HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 07/06/2004 - CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE COUNCIL MEETING ITEM NUMBER: 7
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY DATE: July6, 2004
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL
STAFF: John Fischbach
SUBJECT
Consideration and approval of the Council meeting minutes of June 1, 2004.
June 1, 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, June 1, 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: Jones, Krajicek, Roy.
Agenda Review
Deputy City Manager Jones stated item #15 First Reading of Ordinance No, 083, 2004, Amending
Various Sections of Chapter 4 of the City Code Pertaining to Animals would be rescheduled to a
later meeting, that item#16 First Reading of Ordinance No. 090, 2004, Amending Section 2-29 of
the Code of the City of Fort Collins Relating to Special Meetings included a revised version of the
Ordinance and that item#27 Second Reading of Ordinance No. 075, 2004, Amending Article III of
Chapter 20 of the City Code Pertaining to the Outdoor Storage of Materials included a revised
version of the Ordinance.
CONSENT CALENDAR
7. Consideration and approval of the Council meeting minutes of April 6, 2004.
8. 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,
modifies City Code Section 26-543(b),in order to adopt updated drainage master plans. The
Ordinance also provides that the drainage master plans and updates to those plans will be
maintained on file in the office of the Utilities,rather than the office of the City Clerk. This
change was made to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the use and maintenance of
those records.
316
June 1, 2004
9. Second 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, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on May 18, 2004,
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. Second 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
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. Ordinance No.081,2004,was unanimously adopted
on First Reading on May 18, 2004.
11. Second 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.
This Ordinance, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on May 18, 2004,
authorizes the long-term lease of property for the purpose of constructing a 60 foot by 64 foot
hangar for Mr. Katz's personal aircraft storage. The land lease includes additional land
around the hangar for use by the tenant.
12. Items Related to the City's Fiscal Year 2004-2005 Community Development Block Grant and
HOME Investment Partnership Program Funds.
A. Second 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.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No.085,2004,Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue
in the HOME Investment Partnership Fund.
317
June 1, 2004
The Community Development Block Grant (`CDBG") Program and HOME Investment
Partnership 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. Ordinance No. 084, 2004 and Ordinance No. 085, 2004, were unanimously
adopted on First Reading on May 18, 2004.
13. Items Relating to a Citizen-Initiated Ordinance Relatine to Collective Bar ag ining for Police
Employees.
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 087, 2004, Calling a Special Municipal Election
to be held in Conjunction with the August 10, 2004 Latimer County Primary
Election.
B. Resolution 2004-066 Submitting a Citizen-initiated Ordinance to a Vote of the
Registered Electors of the City at the Special Municipal Election of August 10,2004.
The City Clerk's Office received an initiative petition on April 29, 2004, which was
determined to contain a sufficient number of signatures to place the initiated measure on a
special election ballot. Ordinance No. 087,2004,which was unanimously adopted on First
Reading on May 18, 2004,calls a Special Municipal Election to be held in conjunction with
the August 10, 2004 Larimer County Primary Election.
The City Clerk certified the sufficiency of the initiative petition to Council on May 18,2004.
Generally,upon presentation of an initiative petition certified as sufficient by the City Clerk,
the Council must either adopted the proposed ordinance without alteration or submit the
proposed measure, in the form petitioned for, to the registered electors of the city.
Resolution 2004-066 submits the citizen-initiated ordinance to the voters at the August 10,
2004 Special Election,and sets the ballot title and submission clause. Any registered elector
desiring to protest the proposed ballot title and/or submission clause pursuant to Section 7-
156 of the City Code,may do so by filing a written protest in the office of the City Clerk no
later than 12:00 p.m. (noon) on Tuesday, June 1, 2004.
14. Items Related to the Issuance of City of Fort Collins Downtown Development Authority
Subordinate Tax Increment Revenue Bonds, Series 2004A.
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 088, 2004, Authorizing the Issuance of City of
Fort Collins Downtown Development Authority Subordinate Tax Increment Revenue
318
June 1, 2004
Bonds Series 2004A in the Amount of $6,235,000 for the Purpose of Financing
Certain Capital Improvements and Capital Projects.
B. Second 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. These two Ordinances,which were unanimously adopted on First Reading on May 18,
2004, provide funding from future tax increment in the DDA Debt Service Fund to make
additional improvements in the downtown area.
15. First Reading of Ordinance No. 083 2004 Amending Various Sections of Chapter 4 of the
City Code Pertaining to Animals.
Staff has performed a comprehensive review of Chapter 4 of the City Code pertaining to
animals in an effort refine and update the animal code. This process began in early 2002 and
has culminated in the proposed amendments in the Ordinance.
16. First Reading of Ordinance No. 090, 2004,Amending Section 2-29 of the Code of the City
of Fort Collins Relating to Special Meetings.
This Ordinance amends Section 2-29 of the City Code relating to the calling of special
meetings and the notice requirements for said meetings. Specifically,the amendments allow
delivery of notice of a special meeting to the Council by mail, fax, or e-mail, in addition to
personal delivery. In addition, if delivery is made in some manner other than in person,the
City Clerk is required to request acknowledgment of receipt by each Councilmember, and
if such acknowledgment is not received at least 48 hours prior to the meeting, the Clerk is
required to deliver another notice in person.
17. Resolution 2004-067 Finding Substantial Compliance and Initiating Annexation Proceedings
for the Mulberry East First Annexation.
This is a voluntary annexation.The area to be annexed is unincorporated municipally-owned
land.
18. Resolution 2004-068 Approving the Design Cost and Scheduling of the East Prospect Road
Improvements Project.
319
June 1, 2004
The East Prospect Road Improvements Project is part of the voter-approved "Building
Community Choices Program" (BCC) funding package. The main goals of the project are
to improve safety for all modes of transportation along East Prospect Road from the Poudre
River to Summit View Drive. The project elements identified by the approved ballot
language include widening East Prospect Road to provide two travel lanes, bicycle lanes,
turn lanes, a sidewalk, raising the roadway section to protect it from major floods, and to
provide an additional bridge east of the Poudre River to pass 100 year flood flows.
19. Resolution 2004-069 Authorizing the Lease of City-Owned Property at 200 West Mountain
Avenue, Suite C.
With support from the City of Fort Collins,Colorado State University,and Fort Collins Inc.,
the Fort Collins Virtual Business Incubator was created in 1998. The program was charged
with providing critical business assistance to the most promising high tech startup companies
in the community. To date the Incubator has assisted 15 companies. In the aggregate these
firms have created 65 full time jobs with an average annual salary of$70,420 and they have
raised in excess of$32 million in equity capital. The "bottom line" of this program is the
creation of good paying jobs from within the community. The program achieves its success
through services such as entrepreneurial advisory boards, discounted professional service
providers, access to a multitude of CSU resources, internal resource sharing, counseling,
training and networking.
In concert with the High Tech Network, the Fort Collins Business Incubator would like to
bring the current level of service to their client companies up significantly by offering below
market lease space. An "Incubator with Walls"program would not only help to mitigate the
very tight cash flow situation encountered by most startups, but it would also provide a
synergistic, collaborative environment in which the talented young companies could thrive.
20. Resolution 2004-070 Making Various Board and Commission Appointments
A vacancy currently exist on the Community Development Block Grant Commission due to
the resignation of Bruce Croissant. Applications were solicited and Councilmembers
Bertschy and Tharp reviewed the applications. The Council interview team is recommending
Eric Berglund to fill said vacancy with a term to begin immediately and set to expire
December 31, 2007.
A vacancy currently exists on the Electric Board due to the resignation of Jassen Bowman.
Councilmembers Martinez and Kastein reviewed the applications on file and are
recommending John Morris to fill said vacancy with a term to begin immediately and set to
expire on December 31, 2006.
320
June 1, 2004
A vacancy currently exists on the Natural Resources Advisory Board. Due to residency
requirements to live within the Growth Management Area, Arvind Panjabi resigned his
position. Councilmembers Hamrick and Roy interviewed applicants and reviewed
applications on file. The Council interview team is recommending Robert Petterson to fill
said vacancy with a term to begin immediately and set to expire on December 31, 2007.
21. Routine Easements.
A. Easement for Construction and MaintenanceofPublicUtilities from Allen and Lynne
Dunton, to underground electrical service, located at 1406 Ash Drive. Monetary
consideration: $200.
B. Easement for Construction and Maintenance of Public Utilities from Mark and Jane
Johnson, to underground electrical service, located at 1200 Ash Drive. Monetary
consideration: $200.
C. Easement for Construction and Maintenance of Public Utilities from George and
Darlene Vorce,to underground electrical service, located at 1120 Ponderosa Drive.
Monetary consideration: $200.
***END CONSENT***
Ordinances on Second Reading were read by title by City Clerk Krajicek.
8. 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.
9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 080, 2004, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the
General Fund for Cultural Development and Programming Activities and for Tourism
Capital.
10. Second 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. Second 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.
12. Items Related to the City's Fiscal Year 2004-2005 Community Development Block Grant and
HOME Investment Partnership Program Funds.
321
June 1, 2004
A. Second 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.
B. Second Reading ofOrdinance No.085,2004,Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue
in the HOME Investment Partnership Fund.
13. Items Relating to a Citizen-Initiated Ordinance Relating to Collective Bargaining for Police
Employees.
ees.
A. Second 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.
14. Items Related to the Issuance of City of Fort Collins Downtown Development Authority
Subordinate Tax Increment Revenue Bonds, Series 2004A.
A. Second 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$6,235,000 for the Purpose of Financing
Certain Capital Improvements and Capital Projects.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 089, 2004, Appropriating the Proceeds of the
Subordinate Tax Increment Revenue Bonds in the DDA Operating Fund.
27. Second Reading of Ordinance No 075 2004 Amending Article III of Chapter20of the City
Code Pertaining to the Outdoor Storage of Materials.
Ordinances on First Reading were read by title by City Clerk Krajicek.
16. First Reading of Ordinance No. 090, 2004, Amending Section 2-29 of the Code of the City
of Fort Collins Relating to Special Meetings.
25. First Reading of Ordinance No. 091,2004,Making Various Amendments to the City of Fort
Collins Land Use Code.
26. Items Relating to the Trailhead Annexation.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 092, 2004, Annexing Property Known as the
Trailhead Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado.
322
June 1, 2004
C. First Reading of Ordinance No. 093,2004,Amending the Zoning Map of the City of
Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the
Trailhead Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado.
***END CONSENT***
Councilmember Bertschy made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kastein, 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 and Weitkunat. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED
Consent Calendar Follow-up
Mayor Martinez spoke regarding item #19 Resolution 2004-069 Authorizing the Lease of City-
Owned Property at 200 West Mountain Avenue, Suite C. Deputy City Manager Jones presented an
explanation of the virtual business incubator and spoke regarding the benefit of job creation.
Councilmember Weitkunat spoke regarding item #19 Resolution 2004-069 Authorizing the Lease
of City-Owned Property at 200 West Mountain Avenue, Suite C. She stated the City's work with the
virtual business incubator was a positive action with regard to the economy.
Staff Reports
Deputy City Manager Jones reported on bike month activities and the secure tracking website,
progress on completion of North College Avenue/Riverside/Jefferson improvements, and the
publication and content of the 2003 Natural Areas Report.
Ordinance No. 091, 2004
Making Various Amendments to the
City of Fort Collins Land Use Code, Adopted on First Reading
The following is staffs memorandum on this item.
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Staff has identified a variety ofproposed changes, additions and clarifications in the Spring 2004
biannual update of the Land Use Code. On May 20, 2004, the Planning and Zoning Board
considered the proposed changes and took specific action on one individual item. The Board voted
323
June 1, 2004
5-1 to recommend approval ofltem Number 545. This is the change related to adjusting the buffer
distance for raptors, with the provision.for mitigation. The Board then voted 6-0 to recommend
approval of the balance of the proposed changes to City Council
Minutes to the Planning and Zoning Board's May 20, 2004 meeting are attached as well as the
Board's Staff Report, background memo on Item Number 545 and summary reports of the 18
proposed changes.
BACKGROUND
The Land Use Code was first adopted in March of 1997. Subsequent revisions have been
recommended on a biannual basis to make changes, additions,deletions and clarifications that have
been identified in the preceding six months. The proposed changes are offered in order to resolve
implementation issues and to continuously improve both the overall quality and "user-friendliness"
of the Code.
Attachments include a summary of the Planning and Zoning Board's action, a summary of all the
issues and the draft Ordinance itself
In addition,packet materials include the letters from interested parties commenting on the proposed
changes to Section 3.4.1, Natural Habitats and Features. "
Deputy City Manager Jones introduced the agenda item.
Ted Shepard,Chief Planner,stated there were 18 items for the Land Use Code update. He stated 17
of those items were considered to be routine. He stated the Planning and Zoning Board voted 6-0
to approve those 17 items and that the other item(#545)was substantive. He stated the Board voted
5-1 on that item. He stated the Board minutes were included in the Council packet. He stated staff
had provided a one-page memo to the Council responding to a question at the Study Session
regarding the effect of that item not being passed. He stated the substantive item was the Raptor
Standard Buffer which was the result of a two-year effort to fix a problem with the current standard
in the Land Use Code. He stated there were process issues and technical buffer distance standard
issues. He stated the approach that had been followed was to fix the process and to work with the
environmental community on the buffer distance. He stated a working group was established and
that the group had arrived at a decision by consensus on how to fix the problem. He stated staff was
recommending that the actual buffer distance for raptors be reduced. He stated the group discussed
at length two competing objectives i.e. (1) the Structure Plan Map and City Plan called for intense
urban development in activity centers on South College Avenue and some of those new urbanism
principles required density to support transit, while(2)there was also an objective to enjoy wildlife
(raptors in particular)in the urban environment. He stated the standards set out in the Code did not
324
June 1, 2004
help with integrating the two competing objectives. He stated an attempt was being made to
integrate the objectives in a way that would represent compromise and conciliation and that would
be workable. He stated work had been done with the DOW biologist and that there was a degree of
confidence that the resource could be protected where protection was desired,while allowing urban
development at the new urbanism scale to occur. He presented visual information that showed the
areas where the full extent of the revised standard would be enacted and those areas where intense
urban activity was expected to occur (i.e. South College Avenue, North College Avenue, activity
centers located either one or two miles off of College Avenue, and areas on Mountain Vista and I-
25). He stated the standard would be allowed to be reduced in those areas from 900 to 450 with
mitigation and from 450 to zero provided the tree was preserved. He stated the key was that intense
urban development would be allowed to occur while protecting the resource in the areas of the City
where protection was possible. He stated there would be a process change that would do away with
the automatic 20% reduction that was often invoked by applicants. He stated there would be a
clearer path to the Planning and Zoning Board without having to go back through the charts and end
up as a modification. He stated this was a conciliatory and compromise driven solution. He spoke
regarding the public outreach on this issue. He stated there would be a reduced overall standard in
an attempt to balance the competing objectives in the Structure Plan,City Plan and the Natural Areas
Policy Plan.
Michelle Jacobs, Homebuilders Association of Northern Colorado,read a position paper regarding
the protection of raptor habitats. She stated staff was proposing a partial solution. She stated rigid
buffer standards were encouraging property owners to eliminate possible habitat sites prior to
annexation. She stated it would make more sense to allow staff to work through raptor habitat
protection issues during initial planning phases of a development application. She stated Section
3.4.1 (the automatic call up provision) appeared nowhere but in buffer zone protection standards.
She stated this was inconsistent with the rest of the Land Use Code. She stated it would be a
reasonable approach to allow flexibility in buffer zone standards. She stated the call up provision
was frustrating for staff and time consuming and costly for developers. She stated costs were
reflected in the lot prices for homes. She stated the only alternative currently was to go through a
modification process. She stated removal of the automatic call up provision would provide
flexibility for staff to bring forth better conservation projects and for developers to offer better
projects at lower land costs. She stated a price tag of$10,000 per acre to protect raptor habitat was
unrealistic. She stated the Land Use Code change that would seek to impose a$10,000 per acre fee
was premature. She stated potentially the cost of mitigating any encroachment could cost up to
$438,000. She stated if raptor nest sites were deemed to be important to quality of life that the City
should purchase the sites. She stated requiring developers to pay the City for the right to develop
their own land encroached on property rights and would be an onerous imposition for developers.
She stated these excessive amounts would further the problem of private landowners destroying
habitats. She asked the Council to use a more balanced approach between the need to grow and the
desire to protect raptor habitats.
325
June 1, 2004
Kent Bucksford,Jim Sell Design,stated raptor nest buffer standards had been extremely problematic
for some of the company's clients. He stated much of the science that underscored the need for a
buffer standard around raptor nests was based on a flushing distance. He stated the DOW and City
staff had indicated that there were 10 raptor nests located within the City limits. He highlighted two
that were in highly urbanized areas (the CSU campus within a block of the Oval and in the
Wagonwheel Subdivision within several blocks of the intersection of Shields and Horsetooth). He
stated raptors were highly adaptable within the urban environment and that the requirements for a
900 foot buffer(a 58 acre no-build zone) was problematic in terms of conflicting with policies for
a compact land form and affordable housing. He urged the Council to consider a pause in the
proposed regulation until after further study.
Kelly Ohlson,2040 Bennington Circle, stated he was part of the work group on this issue. He stated
he viewed the effort not so much as a compromise but as a "weakening of the regulations." He
stated he supported the Ordinance but that he was concerned that it might be viewed as a
compromise. He stated the reduction in the buffer zone was a"huge weakening"of the regulation
and that he was supportive of the change. He stated the mitigation option would not take effect until
the buffer was further reduced. He stated mitigation was not required by this regulation. He stated
the City's consultant recommended twice the existing buffer. He stated the work on the issue was
not about compromise but was about trying to craft a more workable and rational solution. He stated
the change would be easier and more fair for developers. He stated habitat protection for over a
decade had always been a combination of regulation and purchase of property.
Scott Nelson, 1621 Charleston Way, stated the raptors were highly adaptable and that they would
buffer themselves from urbanization. He stated there was no clear resolution or understanding of
facts about flushing distances and other data. He stated this was a habitat rather than raptor issue and
that the trees needed to be protected.
Bill Miller,322 Scott Avenue,president of the Fort Collins Audubon Society,stated adaptability did
not apply to 100%of birds. He stated birds of prey needed appropriate habitat,hunting territory and
prey base. He stated $10,000 was not adequate for mitigation and urged raising that amount to
$15,000.
Randy Fischer,3007 Moore Lane, stated he was speaking for himself rather than as a member of the
Natural Resources Advisory Board. He stated he worked with staff on crafting the revisions. He
stated the Natural Features and Habitats Land Use Code was a progressive document. He stated he
supported the changes to the Land Use Code. He expressed a concern about the uncertainty of the
actions being taken ("experimenting with nature"). He stated this was a major concession by
environmental conservationists. He stated he supported the changes as presented and urged the
Council not to further weaken the provisions. He stated there would be four options for applicants
with problems with raptor nests: (1) comply with the regulation; (2) encroach on the buffer and
mitigate by providing some equal habitat;(3)work with staff to adjust performance standards;or(3)
326
June 1, 2004
go through a modification process. He stated there would be flexibility in the process. He stated
there should be a tree protection ordinance.
Councilmember Kastein stated this had been discussed at a study session and that he was unhappy
that the Ordinance was being presented as it was at the time of the study session. He suggested that
the Council direction was unclear. He asked if there were federal laws that prohibited cutting down
trees with raptor nests. John Stokes, Natural Resources Director, stated federal law protected
migratory birds on nesting sites and prohibited harassment or killing of migratory birds.
Councilmember Kastein asked if the proposed $10,000 fee for mitigation was legal. City Attorney
Roy stated the fee was optional and would be in lieu of providing land. He stated legal staff believed
that the fee was legally defensible and that it was permissible for the City to protect natural habitat
of raptors.
Councilmember Kastein asked how such a standard was set. City Attorney Roy stated there was no
clear line regarding what was permissible and what was not permissible as a legitimate exercise of
the police power. He stated a Home Rule City was empowered to protect the health, safety and
welfare of its inhabitants. He stated the courts had traditionally shown a lot of deference to a
legislative determination of what was valuable and that the Council took action at every Council
meeting to decide what community values were worth protecting. He stated he was confident that
the kind of value being protected in this case was within the legitimate exercise of the police power.
Councilmember Kastein asked if there was a requirement for a particular amount of open space in
a PUD. Shepard stated there was no blanket minimum percentage. He stated there were buffers for
specific things such as neighborhood compatibility or buffering for dissimilar land uses. He stated
the buffering was usually worked out on a case by case basis based on the customized needs of the
site.
Councilmember Kastein asked for confirmation that there was no minimum requirement for open
space or unused land. Shepard stated there was no minimum requirement except for what was
needed for utilities, stormwater, parks and recreation, etc.
Councilmember Weitkunat asked what happened to the money collected for mitigation. Stokes
stated the intention was to use the money to acquire additional habitat for raptors.
Councilmember W eitkunat asked why the City would not just buy the land for the raptor rather than
requiring mitigation. Stokes stated the purpose of mitigation was to provide additional habitat in
exchange for the habitat that would be lost to development and to act as a disincentive to the
developer to reducing the buffer.
327
June I, 2004
Councilmember Weitkunat asked why the City would not buy the land rather than using the
mitigation money to buy other land. She asked why this would not fall under natural areas land
acquisition ifthis was valuable raptor land. Tom Vosburg,Assistant City Manager,stated there were
two"tools"at play: the Code included various standards for natural features,and there was a natural
areas land acquisition program. He stated the proposal was to modify one of the "tools" in a way
that would be acceptable to as many people as possible.
Councilmember Weitkunat expressed a concern that an imbalance was occurring between the various
City programs(land use development,conservation and protecting natural areas,species and habitat).
She stated examples had been cited to show that raptors adjust to urban environments. She stated
she had a concern that the change would include areas along North College Avenue and that there
was new language that could work to"stifle"North College Avenue. She stated she was concerned
about whether the fee was a fair way to accomplish the goal. She stated the language relating to
"species of concern in the sensitive natural community"went above and beyond language relating
to endangered species. She asked what would keep this from being"arbitrary." Stokes stated the
zone districts coded red on the map(identified for intense urban development) would be excluded
from the proposed Code modification i.e.there would be no 450 foot buffer in those areas. He stated
mitigation would be required if the buffer went from 900 feet to zero.
Councilmember Weitkunat asked if the language relating to"species of concern"was new language.
Stokes replied in the affirmative and stated the intent was to clarify the Code language to make it
parallel the nomenclature used by the Division of Wildlife.
Councilmember Weitkunat asked if the inclusion of this language in the Code would add another
level. Stokes stated the language relating to "species of concern" was simply a clarification. He
stated the language relating to "sensitive natural communities"could be viewed as an addition. He
stated the intent was to use a system used by the statewide Natural Heritage Program to identify any
globally rare natural communities that might occur in Fort Collins.
Councilmember Weitkunat stated her concern was going from "threatened and endangered" to
"sensitive natural communities" and who would identify those and have the authority to require
mitigation. Doug Moore, Natural Resources Department, stated he did not feel that including the
language relating to"sensitive natural communities"was additive. He stated the updated City Plan
and Natural Areas Policy Plan addressed protection of species that had special sensitivity. He stated
the language was simply being refined to better fit with the State wording and to make it clearer to
everyone.
Councilmember Bertschy asked about the process to be followed if a raptor nest was found. Shepard
stated staff was attempting to integrate performance standards into the quantitative analysis from the
buffer standards. He stated this meant that if a site had unique characteristics, the applicants,
consultants and staff would be able to discuss the particular site, what needed to be protected, and
328
June I, 2004
how to craft the best possible conservation outcome using the performance standards. He stated this
could result in a buffer distance that might be less than the prescribed minimum.
Councilmember Bertschy asked if this would eliminate the need for any fee for mitigation. Shepard
stated a determination could be made that the standard was being met and why it was being met.
Councilmember Bertschy asked if this meant that there would be more flexibility. Shepard replied
in the affirmative.
Councilmember Bertschy asked if there would be an appeal process. Shepard replied in the
affirmative.
Councilmember Bertschy asked how many sites were involved. Stokes stated there were about six
sites in the City that could be affected by future development and 26 territories in the Growth
Management Area.
Mayor Martinez asked if there was money in the natural areas fund to buy the property why that
could not be done. He also asked if the mitigation fee money could be used toward a special fund
for low income housing or other purposes since there was already a lot of other funding in place for
natural area purchases. City Attorney Roy stated this could not be done legally. He stated the
exaction(in the case the land or the money)must be for the purpose of solving the problem created
by the development. He stated the"problem"in this case was the elimination of habitat and that the
fee money needed to be used to solve that problem.
Mayor Martinez asked if made a difference that there were already adequate funds to solve that
problem. City Attorney Roy stated this would apply regardless of whether or not there were
adequate funds already available to solve the problem.
Mayor Martinez asked why there should be a mitigation fee charged when the money was already
available to buy natural areas. City Attorney Roy stated from a legal standpoint that the Council
could choose to fund natural areas or replacement natural areas from any legally available source.
He stated if the mitigation fee was chosen as a source that the money obtained would have to be used
solely for that purpose.
Mayor Martinez asked why the City would need to charge a fee when it can afford to replace raptor
habitat. He stated this could be perceived as a"form of punishment'for development or a"form of
extortion." Stokes stated the underlying assumption was that there were two conservation
mechanisms: (1) regulatory,through the Land Use Code, and (2) acquisition of habitat through the
natural areas program. He stated the intent was to modify the existing regulatory approach to make
it more flexible. He stated making it more flexible made it easier for developers to reduce the buffer
and that it would be appropriate to require replacement habitat paid for by the developer.
329
June 1, 2004
Mayor Martinez stated this confirmed for him that this was a "form of punishment' since the City
already had the money but was to require the developer to pay for it. He asked why the voter
approved tax money would not be used instead and questioned the need to"hammer the developer"
resulting in increasing the cost of housing. Shepard stated one of the Planning and Zoning Board
members believed that this would be analogous to the stormwater provisions relating to general
improvements and on-site improvements needed as a result of specific development.
Mayor Martinez asked if that was also a way to "punish"the developers. Shepard stated the intent
was to balance out the impact so that growth would pay its own way. Vosburg stated the discussion
was regarding what areas were in the public versus private interest. He stated the
development/natural resource conservation balance was defined through a policy development
process. He stated there had been a series of planning processes reaching back as far the original
Natural Resources Policy Plan which established a clear strategy to make land conservation a
priority. He stated a variety of tools were established, including utilization of appropriate balanced
legal land regulation and an active land conservation program. He stated historically it had been
recognized that both tools(regulation and active land conservation)could be used to conserve natural
areas. He stated this current discussion was drawing the line between the two. He stated there was
a tradition of applying measures on a site specific basis to protect features on the site. He stated this
was manifested as the existing habitat protection standards for buffers. He stated the current buffers
were so large that they placed an extraordinary burden on development and were unworkable. He
stated the intent was to reduce the overall size and scope and still remain within the framework of
the existing policies and strategies.
Mayor Martinez stated he recognized the intent of the change. He asked why the City would not just
buy the land if the raptors on these sites were so valuable. Vosburg stated the primary buffer
distance being recommended was 900 feet(a change from 1,300 feet). He stated one problem with
the 1,300 foot buffer was that it was rigidly stated in the Code and that there was no ability to adjust
it. He stated the intent of providing a voluntary means of allowing further encroachment was to give
development the opportunity for more flexibility. He stated the fee was optional and created an
incentive for the developer to try to come up with a design respecting the 900 foot buffer. He stated
the 900 foot buffer would not be respected at all if there was no incentive.
Mayor Martinez asked why the City would not simply purchase the land. Vosburg stated it would
be a policy decision for the Council to determine if that was a priority for the use of natural areas
dollars. Vosburg stated the City would not want land that had been developed.
Mayor Martinez asked what the buffer would be if this Ordinance did not pass. Vosburg stated it
would remain at 1,320 feet. Shepard stated a modification process was available under the existing
provision and under the proposed Code revision. He stated one criteria for granting a modification
was undue hardship.
330
June 1, 2004
Mayor Martinez asked for an example of an"undue hardship." Shepard stated the Zoning Board of
Appeals regularly dealt with parcels that had irregular shapes, unique situations, etc. He stated a
hardship would have to be found by the Planning and Zoning Board based on the evidence and the
specific site before a modification could be granted.
Councilmember Roy asked about the "science" relating to the buffer distances. Stokes stated a
consultant was hired to look at the scientific literature on flushing distances from nesting sites. He
stated this was determined to be in excess of 1,500 feet. He stated if this was to be used as a
benchmark that the buffers would be much larger. He stated such large buffers were untenable in
an urban environment and that the intent of the change was to add flexibility while respecting
conservation principles relating to raptors.
Councilmember Roy asked what range of protection the consultant recommended. Stokes stated
the consultant indicated that the buffer in the scientific literature would probably be in excess of
1,500 feet. He stated there was a paucity of data from urban environments.
Councilmember Roy asked how many acres of land would be affected if developers would choose
to encroach to the 450 foot buffer distance. Stokes stated there were about six nests in the City limits
and that if the buffer was reduced to 450 feet in each case that there could be about 258 acres
affected.
Councilmember Hamrick asked if there were requirements for development other than
environmental requirements. Shepard stated were requirements for sidewalks, streets, stormwater
ponds, riparian area buffers, landscaping, etc.
Councilmember Hamrick asked if there other payment-in-lieu-of fees (i.e. raw water acquisition
fees). Shepard replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Hamrick asked why the City would not buy everything that the developer was
required to pay for. Shepard stated there was an impact created by the development proposal that
would not otherwise be created.
Councilmember Hamrick asked why there were land use regulations. Shepard stated one of the
attractions of Fort Collins was the attractive built environment and a high level of service for
intersection improvements, connectivity with bike trails, connections between neighborhoods, etc.
Councilmember Hamrick stated land use regulations were intended to provide a higher quality of life
for the citizens of Fort Collins. He stated certain members of the Council would attack certain
environmental impacts and assessments and would not question other issues.
331
June 1, 2004
Mayor Martinez stated he did not favor any fees. He asked Mr.Miller how raptors were able to live
in some urban environments. Mr. Miller stated there were always exceptions. He stated if specific
animals did not have what they needed for survival that they would disappear. He stated individual
birds could adapt but that this did not apply broadly to the whole species. He stated the natural areas
program operated on a willing seller/willing buyer basis and that developers invested thousands of
dollars for development. He stated it was not a good use of natural areas money to pay development
prices for land to save a small amount of habitat.
Mayor Martinez asked if raptors would survive if they were relocated. Mr. Miller stated raptors
could not be moved. He stated there were carrying capacities for any type of species and that birds
could often not move to other territories occupied by other raptors. He stated if a raptor did not have
a breeding territory due to competition with other raptors that the raptor would not reproduce and
the total number would decrease due to mortality.
Mayor Martinez asked if the $10,000 fee would change anything. Mr. Miller stated the fee would
be used to buy land that hopefully had suitable raptor habitat. He stated it was increasingly difficult
to buy suitable habitat.
Mayor Martinez asked what would be gained by collecting the $10,000 fee. Mr. Miller stated an
attempt could be made to buy suitable habitat. Vosburg stated restoration of existing City-owned
natural area lands could be one of the uses of the fee. He stated the City owned land that did not
support the prey base and that the strategy could be to preserve land to be used as a prey base.
Mayor Martinez stated there was no guarantee that a specific raptor would move to the new site.
Councilmember Bertschy made a motion,seconded by Councilmember Hamrick,to adopt Ordinance
No. 091, 2004 on First Reading.
Councilmember Kastein stated there was a difference between infrastructure needs and a hawk's
nest. He questioned whether a hawk's nest was part of the infrastructure. He stated the average
person on the street might say that the City ought to buy the property rather than making a developer
pay a fee to buy land elsewhere. He stated there were "different levels of natural features" i.e. the
buffer zones for the river might be different because the river was more systemic. He stated there
was not the same impact for an individual bird's nest on a piece of property. He stated the real
question was who should pay to replace land that the City was effectively taking. He stated the
proposed Ordinance was a better solution than the existing Ordinance. He stated he would therefore
support adoption and recommended that the Council send staff back for additional work on a better
solution. He stated the issues were whether the buffers were infrastructure, whether they were
systemic or individual,and how much money was available in programs such as natural areas to pay
the cost. He stated the urban growth boundary had been frozen by the Council and that urban
development could take place only within that boundary. He stated there was money available for
332
June 1, 2004
natural areas and that people were questioning the purchase of a ranch at the Wyoming state border
rather than applying the money within the City limits.
Councilmember Hamrick stated he regarded natural areas and open space as infrastructure and part
of what created a livable community. He stated the City's established policy was to direct
development away from natural habitats and features and use innovative planning design,
management practices and mitigation when it was not possible to direct development away from
natural habitats and features. He stated this was integrated into the overall fabric of the community.
Councilmember Kastein stated mitigation was a viable alternative and that the question was who
should pay for the mitigation.
Councilmember Bertschy stated he understood staff to say that there could be performance standards
that would be acceptable in lieu of any kind of mitigation fee. He stated each site was different and
that this would give the City the flexibility to work with the developers to help them mitigate. He
stated the fee was an option the developer could choose. He stated this was an improvement over
the old standard and that too much emphasis was being placed on the fee.
Mayor Martinez stated if the developer chose to pay the fee that the cost would be passed along to
home buyers. He stated this would raise the cost of housing. He stated the City was"fee oriented"
and that each new fee made housing less affordable.
Councilmember Roy stated staff had indicated that about 250 acres and six sites would be involved.
He stated such sites contributed to property values and that such sites were assets to developments
rather than something onerous to bear.
Councilmember Kastein stated since these sites were so valuable that it would make sense for the
City to buy them.
Councilmember Hamrick stated the City charged development fees for certain amenities and
questioned why natural areas and protection of habitat were being singled out. He stated there were
many other items that someone could argue should be paid from the General Fund rather than paid
by development. He stated fees helped maintain a healthy community and economic climate.
Councilmember Weitkunat expressed concern with pitting environmental issues against
development. She stated the issue was preserving what was good and mitigating it in a fair and
reasonable way. She stated the existing Code provision was not reasonable and did not work well.
She stated the issues that were being discussed had not been resolved in previous discussions. She
stated she viewed the proposed changes as an attempt to move forward with a benefit for everyone.
She stated the question was whether the fee would solve the problem. She stated she favored taking
a look at the direction. She stated when fees were placed on development for sidewalks,landscaping
333
June 1, 2004
or stormwater improvements that the land could still be used. She stated she had concerns with
taking the fee money"outside"of the development. She asked that the Council focus on what was
to be accomplished and stated this was not just an environmental issue. She stated she would like
to see better direction to staff for the future.
Councilmember Kastein stated he would like to offer a friendly amendment to have staff, prior to
Second Reading, to work on the issue of how parkland fees were collected and small neighborhood
parks were created in residential areas. He stated he would like to see staff work on waiving that
requirement in lieu of a buffer zone that may remain in the long term. Shepard stated staff could
look at that issue.
Councilmember Roy requested clarification of the friendly amendment.
Councilmember Kastein stated the question was having staff look at, prior to Second Reading,
developing this Ordinance so that where there was a buffer zone in a development and where a park
would have to be created as required by the Code that the requirement for the park could be waived
if the buffer was to be required. City Attorney Roy stated if the Council wanted to have that done,
the direction could be added through an amendment to the motion to adopt.
Mayor Martinez asked if there was support for the friendly amendment.
Councilmember Bertschy stated research would have to be done and that he was not willing to add
this as a friendly amendment.
Councilmember Kastein asked that staff look at the question of whether this would be feasible or
not. City Attorney Roy asked if the intent was that this be done prior to Second Reading and noted
that this could delay Second Reading. Greg Byrne,CPES Director, stated staff looked at this as one
of the options over two years ago. He stated if this option was of interest to the Council that staff
would like to hear that. He stated the option considered by the staff would have been to place a
ceiling on the percentage of a piece of property that could be regulated into the public interest(right-
of-way,retention area,wetland protection,habitat buffer,etc.). He stated staff worked with the first
consultant on options regarding how to deal with the current Ordinance. He stated there was one
example of that in use. He stated staff understood that the recommendation did not please anyone
and that the Council believed that direction had been given at the study session. He stated staff had
reviewed the tapes of the study session and that there was no direction other than some expressions
of support. He stated there was not a Council majority indicating that mitigation should not be
brought forward. He asked for additional Council direction.
Mayor Martinez asked if there was support for giving that direction.
334
June 1, 2004
Councilmember Weitkunat stated she would like to look into the option of placing a ceiling on the
percentage.
Councilmember Bertschy stated was a broader issue.
Mayor Martinez stated this was a separate topic and that the discussion should focus on the motion.
Councilmember Kastein asked if staff would like direction from the Council on the issue or whether
it could be discussed separately. Byrne stated if the Council wanted the research to be done by
Second Reading, the Second Reading would have to be delayed to allow time for processing the
issue through the public process.
Councilmember Kastein stated he would like to see staff look at the ceiling percentage issue in the
long term and that Council could adopt the current version of the Ordinance because it was better
than the old Ordinance. Byrne stated there were protections built into the Ordinance to address
undue hardships.
Councilmember Hamrick stated he supported the Ordinance as presented. He stated he did not like
the overall reduction in the buffer standards. He stated he was willing to see if the new Ordinance
would work.
Councilmember Roy stated the direction reflected the continuing status of Fort Collins as an urban
center that was losing natural amenities within the City proper. He stated he felt that Natural Areas
money should not be used to help fund"speculative investments"and the community value was the
ability to observe wildlife in an urban setting. He stated some of the ability to do that was lost with
the direction being taken.
Councilmember Weitkunat stated she would support the motion. She stated this was a community
of people and that issues affecting the people of the community were a priority. She stated the
environment had a lot to do with quality of life and that it was important to remember the people
who live here. She stated Land Use Code changes affected people and that the changes should not
be unreasonable or extreme.
Councilmember Bertschy noted that the change that received the most discussion was one of 18 Land
Use Code changes. He stated Land Use Code changes were made twice a year to ensure that it
remained a"living document'that would continue to meet the needs of the community in a variety
of ways. He stated he appreciated the efforts staff made to obtain citizen input. He stated the
performance standards would allow a way to mitigate a piece of property while enforcing the
standards to protect the habitat to the greatest extent possible.
335
June 1, 2004
Councilmember Kastein stated the direction to staff had been unclear. He stated he would support
the Ordinance because it was better than what existed. He stated he would be asking that the Council
give staff direction to reevaluate cases in which City money should be spent in place of private
dollars on these types of issues. He stated the issue was who should pay and that he would support
the Ordinance with the understanding that he would ask Council to provide direction to staff either
after the vote on the motion or under Other Business.
Mayor Martinez stated this Ordinance was an improvement. He stated he did not want to see the
City become a"land baron." He expressed a concern about affordable housing for those who worked
low paid jobs. He stated there must be a"balancing act"to ensure that people(the elderly, etc.)did
not become an "endangered species."
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Bertschy, Hamrick, Kastein,
Martinez, Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Mayor Martinez stated he would like to have Council affirm the direction to have staff look into the
trade off of buffer zones versus parkland fees. Jones asked if the intent was to direct staff to
reevaluate places where the City could or should spend money in place of private dollars. She stated
staff needed additional direction regarding points of research that Council would like to have staff
do.
Councilmember Kastein stated he would like to have staff look at the Ordinance that had just been
adopted on First Reading to make modifications at some time in the future to establish limitations
on the amount of land that would be required to be donated to the public interest. He stated he
would like to also see a more far reaching evaluation of buffer standards in general. He stated he
would like to have staff prepare a resolution in a couple of weeks to direct staff to work on helping
Council craft policy differentiating various types of buffer standards (for rivers, raptors, wetlands,
etc.)and who should pay for them. He stated there should be buy-in from the whole Council before
staff was asked to work on the idea.
Mayor Martinez asked if there was any support for bringing back such a resolution for Council
consideration. He stated he would support that.
Councilmember Bertschy stated he could not support that until the questions were refined. He stated
this was a "huge issue."
Councilmember Kastein made a motion to direct staff to prepare a resolution stating the Council's
desire that a comprehensive review of buffer standards take place and that the review would focus
336
June 1, 2004
on identifying buffers that would protect a resource considered valuable for the public good and the
various means of protection that could be applied.
Councilmember Hamrick asked why Councilmember Kastein was looking only at buffer fees instead
of all types of fees charged to development.
Councilmember Kastein stated would be a much larger task and that the Council was asked to
approve or disapprove various fees one at a time.
Councilmember Hamrick asked if this would include fees set by the City Manager.
Councilmember Kastein stated would be something to review if they related to buffer standards.
Councilmember Weitkunat asked if a buffer was undevelopable land. Shepard stated some things
were allowed in the buffer zone (stormwater detention ponds, passive recreation, etc.).
Councilmember Weitkunat asked if such uses were allowed in all buffers. Moore stated it depended
on the habitat or the feature being buffered and whether the impacts could be supported. He stated
things allowed in buffers included stormwater detention ponds,recreational trails,emergency access,
etc.
Councilmember Weitkunat stated Council had been hearing recently from a variety of people
impacted by buffers. She stated this would be another buffer zone for animal habitat that could
potentially affect people. She asked if the point had been reached when the City should take a look
at how much property could be designated for buffers. She asked if there was another way to
mitigate or compensate or utilize i.e. whether there was a need to take a look at the program in
general.
Councilmember Roy stated the tracts of land that would have buffers or need mitigation in an urban
setting had great value. He stated he would not support helping people be "speculative" with
taxpayer dollars. He stated he was hearing Councilmember Kastein say that he wanted to use City
funds to help reduce the financial requirement for developers that owned land with natural features.
Councilmember Kastein stated there was support from three Councilmembers to ask staff to bring
back a resolution for Council consideration. Deputy City Manager Jones stated it was her
understanding that three Councilmembers wanted to have a resolution prepared for consideration.
Councilmember Roy asked for clarification regarding the resolution to be brought back for Council
consideration.
337
June 1, 2004
Councilmember Kastein stated he wanted to direct staff to prepare a resolution stating the Council's
desire that a comprehensive review of buffer standards take place and that the review would focus
on identifying buffers that would protect a resource considered valuable for the public good and the
various means of protection that could be applied.
Councilmember Roy asked about staff s understanding of the language"protect a resource"and how
many resources buffer zones protected. Stokes stated buffers protected wetlands,rookeries,raptors,
riparian areas,the Poudre River corridor,etc. He stated there were 34 features protected by buffers.
Councilmember Roy stated it would be unreasonable to expect the resolution at the next Council
meeting if there was to be a comprehensive review of each feature.
Councilmember Kastein stated he was not asking for a comprehensive review within that time frame
and that he was asking for a resolution to give direction to staff to begin summarizing what might
be addressed. He stated the intent was to determine if there were four Councilmembers in favor of
having staff undertake the work. Vosburg stated there had been discussion about bringing wetland
buffers forward for Council discussion during the next round of land use changes. Byrne asked if
Council would like the review to include whether or not a buffer could be adequately dealt with on
a relatively small development and whether or not species were threatened or endangered or local
choice. He asked if Council had suggestions on how to structure the discussion.
Councilmember Kastein stated he was interested in those types of questions.
Councilmember Bertschy stated he was not interested in a wholesale discussion about buffer
standards. He stated it took months to arrive at the compromise on the one buffer Council just
approved. He stated he did not favor creating an insurmountable task. He stated there were buffer
standards for a number of reasons and that he would not like to open a full scale discussion on the
issue.
Mayor Martinez suggested delaying this discussion until the resolution came forward for Council
consideration.
("Secretary's Note: The Council took a brief recess at this point.)
Items Relating to the Trailhead Annexation,
Adopted as Amended.
The following is staff s memorandum on this item.
338
June 1, 2004
`EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A. Resolution 2004-070 Setting Forth Findings of Fact and Determinations Regarding the
Trailhead Annexation.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 092, 2004, Annexing Property Known as the Trailhead
Annexation to the City ofFort Collins, Colorado.
C. First Reading of Ordinance No. 093, 2004, Amending the Zoning Map of the City ofFort
Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the Trailhead
Annexation to the City ofFort Collins, Colorado.
The Trailhead Annexation, Zoning and Structure Plan Amendment was presented to the Planning
and Zoning Board on April 15, 2004. The Planning and Zoning Board recommends adoption of the
Annexation Resolution and Ordinance on First Reading, with initial zoning to the E—Employment
zone district, and subsequent denial of the requested amendment to the City ofFort Collins Structure
Plan from the Employment District to Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood District.
This is a request to annex and zone approximately 91.25 acres of land located along the north side
of East Vine Drive, south of the Burlington Northern Railroad, west of the Waterglen Subdivision.
Theproject is located within the Mountain Vista Sub-Area Plan. The proposed zoning is LMN—Low
Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood. The Mountain Vista Sub-Area Plan and the City ofFort Collins
Structure Plan designate this property as E—Employment.An amendment to the Mountain Vista Sub
Area Plan and Structure Plan is accompanying the annexation and zoning request. The requested
plan amendment would designate this property as Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood. The
anticipated land use would be single and multi family residential, consistent with the standards in
the LAIN zone district.
1. The annexation of this area is consistent with the policies and agreements between Larimer
County and the City ofFort Collins as contained in the Intergovernmental Agreement for the
Fort Collins Urban Growth Area.
Theproperty is located within theFort Collins Growth ManagementArea(GMA).According
to policies and agreements between the City ofFort Collins and Larimer County, contained
in the Intergovernmental Agreement for the Fort Collins Urban Growth Area(last amended
November 2000), the City will pursue the annexation of land into the City ofFort Collins
when such lands are eligible for annexation according to Colorado Revised Statutes(CRS).
2. The area meets all criteria included in Colorado Revised Statutes to qualify for a voluntary
annexation to the City ofFort Collins.
339
June 1, 2004
This property is eligible for annexation according to the Colorado Annexation Act, which
requires 116 contiguity to the existing city limits. The Trailhead Annexation complies with
this standard since the property has 5,116feet of its total boundary of approximately 9,084
feet is contiguous to the existing city limits. This meets the minimum 1,524 feet required to
achieve 116 contiguity. This contiguity occurs through a common boundary with the
property to the north, east, west and south of the parcel.
3. Requested Structure Plan:
The removal of the Employment designation from the Trailhead property would represent
a loss of 90 acres within the City's vacant Employment designated land inventory. A recent
study completed for the Harmony Corridor Plan Amendment concluded that the current
supply of Employment - designated land is adequate; however, any future removal of
Employment lands will begin to create a shortfall in the City's inventory.
With the most recent proposal, the applicant and the City have re-entered into negotiations
for the property north and west of the Trailhead site for use as a regional detention pond.
This concept would relocate a portion of the water ponding on adjacent Anheuser-Busch
property (estimated to be approximately 90 acres) to this adjacent property. Preliminary
grading plans have been completed by the applicant which will determine the capacity of the
new detention pond. With the most recent design, it is estimated that approximately 30 acres
of the 90 acres of area encumbered by floodwater on the adjacent Anheuser-Busch property
would be removed from flooding. The 30 acres would be available for future development.
Anheuser-Busch has expressed potential interest in developing their land in the future with
non-residential uses, such as Employment.
Even with the 30 acres removed from the flooding area, there still remains a net loss of
Employment land of 60 acres with this proposal. Additional improvements could be made
on Anheuser-Busch property to further reduce the ponding area; however, without the
consent of Anheuser-Busch to proceed with such plans, staff can not evaluate what impact
this may have. Staff maintains the position that this loss is too great to justify the zoning of
the Trailhead property to LMN without additional Employment land dedicated elsewhere.
Storm drainage issues on the Anheuser-Busch property have been an obstacle in the
adoption of the staff initiated amendments to the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan. This
purchase of the property by the City for a regional detention pond could be the catalyst to
re-enter into negotiations with Anheuser-Busch and continue the Mountain Vista Subarea
Plan amendment. The amended plan relocates Employment uses off of the Trailhead
property and onto adjacent Anheuser-Busch property. The resulting designation on the
Trailhead property is LMN.
340
June 1, 2004
The negotiations have been completed for the 30 acres on the northwestern portion of the
Trailhead property. Stormwater would like to acquire the property, since it is a key piece in
the drainage improvements necessary to serve this portion ofMountain Vista.Staff,however,
contends that the purchase will not justify the zoning of the Trailhead property to LMN,
without the furthersupport ofAnheuser-Busch to assume additional Employment uses lost
from the Trailhead property.
FINDINGS and ANALYSIS:
1. Back rY ound:
The surrounding zoning and land uses are as,follows:
N: FAI(County) Undeveloped
S: LMN Proposed Witham Farms ODP
E: LMN Single Family Residential
W.• FAI(County) Undeveloped
2. Structure Plan Amendment
The City of Fort Collins Comprehensive Plan, City Plan, may be amended pursuant to
Appendix C of City Plan.All City Plan amendments shall be considered by the City Council,
after recommendation by the Planning and Zoning Board and City staff Such amendment
shall demonstrate compliance with the following criteria:
3. The existing City Plan and/or related element thereofis in need ojthe proposed amendment.
The existing land use designation for this parcel was assigned during the development of the
Mountain Vista Sub Area Plan. Several factors were present which led to the Employment
designation, which still exist today. The property is directly adjacent to Vine Drive, a four
lane arterial street, with close by access to 1-25 via a proposed interchange at I-25 and Vine
Drive. The site also has truck access to two existing interchanges at Mulberry and Mountain
Vista Drives via the existing frontage road system. There are existing and future residential
areas and shopping opportunities to support future employment uses on the property.
Some conditions have changed since adoption of the Plan.For instance, Vine Drive had once
been considered to be a viable "truck bypass"route; that is no longer considered a viable
option. Also, the Burlington Northern Railroad line is directly west of this site. It was
originally thought that the Employment uses could take advantage of this line by adding
spurs off the main line for railcar deliveries. However, since the adoption of the Mountain
341
June 1, 2004
Vista Plan, the Larimer and Weld Ditch has been relocated from its previous location, which
bisected the property, to the edge of the property adjacent to the railroad tracks. This new
location has effectively eliminated the possibility of tying into the existing rail lines.
4. The proposed 121an amendment will promote the public welfare and will be consistent with
the vision goals,principles and policies of City Plan and the elements thereof
One of the key goals of the Mountain Vista Sub Area Plan amendment is to maintain a
balance of land available forEmployment and residential uses in the northeast part of town
and community-wide. The City is currently in the process of looking at some possible
amendments to the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan and Structure Plan that may permit shifting
of land uses, while maintaining the current balance of land uses. These amendments affect
several property owners in the area, particularly Anheuser-Busch. There are issues yet to
be resolved in the plan amendment. Staff expects that the subarea plan amendment will be
broughtforward within 2004. Until the location ofthe Employment land can be resolved, the
Structure Plan amendment is not supported by City Plan policies, including ECON-1.3
Infrastructure and Capitol Facilities and ECON-1.4 Jobs/Housing Balance.
5. Neighborhood Response:
A neighborhood meeting was not held for this application.A formal neighborhood meeting
will be held for the Trailhead project when a Project Development Plan application is filed
with the City.
FINDINGS OF FACT/CONCLUSIONS
After reviewing the Trailhead Annexation and Zoning, File #43-02, staff makes the following
findings offact and conclusions as explained above:
1. The annexation of this area is consistent with the policies and agreements between Larimer
Countyand the City ofFort Collins as contained in the IntergovernmentalAgreement, or the
Fort Collins Urban Growth Area.
2. The area meets all criteria included in Colorado Revised Statutes to qualify for a voluntary
annexation to the City of Fort Collins.
3. The requested zoning by the applicant of Low Density Mixed Use Residential (LMN) is
inconsistent with the adopted Mountain Vista Sub Area Plan and the City of Fort Collins
Structure Plan.
342
June 1, 2004
4. The Employment zoning recommended by staffis consistentwith theadoptedMountain Vista
Sub-area Plan and the Structure Plan.
RECOMMENDATION
Staffrecommends that the City Council approve the Trailhead Annexation and Zoning#43-02 with
initial zoning to the Employment(E)Zone District and deny the requested Mountain Vista Subarea
and Structure Plan Amendments. "
Deputy City Manager Jones introduced the agenda item.
Bob Barkeen,City Planner,stated this was an annexation request for 90 acres of land,an amendment
to the Structure Plan and the initial zoning of the property to LMN (as requested by the applicant).
He stated the annexation was located north of East Vine Drive immediately west of the Waterglen
Subdivision. He presented visual information regarding the site and the surrounding area. He stated
the site was located within the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan. He stated the Planning and Zoning
Board(4-3 vote)and staff were recommending that the property be zoned E-Employment consistent
with the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan. He stated staff was working on an amendment to the Subarea
Plan that would support the LMN zoning based on proposed changes within the area of the Subarea
Plan. He stated the primary reason for the recommendation of staff and the Planning Board for E-
Employment zoning was the net loss of employment land within the City's inventory. He stated the
amendment to the Subarea Plan would relocated employment land within the Mountain Vista
subarea and that there would be no net loss of employment land in the area.
Rick Zier, attorney representing the applicant, 322 East Oak Street, stated LMN zoning would be
beneficial to everyone. He stated the site was originally designated to be LMN and that was the
intended designation at the time the current owner purchased the site. He stated in 1999 the
proposed designation for the property was changed to E. He stated in 2003 the subarea plan was
proposed to return the property to LMN zoning. He stated the property was appropriate for LMN
zoning. He stated assumptions made with regard to transportation that had not been home out and
that it consequently made no sense to wait in this case for a return to a zoning designation that had
always been appropriate. He stated a "temporary blip" had designated this property for E zoning.
He stated the 90 acres comprising this property was never an appropriate fit for E zoning. He stated
the changed conditions that contributed to the E zoning included a physical connection to the railroad
that was now impossible due to the realigned ditch. He stated Vine Drive was no longer being
considered as a truck route and that CDOT no longer had plans for a new interchange at Vine Drive
and I-25. He stated those were the major assumptions that allowed for this property to be zoned E.
He stated staff and the applicant agreed that the best and most logical use was no longer E. He stated
the there had been changed conditions that warranted LMN zoning and that the E zoning was an
error. He stated it made no sense to wait in this case. He stated the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan
amendment was a separate issue. He stated rezonings on individual pieces of property were often
343
June 1, 2004
ahead of changes to area plans and comprehensive plans and that rezonings often prompted such
changes. He stated the changed conditions and the mistaken E zoning prompted the applicant to
request LMN zoning.
Linda Ripley,planner and landscape architect with VF Ripley Associates,representing the applicant,
stated the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan and the Structure Plan were in the process of changing. She
asked that the Council set aside those issues and consider other City policies that would be supported
by allowing the Trailhead project to move forward. She stated the Council recently adopted the City
Plan update, which reaffirmed many City planning policies that were part of the original City Plan
as well as the goals of the City for the past 20 years. She asked that Council keep some of those
policies in mind as it made a decision. She stated there were policies that addressed appropriate land
use patterns; promoted the viability of the central business district and core downtown; promoted
a mix of housing types, densities and price ranges;promoted a balance of housing and employment
opportunities enabling people to live close to where they work in order to use alternative modes of
transportation; encouraged developers to create day care centers close to work places; and
encouraged affordable housing for people with low or moderate incomes. She stated the need for
affordable housing in the community had been rising for many years and that this Council had made
that issue a priority. She stated the Trailhead project could move forward in the City process as soon
as the property would be zoned LMN. She stated the Trailhead project would be a model City Plan
project appropriately located within the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan and within the City. She
presented visual information illustrating the balanceofhousing and employment opportunities in the
northeast. She stated if there was a problem with balance in the northeast that the problem was a
lack of adequate housing near employment areas. She stated the site also illustrated the classic
pattern of land use transition promoted by the land use policies: a central urban core surrounded by
medium mixed use density transitioning to low density mixed use neighborhoods. She stated the
proposed Trailhead zoning would support this classic development pattern. She stated Trailhead
would be a little more than three miles from downtown Fort Collins. She stated moving the project
forward would be a way to support the continued vitality of the central business district. She stated
the project would provide a mix ofhousing types,would include a daycare center and would provide
affordable housing for low to moderate income families. She stated the project would mix housing
types to encourage neighborhood diversity. She stated the centrally located neighborhood center
would include a recreation center with a pool adjacent to a child care center and a park. She stated
the neighborhood center would be connected to dwellings via interconnected greenways. She stated
all virtually all of the dwelling units would be priced at the lower end of the market,making housing
available to those currently priced out of the Fort Collins market. She stated the applicant would like
to continue a partnership with Habitat for Humanity as soon as the project was allowed to move
forward. She stated other benefits would include the extension of City trails,the extension of City
infrastructure, a regional stormwater solution, and associated permanent open space. She stated
Greenfields Drive was proposed to extend from Mulberry to Mountain Vista Drive and that a
significant portion of the street was proposed to be constructed with this project. She stated the
applicant had been working with City staff on the extension of City trails in this area and that the
344
June 1, 2004
applicant was proposing to sell the City approximately 36 acres to help address stormwater
problems.
Tom Peterson, planner representing the applicant, stated this property was acquired in 1999 at the
same time as the Waterglen property. He stated within a month after closing that the City changed
the Structure Plan in that area. He stated City staff bad asked the applicant to wait on this annexation
and zoning until the Structure Plan was amended. He stated the draft Structure Plan was no different
than the 1997 Structure Plan and that the zoning should be LMN. He stated he had not heard any
disagreement from staff that the property was suitable for residential. He stated this property had
not been allowed to "come into play at all' since February of 1999. He stated the absorption issue
was"kind of a mystery"and that he had done two studies in recent years that indicated that the City
had historically absorbed about 20 acres of industrial,commercial and office development per year.
He stated there were approximately 3,300 acres and that at that rate the absorption rate for
employment ground was about 166 years and if there was consideration that about 1,000 acres would
not usable in floodplains,etc. that the City would still have 100 years of absorption for employment
ground. He stated there would be less than 12 years of absorption for housing according to the study.
He stated this property was 3.3 miles from downtown and less than a mile from most of the major
employment opportunities in the State Highway 14 corridor. He stated the Council had the potential
to consider the annexation request and that this annexation was a discretionary act. He stated the
landowner had been waiting since 1999 for the Structure Plan to change back to what was originally
there. He stated the owner would prefer not to wait another 4-8+months. He stated City staff was
hopeful that the Structure Plan would be adopted by the end of the year and that there was no
guarantee that would happen. He stated the issue on this property was straightforward. He stated
the plan met or exceeded all City Plan standards, including the recent amendments; that it agreed
with the Structure Plan; and that it was an opportunity to provide affordable entry level housing in
an area close to employment and downtown. He stated in 1997 this was okay for residential and that
it was okay in the draft plan. He asked that the Council look at the big picture i.e.,why the developer
should wait to bring this particular piece into City development.
Kevin Westhuis, 2944 Telluride Court, stated the adjacent Waterglen Subdivision had been a huge
success. He stated he had concerns with taking property at Prospect and I-25 (the old sludge farm)
out of Employment zoning and putting it into Public Open Lands on the Consent Agenda a few
weeks ago. He stated this was some of the most prime E land in Fort Collins. He stated one of the
reasons for the recommendation for denial on Trailhead was to avoid losing E land. He stated it was
"hypocritical"to rezone 156 acres of E land to open space with little or no discussion and then to
zone Trailhead E-Employment. He asked if the City was concerned about losing usable land or not.
He stated the Trailhead project would give Fort Collins a fresh stock of affordable housing. He
stated he understood that Waterglen was a proposed prototype for Trailhead. He stated the average
cost for a new construction home in Fort Collins in 2004 was $278,166. He stated the cost to build
in Waterglen was $174,900. He stated these were the homes in which many local workers lived.
He asked if the Council was serious about affordable housing and, if so, that this project would be
345
June 1, 2004
a perfect opportunity for the City in a perfect location. He stated time was critical and that the
affordability index would continue to be reduced as costs went up each day. He stated the applicant
bought this land when it was zoned LMN,that the zoning was changed to E when it looked like Vine
would be a truck route and there might be an interchange at Vine and I-25, and that conditions had
changed. He stated those changed conditions were recognized in staff s proposal to amend the
Mountain Vista Subarea Plan to reflect LMN zoning for this property. He questioned why the
applicant was being delayed when LMN zoning was inevitable. He asked that the Council vote for
a fresh stock of affordable housing.
Mayor Martinez asked about the statistics regarding available acres. Mr. Peterson stated the visual
information presented reflected the figures from a recent City study regarding available acres in E,
C and Industrial zones.
Mayor Martinez asked if staff was familiar with the study. Cameron Gloss, Director of Current
Planning, stated the most recent buildable lands inventory (February 2, 2004) indicated that there
were slightly more than 1,000 acres of buildable vacant lands in E-Employment, about 890 acres in
Industrial,and about 523 acres in Harmony Corridor. He stated with the update of City Plan that the
inventories showed build-out of approximately 20-25 years.
Mayor Martinez noted that it appeared that staff s figures differed from Mr. Peterson's figures. He
asked how Mr. Peterson arrived at his figures. Mr. Peterson stated he reviewed a study referred to
by the Planning and Zoning Board hearings on this application that indicated that there were 3,300
acres in those zones. Gloss stated the 3,300 acres included all types of Commercial zoning and that
the study referenced was the Lifestyle Center Impact Analysis done in June of 2003.
Mayor Martinez asked if the City absorbed an average of about 20 acres per year. Gloss stated staff
had looked at the overall inventory in the growth area and believed that there was an inventory of
Employment lands for approximately 20 years. He stated many factors would influence that. He
stated there were about 450 acres of Employment lands in the Mountain Vista Subarea.
Mayor Martinez asked if staff believed that the property should be E because the inventory was too
small. Pete Wray, City Planner, stated Mr. Peterson's figures were reflective of past trends.
Mayor Martinez asked if staff agreed with 20 acres per year. Wray stated he agreed with
approximately 20 acres per year. He stated there had been no significant large projects coming
forward for industrial and employment.
Mayor Martinez asked how many years build-out would be with 20 acres per year. Wray stated
build-out would take longer at 20 acres per year.
346
June 1, 2004
Mayor Martinez stated it appeared that there was plenty of E land for many years. Wray stated there
were approximately 52 parcels that were over 10 acres in size within the inventory. He noted that
the Anheuser-Busch brewery site was about 121 acres.
Councilmember Weitkunat stated the issue was annexation and zoning. She noted that E-
Employment was the current zoning and that the applicant wanted LMN zoning, which would
require a Structure Plan amendment. She asked if the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan would have to
be amended. Wray replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Weitkunat asked if the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan was currently undergoing
change. Wray stated staff was in the process of trying to move forward with amendments to the
Subarea Plan.
Councilmember Weitkunat asked if the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan was looking at changing this
property to LMN. Wray stated the current proposed Framework Plan showed LMN zoning for this
property. He stated staff understood the reasons for the applicant's proposal and that the conditions
had changed. He stated staff believed that this triggered a larger look at the entire Subarea along
with other items such as the realignment of East Vine Drive and land use assessments.
Councilmember Weitkunat asked for confirmation that staff was looking at this to possibly change
the zoning to LMN in the future when the Subarea Plan was completed. Wray replied in the
affirmative.
Councilmember Weitkunat asked whether the E zoning designation had a lot to do with the
conditions on Vine Drive. Wray stated staff did not feel that it was mistake to designate the property
for E zoning. He stated there was an extensive two-year process involved with investigating the
truck route along Vine Drive (an expressway with limited access) and the proposed interchange
improvements on Vine Drive. He stated the policy direction was to try to maintain a balance of
residential and nonresidential in the Subarea.
Councilmember Weitkunat asked if staff supported the logic behind LMN zoning and why there was
controversy about doing the LMN zoning now. Wray stated staffs assessment was that it was
premature to support the change because the City was behind on the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan
until completion of the public process and work with other property owners on the potential impacts
of the change. He stated Anheuser-Busch was a key stakeholder in this area and that discussions had
not been concluded.
Councilmember Weitkunat asked if it was a matter of timing and using a more appropriate process
even though LMN would be appropriate zoning for all of the reasons cited. Wray replied in the
affirmative.
347
June 1, 2004
Councilmember Hamrick asked ifthe reason staffwould not support LMN zoning at the current time
was because of the balance of Employment acres within the Growth Management Area. Gloss stated
staff felt that there was a need to maintain the inventory in the northeast area. He stated staff
believed that through the amendment process it might be possible not to lose any Employment and
perhaps possible to gain some Employment. He stated the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan was a long
term 20-year plan and that markets could change. He stated it was unknown whether the market
would support Employment in the area.
Councilmember Hamrick asked if there were any other reasons why this would not make a good
Employment site. He asked if there was a roadway capacity for both residential and Employment.
Gloss stated there were other examples in the City where there was an Employment designation
adjacent to an arterial. He stated there was a future four-lane arterial designated for Vine Drive. He
stated the timing for frontage road access was unknown and that it would be key for Employment
uses to have one arterial with relatively close access to the Interstate.
Councilmember Hamrick stated it appeared that Employment depended heavily on Anheuser-Busch.
He asked if there was any guarantee that Anheuser-Busch would let the uncommitted property
develop as Employment. Wray stated approximately 47%of the Employment inventory was within
the Anheuser-Busch property. He stated staff had discussions with Anheuser-Busch and that the
company indicated that they would consider future development if the right players came forward.
He stated there was no guarantee.
Councilmember Hamrick stated this appeared to be a key issue identified by the Planning and Zoning
Board. He asked how staff determined how much Employment was needed versus residential LMN.
Wray stated staff did not set out a goal to have a 50/50 mix of residential/nonresidential. He stated
there was slightly more residential in the existing adopted plan(1,400 acres of LMN and 160 acres
of MMN). He stated with the proposed amendments that staff believed that additional Employment
would not be lost and that there could be opportunities to potentially gain some additional
Employment lands. He stated staff was working on the proposed amendments with the other
property owners.
Councilmember Hamrick stated the applicant spoke about the proposed project and asked if there
were any guarantees that the project as outlined would happen. Barkeen stated consistent with State
law that the City had already accepted an application for a project development plan after the City
Council had initiated annexation proceedings. He stated staff had been reviewing the development
plans. He stated the illustration presented by the applicant had been proceeding through the process.
Councilmember Hamrick asked how much of the development would be affordable housing.
Barkeen stated the project was not submitted as an affordable housing project. He stated the
applicant had stated it was his intent to develop the project as an affordable housing project.
348
June 1, 2004
Councilmember Bertschy asked when the amendments were anticipated to becoming forward. Wray
stated the amendments were in a"holding pattern." He stated there had been discussions between
the stormwater staff and representatives of Anheuser-Busch regarding regional storm drainage issues
and clarifications to the language of the original agreement with Anheuser-Busch. He stated those
discussions were ongoing. He stated staff hoped to get back to land use discussions relating to the
Mountain Vista Subarea Plan with Anheuser-Busch sometime this year.
Councilmember Bertschy asked why the storm drainage discussion would hold up the amendments.
Wray stated the discussions included regional storm drainage coordination within the Subarea and
specific on-site and off-site local storm drainage issues with Anheuser-Busch. He stated the
discussions affected the land use inventory within the Subarea. He stated a few of the regional
detention ponds identified were sizable and would affect the inventory. He stated there were also
discussions to coordinate regional storm drainage on the north property owned by a partnership that
involved the applicant for Trailhead.
Councilmember Bertschy asked if moving the stormwater detention to the partnership's land would
free up land for development on the Anheuser-Busch property. Wray stated was the original intent
and that the hope was to gain back most of the 90 acres by shifting the regional detention further to
the south. He stated further analysis had shown that perhaps 30 acres of potential Employment
would be gained. Jim Hibbard, Water Operations and Planning Manager, stated this was a large
basin and that the location of detention facilities was under discussion. He stated the location could
have a significant impact on land use and that efforts were being made for focused stormwater
planning prior to making land use decisions. He stated additional work was needed to determine if
there would be regional or distributed detention facilities to handle stormwater before land use
decisions would be made. He stated these were key decisions because of the size of the basin and
the amount of water to be handled. He stated Anheuser-Busch was a key stakeholder in this basin
and the making of decisions that would work for everyone. Gloss stated staff had hoped to have the
storm drainage and land use discussions simultaneously and that Anheuser-Busch had indicated a
preference to focus on the storm drainage discussions at this time.
Councilmember Bertschy asked why this went to the Planning and Zoning Board twice. Barkeen
stated the first time focused on the Structure Plan amendment and that staff worked with the
applicant further when that was defeated by the Board. He stated the focus of the discussions was
the stormwater detention location and freeing up acreage for Employment.
Councilmember Bertschy asked if the Planning and Zoning Board considered the potential future
amendments to the Structure Plan. Barkeen stated this was part of the staff presentation. He stated
the Board felt that it was appropriate for the Mountain Vista Structure Plan to run its course and for
the Board to consider it before any decisions were made to change the designation on the Trailhead
property.
349
June 1, 2004
Councilmember Kastein stated a land use decision would be made by the Council at this time. He
asked if Council made the decision to zone LMN whether that would be helpful in moving some of
the discussions forward with regard to retention ponds, transportation infrastructure, etc. Wray
stated staff understood the reasons for the applicant's proposal. He stated Council could approve
the change if it was confident that the public process could be concluded on the Mountain Vista
Subarea Plan and that the goal ofmaintaining(or even gaining)Employment lands could be reached.
He stated the discussions and process had been going on for some time.
Councilmember Kastein asked if there would be any "fatal flaw" in LMN zoning. Greg Byrne,
CPES Director, replied in the negative and stated staff had been persuaded in its recommendation
by several other items acted upon by the Council (the resource recovery farm, the Lifestyle Center,
etc.) and discussions regarding the loss of Employment land. He stated this would be a judgment
call on Council's part. He stated zoning the property LMN at this time could be done and that it was
possible that an equal amount of Employment might not be delivered in the Mountain Vista Subarea
in the future. He stated staff had intended to bring this forward as a package in order to maintain the
balance in response to Council's expressions of concern. He stated staff could not guarantee that the
balance would be maintained.
Councilmember Kastein asked if staff could verify Mr. Westhuis' point about the average cost of
housing in the City and in Waterglen. Gloss stated staff had no figures to verify or refute the
statement. Mr.Westhuis stated he obtained the information from the internal real estate information
website (IRIS).
Councilmember Weitkunat asked about the criteria for Council to consider in amending the Structure
Plan map and whether this project met the criteria. Wray stated the criteria included maintaining a
balance of residential and nonresidential and compatibility of land uses. He stated the proposed
LMN zoning would satisfy the compatibility criteria and would provide a variety of housing.
Councilmember Weitkunat asked if changing conditions was one of the criteria. Barkeen replied in
the affirmative. He stated Council would need to make two findings in order to approve a Structure
Plan amendment, and that one of those was a change within the area.
Councilmember Weitkunat made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Hamrick, to adopt
Resolution 2004-070. 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. 092, 2004 on First Reading.
350
June 1, 2004
Councilmember Kastein asked for confirmation that this did not address the zoning.
Mayor Martinez stated this Ordinance did not address the zoning.
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 Kastein, to adopt
Ordinance No. 093, 2004 on First Reading with LMN zoning.
City Attorney Roy stated LMN zoning would call for a Structure Plan amendment and that would
be brought forward with Second Reading of the zoning ordinance.
Councilmember Roy stated he would like to have as much information as possible about the City's
dealings with Anheuser-Busch in relation to this property. He stated the information received
indicated that it was a proper direction to zone the property LMN. He stated he believed that there
were "subplots" which he was not aware of and that he would like further information prior to
Second Reading. City Attorney Roy stated the Council could set over the zoning ordinance until the
information was received or adopt the zoning ordinance on First Reading, with a request that
additional information be provided prior to Second Reading.
Councilmember Roy stated he was requesting additional information prior to Second Reading.
Councilmember Weitkunat stated part of the problem was that these issues were under in-depth
complex discussion and that this was taking so long.
Councilmember Hamrick stated he was concerned about a change to LMN because the issue of how
much Employment land there should be would still be an issue. He stated staff was uncomfortable
making this change to LMN at this time and that he was also uncomfortable with this. He stated
there was no guarantee that additional Employment land would be accomplished. He stated he had
repeatedly heard Council support for high tech industry, employment-based industry and ensuring
land for that. He stated this would take land out of that inventory. He expressed a concern that this
would be a shortsighted decision until there was some sort of confirmation from Anheuser-Busch
regarding whether or not it would dedicate lands for development.
Councilmember Weitkunat stated Employment land was an issue for the economic vitality group.
She questioned whether it was a significant issue since 150 acres of Employment lands were dropped
for open lands recently. She stated this property would be 60 acres and that shifting was sometimes
necessary in the Structure Plan. She stated Employment land might be more appropriate at a
351
June 1, 2004
different location. She stated the housing aspects of this site were important with regard to fulfilling
the goals for the northeast. She stated the lesser evil was losing the Employment.
Councilmember Kastein stated leaving the property with E zoning was no guarantee that such
Employment development would occur there. He stated if the property was not zoned LMN that an
opportunity would be lost for housing that would be$100,000 cheaper than average new housing in
Fort Collins. He stated there was no need to hold to the ideal when there was an opportunity for
something good. He stated he would support LMN zoning and letting the houses go in. He stated
this would allow staff to go ahead with plans based on the LMN zoning for this property.
Councilmember Hamrick asked if this property was zoned LMN, where the detention pond would
be located and how the negotiations with Anheuser-Busch would go. Hibbard stated staff had
negotiated an option to purchase land at a low spot behind the railroad tracks for possible inclusion
in a future detention pond. He stated any plan developed would probably have some sort of
detention pond at that location. He stated staff was in the final stages of negotiating the option to
purchase that property for inclusion of a detention pond. He stated if the Master Plan indicated that
there was to be a detention pond at that location that the City would exercise the option.
Councilmember Hamrick asked if the development would require the detention pond. Hibbard
stated the Trailhead development would have stormwater detention on its development site on the
other side of the railroad track to detain water from the development. He stated the other site would
be needed for regional stormwater improvements for all water above the railroad track in that basin.
Councilmember Bertschy stated the Council had heard concerns about the proportion of housing and
Employment. He stated at some point there could be a shortage of Employment land. He stated he
was convinced that this was an opportunity for workforce housing and that was a priority for the
Council. He stated he was frustrated that the Subarea Plan was delayed over the issue of stormwater
detention. He stated he would vote for the Ordinance with LMN on First Reading and that he
wanted to see some more information about the Structure Plan amendment prior to Second Reading.
Councilmember Roy stated he would like staff to ask if Anheuser-Busch staff would be willing to
share some of the company's views at the time of Second Reading. He stated he would like Council
and staff to take a look at taking advantage of the clustering of development(such as Waterglen and
Trailhead)and extend the transit service to such areas. He stated he would vote for this Ordinance
on First Reading and that he wanted to receive additional information prior to Second Reading.
Councilmember Hamrick stated he would not support the motion. He stated this was a"dominos"
game in which property would be "bumped" within the Structure Plan. He stated the City should
stick to the Structure Plan. He stated this could jeopardize the existing Employment inventory
within the Growth Management Area.
352
June I, 2004
Councilmember Weitkunat stated she would support the motion. She stated the Structure Plan and
City Plan were dynamic documents. She stated there had been changing circumstances in the area
and that it was important to have housing in the area. She stated Trailhead met the criteria for
compatibility.
Mayor Martinez stated he believed that this was a good idea. He stated other Employment sites
could hopefully be found. He stated there appeared to be an adequate Employment inventory for 100
years. He stated he would support the Ordinance because it was important to have affordable
housing in areas where people worked.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Bertschy, Kastein, Martinez, Roy
and Weitkunat. Nays: Councilmember Hamrick.
THE MOTION CARRIED
Ordinance No. 075, 2004
Amending Article III of Chapter 20 of the City Code
Pertaining to the Outdoor Storage of Materials, Adopted on Second Reading.
The following is staff s memorandum on this item.
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Ordinance, which was adopted 6-I, (Councilmember Kastein opposed) on First Reading on
May 4, 2004, amends the Code adding a provision addressing outdoor storage of materials in
residential neighborhoods. "
Deputy City Manager Jones introduced the agenda item.
City Attorney Roy summarized the changes that had been made to the Ordinance on Second Reading
and read the new version into the record.
Councilmember Bertschy made a motion,seconded by Councilmember Roy,to adopt Ordinance No.
075, 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
353
June 1, 2004
Other Business
Councilmember Hamrick stated the Council had discussed at the last retreat having timers with
lights. He stated he thought that there would be a benefit to having lights to indicate the cumulative
time that each Councilmember spoke. Deputy City Manager Jones stated she would determine the
status of reviewing alternate technologies.
Mayor Martinez asked that staff develop a timetable for the timers.
Councilmember Kastein requested a one-page memo on the time line for evaluation of wage and
benefit adjustments for City employees.
Executive Session Authorized
Councilmember Bertschy made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kastein, to adjourn into
Executive Session pursuant to Section 2-31(a)(3)of the City Code to discuss the possible acquisition
of real property. 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 9:55 p.m. and reconvened
following the Executive Session at 10:25 p.m.)
Adjournment
Councilmember Bertschy made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Hamrick, to adjourn the
meeting to 6:00 p.m.on June 8,2004 for the purpose of conducting midyear performance evaluations
of the City Attorney and Municipal Judge. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas:
Councilmembers Bertschy, Hamrick, Kastein, Martinez, Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED
The meeting adjourned at 10:26 p.m.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
354