or secondary residences. He stated there would be traffic on the roads and that the impact would be fairly minimal compared to having the ranch subdivided into considerably more development sites. Councilmember Tharp noted that the Ordinance provided that current Soapstone Grazing Association members would be allowed to continue to use the property for grazing. She asked if that would have impact and if the City would realize any revenue from the grazing. Stokes stated the City would not make any money on the grazing lease this year and that for 2005 the going rate would be paid for grazing privileges. He stated those gazing privileges would expire at the end of 2005, and the City could continue to lease to grazing interests or could redesign the grazing management plan. Councilmember Weitkunat asked if the City was allowed to earn money on its property. City Attorney Roy stated property could be leased to generate income for the City. Councilmember Weitkunat asked if that was possible with the natural areas. City Attorney Roy replied in the affirmative. Greg Byrne,CPES Director,stated one natural area was leased for gravel extraction. 235 Apri120, 2004 City Manager Fischbach stated there was a lease to a landscape service for the natural area on Prospect. Councilmember Weitkunat asked if the revenue would go into the natural areas fund. Byrne replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Kastein asked how and when an access plan would be developed. Mark Sears Environmental Program Manager, Natural Resources Department, stated the City's approach was to develop a management plan for the site,that public improvements identified in the plan would be built, and that the property would then be opened to the public. He stated would be the approach followed for the Soapstone property. Councilmember Kastein asked about the required timeframe. Sears stated it would require a minimum of two years. Councilmember Kastein asked if staff was recommending the entire transaction. City Manager Fischbach stated the staffs recommendation was to sell the Wyoming property and that staff already had authorization to acquire the site. Councilmember Kastein asked who had the responsibility on staff from the risk management perspective to say that this was a "solid deal." City Manager Fischbach stated the "risk manager" and person responsible for the success of this project was CPES Director Greg Byrne. He stated the responsibility was shared with John Stokes and Mark Sears and also the City Manager. Councilmember Kastein asked Mr.Byrne for his recommendation regarding the transaction considering all of the factors and complexities. Byrne stated his recommendation was for approval. He stated staff was aware of the complexities of the transaction. He noted that one of the concerns was acquisition of Wyoming land and that the transaction to buy and then immediately sell that portion was structured to eliminate the perception of the City"overreaching." He stated staff believed that this was a once-in-a- lifetime or "once only" opportunity and that this fell within the conservation focus areas adopted by Council and within the parameters of the funding mechanism. Councilmember Bertschy made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Roy, to adopt Ordinance No. 076, 2004 on First Reading. City Attorney Roy stated there was some additional language that he would like to have read into the record to allow some more flexibility in the structuring of the transaction. Came Daggett,Senior Deputy City Attorney,read the following changes into the record:(1)insert in the second WHEREAS clause after the word WHEREAS,the clause"based on the transaction as currently negotiated;"(2)on the second page after the second WHEREAS clause,add a new WHEREAS clause to read:"WHEREAS,City staff will continue to investigate and pursue alternative ways to structure this 236 Apri120, 2004 transaction in the interest of simplifying the City's role in the transaction and reducing the extent of the City's acquisition of corporate and Wyoming property interests, within the remaining time allowed by the contract;and.. ..;and(3)in the NOW,THEREFORE portion of the Ordinance to renumber existing Section 2 to become Section 3 and insert a new Section 2 to read as follows:`But the City Council hereby authorizes the City Manager to assign the City's rights under the agreements described herein and to negotiate alternative transaction structures and proceed with the same to the extent such actions reduce the scope of corporate or Wyoming property interests to be acquired by the City." City Attorney Roy stated staff would review the language again prior to Second Reading to determine whether it would be helpful. Councilmembers Bertschy and Roy accepted the new language as a friendly amendment. Councilmember Bertschy stated this was an"amazing opportunity"and he felt privileged to be serving on the Council that would be able to acquire this property. He stated the timing was right on this particular purchase. He stated this would give the City the ability to preserve this"fantastic place"for the future generations. He stated the site had outstanding archaeological resources,beauty,natural values and wildlife and that this would be a"gem" for generations to come. Councilmember Roy stated the citizens had written the check, staff had created the opportunity and the value of land was without question. He thanked the citizens and staff who worked to make this possible. Councilmember Weitkunat stated she had heard from citizens who had problems with part of this transaction. She stated she had a concern that this was being presented as the"only opportunity." She stated she also had concerns that the entire natural lands budget was being spent on this land. She stated the City would be acquiring the corporation that owned the ranch and part of Wyoming. She stated many Fort Collins citizens did not believe that was a positive policy. She stated she was not comfortable dictating land conservation easements to other entities and other states. She questioned this policy direction and whether this action would represent the best interests of the entire community. Councilmember Hamrick stated he wholeheartedly supported the Ordinance. He stated this was a "historic decision"made for future generations. He stated this was a complicated transaction and that the City could make this happen. He stated this property was worth every penny. Councilmember Tharp stated she had some concerns about the complex transaction but that she relied upon staff and the advisors on that issue. She asked for clarification that the total natural resources budget was not being spent and that the portion being spent was the money reserved for regional separators. Stokes replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Tharp stated she would rely on the expertise ofthe City's negotiators and would support the motion. 237 April20, 2004 Councilmember Kastein stated he shared some of Councilmember Weitkunat's concerns regarding the distance of this property from the City. He noted that this was discussed at the time the natural areas policy was revamped to support acquisition of regional open lands. He stated he believed that the policy language was consistent with the ballot language and that the natural areas program was regional in nature. He stated he had resolved the distance issue in his own mind. He stated the money was available for this purchase due to the sales tax. He stated he trusted the recommendation of the staff that this was a good deal from a risk management standpoint. Mayor Martinez stated there had been some good discussions about this issue. He stated he trusted staff on this issue and believed that the City was trying to do the right thing. He stated this action followed the direction from the voters and that he would support adoption of the Ordinance. The vote on the motion as amended was as follows:Yeas:Councilmembers Bertschy,Hamrick,Kastein, Martinez, Roy and Tharp. Nays: Councilmember Weitkunat. THE MOTION CARRIED Ordinance No. 057,2004 Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code to Reflect the Adoption of Updated Master Drainage Plans and to Revise the Official Repository of Plan Documents.Postponed on Second Reading. The following is staffs memorandum on this item. "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Colorado state law requires that the proceeds from successful asset seizure and forfeiture actions are to be used for law enforcement purposes and that the governing body of the seizing agency appropriate these proceeds to supplement the seizing agency's budget or, in the alternative,forfeit the proceeds to the general fund of the State of Colorado. Colorado state law also authorizes the creation of the Forfeiture Committee which must consist of the Mayor, District Attorney and Chief of Police, or their designees. The Committee oversees and approves the seizure budget and spending decisions made by the Chief of Police. This Ordinance which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on April 6, 2004, appropriates prior year reserves in the general fund for police seizure activity. " Mayor Martinez spoke regarding the agenda item,which had been withdrawn from the Consent Calendar, and stated he would like to ensure that staff talked with Mr. Anderson before this was considered. Councilmember Bertschy supported postponing the item until the next meeting. 238 April20, 2004 The consensus was to postpone Second Reading of Ordinance No. 057, 2004 until the next meeting. Adiournment The meeting adjourned at 11:40 p.m. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk 239 April 29, 2004 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO Council-Manager Form of Government Adjourned Meeting - 8:00 p.m. A regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins was held on Thursday, April 29, 2004, at 8:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll Call was answered by the following Councilmembers: Bertschy, Hamrick, Kastein, Martinez, Roy and Weitkunat. Councilmembers Absent: Tharp. Staff Members Present: Fischbach, Krajicek and Roy. Mayor Pro Tem Bertschy made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Hamrick to adjourn into Executive Session for the purpose of discussing legal and land acquisition matters. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Bertschy, Hamrick, Kastein, Martinez, Roy and Weitkunat.. THE MOTION CARRIED. Adiournment The meeting adjourned at 8:35 p.m. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk 240 May 4, 2004 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO Council-Manager Form of Government Regular Meeting- 6:00 p.m. A regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins was held on Tuesday, May 4, 2004, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll Call was answered by the following Councilmembers: Bertschy, Hamrick, Kastein, Martinez, Roy, Tharp and Weitkunat. Staff Members Present: Fischbach, Krajicek, Roy. Citizen Participation Ralph Waldo, 2803 East Harmony Road, spoke regarding the Landmark Preservation Commission regulations relating to properties that were more than 50 years old and the impact on the Rule property and similar properties. He suggested that historic farm structures be moved to the City's Martinez Park Farm as was done in Greeley for the moving of historically significant structures to Centennial Village. He stated open space money could be used for the purchase of land for cultural purposes. He asked that Council consider the acquisition of land to create a living museum from the budgeted open space money. He stated he believed that the requirement that any structure older than 50 years be reviewed by the Landmark Preservation Commission could impede good redevelopment projects, especially in the downtown. Tammy Bennett,CSU student,stated she was present with three other students to talk about the lack of information in the community about domestic violence. She stated they had created a pamphlet with information about places to call,places to go,things to remember and things to bring with you when trying to obtain a protection order. She stated the students had worked with Crossroads Safehouse and their legal office to create the brochure. She asked for help in distributing the brochures through placement at City Hall, the Police Department and other locations. Karen Wagner,downtown property owner,thanked the City for implementing early control measures for West Nile. She expressed concerns about a potential chronic wasting disease incinerator east of Wellington and the possible uncovered transportation of diseased wild animal carcasses through the City to the ingester at CSU. She also expressed concerns regarding the possible discharge of byproducts from the ingester into the City's stormwater system. She asked that Council follow-up on her concerns. 241 May 4, 2004 Al Baccili, 520 Galaxy Court, opposed the Soapstone Ranch purchase. Mayor Martinez stated the Soapstone Ranch item was on the agenda for discussion and that the issue could be addressed at that time. Mr. Baccili asked that the entire vendor fee for sales tax collection be eliminated. Greg Snyder,619 Bear Creek Drive,expressed concerns regarding the possibility of rental licensing. He stated this would be moving the government bureaucracy into a new realm and would result in more fees. He questioned the purpose of rental licensing and asked how a"one size fits all"landlord licensing ordinance would benefit the citizens. He stated many of the existing ordinances regulating rental housing were unenforceable and opposed having the City tell him that he would have to have a license and a permit to be a landlord. He stated landlords might have to discriminate against certain renters in order to meet rental licensing requirements. Citizen Participation Follow-up Mayor Martinez asked for more information on the City's website about the City's emergency protection(48 hour holds)in cases of domestic violence. He asked if some of the other information on the pamphlet prepared by the CSU students could also be included on the website. Mayor Martinez asked for information on the animal carcass transportation issues brought up by Ms. Wagner. City Manager Fischbach stated staff checked on that issue eight months ago and that everything was being handled properly. He stated staff would check on current handling and would provide information to Ms. Wagner and the City Council. Councilmember Roy asked that staff check with CSU to ensure that animal carcasses were being disposed of in an adequate manner through the ingestion process. Councilmember Tharp thanked Mr. Waldo for his creative idea regarding a Centennial Park. Councilmember Kastein asked if the rental licensing task force had spoken about discrimination issues such as those raised by Mr. Snyder. City Attorney Roy stated he would prepare a memo on the subject. Councilmember Weitkunat asked if the duties of the Landmark Preservation Commission fell under the Land Use Code. City Attorney Roy stated the Commission's functions fell under the City Code and that there were Land Use Code provisions that dealt with how new development must handle sites that contained historic structures. Councilmember Weitkunat asked if a discussion was planned on Landmark Preservation Commission issues in the near future. City Attorney Roy stated there had been discussion about having a Study Session regarding the functions of the Landmark Preservation Commission and that 242 May 4, 2004 his office was working with management staff on proposed revisions to the Land Use Code and the City Code to reconcile those provisions and to ensure that they were compatible. He stated staff would be seeking policy direction from the Council at the Study Session. Agenda Review City Manager Fischbach stated item#14 First Reading of Ordinance No. 078, 2004, Amending the Fort Collins Traffic Code to Add an Increase in Penalties for Violations Committed While Using a Mobile Phone had been withdrawn from the agenda for additional work and that the Ordinance that was listed in item#25 (Ordinance No. 076, 2004 Authorizing the Conveyance of Certain Interests in Soapstone Grazing Association Real Property to Be Acquired by the City) had been withdrawn from the agenda and that a Resolution was being substituted for consideration as part of the Discussion Agenda. CONSENT CALENDAR 7. Consideration and approval of the Council meeting minutes of February 17 and March 2. 2004 and the adjourned meeting minutes of March 9, 2004. 8. Postponement of Second Reading of Ordinance No.057,2004,Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code to Reflect the Adoption of Updated Master Drainage Plans And to Revise the Official Repository of Plan Documents, to June 1, 2004. This Ordinance,which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on April 6,2004,updates current City Code references to the master drainage plans for the various basins in the city by repealing and reenacting Code Section 26-543(a). This item is being postponed to June 1, 2004, to allow the development consultant for a property owner in the West Vine Basin additional time to develop overall development concepts that would work with the stormwater master plan. 9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 064, 2004, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue in the General Fund for the Larimer County Multi-Jurisdictional Drug Task Force. Fort Collins Police Services ("FCPS") applied for grant funds made available through the Rocky Mountain High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area project which is sponsored and funded by the Office of National Drug Control. The application was on behalf of the Larimer County Multi-Jurisdictional Drug Task Force("DTF")for federal grant monies to help fund the investigation of illegal narcotics activities in Larimer County. The DTF is staffed by personnel from FCPS, Loveland Police Department,Larimer County Sheriffs Department, 243 May 4, 2004 Drug Enforcement Administration,and Colorado State University Police Department. This Ordinance,which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on April 20,2004,appropriates the new federal grant funds. 10. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 065, 2004, Authorizing the Acceptance of a .25 Acre Property Donated by Springfield Subdivision Sixth Filing Joint Venture and Appropriating the Value of Said Donated Property as Unanticipated Revenue in the Natural Areas Fund. This Ordinance, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on April 20, 2004, authorizes the Mayor to accept the donation by Springfield Subdivision Sixth Filing Joint Venture of Tract"A", Overland Hills 1 st Filing. The property is a .25 acre tract of land to be managed as a natural area by the Natural Resources Program. 11. Second Reading ofOrdinanceNo.066,2004,Authorizing the Lease of City-owned Property at 222, 224 and 226 West Mountain Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado, to Moe Kamandy for up to Five Years. The City and the County purchased the building at 222,224 and 226 West Mountain Avenue in 1985 as part of the Block 31 purchases. In the Intergovernmental Agreement dividing Block 31, this property was quitclaimed to the City. Since the City and County's purchase of this property,these spaces have been leased to commercial customers. The occupants of 222 and 224 have terminated their leases. The current tenant of 226 West Mountain Avenue, Moe Kamandy of the Mountain Caf6,has expressed a desire to expand his dining room into the space at 224 West Mountain Avenue and to use the space at 222 West Mountain Avenue for storage space. The new total square footage for the restaurant area will be 1,055 and the storage area has 315 square feet. These spaces are not presently conducive for use by other City users. Staff recommends leasing these spaces to Moe Kamandy of the Mountain Caf6 until this area of Block 31 is needed for future improvements. Ordinance No.066,2004,was unanimously adopted on First Reading on April 20, 2004. 12. Second Reading of Ordinance No.067,2004,Expanding the Boundaries of the Fort Collins, Colorado Downtown Development Authority and Amending the Plan of Development of the Authority. This Ordinance, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on April 20, 2004, expands the boundaries of the Downtown Development Authority(DDA) District. These boundaries are contained in the Ordinance establishing the District, as previously amended and in the Plan of Development for the DDA. The purpose of the amendment is to include the In-Situ property located on Lincoln Avenue. 244 May 4, 2004 13. First Reading of Ordinance No. 077, 2004, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue in the General Fund for the Operation of the Fort Collins Welcome Center. The Colorado legislature created the Colorado Tourism Board(the"Board")and authorized the Board to operate State Welcome Centers. The Board determined that the State Welcome Center for Fort Collins would be more efficiently and effectively operated by the City of Fort Collins. In August of 2000, the Colorado Tourism Office ("CTO") was created and was authorized to operate State Welcome Centers. Pursuant to Resolution 99-097,the City contracted with Colorado State University for visitor center space at the Environmental Learning Center/Visitors Center,south of Prospect Road, approximately one-quarter mile west of Interstate 25. The City, seeking to attract and welcome visitors to Fort Collins through the activities of its convention and visitor services contractor,the Fort Collins Convention and Visitors Bureau("CVB"),uses the visitor center space for the Fort Collins Welcome Center. The CVB, in addition to promoting tourism activity, operates the Welcome Center consistent with the City's Intergovernmental Agreement with the Colorado State Board of Agriculture acting by and through Colorado State University. 14. First Reading of Ordinance No. 078, 2004, Amending the Fort Collins Traffic Code to Add an Increase in Penalties for Violations Committed While Using a Mobile Phone. Cell phones, when used while driving a car, distract the driver from the primary task of driving. Responsible driving requires drivers to focus on the operation of the vehicle, the road and any potential hazards when they are behind the wheel. Fort Collins Police Services Traffic Enforcement Unit officers have observed Fort Collins Traffic Code violations by drivers who are talking on cell phones. These include speeding,running red lights and stop signs,improper turning and unsafe lane changes. This Ordinance will not prohibit cell phone use while driving, but instead will increase the penalty for a traffic violation if a Police Officer observes a violation occurring while the driver is using a cell phone. This Ordinance is secondary in nature, and does not allow law enforcement officers to stop drivers merely for cell phone use while driving. A traffic violation must be observed first, and then second, the officer must also observe cell phone use in order for the enhanced penalty to take effect. 245 May 4, 2004 15. First Reading of Ordinance No. 079, 2004, Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins by Changing the Zoning Classification for That Certain Property Known as the Resource Recovery Farm Rezoning. This is a request to rezone the property known as the Resource Recovery Farm from the E, Employment District,to the POL,Public Open Lands District. The request is consistent with the recently adopted I-25 Subarea Plan and City Structure Plan map. 16. Resolution 2004-054 Authorizin the he City to Enter into a Contract with Gallagher Benefit Services, Inc. for a Compensation and Benefits Study_ Resolution 2003-147 created a two-person Council Committee, comprised of Councilmembers Eric Hamrick and Kurt Kastein,to work with various members of City staff in developing a scope of work and a competitive request for proposals process to obtain the services of one or more employee compensation and benefits consultants. The Committee has completed the selection process in accordance with Section 8-158 of the City Code, and is recommending adoption of this Resolution selecting the best qualified consultant Gallagher Benefit Services, Inc. The consultant(s)will work with the Committee and City staff to generate a final report to Council containing recommendations regarding employee compensation and benefits. 17. Resolution 2004-056 Authorizing the Mayor to Execute a Revocable Permit to US Cable of Coastal-Texas. L.P., a New Jersey Limited Partnership for Existing Cable Television Lines and Appurtenances. It is recommended that a new permit be issued to US Cable granting permission for it to maintain its installation of an underground cable television line and related facilities within City right-of-way and utility easements to serve the Horsetooth and University mobile home parks located at the southwest corer of the Horsetooth Road/Taft Hill Road intersection. It has been determined that the fee may be excessive for the service provided under the existing revocable permit. The fee with the new revocable permit will be one quarter of the amount charged under the current permit. 18. Resolution 2004-057 Expressing City Council Support for the "Cache la Poudre River National Heritage Area Technical Amendments Act of 2004". Over the last 20 years,Congress has established 24 national heritage areas and provided them with millions of dollars in financial assistance through the National Park Service. By providing this designation, the Congress has determined that these areas' local cultures, traditions, history and resources are worthy of being recognized and preserved because of 246 May 4, 2004 their contributions to the nation's heritage. These areas can encompass large tracts of land, and incorporate both public and private property. Once designated, heritage areas can receive funding through the National Park Service's budget, although the agency currently has no formal heritage area program. The Park Service provides technical assistance to the areas, and the Congress appropriates the agency limited funds for heritage area activities. The Park Service allocates funding to the areas through cooperative agreements. These funds are considered to be "seed" money to assist each area in becoming sufficiently established to develop partnerships with state and local governments,businesses, and other non-federal organizations as their principal funding sources. ***END CONSENT*** Ordinances on Second Reading were read by title by City Clerk Krajicek. 9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 064, 2004, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue in the General Fund for the Larimer County Multi-Jurisdictional Drug Task Force. 10. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 065, 2004, Authorizing the Acceptance of a .25 Acre Property Donated by Springfield Subdivision Sixth Filing Joint Venture and Appropriating the Value of Said Donated Property as Unanticipated Revenue in the Natural Areas Fund. 11. Second Reading of Ordinance No.066,2004,Authorizing the Lease of City-owned Property at 222, 224 and 226 West Mountain Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. to Moe Kamand,L up to Five Years. 12. Second Reading of Ordinance No.067,2004,Expanding the Boundaries of the Fort Collins. Colorado Downtown Development Authority and Amending the Plan of Development of the Authority. 23. Items Relating to the Prospect East 4th Annexation and Zoning A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 061, 2004, Annexing Property Known as the Prospect East 4th Annexation. B. Second Reading of Ordinance No.062,2004,Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the Prospect East 4th Annexation. 247 May 4, 2004 Ordinances on First Reading were read by title by City Clerk Krajicek. 13. First Reading of Ordinance No. 077, 2004, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue in the General Fund for the Operation of the Fort Collins Welcome Center. 15. First Reading of Ordinance No. 079, 2004, Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins by Changing the Zoning Classification for That Certain Property Known as the Resource Recovery Farm Rezoning 22. Items Relating to the Enforcement of the Nuisance Provisions of the City Code. A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 071, 2004, Amending Sections 20-21 and 20-22 of the City Code Pertaining to Unreasonable Noise. B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 072, 2004, Amending Article VIII of Chapter 20 of the City Code Pertaining to the Abatement of Public Nuisances. C. First Reading of Ordinance No.073,2004,Amending Section 4-94 of the City Code Pertaining to the Disturbance of Peace and Quiet. D. First Reading of Ordinance No.074,2004,Amending Article III of Chapter 20 of the City Code Pertaining to Weeds, Brush Piles and Rubbish. E. First Reading of Ordinance No. 075,2004,Amending Article III of Chapter 20 of the City Code Pertaining to the Outdoor Storage of Materials. Councilmember Hamrick made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Weitkunat, to adopt and approve all items not withdrawn from the Consent Calendar. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Bertschy, Hamrick, Kastein, Martinez, Roy, Tharp and Weitkunat. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED Consent Calendar Follow-up Councilmember Kastein stated he would have some questions prior to Second Reading with regard to item#15 First Reading of Ordinance No. 079, 2004,Amending the Zoning Map of the City offort Collins by Changing the Zoning Classification for That Certain Property Known as the Resource Recovery Farm Rezoning. 248 May 4, 2004 Councilmember Reports Councilmember Bertschynoted that Council had adopted item#18 Resolution 2004-05 7 Expressing City Council Support for the "Cache la Poudre River National Heritage Area Technical Amendments Act of 2004." He stated he served on behalf of the Council on the Cache la Poudre River Heritage Corridor Task Force and that the group had been working to resolve some technical differences in the legislation that was passed in 1996 by Congress to create the Cache la Poudre Heritage Corridor. He stated this corridor promised to be a major attraction for this area and that it could become one of the premier national heritage areas in the country. He introduced Susan Boyle of the National Park Service who served as the liaison to the heritage area. Susan Boyle,National Park Service, gave a brief presentation regarding the heritage area concept. She stated the project was driven by local entities interested in the history of the Cache la Poudre River and interpretation and education efforts. She stated interpretation and exhibits would focus on water law and water development (irrigation). She stated this would be one of only two heritage areas in the West. Councilmember Bertschy stated the National Park Service was providing a grant of 14 interpretive signs to be distributed along the trails in Greeley, Windsor and Fort Collins. Councilmember Roy reported that he was part of a panel for a discussion entitled "Nuances on Racism"sponsored by the Human Relations Commission. He stated the theme was taking personal responsibility to ensure that racism did not have the ability to succeed. Councilmember Weitkunat reported that she attended a fund raising event for the Discovery Science Center, an independent nonprofit institution. She stated there was a danger that the location could be lost and encouraged Council to participate in some way to keep this institution in the community. Councilmember Bertschy reported that the Discovery Science Center issue was also discussed by the Downtown Development Authority. Mayor Martinez reported that the Fort Collins Community Foundation presented the Founder's Award to former Mayor Dr. Karl Carson in part because of his generous donation to the Youth Activities Center gym project. Items Relating to the Enforcement of the Nuisance Provisions of the City Code, Adopted. The following is staffs memorandum on this item. 249 May 4, 2004 "FINANCIAL IMPACT The adoption of these Ordinances is not expected to have a significant financial impact on departmental operating budgets. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 071, 2004, Amending Sections 10-21 and 20-22 ofthe City Code Pertaining to Unreasonable Noise. B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 072, 2004,Amending Article VIII of Chapter 20 ofthe City Code Pertaining to the Abatement of Public Nuisances. C. First Reading of Ordinance No. 073, 2004, Amending Section 4-94 of the City Code Pertaining to the Disturbance of Peace and Quiet. D. First Reading of Ordinance No. 074, 2004, Amending Article III of Chapter 20 of the City Code Pertaining to Weeds, Brush Piles and Rubbish. E. First Reading of Ordinance No. 075, 2004, Amending Article III of Chapter 20 of the City Code Pertaining to the Outdoor Storage of Materials. These Ordinances are being presented,for Council consideration as a result ofthe ongoing efforts ofthe Neighborhood Quality ofLife Task Force. This taskforce has been formed to address quality of life issues in the City's residential neighborhoods. The Ordinances would: • Revise the definition of"unreasonable noise"and provide standards for more objectively determining when such noise exists and who may be responsible for the noise; • Amend the public nuisance ordinance to allow staff to file a civil action seeking injunctive relief against a property owner after two separate violations within six months, as an alternative to awaiting further separate violations; • Amend the animal disturbance provisions ofthe City Code to eliminate a mandatory warning provision and to add additional circumstances under which a citation can be issued; • Amend the weed and rubbish provisions of the Code to allowfor the recovery ofadditional costs and to clarify when violations exist; and 250 May 4, 2004 • Add a provision to the Code dealing with the outdoor storage of materials in residential neighborhoods. BACKGROUND For the past several months, a Neighborhood Quality of Life Task Force, consisting of representatives from various departments of the City, has been meeting regularly to discuss ways in which to improve the City's ability to effectively deal with nuisance violations in residential neighborhoods ofthe City. As a result ofthis effort,several ordinances have already been presented to the Council, and various other measures have been undertaken by City staff to enhance the City's enforcement of existing Code provisions. The ordinances previously presented to the Council as part of this effort have dealt with vehicle noise, the parking of vehicles on lawns, and the use or storage of indoor furniture in outdoor locations. Enhanced enforcement efforts have included the augmentation ofpolice resources to combat the problem ofnoisyparties, increased marketing ofthe City's "nuisance hotline", and other system improvements which are described in more detail in the materials attached to this Agenda Item Summary. In addition to the foregoing Code changes and systems improvements, staff is recommending the Ordinances described below. In addition, staff will be presentingfor Council's consideration at a study session on April27th more information explaining two options for regulating rental properties in residential neighborhoods: rental registration and rental licensing. Unreasonable Noise Ordinance Ordinance No. 071, 2004, will amend the definition of"unreasonable noise"and will make certain other changes to Sections 20-21 and 20-22 of the Code as follows: • The definition of"unreasonable noise"would be revised to eliminate thephrase "throughout the City or in any portions thereof." This phrase is unnecessary and could potentially be used to argue that the City must prove beyond a reasonable doubt the particular portions of the City that are affected by the unreasonable noise. • Additional criteria would be added to Section 20-22(b)to provide further guidance to police officers in determining whether unreasonable noise exists. • A new subsection ©would be added to this Code section stating that, if the owner or tenant or a premises upon which unreasonable noise occurs was present at the time ofthe violation, then that fact shall constitute prima facie evidence that such person was in control of the premises and knowingly permitted the violation to occur. 251 May 4, 2004 Public Nuisance Ordinance The public nuisance ordinance provisions of the Code allow the City tofile a civil action against the owner, occupant or property manager of a particular parcel ofproperty in order to obtain an order from the Municipal Court to help deal with a recurring nuisance problem on the premises. At present, the Code requires that three separate violations occur within a period of one year or five within a period of two years before such an action can be commenced. (However, each violation can result in the issuance of a citation to the person actually committing the violation). Occasionally, having to await a third violation can result in an unnecessary delay in dealing with a 'problem property"if the owner or property manager has failed to respond to the first notices of violations. Ordinance No. 072, 2004, will allow the nuisance enforcement officer, in particular situations, to request a hearing before the City Manager or his designee in order to seek authorization to commence a public nuisance action against a property after only two separate violations within a period ofsix months. The new Code language would require that the property owner, property manager and occupant of the premises be given notice of such hearing and an opportunity to appear and respond. If none of the responsible parties appear at the hearing or, if, upon appearing, they fail to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City Manager that they are genuinely undertaking good faith efforts to deal with the nuisanceproblems, then the City Manager could authorize the commencement of a public nuisance court action without further delay. Animal Disturbance Ordinance Section 4-94 of the City Code states that no owner or keeper ofan animal shall permit such animal to disturb the peace and quiet of any person by barking, whining, howling,yowling, squawking or making any other noise in an excessive, continuous or untimely fashion. That Code provision then goes on to require that, before a citation can be issued for a violation, a member of the household over the age of 18 years must have received a warning from the City ofa previous complaint at least once within the preceding 12 months. Ordinance No. 073, 2004, would make two changes to this section. First, it would amend the substantive language of the section to add a prohibition against allowing any animal to make "unreasonable noise,"that is, noise ofsuch level and duration as to be injurious to human health or welfare or unreasonably interfere with the enjoyment of life or property. This amendment would allow animal enforcement officers to make a determination as to whether unreasonable noise exists in a particular situation without having to prove that the noise actually disturbed the peace and quiet of a particular neighbor. Staff"believes this is a helpful amendment because neighbors disturbed by such noise are sometimes reluctant to serve as complaining witnesses and appear and testify in court,for fear of retaliation or further eroding neighborhood relations. 252 May 4, 2004 The second change to this section would be to eliminate the mandatory warning so that the animal enforcement officer would have the discretion, in aggravated situations, to issue a citation on a first offense without a warning if he or she believes that to be in the best interest of the community. Weeds and Rubbish Ordinance Ordinance No. 074, 2004, will amend Section 20-44 of the City Code so as to allow the City, in abating weeds and rubbish, to recover up to 100% of its administrative costs in performing the abatement, in addition to the actual amounts paid to the contractor who provides the abatement services. Secondly, this provision would be revised to clarify that either the owner or the occupant of the premises in question can be issued a citation for allowing the weeds or rubbish to accumulate on the property. Outdoor Storage Ordinance Ordinance No. 075, 2004, will add a new Section 20-42.6 to the City Code prohibiting the storage of building materials, household appliances and other kinds of materials not normally kept on residential premises unless such materials are effectively screened from view from the public right- of-way or from the ground level of adjoining properties. In summary, staff believes that this combination of ordinances is consistent with the direction received by the City Council to not only step up the City's enforcement efforts of existing ordinances but to provide new legislation which will enable the City to more effectively deal with nuisance violations that threaten the tranquility and quality of life in the City's residential neighborhoods. " City Manager Fischbach introduced the agenda item. Damn Attebeny,Assistant City Manager,presented background information regarding the agenda item. He stated Council was being asked to consider on First Reading amendments to five Ordinances. He stated staff was working on increased enforcement, marketing, improved staff communications between departments operating in the arena of Code enforcement,and defining and clarifying Code provisions. He stated the Ordinances presented for consideration would accomplish the Code clarifications. He stated Ordinance No. 071, 2004 would revise the definition of "unreasonable noise" and set additional criteria for police officers in determining whether "unreasonable noise" existed; that Ordinance No. 072, 2004 would amend the Public Nuisance Ordinance to allow staff to file a civil action against a property owner after two separate violations of the Public Nuisance Ordinance within a six month period; that Ordinance No. 073, 2004 would relate to barking dog complaints and remove the requirement for a formal warning to be issued prior to the Animal Control Officer issuing a citation;that Ordinance No. 074,2004 would allow the City to recover up to 100%of actual costs for administration of nuisance abatements; and that Ordinance 253 May 4, 2004 No. 075, 2004 would prohibit the outdoor storage of materials not customarily stored outdoors in residential areas. Theresa Ramos-Garcia,Fort Collins Board of Realtors,read a statement from the Board of Realtors in support of the high quality of life in the neighborhoods of Fort Collins. She stated the majority of neighborhood concerns arose in specific areas of the City. She stated the Council had already put into place several Ordinances focusing on improving the quality of life in those specific neighborhoods and that existing Ordinances had fallen short of their goals due to the lack of enforcement. She stated the Board of Realtors supported the Council action to enforce the existing Ordinances and to improve handling of complaints through organizational and systems enhancements. She stated the enforcement of these Ordinances would have a positive impact on the community and that the Board supported additional actions to shorten the warning cycle for problem renters to avoid the "resetting of the clock to the school year." She stated it was unclear how the inability to enforce existing Ordinances would be solved by the creation of new Ordinances. She asked that the City should continue to study neighborhood quality of life issues and to monitor the impacts of these Ordinances and properly evaluate any additional action. She stated it was too early to implement additional Ordinances that might result in expensive City programs and have complex ramifications. Greg Snyder, 619 Bear Creek Drive, expressed concerns regarding enforcement of the Ordinances. He asked that the Council consider what problem was being solved and what would be the appropriate solution to the problem. He expressed concerns that someone could be cited for a barking dog without any kind of warning and that the City in general was going on "fishing expeditions for monetary sources." He stated he would like to hear more detail about the proposed Ordinances. Mayor Martinez asked for the rationale for the City recovering the cost for rubbish removal. City Manager Fischbach stated abatement of rubbish in private yards would be accomplished through a private contractor and that there was no reason for the City to have to pay the cost of that abatement. He stated the proposed Ordinance would require the City to recover 100%of the administrative cost and that the theory was that City residents should not have to subsidize irresponsible property owners in cases where the City had to take an abatement action. He stated some people literally used the City as their trash hauler and that those people should pay 100% of the City's cost. City Attorney Roy stated this would also make this fee and the cost recovery consistent with a general provision in Chapter 7.5 that allowed the City Manager to establish administrative fees to defray the cost of City services and the use of facilities up to 100%. He stated the current wording relating to recovery of up to 50% of the administrative cost was inconsistent. Councilmember Weitkunat asked for additional clarification and asked if the City would receive compensation for more than the costs. City Attorney Roy stated the current wording specified that 254 May 4, 2004 up to 50%of the administrative cost could be recovered. He stated the City would be recovering no more than 100%of the City's costs. He stated all administrative fees were limited to cost recovery. Councilmember Weitkunat asked about Ordinance No. 072, 2004 and about the rationale for the change to two violations in six months as opposed to three violations in a year. Beth Sowder, Compliance Inspector, stated the criteria would be two violations in six months and no contact or response from the owner, manager or tenant of the property explaining what was being done to correct the problem. Councilmember Weitkunat asked if the Ordinance spelled out that criteria and asked for clarification about what types of nuisances would be covered. Sowder stated the Ordinance would cover any type of nuisance. Councilmember Weitkunat expressed a concern that the Ordinance would apply to two different violations in the six month period rather than two violations of the same type. She questioned the equity of that aspect of the Ordinance. Councilmember Kastein stated the Council had asked staff to review some of these Ordinances to get "tougher" on some of the issues. He asked if a third violation would be registered if the Ordinance was changed to two violations in six months. City Attorney Roy replied in the negative. Councilmember Kastein asked if the intent was simply to reduce the time to six months with two violations. City Attorney Roy stated the Ordinance would allow the possibility of quicker enforcement when there was no response from the owner, manager or tenant. He stated the Code Enforcement Officer could request a hearing before the City Manager and give notice to the landlord, tenant or property manager and then,if there was no response or demonstration that the problem was being corrected, the City Manager could determine that a nuisance existed and public nuisance proceedings could take place. He stated this was a mechanism for accelerating the process in aggravated situations. He stated this would not preclude the issuance of a third citation or prevent the City from holding people responsible on each individual citation. Councilmember Kastein asked if a third citation would be issued if an effort was being made to evict. City Attorney Roy stated there was a difference between the underlying violations and the citations issued for violation of the City Code. He stated nothing would preclude the issuance of Code citations. He stated the issue with this Ordinance was notices to the property owner of a separate violation for the purposes of commencing the civil action. He stated there would continue to be a 45-day waiting period for the third violation awaiting eviction and that a third citation may not be needed under this process if nothing was being done to correct the problem. Atteberry stated staff had received clear feedback regarding the need to tighten up the processing time to go through the Public Nuisance Ordinance while being respectful of due process when landlords were 255 May 4, 2004 attempting to deal with problem tenants. He stated the amount of time to get through a Public Nuisance Ordinance process was a frustration. Councilmember Kastein asked why the City would not always choose to recover 100% of the administrative cost. Atteberry stated there were two parts of the cost—the abatement cost and the administrative cost. He stated abatement costs were recovered 100% at this time. He stated his opinion was that 100%of the costs should be recovered to allow more enforcement to be done. He stated this was not an effort to recoup more than the City's actual costs. Councilmember Kastein asked how much would be recovered if the City was recovering 50%of the administrative cost. Rich Kopp,Compliance Supervisor,stated the administrative cost per case was approximately$18 and that half of that was being collected at this time. Councilmember Kastein asked about "unreasonable noise" and noted that Denver used a specific decibel level to define "unreasonable noise." He asked if staff had considered something more definable than an officer's judgement of the noise level. Atteberry stated this question could be answered prior to Second Reading. He stated the intent was to give officers more discretion and to allow them to more effectively enforce noise complaints. City Attorney Roy stated the task force discussed use of a decibel meter for these types of noise violations. He stated as a practical matters these kinds of noises, as opposed to industrial noise, did not lend themselves to being measured at the property line by a decibel meter. Councilmember Tharp stated parties could be a nuisance due to a number of factors such as the number of people, enforcement and noise. She stated she had previously heard concerns from residents about the requirement that there must be two witnesses to a barking dog and asked if that requirement was being changed. Atteberry stated this had been a problem for animal control officers and that the officer currently did not have the ability to issue a citation unless there were two witnesses. He stated the task force had discussed cases in which adjacent neighbors were not willing to be a witness. He stated the Ordinance would allow the officer to determine if the noise from a barking dog was unreasonable and issue a citation without a formal complaint by an adjacent property owner. City Attorney Roy stated there would no longer be a requirement that two neighbors would have to make a complaint. He stated the Ordinance would allow the animal enforcement officer to stand at the property line,listen to the barking dog and make a determination that the noise was unreasonable. Mayor Martinez asked if a complaint would have to be received before the officer could take the action. City Attorney Roy stated there was no absolute requirement that the Ordinance be enforced only on a complaint basis but that the typical situation was for a complaint to be received before the officer would go to the location. 256 May 4, 2004 Mayor Martinez stated he would like a clarification to the Ordinance because people walking by a house could cause a dog to bark. He stated he would like to ensure that some kind of complaint was received before the action could be taken by the officer. City Manager Fischbach stated staff could look at a clarification before Second Reading. City Attorney Roy stated it would be unusual to have an Ordinance that would require enforcement on a complaint basis only. He stated the Ordinance would require that the sound be of such"level and duration as to be or tend to be injurious to human health or welfare or unreasonable interfere with the enjoyment of life or property." Mayor Martinez asked why an action would be taken if no complaint had been received. He expressed a concern that there could be perceptions that the Ordinance could be enforced in an arbitrary manner. City Attorney Roy stated a change could be made to the Ordinance on Second Reading if that was the direction of a majority of the Council as expressed in the motion for adoption on First Reading. Atteberry stated Animal Control was not proactively enforcing the provisions about barking dogs. He stated animal control and code enforcement officers worked to mediate between parties on all kinds of issues, including barking dogs. Mayor Martinez stated he would like to see a clarification to the Ordinance requiring a legitimate reason (a complaint) for the officer to be at the location of the barking dog. Councilmember Hamrick asked if there was a violation of an Ordinance if there was no"victim"i.e. could the officer make a complaint about a barking dog if a complaint had not been received from a resident. City Attorney Roy stated an officer could make a complaint. Councilmember Hamrick stated he had the same concerns as those expressed by Mayor Martinez. City Attorney Roy asked for clarification that there should be language inserted to say that no citation would be issued unless that was done pursuant to a third party citizen complaint. Mayor Martinez stated his intent was that a citation could onlybe issued in response to a complaint. Councilmember Bertschy asked if that would change the intent of the Ordinance. City Attorney Roy stated part of the issue was removing the need for a witness to the barking dog (a neighbor). Mayor Martinez stated he believed that an anonymous complaint should be sufficient and that he felt that there should be some kind of a complaint before a ticket could be written. Councilmember Hamrick asked for additional information prior to Second Reading of Ordinance No. 074, 2004 regarding the difference between what would be allowed under xeriscaping as opposed to ornamental grass. 257 May 4, 2004 Councilmember Tharp asked about the storage of materials in carports when the materials would be visible from the street. City Attorney Roy stated under the Ordinance as written the storage of such materials in carports would be prohibited unless screened from view. He stated the Council might want to consider whether the Ordinance was more prohibitive than desired. Councilmember Roy asked about the definition of"unreasonable noise"in the second WHEREAS in Ordinance No. 071, 2004. He asked if the Ordinance would be stronger with regard to vehicles if it would say". . . any sound of such level and/or duration . . . ." He asked if there were limitations with the language that specified "level and duration." City Attorney Roy stated change would be a good idea. Councilmember Bertschy stated he believed that an open carport was a suitable place to store items and asked if there would be a way to incorporate that idea into the Ordinance. City Attorney Roy stated the Ordinance could be rewritten to make carports an exception or to specify that"uncovered" materials would be defined and would constitute a violation. Councilmember Weitkunat stated she would not support altering the Ordinance at this meeting. She stated she viewed the purpose of a carport as covering a car rather than for storage. City Manager Fischbach stated staff could look at different ways to address the issue on Second Reading. Councilmember Kastein asked how complaints were received regarding stored materials. Kopp stated staff received storage complaints on a weekly basis. He stated it was common for communities to have outdoor storage Ordinances. He stated neighbors would probably not complain about storage in carports as much as storage in yards. Councilmember Roy made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Tharp, to adopt Ordinance No. 071, 2004 on First Reading, with an amendment to the second WHEREAS clause to change the words "level and duration"to "level and/or duration." Councilmember Roy stated each Ordinance was an amendment to an existing Ordinance and was an attempt to make the current provision more enforceable. Councilmember Kastein stated this Ordinance would give Code enforcement officers more criteria on which to base decisions about unreasonable noise. Councilmember Bertschy stated these Ordinances were brought about by a task force that involved citizens, police, code enforcement staff, and legal staff working to resolve issues that had been repeatedly brought to everyone's attention. He stated there had been a number of discussions regarding the Ordinances. He thanked the staff and the task force for their work. 258 May 4, 2004 The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Bertschy, Hamrick, Kastein, Martinez, Roy, Tharp and Weitkunat. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED Councilmember Bertschy made a motion,seconded by Councilmember Hamrick,to adopt Ordinance No. 072, 2004 on First Reading. Councilmember Weitkunat made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Roy, to amend the Ordinance in Section 2(c)(2) to insert the words "of a similar nature" in the following sentence: "Notwithstanding the foregoing,a public nuisance may also be considered to exist on a parcel if two or more separate violations of a similar nature . . . ." Councilmember Weitkunat stated the intent of the motion to amend was to resolve the repetitive nuisance. She stated she did not believe that the purpose of the Ordinance was to deal with two infractions of a different nature. City Attorney Roy asked if the intent was that the two infractions be violations of the same Code section. Councilmember Weitkunat stated her intent was that it would be two violations relating to the same nuisance (i.e. two instances of a barking dog, two parties, etc.). City Attorney Roy stated he understood that the intent was that there must be two separate violations of the same Code section. He asked if the intent was that this would apply only under the expedited process. Councilmember Weitkunat stated was her intent. Councilmember Tharp stated she would not support the amendment because nuisance complaints were cumulative and affected the neighborhood even though they might be dissimilar complaints. She stated she would prefer the Ordinance as written. Councilmember Hamrick asked for staffs perspective on the amendment. Atteberry stated the amendment would be progress over the current situation. He stated there would be limits compared with the Ordinance as proposed. The vote on the motion to amend was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Bertschy, Hamrick, Kastein, Martinez, Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: Councilmember Tharp. THE MOTION CARRIED Councilmember Kastein asked that the Council not approve the Ordinance. He stated there was some discomfort with the philosophy that landlords should be held accountable for tenant behavior and that the"three or more strikes and you're out philosophy"was built into the process. He stated 259 May 4, 2004 this gave landlords a chance to correct problems. He stated he did not support reducing the time available for the landlord to deal with problems. Councilmember Tharp stated the intent was to expedite the process when the tenant or landlord had been non-responsive to two complaints. She stated she favored the Ordinance as written and would accept it as amended. Councilmember Weitkunat stated she did not like this Ordinance and believed in the concept of "three strikes and you're out." She stated she would support the Ordinance because of the addition of the language "of a similar nature" in the amendment. Councilmember Bertschy stated he could support the Ordinance because of the language relating to non-responsiveness. Mayor Martinez stated he did not like the Ordinance and that the Judge could make decisions and impose a fine without the Ordinance. The vote on the main motion as amended was as follows:Yeas:Councilmembers Bertschy,Hamrick, Martinez, Roy, Tharp and Weitkunat. Nays: Councilmember Kastein. THE MOTION CARRIED Councilmember Tharp made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Hamrick,to adopt Ordinance No. 073, 2004 on First Reading. Mayor Martinez asked if the motion included consideration of the idea that a complaint would have to be lodged before a summons could be issued. Councilmember Tharp replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Kastein made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Hamrick, to amend the Ordinance to require that a warning be issued. Councilmember Weitkunat stated the motion to amend would mean that the Code would be unchanged. Councilmember Kastein stated the Ordinance would still make a change regarding unreasonable noise. He stated he was asking that there be a mandatory warning. City Attorney Roy stated if the deleted language was reinstated he would recommend a slight change to the reinstated language. 260 May 4, 2004 Mayor Martinez stated the amendment would mean that a warning must be issued and that was the language of the existing provision. City Attorney Roy stated it was his understanding that this was the intent of the motion. Councilmember Kastein stated the intent of the motion to amend was to continue to require a mandatory warning and to expand the ways in which a violation could occur. Mayor Martinez stated he would not support the motion to amend. City Attorney Roy stated the policy decision was whether or not to give the officer responding to a complaint the discretion to issue a citation the first time or whether the requirement for a warning before issuance of a citation should be retained. Councilmember Tharp asked what criteria would be used by the officer in giving a warning instead of a citation. City Attorney Roy stated such discretion existed with almost every Ordinance and was inherent with law enforcement responsibilities. Councilmember Tharp asked whether this would mean that the officer would have discretion to determine if there were mitigating circumstances regarding the barking dog. City Attorney Roy replied in the affirmative and stated the officer would have the discretion to issue a warning with the language of the Ordinance as written. Councilmember Tharp stated she would like to give the officer discretion to give a warning if there were mitigating circumstances. Mayor Martinez asked why Councilmember Kastein would support a mandatory warning when it had been shown to be ineffective. Councilmember Kastein stated he did not see the nuisance of barking dogs as being that significant in a big city. He stated he believed that the dog's owner should receive a warning the first time to give an opportunity to change behavior. He stated he would prefer not to have the warning given at the officer's discretion. He stated he believed that a citation could wait until the second occurrence. Mayor Martinez stated this Ordinance was needed because Fort Collins has become a big city. The vote on the motion to amend was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Kastein and Weitkunat. Nays: Councilmembers Bertschy, Hamrick, Martinez, Roy and Tharp. THE MOTION CARRIED 261 May 4, 2004 The vote on the main motion was as follows:Yeas: Councilmembers Bertschy,Hamrick,Martinez, Roy, Tharp and Weitkunat. Nays: Councilmember Kastein. THE MOTION CARRIED Councilmember Tharp made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Hamrick,to adopt Ordinance No. 074, 2004 on First Reading. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Bertschy, Hamrick, Kastein, Martinez, Roy, Tharp and Weitkunat. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED Councilmember Weitkunat made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Hamrick, to adopt Ordinance No. 075, 2004 on First Reading. Councilmember Kastein made a motion to table consideration of Ordinance No.075,2004 until the next Council meeting so that staff could more fully evaluate the idea that Councilmember Tharp raised about the storage of material in carports. He stated he would like to determine if other cities had similar ordinances. THE MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND Councilmember Tharp suggested looking at whether there were exceptions in the Ordinances of other cities before Second Reading. The vote on the main motion was as follows:Yeas: Councilmembers Bertschy,Hamrick,Martinez, Roy, Tharp and Weitkunat. Nays: Councilmember Kastein. THE MOTION CARRIED Items Relating to the Prospect East 4th Annexation and Zoning, Adopted. The following is staff's memorandum on this item. "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 061, 2004, Annexing Property Known as the Prospect East 4th Annexation. 262 May 4, 2004 B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 062, 2004,Amending the Zoning Map ofthe City of Fort Collins and Classifyingfor Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the Prospect East 4th Annexation, On April6, 2004, Council unanimously adopted Resolution 2004-046SettingForth Findings of Fact and Determinations Regarding the Prospect East 4th Annexation. Ordinance No. 061, 2004 and Ordinance No. 062, 2004, which were unanimously adopted on First Reading on April 6, 2004, annex and zone 21.18 acres located on the south side of East Prospect Road, east of Sharp Point Drive, and west of the Cache La Poudre River. It is currently being used as a farm and calving operation and is in the FA—Farming Zoning District in Larimer County. The requested zoning in the City of Fort Collins is RC—River Conservation. Staffis recommending that this property be included in the Residential Neighborhood Sign District. A map amendment will not be necessary to place this property on the Residential Neighborhood Sign District Map. " City Manager Fischbach introduced the agenda item and stated staff would be available to answer any questions. Dixie Anderson Gibbons,property owner,stated she had no problem with annexation. She objected to the taking of 300 feet of her 21 acres for the river buffer and noted the buffer would involve half of the property. She stated River Conservation zoning was recommended and that she had been told that farming would be a grandfathered use. She stated her corrals and outbuildings would be located on the buffer. She expressed a concern that a future Council and staff might not see the issue the same way as the current Council and staff. She stated there was nothing in the River Conservation provision relating to the corrals and bringing in winter feed for storage. She stated she had been told that the five buildings would be allowed to remain "subject to review by the Planning and Zoning Board." She stated she did not understand that requirement. She stated she wanted protection that the Planning and Zoning Board could not change the decision regarding whether the buildings were grandfathered. She stated she had been told that she could have fencing and had a concern that the River Conservation zoning provisions called for fences that were two poles high(5 feet)with smooth wire. She stated the cattle would not stay in an area fenced like that. She stated she had been assured that she could keep the fence that she had now. She stated the T-Transition zone would give her family more flexibility and that River Conservation zoning would mean that she could do nothing with the property if she chose to relocate. She stated she would like to see the City buy the property. Lisa Fitzmeyer, extended family member of the landowner, spoke in favor of T-Transition zoning. She stated the annexation had been anticipated but that the zoning to River Conservation had never 263 May 4, 2004 been discussed with the property owner until recently. She stated the property owner had been told repeatedly that the property would be grandfathered in and that the assumption was that the property would continue to be zoned as Agriculture. She stated that after the April 20 City Council meeting, the property owner first learned from the City Planning Department that there was no Agriculture zoning in the City. She stated rezoning the property as River Conservation was in the best interest of the City but not in the interest of the landowner. She stated the property was used as a calf pasture business and that the regulations attached to the River Conservation Zoning District made "references that were laughable when applied to a livestock operation." She stated River Conservation zoning would place restrictions on the future use and/or saleability of the property by the landowner and future family generations. She stated the River Conservation zoning would provide the City with the protection and insurance of obtaining the land and the much sought after lake for its open space program. She stated the City had taken pieces of the property over the last 25 years for building a dike along the river and for building a bike and jogging trails. She stated River Conservation zoning would include a 300 foot buffer zone from the river and a 100 foot buffer around the lake. She stated other City departments were working on taking more property along Prospect Road in order to widen the road, add a decorative median and move the bike path even further onto this property. She stated the landowner's access to the property would be severely limited to the point where livestock hauling equipment could not get into and out of the property. She stated the landowner continued to lose sections of this property through being forced to donate property needed for City improvements or through the City legally condemning the property so that it could be used for the betterment of the public. She stated the landowner and family members were having their property and livelihood "stolen" by the City. She stated the Planning Office and the City Code indicated that there was no zoning for Agriculture in the City limits, even though there was a City-owned farm in north Fort Collins within the river buffer,horses and livestock operations on CSU property and a feedlot near the new high school. She stated the property owner had been told that the River Conservation district was the only zone to allow Agriculture and that there were no exemptions. She stated the properties mentioned did not conform to local zoning. She stated the City Code appeared to provide exemptions for nonconforming property and special permitted uses. She asked that the Council separate the annexation and the zoning and hear the zoning at a later date. She stated more written information regarding the application of nonconforming properties and special permitted uses was being requested by the property owner. She asked that Council not rezone the property to River Conservation. Councilmember Weitkunat asked staff to explain the T-Transition zone. Steve Olt, City Planner, stated the T-Transition zoning district was an option in the City Land Use Code. He stated T was a"holding zone"and that current ongoing activities and land uses on the property could continue as they existed under the T zone. He stated no further development or new structures or expansion of operations would be allowed under T zoning. He stated at such time redevelopment would occur on the property that the property would have to be zoned into another zoning district that would 264 May 4, 2004 allow the proposed uses. He stated the T-Transition zone was not recommended for this property at this time. Councilmember Tharp asked why staff would not recommend T-Transition zoning since the current use for calving was grandfathered in for as long as the owner wished to use the property for that purpose. Olt stated the River Conservation Zoning District was being recommended by staffbecause it was consistent with the City Structure Plan. He stated under the RC zone, the calving operation was an ongoing permitted use as a Type 1 administrative review if this was a new permitted use. He stated agricultural activities and farm animals were permitted. He read the definition of an agricultural activity:`Agricultural activity shall mean farming,including plowing,tillage,cropping, installation of best management practices, seeding, cultivating or harvesting for the production of food and fiber products, the grazing or raising of livestock except in feedlots, agriculture, sod production,orchards,nurseries" He stated the ongoing calving operation was a permitted use in the RC district. He stated the City had no intention to require that the property owner cease and desist that operation because it was permitted in the zone. Councilmember Hamrick asked what uses would be permitted if the owner wanted to sell the property when they wanted to quit farming and raising livestock. He stated he was supportive of the Structure Plan. Olt stated there were several types of uses in the RC district: residential uses with single-family detached dwellings on 40 acres or larger (large lot residential); institution and public/civic uses such as public facilities,parks and recreation open lands,or golf courses;industrial uses such as composting facilities or resource extraction, processes and sales; accessory and miscellaneous uses such as farm animals and agricultural activities; commercial retail uses such as animal boarding, plant nurseries, greenhouses; or wireless telecommunications equipments and facilities. He stated there were some limitations to commercial and retail development in the RC zone. Councilmember Tharp asked if there was some way to give the property owner a written explanation of the"grandfathering in" of the agricultural use so that a future Council could not change that. Councilmember Bertschy stated the agricultural use was not grandfathered since it was a permitted use. City Attorney Roy stated agriculture was both a permitted use and a nonconforming use. He stated if the property was coming into a zone district that did not permit agricultural activities that it would still be allowed to continue as a nonconforming use unless it was abandoned for 12 months or longer. He stated the proposed zone district did permit agricultural activities. He stated for those two reasons the property was protected. He stated he understood the property owner's concern and noted the statement by the property owner that this was subject to the review of the Planning and Zoning Board. He stated the Board review would apply to any new development and that this did not imply that the existing operation was subject to Planning and Zoning Board review. He stated a future City Council could change the City Code and change permitted uses within a zone district. 265 May 4, 2004 He stated if that happened,the calving operation would become a nonconforming use under current provisions. He stated some case law held that annexation agreements that allowed a use to continue as a condition of annexation for a given period of time were enforceable. He stated there could be a possibility to do an annexation agreement that would better assure the property owner that the existing use could continue for a specified period of time. Mayor Martinez asked if half of the 21 acres was actually being taken over by the buffer. Doug Moore, Environmental Planner, Natural Resources Department, stated staff was working on modifications to Section 3.4.1 of the Land Use Code relating to buffers. He stated the buffer issue did not come into play until there was a development proposal. He stated there were several features listed on the Natural Habitat and Features Inventory Map that prescribed certain distances that would apply. He stated staff was not proposing taking over any of this property and that buffers could be modified. Mayor Martinez asked if the City would have control over half of the 21 acres. Moore stated he was not aware that this would be the case. Mayor Martinez asked why the owner believed that the City was taking over half of the 21 acres. Ms. Gibbons stated she was told by the Planning Department that there would be a 300 foot buffer from the river bank. She stated this would take half the lake and a large area of her property. She stated she would be allowed no use of the property included in the buffer and that this would mean that she could not sell the property. She stated there would also be a 100 foot buffer around the lake. She stated RC zoning would lock her in with little property to sell. Mayor Martinez asked if that was correct. Moore stated if property was proposed for redevelopment that staff would look at the proposal under Article 3 of the Land Use Code. He stated there were buffer standards in Section 3.4.1 that would apply. He stated there would be a Planning and Zoning Board review and that staff would do an analysis to determine if the buffer area could be reduced in size. He stated the current Code called for a 300 foot buffer in that area of the river. Olt stated the 300 foot buffer was not specific to the RC zoning district and that it would apply regardless of the zoning. Moore stated the one exception was the RDR-River Downtown Development. ("Secretary's Note: The Council took a brief recess at this point.) Councilmember Kastein asked if there was anything that was currently being done that the property owner would not be permitted to do after the annexation and zoning. Olt stated the property owner would be entitled to continue doing what was being done as an agricultural activity within the RC district. 266 May 4, 2004 Councilmember Kastein asked if any uses within the 300 foot buffer could continue. Olt replied in the affirmative. He stated the buffer district would not be imposed on the existing uses until such time as there would be new development. Councilmember Weitkunat made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Hamrick, to adopt Ordinance No. 061, 2004 on Second Reading. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Bertschy, Hamrick, Kastein, Martinez, Roy, Tharp and Weitkunat. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED Councilmember Kastein made a motion,seconded by Councilmember Hamrick,to adopt Ordinance No. 062, 2004 on Second Reading. Councilmember Tharp stated it was her understanding that under the River Corridor zoning the property would have many uses and that provided the landowner was there the current uses could continue. She stated she understood that at the point the property owner might decide to sell the property for redevelopment that the other aspects would come into play(buffers,what development could actually occur,etc.). She stated she understood that the T-Transition zone was not appropriate in the staffs view because it was a"holding pattern." She questioned whether that was what should be done because there was no plan for redevelopment at this point. She stated the Structure Plan was a"broad brush" approach and did not always apply to specific sites. She asked if there was a way to keep the property in the T-Transition zone until a future time. Councilmember Weitkunat stated Transition was a "holding pattern." She stated it was already known what the zoning on this property was on the Structure Plan. She stated T zoning would simply be a postponement of changing the property to River Conservation. She stated the property would have to be zoned RC at a future time unless the Structure Plan was amended. Councilmember Tharp stated this would restrict the uses on the property in the future. Councilmember Weitkunat commented that all zoning would impose restrictions. She stated T zoning would delay the inevitable. She stated zoning should be based on characteristics and criteria using the best methodology. Councilmember Kastein stated regardless of the zoning the buffer zone would take effect after annexation. He stated there would be restrictions on future uses in the buffer zone regardless of the zoning and that there would have to be an appeal for some kind of exemption to do any development in the buffer zone. He noted that there was a process for that. 267 May 4, 2004 Mayor Martinez asked what Ms. Gibbons wanted the Council to do to "fix" her concerns. Ms. Gibbons stated she would have to cross the City's trail parking lot to get to her land to use it. She stated she had about eight acres left to use. She asked that the property be zoned T-Transition because RC zoning would "lock her in"with the wildlife, which would be good if the City would buy the property. She stated she could not do anything with the property under RC zoning in the event that she relocated her operation. She stated she would need some financial help in order to relocate. Councilmember Weitkunat asked if the property understood that T-Transition would not allow anything to be done with the property and would not allow any changes to be made. Ms. Gibbons stated her attorney indicated that T-Transition would be the best zoning to avoid her being"locked" into RC zoning and to allow an opportunity for her to see if something could be done with the land. Councilmember Tharp stated the landowner had made a reference to the fact that due to the City's open space there was no access to her property. She asked if there was a way to provide access from Prospect for the property owner. Olt stated annexation and zoning the property RC would not change the current operation in its present form or access to the site. He stated the property owner apparently felt that the RC zoning would in some way change the access or encumber the current use of the property. Mayor Martinez stated he understood the concerns of the property owner and what she had been told by her attorney. He stated regardless of the zoning that there would still be an issue with the buffer. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Bertschy, Hamrick, Kastein, Martinez, Roy, Tharp and Weitkunat. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED Resolution 2004-058 Repealing and Readopting City Plan as the City's Comprehensive Plan, and Repealing Certain Other Obsolete Plans, Adopted. The following is staff s memorandum on this item. "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The adoption of this Resolution will complete a 20 month long process to update City Plan, the City's Comprehensive Plan. City Plan was initially adopted in 1997, along with a commitment to periodically review, and if necessary, update the document. The update results in revisions to the vision, goals, principles and policies, and Structure Plan map of City Plan related to the City's 268 May 4, 2004 growth management area, redevelopment and infill development, the City's role in the region's economy, open space and community separators, transportation, and neighborhoods and housing. The update to City Plan was conducted in collaboration with the Transportation Master Plan update, which was adopted by the City Council on March 2, 2004. The update to City Plan received input from the Council, the Council appointed Citizens Advisory Committee, City advisory boards, key stakeholders, and the general public throughout the planning process. The revised City Plan Document distributed on Thursday,March 25, included a cover page with two different dates. Several of the documents were dated October 15, 2003, and the rest were dated April 6, 2004(the correct date). The date is the only difference between these distributed documents. A new graphic has been added to the City Plan Document - Community Vision and Goals: Transportation,page 27. This image provides an update to the original graphic by incorporating the latest components of the street system such as transit, bike and pedestrian options for travel and streetscape design. BACKGROUND City Plan and the Transportation Master Plan were both originally adopted in 1997, with a public commitment that both plans would be periodically reviewed and, if necessary, modified to ensure that they remain capable ofachieving their respective goals and objectives. City Plan embraced the concepts ofnew urbanism, including mixed land uses, multi-modal transportation options,fostering pedestrian friendly environments, compact urban form, sustainable economy, and being a responsible steward of the natural environment. The Transportation Master Plan introduced new directions for the City's long-range transportation planning and funding. For the past 20 months, a planning process has been followed designed to address local and regional changes, incorporate other plans adopted since 1997, and to test the City's progress in successfully implementing each plan's vision. The updates to City Plan and the Transportation Master Plan were conducted in parallel with one another because land use and transportation issues are so closely related. Key issues were reviewed in the City Plan update process including analyzing the City's growth management strategies and examining what other communities are doing, examining the boundaries of the Growth Management Area (GMA), looking at Fort Collins' relationship in the context of regional growth, examining the relationship between housing density/compact urban form and traffic congestion, exploring more housing options, examining infill and redevelopment policies,and looking at the community's jobs/housing balance. 269 May 4, 2004 Key elements reviewed and integrated into the Transportation Master Plan Update included the Master Street Plan,Bicycle and Pedestrian Plans, Transfort Strategic Plan,Mason Transportation Corridor,andSmartTrips Transportation DemandManagementprograms. Regional travelpatterns and impacts into and out of Fort Collins were also addressed. Part I of the planning process to prepare updates of City Plan and the Transportation Master Plan was to develop a list of characteristics that describe the future size and character of the City ofFort Collins. The list of characteristics was adopted by the City Council on March 18, 2003. The planning process continued with a Part II where revisions to specific vision statements, goals, and principles and policies were developed, including changes to the City Structure Plan map and the Master Street Plan map. The Transportation Master Plan update used the community land use and size information from the City Plan process to conduct a focused analysis of transportation needs, trade-offs, and relative costs. Part II of the planning process culminated with the release of a revised version of the City Plan document dated October 15, 2003. This document was made available to the City Council,general public and distributed to key boards for their review and comment. On October 20, 2003, the Planning and Zoning Board conducted a public hearing and formulated a recommendation to the City Council for the adoption of the update to City Plan, along with their suggested changes. The Board's vote was 5-2 to recommend adoption of the update. Other keyboards have also forwarded their comments on the 10115103 version of City Plan to the Council. The City Council conducted four study sessions during the City Plan update process. Two critical study sessions were conducted on October 28, 2003, and on January 13, 2004. The October 28 Study Session allowed Councilmembers to submit their personal comments and suggested changes to the 10115103 version of City Plan. Staff then organized Council's comments and suggested changes, along with all comments and suggested changes received from the CAC and City advisory boards, into a matrix table that formed the basis for the January 13, 2004 Study Session. At the January 13 Study Session Council gave direction on final changes to the City Plan document. The update to City Plan is, thus, the product of the City Council, the concentrated work by the Council appointed Citizens Advisory Committee, staff and the consulting teams, interviews with stakeholders, City advisory boards, a community survey, and numerous public meetings. Throughout the process issues were grouped and discussed in the following major categories: • Region and Economy • Open Space and Community Separators • Transportation • Development and Redevelopment Patterns 270 May 4, 2004 • Neighborhoods and Housing Rgylon and Economy Policies in this group provide direction as to the role Fort Collins will play in the region's economy and the City government's future fiscal health. Open Space and Community Separators Policies in the initial City Plan called for the preservation of natural areas and maintaining open space corridors that separate Fort Collins from surrounding communities. Most of the policies for the preservation of natural areas were retained, or only needed minor wording changes. A new set of policies were developed and added into a new community separator section. Policies were revised to add clarification of what was envisioned for the edges of the GMA, new policies were added for the Boxelder drainage basin, and policies acknowledge that natural resources protection should include a regional strategy. Transportation Policies in City Plan promoting mobility and safe and efficient multi-modal transportation choices are the focus of the transportation policies. These policies are the same policies included in the Transportation Master Plan. Development and Redevelopment Patterns Throughout the planning process a great deal ofdiscussion focused on the GMA size and boundary. Policies in the update to City Plan indicate the GMA boundary is to be retained as it is generally presently configured, except for the potential additions of the CSUFoothills Campus, the Wildflower Area, and the Fossil Creek Cooperative Planning Area (CPA). Criteria and procedures for GMA boundary amendments in the future have been defined and established. Neighborhood and Housine Policies here deal with infill and redevelopment and minimizing the impacts of character changes within neighborhoods. Additional policies deal with the provision ofaffordable housing. Public Outreach As indicated, a Council appointed Citizens Advisory Committee was very instrumental in helping develop the update to City Plan. In addition, City advisory boards, key stakeholders, and the 271 May 4, 2004 general public were all involved in the process and had many opportunities to provide input. A resident survey was conducted in December 2002 as another tool to involve the general public and obtain opinions on some of the major issues being addressed in the plan updates. The survey contained questions about the Growth Management Area boundary, transportation, infrastructure, development and redevelopment, housing, andopenspace. Four generalpublic meeting/workshops were also conducted during the planning process. Planning and Zoning Board Recommendation On October 30, 2003, the Planning and Zoning Board conducted a public hearing and formulated a recommendation to the City Council for the adoption of the update to City Plan, along with their suggested changes. The Board's vote was 5-2 to recommend adoption of the update. The negative votes expressed serious concerns with the fundamental issue of not expanding the GMA;not cooperativelyplanning the area outside the GMA;inftll and redevelopment would become more difficult because everything would need to be consistent with subarea plans, and the length of time it takes to complete subarea plans would bean effective moratorium;and acquiring open space and increasing fees will force growth outside the GMA that will increase traffic and pollution." City Manager Fischbach introduced the agenda item. Joe Frank, Director of Advance Planning,presented background information regarding the agenda item. He stated there had been a 21 month process to update the City's Comprehensive Plan that was adopted in 1997. He spoke regarding the planning process,highlighted key directions in the updated plan, described the efforts to get the public involved in shaping the Plan, outlined some of the next steps, and stated a staff team would be available to answer Council's questions. He stated Part 1 of the planning process was to ask people about their vision for the community and to discuss the future size of the community. He state Part 2 was more technical and involved translating the vision into new or updated goals, principles and policies. He stated Part 1 of the visioning process started in August of 2002 with an inventory of existing conditions and an analysis of trends. He stated that led to the development of alternative scenarios and characteristics to describe the ideal Fort Collins in the year 2025. He stated the culmination of Part 1 was the adoption by Council of 23 characteristics that described the future character and the size of Fort Collins. He stated the characteristics established the foundation for Part 2 of the planning process to make detailed changes to the City Plan document and to present those changes for public review and comment. He stated the final step in Part 2 was adoption by Council of the recommended plan. He stated most people agreed that the community was on a good course established by the 1997 City Plan document. He stated some new ideas and concerns were heard as well. He noted that it was learned that most people were not in favor of expanding the Growth Management Area (GMA) boundary at this time and that the plan needed to include more precise procedures and criteria for future discussions about expanding the 272 May 4, 2004 GMA. He stated there was a lot of support for in-fill and redevelopment at strategic locations and that most people supported a more active role on the part of the City. He stated new policies and maps were added in response. He stated a lot was heard about protecting and enhancing existing neighborhoods and that policies were strengthened in response. He stated community separators were seen as important and that the plan needed new principles and policies to describe where and how community separators would be achieved. He stated a lot of concern was heard regarding transportation and mobility and opportunities for all modes of travel. He stated the Council had approved a new Master Transportation Plan in response to those concerns. He stated there was support for the City to continue to be a leader in shaping the future of the region and continued support for protection and enhancement of the river through implementation of existing plans. He stated support was heard for continuing efforts to protect the quality of the environment, including the preservation of open lands, improving air and water quality, and preserving historic resources. He stated support was heard for continuing the City programs regarding safe and affordable housing. He stated a lot was heard about the need to strengthen the local economy through a number of means. He stated concerns were heard about expanding and maintaining the City revenue base, and that one policy in the plan focused on strengthening the City's role as a center for shopping and culture within the region. He stated the update included a new and improved City Structure Plan that would provide more context to local planning efforts by showing what was planned at the City's edges. He stated there was a comprehensive and extensive public process. He stated a key participant was the 23 member Citizen Advisory Committee appointed by Council. He stated the City Council met more than 10 times to discuss elements of the work. He stated many forms of communication were used to inform the public about the process. He stated after Council adopted the updated Plan, the next step was implementation in accordance with the action plan. David Wright, Executive Director of Citizen Planners, spoke in support of the Plan and noted that Citizen Planners appreciated the huge amount of citizen involvement in the process. He stated the Plan as written was a good compromise and was very forward looking. He thanked the Council, staff and the citizens who took part in the process. He asked that Council vote in favor of the Plan as written. Linda Hopkins, Citizen Advisory Committee member, stated one emerging theme being expressed in the community was the benefit of regional efforts on"boundaryless"issues. She stated this theme was in contrast with some of the ideals set forth in City Plan. She stated City Plan in many instances ignored regional issues and that there were constraints in the Growth Management Area as defined. She stated for the record that she was speaking as an individual citizen rather than on behalf of the City Plan committee. She stated the Master Street Plan was typically a reflection of a City Plan and it was awkward that the Master Street Plan had already been adopted in this case. She stated the process had excellent staff support and consulting team. She stated City Plan was an update of the philosophical statement and that the process included very little reflection or evaluation of the existing circumstances brought to the community by City Plan. She stated rather than examining the 273 May 4, 2004 results of the monitoring of City Plan, the philosophical statements were "wordsmithed" by the committee, and that the committee dwindled in numbers(from 23 to often less than 12)and did not reflect broad citizen input. She stated the original City Plan Committee worked hard to achieve consensus and that this Committee proceeded with decision by a majority vote. She stated the Committee did not fully utilize the evaluations offered to it and that there was a tendency toward "pleasant philosophical platitudes." She stated future Councils would struggle with the practical applications of City Plan. She stated there would be conflict relating to issues such as annexations/density, alley houses/density, and neighborhoods/density. She stated the committee never had a thorough discussion of the implications of density. She stated she had with her an e-mail from Committee member Gina Janett, relating to the lack of discussion on density. She stated the Committee agreed 100%not to make an endorsement of the plan. Greg Snyder,619 Bear Creek Drive,stated he was a participant in the early stages of the public input sessions. He stated he believed that people "heard what they wanted to hear" during the process. He stated Citizen Planner"infiltrated"and steered the public input. He stated to his knowledge there were no public input sessions at which people could address problems with the current City Plan. He stated City Plan was based on a "new urbanism, which was a failed concept." He stated the problem would be in the implementation. He stated there had been a flight of businesses out of Fort Collins since the implementation of City Plan and that there was a resulting decline in revenue. Brigitte Schmidt, Citizen Advisory Committee member, stated the Committee made an effort to try to look at the existing City Plan and the problems or situations that were occurring. She stated the Committee had a bus tour of different projects and how City Plan was presently working. She stated the Committee also looked at Council's input regarding various issues that were on hand. She stated many issues would be addressed in the action plan and that the plan as recommended represented compromises. She stated she believed that the plan was an accurate reflection of community views. She stated she personally supported the plan as written. Glen Colton,Citizen Advisory Committee member and former Planning and Zoning Board member, asked that the Council adopt the plan as written. He stated from his perspective the committee process was a tough one and that there was a diverse group of people representing many different viewpoints. He stated the committee worked on difficult issues such as the size of the City,desired characteristics,and the impacts of trade-offs. He stated the plan was a compromise and was a good vision for the future. David May,Executive Director of the Fort Collins Area Chamber of Commerce,thanked those who worked on this process. He stated this document was coming forward without the recommendation of the Citizen Advisory Committee and that this was indicative of a lack of community consensus. He stated the committee did not discuss what City Plan had done over the past five years. He stated the Chamber of Commerce was particularly interested in the issue of the economy and that there 274 May 4, 2004 were only eight pages out of 300 that dealt with the economy in the plan. He stated economic issues were important to the community and did not receive the attention that was deserved in the plan. He stated regionalism was another issue that did not receive enough attention in the plan. He stated "new urbanism"was being applied in the City Plan update to export the housing demand because it would follow the retail. He stated his comments should not be construed as negative with regard to the entire City Plan. He expressed a concern that the document was presented to the Council without the consensus or a vote of the Citizen Advisory Committee. Kelly Ohlson, 2040 Bennington Circle, stated he served on the original City Plan Committee. He stated he was part of a minority committee report from the original City Plan that said that the population growth projection of 2.2% was too low. He stated since then the minimum average growth rate had been 3.4%. He stated the State Demographer's population projections had been inaccurate in the past and that the 2%projection included in the Plan brought the legitimacy of the document into question. He stated the Plan should have accurate population ranges(low and high). He stated annexation of the CSU Foothills Campus would mean the expenditure of hundreds of millions of dollars for City infrastructure. He stated unless there were new arrangements that CSU would have to pay no fees,would not have to follow City regulations and would be exempt from the City Plan. He stated there would be no positive benefit for the City taxpayers in annexing that land. He questioned why that issue was even on the table for discussion. He stated the most effective and low cost pollution prevention program in the City had been to voluntarily work with industry to reduce pollution. He questioned why there was a reference in the Plan to "cost effective" in connection with that program when there was no such reference to any other City programs. Randy Fisher,Citizen Advisory Committee member,stated the process was grueling and contentious and that the result was a City Plan document that he would characterize as an "agreement wrapped in a compromise, packaged in concessions, punctuated with give-and-take, and printed on consensus." He stated the last few Committee meetings were well attended and that he saw no reason for anyone to make an issue of the fact that the Committee did not take a final vote on the plan. He stated it was time to move on with adoption of the plan. Councilmember Roy asked about references in the agenda material that stated the Growth Management Area boundary would be retained with future expansions according to established procedures and criteria and references to exceptions(i.e.Fossil Creek, CSU Foothills Campus,and Wildflower). He noted that those references had different language than the plan itself and asked if the plan language was accurate. Frank stated City Plan policy specified that one issue to be included in the update was the expansion of the Growth Management Area. He stated the policy provided that the decision at this time was not to expand the GMA and that expansions would take place only as part of the City Plan update, with the exception that the City could consider GMA expansions for Fossil Creek,the Wildflower and CSU Foothills Campus outside of the normal five- year update process. 275 May 4, 2004 Councilmember Tharp stated the Wildflower issue made sense after it had been explained but that it did not appear in the early discussions. She asked that staff explain the issue for the benefit of the audience. Frank stated this was a small 30-40 acre parcel in the southwest part of the City that was not currently in the GMA. He stated it was in an area that would be eligible for consideration by Council as an enclave annexation in December of 2004. He stated current policies would not allow the Council to consider that enclave annexation since it was not in the GMA. He stated the issue was added to the discussion late in the process so that the Council could consider the inclusion of the property in the GMA outside of the normal five-year update process. Councilmember Tharp asked if the property was surrounded by City-owned property. Frank stated there was City-owned property on several sides. Councilmember Tharp asked about references that had been made to problems with the existing City Plan not being addressed by the committee. She asked at what point such problems would be identified and addressed so that they could be corrected. Frank stated discussion on any principle, policy, goal or vision of City Plan was allowed. He stated there was some frustration on the Committee because some members wanted to deal with the Land Use Code at the height of the criticism about the development review process. He stated some people wanted to deal with specific Land Use Code issues rather than City Plan policies. He stated those discussions were not part of this process and that there was a separate review process for those Code issues. He stated the role of the Committee was to deal with the policies that were the foundation for the Code provisions. He stated a record was kept regarding the Code changes that were of interest to the Committee. Councilmember Tharp stated staff had indicated that the action plan would be the next step,and she asked what the action plan was, who would create it, and how it would be implemented. Frank stated staff would create the action plan and would incorporate implementation ideas that surfaced during committee discussions and were placed on a "parking lot" since they were not within the scope of the Committee's review. He stated the action plan would outline what needed to be done, by whom and within what timeframe. Councilmember Tharp asked when the action plan would be seen. Frank stated some of the work had already started and that work would occur over a period of time. Bruce Meighen,EDAW,stated an action plan was phased over a five-year time period and that it would be implemented before the next City Plan update. He stated subarea plan updates dealing with specific issues relating to neighborhood compatibility would be action items. Councilmember Tharp questioned extending the action plan over a five-year period since the principles would be in place after adoption of the Resolution. She asked when Council would look at the actions that this would direct staff to do to determine whether Council was supportive of the actions.Frank stated one way to ensure that action items would be completed was to work them into 276 May 4, 2004 the Council policy agenda process. He stated Council could also request a periodic City Plan monitoring report. Councilmember Tharp stated she would like to see something specific requiring an report back to Council and Council's evaluation of the action taken within a certain timeframe. She stated she would like to see a role for Council in seeing and evaluating the steps taken in the action plan implementation. Councilmember Weitkunat asked if the Appendix could be separated from the report. Councilmember Bertschy stated he viewed this as a statement of the task,the principle it applied to as an implementation strategy and the managing/coordinating department. Councilmember Tharp stated she was looking for some way for the Council to monitor the actions taken. Councilmember Bertschy questioned the need to monitor some of the actions i.e.intergovernmental agreements, Land Use Code updates that would occur every six months, etc. He noted that actions relating to economic development were already underway. Councilmember Kastein contended that the increase in densities in 1997 contributed to more people per square mile, and asked if there had been fewer trips per person as a result compared with what would have resulted from lesser densities. Frank stated vehicle miles traveled were increasing and the number of trips made was increasing. He stated attempts were made to offset that with transit alternatives. He stated the Plan was based not only on higher densities but on mixed uses. He stated vehicle miles traveled were increasing faster than the population growth rate. He stated Fort Collins had one of the highest transit ridership share in the region and one of the highest bicycle trip mode share in the region. He stated most research shows higher density to be abetter land use alternative than sprawl. Councilmember Kastein asked how higher density was better. Mark Jackson, Transportation Planner,stated low density sprawl would preclude transit from being an effective trip choice. Frank stated higher density would reduce the increase in vehicle miles traveled. Mr. Meighen stated the increase in vehicle miles traveled was a national phenomenon and had little to do with land use. Councilmember Weitkunat asked if there was anything in the 2004 document that would be directly in conflict with, or different than,the 1997 City Plan. She asked if anything in the 1997 City Plan would be negated by the new plan. Frank stated the big difference was in the GMA expansion. 277 May 4, 2004 Councilmember Weitkunat asked if this was a contradictory change. Frank stated the City was already physically limited with regard to urban growth area expansion. Mayor Martinez asked for clarification regarding the action taken by the Citizen Advisory Committee. Frank stated the insinuation was made that the Committee never took a vote because there was no consensus. He stated it was true that the Committee did not take a vote on the entire plan but that the Committee did take majority votes on every section of the plan. Councilmember Weitkunat stated she felt that it was time to vote on the Resolution. Councilmember Weitkunat made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Bertschy, to adopt Resolution 2004-058. Councilmember Roy thanked everyone who participated in the process. Councilmember Kastein stated higher density in the lower density neighborhoods was one of the principles of the original City Plan. He stated the idea was that increasing the densities would slow the geographic expansion of the City. He stated there was also a recognition that there was a need to maintain a 20 year supply of land for housing to ensure that housing could stay affordable. He stated the Resolution would be a decision in principle that the Growth Management Area should be frozen and to leave the densities in the lower density neighborhoods as they were set in 1997. He questioned whether there had been enough consideration of this point and whether it was appropriate to both leave the densities higher and freeze the GMA boundary. He asked for Council discussion of leaving densities high and freezing the GMA boundary. Councilmember Weitkunat stated part of that discussion did not belong with the discussion about City Plan. She stated this was a discussion of principles and policies. She stated City Plan was an umbrella guiding document to provide a direction. She stated specific implementation was putting the plan to work. She stated a discussion of density should take place in another venue. She stated 80% of this document was the same as the 1997 document. She stated it would be important to discuss density in depth at another time. She stated she was disappointed that the document did not address the economy in more depth but that there was another mechanism in place to address that issue. Councilmember Tharp stated if the Resolution was adopted, the Council would be adopting the GMA boundary,supporting the concept of separators and recognizing the growth of the County and neighboring cities. She stated the Council was not constricting growth so much as recognizing that the City was confined within a certain land area due to the growth to the east and south. She stated she believed that the Plan was realistic from that point of view. 278 May 4, 2004 Councilmember Hamrick stated much of the development that had taken place since 1997 had come in under the old Land Development Guidance System. He asked what percentage of developments had been done under City Plan. Frank stated the information had not been updated since 2002 at the beginning of the planning process. He stated the recent trend had been toward more City Plan projects and that until 2002 the majority were under the old LDGS. Councilmember Bertschy stated it was time to move forward with the Resolution and thanked those who participated in the process. Councilmember Tharp stated she wanted to ensure that there was a way for the Council to track, monitor and evaluate City Plan on a continuous basis. She stated she wanted the City to keep track of the consequences and results of the adopted policies. Councilmember Weitkunat stated it was a monumental undertaking to engage the community in community building and planning. She stated nobody got everything they wanted and that she viewed the plan as a"living, changing document." She stated the Plan reflected the diversity of the community. Councilmember Hamrick thanked the staff and the Committee for their work on the Plan and stated it was time to move forward. Councilmember Kastein thanked the staff, consultant and committee for their work. He stated he had the same problems with the new City Plan as he had with the old City Plan. He stated those problems related to density. He stated not much of the Plan had changed even though the Land Use Code had changed a lot over time. He stated the main change(freezing the GMA while maintaining the density goals) was a negative in his view. He stated he believed that the GMA should have a cooperative planning area. He stated the transportation plan was different with higher densities and a fixed GMA. He stated he would vote against the Resolution due to major philosophical differences that he had with the Plan. Mayor Martinez thanked everyone who worked on the Plan. He stated City Plan provided a direction and that the difficulties would come with implementation of higher density projects to provide more affordable housing. He stated it would be difficult to live up to the vision when the neighborhoods resisted in-fill development project. The vote on the motion was as follows:Yeas Councilmembers Bertschy,Hamrick,Martinez,Roy, Tharp and Weitkunat. Nays Councilmember Kastein. THE MOTION CARRIED 279 May 4, 2004 Resolution 2004-059 Authorizing Grazing Leases on the Soapstone Ranch Property To Be Acquired by the City,Adopted. The following is staff s memorandum on this item. "FINANCIAL IMPACT The grazing leases will require the lessees topay operating costsfor the remainder of2004, and will require them to pay $13 per cow/calf unit per month in 2005. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City is negotiating a contract to acquire the Colorado portion of the Soapstone Ranch, approximately 12,500 acres in size, including State Land Board lease property totaling approximately 3,800 acres, together with a covenant limiting development on the Wyomingportion of Soapstone Ranch adjacent to Colorado. The acquisition and conservation of the Colorado portion of the Soapstone Ranch supports the City's ten-year Land Conservation Framework. The Soapstone Grazing Association corporation will be purchased by a ranching family that currently owns stock in the corporation;and the Grazing Association will keep the Wyomingportion of the Ranch and sell to the City the Colorado portion. The Grazing Association will retain two easements across the Colorado portion of the Soapstone Ranch, 1)an access/utility easement along the northern part of the Colorado land to provide access to the Wyoming portion and 2) an agricultural access easement for the benefit of the ranchingfamily, which also owns land on the south side of the Soapstone Ranch, to allow the movement of cattle through the westerly three Sections of Colorado Soapstone into Wyoming and back(i.e. a cattle drive). The easement may also allow access through Colorado strictly for providing agricultural services associated with those cattle (i.e. to drive from their Colorado property to Wyoming to doctor cattle,fix fence, etc). The easement would terminate upon the sale of the Wyoming Soapstone land or the ranching family's land in Colorado,since it is intended to allow the movement ofcattle between those two properties. As a condition of transaction, the City will be obligated to allow the use ofa portion ofthe Colorado land, including the State Land Board lease land, by the selling members of Soapstone Grazing Association, who currently graze cattle on the property. Also, the City will be obligated to allow the use of one pasture by the ongoing Grazing Association. The initial term of these leases will be through the end of2004 and will require the lessees to pay the costs associated with operating the Ranch during that period. The leases may be extended by the lessees through December 31, 2005, 280 May 4, 2004 at a charge of$I3.00 per cow/calf unit/month grazed for the calendar year 2005. The leases will expire at the end of 2005. The City will need to executegrazing leases on the Soapstone Ranch, including the residence located on the Ranch, as part ofthe closing of the acquisition, including one lease to those current Grazing Association members who will no longer own an interest in current ranch property, and one lease to the ongoing Soapstone Grazing Association. " City Manager Fischbach stated the agenda item had been revised to change the action from Second Reading of Ordinance No. 076, 2004 to consideration of Resolution 2004-059. He stated the Ordinance was no longer needed. John Stokes, Natural Resources Director, stated efforts to acquire the Soapstone Ranch had continued since the adoption on First Reading of Ordinance No.076,2004. He stated the transaction had been greatly simplified. He stated the Resolution would allow the City to convey two grazing leases upon the successful acquisition of the ranch. William Altberg, Soapstone Grazing Association member, stated the vote to sell Soapstone Corporation, the land and its assets had been passed by a majority of the association members. He stated selling the ranch had an impact on agricultural and livestock livelihoods. He stated he had concerns regarding cattle grazing on the ranch after the two-year lease expired. He stated future ranch use had been unclear to several of the association members who wished to continue agricultural and livestock activities, and that they were concerned about the City's long term plans for the Colorado portion of the ranch. Greg Snyder, 619 Bear Creek Drive, stated he had opposed expanding the sales tax for open space purchases. He stated he believed that"fraud has been perpetrated upon the community." He stated proponents of the expanded sales tax had assured the community that the purchase of land at the Wyoming border would never be considered because the purpose of the sales tax would be to create and defend open areas and buffers around the City's growth area. He objected to the purchase of land that was not within eyesight of Fort Collins with minimal public input. He stated the purchase would nearly deplete the fund and that other properties (such as the Rule property and the property on East Prospect discussed earlier) could not be purchased. He asked the Council to reconsider the scope and the depth of this purchase. Glen Colton, 625 Hinsdale Drive, stated the ballot language for the open space sales tax extension mentioned local and regional separators. He stated there was extensive public outreach on that sales tax extension and that he took offense at the comments from the previous speaker regarding"fraud." He asked that Council approve the Resolution. 281 May 4, 2004 David Wright,Executive Director of Citizen Planners,stated he had talked with a number of citizens who were genuinely excited about this purchase. He asked that Council adopt the Resolution. Kelly Ohlson,2040 Bennington Circle,stated this was a great example of everyone working together on a complex arrangement that would be fair to everyone. He stated there was a well established Land Conservation Plan that took years to develop. He noted that the citizens approved the natural areas tax by a large margin. He encouraged the City to "get the public on the land" as quickly as possible. He suggested open field trips to allow the public to see the property. Craig Harrison,Timnath,asked that the Council vote to approve the Resolution and spoke regarding the Lindenmeier archaeological site on the property. Randy Fisher, 3007 Moore Lane, spoke in favor of the Resolution and stated this was the kind of land purchase that City residents wanted to see. Councilmember Weitkunat asked that staff explain the process for buying land for open space. Stokes stated the Council was not required to approve such open space purchases and that the Council was being asked to approve conveyance of a grazing lease. Councilmember Weitkunat asked if the discussion at the last meeting was not with regard to the purchase of the land but the conditions of the purchase. Stokes replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Weitkunat stated for the benefit of the audience that the Council was not approving the purchase but was being asked to approve grazing rights. Mayor Martinez noted that if the grazing rights were not approved that the deal would probably not go through. Councilmember Tharp asked why Council did not have to approve open lands purchases. City Attorney Roy stated if monies were appropriated for the purchase of open space that particular acquisitions did not require Council approval. He stated lease agreements and easements required Council approval under other provisions of the City Code. He stated the lease and the easement were integral parts of the transaction and that approval was important to allow the transaction to move forward. Councilmember Tharp stated money was already set aside for categories of separators and that Council was not required to approve specific purchases. City Attorney Roy stated was correct. Councilmember Kastein asked for clarification that Council was ultimately responsible for appropriating the dollars and putting a policy plan in place that would presumably match the public intent. City Attorney Roy replied in the affirmative. 282 May 4, 2004 Councilmember Kastein asked that staff describe the purchase price and acreage involved. City Manager Fischbach stated the City was purchasing 12,000 acres for$7.287 million. Stokes stated negotiations were still going on and that was the target purchase price. Councilmember Roy asked about future plans for grazing. Stokes stated ranch would be leased for cattle grazing for the next 1'/Z years pending City acquisition. He stated the City would likely continue grazing management on the property after that time. He stated grazing was compatible with the ecosystem and that it would be appropriate to continue to have cattle grazing on the ranch. Councilmember Hamrick asked when the Natural Areas Policy Plan was approved by the Council. Stokes stated the Plan was revised in April of 2003 to address the issue of regional open space. Councilmember Hamrick asked that a color copy of the Plan be sent to the Coloradoan. Councilmember Bertschy made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Tharp,to adopt Resolution 2004-059. Councilmember Kastein stated he did not support the original open space tax because he felt that there were more pressing infrastructure needs. He stated the tax passed and that the Council went through a public process to approve the Natural Areas Policy Plan that hopefully matched the intent of the voters as stated in the tax initiative. He stated the question was whether this natural area purchase matched the adopted Plan and that he believed that it did match. He stated one-third of the funding was set aside for regional lands which were potentially further away from the City. He stated he believed that this purchase was appropriate and noted that the City did have money to spend on open space. Councilmember Weitkunat stated she would support the grazing leases. She stated she did not support the original purchase because of the convoluted process involved in the negotiations. She stated she did not agree that open space should be purchased at any cost under any conditions. She urged that caution should be taken so that the City did not display"environmental greed." Councilmember Hamrick thanked staff for its work on the negotiations. He stated he was in total support of the transaction. He stated the open space tax was dedicated for the purpose of acquiring open space and could not be used for other purposes. He noted that there were criteria for the purchase of land. Councilmember Tharp stated she wanted the public to understand that the action of buying regional park lands followed the Natural Areas Policy Plan and the wording in the citizen-approved initiative. She stated the money was available and was dedicated for this purpose. 283 May 4, 2004 Councilmember Bertschy stated this was a fantastic piece of property and that the purchase fit the City's plan. He stated this would be an asset for the future. Mayor Martinez stated he struggled with the meaning of`regional" and whether it meant property at the Wyoming border. He stated the Council was following the legal requirements and was doing what the voters had approved. He questioned whether there was an adequate definition of "regional." The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Bertschy, Hamrick, Kastein, Martinez, Roy, Tharp and Weitkunat. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 10:10 p.m. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk 284 f May 18, 2004 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO Council-Manager Form of Government Regular Meeting- 6:00 p.m. A regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins was held on Tuesday, May 18, 2004, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll Call was answered by the following Councilmembers: Bertschy, Hamrick, Kastein, Martinez, Roy and Weitkunat. Councilmembers Absent: Tharp. Staff Members Present: Fischbach, Krajicek, Roy. Citizen Participation Kelly Ohlson,2040 Bennington Circle,stated he served on the citizen committee that recommended that John Fischbach be hired as the City Manager about nine years ago. He spoke regarding Mr. Fischbach's work ethic and the level of detail of his work products. He stated he hoped that the person selected as the next City Manager would have a similar work ethic. He stated Mr. Fischbach always made himself available and accessible to citizens. He thanked Mr. Fischbach for his service as City Manager. Jim Tanner,215 Park Street,expressed concerns about the landmark preservation program and stated there was a contradiction in the City's historic preservation ordinance. He stated Chapter 14 of the City Code contained procedures for the official designation of properties as local landmarks by the City Council. He stated Chapter 14 also provided for delaying any development action when a process was simply eligible for designation. He stated any permit pulled for a property over 50 years old was screened by the preservation office and that if the staff believed that the property was eligible for designation the Landmark Preservation Commission would often get involved. He stated the"demolition delay ordinance"discouraged insensitive alterations or demolitions and encouraged voluntary landmark designations. He stated if the property owner refused such designation that the request for demolition or alteration must be allowed or nonconsentual designation as a local landmark must be made. He stated Chapter 14 provided that a request for demolition of alteration of a nondesignated property could be denied by ordinance passed by the City Council. He stated the contradiction was that Section 3.4.7 of the Land Use Code also outlined procedures for the protection of historic properties. He stated the Land Use Code bypassed the provisions of Chapter 14 of the City Code and provided that any historic property that was eligible for designation must be preserved without any hearings or demolition delays. He stated the Land Use Code provision indicated that if the preservation staff or the Landmark Preservation Commission decided that the property was eligible that a developer would have no choice but to treat the property as if it was already designated 285 May 18, 2004 as a local landmark. He stated "developer" was defined so broadly that any property owner proposing to do anything with the property would fall into the category. He stated any development plan (including a plan to demolish) "shall provide for the preservation and adaptive use of the historic resource." He stated this meant that demolition was categorically denied as an option by the Land Use Code while it was specifically allowed by the City Code. He stated the preservation staff was aware of this contradiction and exploited it to avoid making recommendations for nonconsentual designation to the City Council. He stated the Land Use Code should be corrected so that eligible properties were not placed in the same category as properties designated as landmarks by the City Council. Chris Campbell, Fort Collins Board of Realtors, read a statement regarding the Rule property as follows: "The Fort Collins Board of Realtors is committed to the protection and preservation of property rights as set forth in the United State Constitution and believes that the protection of the environment and the preservation of traditions is possible without destroying property rights or undermining free market principles. We believe that the limitations imposed by the landmark preservation regulations on the development of the property owned by Dick and Diane Rule to be contrary to the protection and preservation of property rights,and therefore oppose these limitations. It has been stated this property has lost virtually all integrity of its agricultural setting. Allowing the relocation ofbuildings on other property would potentially enhance the setting of the buildings while allowing the Rules the opportunity for full enjoyment of their legal property rights." Kellan Duncan, line crew chief for the Electric Utility,stated in his 20 years of working for the City that he had never seen employees' overall morale so low and that employees felt devalued as a workforce. He stated he had been assured by the City Manager that this was not case but that he did not agree. He stated the problem began when all decision-making power and authority was taken from the department level and moved to City Hall. He stated personnel policies that had been developed over the years to fit individual departments and customer needs were amended or changed outright with little or no opportunity for departmental input. He stated the next problem was the JAQ (or JES) and the first wage freeze that stayed in place until the study was complete. He stated there was further realignment that resulted in some positions receiving pay cuts. He stated the "faltering economy"had provided an opportunity for a second wage freeze for years. He stated the City had traditionally tried to pay wages at the 70"percentile in the labor market and that this had now slid to around the 60"percentile or even lower for some departments. He stated the employees were making less and had now been told that the Council was mandating a new pay system(pay for performance). He stated there would be no labor market adjustments and that wage increases would be given as cost-of-living-adjustments (COLA) or COLA plus merit when the financial crisis had leveled off. He stated this seemed to be a concerted effort by City Hall to keep labor expenses at the current devalued rate. He stated the elimination of labor market adjustments meant that there was no way to get pay levels back to the 70th percentile, effectively devaluing the workforce. He stated the issues were not all about money but were also about core values,safety,and consequences. He stated low morale contributed to less than positive attitudes, general discord, stress, lower 286 1 May 18, 2004 productivity and an increase in accidents and illness. He stated the importance of on-the-job safety should not be taken lightly. He stated productivity had remained surprisingly high under the circumstances due to the work ethic of City employees. He asked that the current management trend be reconsidered and that wages be returned to the appropriate level. He asked that employee input be solicited on policy decisions that affected the employees, their performance and the customers. He stated happy, conscientious and productive workers related to satisfied customers. Leroy Forehand,Police Services employee, stated pay-for-performance had been tried a number of times during his 23+years with the City and that system did not work. He stated the citizens would see pay-for-performance as a quota system i.e. citizens would think they were getting arrested or ticketed so that the employee would get paid more. He stated the rationale that had been given was a budget crisis but that the 2003 annual report showed that the City had money $100,000 for maintenance each year for a new $10 million Fossil Creek Park. He stated $7.7 million was spent for open space in northern Colorado and Wyoming. He stated a new fire station was completed but that revenue shortfalls delayed the station becoming operational. He stated the City employees had not had a pay increase since January 2002. He stated employees were told by the City Manager that as soon as tax collections turned around that it was his highest priority to get pay increases to the employees and that it was the intention of the City Council to keep pay at the 70" percentile. He stated it now appeared that the pay-for-performance system was to be used instead. He stated while salaries had been frozen employee health care costs and deductibles had increased, giving the employees a"pay cut." He stated tax collections had been rising and that he believed that the City had a "priority crisis" instead of a budget crisis. He asked the Council to pass the collective bargaining ordinance so that everyone could sit down on work on these problems. Citizen Participation Follow-up Councilmember Bertschy stated the Rules were going through the process and had until a week from Wednesday to appeal the decision to the Council. He stated the issue of the contradiction between the City Code and the Land Use Code was working its way onto the Council agenda. Councilmember Weitkunat thanked the two City employees who spoke to the Council. She stated it was important for the Council to hear from the employees and that the message heard was that the Council was dealing with real people and real jobs in making decisions and setting policies. CouncilmemberKastein also thanked the employees who spoke. He stated pay-for-performance was in his view not mandated by the Council and that the Council had requested feedback on that system. He stated the City employees were providing their feedback. He stated the Council was trying to come up with a fair way to pay City employees with the available money. He stated that the 70" percentile had not been scrapped. 287 May 18, 2004 Councilmember Roy spoke regarding the work being done with regard to employee compensation and benefits. Mayor Martinez stated pay for performance had not been mandated by the Council and that the direction was to research it as an option. Agenda Review City Manager Fischbach stated the agenda would stand as printed. He also took this opportunity to announce his resignation as City Manager and his acceptance of a position as County Manager for Jefferson County, Washington effective in mid-June. CONSENT CALENDAR 7. Consideration and approval of the Council meeting minutes of March 16, 2004. 8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 077, 2004, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue in the General Fund for the Operation of the Fort Collins Welcome Center. The Colorado Tourism Office awarded the City a grant in the amount of $4,075, for volunteer training for the Fort Collins Welcome Center for the year July 1, 2003 to June 30, 2004. The City has contracted with The Fort Collins Convention and Visitors Bureau to operate this program. Ordinance No.077,2004,was unanimously adopted on First Reading on May 4, 2004. 9. First Reading of Ordinance No.080,2004,Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the General Fund for Cultural Development and Programming Activities and for Tourism Capital. This Ordinance accomplishes two tasks. First, lodging tax revenues that were in excess of 2003 budgeted lodging tax receipts are appropriated to the Convention and Visitors Bureau ("CVB"), Cultural Development and Programming("CDP"), Visitor Events, and Tourism Capital fund accounts. In addition, it appropriates unexpended funds for CDP and Visitor Events for 2003. 10. First Reading of Ordinance No. 081, 2004, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the General Fund to be Returned to the Fort Collins Housing Authority to Fund Affordable Housing Related Activities. The Fort Collins Housing Authority("Authority")made a payment to the City from its 2004 budget for the sum of $10,682 as a "Payment in Lieu of Taxes" ("PILOT") for public 288 May 18, 2004 services and facilities. The Authority annually requests that the City refund the money to fund sorely needed affordable housing related activities and to attend to the low-income housing needs of Fort Collins residents. Resolution 1992-093 reinstated the requirement that the Authority make annual PILOT payments to the City. The City may spend the PILOT revenues as it deems appropriate in accordance with law,including remitting the funds to the Authority ifthe Council determines that such remittal serves a valid public purpose. The Council has remitted the PILOT payment to the Authority annually since 1992. 11. First Reading,of Ordinance No. 082, 2004, Authorizing the Long-Term Lease of Property at the Fort Collins-Loveland Municipal Airport to Russ Kamtz for the Construction of an Aircraft Hanear. The ground lease allows Mr. Kamtz to construct a 60 foot by 64 foot hangar for personal aircraft storage. The land lease includes additional land around the hangar for use by the tenant. The ground lease form agreement has been changed from past agreements. A review of the lease has been conducted by Airport staff, City staff including attorneys and the Airport master plan consultant. The recommendations from this review have been incorporated into the new agreement. 12. Resolution 2004-060 Adopting the Recommendations of the Cultural Resources Board Regarding Fort Fund Disbursements. The guidelines for the Cultural Development and Programming and Tourism Programming accounts (Fort Fund), adopted and approved through the City Manager's office, created a three-tiered funding system for organizations that apply for grants from Fort Fund. Tier#1 was established as an annual programming fund for organizations whose primary purpose is to present three or more public events annually. These groups may apply for funding from Tier#1 each April. Tier#2 allows organizations that are not eligible for Tier#1 support to apply for funding of events that are not fund-raising in nature and do not generate more than $5,000 in proceeds after expenses. Tier#3 allows organizations that are not eligible for Tier #1 support to apply for funding of events that generate more than $5,000 in proceeds after expenses and are fund-raising in nature. 13. Resolution 2004-061 Making Annointments to Various Boards and Commissions. A vacancy currently exists on the Commission on Disability due to the resignation of Rose Russell. Councilmembers Tharp and Weitkunat interviewed the applicants on file and are recommending Steve Rierson to fill said vacancy with a term to begin immediately and set to expire on December 31, 2007. 289 May 18, 2004 Two vacancies currently exist on the Commission on the Status of Women due to a lack of sufficient applicants during the 2003 annual appointment process and the resignation of Beena Bawa. Applications were solicited and Councilmembers Weitkunat and Tharp interviewed the applicants. The Council interview team is recommending Amanda Almon and Paula Cole to fill said vacancies with terms to begin immediately and set to expire on December 31, 2005 and December 31, 2007 respectively. 14. Routine Easement. A. Easement for Construction and maintenance of Public Utilities from Norsk Properties,to underground electrical service,located at 632 South Loomis. Monetary consideration: $200. Staff. Patti Teraoka. B. Easement Dedication from Campus West LLC, for West Elizabeth Streetscape Improvements, located at 1104 West Elizabeth Street. Monetary consideration: $0. Staff: Helen Matson. C. Easement Dedication from Collins Campus West, LLC, for West Elizabeth Streetscape Improvements, located at 1108 and 1220 West Elizabeth Street. Monetary consideration: $0. Staff: Helen Matson. D. Easement Dedication from Campus West, LP, for West Elizabeth Streetscape Improvements, located at 1101 West Elizabeth Street. Monetary consideration: $0. Staff: Helen Matson. E. Easement Dedication from St. Paul's Episcopal Church, for West Elizabeth Streetscape Improvements, located at 1208 West Elizabeth Street. Monetary consideration: $0. Staff: Helen Matson. F. Easement Dedication from Thomas P. Welsh, for West Elizabeth Streetscape Improvements, located at 1336 West Elizabeth Street. Monetary consideration: $0. Staff: Helen Matson. G. Easement Dedication from Schrader Oil Company, Inc., for West Elizabeth Streetscape Improvements, located at 1331 West Elizabeth Street. Monetary consideration: $0. Staff: Helen Matson. H. Easement Dedication from Alvin L. Miller Trust for Rex S. Miller, for West Elizabeth Streetscape Improvements, located at 1325 West Elizabeth Street. Monetary consideration: $0. Staff: Helen Matson. 290 May 18, 2004 I. Easement Dedication from WENGA, LLC, for West Elizabeth Streetscape Improvements, located at 1305 West Elizabeth Street. Monetary consideration: $0. Staff: Helen Matson. J. Easement Dedication from Gleason/Westside Investments, LLC, LLC, for West Elizabeth Streetscape Improvements, located at 1213, 1221, 1301 and 1401 West Elizabeth Street. Monetary consideration: $0. Staff. Helen Matson. ***END CONSENT*** Ordinances on Second Reading were read by title by City Clerk Krajicek. 8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 077, 2004, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue in the General Fund for the Operation of the Fort Collins Welcome Center. 21. Items Relating to the Enforcement of the Nuisance Provisions of the City Code. A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 071, 2004, Amending Sections 20-21 and 20-22 of the City Code Pertaining to Unreasonable Noise. B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 072, 2004,Amending Article VIII of Chapter 20 of the City Code Pertaining to the Abatement of Public Nuisances. C. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 073, 2004, Amending Section 4-94 of the City Code Pertaining to the Disturbance of Peace and Quiet. D. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 074,2004,Amending Article III of Chapter 20 of the City Code Pertaining to Weeds, Brush Piles and Rubbish. E. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 075,2004,Amending Article III of Chapter 20 of the City Code Pertaining to the Outdoor Storage of Materials (Option A or Option B). 22. Second Reading of Ordinance No.079,2004,Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins by Changing the Zoning Classification for That Certain Property Known as the Resource Recovery Farm Rezoning, Ordinances on First Reading were read by title by City Clerk Krajicek. 9. First Reading of OrdinanceNo.080,2004,Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the General Fund for Cultural Development and Proerammine Activities and for Tourism Capital. 291 May 18, 2004 10. First Reading of Ordinance No. 081, 2004, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the General Fund to be Returned to the Fort Collins Housing Authority to Fund Affordable Housing Related Activities. 11. First Reading of Ordinance No. 082, 2004, Authorizing the Long-Term Lease of Property at the Fort Collins-Loveland Municipal Airport to Russ Kamtz for the Construction of an Aircraft Hangar. 18. Items Related to the Completion of the Spring Cycle of the Competitive Process for Allocating City Financial Resources to Affordable Housing Projects/Programs and Community Development Activities: the City's Fiscal Year 2004-2005 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME Investment Partnership Funds. D. FirstReadingof OrdinanceNo.084,2004,Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue and Authorizing the Transfer of Appropriations Between Program Years in the Community Development Block Grant Fund. E. First Reading of Ordinance No. 085,2004,Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the HOME Investment Partnership Fund. 19. Items Relating to the Callingof fa Special Municipal Election to Be Held in Conjunction with the August 10, 2004 Larimer County Primary Election. B. First Reading of Ordinance NO. 086, 2004, Relating to Collective Bargaining for Police Employees. OR C. Motion Directing Staff to Prepare a Resolution Submitting Proposed Citizen-Initiated Ordinance No. 001, 2004, Relating to Collective Bargaining for Police Employees to a Vote of the Registered City Electors. AND First Reading of Ordinance No. 087, 2004, Calling a Special Municipal Election to be held in Conjunction with the August 10,2004 Larimer County Primary Election. 292 May 18, 2004 20. Items Related to the Issuance of City of Fort Collins Downtown Development Authority Subordinate Tax Increment Revenue Bonds, Series 2004A. A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 088,2004, Authorizing the Issuance of City of Fort Collins Downtown Development Authority Subordinate Tax Increment Revenue Bonds Series 2004A in the Amount of $6,305,000 for the Purpose of Financing Certain Capital Improvements and Capital Projects. B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 089, 2004, Appropriating the Proceeds of the Subordinate Tax Increment Revenue Bonds in the DDA Operating Fund. ***END CONSENT*** Councilmember Weitkunat made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Bertschy, to adopt and approve all items on the Consent Calendar. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Bertschy, Hamrick, Kastein, Martinez, Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED Consent Calendar Follow-uu Councilmembers Weitkunat and Bertschy spoke regarding item#12 Resolution 2004-060Adopting the Recommendations of the Cultural Resources Board Regarding Fort Fund Disbursements. Staff Reports City Manager Fischbach reported on good news items relating to the Youth Activity Center, the Farm, the Northside Community Center, the Senior Center art gallery and show, and the eighth consecutive month of increased sales and use tax collections. Councilmember Reports Councilmember Kastein reported on the North Front Range Air Quality and Transportation Planning Council meeting. Councilmember Hamrick reported on discussions of the Legislative Review Committee. Mayor Martinez noted local resident Ben Clark's climb of Mount Everest. 293 May 18, 2004 Executive Session Authorized Councilmember Bertschy made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Roy, to adjourn into Executive Session for the purpose of discussing personnel matters under Section 2-31 of the City Code. The vote on the motion was as follows:Yeas: Councilmembers Bertschy,Hamrick,Kastein, Martinez, Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED ("*Secretary's Note: The Council adjourned into Executive Session at 6:35 p.m. and reconvened following the Executive Session at 7:50 p.m.) Items Related to the Completion of the Spring Cycle of the Competitive Process for Allocating City Financial Resources to Affordable Housing Projects/Programs and Community Development Activities: the City's Fiscal Year 2004-2005 Community Development Block Grant and HOME Investment Partnership Program Funds, Adopted. The following is staffs memorandum on this item. "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A. Public Hearing and Resolution 2004-062 Approving the FY 2004-2005 Community Development Block Grant Program for the City of Fort Collins. B. Public Hearing and Resolution 2004-063 Approving the FY 2004-2005 HOME Investment Partnerships Program for the City of Fort Collins. C. Resolution 2004-064 Authorizing the City Manager to Submit to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development the 2004 Fort Collins Consolidated Action Plan. D. First Reading of Ordinance No. 084, 2004, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue and Authorizing the Transfer of Appropriations Between Program Years in the Community Development Block Grant Fund. E. First Reading of Ordinance No. 085, 2004, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the HOME Investment Partnership Fund. The Community Development Block Grant("CDBG)Program andHOMEInvestment Partnership 294 May 18, 2004 Program ("HOME') provide Federal funds from the Department of Housing and Urban Development("HUD')to the City of Fort Collins which can be allocated to housing and community development related programs and projects, thereby reducing the demand on the City's General Fund Budget to address such needs. The City Council is being asked to consider the adoption of two resolutions related to funding under the CDBG and HOME Programs. The first resolution (Resolution 2004-062) establishes which programs and projects will receive finding with CDBG funds,for the FY 2004-2005 Program year, which starts on October 1, 2004. The CDBG Commission developed a list of recommendations as to which programs and projects should receive funding. The programs and projects are identified below with the recommended funding allocations. The second resolution (Resolution 2004-063) establishes the major funding categories within the HOME Program for the FY 2004-2005 Program year. Specific projects for the use ofHOME funds will be determined in November as a result of the fall funding cycle of the competitive process for the allocation of the City's financial resources to affordable housing programs or projects and community development activities. The third resolution (Resolution 2004-064)authorizes the City Manager to submit for approval the 2004-2005 Fort Collins Consolidated Annual Action Plan to the Department of Housing and Urban Development. This Annual Action Plan which identifies and implements thepriorities set by Council is required by HUD. The following are the allocations recommended by the Community Development Block Grant Commission to the Fort Collins City Council: PLANNING and ADMINISTRATION City of Fort Collins CDBG Administration $210,635 City of Fort Collins Retention and Marketability Study $ 50,000 HOUSING City of Fort Collins Home Buyer Assistance $500,000 REHABILITATION Larimer Center for Mental Health $ 81,770 PUBLIC FACILITIES 295 May 18, 2004 Turning Point - College Street $ 48,725 Wingshadow Facility $ 22,250 Catholic Charities Mission $ 50,000 Sunshine Day Care Facility $ 30,000 Crossroads Shelter $ 16,050 PUBLIC SERVICES Project Self-Sufficiency $ 10,000 Springfield Court Early Learning Center $ 17,500 United Day Care Center $ 25,500 Elderhaus Adult Day Programs $ 7,213 Court Appointed Special Advocates $ 12,344 Respite Care Sliding Fee Program $ 7,500 B.A.S.E. Camp $ 19,685 Northern Colorado AIDS Program $ 10,000 Women's Center ofLarimer County $ 6,608 Catholic Charities Northern Homeless Shelter $ 25,000 Sunshine School Day Care $ 14,000 Education, Life and Training Center $ 10,000 Disabled Resource Services $ 10,500 Neighbor to Neighbor $ 25,000 UNALLOCATED Pending projects due for Fall 2004 approval process $349,120 TOTAL $1,559,400" City Manager Fischbach introduced the agenda item. Ken Waido, Chief Planner, noted that there were three Resolutions and two Ordinances that represented the culmination of the spring cycle of the competitive process for allocation of City resources to affordable housing projects and community development activities. He stated the competitive process was established by Council several years ago as a method to allocate those financial resources. He stated the CDBG Commission and the Affordable Housing Board reviewed 32 applications requesting$2.7 million and that the available funds totaled $1.5 million. He stated the CDBG Commission was recommending that not all of the money be allocated and that approximately $350,000 be held over to the fall cycle because not all projects were worthy of funding. He stated the Commission was recommending full funding in the category of public service and that the Commission was recommending no funding for nine proposals. He stated the Chair and 296 May 18, 2004 Vice Chair of the CDBG Commission were available to answer questions. He noted that the Council had an opportunity at a study session to discuss on a preliminary basis the Commission's recommendations. Debbie Brown, Board of Directors of the Women's Center of Larimer County, expressed appreciation for the funding received by the Women's Center. Helen Somersall,Regional Director for Catholic Charities Northern,thanked the Council for funding for services to the homeless and refurbishing the building. Linda Preston, Executive Director for Base Camp, thanked the Council, CDBG Commission and staff for the funding received by Base Camp and other nonprofit organizations. Fred Chapin, Program Director for the Northern Colorado AIDS Project, thanked the Council for funding support for the program. Erin Fugler, Neighbor-to-Neighbor Program Coordinator, expressed appreciation for the funding received by Neighbor-to-Neighbor. Councilmember Bertschy made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Weitkunat to adopt Resolution 2004-062. Mayor Martinez thanked the CDBG Commission for its time consuming work and dedication and also thanked the volunteers in the community who applied for grants. Councilmember Bertschy stated the process was very time consuming and comprehensive. He spoke regarding the purpose of each of the Resolutions and Ordinances being considered by the Council. He stated available federal funding had decreased even though the needs were increasing in our growing community. He stated municipalities were lobbying Congress to keep CDBG dollars flowing directly to local communities rather than through the State. He stated the CDBG program leveraged money from other agencies. Councilmember Roy thanked the CDBG Commission for its work and also thanked the organizations working to help people in times of growing need. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas Councilmembers Bertschy, Hamrick, Kastein, Martinez, Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED Councilmember Bertschy made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Hamrick, to adopt 297 May 18, 2004 Resolution 2004-063, Resolution 2004-064, Ordinance No. 084, 2004 on First Reading and Ordinance No. 085, 2004 on First Reading. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Bertschy, Hamrick, Kastein, Martinez, Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED Items Relating to a Citizen-Initiated Ordinance Relating to Collective Bargainine for Police Employees,Adopted. The following is staff's memorandum on this item. "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A. Presentation of a Petition Relating to Citizen-Initiated Ordinance No. 1, 2004 (Relating to Collective Bargaining) Certified by the City Clerk as Sufficient for Placement on a Special Election Ballot. (No Action Required) B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 086, 2004, Relating to Collective Bargaining for Police Employees. OR C. Motion Directing Staff to Prepare a Resolution Submitting Proposed Citizen-Initiated Ordinance No. 001, 2004,Relating to Collective Bargaining for Police Employees to a Vote of the Registered City Electors. AND First Reading of Ordinance No. 087, 2004, Calling a Special Municipal Election to be held in Conjunction with the August 10, 2004 Lorimer County Primary Election. The City Clerk's Office received an initiative petition on April29, 2004, which has been determined to contain a sufficient number of signatures to place the initiated measure on a special election ballot. Pursuant to the City Charter, upon presentation ofan initiativepetition certified assufficient by the City Clerk, the Council shall either (1) adopted the proposed ordinance without alteration within 30 days (Item B); or (2) submit such proposed measure, in the form petitioned for, to the registered electors of the city (Item Q. If the Council chooses to submit the proposed measure to the voters, Ordinance No. 087, 2004, calls a Special Municipal Election to be held in conjunction with the August 10, 2004 Larimer County Primary Election. A Resolution submitting the measure to the voters will be brought to Council on June 1, in conjunction with the second reading of the 298 May 18, 2004 Ordinance calling the election. BACKGROUND The City Clerk's Office has certified a sufficient number of signatures on an initiative petition received on April 29, 2004. Under Article X of the City Charter, 3,902 signatures of registered electors(at least 15%ofthe total ballots cast in the last regular City election)are required to place an initiative on a special election ballot. Generally, upon presentation of an initiative petition certified as to sufficiency by the City Clerk, the Council must either adopt the proposed ordinance without alteration or submit the proposed measure in the form petitioned for, to the registered electors of the city. The City Charter requires that, if a petition requests a special election (which this petition does), the Council must call a special election to be held on a Tuesday within 120 days ofthepresentation ofthe certif ed petition to the Council. The special election must be held before September 15, 2004. Since Larimer County is holding a Primary Election on August 10, staff is recommending that the special election be called in conjunction with the Primary Election, which is estimated to cost $40,000less that conducting the special election on a separate date. Ordinance No. 2004, calls a special election to be held on August 10, 2004 in conjunction with the Larimer County Primary Election. It also adopts theprovisions ofthe Uniform Election Code of 1992 in lieu ofthe Municipal Election Code of 1965, directs the City Clerk to certify ballot content to Larimer County no later than June 16, and authorizes the City Manager to enter into an intergovernmental agreement with Larimer County for the conduct of the election. If Council chooses to submit the proposed measure to the voters, Council will be presented with a Resolution at the June 1, 2004 meeting, submitting the citizen-initiated ordinance to a vote of the registered electors at a special election to be held in conjunction with the August 10, 2004 Larimer County Primary Election. " City Manager Fischbach introduced the agenda item. He stated the staff recommendation was adoption of Ordinance No. 087, 2004 to call a special City election in conjunction with the August 10, 2004 Larimer County Primary Election. Wanda Krajicek, City Clerk, stated the City Clerk's Office was presented with a petition on April 29, 2004 that had been certified as containing the requisite number of signatures for placement of the initiated measure on a special election ballot. She stated in accordance with the Charter that, upon presentation of the certified initiative petition to the City Council(agenda item A,which would require no Council action), that the City Council had two options: (1) to adopt the proposed Ordinance as drafted by the petitioners without any alterations (agenda item B) or (2) to adopt a motion directing staff to prepare a Resolution submitting the citizen-initiated Ordinance to the 299 May 18, 2004 registered City electors, and adopting First Reading of Ordinance No. 087, 2004 calling a Special Election to be held in conjunction with the August 10, 2004 Larimer County Primary Election (agenda item C). She stated if Council made the latter choice that a Resolution would be brought back on June 1 in conjunction with Second Reading of the Ordinance calling the election. Scott Goff,Fraternal Order of Police,asked that the Council not follow the staff's recommendation and to adopt the initiated Ordinance on First Reading. He stated the FOP was resolute on this issue. Mayor Martinez asked if a copy of the petition signed by the people was available. Krajicek stated the Ordinance that accompanied the petition was included in Council's agenda packet. She stated this did not include the general statement of purpose. Mayor Martinez requested a copy of the full petition. Councilmember Kastein asked for staff s recommendation on this agenda item. City Manager Fischbach stated he recommended that the Council direct the initiative to the voters. Councilmember Weitkunat stated she would like a sense of the direction favored by the Council. Councilmember Hamrick made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Weitkunat, to adopt Ordinance No. 087, 2004 on First Reading and to direct staff to prepare a Resolution submitting proposed citizen-initiated Ordinance No. 001, 2004 related to collective bargaining for police employees to a vote of the registered City electors. Councilmember Kastein asked Mr. Goff why the FOP was choosing to effect a change to the City Code rather than the City Charter. He stated there were issues relating to conflicts between the initiated Ordinance and the Charter. Mr.Goff stated the group was unable to find the language that would allow a change to the Charter. He stated the legal advice received by his group was that this was the way the change would have to be done. Councilmember Hamrick stated he made the motion because this was something that would affect the citizens of the City and that they should therefore have the opportunity to vote on it. Councilmember Weitkunat stated she seconded the motion for the same reason. Mayor Martinez stated he wanted to see the text of the full petition to determine if the citizens were signing a petition that asked that the matter be placed on the ballot. He stated he believed that there was an expectation on the part of the voters that the matter would go to the ballot. He stated he realized that legally the Council could adopt the Ordinance without submitting it to a ballot. 300 May 18, 2004 Councilmember Kastein stated he felt that it was clear that the initiative should be submitted to the voters. He stated there were 157 swom police officers in the City and that there were some issues that the Council realized existed. He stated be hoped that this process would result in a better understanding of the issues. He stated Council was trying to find out about the problems and how Council could be part of the solution. He expressed his appreciation for the police force and how it protected the City. He stated he wanted to make sure that there would be a good relationship between the Council and the police. Krajicek presented copies of the face page of the petition setting forth the general statement of purpose and stated the proposed Ordinance accompanied each section of the petition. Mayor Martinez asked if the petition signers would usually read the general statement of purpose. Krajicek stated it was unknown how many people would take the time to read the proposed ordinance. Mayor Martinez stated the general statement of purpose read as follows: "This petition calls for a special election to be held and is being circulated in support of the initiative ordinance." Krajicek stated there was a requirement that the general statement of purpose indicate whether a special election or placement on a regular election ballot. She stated more signatures were required for a special election. Mayor Martinez stated he believed that petition signers had an expectation that the issue would go to a vote. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Bertschy, Hamrick, Kastein, Martinez, Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED Items Related to the Issuance of City of Fort Collins Downtown Development Authority Subordinate Tax Increment Revenue Bonds, Series 2004A. Adopted. The following is staff s memorandum on this item. "FINANCIAL IMPACT At the end of 2003, the Downtown Development Authority Debt Service Fund held $774,011 of unreserved fund balance. By the end of 2011, the unreserved fund balance is projected to grow to between $15 million and$20 million. The Downtown Development Authority Board and the staff 301 May 18, 2004 recommend using a portion of the unreserved fund balance and tax increment over the next seven years to make capital improvements in the downtown area consistent with the mission of the Downtown Development Authority ("DDA ). Over the ensuing years, the projects receiving the benefit through the capital improvements will repay the value of the projects through increased tax increment. Based on interest rates, it may be in the best interest of the DDA to also refund a portion of existing outstanding subordinate DDA debt with proceeds from the 2004 Bonds. This could increase the size of the current issue by approximately $650,000. The DDA debt service find is projected to have sufficient revenue to meet all required debt service payments and reserve requirements for 2004 through 2011. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 088, 2004, Authorizing the Issuance of City of Fort Collins Downtown DevelopmentAuthority Subordinate Taxlncrement Revenue Bonds Series 2004A in the Amount of$6,305,000 for the Purpose of Financing Certain Capital Improvements and Capital Projects. B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 089, 2004, Appropriating the Proceeds of the Subordinate Tax Increment Revenue Bonds in the DDA Operating Fund. The City of Fort Collins created the Downtown Development Authority (DDA)to make desired improvements in the downtown area. Through tax increment financing, the DDA has made significant contributions to the redevelopment and improvement of the downtown area. The two Ordinances provide funding from future tax increment in the DDA Debt Service Fund to make additional improvements in the downtown area. The first Ordinance issues short term bonds for the projects which will be paid from the tax increment revenue. The second Ordinance appropriates the proceeds into the Capital Projects Fund for the various projects. The total ofthe projects and associated interest costs is$6,305,000. All ofthese projects have been reviewed and recommended by the Board of Directors of the DDA. They include the Cortina Mixed Use Project ($1,687,000), Pine Street Lofts ($500,000), Mason Street North($280,000),Museum Expansion and Historic Webster House($1,100,000),Information Center($70,000), Old Town Square Renovation($1,000,000)and the Mason Street Parking Ramp ($800,000). 302 May 18, 2004 BACKGROUND Staff provides a summary for each project below. All the projects listed for funding through this bond issue have either been approved or are pending approval by the DDA Board of Directors. All approvals by the DDA Board are made contingent upon City Council appropriation ofthe necessary funds to fulfill the Authority's commitment to the project. With the exception of those projects that are purely public in nature, no DDA expenditures are to be made until projects are completed and have received certificates of occupancy from the City. 1. Cortina Mixed Use Project. Located on the triangular corner formed by the intersection of Canyon Avenue and Howes Street, this upscale housing and office project is the f rst significant urban residential development to occur in Fort Collins. Plans for the building include 20loft-style condominiums and about 23,000 square feet of office%ommercial space on the first two floors. Residences will be provided with underground parking. The Authority has committed$1.687 million toward acquisition of an easement across the facade and right-of-way improvements. The Board of Directors made this commitment for the following reasons: • Residential development is a cornerstone of downtown redevelopment. Until very recently, downtown Fort Collins has seen very little of this kind of development. • Downtown residential development is a key priority cited in the Plan of Development. Downtown Plan Downtown Strategic Plan. and City Plan. • The project provides a beautiful transition from the more commercial central business district into the west side residential neighborhood. • The materials being used in the construction are a significant upgrade from what is typically found in multi family, multi-use buildings. • The cost of residential development in the central business district is significantly higher than greenfield development and is therefore much more difficult to accomplish. The Board of Directors believes this and other residential projects being proposed for downtown can set a precedent demonstrating that urban infill, higher-density housing can be successful in the central business district. 2. Pine Street Lofts, Pine Street Lofts is to be built on the former Poudre Valley Creamery site at the corner of Pine and Jefferson Street. It consists of 14 residential loft condominiums with underground parking. Significant right ofway improvements are being made to the Pine Street side of the property. Estimated cost of the project is $5 million. The DDA has committed $500,000 303 May 18, 2004 toward the purchase ofa facade easement and ROW improvements. In addition to the reasons cited above for the Cortina project, the Board also felt this project warranted support because: • It redevelops a blighted property. • It sensitively addresses the historic character of the historic district in which it is located. • It will help encourage redevelopment to leapfrog the barrier created by Jefferson Street. 3. Mason Street North. The DDA Board of Directors recently increased its commitment to this project to $540,677. The funding authorization included in this bond issue is to cover the increase of$280,000 over the previously approved funds. The project consists of 20 residential units and about 17,500 square feet of commercial space. The Board's decision to increase its participation was based upon the willingness ofthe developers to upgrade the facades on the buildings with more stone and brick, the significant increase in public spaces resultingfrom utility easements that criss- cross theproject, and because ofthe increase in construction costs since the submittal ofthe original proposal. 4. Museum Expansion and Historic Webster House. The Downtown Development Authority has committed itself to the idea of significantly improving the central business district as a cultural center. The museum, as it exists today, is a critical component to a cultural district. The proposed expansion very directly and significantly improves the cultural amenities in downtown. The Board of Directors enthusiastically pledged$1 million toward that expansion and $100,000 toward the conversion of the Historic Webster House into additional museum facilities. 5. Information Center. The kiosk in the center of Old Town Square has been leased by the DDA and converted into an information center and public restrooms. The$70,000 included in this bond sale is to pay for the remainder of the construction costs. The information center will be staffed by the Convention and Visitor's Bureau and the Downtown Business Association. The restrooms are intended to address a long-standing deficiency in the Old Town Square project. 6. Old Town Square Renovation. Old Town Square was built in 1984. It is 20 years old and in need of renovation. The DDA is proposing to completely revamp the landscaping program so that there will be year-around visual interest, repair broken and dangerous concrete banding, repair ground and overhead lighting, replace all the planter pots, restore and/or replace all the benches and stone seating surfaces, repaint all signage and lighting standards, replace all trash receptacles repair or replace the flagstone pavers at information kiosks and drinking fountains, repair or replace all bollards, completely clean, seal and re-level the cast decorative pavers that cover most of the plaza. As a part of this renovation, the DDA intends to establish a comprehensive and on-going maintenance program to care for the landscaping and infrastructure. 304 May 18, 2004 7. Mason Street Parking Ramp. The developer of the Cortina mixed-use project has proposed adding a deck to the Mason Street Parking Lot (owned by the DDA). He would do this entirely at his own expense. However, the proposal has sparked some interest by neighbors in the area to add a third level and thereby double the available public parking. The funding allocation in this bond deal is anticipating that possibility. The third deck has been discussed by the DDA Board but no decision has been made until further input from the City and the neighborhood is obtained. However, thefunding request is included here so that, if the decision is to proceed with a third deck, it can be built simultaneously with the addition of the second deck. SUMMARY The DDA Board has met to review each of these projects. For the reasons indicated above, the DDA Board recommends each project for funding through issuance ofsubordinate tax exempt revenue bonds to be repaid with tax increments revenues that will be received in 2004 to 2011. The DDA Board and its staffrecommend adoption ofthe ordinances. City staffalso recommends adoption of the ordinances. " City Manager Fischbach introduced the agenda item. Alan Krcmarik, Finance Director, stated there were two Ordinances presented for Council consideration. He stated the first Ordinance would authorize the issuance of bonds and that the second Ordinance would appropriate the proceeds of the bonds. He stated the downtown redevelopment had been a success and that projections showed that by 2010 approximately$15-20 million of additional tax increment would be generated to be used for projects. Kim Jordan, Downtown Development Authority Chair, presented an overview of DDA activities. She stated the vision statement for the Cultural District Project was to foster and celebrate human creativity through education, participation and entertainment to define downtown Fort Collins as a center for intellectual, cultural, physical and spiritual rejuvenation and growth. She stated there opportunities to do some exciting things with DDA tax increment financing. She stated the DDA was asking for a bond issue in the amount of$6.3 million for a variety of projects. She presented visual information regarding the proposed projects: Cortina Mixed Use Project, Pine Street Lofts, Mason Street North, Museum Expansion and Historic Webster House, Information Center, Old Town Square Renovation, and Mason Street Parking Ramp. Kelly Ohlson, 2040 Bennington Circle, stated he would like the DDA to consider changing the material of the pavers during the renovation. He stated better materials would reduce lifelong maintenance costs. He noted that it was a DDA board recommendation to put $120,000 into someone else's small building and to lease it for an information center rather than buying the building. He stated it would have been wiser to buy the building. He stated he was supportive of the work being done by the DDA. 305 May 18, 2004 Councilmember Roy asked if estimates had been done for new material for pavers versus the cost of rehabilitation of existing pavers. Chip Steiner, DDA Executive Director, stated staff would put together an estimate. Councilmember Roy asked about the cost of leasing the building for the information center. Steiner stated the lease rate was $12/square foot. He stated the issue of buying the building was never discussed. He stated the primary issue was supplying public restrooms. Councilmember Hamrick asked about the cost of buying that building. Steiner stated the cost was unknown and that the question would be whether Progressive Old Town would be willing to sell the building at its pre-construction value when many of the improvements had already been made. He stated staff could look into the option of buying the building. Councilmember Hamrick stated the DDA minutes referenced the Museum expansion being contingent upon additional capital improvement money. Steiner stated the DDA pledged$1 million contingent upon that project being funded from the quarter cent sales tax extension. He stated it would require both Council and voter approval for the Museum project to proceed. He stated the DDA's pledge was contingent on that happening. Councilmember Hamrick noted that it was not certain that the quarter cent sales tax extension would be placed on the 2005 ballot. Steiner stated that fact was understood. Councilmember Weitkunat asked if the DDA owned buildings. Steiner stated the DDA owned the Old Town parking garage and one-third of the parking ramp on Mason Street. Councilmember Weitkunat asked about the purchase of a facade easement for the Pine Street Lofts and whether that would be owned by the DDA. Steiner stated the facade easement would be owned by the DDA and that would be the front of the building. Ms. Jordan stated it was similar to a lien in the sense that the DDA would have some say in what happened to the facade. Councilmember Weitkunat asked if that was the case with all buildings within the DDA boundaries. Steiner stated was the case only for the buildings that involved a financial arrangement with the DDA. He stated there were several situations in which the DDA owned property in fee simple and that for 95% of the cases there was a facade easement. Councilmember Kastein asked about the process for evaluation ofprojects when there was not going to be 100%payback in terms of the tax increment. Steiner stated the tax increment for residential projects was roughly 25% of what it would be if it was a commercial project. He stated it was difficult to get all of the increment back on a residential project and still have an impact on encouraging the project to happen. He stated residential projects since 1981 had been one of the primary foundations of downtown redevelopment. He stated when there were opportunities for 306 May 18, 2004 residential projects that the DDA supported those because they were rare compared with commercial projects. He stated there was capacity from increment from the district as a whole to cover the difference. He stated property taxes would continue even after the DDA and tax increment would go away. Ms. Jordan stated the DDA like to see retail on the first floor and residential on higher levels. Councilmember Bertschy made a motion,seconded by Councilmember Roy,to adopt Ordinance No. 088, 2004 on First Reading and Ordinance No. 089, 2004 on First Reading. Councilmember Bertschy stated this would be excellent for the downtown. He stated the housing projects would provide a variety of types and cost points of housing. He supported having the DDA look at the possibility of owning the structure used for an information center and restrooms. He stated he also like the idea of making pavers as durable as possible. He stated this action would move the downtown plan forward. Councilmember Roy thanked the DDA and its staff for being good stewards of this money over the past years. He stated he had concerns with the plaza being closed at night. He stated this was an opportunity to move forward with the vision of residential activity mixed with business activity in the core downtown to help create something besides"party central." He stated the downtown was an area of focus for in-fill and redevelopment. Councilmember Weitkunat commented that the community was fortunate to have created a DDA. She thanked the DDA for its creative vision and thought. Councilmember Hamrick stated these projects were the kind of projects needed for in-fill in the downtown and to get more foot traffic for businesses. He stated this would help make the downtown a more"people oriented environment." He stated he like the DDA vision statement. He stated as more residential happened downtown that the issue of closing of Old Town Square at night might need to be revisited. Councilmember Kastein stated these projects would benefit Old Town a lot and build on the momentum of the downtown plan. He stated he would not be in favor of revoking the 2:00 a.m. closing of Old Town Square. Mayor Martinez stated the DDA had done a great job on this. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Bertschy, Hamrick, Kastein, Martinez, Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED 307 May 18, 2004 Items Relating to the Enforcement of the Nuisance Provisions of the City Code, Adopted on Second Reading: Ordinance No. 075, 2004 Postponed. The following is staff s memorandum on this item. "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A. Second Reading of OrdinanceNo. 071, 2004,AmendingSections20-21and20-22oftheCity Code Pertaining to Unreasonable Noise. B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 072, 2004, Amending Article VIII of Chapter 20 of the City Code Pertaining to the Abatement of Public Nuisances. C. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 073, 2004, Amending Section 4-94 of the City Code Pertaining to the Disturbance of Peace and Quiet. D. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 074, 2004,Amending-Article III of Chapter 20 of the City Code Pertaining to Weeds, Brush Piles and Rubbish. E. Second Reading of OrdinanceNo. 075, 2004,AmendingArticleIIIofChapter20oftheCity Code Pertaining to the Outdoor Storage of Materials (Option A or Option B). These Ordinances were presented for Council's consideration as a result of the ongoing efforts of the Neighborhood Quality of Life Task Force. This task force has been formed to address quality oflife issues in the City's residential neighborhoods. Ordinance No. 072, 2004, Ordinance No. 0 73, 2004 and Ordinance No. 075, 2004, were adopted 6-1 (Councilmember Kastein opposed), on First Reading on May 4, 2004. Ordinance No. 071, 2004 and Ordinance No. 074, 2004 were unanimously adopted on First Reading on May 4, 2004. After First Reading, the CityAttorney's Office was directed to draft an alternative to Ordinance No. 075, 2004 exempting materials stored under covered carports. Two options are presented for Council to consider on Second Reading: Option A -the Ordinance as adopted on First Reading; or Option B - exempting materials stored outdoors, but under covered carports. Staff recommends that carports not be made an exception to the outdoor storage requirements. It becomes problematic from an enforcement standpoint as people will then use their carport to store material that is even more objectionable than we now see,such as automotiveparts, trash,garbage, yard waste, etc. " 308 May 18, 2004 City Manager Fischbach stated this was on the discussion agenda because three of the Ordinances were approved on First Reading with a 6-1 vote. Darin Atteberry, Assistant City Manager, he stated there were staff members available to answer questions. He stated changes had been made to the Ordinances since First Reading based on Council direction. He stated Ordinance No.071,2004 had been changed to add the word"or"in Section 20- 21 as follows: "Unreasonable noise shall mean any sound of such level or duration as to be,or tend to be injurious to human health." He stated Ordinance No. 072, 2004 provided that the Code Abatement Officer could request a separate hearing before the City Manager when there had been two violations of a similar nature within a six month period. He stated Ordinance No.073,2004 had been changed to provide that a citizen complaint needed to occur before a summons could be issued. He stated Ordinance No. 074,2004 had no changes. He stated there were two options for Ordinance No. 075,2004: one that would exclude carports and one that would include carports. He stated staff was recommending that carports not be exempted from the Ordinance. Councilmember Weitkunat asked about the two options relating to the outdoor storage of material. She asked for clarification that there was no reference to carports in Option A. Atteberry replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Weitkunat stated she thought that the discussion was that carports should be included in the Ordinance. City Attorney Roy stated the Ordinance as first drafted would include outdoor storage in carports. He stated if Council wished to postpone consideration of Ordinance No. 075, 2004 that "outdoor storage"could be defined. Councilmember Weitkunat stated carports could become an issue and the fact that they were not referenced in the Ordinance could be a problem. She supported specifically including carports. City Attorney Roy stated if the Ordinance was postponed that a definition could be written to include carports. Mayor Martinez asked if the word carports could simply be added into the Ordinance. City Attorney Roy stated he would prefer to have time to ensure that the correct language was prepared to cover carports and work in other ways. Councilmember Kastein asked if all citations currently issued were being logged in the Public Nuisance Ordinance database. Beth Sowder, Compliance Inspector, stated all noise tickets and barking dog tickets were logged into the database. Councilmember Bertschy stated questions had been received from a citizen about party trash on lawns and that the citizen referred to an ordinance in Ann Arbor, Michigan that specifically addressed that issue. He stated the citizen's concern was that there was a delay in picking up party trash even after a complaint was filed. He asked that staff address that concern. Sowder stated 309 May 18, 2004 notice would be given under the rubbish notice and that the trash would have to be cleaned up within seven days. Councilmember Bertschy stated the citizen's concern was the seven-day cleanup period. City Manager Fischbach stated staff would take a look at the issue to determine how the problem could be solved. City Attorney Roy stated he had reviewed the Ann Arbor ordinance and felt that it would be unnecessary because the City's littering ordinance would allow someone to be immediately cited for allowing the trash problem to occur. Councilmember Bertschy asked how the City could respond to complaints regarding party trash. City Attorney Roy stated he would recommend that complaints be reported to Police Services so that a citation could be issued immediately. Jim Zakmeister, Police Services, stated the responding officers talked with the party hosts and indicated that the trash should be picked up immediately in accordance with the littering Ordinance. Councilmember Hamrick noted that he had requested information about xeriscaping versus ornamental landscaping. City Manager Fischbach stated he would check to make sure that the information was provided. Councilmember Weitkunat made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Bertschy, to adopt Ordinances No.071,2004,No.072,2004 and No.073,2004 and No.074,2004 on Second Reading. Councilmember Kastein stated he would prefer that the ordinances be considered separately. Councilmember Weitkunat withdrew the motion. Councilmember Weitkunat made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Bertschy, to adopt Ordinance No. 071, 2004 on Second Reading. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Bertschy, Hamrick, Kastein, Martinez, Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED Councilmember Weitkunat made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Hamrick, to adopt Ordinance No. 072, 2004 on Second Reading. Councilmember Kastein stated he would not support this Ordinance and would prefer to keep the limit at three violations in a year. The vote on the motion was as follows:Yeas: Councilmembers Bertschy,Hamrick,Martinez, Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: Councilmember Kastein. 310 May 18, 2004 THE MOTION CARRIED Councilmember Weitkunat made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Hamrick, to adopt Ordinance No. 073, 2004 on Second Reading. Councilmember Kastein stated he would prefer to have a mandatory first warning issued for barking dogs. He stated he would not support the Ordinance. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Bertschy, Hamrick, Martinez, Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: Councilmember Kastein. THE MOTION CARRIED Councilmember Bertschy made a motion,seconded by Councilmember Hamrick,to adopt Ordinance No. 074, 2004 on Second Reading. Councilmember Bertschy thanked staff for putting together the task force that brought these ordinances forward for Council consideration. Mayor Martinez thanked those who worked on these Ordinances. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Bertschy, Hamrick, Kastein, Martinez, Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED Councilmember Bertschy made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Roy, to postpone Second Reading of Ordinance No. 075, 2004 to June 1, 2004. The vote on the motion to postpone was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Bertschy,Hamrick,Kastein,Martinez,Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED Ordinance No. 079, 2004 Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins by Changing the Zoning Classification for That Certain Property Known as the Resource Recovery Farm Rezoning,Adopted on Second Reading The following is staffs memorandum on this item. 311 May 18, 2004 "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Ordinance, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on May 4, 2004, rezones the property known as the Resource Recovery Farm from the E, Employment District, to the POL, Public Open Lands District. " City Manager Fischbach introduced the agenda item and stated this was on the discussion agenda because of questions asked by Mayor Martinez and Councilmember Kastein. Ken Waido, Chief Planner, stated this was an implementation action for the I-25 Subarea Plan that was adopted by Council last August. He stated the zoning map showed the southern part of the Resource Recovery Farm to be placed in the Public Open Lands zoning classification. He stated a 25-acre piece south and west of the Prospect Road I-25 interchange would remain in the C- Commercial district. He stated the plan also called for the transfer of ownership from the Utilities Department to the Natural Resources Department and that a purchase/sale had taken place. He stated Natural Resources was now the owner of the Public Open Lands portion of the Resource Recovery Farm. He stated there had been questions from Council regarding whether there had been any private party interest in purchasing the property, and that the answer to that was no. He stated there had been requests from CSU to consider moving a research horticultural operation into this area. He stated there was also a question about how many jobs could locate on the property if the zoning would be E-Employment. He stated the property was 137 acres (comparable to the Hewlett-Packard and Anheuser Busch sites) and that H-P had 3,000 to 3,500 jobs. He stated this site could probably not generate that many jobs given the design criteria, setback requirements and building height limitations. He estimated that 2,500 to 3,000 jobs maximum would be the potential job generation if this would remain Employment and occupied by a high tech industry such as H-P. He stated Anheuser Busch employed only about 750 people. City Manager Fischbach stated there was some private interest expressed in the 25 acres adjacent to Prospect Road subject to the City resolving the problem with the overpass at Prospect and I-25. Mayor Martinez asked for clarification regarding the location of the property. Waido presented visual information regarding the commercial activity center around the interchange and the area to be rezoned from Employment to Public Open Lands. Mayor Martinez asked if the area to be rezoned could be commercial. Waido stated Public Open Lands would be restricted to agricultural uses. Councilmember Weitkunat asked why the decision was made to zone this Public Open Lands i.e. whether there were physical attributes of the property. Waido stated the statement from the I-25 Subarea Plan was as follows: "Preservation of a portion of this property would also add to adjacent open space areas already owned by the City." He presented visual information regarding the portion 312 May 18, 2004 of the Resource Recovery Farm zoned E to be preserved as open lands and property to the west that had already been purchased by the City. Councilmember Kastein made a motion,seconded by Councilmember Bertschy,to adopt Ordinance No. 079, 2004 on Second Reading. Councilmember Kastein stated he wanted this item to be discussed as a reminder that the City had made the decision to rezone this land for a public purpose. He stated issues had been raised with the Employment district as a focus for preservation. He stated the City was giving up some prime real estate for employment opportunities and switching the property to a completely nonemployment use. He reminded the Council that there had been decisions made and that there would be issues in the future where citizens asked for this same kind of leniency. Councilmember Hamrick stated Employment needed to be kept in balance with other zoning. He noted that the Council would be reviewing the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan soon and that there would be issues relating to the balance of Employment and other uses. He stated would be a good time to have the discussion. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Bertschy, Hamrick, Kastein, Martinez, Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED Other Business Councilmember Bertschy stated there was a memo from the City Attorney regarding campaign activities by City Councilmembers several weeks ago. Councilmember Bertschy made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Roy, to waive the attomey/client privilege regarding the memo from the City Attorney regarding interpretation of the City Code as related to Councilmembers campaigning for other elective offices. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Bertschy, Hamrick, Kastein, Martinez, Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED Councilmember Hamrick asked if there had been a response to the letter from the Mayor and City Manager to the City of Loveland concerning the annexation and development agreement that impacted the airport. 313 May 18, 1004 Mayor Martinez stated there was a meeting with City of Loveland staff yesterday and that he had brought up the issue of adequate notice to Fort Collins regarding such issues. He stated there was discussion about a letter of understanding regarding the kinds of issues Loveland would notify Fort Collins about to ensure that Fort Collins would have more advance knowledge about issues affecting the partnership between the two cities at the airport. City Manager Fischbach stated the City of Loveland notified him that they were not going to consider the item for Second Reading at this time. Councilmember Hamrick stated if this did not get addressed to the satisfaction of the City that the City might need to pursue legal options to enforce the IGA. Mayor Martinez stated he was not convinced that there had been a violation of the IGA. He stated the City was insisting on advance notice on such issues. Councilmember Hamrick stated this was not the first time that this type of issue had arisen and asked if the City Attorney perceived this to be a violation of the IGA. City Attorney Roy stated he would need to review the language of the IGA about joint operation and management. He stated there were no specific provisions in the IGA addressing this type of situation and the need for advance notice. Mayor Martinez stated the intent was to obtain a letter of understanding. Councilmember Hamrick asked what the next steps would be in the filling of the vacancy created by City Manager Fischbach's resignation. City Attorney Roy stated staff would bring forward a Resolution at the June 1 meeting by which the Council could appoint an Interim City Manager. He stated the duties of that individual would take effect upon the departure of Mr.Fischbach. He stated Council would then begin its deliberations regarding the kind of recruitment and selection process to be followed to fill the position. Mayor Martinez noted that a retreat was tentatively scheduled for July 16-17 based on commitments made by the Council. He stated several Councilmembers had indicated that they could not attend. He stated he would like to see Councilmembers honor their commitments to attend retreats. Councilmember Roy stated he was unable to attend the tentatively scheduled retreat and that he had made his plans to be out of town before the retreat date was firmed up on the schedule. He stated those retreat dates were one of many optional dates for the retreat. Councilmember Weitkunat stated it was her understanding that tentative dates were picked for each quarter for possible retreats and that the retreat(if held)would be on that date. She stated it was her understanding that the decision was made not to have a retreat. Mayor Martinez stated he would like to see Councilmembers keep the tentatively scheduled dates open in the event a retreat was needed. He stated it was difficult to find an alternative date for a 314 May 18, 2004 retreat if a retreat would need to be held. He stated it was unknown whether or not a retreat would be needed. He stated the July retreat had been canceled because several Councilmembers would not be available. Adjournment Councilmember Bertschy made a motion, seconded by Councilmember,to adjourn to 6:00 p.m. on May 25,2004. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Bertschy,Hamrick, Kastein, Martinez, Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED Councilmember Bertschy stated the meeting was adjourned to May 25 in order to conduct any business necessary pertaining to the City Manager. The meeting adjourned at 9:35 p.m. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk 315