HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 04/18/2006 - CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE M ITEM NUMBER: 6
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY DATE: April 18, 2006
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL STAFF: Wanda Krajicek
SUBJECT
Consideration and Approval of the Minutes of the March 7, 2006 Regular Meeting.
March 7, 2006
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, March 7, 2006,
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: Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein, Manvel, Ohlson, Roy and
Weitkunat.
Staff Members Present: Atteberry, Krajicek, Roy.
Citizen Participation
Janice Hamsher, 317 Greenvale Drive, opposed the proposed Southwest Enclave Annexation.
Tammy Neiman, Fossil Lake Ranch resident, expressed concerns about the airport master plan
update, the cost of proposed airport improvements ($215 million), and the potential impacts of the
proposed airport improvements on southeast Fort Collins.
Ray Martinez, 4121 Stoneridge Court, expressed concerns about the way an appointment to the
Planning and Zoning Board was handled and about a Councilmember's unfounded statements
regarding Mayor Pro Tern Weitkunat's representation of Council views at the last meeting.
Al Baccili, 520 Galaxy Court, opposed the Southwest Enclave Annexation and supported
negotiations between the City and the Fraternal Order of Police.
Bruce Lockhart, 2500 East Harmony Road, expressed concerns regarding the proposed statewide
smoking ban and stated this was "class warfare."
Citizen Participation Follow-up
Mayor Hutchinson thanked those who spoke during Citizen Participation.
Councilmember Ohlson noted there was collective bargaining with the police employees and asked
the City Manager to comment on the police collective bargaining issue. City Manager Atteberry
stated the Resolution that was adopted last Tuesday night did not abolish collective bargaining
between the Fraternal of Police and the City government. He stated the Resolution addressed a
petition that would reinstate binding arbitration.
Aeenda Review
City Manager Atteberry stated there were no changes to the published agenda.
355
March 7, 2006
Bruce Lockhart,2500 East Harmony Road,withdrew item#6 Second Reading of Ordinance No. 010,
2006, Granting a Non-exclusive Franchise by the City of Fort Collins to Comcast of
California/Colorado LLC and Its Successors and Assigns for the Right to Make Reasonable Use Of,
and Erect, Construct, Operate and Maintain Through, the Public Rights-of-way, Easements and
Other Public Property Any Equipment Necessary and Appurtenant to the Operation and
Maintenance ofa Cable System and the Provision of Cable Services to Citizens Within the City from
the Consent Calendar.
Ray Martinez, 4121 Stoneridge Court, withdrew item#15 Second Reading of Ordinance No. 034,
2006, Amending the City Code with Regard to the Posting of Public Notice of the Meetings of the
City Council, Committees of the Council and City Boards and Commissions from the Consent
Calendar.
CONSENT CALENDAR
6. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 010, 2006, Granting a Non-exclusive Franchise by the
City of Fort Collins to Comcast of California/Colorado LLC and Its Successors and Assigns
for the Right to Make Reasonable Use Of. and Erect. Construct, Operate and Maintain
Through, the Public Rights-of-way, Easements and Other Public Property Any Equipment
Necessary and Appurtenant to the Operation and Maintenance of a Cable System and the
Provision of Cable Services to Citizens Within the City.
This Ordinance,which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on January 17,2006,will
grant a Cable Franchise Agreement between the City of Fort Collins and Comcast of
California/Colorado LLC ("Comcast"). This agreement is a nonexclusive franchise.
7. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 026, 2006 Appronriating Prior Year Reserves in the
Natural Areas Fund for the Purpose of Providing Natural Areas Programming Not Included
in the 2006 Adopted City Budget.
This Ordinance, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on February 21, 2006,
appropriates prior year reserves for land conservation, construction of parking lots, fences
and trails,restoration of wildlife habitat and other natural areas program needs to benefit the
citizens of Fort Collins.
8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 027, 2006, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves.
Ordinance No. 027,2006,was unanimously adopted on First Reading on February 21,2006.
The Ordinance appropriates prior year's reserves for expenditures authorized in 2005 by
Council but which could not be completed by the end of 2005.
356
March 7, 2006
9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 028, 2006, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the
Sales and Use Tax Fund From the Proceeds of a Dedicated 0.25 Cent Sales and Use Tax
Approved bythe Voters for Transfer to the Capital Projects Fund,the Transit Services Fund,
and the Cultural Services and Facilities Fund to be Used for Projects Identified in the
Building on Basics Capital Improvement Program.
In November 2005,voters approved the renewal ofthe City's sales and use tax funded capital
program known as Building on Basics (BOB). The proceeds from the BOB package were
not appropriated in the 2006-2007 Budget process because the success of the measure was
not known at the time of Council's consideration of the Budget ordinances. Ordinance No.
028, 2006, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on February 21, 2006,
appropriates funds from the Sales and Use Tax Fund allocation for BOB to the projects
which will receive funding in 2006.
10. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 029, 2006, Appropriating Revenue from the Colorado
D_pe artment of Transportation in the Transportation Fund for the Mason Bicycle/Pedestrian
Trail Underpass Project.
Ordinance No. 029, 2006, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on February
21, 2006, appropriates funds from the Colorado Department of Transportation(CDOT) to
allow work to begin on the design for the bicycle/pedestrian trail underpass for the Mason
Transportation Corridor,under the Burlington Northern Santa Fe railroad tracks,to connect
the University Mall/Whole Foods shopping center to the Natural Resources Research Center
(NRRC)/CSU Veterinary Teaching Hospital campus.
11. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 030, 2006, Authorizing the Transfer of Appropriations
Between Capital Projects Within the Wastewater Fund for the Purpose of Purchasing
Property.
The Wastewater Utility has a time sensitive opportunity to purchase land. This Ordinance,
which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on February 21, 2006, transfers money
from the budget for land purchases in the Drake Water Reclamation Facility ("DWRF")
capital project to the land budget Sludge Disposal Improvements capital project.
12. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 031, 2006, Establishing City of Fort Collins
Telecommunication Customer Service Standards - Cable Television.
This Ordinance, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on February 21, 2006,
establishes requirements for the quality of service provided by cable operators to their
customers in Fort Collins.
13. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 032, 2006, Amending, Section 2-203 of the City Code
Regarding the Functions of the Cultural Resources Board.
This Ordinance, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on February 21, 2006,
357
March 7, 2006
amends Section 2-203 of the Code to clearly authorize the Cultural Resources Board to
disburse both Cultural Development and Programming Account and Tourism Programming
Account funds.
14. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 033,2006, Amending the Effective Date of Section 8 of
Ordinance No. 123, 2005, Pertaining to the Definition of"Family" as Contained in Section
5.1.2 of the Land Use Code.
This Ordinance, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on February 21, 2006,
changes the effective date of the new definition of"family" in the Land Use Code so that it
coincides with the effective date of the City's new occupancy limit,which is January 1,2007.
15. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 034, 2006, Amending the City Code with Regard to the
Posting of Public Notice of the Meetings of the City Council,Committees of the Council and
City Boards and Commissions.
This Ordinance amends various sections in Chapter 2 of the City Code relating to the posting
of public notice of meetings of the City Council, committees of the Council and City boards
and commissions, to reflect a change in the location of the place of posting, and to clarify
existing language about the types of meetings that need to be posted. The Ordinance was
unanimously adopted on First Reading on February 21, 2006.
16. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 035, 2006, Amending Chapter 23 of the City Code
Relating to the Conveyance of Easements Required to Obtain Utility Service.
This Ordinance, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on February 21, 2006,
amends the City Code to allow the Purchasing Agent,with the approval of the City Manager,
to contract for utility services and grant such rights-of-way as maybe required in connection
with those services.
17. Items Relating to Boma Annexation and Zoning:
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 036, 2006, Annexing Property Known as the
Boma Annexation to the City of Fort Collins.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No.037,2006,Amending the Zoning Map of the City
of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the
Boma Annexation to the City of Fort Collins.
These Ordinances,which were unanimously adopted on First Reading on February 21,2006,
annex and zone 82.05 acres located at the southwest corner of East Douglas Road (County
Road 54) and Turnber y Road (County Road 11).
358
March 7, 2006
18. Items Relating,to the Sunrise Ridge Second Annexation and Zoning.
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 038, 2006, Annexing Property Known as the
Sunrise Ridge Second Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 039,2006,Amending the Zoning Map of the City
of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the
Sunrise Ridge Second Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado.
Ordinances No. 038, 2006 and 039, 2006, unanimously adopted on First Reading on
February 21, 2006, annex and zone a property approximately 5.29 acres in size. The site is
5221 S. Strauss Cabin Road, located approximately one-half mile south of East Harmony
Road on the west side of Strauss Cabin Road.
19. Second Reading ofOrdinance No.040,2006,Authorizing the Conveyance of Conservation
Easement on City Natural Area Property(Round Butte Ranch Phase I) to Larimer County
and Authorizing a Related Grant Agreement with the Board of the Great Outdoors Colorado
Trust Fund.
This Ordinance,unanimously adopted on First Reading on February 21,2006,authorizes the
conveyance of a 640-acre conservation easement on Round Butte Ranch, Phase I, from the
City's Natural Area system to Larimer County. The City will receive a$216,000 grant from
Great Outdoors Colorado to support the conservation of the property.
20. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 041, 2006, Authorizing the Conveyance of a Non-
Exclusive Sanitary Sewer Easement for the Cherry Street Station Development.
Chevy Street Station is a loft project being developed on Cherry Street near North College
Avenue. The nearest sewer line connection for this project is located in Martinez Park across
the railroad track from the development. The developer has requested a sewer line easement
from the City to connect to the City sewer system. Ordinance No. 041, 2006, which was
unanimously adopted on First Reading on February 21, 2006, authorizes this easement.
21. First Reading of Ordinance No. 042, 2006, Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to Enter into
an Agreement for the Financing by Lease-Purchase of Vehicles and Equipment.
The cost of the items to be lease-purchased is$646,242. Payments at the 4.94%interest rate
will not exceed $ 109,995 in 2006. Money for 2006 lease-purchase payments is included
in the 2006 budget. The effect of the debt position for the purpose of financial rating of the
City will be to raise the total City debt by .14%. A competitive process was used to select
Koch Financial Corporation for this lease. Staff believes acceptance of this lease rate is in
the City's best interest.
359
March 7, 2006
22. Resolution 2006-028 Approving Amendment #1 to the Collective Bargaining_Agreement
Between the City of Fort Collins. Colorado and the Northern Colorado Lodge#3 Colorado
Fraternal Order of Police(The "Agreement").
Adoption of this Resolution would amend Article 8 of the Agreement and align the wage
treatment of the Dispatch Supervisors and Dispatch Manager with that of the Dispatchers.
In accordance with the amended Article 8, all Dispatch personnel in the bargaining unit
would move proportionately from the 2002 Pay Plan to the new 2006 Pay Plan (i.e., from
step-to-step).
23. Resolution 2006-029 Adopting the Fourth Amendment to the City of Fort Collins General
Employees' Retirement Plan as Amended and Restated Effective December 31, 2001.
This Resolution removes three members of the Police Services bargaining unit who are
Community Service Officers and are also currently participants in the General Employees'
Retirement Plan ("GERP"). The collective bargaining agreement between the City and the
Fraternal Order of Police Lodge # 3 specifies that Police Services employees will be
participants in a 401 pension plan administered by ICMA-RC and that the City and such
employees will each contribute 8%of base salary to such plan commencing with the first pay
period in 2006.
Maintaining the three Community Service Officers in the GERP is not required by the
collective bargaining agreement and would provide them with the windfall of a 4.5%of base
salary City pension contribution in excess of what other bargaining unit members are
receiving. This resolution,if adopted,would result in all ofthe Community Service Officers
receiving the same percentage of base salary contribution to their pension plans.
24. Resolution 2006-030 Authorizing the Mayor to Execute an Intergovernmental Agreement
Between the City and the Town of Windsor Regarding Land Use and Development at the
intersection of Interstate Highway 25 and Carpenter Road.
At a recent work session, Council considered a draft intergovernmental agreement (IGA)
with the Town of Windsor. The agreement calls for joint funding and staffing on a
comprehensive development plan for lands around the I-25/Carpenter Road interchange. The
study would include land uses, design, environmental protection, and infrastructure
financing.
The legal staffs from both communities are working to amend the draft IGA presented at the
work session incorporating Council comments.
25. Resolution 2006-031 Findina Substantial Compliance and Initiating Annexation Proceedings
for the Sanctuary Annexation.
The Sanctuary Annexation is 15.65 acres in size. The site is located approximately one-half
360
March 7, 2006
mile south of Kechter Road and approximately one-quarter to one-half mile east of Ziegler
Road.
The proposed Resolution states that it is the City's intent to annex this property and directs
that the published notice required by State law be given of the Council's hearing to consider
the needed annexation ordinance.
26. Resolution 2006-032 Making an Appointment to the Human Relations Commission.
A vacancy currently exists on the Human Relations Commission due to the resignation of
John Coleman. Councilmembers Roy and Brown conducted interviews and are
recommending Jeffery Van Fleet to fill the vacancy with a term to begin immediately and set
to expire on December 31, 2010.
27. Routine Easement.
Easement for construction and maintenance of public utilities from Robert and Evelyn
McCormick,to underground existing electric system,located at 806 North College Avenue.
Monetary consideration: $2500.
***END CONSENT***
Ordinances on Second Reading were read by title by City Clerk Krajicek.
6. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 010, 2006, Granting a Non-exclusive Franchise by the
City of Fort Collins to Comcast of Califomia/Colorado LLC and Its Successors and Assigns
for the Right to Make Reasonable Use Of, and Erect, Construct, Operate and Maintain
Through, the Public Rights-of-way, Easements and Other Public Property Any Equipment
Necessary and Appurtenant to the Operation and Maintenance of a Cable System and the
Provision of Cable Services to Citizens Within the City.
7. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 026, 2006 Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the
Natural Areas Fund for the Purpose of Providing Natural Areas Programming Not Included
in the 2006 Adopted City Budget.
8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 027, 2006, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves.
9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 028, 2006, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the
Sales and Use Tax Fund From the Proceeds of a Dedicated 0.25 Cent Sales and Use Tax
Approved by the Voters for Transfer to the Capital Projects Fund,the Transit Services Fund,
and the Cultural Services and Facilities Fund to be Used for Projects Identified in the
Building on Basics Capital Improvement Program.
10. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 029, 2006, Appropriating Revenue from the Colorado
Department of Transportation in the Transportation Fund for the Mason Bicycle/Pedestrian
361
March 7, 2006
Trail Underpass Project.
11. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 030, 2006, Authorizing the Transfer of Appropriations
Between Capital Projects Within the Wastewater Fund for the Purpose of Purchasing
Property.
12. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 031, 2006, Establishing City of Fort Collins
Telecommunication Customer Service Standards - Cable Television.
13. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 032, 2006, Amending Section 2-203 of the City Code
Regarding the Functions of the Cultural Resources Board.
14. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 033,2006,Amending the Effective Date of Section 8 of
Ordinance No. 123, 2005, Pertaining to the Definition of"Family" as Contained in Section
5.1.2 of the Land Use Code.
16. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 035, 2006, Amending Chapter 23 of the City Code
Relating to the Conveyance of Easements Required to Obtain Utility Service.
17. Items Relating to Boma Annexation and Zoning.
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 036, 2006, Annexing Property Known as the
Boma Annexation to the City of Fort Collins.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No.037,2006,Amending the Zoning Map of the City
of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the
Boma Annexation to the City of Fort Collins.
18. Items Relating to the Sunrise Ridge Second Annexation and Zoning.
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 038, 2006, Annexing Property Known as the
Sunrise Ridge Second Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No.039,2006,Amending the Zoning Map of the City
of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the
Sunrise Ridge Second Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado.
19. Second Reading of OrdinanceNo.040,2006,Authorizingthe Conveyanceof a Conservation
Easement on City Natural Area Property(Round Butte Ranch Phase I) to Larimer County
and Authorizing a Related Grant Agreement with the Board of the Great Outdoors Colorado
Trust Fund.
20. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 041, 2006, Authorizing the Conveyance of a Non-
Exclusive Sanitary Sewer Easement for the Cherry Street Station Development.
362
March 7, 2006
Ordinances on First Reading were read by title by City Clerk Krajicek.
21. First Reading of Ordinance No. 042, 2006, Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to Enter into
an Agreement for the Financing by Lease-Purchase of Vehicles and Equipment.
32. First Reading of Ordinance No. 043, 2006 Amending Chapter 26, Article III, Division 4 of
the City Code Relating to Water Fees.
33. First Reading of Ordinance No.044,2006,Amending Section 3.5.4(3)(A)of the City of Fort
Collins Land Use Code.
Councilmember Kastein made a motion,seconded by Councilmember Manvel,to adopt and approve
all items not withdrawn from the Consent Calendar. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas:
Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein,Manvel, Ohlson, Roy and Weitkunat. Nays:None.
THE MOTION CARRIED
Consent Calendar Follow-up
Councilmember Ohlson thanked staff for additional information regarding item#21 First Reading
of Ordinance No. 042, 2006, Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to Enter into an Agreement for the
Financing by Lease-Purchase of Vehicles and Equipment. He also commented on item #24
Resolution 2006-030 Authorizing the Mayor to Execute an Intergovernmental Agreement Between
the City and the Town of Windsor Regarding Land Use and Development at the Intersection of
Interstate Highway 25 and Carpenter Road. He questioned whether all of the changes sought by the
Council had been included in the IGA.
Mayor Hutchinson commented on item#24 Resolution 2006-03 0 Authorizing the Mayor to Execute
an Intergovernmental Agreement Between the City and the Town of Windsor Regarding Land Use
and Development at the Intersection of Interstate Highway 25 and Carpenter Road. He asked for
clarification by staff about what was changed in the Resolution. Greg Byrne,CPES Director,stated
the Windsor Town Council had reviewed the intergovernmental agreement in study session and that
adoption was anticipated at the next regular meeting. City Attorney Roy stated the adopting
Resolution included a phrase that allowed additional terms and conditions to be included in the
agreement as deemed necessary and appropriate by the City Manager and the City Attorney. He
stated it would be helpful to understand what changes Councilmember Ohlson believed had been
included.
Councilmember Ohlson stated the Agenda Item Summary indicated that changes sought by the
Council at the work session would be built into the Resolution and the final wording had not been
finalized between the Windsor and Fort Collins staffs. He stated he assumed that the final wording
would reflect Council direction from the work session. City Attorney Roy stated the work by the
two legal staffs had been concluded. Byrne stated the deadline for the Agenda Item Summary
preceded the conclusion of discussions between the two staffs.
363
March 7, 2006
Mayor Hutchinson asked if those discussions brought about any changes. Byrne stated the changes
were reflected in the Resolution that was adopted by the Council.
Staff Reports
City Manager Atteberry stated there would be a staff report on upcoming 2006 "Cone Zone"
projects. Ron Phillips, Executive Director of Transportation Services, displayed a map and list of
20 street improvement projects that would be underway in the summer. He highlighted a number
of the proposed projects: Timberline Road from Drake Road to Prospect Road(March- October);
East Prospect Road from the Poudre River Bridge to Summitview Drive (March - November);
Harmony Road pavement rehabilitation from Snow Mesa to Strauss Cabin Road; South Taft Hill
Road (two projects); and West Laurel Street from South Washington Avenue to College Avenue.
Councilmember Weitkunat asked if the projects that were highlighted would be the first projects to
begin. Phillips stated they would have the most impact. He stated the Timberline Road project
would be the first project to commence.
City Manager Atteberry noted the list of the"Cone Zone"projects and the map were on the City's
website.
Councilmember Reports
Councilmember Kastein noted he held a public meeting last night and there were many process-
related questions about the Harmony and Shields rezoning. He noted he could not respond to those
questions because this would be a quasi-judicial matter. He stated staff was preparing information
to answer Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) to be posted on the City website. City Manager
Atteberry stated the FAQ would be e-mailed to those who signed up at the meeting and to the
Council.
Mayor Hutchinson reported the Finance Committee considered budget issues on February 24,
including (1) the City's external audit report, which recommended Council receive more frequent
summary financial reports to assess the overall financial position and health of the City;(2)the roles
and responsibilities of the Finance Committee; and (3) the desired format of monthly financial
reports and the monthly sales tax report.
364
March 7, 2006
Consideration of the Appeal
of the December 13,2005 Determination of
the Administrative Hearing Officer to Approve
the Raven View Project Development Plan (PDP)
and Modification of Standard: Decision of Hearing Officer Upheld as Modified
The following is staff s memorandum on this item.
"BACKGROUND
The Raven View PDP is a proposed residential infill and redevelopment project. The property is
in the LMN—Low Density Mixed-use Neighborhood District. A total of fifty-one single-family
attached and detached units are proposed on an 8,18 acre infill and redevelopment parcel located
southeast ofthe intersection of Taft Hill and Mulberry Roads, behind the existing residential parcels
that line Mulberry and Taft Hill Roads. The net residential density proposed is 6.23 dwelling units
per acre.
The proposed project involves the removal of one existing single-family attached residence on Taft
Hill Rd., and a number of outbuildings on site. New construction will include eighteen 3-bedroom,
single-family detached homes on a mix of standard and small lots, and thirty-three 2-bedroom,
single-family attached homes. Onsite detention is proposed on the northeast of the site.
In response to staffcomments on the applicant's Transportation Impact Study(TIS)in the first round
ofdevelopment review, the applicant submitted an Amended Response dated Apri127, 2005 to staff.
Subsequently, the applicant submitted a request for Modification of Standard to address the
pedestrian level ofservice standard contained in Section 3.6.4 of the Land Use Code.
The pedestrian level-of-service standard is in place to ensure that new pedestrian routes meet five
criteria: directness, continuity, street crossings, visual interest and amenities, and security.
According to the applicant's traffic engineer, the proposed project's pedestrian routes fell short of
the standard in two categories:directness and continuity. The directness issue wasproblematicfor
two of the three identified pedestrian destinations (Moore Elementary and residential to the south,
and residential to the east) because the actual travel distance is much greater than the distance as
thecrowfies. Regarding the continuity issue, the sidewalks are continuous in that there are no gaps
in the sidewalk connection from the site to the elementary school; the modification is needed,
however, because the sidewalks are not detached or wide enough by today's engineering standards.
This is due to existing sidewalks that were constructed under previous street standards.
The applicant based the request for modification on Section 2.8.2 (H)(3): "there are exceptional
physical conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional situations, unique tosuchproperty... that
prevent the applicant from meeting the standard". In this case, there are two exceptional situations.
Most notably, there is no way for the applicant to provide a more direct connection because all of
the possible more direct routes would be through privately owned property. The owner made a good
faith attempt to secure a pedestrian easement through adjacent properties, but no residents would
grant such an easement. The applicant is not able to provide public sidewalks through private
365
March 7, 2006
property without the consent of the property owners. The other exceptional situation is that, as
noted above, existing sidewalks along Taft Hill Rd. do not meet today's standards for continuity.
Because of the nature of the existing conditions, the applicant requested the pedestrian level of
service standards be waived since directness and continuity could not be attained. Transportation
and Planning staff concurred with this rationale. The staff recommendation for the project and
modification of standard was approval.
On December 13, 2005, an administrative hearing was conducted to receive presentations and
testimonyon the Raven View Project Development Plan PDP and Modification o Standard
1 P ( ) f
proposal. Staff received no written comments pertaining to this project prior to the hearing. Staff
received one phone call from an abutting resident regarding screeningfencing between existing and
proposed residences prior to the hearing. Staff passed that concern along to the applicant, who
addressed the issue in the plan set submitted for the hearing.
At the hearing, neighbors expressed their fear that the project will cause an unsafe condition for
pedestrians, particularly school children traveling along Taft Hill Road to Moore Elementary
School. Neighbors added that the lack of City sidewalk maintenance after snowfalls will compound
the problem.
After deliberation, the administrative hearing officer concurred with the staff recommendation and
approved the Raven View Project Development Plan and Modification of Standard. Specifically,
the hearing officer found that:
A. The Raven View Project Development Plan and Request for Modification of Standard are
subject to administrative review and the requirements of the Land Use Code (LUC).
B. The Raven View Project Development Plan complies with all applicable district standards
of Section 4.4 of the Land Use Code, (LMN) Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood zone
district.
C. The Raven View Project Development Plan request for modification of standard to the
Transportation Level of Service requirements for pedestrian movements (Section 3.6.4) is
warranted by reason of Section 2.8.2(H)(3) "existing exceptional physical hardship and
unique physical characteristics" based on site configuration, location and proximity to
existing public sidewalks.
D. The Raven View Project Development Plan complies with all applicable General
Development Standards contained in Article 3 of the Land Use Code, except where a
modification has been granted under this approval.
ALLEGATION ONAPPEAL
On January 11, 2006, a Notice of Appeal was received by the City Clerk's office regarding the
decision of the administrative hearing officer. An Amended Notice of Appeal was received by the
366
March 7, 2006
Clerk's Office on January 25, 2006 In the Notice of Appeal from the Appellants Lois and Robert
Gore, Eric Stenner, and Charles Fletcher, it is alleged that:
• Relevant laws of the Land Use Code were not properly interpreted and applied.
QUESTIONS COUNCIL NEEDS TO ANSWER
• Was the hearing officer correct in finding that there was a unique physical
characteristic about the property that, when coupled with the strict application ofthe
Land Use Code, created a hardship? Do the physical characteristics of the site
preclude alternative pedestrian connections that comply with the City's LOS
standards, and if so, would the application of the LOS standards work a hardship
upon the applicant? Is the sidewalk along South Taft Hill Road such that persons
can use it to get to destinations in the neighborhood safely enough to not be
detrimental to the public good?
STAFF ANALYSIS OF RELEVANT ISSUES
Pedestrian Level of Service
Appellants' Claims
The Appellants claim that in granting the modification, the hearing officer significantly erred in
interpreting code. Specifically, the Appellants claim that:
• staff may not have considered the proposed route to school as a "School Walking
Area" as defined in the level of service documentation and therefore may have
inadvertently lowered the necessary level of service, and that
• in allowing the modification, the hearing officer agrees that it is not necessary for
the developers to provide an acceptable bicycle and pedestrian route to school and
other neighborhood activities, and that
• staff appears to concur that forcing all the residents of the development, especially
school-age children, to walk along Taft Hill is an acceptable risk.
STAFFANALYSIS& CONCLUSION
The applicant's Pedestrian Level of Service worksheet identifies all of the destinations within
walking distance of this one as being within a "School Walking Area" as defined in the level of
service documentation, thus triggering the more stringent level of service standards that staff used
to evaluate the proposal.
Staff and the hearing officer acknowledge the importance of safe walking routes to school. By
granting this modification, the hearing officer was not condoning unsafe conditions. The hearing
367
March 7, 2006
officer stated in his decision that he:
"acknowledges and appreciates that residents have provided careful thought in the
framing of their concerns about pedestrian access; however, the weight of evidence
presented by the applicant and corroborated by the City staff,supports a f nding that
this infill and redevelopment site is physically constrained, alternative pedestrian
connections are not available, and that the existing sidewalks along S. Taft Hill
Road, while not optimal,provide a sufficient route to the school. "
In summary, after evaluating the Ra
ven View re uestror modification ofstandard staffdetermined
that the request as submitted satisfied the requirements for modification in Section 2.8.2 (H)(3)
because of the exceptional physical conditions and situations existing around this infill site.
Therefore, staff recommended approval of the modification request to the administrative hearing
officer and the hearing officer concurred, though it should be noted that the hearing officer did not
specifically address whether granting the modification would be detrimental to the public good.
LIST OF RELEVANT CODE PROVISIONS
• Division 2.8 Modification of Standards
Section 2.8.2 (H) Step 8 (Standards):
Applicable, and the decision maker may grant a modification ofstandards only if it
finds that the granting of the modification would not be detrimental to the public
good, and that:
(1) the plan as submitted will promote the general purpose of the standard for
which the modification is requested equally well or better than would a plan
which complies with the standard for which a modification is requested; or
(2) the granting of a modification from the strict application of any standard
would, without impairing the intent and purpose of this Land Use Code,
substantially alleviate an existing, defined and described problem of city-
wide concern or would result in a substantial benefit to the city by reason of
the fact that the proposed project would substantially address an important
community need specifically and expressly defined and described in the city's
Comprehensive Plan or in an adopted policy, ordinance or resolution of the
City Council, and the strict application ofsuch a standard would render the
project practically infeasible; or
(3) by reason of exceptional physical conditions or other extraordinary and
exceptional situations, unique to such property, including, but not limited to,
physical conditions such as exceptional narrowness, shallowness or
topography, orphysical conditions which hinder the owner's ability to install
a solar energy system, the strict application of the standard sought to be
368
March 7, 2006
modified would result in unusual and exceptional practical difficulties, or
exceptional or undue hardship upon the owner of such property, provided
that such difficulties or hardship are not caused by the act or omission of the
applicant; or
(4) the plan as submitted will not diverge from the standards of the Land Use
Code that are authorized by this Division to be modified except in a nominal,
inconsequential way when considered from the perspective of the entire
developmentplan, and will continue to advance thepurposes ofthe Land Use
Code as contained in Section 1.2.2.
Any finding made under subparagraph (1), (2), (3) or (4) above shall be supported
by specif c findings showing how the plan, as submitted, meets the requirements and
criteria of said subparagraph (1), (2), (3) or (4).
• 3.6.4 Transportation Level of Service Requirements
(A) Purpose. In order to ensure that the transportation needs of a proposed
development can be safely accommodated by the existing transportation
system, or that appropriate mitigation of impacts will be provided by the
development, the project shall demonstrate that all adopted Level of Service
(LOS)standards will be achieved for all modes of transportation.
(B) GeneralStandard,Alldevelopmentplans shall adequatelyprovide vehicular,
pedestrian and bicycle facilities necessary to maintain the adopted
transportation Level of Service standards contained in Part II of the City of
Fort Collins Multi-modal Transportation Level of Service Manual for the
following modes of travel:motor vehicle, bicycle and pedestrian. The Transit
LOS standards contained in Part II of the Multi-modal Transportation
Manual will not be applied for the purposes of this Section.
(C) Transportation Impact Study. In order to identify those facilities that may
be required in order to comply with these standards, all development plans
must submit a Transportation Impact Study approved by the Traffic
Engineer, consistent with the Transportation Impact Study guidelines
maintained by the city.
(Since the pedestrian level of service standards themselves are not contained within the Land Use
Code,pertinent sections are attached for your convenience)
ACTIONS COUNCIL MAY TAKE
A. If Council finds that the relevant laws of the Land Use Code were properly interpreted and
applied, then Council should uphold the decision of the administrative hearing officer.
369
March 7, 2006
B. If Council finds that the relevant laws of the Land Use Code were not properly interpreted
and applied, then Council should overturn or modify the decision of the administrative
hearing officer.
C. If Council finds that issues raised during the appeal merit receipt and consideration of
additional information by the hearing officer, then Council should remand the item to the
administrative hearing off cer for rehearing. "
City Attorney Roy explained the appeal hearing process and the options available to the Council at
the conclusion of the appeal hearing.
Anne Aspen,City Planner,stated Raven View was aproposed residential in-fill project on 8.18 acres
near the southeast corner of Taft Hill Road and Mulberry Street and was zoned LMN. The project
proposed to construct 51 dwelling units. She presented visual information showing a context map
for the site. She stated the applicant proposed to construct 33 two-bedroom townhomes and 15
three-bedroom single-family homes with an overall density of 6.23 dwelling units per acre. This
would be in the allowable range of five to eight dwelling units per acre in the LMN zone. The
proposed project would involve the removal of one existing single-family home along Taft Hill Road
for the access point and demolition of some related outbuildings. She stated there would be a loop
road system for the 51 new units, parking, a detention pond, landscaping and fencing.
Transportation Planning staff had reviewed the proposed plan to ensure the proposed project would
meet the pedestrian level of service standard. This standard had five criteria: directness,continuity,
street crossings,visual interest and amenities,and security. She stated Transportation Planning staff
determined this project did not meet two of the five criteria:directness and continuity. The property
would be surrounded by existing single-family residential except at the new access point on Taft Hill
Road and that, "as the crow flies"between this project and Moore School to the south,the distance
was much shorter than the actual walking distance. She stated the project therefore did not meet the
directness criteria. The project also did not meet the continuity criteria because the existing sidewalk
was not built to current standards. The applicant requested a modification of standard based on one
of four allowable rationales:"that there were exceptional conditions or extraordinary and exceptional
situations unique to such property that prevent it from meeting the standard." In this case there were
several exceptional situations. She stated there was no way to provide a more direct route from this
site to identified pedestrian destinations, including Moore Elementary School, because of the
existing single-family homes around the site. The applicant made an unsuccessful good faith effort
to secure a pedestrian access easement through those private residential properties. The other
exceptional circumstance was the existing sidewalks were built prior to the current standards for
continuity and therefore did not meet the standards. The rectification of either problem would create
a hardship for the applicant. Planning and Transportation Planning staff concurred with the applicant
that there were exceptional circumstances that would prevent the applicant from providing adequate
pedestrian level of service. Staff recommended the Hearing Officer approve the Project
Development Plan and the modification of standard. An administrative hearing was held on
December 13, 2005 and, during the public comment period, some of the neighbors expressed fear
that the project would cause an unsafe condition for school age children from the Raven View
development to the Moore Elementary School. She presented visual information showing the site,
Moore School, and other pedestrian destinations. She stated the Hearing Officer approved the
370
March 7, 2006
project and the modification of standard, finding the proposed project met the requirements of the
Land Use Code with the exception of the pedestrian level of service standard. The Hearing Officer
also found that the modification of standard was warranted. The Project and the modification of
standard were therefore both approved. Three neighbors submitted an appeal. She stated the
Council would need to address the following questions: (1) whether there were physical
characteristics unique to this site that created a hardship for the applicant in meeting the pedestrian
level of service standard; (2) if there were any viable alternatives available; and (3) if the existing
sidewalk was sufficient to convey pedestrians to Moore Elementary School and other pedestrian
destinations without any detriment to the public good. If Council agreed with the Hearing Officer
that the modification of standard requested by the applicant should be granted,Council should either
modify the decision to include additional findings or remand the matter to the Hearing Officer to
make additional findings. The following additional findings would need to be made in order to
support granting the modification: (1) an explanation of the hardship that would justify the
modification; and (2) granting the modification would not be detrimental to the public good. If
Council believed the Hearing Officer did not properly interpret the Code in the granting of a
modification, Council could either overturn or modify the decision of the Hearing Officer. If
Council decided to remand the matter for additional consideration,the Councilmember making the
motion should identify the issue or issues to be addressed by the Hearing Officer on remand.
Mayor Hutchinson stated the appellants and parties-in-interest in support of the appeal would have
20 minutes for a presentation.
Eric Stenner, 917 West Magnolia Street, adjoining property owner, stated things were overlooked
in the interpretation of the laws according to the appeal process. He stated staff inadvertently
interpreted the level of service requirements for a school area. Approval of the Raven View project
would create an unsafe condition for school children and pedestrians. He asked Council to
determine if it was good for the City to deliberately create an unsafe situation for residents of the
Raven View development. The area in question was a 500 foot stretch of Taft Hill Road from the
home that was proposed for demolition to Orchard and a neighborhood school. He disagreed with
staff s assessment of level of service. The appellants believed every level of school area pedestrian
service had been violated. There were issues with the crossing of a mid-major street. Taft Hill Road
was a narrow four-lane road. He stated meeting the level of service guidelines would require three
missing elements: a raised median that would be at least six feet wide with plantings or other
features; signage, sidewalks and a roadway that strongly suggested the evidence of a pedestrian
crossing ahead; and good lighting levels. Taft Hill Road did not have, and would probably not have
in the future,those three elements for the crossings. Visual interest and accuity fell one level below
what was needed for the school area. The design ignored the pedestrian with the level of service and
the negative image of the area. He stated security fell one level below what was needed for the
school area requirements. There should be unobstructed and complete lines of sight for both traffic
and pedestrian. He would not argue with continuity since the City had adequately addressed that
element. He disagreed that the proposal fell three levels below the directness requirements for a
school area. He stated directness was at level E,which was one level above the absolute minimum.
There was poor directness and connectivity and that"pedestrians' perception of a linear connection
to a desired destination falters and serves the person with no other choice." He stated this was a key
point relating to this development and school children who had to walk along Taft Hill Road would
371
March 7, 2006
have no other choice. There would be 500 feet of a four foot wide concrete sidewalk abutting Taft
Hill Road. This may have been a safe route in the past with fewer pedestrians, but questioned
whether it was safe for a dozen children between five and 10 years old. This was a question Council
had to answer. The appellants understood there were hardships in developing in-fill and some
waivers may be needed for some situations. The question for Council was whether safety should be
waived to allow in-fill development to happen. The appellants were arguing the developer needed
to provide an alternative that was a safe route to school for the children that would live in that
development. He noted there was room for expansion of this area and there was a potential for more
homes to be built and more school children to be forced out onto Taft Hill Road because there would
be no other option. He asked Council to overturn what was recommended by staff and send a clear
message that safety will not be compromised for in-fill development.
Robert Gore, 521 Crestmore Place, adjoining property owner, questioned the process and the
supposition that there was no alternative but to grant this variance. He stated there were alternatives
that were not explored. The property owners to the east were never contacted and there were other
possibilities that were never looked into when it was determined that the property to the south was
not available. The City should have made a more "rigorous interpretation" regarding whether a
variance was needed.
Lois Gore, 521 Crestmore Place, adjoining property owner, stated the appellants were not against
the in-fill development and just wanted it done "intelligently." There was a traffic study focusing
on Taft Hill Road and she was concerned about the adjacent street (Orchard Place). She stated it
would be difficult for southbound Taft Hill Road traffic to get into the Raven View area because of
heavy traffic. Moore Elementary School was on Orchard Place and this was a"highly disorganized"
area during peak hours. She questioned whether safety issues for Orchard Place had been adequately
addressed.
Mayor Hutchinson stated those opposed to the appeal would have 20 minutes for a presentation.
Tom Peterson, 3555 Stanford Road,planner representing the applicant,provided an overview. He
stated City standards were not"friendly" to in-fill projects and the applicant had been working on
the Project for a year and a half to work toward meeting the standards. This was a"classic in-fill
area" and described the existing development in the area. The applicant had been in contact with
a number of property owners to try to address the issue of the pedestrian connection and was
successful in obtaining a connection to the north to Mulberry for a fire lane. He stated the applicant
was not successful in finding anyone who was willing to sell an easement or property for a pedestrian
connection that would meet City standards. The applicant had met every other City standard and the
Project had been redesigned based on the input received at public hearings. The City had two
opportunities during reconstruction of Taft Hill Road to change the sidewalk situation and had done
some corrective sidewalks that met older standards. The City chose not to do much sidewalk
construction on Mulberry Street when stormwater improvements were made. The project met all
City standards except for the level of service for pedestrians.
Matt Delich, Delich Associates, Loveland, project traffic engineer, stated there were four issues
relating to the appeal: (1) staff concurred it was okay that the project did not meet all of the
372
March 7, 2006
pedestrian level of service standards;(2)the existing sidewalk system was unsafe because it did not
meet the current City standards; (3) an incorrect area designation was used for the pedestrian
analysis;and(4)the pedestrian level of service analysis was done incorrectly. Before a traffic impact
study was done the analyst met with staff to determine the scope of the study. With regard to
pedestrian level of service,the area designation was determined to be school walk area. He stated
this was one of the highest levels of criteria for pedestrian analysis. The allegation that an incorrect
area designation was used was not accurate. The analysis was done in accordance with City
guidelines and the criteria brought up in the appellants' letter. He stated the analysis was done
correctly and was accepted by City staff. Some of the factors could not be met and a modification
of standard was required. He stated one factor that could not be met was directness. This was the
ratio of the actual distance divided by the minimum distance(the shortest path from the development
to Moore Elementary School regardless of where the path might go). This could be over fences or
through private property. The actual route was where the sidewalks were coming out of the
development to Taft Hill Road,going south to Orchard Place,and then going east on Orchard Place
to Moore Elementary School. Going through private property was not possible and the directness
factor could not be met. The other factor that could not be met was continuity. He stated this
measured the completeness of the sidewalk system and to meet this factor all of the sidewalks in the
area would have to meet the current City standard. One element would be to have a landscaped
parkway between the street and the sidewalk. Within the development itself the sidewalk standard
would be met and the standard could not be met with the existing system. To get to Moore
Elementary School the pedestrians would need to use the existing sidewalks along Taft Hill Road
and Orchard Place. Those sidewalks did not meet the current standards. The current sidewalks had
been deemed to be appropriate and safe by the City and adding a few pedestrians to the sidewalk
system would not make them any less safe than they were at this time. Pedestrians would not all be
on the sidewalk segment at the same time. He stated the applicant requested a modification of
standard due to the circumstances and the modification was accepted by staff. The traffic impact
study assessed the vehicle level of service. The southbound left turn on Taft Hill Road into this site
would operate in the morning at level of service B and in the afternoon at level of service A and this
met the City criteria.
Mayor Hutchinson stated parties-in-interest in support of the appeal would have 10 minutes for
rebuttal.
Eric Stenner, 917 West Magnolia Street, stated the question was whether the approval of this
development would be detrimental to the public good. Council needed to consider whether it was
detrimental to the public good of the people who would live within the Raven View development.
He asked Council to think about the fact that 500 feet on a concrete sidewalk for children along a
35 mph arterial was detrimental to the public good. The Project should provide an option for the
school children to have a safe route to school.
Lois Gore, 521 Crestmore Place, stated Mr. Peterson indicated that there were several public
hearings and that she was aware of only two. She would like to know when the other public hearings
were held. She stated Mr.Delich indicated the pedestrians would be moving at different times. She
stated the sidewalk served pedestrians and there would be traffic in that area from 7:10 until 8:30
a.m. and from 3:00 p.m. until 6:00 p.m. She stated there was a concern for pedestrian safety.
373
March 7, 2006
Mayor Hutchinson stated parties-in-interest in opposition to the appeal would have 10 minutes for
rebuttal.
Tom Peterson, planner representing the applicant, suggested the Council look at the record of the
public hearing at which the issues were fully addressed. He stated there was also a neighborhood
meeting when this project was started. The Project was redesigned to address issues raised at that
meeting. Mr. Delich had presented his professional testimony regarding the work that had been
done, the project met all of the City requirements that could be met, and at no time during
discussions with staff had there been a discussion about doing off-site improvements. He stated the
impact of 51 two-bedroom dwelling units would not put a lot of school children into the system. He
stated he and Mr. Delich would be available to answer questions.
Councilmember Manvel stated Taft Hill Road was a four-lane road and one of the plans indicated
bike lanes in that block. He asked if there would be bike lanes in that block. David Averil,
Transportation Services, replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Manvel asked if this would be a four-foot bike lane and a four-foot sidewalk on both
sides. Averil replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Manvel noted the appellant indicated several times that there was a 500 foot stretch
of Taft Hill Road for children to walk on to school. He stated he had counted five lots and
questioned whether that was 500 feet. Averil stated he believed that there was about 350 feet but
he did not have the exact figure.
Councilmember Weitkunat asked about the fire lane that had been mentioned and why pedestrians
were not allowed on that fire lane. Mr. Peterson stated the fire lane would be gated and would be
accessible to the Fire Department.
Councilmember Weitkunat asked why there could not be pedestrian access. Mr. Peterson stated an
access easement was being granted only for fire and emergency vehicles and the owner of the
property did not want pedestrian traffic. He stated this was not a public right-of-way and was
limited.
Councilmember Weitkunat stated that was disappointing.
Councilmember Kastein asked staff to explain why staff believed all feasible alternatives were
pursued for an alternate route for pedestrian traffic. Aspen stated all lots to the south were existing
single-family homes. She stated the applicant indicated verbally that unsuccessful attempts were
made to get an access easement from a number of the residents and there was a lot of opposition to
the idea. She stated staff did not have"documentation"regarding the contacts between the applicant
and the residents but staff considered the efforts to be a"good faith" effort.
374
March 7, 2006
Councilmember Kastein asked if the applicant had contacted property owners to the east. Aspen
stated the applicant verbally indicated that he had also contacted a number of the Crestmore
residents.
Councilmember Kastein asked how staff determined such efforts were really made. Aspen stated
staff had to make an interpretation to determine whether there had been a"good faith"effort. She
stated the applicant asked during the hearing if anyone was willing to grant an access easement and
the residents in attendance indicated an unwillingness to do that.
Councilmember Kastein stated there was a statement in the decision that said: ". . . the existing
sidewalks along South Taft Hill Road, while not optimal,provide a sufficient route to the school."
He asked how sufficiency was measured. Averil stated staff looked at safety issues and he had
queried a City database regarding pedestrian accidents and found no pedestrian accidents on that
stretch of road. He also looked at this sidewalk that had been identified by staff as a safe route to
school about 15 years ago. This was reiterated in 2003 when the City did an inventory of all
elementary schools. No issues with safety were indicated for this stretch. He also looked for service
area requests to see if there had been complaints from the neighborhood or concerned parents and
found one that dealt with school age children crossing Taft Hill Road further south at Orchard Place.
He also made field visits to make observations. There were few pedestrians using the sidewalk at
this time. The records showed that while this was not"optimal",the sidewalk did"get kids to school
safely."
Councilmember Kastein asked if there was pedestrian accident data for pedestrians other than school
age children. Averil stated there had been no pedestrian accidents for any pedestrians. City Manager
Atteberry asked what sidewalk width needed for safety. Averil stated four feet was the minimum
in this situation due to the"constrained arterial." The bicycle lane provided some buffer between
traffic and the sidewalk. This was a relatively low volume arterial (less than 10,000 vehicles per
day). During the morning peak rush there were about 1,750 vehicles per day. He considered many
factors in arriving at a determination that the sidewalk was safe for pedestrians.
Councilmember Brown asked for confirmation of the sidewalk width. Averil stated it was four feet
wide.
Councilmember Brown asked what the standard sidewalk was at this time. Averil stated the optimal
sidewalk along a constrained arterial would be a six-foot detached sidewalk with an eight-foot
parkway. In this case that would place the sidewalk within four feet of the foundations of the
existing homes. There were options to widen existing attached walks to a wider standard by adding
two feet but this would require additional right-of-way and easements because the right-of-way was
"full" at this time.
Councilmember Manvel asked if the developer or the City talked to homeowners to see if they would
be willing to add a foot or two to the sidewalk. Averil stated he did not speak to any property
owners. Mr. Peterson stated this was not part of the applicant's discussion with the City or
homeowners. Unsuccessful efforts were made to obtain a connection through Crestmore.
375
March 7, 2006
Councilmember Roy stated the morning traffic on Taft Hill Road tended to be heavy equipment,
dump trucks,buses, and industry vehicles and that he always felt"crowded"on Taft Hill Road and
many drivers were speeders. He asked about the average speed through that corridor. Averil stated
it was posted at 35 mph and a speed study had not been done. There was a school zone posted at 20
mph when lights were flashing. His observation was the school zone tended to slow down traffic
through this area. The school zone did not extend to this new access point for the Raven View
development. He had talked with the Traffic Engineer about extending the school zone further north
and the Traffic Engineer had indicated that this was an option that could be considered once the
development was built-out.
Councilmember Roy stated he was concerned about the speed of vehicles, particularly in bad
conditions. He expressed a concern with safety in bad conditions. Averil stated this was a problem
all over town after big snow stones. The clearing of sidewalks was the responsibility of property
owners.
Councilmember Roy asked about the plowing of sidewalks after City plowing of streets. Ron
Phillips,Transportation Services Director, stated the sidewalk cleaning equipment used by the City
was used primarily on arterial streets where there were no properties fronting the arterial responsible
for cleaning the sidewalk. He did not know if this was done on this stretch of sidewalk. People
typically took their children to school after big storms.
Councilmember y g ilm tuber Manvel stated the bicycle lane seemed to mitigate the situation. He stated bike lanes
were sometimes painted a different color as a traffic calming measure. He asked if the City could
do that for this stretch, possibly with financial help from the developer. Averil stated there were
issues relating to the cost of longterm maintenance. Typically colored bike lanes were used to direct
bicycles through intersections and warn motorists of the presence of bicycles. This was typically not
done in this kind of situation and it might be worth investigating. He questioned whether doing this
would get to the crux of the matter. His observations showed that drivers "honored"the bike lane
fairly well.
Councilmember Ohlson thanked staff for the vicinity and context maps in the packet. He asked for
a summary of the meeting history on this project. Aspen stated there was one neighborhood meeting
in 2004 and an administrative hearing on December 13,2005. Mr.Peterson stated the neighborhood
meeting was in the summer of 2004 and notices were sent. The second meeting he referenced was
the administrative hearing and notices were also sent on this hearing.
Councilmember Ohlson asked why the City did not require "appropriate documentation" of good
faith efforts. City Manager Attebeny stated staff would respond to this question at a later time.
Councilmember Ohlson asked for the same follow-up as related to stormwater and landscaping
standards for bird life,aesthetics,wildlife and children's play. He noted there were questions about
this for this project in the minutes.
Councilmember Roy stated page 7 of the Agenda Item Summaryhad this statement:"Therefore,staff
recommended approval of the modification request of the Administrative Hearing Officer and the
376
March 7, 2006
Hearing Office concurred,though it should be noted the Hearing Officer did not specifically address
whether granting the modification would be detrimental to the public good." He asked the Deputy
City Attorney to speak to that statement. Paul Eckman, Deputy City Attorney, stated Division 2.8
(Modification of Standards)of the Land Use Code stated as follows:"The decision maker may grant
a modification only if it finds that the granting of the modification would not be detrimental to the
public good." He stated this was a mandatory finding and was not contained in the Hearing Officer's
decision. He stated he believed this was an issue Council ought to address. He stated Council would
then address paragraph 3 relating to the hardship modification,which was a"safety valve"to prevent
injustice when the strict application of the Code would work a hardship because of unusual
circumstances with regard to the property. In granting the modification Council would need to make
a finding as to why there was a hardship. Council would not explain why the project would not be
detrimental to the public good if it made such a finding.
Councilmember Roy asked for clarification that this was not stated by the Hearing Officer. Deputy
City Attorney Eckman replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Ohlson stated he had a process question about the Current Planning Director serving
as the Hearing Officer when he oversees the Current Planning staff. There could be a"built-in bias"
to support the staff/organization recommendation. Greg Byrne, CPES Director, stated under the
Land Use Code most decisions were made administratively. He stated Type 1 uses were decided
administratively. A public hearing was required whether the Planning and Zoning Board made the
decision or it was made administratively. If a lot of controversy was anticipated the City would rely
on an outside Hearing Officer, such as an attorney. If there was not a lot of controversy expected
then one of the staff members would conduct the administrative hearing. Several staff members
were trained to do that. When the Current Planning Director decided to hear a case administratively
he would recuse himself from review of the agenda item summary prior to its publication and the
public hearing.
Councilmember Weitkunat made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Brown, to modify the
decision of the Hearing Officer approving the Raven View Project Development Plan and
modification of standard number 1205 and 1205A by including the finding that the granting of the
modification of standard would not be detrimental to the public good and that the property has
unique physical conditions ofbeing nearly landlocked from public streets,with the only access being
to Taft Hill Road,such that the strict enforcement of the City's level of service standards would work
a substantial hardship on the applicant,and that the decision as modified to include the above stated
findings should be upheld because the Hearing Officer properly interpreted and applied the relevant
provisions of the Land Use Code in approving the project.
Councilmember Weitkunat stated this was truly an in-fill project. She stated most of such projects
occurred in the older part of the City where there was already land developed and infrastructure in
place. To accomplish such development required a lot of cooperation. It would be necessary to
move across other people's properties to meet the City's level of service standards. To do that,
cooperation and easements were needed from people in the vicinity. She was"amazed"the fire lane
access would not allow pedestrian traffic. The appeal dealt with safety concerns for the children who
may live in this development and it was debatable how many there would be. There needed to be
377
March 7, 2006
some"give and take"and neighborhood cooperation to solve the problem. There was a reluctance
throughout the City to work with the projects in the interest of all parties involved. She did not
believe that this would hurt the public good as there was a level of service standard and sidewalks
in the area that met the standard when they were built.
Councilmember Manvel thanked the neighborhood for bringing forth a rational argument. He stated
everyone was concerned about the safety of the school children who would use the sidewalk. This
was not an optimal situation but was what the City would have to live with. He would like someone
to check to see if the sidewalk could be made a little wider or if the bike lane could be colored or if
the school zone could be extended. He was confident the developer had made its best effort to find
an easement. The lots in this neighborhood were narrow and he was not surprised people did not
want a public sidewalk near their houses. He stated he would support the motion.
Councilmember Brown stated he would vote in favor of the motion. He noted staff had indicated
the existing sidewalks were sufficient. He stated there would be more appeals as in-fill projects
came forward. He hoped developers and neighborhoods would seek out solutions that would benefit
everyone.
Councilmember Ohlson thanked the appellants for their presentations. He stated this was not an
"ideal situation" and the appellants raised valid points. He was "impressed" the Transportation
Planner reviewed accident statistics and made field visits to the site. This gave him confidence in
the information being provided. It appeared every effort was made to comply and this was why
modifications of standards needed to be available. He stated this modification was not a"stretch"
as some were. He would support the motion.
Councilmember Roy stated he hoped Transportation Services would now plan to keep this stretch
of sidewalk open after storms. He was concerned with this safety problem. Extending the school
zone north made sense. This matter had been a good example of how the process could work and
should work. He believed that when in-fill was being done there was a need to create a"community
within the community." The issues relating to children would be relevant to adults in the subdivision
as well. Marking the bike lanes differently,making sure that the sidewalks were open after a storm,
and extending the school zone would be good ways to make a less than optimum situation as safe
as possible.
Councilmember Kastein stated this appeal was "focused" in nature and there were several clear
questions. One question was whether the modification would be detrimental to the public good since
the Hearing Officer did not state that. It was his opinion it would not be detrimental to the public
good. The focus of the appeal was whether or not the applicants tried to get the necessary easement
and whether or not the existing solution was good enough. He was convinced the applicants did try
to get the easement and the datapresented by Transportation Services indicated that the sidewalk was
sufficient. He stated he would support the motion.
Mayor Hutchinson stated the motion was appropriate. He stated ideas were presented to improve
a less than optimal situation and add to the safety"cushion."
378
March 7, 2006
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein,
Manvel, Ohlson and Weitkunat. Nays: Councilmember Roy.
THE MOTION CARRIED
("Secretary's Note: The Council took a brief recess at this point.)
Ordinance No. 043, 2006,
Amending Chapter 26, Article III, Division 4
of the City Code Relating to Water Fees. Adopted on First Readin¢
The following is staffs memorandum on this item.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
The proposed water rates are projected to be revenue neutral, that is, total operating revenues will
neither increase nor decrease in the Water Fund as a result of the rate change. Individual single
family and duplex customers will see an increase or decrease in their water costs based on their
monthly use.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Based on Council direction at the February 14, 2006, Work Session, this Ordinance revises single
family and duplex water rates effective May 1, 2006. The Ordinance reduces the fixed monthly fee
0
from $11.72 to $9.54 (including 6/payments in lieu of taxes)for single family customers. It also
enacts a three-tier rate with 15%between the steps, a change from the current four-tier rate which
has 20% increases between tiers. Customers using less than 8,000 gallons or more than 50,000
gallons per month will have moderate reductions in costs. Customers using between 8,000 and
50,000 gallons per month will have moderate increases in costs.
With the proposed rate, a typical single family residential customer's monthly bill will change from
$21.63 to $20.67 in the winter months, a 4%reduction. During the peak summer watering season,
atypical bill would increase 9%from $55.99 to $60.79. These calculations are based on atypical
use of 5,000 gallons per month in the winter and 20,000 gallons per month during the few peak
summer months.
The Ordinance also revises duplex rates by reducing the fixed charge from $15.51 to $11.66 and
changing to a similar three-tier rate structure as described above.
BACKGROUND
Prior to the 2003 drought, the City's residential water rates were uniform with a fixed charge of
$15.57. In response to the drought, Council adopted a five-tier water rate with a fixed charge of
$12.72 and five tiers that increased between 20%and 33%between each tier. The rate was adopted,
along with watering restrictions and an education and public awareness program to assure that
379
March 7, 2006
adequate resources could be maintained. In May 2004, the water rate was modified in response to
the community's reduction in use and to ease the cost for the larger users. The rate adopted in 2004
retained the fixed charge of$12.72 and consisted offour tiers with a 20% increase between tiers.
The 2004 rate remained in place through 2005 and into 2006.
discussions, Council requested that staff present additional
the 2006-2007 budget d R
During g
alternatives to the current four-tier water rate. Staffpresented eight rate options at the January 24,
2006, Council Work Session and an additional six water rate options at the February 14, 2006,
Council Work Session. Council reviewed the options based on the four criteria:
• Fair and equitable
• Simple and understandable
• Encourage conservation
• Stable and predictable
In the course of Council's discussion at the February 14th Work Session, there appeared to be
general support for modification of the rates described in the Ordinance. If approved, the
Ordinance would adopt the following rates, effective for all meter reading on or after May 1, 2006
Single Family Water Rate:
Fixed charge per month $ 9.54
0-7000 gallons, per 1000
gallons $ 2.226
7001-13000 gallons, per 1000 gallons $ 2.544
Greater than 13000 gallons,per 1000 gallons $ 2.915
Duplex Water Rate:
Fixed charge per month $ 11.66
0-9000 gallons, per 1000 gallons $ 2.226
9001-13000 gallons, per 1000 gallons $ 2.544
Greater than 13000 gallons, per 1000 gallons $ 2.915
All rates include 6%PILOTS.
380
March 7, 2006
The following table and graphs compare the proposed single family residential water rate to the
current rate:
Current 4-Tier Proposed J-Tier $Increase %Increase
Gallons Use Rafe Rate (Decrease) (Decrease)
(Inc.PILOTS) (Inc.PILOTS)
$ 12.72
Fii pitivF !l hl�3 � $ 14.50
Ittli i av�, i
$ 1628
:FlF !�+ :� i tt Ba t tie i3A
$ 1806
I'll R vF
! ( t
$ 19.84
i! a ilii! i II MI Fd Pt I� � I i!i
$ 21.63
$ 23.41 ,�! F ° Wla i Flab GE'F+:H�ii dl F 4 �' ! { i ��� p�
a! !!
yl1i i F
F { I,, I�tlCsli:I, Ogg!:
�. $ 25.19 .
10,000 $ 31.61 $ 32.75 $ 1.14 4%
13,000 $ 38.03 $ 40.39 $ 2.35 6%
16,000 $ 45.73 $ 49.13 $ 3.40 7%
20,000 $ 55.99 $ 60.79 $ 4.80 9%
25,000 $ 71.36 $ 75.37 $ 4.01 6%
30,000 $ 86.73 $ 89.94 $ 3.21 4%
35,000 $ 102.10 $ 104.52 $ 2.42 2%
40,000 $ 117.47 $ 119.09 $ 1.62 1%
50 0000 $ 148.21 $ 148.24 $ 0.03
�# 0%
$ 225.06 I!(�(iv� I' S
�y m P lv�� pi
$ 301.91 ! ,I". `31E 3 Fi Fppi P q 1 i i°i! 1
$ 455.61 !. F�� � !i,t'Fi (!( �a ��iwt �eF4�Fl4� k
141,12T7 d F�nq
y '� d 609.31Ft. ,ii!
Note: Shaded cells reflect a decrease from current 4-tier rate. "
City Manager Atteberry stated there would be a brief staff presentation.
Mike Smith, Utilities General Manager, introduced the staff members who would be available to
answer questions.
Theresa Bryant,Utilities Finance/Budget Manager,presented background information on the agenda
item. She stated Councilmember Kastein had requested additional information and this information
was being distributed to the Council. Smith stated the new information was also on a slide for later
reference. Bryant stated staff and Council had been working on rate issues since 2003. Prior to
2003 there was a uniform rate and a monthly fixed fee of$15.57 and, in 2003, in response to the
drought,the City implemented a 5-tier rate that had a monthly fixed charge of$12.72. In May 2004
the 5-tier rate was modified to a 4-tier rate in response to customer conservation efforts and to lower
the impact on large lot users. The fixed charged remained at$12.72 at that time. In 2005 during the
2006-2007 budget process, Council requested that staff look at the rate structure and bring
alternatives forward to the Council. There were Work sessions in January and February 2006 and
staff presented a variety of rate options. The discussion centered around the fixed charges and
criteria established by Council for the rate structures. The criteria were that the rates be fair and
381
March 7, 2006
equitable, simple and understandable to the customers, encourage conservation, and be stable and
predictable so that utility operations could be run efficiently. The majority of Council expressed
interest in option E,which was a rate presented at the February 14 Work session. This was a 3-tier
rate with 15%increases between the tiers,a 31%increase from the lowest tier to the highest tier,and
a reduced fixed charge of$9.54. The current rate was 4-tiered,with 20%increases between the tiers,
a 72% difference between the highest and lowest tiers and a fixed monthly charge of$12.72. She
showed the rate structure for a single family: a$9.54 monthly fixed charge,a first tier break at 7,000
gallons,the second tier break at 13,000 gallons and an upper tier of anything over 13,000 gallons(a
rate of$2.92 per 1,000 gallons). She stated all of the figures being presented included PILOTS.
Duplex rates had a fixed monthly charge of$11.66, a first tier break at 9,000 gallons, a second tier
break at 13,000 and an upper tier of anything over$13,000 gallons. She showed a chart comparing
the current rate with the proposed rate using the 2005 annual water usages. This showed the
difference between customers with low water use(the 25th percentile)and customers with very high
water use(the 90th percentile). She stated there was a table on page 3 of the Agenda Item Summary
showing a detailed comparison between the current and proposed rates. The proposed rates meant
cost reductions for customers using less than 8,000 gallons and customers using more than 50,000
gallons and a moderate increase for customers that used between 8,000 and 50,000 gallons. She
presented graphs showing the current rate compared to the proposed 3-tier rate. She stated staff was
available to answer any Council questions.
Kevin Westhuis, 2944 Telluride Court,stated there did not seem to be much difference between the
current rate and the proposed rate. The treated water business was primarily a"fixed cost'business.
He stated it was good to project revenue and rate stability. The actual cost of service was close to
$25 per month per customer and about 150 per 1,000 gallons and he questioned why the City was
not charging that much. He stated at the work session, Council did not ask how the $25 cost of
service was determined since there was a statement made that this was an "arbitrary" figure. He
stated each lot paid for water according to lot size. Water use costs were not related to service costs.
Lower fixed costs would make it harder for the Utility to have predictable revenue. He questioned
what water rates would have to be to maintain the system if there was indoor water use only and
stated they would have to go up. The more conservation efforts there were, the higher the rates
needed to maintain the system. He asked that rates be stabilized by raising the fixed cost to$15 and
charging a flat rate for water since the water had already been bought and paid for by the customer.
There was no correlation between high water users and wasters or economic status. He stated
someone needed to ask the question how water related to growth.
Councilmember Manvel stated the speaker said lower fixed costs were a problem for the Utility. He
asked if the proposed fixed rate would cause problems for finances. Smith stated it made it more
difficult to predict revenue but after a few years it would be easier. There would be more variability
in revenue depending on whether it was a dry year or a wet year.
Councilmember Manvel stated the most financially stable situation would be to set everything at a
fixed cost and charge nothing for gallons of water. He asked if the Utility could function with the
proposed fixed rate. Smith replied in the affirmative. He stated the City once had flat rates based
on lot size and that made it easy to predict revenue. He stated the system did not do much for
conservation. There needed to be a balance between pure cost of service and conservation. These
382
March 7, 2006
issues had been discussed and the Council had focused on a good option that was a good mix of
conservation and fixed cost. There were solutions, such as an Operations Reserve, if there was a
problem with revenue being lower than predicted some years and higher some years than predicted.
Councilmember Ohlson asked if the Utility would rather have a higher fixed rate (with a need to
revisit the rate structure every year or two)or a lower fixed rate(with less frequent Council debate).
Smith stated the Utility preferred stability and predictability.
Councilmember Kastein stated the Council focused on the$9.54 fixed cost at the Work session and
he believed Council had also asked for information on rates based on the current fixed charge. Smith
stated those figures were available at the first Work session(with eight options) and at the second
Work session staff understood that Council direction was for staff to come back with rates that had
lower fixed charges. He stated the six options were based on that direction.
Councilmember Kastein asked if staff would be prepared if Council wanted to pursue the higher
fixed charge at this time. Smith stated the numbers in the Ordinance would have to be modified.
Councilmember Brown asked about the new information that was presented to the Council.
Councilmember Kastein stated staff prepared the information subsequent to his request.
Councilmember Brown stated the new information was more easily understood. He stated the
proposed 3-tier rate would put the burden on the"moderate users"who used 7,000 to 40,000 gallons.
He thought that the idea was to make water affordable and still encourage conservation. He stated
he would not support any of this if the burden would be placed on the"moderate users."
Mayor Hutchinson requested clarification regarding the new information that had been presented to
the Council. Bill Switzer,Utilities Rates Specialist,stated averages became meaningless with tiered
rates. Representative points were used instead. There was an increase in the rates for use between
8,000 and 50,000 gallons. A large number of customers use under 8,000 gallons and the increase
for users of 8,000 to 50,000 gallons balanced that out. There were not many customers(1-2%)who
used more than 50,000 gallons. The 90th percentile customer used 34,000 gallons. The figures
shown were balanced to a revenue neutral position. The revenue was made up with the rates for use
between 8,000 and 50,000 gallons.
Councilmember Manvel noted the chart for monthly bills showed that 57% of the water bills were
for 7,000 gallons or less and that lost revenue needed to be made up elsewhere. Switzer stated that
was correct.
Councilmember Kastein stated he had asked for the cost per gallon in 2002 when there was a
uniform rate, 2003 when the 5-tier structure was instituted, 2005 with the 4-tier rate, and the
proposed 2006 3-tier rate. He stated this comparison was"enlightening"and showed how the higher
water users were paying a lot more than they did in 2002. He asked what the water use per customer
was in 2002 as a baseline,since the City was after a conservation rate structure. It would be helpful
to know that the rates actually encouraged conservation. He asked for confirmation that the City was
looking for a 10%savings in 2002. Dennis Bode,Water Resources Manager, stated at that time the
383
March 7, 2006
City was looking for a 10-15% savings. The single-family and duplex customer group had a 27%
reduction in water use compared to the pre-drought period,multi-family customers as a group had
about a 13%reduction in water use, and overall the water use was about 85%of the use in the pre-
drought period.
Councilmember Kastein asked if that included commercial and residential. Bode replied in the
affirmative.
Councilmember Kastein asked this set of rates was designed to gain about the same amount in water
savings. Smith stated the assumption was a per capita consumption equal to the most recent figures.
Councilmember Kastein asked if the City could expect the 3-tier structure to mean about 27%lower
water use for single-family residential users than would have been the case with the flat rate structure
in 2002. Bode stated the percentage reduction could be expected to change. He noted there was
some increase in 2005 compared to the two previous years due to the wet spring and dry summer and
wet fall. He stated for rate making, the figure for per capita use was roughly the same as the 2005
figure and this figure was less than the 27%mentioned by Councilmember Kastein. He stated it was
uncertain how much water savings would be seen over the next two to three years and this would
depend on the weather and conditions across Colorado and other areas.
Councilmember Kastein asked if there was discussion about the goal for a percentage reduction in
water use per capita. Smith stated the water supply and demand management policy adopted by the
Council had a target of 185 gallons per capita per day for the long term. Water use had been way
below that target. The question was whether water use would"migrate"back toward that target as
people changed habits or if water use would stay in the 155-160 gallon range.
Councilmember Kastein stated the long term strategy was for 185 gallons per capita per day and
asked what the prediction was for 2006. Bode stated in 2005 the per capita water use was about 155
gallons per day.
Councilmember Ohlson made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Manvel,to adopt Ordinance
No. 043, 2006 on First Reading.
Councilmember Ohlson stated the rates could not be considered in isolation. There was the issue
of coming up with a fair rate system, the issue of coming up with rates a majority of Council could
Reservoir
rates every time the Council changed, and the Halligan
ut having to change accept without gerY
an reservoirs. There would be increasing
favor building or expanding g
issue. He stated he did not g p g Y
organized opposition to Halligan and other reservoirs. Opposition would grow even more if the City
was seen as "taking a step backwards" on the fee structure. He preferred a zero to $3 flat rate and
having everyone pay the same per 1,000 gallons. The original goal was to make costs less onerous
for the highest water use, not the middle users. His second choice would be a$6 fixed rate with a
variety of options for the tiers. The option that was part of his motion was "barely acceptable" to
him. He stated raising the base fee would be bad policy and would jeopardize Halligan even more.
384
March 7, 2006
Councilmember Brown stated there would be opposition to Halligan regardless of what action was
taken on rates. He would not support raising the fees for moderate water users. He would like to
hear another option and would not support the motion.
Councilmember Kastein stated this was a complicated issue. He stated the uniform rate with some
base fee for the infrastructure was more fair than a tiered rate structure that charged higher water
users more simply because they had larger lots. Large lot owners paid for that extra water as part
of development fees. He did agree the rates must"pass the Halligan test." This meant there must
be a"conservation rate structure"and the question was at what point there was such a rate. He stated
Council had lost sight of a goal for water usage in the City. The adopted target was 185 gallons per
user per day and the City was operating at about 155 gallons per user per day. This meant the City
should at least be talking about designing a rate structure that would give back the potential to use
more water. He stated he was uncertain what such a rate structure would look like.
Councilmember Manvel stated the Halligan decision-makers could question why another dam was
needed if the City was operating at the lower per capita use and was then changing the rates to
encourage more water use.
Councilmember Kastein stated the Halligan expansion was not for the current water user base but
was for the future water use base. The City had captured impact fees for reservoir expansion and
the money would have to be given back if the project did not proceed due to opposition. The project
was needed for the future and the City could pay for it. A rate structure should be designed to match
the usage goals.
Councilmember Roy stated this had been a four-year conversation. He supported coming up with
rates that could remain in place for at least a few years. The root of this discussion was philosophy
relating to conservation,market forces driving prices,and fairness. He stated"hopes and fears"for
Halligan were also part of the equation as was"doing the right thing"in a semi-arid desert area that
received 13-19 inches of rainfall a year. He supported the Halligan reservoir and this viewpoint was
being challenged by many people. There was a limited time and a good opportunity to go forward
with a decision that put the City in the best possible position from the viewpoint of faraway Halligan
decision-makers. He stated he would support the motion.
Councilmember Weitkunat stated staff had indicated that 50%of the water users used 7,000 gallons
or less. Smith stated 50% of the bills sent out were for less than that amount of water.
Councilmember Weitkunat asked if the next break in the number of users was for 13,000 to 20,000
gallons. She stated her primary concern was the"mass of users." Switzer stated the break point was
set at 7,000 gallons because this was the 50%breakeven point for all bills. Because people were
now using less water,about 57%of the bills were below 7,000 gallons. About 80%of the bills were
below 13,000 gallons and about 90% of the bills were below 20,000 gallons.
Councilmember Weitkunat stated Council heard many complaints about fairness and equity with the
previous rate structure. She stated the question was what was fair and equitable and if 90% of the
bills were for less than 20,000 gallons that this took care of most customers. A conservation measure
385
March 7, 2006
was extremely important and,as staff had indicated this was a"conservation rate",then she believed
the rates would be fair and equitable.
Councilmember Kastein stated there was not necessarily a correlation between high water use and
socioeconomic status. The higher water users would still feel the brunt of the increased payments
than the lower water users with the new rates. He was troubled the discussion was not taking into
account the City's goals for water use per capita. He would not support the new rates because
nothing would change for the higher water users. He would like some additional work on
"parameters."
Councilmember Manvel stated a lower base and less tiering was simpler. The lower base was fairer
and more standard compared to other communities. The base was the"most conserving part"of the
rate. One of the criteria had to be conservation and the proposed rates were better in at least three
of the criteria.
Mayor Hutchinson stated he understood Councilmember Kastein's concerns but there were shifts
in the right direction. The new rates would be somewhere between the `overkill" 5-tier system of
2003 and the flat rate system that was no longer a valid option. These rates reduced the base by 25%.
He questioned whether new rates could be implemented this year if more work was done on this and
another rate system was devised. Smith stated that would depend on the complexity of the system.
He stated staff was looking at a May 1 implementation if Council made a decision at this meeting
and a delay in the decision would mean a later implementation.
Mayor Hutchinson stated this was a complex issue. He stated Halligan was important for the long
support the motion although
term and the strategy of preparing fora 50-year drought. He would su pp
there were still some concerns and"frustrations" with the proposed rate structure.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Hutchinson,Manvel,Ohlson,Roy
and Weitkunat. Nays: Councilmembers Brown and Kastein.
THE MOTION CARRIED
Ordinance No. 044, 2006,
Amending Section 3.5.4(c)(3)(A) of
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 revision to Section 3.5.4(C)(3)(a) that would strengthen the existing standard
.f large q or a retail establishments that requires multiple entrances. The propo
sed revision would
g
require secondary entrances to be operational. In addition, the change clarifies that such second
side entrances may serve the anchor store or, instead, serve only attached small retail store(s)with
individual entrance(s). The existing standard and revisions are intended to work in conjunction with
386
March 7, 2006
the standard for distributed parking so that the impacts associated with large, single-use, single-
entry retail stores are mitigated.
BACKGROUND
During the consideration of amending the Harmony Corridor Plan to allow a regional shopping
center at the northwest corner of Harmony and Ziegler Roads, City Council directed staff to
strengthen the existingstandards governing large retail establishments. A keyfeature ofthe existing
standard is to promote pedestrian connectivity and human scale by requiring a second entrance
along a side elevation. Single-use retailers, however, are reluctant to provide such an entrance for
reasons explained in the background report. The revised standard prioritizes a true second entrance
into the big box but allows attaching independent liner store(s) in lieu of such an entrance. At the
February 16, 2006 meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board, the Board voted 6—0 to recommend
approval of the proposed revision. "
City Manager Atteberry introduced the agenda item.
Ted Shepard, Chief Planner, stated Council had asked staff to look at the big box standards adopted
in 1994 as a result of a six-month moratorium on retail development in the Harmony Corridor. He
stated during the adoption process for the amendment to the Harmony Corridor for a regional
shopping center earlier this year the Council asked staff to review the standards. The standards could
be divided into two categories, with the first being architectural embellishment and architectural
detail. Staff was not recommending any changes to that category at this time. There were also site
planning issues and staff was recommending enhancing the standards in that category. There were
two tandem issues in the site planning category: the requirement for multiple entrances and the
requirement for distributed parking. He stated no more than 50%of the parking could be between
the front door and the street and parking could be distributed in other areas. The two requirements
worked closely together to create a distinctive shopping center that looked unlike what was seen in
other communities. The intent was to mitigate the single-use,single-entry retail development. Staff
was proposing to enhance the requirement for multiple entrances, particularly the side entrance or
the second entrance to the big box, and to close the loophole to require the entrance to be operable.
This could be accomplished with liner shops. The proposal was also to close the loophole that
seasonal garden shop entries would count as a second entrance. He presented visual information
showing examples of big box developments that met the proposed standards and examples of
businesses that were operating under the current inoperable second entrance and seasonal garden
shop loopholes.
Councilmember Weitkunat thanked staff for a clear presentation. She asked for clarification
regarding the primary goal of the proposed change to the standards. Shepard stated there were
loopholes and the City was in a"weak bargaining position" at times. The current standard would
be strengthened, made clearer and more proscriptive relating to the open second entrance. Staff
wanted to reinforce the urban design component to bring big box developments closer to one or two
streets, to deal with the "sea of parking" that went along with big box development, to encourage
pedestrian connectivity,and to encourage architectural embellishment(an entrance instead of wall).
He stated this would make a"pretty good standard" a lot better.
387
March 7, 2006
Councilmember Weitkunat asked if the thinking was that people would not park in an area if there
was no entrance. Shepard stated the industry would prefer no side parking and a single front
entrance with a front parking field. The City encouraged a side entrance and side parking lots.
Councilmember Weitkunat asked for confirmation that the other element was the articulation of the
building so that there would not be a solid unbroken wall. Shepard stated there were good
architectural standards and an entrance was better than architectural treatment to add a "human
element" to a wall.
Councilmember Manvel stated he had done an Internet search and found Fort Collins had "the
shopping center standards of the world"for big boxes. His search also indicated it was sometimes
impossible to get retailers to have more than one entrance facing the parking lot. He did not want
to set a standard that would work against big boxes locating in Fort Collins. He did like the
flexibility of having liner shops. The proposal was for 33%liner shops and the Planning and Zoning
Board recommended 45% liner shops. Shepard stated different percentages were discussed at the
Board level. Staff was recommending 33% so that two-thirds would still be available for other
architectural treatment. It seemed to be logical to break a facade into thirds. The standard was
preceded by the clause"to the practical or reasonable extent feasible"which could mean that liner
shops could be 25%or 45%. Staff wanted to be able to work with the retailers on a flexible basis.
There were sometimes better qualitative results with a "looser standard" that was geared toward
quality.
Councilmember Weitkunat made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Roy, to adopt Ordinance
No. 044, 2006 on First Reading.
Councilmember Ohlson asked if liner shops could be 15% since 33% would not be a minimum
requirement and noted the Planning and Zoning Board had recommended 45%. Shepard stated staff
was comfortable with 33%because the true goal was a second entrance. A second entrance on the
side elevation could end up being only 5-10% of the facade length. If liner shops were to be done
then the goal was 33%minimum. If there was a true second entrance there would be no minimum.
Councilmember Ohlson asked if the liner shops could actually be less than the 33%since this would
not be an "absolute" requirement. Shepard stated staff was not recommending a prescriptive
mathematical standard for something that was"qualitative"in the field. He stated something at 25%
might be better qualitatively in some cases. The 33% approach would help staff get the result that
the applicant might not normally want to give.
Councilmember Ohlson stated he appreciated the photographs giving examples. He asked for abrief
explanation of how the standards would apply for 50% building rehabs. Shepard stated in 1994
when standards were being developed, the owners of the Foothills Fashion Mall were concerned
about the impact of new standards on renovation plans for the Mall. He stated there were also
concerns relating to redevelopment of the old Century Mall.
Councilmember Ohlson asked if 50% was arrived at to make things "doable." Shepard stated the
50% figure was a compromise following discussions between the City and interested parties.
388
March 7, 2006
City Attorney Roy stated as a follow-up to Councilmember Ohlson's question about the 33%figure
for liner shops, the term "to the extent reasonably feasible" was defined in the Land Use Code as
follows:"Extent reasonably feasible shall mean that under the circumstances reasonable efforts have
been undertaken to comply with the regulation but the costs of compliance clearly outweigh the
potential benefits to the public or would unreasonably burden the proposed project, and reasonable
steps have been taken to minimize any potential harm or adverse impacts resulting from
noncompliance with the regulation."
Councilmember Kastein asked why the Super Wal-Mart had black bags over the side entrance.
Shepard stated the second entrance was used to store barbeque grills on secured high rack storage.
Councilmember Kastein asked why that entrance was not used as an operational entrance. Shepard
stated he assumed that the second entrance was not part of the Wal-Mart nationally formulated
operational prototype. City Manager Atteberry stated big box retailers had also expressed concerns
about second entrance security.
Councilmember Kastein stated the existing requirements accomplished many of the City's goals.
He stated there were reasons retailers did not like second entrances. He asked for staff s opinion on
whether or not the existing requirements were good enough. Shepard stated his opinion was that
Fort Collins citizens wanted distinct shopping centers that would keep Fort Collins "ahead of the
curve." He believed this would actually attract more retailers to Fort Collins in the long run.
Councilmember Kastein asked if any of the current big box retailers were having a hard time due to
City standards. Shepard stated he did not have that information.
Councilmember Brown stated aesthetics were important for big box retail.
Councilmember Ohlson stated the issue was what was the best the City could get when retailers did
not want to do second entrances with cash registers. He was concerned that outcomes depended on
negotiation. He wanted to have policies that were not dependent on individual interpretation. He
would support this Ordinance as an improvement but had concerns the results would depend on
negotiations. Shepard stated the change would improve a good standard by closing some loopholes.
There were definitions in the Land Use Code that helped with interpretations and negotiations and
the Planning and Zoning Board reviewed all staff work. Projects could be appealed to the City
Council and that there was always public review.
Councilmember Weitkunat stated 45% was too prescriptive. The City's big box standards were
state-of-the art and the change would make enhancements. She stated big boxes did make changes
to fit other areas.
Mayor Hutchinson stated the standards were important and a reflection of the community's core
values. He stated he would support the motion.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein,
Manvel, Ohlson, Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: None.
389
March 7, 2006
THE MOTION CARRIED
Ordinance No. 010, 2006,
Granting a Non-exclusive Franchise by the City of Fort
Collins to Comcast of California/Colorado LLC and Its Successors and Assigns for the
Right to Make Reasonable Use Of, and Erect, Construct, Operate and Maintain Through,
the Public Rights-of-way, Easements and Other Public Property Any Equipment Necessary
and Appurtenant to the Operation and Maintenance of a Cable System and the Provision
of Cable Services to Citizens Within the City Adopted on Second Reading.
The following is staff s memorandum on this item.
"FINANCIAL IMPACT
The proposed franchise continues to collect 5%ofgross revenues, as allowed by the Federal Cable
Act. Franchise fees are paid to compensate the City for Comcast's use of the public rights-of-way
and generate approximately one million dollars annually.
A new fee is included in the proposed franchise agreement, the purpose of which is to fund capital
and facility needs for Public, Educational and Governmental ("PEG') cable television
programming. The amount of the fee is 50 cents per month per residential subscriber and will be
distributed among the PEG entities as determined by City Council. The estimated annual revenue
is $164,000.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Ordinance, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on January 17, 2006, will grant
a Cable Franchise Agreement between the City of Fort Collins and Comcast of California/Colorado
lusive ranchise. The main elements o the agreement
LLC("Comcast). This agreement is a nonexc f r g
are:
1. Term. The length of the franchise is nine years.
2. Customer Service Standards. The standards will be adopted in February, but are
referenced in this agreement. The proposed franchise agreement would establish
penalties for noncompliance with these standards.
3. Franchise Fee. Five percent(5%) ofgross revenues will be paid to the City for use
of rights of way. Federal law allows cable companies to pass this cost through to
subscribers.
4. Public Educational and Governmental Programming. A PEG fee of 50 cents per
subscriber per month will be dedicated to equipment and facility costs associated
with providing PEG programming. Comcast has chosen to pass this fee through to
subscribers. "
390
March 7, 2006
City Manager Atteberry stated staff was available to answer any questions.
Bruce Lockhart, 2500 East Harmony Road, asked what would happen if the Council voted against
the Ordinance. He noted there had been discussions about making Fort Collins a"wireless hot spot."
He stated this was political because the phone companies and cable companies would be pushed out
of business. a cooperative could make wireless technology a reality. The City would have nothing
to"hold over"Comcast if the franchise was signed and Comcast would probably sue the City if there
was a move toward a City-wide "wireless hot spot."
City Manager Atteberry stated dollars were set aside in the 2007 budget to study the wireless issue.
Part of the analysis would be whether or not it was an appropriate new endeavor for the City and
whether there were opportunities to work with existing providers to provide a wireless network.
Councilmember Ohlson asked what would happen if the Council said no to the franchise agreement.
Liz Stroh, Information Technology Media/Policy Manager, stated the FCC had regulations about
franchise renewals that require cities to renew a franchise if the cable company had provided
adequate service. If the City said no to the terms of the renewal,there would be a formal process for
continued negotiations. She stated this was a non-exclusive franchise.
Councilmember Ohlson asked what would happen at the end of the next round of negotiations if an
agreement could not be reached. Stroh stated this would probably result in litigation.
Councilmember Kastein stated it was important to note that the City was "hemmed in" by FCC
regulations.
Councilmember Ohlson requested a staff memo on how many miles of lines had not yet been
undergrounded and the cost to underground lines.
Councilmember Marvel made a motion,seconded by Councilmember,to adopt Ordinance No.010,
2006 on Second Reading. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Brown,
Hutchinson, Kastein, Manvel, Ohlson, Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED
Ordinance No. 034, 2006,
Amending the City Code with Regard to the Posting of
Public Notice of the Meetings of the City Council, Committees
of the Council and City Boards and Commissions Postponed on Second Reading
The following is staff's memorandum on this item.
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Ordinance amends various sections in Chapter 2 of the City Code relating to the posting of
public notice of meetings of the City Council, committees of the Council and City boards and
391
March 7, 2006
commissions, to reflect a change in the location of the place of posting, and to clarify existing
language about the types of meetings that need to be posted. The Ordinance was unanimously
adopted on First Reading on February 21, 2006.
City Manager Atteberry stated this item was pulled from the Consent CalendarbyMr.Martinez,who
was not present. He stated he had talked with Mr. Martinez about what he was requesting and it
would be fairly simple to address that request since it was already a City practice. He recommended
the item be postponed to March 21.
City AttorneyRoy stated Mr. Martinez was suggesting that notice be placed on the City's website
y
as well as the public notice posting board.
Councilmember Ohlson stated it appeared there must be a posting only if there was a change. He
asked if the Ordinance was reducing posting requirements. City Clerk Krajicek stated the
requirement would be to post any change in regular meeting times of boards and commissions. She
stated all meeting times would continue to be listed on-line.
Councilmember Manvel asked if the on-line listings could list specific dates. City Clerk Krajicek
stated staff would look at making the on-line listings specific.
Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Ohlson, to postpone
Ordinance No. 034, 2006 on Second Reading to March 21, 2006. The vote on the motion to
postpone was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein, Manvel, Ohlson,
Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED
Other Business
Mayor Hutchinson stated the budget was an important Council responsibility. He stated Council
gave guidance to the City Manager at the February 14 Work session regarding the 2007 budget
shortfall in two areas:(1)getting data and information on new stable revenue sources,and(2)getting
data to help identify possible cuts in the 2007 budget. He stated Council did not specify the time line
for the requested information except for specifying two months for the transportation management
fee data and analysis. The guidance he wanted to give the City Manager was to have information
on all of the options by the end of April so Council would have time to consider all of the issues
before beginning the decision process. This would include the information and data relating to
revenue options requested by Council so Council could consider revenue options for the library
district,parks maintenance fees,utility payments-in-lieu-of taxes,and the transportation maintenance
fee. At the February 14 Work session Council asked the City Manager for comparative data relating
to actual employee salary levels and other cost of government data. This data was needed to examine
brae arts of the two
wanted to combine the 2007 budget for possible service cuts or efficiencies. Councilp
options and ask staff to add a hybrid or a combination option that would combine part of the revenue
options with parts of the cut options. This combination option would be a recommendation that
could balance the 2007 budget through a combination of reducing services and making further cuts
392
March 7, 2006
in the 2007 budget plus implementing one of the funding options or part of one of the funding
options now under study. The proposed combination of revenues and possible cuts should cover the
$2.6 million shortfall,reducing services in the budget may include identifying additional areas that
might be outsourced, and the original size of a funding option could be reduced if there were
sufficient reductions in the budget. He had discussed this direction with all Councilmembers and
this guidance was being given because of time constraints. City Manager Atteberry stated he
appreciated the clear direction.
Councilmember Ohlson stated he understood there should be some flexibility in the deadline if a few
extra days were needed.
Mayor Hutchinson stated that was the"spirit'of the direction,which was why no specific date was
selected. The intent was to provide the Council with the information needed to make a decision.
Councilmember Ohlson stated he did not want to just see cuts to "citizen programs" in the hybrid
approach. He stated cuts could come from other places in the organization (pensions, salary
structure, etc.).
Councilmember Manvel stated there would be a better picture of actual revenue by the time the
information was presented to the Council.
Councilmember Weitkunat stated there would be no work session on March 14, 2006.
Adeournment
The meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
393