HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 07/18/2006 - CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE R ITEM NUMBER: 6
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY DATE: July 18, 2006
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL STAFF: Wanda Krajicek
SUBJECT
Consideration and Approval of the Minutes of the Regular Meetings of May 2,2006,May 16,2006,
and June 6,2006, and the Adjourned Meetings of May 23, 2006,June 13,2006,and June 27,2006.
May 2, 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, May 2,2006, 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
Mayor Hutchinson stated each participant would have three minutes to speak.
Ardith Nieman, 1136 Wabash Street, expressed concerns regarding library budget cuts and stated,
according to national standards, the City's library was adequate for the City's population in 1976.
She asked that Council ask the voters to decide in November whether there should be a library
district.
David May, President of the Fort Collins Area Chamber of Commerce, expressed concerns about
the City budget shortfalls. He stated many preliminary revenue proposals presented to the Council
at the February 14 work session would increase the price of government and make Fort Collins less
competitive in the creation of jobs. He asked if Council's commitments to the economy and the
creation of jobs would still hold during the upcoming budget discussions. The Chamber of
Commerce had raised a number of questions about City finances and looked forward to hearing
responses in the budget discussions. In the past the Chamber had supported the retention and
renewal of existing taxes and now had concerns about proposals to raise taxes or impose new ones
that would impose a heavy burden on business. The Chamber would like to hear clear and
compelling reasons for any new revenue sources.
Michelle Barry, 2943 Redburn Drive, high school junior, spoke in favor of a library district and
expressed concerns about library budget cuts.
Manuel Martinez, 310 Cherry Street, Transfort bus operator,read a letter signed by 22 individuals
regarding inequities in salaries for hourly bus drivers.
Anna Ilic, 3239 Sagewater Court, supported creation of a library district.
Cinda Blessing,713 Parliament Court,Transfort bus driver,spoke regarding inequitable salaries and
benefits for City bus drivers.
1
May 2, 2006
Courtney Przybylski, outgoing Director of Community Affairs for ASCSU, introduced the newly
elected officers of ASCSU.
Ron Thurston,320 Jackson Avenue,Transfort bus driver,stated the bus drivers had issues with the
skill ladder pay and classified positions. The City's budget was"balanced on the shoulders of the
lowest paid hourly skill leveled employees" and new hires were being paid equal to or more than
people who had been"working their way up the ladder"for up to three years. The bus drivers felt
there should be some kind of"grandfather clause"for people who were hired before the decision was
made to withdraw the possibility of jobs with benefits that had been"promised"to bus drivers. He
asked that the Council direct the City Manager to look at the"human side"of this issue and remedy
the situation.
George Hoffman, 1101 Valley Oak Court, stated the"money"was now in Loveland. He stated he
would not vote for"any tax" and stated the City had been "using a paring knife instead of a meat
axe"in making budget cuts.
Phil Freidman,201 South Grant Avenue,supported creation of a library district and adequate library
funding. He expressed concerns about taking funding from other amenities to fund the library and
stated ways should be found to fund all of such programs.
Alexis Maxwell, 1216 South Bryan Avenue,opposed the current noise ordinance and supported the
clarification of guidelines for determining unreasonable noise.
Mayor Hutchinson asked if the Council wanted to continue to hear Citizen Participation beyond the
30 minute time limit. The consensus was to allow Citizen Participation to continue.
Andrew Vaughan, 411 West Myrtle Street, spoke in opposition to the current noise ordinance and
described his experience and the impact of a misdemeanor conviction on his employment and
admission to law school.
Heather Rice, 226B West Laurel Street, opposed the existing noise ordinance and supported a
community service option for sentences for noise violators. She opposed an option for a partial fine
and community service combination because this might not be affordable to students.
Mike Floren, 1512 Emigh Street,spoke against the current noise ordinance and asked that it be made
fair for everyone. He asked that Council act on decriminalization,increased warnings,a community
service option, and further clarity.
Jim Bergonier, 1913 Seminole Drive, spoke in support of a library district and a strong library
program.
Citizen Participation Follow-up
Mayor Hutchinson thanked those who spoke during Citizen Participation.
2
May 2, 2006
Councilmember Ohlson stated salaries for employees needed to be fair to the employees and the
taxpayers. He would favor giving direction to the City Manager to look at the bus driver salary issue
because it did not pass the"faimess/justice test." He asked for a detailed management report on the
issue.
Councilmember Roy stated he had not seen the letter submitted by the bus driver group. He
expressed concern regarding the two-tiered salary system for bus drivers. He requested that the letter
and other documentation regarding this issue be given to the Council. City Manager Atteberry stated
he had not seen the letter and that he would request it be sent to the Council. He believed that
"fairness and justice"had been served in this issue.
Councilmember Roy asked for information on statements made by the City, whether direct or
implied, regarding promises of the rate of pay and the future ability to receive benefits. City
Manager Atteberry stated he had heard employees were assured that "classified benefits were
forthcoming"and he would follow-up on this issue.
Councilmember Brown congratulated the newly elected ASCSU representatives.
Councilmember Kastein requested a one-page memo summarizing the administration's position on
bus driver compensation. He also noted the noise ordinance would be discussed by Council and
asked for a staff analysis of each of the issues referenced by the advocates for noise ordinance reform
prior to the Council discussion. City Manager Atteberry stated staff planned to bring the noise
ordinance back to Council on August 22 to consider the issues brought up by the speakers. Detailed
information would be presented to the Council prior to the August discussion. The discussion was
scheduled at the end of August to afford students an opportunity to participate in the discussion.
Agenda Review
City Manager Atteberry stated there were no changes to the published agenda.
CONSENT CALENDAR
6. Consideration and ADnroval of the Minutes of the March 21 2006 Regular Meeting.
7. Second Readine of Ordinance No 065 2006 Amendingthe e City of Fort Collins District
Precinct Man.
This Ordinance, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on April 18, 2006,
amends the City of Fort Collins District-Precinct Map, which was adopted by Council on
November 16,2004,by adjusting precinct boundaries to correspond with election precincts
established by Larimer County. These changes do not affect Council District boundaries.
3
May 2, 2006
8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 066 ,2006, Amending Section 2-166 of the Code of the
City of Fort Collins to Change the Name of the Commission on the Status of Women to the
Women's Commission.
Ordinance No.066,2006,unanimously adopted on First Reading on April 18,2006,changes
the name of the group which advises City Council on issues pertaining to women from the
"Commission on the Status of Women" to the "Women's Commission". The new name
reflects the focus of the Commission which is on issues of importance to women in Fort
Collins,not just on the conditions or status of women in the community.
9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 067,2006,Amending the Legal Descriptions for Certain
Conveyances to the Colorado Department of Transportation Approved in Ordinance No.007,
2005.
Ordinance No. 007,2005,approved real estate legal descriptions to convey a non-exclusive
permanent sewer easement, domestic water and gas easement and a road right-of-way to
accommodate the installation of a turn lane from East Prospect Road onto the access road
in connection with the Colorado Department of Transportation's development of a new rest
area on East Prospect Road near the Welcome and Visitor's Center. These legal descriptions
contained typographical errors which rendered the descriptions unclear. This Ordinance,
which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on April 18, 2006, amends the legal
descriptions to be used in the documents of conveyance by correcting the errors.
10. Items Relating to the Sanctuary Annexation and Zoning,
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 068, 2006, Annexing Property Known as the
Sanctuary Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No.069,2006,Amending the Zoning Map of the City
of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the
Sanctuary Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado.
These Ordinances, unanimously adopted on First Reading on April 18, 2006, annex and
zone 15.65 acres located approximately one-half mile south of Kechter Road and
approximately one-quarter to one-half mile east of Ziegler Road. The property is
undeveloped and is in the FA-1 Farming District in Larimer County. The requested zoning
in the City of Fort Collins is UE—Urban Estate District.
Staff recommends this property be included in the Residential Neighborhood Sign District.
A map amendment is necessary to place this property on the Residential Neighborhood Sign
District Map.
4
May 2, 2006
11. First Reading of Ordinance No. 071, 2006, Vacating Portions of the Rights-of-Way as
Dedicated on the Plat of Cameron Park First Filing
This site is located west of College Avenue, north of Cameron Drive. The streets were
dedicated as a county development proposal as shown and laid out on the Cameron Park First
Filing. The dedicated right-of-way was annexed into the City when the parcel was annexed
in 1992. On November 20, 2003, the Redtail development proposal was submitted and
shows a different street layout than was originally platted. The frontage road will not be
continued and the improvements in this area will be removed with the Redtail project.
Therefore, the right-of-way for the frontage road is no longer necessary and is proposed for
vacation. The area will be retained as a utility, drainage and public access easement.
All public and private utilities have been notified of the proposed vacation and no objections
were reported.
12. First Reading of Ordinance No. 072, 2006 Vacating Portions of the Rights-of-Way as
Dedicated on the Plat of Cameron Park Second Filing
This site is located west of College Avenue on the west end of Cameron Drive. The streets
were dedicated as a county development proposal as shown and laid out on the Cameron
Park Second Filing. Neither the streets nor the development were built. The dedicated right-
of-way was annexed into the City when the parcel was annexed in 1988. On November 20,
2003, the Redtail development proposal was submitted and shows a different street layout
than was originally platted. Therefore, the rights-of-way for the streets are no longer
necessary and are proposed for vacation at this time.
All public and private utilities have been notified of the proposed vacation and no objections
were reported.
13. Resolution 2006-045 Finding Substantial Compliance and Initiating Annexation Proceedings
for the Peterson Annexation.
Cedar Pointe Land&Livestock,L.L.C.,c.o.Duane Lebsack,has submitted a written petition
requesting annexation of 27.89 acres located on the south side of East Vine Drive between
Interstate 25 and County Road 5. The property currently is undeveloped. It is in the FAl -
Farming District in Larimer County.The requested zoning for this annexation is UE-Urban
Estate. The surrounding properties are currently zoned: I-Industrial in the City to the west,
FA-1 Farming in Larimer County to the north,M-Multi-Family and M1 -Multi-Family in
Larimer County to the south, and FA-1 Farming in Larimer County to the east.
5
May 2, 2006
The property is located within the Fort Collins Urban Growth Area. According to policies
and agreements between the City of Fort Collins and Larimer County contained in the
Intergovernmental Agreement for the Fort Collins Urban Growth Area, the City will agree
to consider annexation of property in the UGA when the property is eligible for annexation
according to State law.This property gains the required 1/6 contiguity to existing City limits
from a common boundary with the Kirschner Annexation(December, 1993)to the west.
14. Resolution 2006-046 Finding Substantial Compliance and Initiating Annexation Proceedings
for the Streamside Annexation.
Cedar Pointe Land&Livestock,L.L.C.,c.o.Duane Lebsack,has submitted a written petition
requesting annexation of 73.67 acres located on the south side of East Vine Drive between
Interstate 25 and County Road 5. The property currently is undeveloped. It is in the FAl -
Farming District in Larimer County.The requested zoning for this annexation is UE-Urban
Estate. The surrounding properties are currently zoned: FAl -Farming in Larimer County
to the west, FA-1 Farming in Larimer County to the north,RI -Residential and M-Multi-
Family in Larimer County to the south, and FA-1 Farming in Larimer County to the east.
The property is located within the Fort Collins Urban Growth Area. According to policies
and agreements between the City of Fort Collins and Larimer County contained in the
Intergovernmental Agreement for the Fort Collins Urban Growth Area,the City will agree
to consider annexation of property in the UGA when the property is eligible for annexation
according to State law.This property gains the required 1/6 contiguity to existing City limits
from a common boundary with the Peterson Annexation(July, 2006)to the west.
15. Resolution 2006-047 Approving Expenditures From the Art in Public Places Reserve
Account in the Cultural Services and Facilities Fund to Commission an Artist to Create Art
Elements for the Police Facility Project.
This Resolution approves expenditures of$249,037 for design, materials, installation and
contingency for a project with artist Andrew Dufford of Chevo Studios to create multiple art
elements for the Police Facility Project.
16. Resolution 2006-048 Authorizing the Lease of a Portion of Running Deer Natural Area to
Hageman Earth Cycle. Inc.. for Two Additional Years.
Hageman Earth Cycle,Inc. is requesting a continuation of a lease of approximately 15 acres
of Running Deer Natural Area for a period of time starting July 1,2006 and ending June 30,
2008. This lease will allow that business to continue using the site for the purposes of a
public organic waste material "fee" drop off site, the temporary stock piling of these
materials until they are transported off site to the lessee's composting site, and the sale of
landscaping products. This lease does not allow the composting of materials on site.
6
May 2, 2006
17. Resolution 2006-049 Authorizing_the Mayor to Execute an Intergovernmental Agreement
Between the City and Colorado State University to Convey Rieht-of-Way to the City as Part
of the East Prospect Road Improvement Project.
In April, the City began work on the East Prospect Road Improvement Project, which
involves widening a portion of Prospect Road adjacent to the Colorado State University
(CSU)property at the Environmental Learning Center(ELC). CSU has agreed to convey to
the City a strip of property adjacent to Prospect Road approximately 64 feet wide and 726
feet long to be used as right-of-way for Prospect Road.
18. Resolution 2006-050 Authorizing the Mayor to Enter into a Contract with the Colorado
DDg artment of Transportation for the Design and Construction of the Harmony Road and
Shields Street Intersection Improvements.
This funding contract between the City and the Colorado Department of Transportation
(CDOT) will secure funding for a portion of the construction of the Shields Street and
Harmony Road Intersection Improvements. The design of this project is currently underway
and is apart of the Harmony Road Improvements(College to Seneca)funded by the Building
on Basics sales tax.
19. Resolution 2006-051 Making an Appointment to the Transportation Board.
II, A vacancy currently exists on the Transportation Board due to the resignation of Lee
Watkins. Councilmembers Kastein and Ohlson reviewed the applications on file and are
recommending Jim Clausen to fill the vacancy with a term to begin immediately and set to
expire on December 31, 2008.
***END CONSENT***
Ordinances on Second Reading were read by title by City Clerk Krajicek.
7. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 065, 2006, Amending the City of Fort Collins District-
Precinct Map.
8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 066 , 2006,Amending Section 2-166 of the Code of the
City of Fort Collins to Change the Name of the Commission on the Status of Women to the
Women's Commission.
9. Second Reading of Ordinance No.067,2006,Amending the Legal Descriptions for Certain
Conveyances to the Colorado Department ofTransportation Approved in Ordinance No.007,
2005.
7
May 2, 2006
10. Items Relating to the Sanctuary Annexation and Zoning.
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 068, 2006, Annexing Property Known as the
Sanctuary Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No.069,2006,Amending the Zoning Map of the City
of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the
Sanctuary Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado.
Ordinances on First Reading were read by title by City Clerk Krajicek.
11. First Reading of Ordinance No. 071, 2006, Vacating Portions of the Rights-of-Way as
Dedicated on the Plat of Cameron Park First Filing.
12. First Reading of Ordinance No. 072, 2006, Vacating Portions of the Rights-of-Way as
Dedicated on the Plat of Cameron Park Second Filing.
23. Items Relating to Land Conservation at Soapstone Prairie Natural Area.
A. First Reading of Ordinance No.073,2006,Authorizing the Conveyance of441 Acres
of Land to the State Land Board Subject to a Conservation Easement in Exchange for
3,873 Acres of Land Located Within Soapstone Prairie Natural Area.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 074,2006,Authorizing the Lease of Portions of the
Bernard Ranch Property to be Acquired by the City to the Bernards Through 2012.
Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Roy, to adopt and approve
all items on the Consent Calendar. Yeas: Councilmembers Brown,Hutchinson,Kastein, Manvel,
Ohlson,Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Consent Calendar Follow-up
Councilmember Kastein spoke regarding item#18 Resolution 2006-050 Authorizing the Mayor to
Enter into a Contract with the Colorado Department of Transportation for the Design and
Construction of the Harmony Road and Shields Street Intersection Improvements and requested a
staff memo regarding the design and construction phases and time line.
Staff Reports
City Manager Atteberry introduced Mike Freeman,the City's Economic Advisor, and stated a full
Council briefing on economic health activities was planned.
8
May 2, 2006
Mike Freeman,Economic Advisor,reported on the drafting of an economic action plan. Work was
starting on a"target industry study" and a collaborative effort for"community branding." Efforts
were also underway for a business outreach initiative and"economic gardening." A collaborative
project was underway between the City Manager's Office,Advance Planning and IT to implement
data collection tools. A number of businesses in Fort Collins were talking about expanding and
adding employees.
City Manager Atteberryreported the Fort Collins-Loveland area was recently ranked by the Milliken
Institute Best-Performing Cities Index as #46, which was a higher ranking than 2004. He also
reported that the Neighborhood Services Group party pack was being modeled by UC-Davis. He
spoke regarding the successful CSU Unity Event and the CSU-City Housing Fair. He announced
that the Jim Colbum, Code Compliance Officer, was certified under the International Property
Maintenance Code. He reported that the Youth Activity Center would close in mid-2007.
Councilmember Reports
Councilmember Roy reported that the Human Relations Commission had presented a Lifetime
Service Award to Parker and Mabel Preble.
Councilmember Weitkunat reported on discussions of the Poudre Fire Authority Board relating to
a customer satisfaction survey and fire station renovation.
Items Relating to Land Conservation at
Soapstone Prairie Natural Area,Adopted on First Readin¢
The following is staff s memorandum on this item.
"FINANCIAL IMPACT
The City's total investment in the exchange project will amount to $4,589,000. Of that amount
$2,323,656 is the value of the 3,873 acres(or$600 per acre)and the remainder, $2,265,344, is the
value ofthe conservation easement on the 441-acre community separatorparcel(or$5,137an acre).
The per acre cost for all 4,314 acres is$1,064. All funds for the project are derived from sales tax
revenues dedicated for natural area purposes.
The purchase price for the Bernard Ranch is $2,000,000, or$1,136 per acre. The City's Natural
Areas program plans to apply for Great Outdoors Colorado funds to "buy down"the conservation
values in the property. If those grants are successful, and if the City is able to resell to a
conservation buyer, or buyers, the City's net costs could be lowered by as much as one-half the
purchase price. Ongoing costs after a sale would be limited to periodic conservation easement
monitoring inspections,or approximately$500-1,OOOperyear. Allfundsfor theproject are derived
from sales tax revenues dedicated for natural area purposes and by any outside grant funding the
City is able to garner(in particular from Great Outdoors Colorado).
9
May 2, 2006
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 073, 2006, Authorizing the Conveyance of 441 Acres of
Land to the State Land Board Subject to a Conservation Easement in Exchange for 3,873
Acres of Land Located Within Soapstone Prairie Natural Area.
B. First Reading of OrdinanceNo. 074, 2006,AuthorizingtheLeaseofPortionsoftheBernard
Ranch Property to be Acquired by the City to the Bernards Through 2012.
This item includes two ordinances, each of which would authorize a real property transaction
related to the conservation and use of Soapstone Prairie Natural Area.
The first proposed transaction entails a trade of 441 acres within the Wellington community
separator for 3,873 acres of State Land Board property that lies within the boundary of Soapstone
Prairie Natural Area. The City will retain a conservation easement on the 441-acre parcel,
enforceable by the City, that restricts development to a total of twenty-three home sites. Three of
the home sites are already built out and the additional twenty home sites will be clustered on the
northwest corner of theproperty. The State Land Board will obtain various water rights associated
with the property. In addition to the 3,873 acres of land, the City will receive$811,000 in cash to
equalize the exchange values.
The second transaction entails a purchase of 1,760 acres over a seven-year period for total
consideration of$2,000,000. As portions of the "Bernard Ranch"are acquired, they will be leased
back to the seller for continued ranching activities. This lease requires City Council approval.
Ultimately, the property will be resold to conservation-minded buyers subject to a conservation
easement by which the City would limit development on the property.
BACKGROUND
The purpose of this background statement is two fold: (1) to inform Council and the public about
the specific transactions before the Council for consideration, and (2) to inform Council and the
public of the overall land conservation strategy at Soapstone Prairie Natural Area.
It is important to note these transactions are part of a finite action plan for conserving important
properties that protect the City's initial Soapstone investment. Several key transactions have
already taken place, and several more are contemplated. These transactions will ensure the best
possiblepublic access into Soapstone,and they will ensure there are no inholdings within Soapstone
that could cause future difficulties. They also ensure that the spectacular viewshed, recreation
opportunities, and wildlife qualities of Soapstone will be protected for the future.
The City acquired the 12,500-acre Soapstone Prairie Natural Area in 2004. At that time, there were
several landowners within the Soapstone boundary, including a 2,100-acre ranch owned by the
Roman family and the State Land Board's 3,873 acres. After the Soapstone purchase, the Roman
family approached the City's Natural Areas program and asked if the City would be willing to buy
10
May 2, 2006
its property—a portion of which is immediately adjacent to the Lindenmieir archaeological site.
In 2005, the City acquired the Roman property for$1,260,000, or$600 per acre.
In addition to the internal ownerships, there were/are several major land holdings at the northern
terminus of County Road 15. These "donut hole" properties are surrounded on three sides
respectively by Soapstone,Meadow Springs Ranch to the east,and the County-owned RedMountain
Ranch to the west. County Road 15 represents the most direct access into Soapstone from the city
of Fort Collins. Because the status of the road at its terminus has been disputed by some adjacent
property owners, staff believes that it is critical to eliminate access issues as much as possible by
acquiring rights-of-way as needed. The purchase and resale (with conservation easements) of
"donut hole"lands adjacent to County Road 15 will be extremely helpful in resolving these access
issues.
To date, staff has been successful in acquiring the Round Butte Ranch within the donut hole. Staff
applied for and received a Great Outdoors Colorado grant for the first half of the Round Butte
project and has anothergrant application pending. On thisparticular property,staffis hopeful that
the ultimate net cost ofacquiring the property and then reselling it with conservation easements will
be close to zero.
State Land Board Exchange
When the City acquired the Soapstone Prairie Natural Area, it negotiated a short-term agricultural
lease of 3,873 acres of State Land Board(SLB)property that lies within the City's deeded acreage.
The SLB and Natural Areas Program immediately began to discuss options for conveyance of the
SLB land to the City. An exchange of land, rather than a purchase arrangement, is strongly
preferred by both parties because it avoids the SLB's uncertain and difficult biddingprocess for the
purchase of SLB lands.
There are several motivations for the City and the SLB to exchange parcels:
1. There have been conflicts between other Colorado municipal open space
programs and the SLB over the use and disposition of SLB lands that are
being leased by the municipal open space programs. The City's Natural
Areas staff wanted to preclude the possibility ofany potential future conflict.
2. Acquisition of the SLB lands within Soapstone Prairie Natural Area
eliminates all inholdings from within the City's original purchase. This
provides strong protection for the City's substantial investments at
Soapstone.
3. The SLB was interested in acquiring an income producing property that
generated revenues in excess ofthe$9,409peryear it currently receives from
the City. The 441-acre property currently produces $85,000 annually from
the sod farm lessee.
11
May 2, 2006
In Spring 2005, the City's Natural Areas Program purchased a 441-acre parcel located in the
southwestern corner of the Wellington community separator. The total purchase price, including
land and water rights, was$5.4 million. The property was leased back to a sod farm operator and
the City receives $85,000 annually in lease revenues. The lease is renewable for up to 12 years.
After negotiating for over a year with the SLB, Natural Areas staff and the SLB have arranged an
exchange transaction that includes the trade of the 441-acre community separator parcel for the
3,873 acres of SLB inholdings. The City will retain a conservation easement on the 441-acre parcel
that restricts development to a total of twenty-three home sites. Three ofthe home sites are already
built out, the additional twenty home sites will be clustered on the northwest corner of the property.
The SLB will obtain various water rights associated with the property. In addition to the 3,873
acres of land, the City will receive$811,000 in cash to equalize the exchange values.
Importantly, the conservation easement on the 441-acre parcel will not preclude the City's Utilities
Department from rehabilitating an existing ditch on the western side of the property, or from
detaining historic, and possibly additional,food flows from the Upper Cooper Slough Basin on the
southwestern corner of the property.
Acquisition of Bernard Ranch
Staff has now been successful in placing another "donut hole"property under contract. The 1,760-
acre Bernard Ranch comprises a major portion ofthe County Road 15 terminus, as well as a very
important part ofthe spectacular viewshed from Soapstone. The City would acquire],760 acres in
seven specific parcels over a seven-year period for total consideration of$2,000,000. As each
parcel ofthe Bernard property is acquired, it will be leased back to the seller for continued ranching
activities until all parcels are acquired. This lease requires City Council approval. Ultimately, the
property would be resold to conservation-minded buyers who would agree to limit development,
precluding the possibility that the property would ultimately be sold in 40-80 acre parcels.
Moreover, the acquisition and resale ofthe Bernard property would resolve access issues that have
been raised regarding the use ofthe terminus of County Road 15 for public access into Soapstone.
Conclusion
Staff strongly recommends the SLB exchange transaction and the proposed Bernard lease-back.
Because the outright purchase of SLB lands is quite difficult, this exchange represents an unusual
and highly leveraged opportunity to protect the City's investment at Soapstone, while also
conserving an important parcel in the Wellington community separator. The acquisition (and
ultimate resale) of the Bernard Ranch enables the City to utilize the best public access into
Soapstone, while also conserving a wonderful viewscape and wildlife habitat."
City Manager Atteberry stated there would be a brief staff presentation.
John Stokes,Natural Resources Director,presented background information on the agenda item and
spoke regarding the activities of the natural areas program. He stated the Land Conservation and
12
May 2, 2006
Stewardship Plan allocated resources in the natural areas program to local areas,regional projects,
and community separators. The Soapstone Ranch was in the middle of the an ambitious land
conservation project in the northern part of the County. The idea was to try to "stitch together" a
relatively undeveloped connection between the mountains and the plains. The City partnered with
Larimer County, the Nature Conservancy, and a local land trust to put together the project with
publically held and privately conserved land. The City acquired the 12,500 acre Soapstone Prairie
Natural Area in 2004 and the City was now doing a cultural and biological inventory. Almost
$250,000 had been raised to do those inventories and the management plan would be developed
based on the inventory data in 2006. There would again be free tours of Soapstone in 2006. The
City was also working on road improvements in the area. He presented visual information showing
the natural area, the Lindenmeier archaelogical site, and the adjacent County natural area. He
reviewed the City and County land conservation efforts to date and stated the City was working to
eliminate the remaining inholdings within the Soapstone natural area and to secure the best access
into Soapstone from County Road 15. He presented visual information showing the current land
ownership patterns in the Soapstone area. The State Land Board exchange would involve the trade
of 441 acres of property for 3,873 acres of the Soapstone inholding. The City would receive a
conservation easement on the sod farm that would restrict developments to 23 home sites. He noted
20 of the home sites were clustered in the northwestern corner. The City would also receive
$811,000 to equalize the values of the exchanged lands. He presented visual information showing
the location of the sod farm in the southwestern comer of the Wellington Community Separator. He
presented visual information showing a map of the State Land Board land in the eastern portion of
the Soapstone Natural Area. This transaction would enable the conservation of two properties and
would eliminate potential future conflicts within Soapstone. The State Land Board would have a
higher lease payment on the sod farm and would bank the future value of development rights on the
property. The total cost would be about $4.5 million(about $1,000 per acre) and all funds would
be generated by Building Community Choices and the County's "Help Preserve Open Space"
program. The transaction would require adoption of an ordinance authorizing the transfer of the sod
farm to the State Land Board. The State Land Board had unanimously authorized the exchange and
the City's Land Conservation and Stewardship Board approved the exchange on April 12. The 1,760
acre Bernard Ranch was part of the "donut hole" at the terminus of County Road 15. The City
recently acquired an option on the property to acquire the ranch for$2 million over seven years. The
ranch would be leased back to the family for ranching over the seven years. The City planned to
seek support from Great Outdoors Colorado for each transaction during the seven years to buy-down
conservation values and development rights on the property. The property would eventually be sold
for ranching purposes and conservation easements would be placed on the property with the help of
Great Outdoors Colorado. The City would retain right-of-way need to access Soapstone. He
presented visual information showing the location of the ranch, County Road 15, and the City-
acquired Round View property. The Bernard Ranch would ensure best access on County Road 15,
protect the gateway into Soapstone, and conserve the viewshed for a low net investment. This
transaction requires an ordinance authorizing a lease-back to the Bernard family for cattle grazing.
The lease would terminate upon completion of the acquisition by the City. The Land Conservation
and Stewardship Board would formally consider this project at its next meeting prior to Second
Reading of the Ordinance. The Land Conservation and Stewardship Plan specified that about one-
third of available resources were to be allocated to each of the three categories of projects. The
13
May 2, 2006
allocation of resources was not evenly distributed at this time and the natural areas program would
be working to get that allocation back into balance and to allocate more toward local projects.
Kathleen Kilkelly,920 Inverness Road,Growth Management Area resident,stated this appeared to
be a "win-win" situation. She asked that Council evaluate "the means to these goals." She
supported the acquisition and protection of Soapstone and the conservation easement on the sod
farm. She asked Council not to"diminish"the importance of the community separators. The issue
was"balance"and these kinds ofmatters should be discussed before they became"done deals." She
expressed concern about future development by the State Land Board and questioned future zoning,
annexation and subdivision plans for the property. She expressed concerns about clustering of
development and stated she had concerns about the"long term repercussions"of this land exchange.
She urged the Council to acquire more natural areas in the northeast and spoke about the impact of
development in her area.
Mayor Hutchinson stated there would be separate discussion and voting on each of the items.
Councilmember Manvel noted the sod farm was adjacent to the Growth Management Area boundary
and close to some of the new subdivisions near Richards Lake and Douglas Road. He asked if there
would be a small subdivision of 20 homes on the property and if it would be developed in the
County. Greg Byme,CPES Director,stated there was no intent to annex the property or to move the
Growth Management Area boundary. It was anticipated that any future development of the property
would be done under County jurisdiction and regulations. Stokes stated there would be a potential
for 20 home sites on the northwestern corner of the property. Three other existing home sites were
on the eastern side of the property. The City did a visual preference survey and people were
comfortable with one house per 10 acres within the community separators. The proposed density
on this 440 acres would be less and the proposed houses would be clustered on the northwestern
corner. The conservation easement would be enforceable by the City in perpetuity. Byme stated part
of the reason for the clustering was to maintain the viability of the sod farm and to maintain the lease
income for the State Land Board.
Councilmember Manvel asked if there was any additional detail available about the clustering and
how much area could be used. Stokes stated the conservation easement specified that the
development must comply with County regulations in place at the time of development. He noted
development was not anticipated to occur soon and it was expected that the State Land Board would
want to capitalize on those sites for 10-20 years.
Councilmember Weitkunat stated some people may be confused about why there was money
available for this during a tight budget and asked staff to provide an explanation for the benefit of
the audience. Stokes stated the funding being used for the State Land Board exchange was generated
by Building Community Choices (a quarter-cent sales tax dedicated in part to the acquisition of
natural areas). Other funding came from a quarter-cent sales tax for the County known as "Help
Preserve Open Space." The City's natural areas program received about one-third ofits total funding
from that County tax. The City issued Certificates of Participation for regional projects such as
Soapstone so that money would still be available for community separators and local projects.
14
May 2, 2006
Councilmember Weitkunat asked for confirmation that none of the money would come from the
General Fund and the available funds could not be spent in other places. Stokes stated that was
correct. City Manager Atteberry stated these dollars could not be used for General Fund purposes
such as the library, Dial-a-Ride, etc.
Councilmember Kastein stated he personally would prefer to see the money spent on local projects,
community separators and regional projects in that order. He noted staff had indicated that resources
should be equally allocated for those three purposes. He asked if the policy direction was to spend
the money equally. Stokes stated the policy provided a "framework for spending" and was not
prescriptive. The policy provided that an effort would be made to distribute the dollars equally for
the three purposes over the course of about 10 years. The plan also articulated that the City should
take advantage of opportunities that became available. The allocation for regional projects was"just
about maxed out"and staff's focus would now be on local projects and community separators. The
allocations were"out of balance"and efforts would be made to achieve a balance within the ten-year
period (2004-2014). The allocations at this time were 6% for local projects, 57% for regional
projects and 37%for community separators. Those percentages would change as soon as the City
started spending money on local projects.
Councilmember Kastein asked if money would need to be spent on additional properties related to
Soapstone. Stokes stated the focus was on the "donut hole"properties. There were private lands
to the west that were inholdings within the Red Mountain property and the County was working on
acquisition of those lands.
Councilmember Kastein asked for clarification relating to the $4+ million cost to the City for the
land swap. He asked if this was due to the money the City paid to purchase the 441 acres. Stokes
replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Kastein asked for clarification regarding the net investment, noting that staff
indicated the City hoped to have a low net investment after GOCO grants were received. He asked
staff to estimate the net investment for the swap. Stokes stated the City bought the sod farm for
about$5.4 million and would trade it to the State Land Board for 3,800 acres plus $800,000. The
City's net investment would, therefore,be about $4.6 million(about $1,000 per acre).
Councilmember Kastein asked if any further revenue was anticipated from GOCO funding. Stokes
stated no further funding was anticipated on that particular project.
Councilmember Kastein asked for clarification that the City hoped to have a low net investment on
the second part of the transaction. Stokes stated GOCO grants must receive a minimum local match
of 25%. The best case scenario for the Bernard Ranch was a net investment of approximately
$300,000 if grants were received.
Councilmember Kastein asked why input had not yet been received on the second part of the
transaction from the Land Conservation and Stewardship Board. Stokes stated the issue was timing
15
May 2, 2006
and a full Council schedule. The Board was aware of the Bernard Ranch acquisition and would
formally consider it at the next Board meeting prior to Second Reading of the Ordinance.
Councilmember Roy made a motion,seconded by Councilmember Manvel,to adopt Ordinance No.
073, 2006 on First Reading.
Councilmember Kastein stated he recognized the importance ofthe Soapstone area and it made sense
to"complete that purchase." He did not favor spending this kind of money so far north of the City.
His approval of the ordinance was conditioned on the idea that the allocation for local projects would
be brought back into line as soon as possible.
Councilmember Manvel thanked staff for solving the State Land Board problem in an "ingenious
way." He would like to see a continued balance in allocation of resource for local, regional and
community separator projects.
Mayor Hutchinson commented the Soapstone purchase was controversial but this was land the
taxpayers could make good use of. Funds from the City and County open space taxes were
earmarked for this purpose and the funds could not be used for anything else.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein,
Manvel, Ohlson, Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Brown made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Ohlson, to adopt Ordinance
No. 074, 2006 on First Reading.
Councilmember Manvel thanked the Bernards and other ranchers who were making "financial
sacrifices"in some cases to help protect the land.
Councilmember Roy thanked staff for the hard work on fmding these types of opportunities. He
stated he trusted that a balance in allocations would happen. He appreciated being involved in this
"legacy building" for the future.
Councilmember Kastein thanked staff for working toward a low net investment on properties that
were worth millions of dollars and for actively looking for grant opportunities.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein,
Manvel, Ohlson, Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
16
May 2, 2006
Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 7:50 p.m.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
17
May 16,2006
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, May 16, 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, Harris, Roy.
Citizen Participation
Mayor Hutchinson stated each participant would have four minutes to speak.
Susan Grebel, 749 Blue Mountain Drive,objected to budget cuts to library services and supported
creation of a library district.
Nancy York, 130 South Whitcomb Street, asked the Council to make the 2007 budget discussions
more public and spoke regarding adequate funding for transit. She urged the City to do better at
energy conservation and recycling in City buildings.
Ralph Olson, 1701 Sheely Drive,supported a library district to meet library funding needs. He noted
the Library Board supported creation of a library district to solve the long-term funding problem.
Teresa McLain, 1508 West Elizabeth Street#304, spoke in support of a library district.
Bob Viscount, 1104 West Magnolia Street,commented on the proclamation relating to ALS month
and also spoke in support of library funding and a library district.
Al Baccili,520 Galaxy Court,opposed the Southwest Enclave Annexation and also opposed creation
of a library district through taxation. He commented on a newspaper article regarding"big raises"
for"high City officials"and stated money should go instead to the library and other funding needs.
He also spoke in opposition to the sales tax vendor fee and stated money should go toward City
funding needs. He stated the open space tax brought in$7 million per year and that money should
be used for other City needs.
Citizen Participation Follow-up
Mayor Hutchinson thanked those who spoke during Citizen Participation.
18
May 16, 2006
Councilmember Weitkunat stated a work session was scheduled for next Tuesday for discussion of
a library district and the future of the library and invited those interested to listen to that discussion.
Councilmember Ohlson stated the City's open space tax was a citizen initiative that passed
overwhelmingly and that the tax dollars were earmarked by the voters for open space. He stated the
article in the newspaper referenced by Mr. Baccili related to high pay raises for the County
Commissioners. City Manager Atteberry stated the Council approved an energy audit in the 2006
budget to look at efficient energy use in all City facilities. The intent was to identify potential energy
savings for City buildings.
Agenda Review
City Manager Atteberry stated item #16 Items Relating to the Mountain/Frey Rezoning and
Amendment to the West Side Neighborhood Plan and item#17 First Reading of Ordinance No. 082,
2006,Amending the ZoningMap of the City by Changing the Zoning Classification for that Certain
Property Known as the Willow Brook Parcel FRezoning were opportunities for public hearings and
that if any citizen wished to speak on either item it would be necessary to pull the item from the
Consent Calendar.
CONSENT CALENDAR
6. Consideration and Aporoval of the Minutes of the Anri14 2006 Regular Meeting
7. Postponement of Second Reading of Ordinance No. 071, 2006, Vacating Portions of the
Rights-of-Way as Dedicated on the Plat of Cameron Park Second Filing to July 18 2006
This Ordinance,which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on May 2,2006,vacates
the right-of-way for the frontage road in Cameron Park Second Filing, located west of
College Avenue, north of Cameron Drive. The Redtail development proposal, submitted
November 20, 2003, shows a different street layout than was originally platted in the
Cameron Park Second Filing. The right-of-way is no longer needed but the area will be
retained as a utility, drainage and public access easement.
Staff is asking that consideration of the Second Reading of Ordinance No. 071, 2006, be
postponed until July 18, 2006, after the Redtail project has been approved and recorded.
This is so the option can be preserved for the frontage road to continue if the proposed
Redtail project fails to be finalized and another proposal would want to utilize this
connection. Staff is working with the developer on this project and hopes to finalize the
details and plans soon.
19
May 16, 2006
8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 072, 2006, Vacating Portions of the Rights-of-Way as
Dedicated on the Plat of Cameron Park Second Filing
This Ordinance was unanimously adopted on First Reading on May 2, 2006 and vacates
portions of rights-of-way in Cameron Park Second Filing, located west of College Avenue,
on the west end of Cameron Drive. The Redtail development proposal,submitted November
20, 2003 shows a different street layout than was originally platted in the Cameron Park
Second Filing. Therefore, the rights-of-way for the streets are no longer necessary.
9. Items Relating to Land Conservation at Soapstone Prairie Natural Area
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 073, 2006, Authorizing the Conveyance of 441
Acres of Land to the State Land Board Subject to a Conservation Easement in
Exchange for 3,873 Acres of Land Located Within Soapstone Prairie Natural Area.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 074, 2006,Authorizing the Lease of Portions of
the Bernard Ranch Property to be Acquired by the City to the Bemards Through
2012.
This item includes two ordinances,each ofwhich authorize areal property transaction related
to the conservation and use of Soapstone Prairie Natural Area. Both Ordinances were
unanimously adopted on First Reading on May 2, 2006.
The first transaction entails a trade of 441 acres within the Wellington community separator
for 3,873 acres of State Land Board property that lies within the boundary of Soapstone
Prairie Natural Area. The City retains a conservation easement on the 441-acre parcel,
enforceable by the City, that restricts development to a total of twenty-three home sites.
Three of the home sites are already built out and the additional twenty home sites will be
clustered on the northwest corner of the property. The State Land Board obtains various
water rights associated with the property. In addition to the 3,873 acres of land, the City
receives $811,000 in cash to equalize the exchange values.
The second transaction entails a purchase of 1,760 acres over a seven-year period for total
consideration of$2,000,000. As portions of the"Bernard Ranch"are acquired,they will be
leased back to the seller for continued ranching activities. This lease requires City Council
approval. Ultimately,the property will be resold to conservation-minded buyers subject to
a conservation easement by which the City would limit development on the property.
10. First Reading of Ordinance No.075.2006 Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the General
Fund for Cultural Development and Programming Activities and the Fort Collins Convention
and Visitor's Bureau.
This Ordinance appropriates lodging tax revenues that were in excess of 2005 budgeted
lodging tax receipts to Cultural Development and Programming ("CDP'), Visitor Events,
20
May 16, 2006
and the Convention and Visitors Bureau("CVB")accounts. Lodging tax revenue for 2005
was estimated to be$593,122 and the 2006 budget appropriated an equal amount. However,
actual receipts totaled $668,499 for 2005 and the difference of $75,377 has not been
appropriated.
11. First Reading of Ordinance No. 076,2006.Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue in
the Cultural Services and Facilities Fund to Be Used for Research and Documentation of the
Soapstone Natural Area.
The City was awarded a $147,563 grant from the National Park Service. This Ordinance
appropriates that grant money in the Fort Collins Museum's Soapstone Natural Area grant
project.
12. First Reading of Ordinance No. 077.2006 Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue in
the Cultural Services and Facilities Fund to Be Used for Repatriation of Human Remains and
Cultural Artifacts in the Holdings of the Fort Collins Museum
The City was awarded two grants from the National Park Service for $16,375. This
Ordinance appropriates the grant money in the Fort Collins Museum's Native American
Graves Protection and Repatriation Act("NAGPRA")Repatriation grant project.
13. First Reading of Ordinance No. 078, 2006. Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the
Street Oversizing Fund and Authorizing the Transfer of Appropriations from the Street
Oversizing Fund to the Capital Project Fund - Lemav Avenue Trilby Road to Carpenter
Road Capital Project.
Intersection and arterial street improvements are planned for Lemay Avenue, from Trilby
Road south to Carpenter Road(approximately 5280 linear feet). These street improvements
will include the widening of Lemay Avenue to a four-lane arterial street from its existing
two-lane configuration, and interim widening at the Lemay/Carpenter intersection to
accommodate auxiliary turn lanes. The City's Pavement Management Program is
coordinating rehabilitation and overlay work on Lemay Avenue with the intersection and
arterial improvements. Roadway improvements include the installation of curb-and-gutter,
asphalt paving, bike lanes, some landscaped medians, and storm and sanitary sewers. The
construction is planned to begin in July 1, 2006 and be completed on November 16,2006.
14. First Reading of Ordinance No. 079 2006 Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the
Wastewater Fund for the Pu_ ose of Purchasing Prop=.
The Wastewater Utility has a time sensitive opportunity to purchase land. This can be
achieved by utilizing prior year reserves.
21
May 16, 2006
15. First Reading of Ordinance No. 080,2006,Authorizing the Lease of City-Owned Property
at 200 West Mountain Avenue, Suite C. For Up to Five Years.
The Fort Collins Technology Incubator(FCTI) provides critical business assistance to the
most promising high tech startup companies in the community. As part of its service,FCTI
offers below market lease space to its client companies. In 2004, the Council approved
Resolution 2004-069, which authorized the lease of City-owned property at 200 West
Mountain, Suite C,to FCTI and its clients. This Ordinance would allow the lease to FCTI
and its participants to continue for up to five years.
16. Items Relating to the Mountain/Frey Rezoning, and Amendment to the West Side
Neighborhood Plan.
A. Resolution 2006-052 Amending the Westside Neighborhood Plan Pertaining to the
Frey Subdivision.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 081,2006,Amending the Zoning Map of the City of
Fort Collins by Changing the Zoning Classification for That Certain Property Known
as the Mountain/Frey Rezoning.
This is a rezoning request for most of the Frey Subdivision (approximately 11.6 acres) to
change the zoning from the L-M-N, Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhood, District
designation to the N-C-L,Neighborhood Conservation Low Density,District designation and
making an amendment to the West Side Neighborhood Plan by changing the subject area on
the "Future Land Use" map of the Plan from the "Retain or Convert to Multi-Family"
classification to the "Retain or Convert to Single Family" classification. The request
represents a resident initiated rezoning(downzoning)that acknowledges the manner in which
the subject area has developed. The Advance Planning Department is also an applicant for
the rezoning because Section 2.9.3 of the Land Use Code limits rezoning requests to be
"proposed by the Council,the Planning and Zoning Board,the Director or the owners of the
property to be rezoned." Not all property owners within the subject area(Frey Subdivision)
have signed the rezoning petition and the Advance Planning Department determined that the
rezoning request should be considered for the whole subject area and not a checkerboard
pattern of parcels owned just by the signers of the rezoning petition. The portion of the Frey
Subdivision not included in the rezoning request is the original Block 2 Lot 12, a 1.2 acre
parcel that was redeveloped in May 1983 as the Mountain Court Planned Unit Development
(PUD) for 10 townhome units and retaining the existing single-family home on the parcel.
17. First Reading of Ordinance No. 082, 2006, Amending the Zoning Man of the City by
Changing the Zoning Classification for that Certain Property Known as the Willow Brook
Parcel F Rezoning.
This is a request to rezone a .28 acre parcel from L-M-N, Low Density Mixed-Use
Neighborhood, to U-E, Urban Estate. The parcel is a remnant created by the curving
22
May 16, 2006
alignment of Rock Creek Drive platted as part of the Willow Brook Subdivision. This
curvature is necessary in order to create a future intersection of Rock Creek Drive with
Strauss Cabin Road that is not in conflict with the steep grades associated with the Fossil
Creek Reservoir Inlet Ditch. Upon rezoning, it is proposed that Parcel F be made a part of
Lot One of Sunrise Ridge First Filing.
18. First Readine of Ordinance No. 083,2006,Designating the Ernest and Anna Meyer House
309 East Mulberry Street. Fort Collins. Colorado, as a Fort Collins Landmark Pursuant to
Chapter 14 of the City Code.
The owner of the property,Linda J.Bova,is initiating this request for Fort Collins Landmark
designation for the Ernest and Anna Meyer House. The property qualifies for designation
as a Fort Collins Landmark under Preservation Standard (3), embodying the distinctive
characteristics of a type, period, and method of construction, and contributing to the
historical and architectural significance of Fort Collins. Built in 1905 by Ora E. Long,this
brick dwelling is a very nice example of Late 19th-Early 20th century Eclectic residential
architecture, with distinctive"Pagoda"influence. The home is listed on both the National
Register ofHistoric Places and the Colorado Register ofHistoric Properties,as a contributing
element of the Laurel School National Register District.
19. Resolution 2006-053 Adopting the Recommendations of the Cultural Resources Board
Regarding Fort Fund Disbursements.
The guidelines for the Cultural Development and Programming and Tourism Programming
accounts (Fort Fund)provide a three-tiered funding system. Organizations may apply for
grants from these accounts to fund community events. Tier#1 was established as an annual
programming fund for organizations whose primary purpose is to present three or more
public events annually. These groups may apply for funding from Tier#1 each April. Tier
#2 allows organizations that are not eligible for Tier#1 support to apply for funding of events
that are not fund-raising in nature and do not generate more than $5,000 in proceeds after
expenses. Tier#3 allows organizations that are not eligible for Tier#1 support to apply for
funding of events that generate more than$5,000 in proceeds after expenses and are fund-
raising in nature. Applications for support from Tier #2 and Tier #3 are accepted each
January and June.
Disbursements from funds in the City's Cultural Development and Programming and
Tourism Programming accounts were recommended by the Cultural Resources Board at its
regular meeting of April 26, 2006. Adoption of this Resolution will approve the
recommended disbursements.
23
May 16, 2006
20. Resolution 2006-054 Approving Expenditures from the Art in Public Places Reserve
Account in the Cultural Services and Facilities Fund to Commission an Artist to Create Art
Elements for the CSU Transit Center Project.
This Resolution approves expenditures of$65,936 for design, materials, installation and
contingency for a project with artist David Griggs to create multiple art elements for the CSU
Transit Center Project.
21. Resolution 2006-055 Approving Expenditures from the Art in Public Places Reserve
Account in the Cultural Services and Facilities Fund to Commission an Artist to Create Art
Elements for the Northside Aztlan Community Center Project
This Resolution approves expenditures of$78,037 for design, materials, installation and
contingency for a project with artist Carolyn Braaksma to create multiple elements for the
Northside Aztlan Community Center Project.
22. Resolution 2006-056 Approving Expenditures from the Art in Public Places Reserve
Accounts in the Storm Drainage Utiliky Fund to Commission an Artist to Create a Sculptural
Element for the City Park Sheldon Lake Shoreline
This Resolution approves expenditures of$67,006 for design, fabrication, installation and
contingency for a project to install a sculptural element by Brower Hatcher Studios on the
shoreline of City Park's Sheldon Lake.
23. Resolution 2006-057 Nominating Mayor Doug Hutchinson as a Candidate to the Executive
Board of the Colorado Municipal League.
This Resolution formally endorses the nomination ofMayor Doug Hutchinson as a candidate
to the Executive Board of the Colorado Municipal League. Council believes Mayor
Hutchinson would make an excellent candidate for the Executive Board and this Resolution
expresses its support of his nomination.
24. Resolution 2006-058 Making an Appointment to the Housing Authority
The resident commissioner position on the Housing Authority currently is vacant due to the
resignation of Mary Greeley. The Board of Commissioners of the Housing Authority,
including Councilmember Karen Weitkunat,has made a formal recommendation to request
Council appoint Stephanie Barratt to the vacant resident commissioner seat. The term will
begin immediately and is set to expire on December 31, 2010.
***END CONSENT***
24
May 16, 2006
Ordinances on Second Reading were read by title by Chief Deputy City Clerk Harris.
8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 072, 2006, Vacating Portions of the Rights-of-Way as
Dedicated on the Plat of Cameron Park Second Filing.
9. Items Relating to Land Conservation at Soapstone Prairie Natural Area.
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 073, 2006, Authorizing the Conveyance of 441
Acres of Land to the State Land Board Subject to a Conservation Easement in
Exchange for 3,873 Acres of Land Located Within Soapstone Prairie Natural Area.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 074, 2006, Authorizing the Lease of Portions of
the Bernard Ranch Property to be Acquired by the City to the Bemards Through
2012.
Ordinances on First Reading were read by title by Chief Deputy City Clerk Harris.
10. First Reading of Ordinance No.075,2006,Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the General
Fund for Cultural Development and Programming Activities and the Fort Collins Convention
and Visitor's Bureau.
11. First Reading of Ordinance No. 076,2006,Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue in
the Cultural Services and Facilities Fund to Be Used for Research and Documentation of the
Soapstone Natural Area.
12. First Reading of Ordinance No. 077, 2006, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue in
the Cultural Services and Facilities Fund to Be Used for Repatriation ofHuman Remains and
Cultural Artifacts in the Holdings of the Fort Collins Museum.
13. First Reading of Ordinance No. 078, 2006, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the
Street Oversizing Fund and Authorizing the Transfer of Appropriations from the Street
Oversizing Fund to the Capital Project Fund - Lemay Avenue, Trilby Road to Carpenter
Road Capital Project.
14. First Reading of Ordinance No. 079, 2006, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the
Wastewater Fund for the Purpose of Purchasing Property.
15. First Reading of Ordinance No. 080,2006, Authorizing the Lease of City-Owned Property
at 200 West Mountain Avenue, Suite C,For Up to Five Years.
16. First Reading of Ordinance No. 081, 2006, Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Fort
Collins by Changing the Zoning Classification for That Certain Property Known as the
Mountain/Frey Rezoning.
25
May 16, 2006
17. First Reading of Ordinance No. 082, 2006, Amending the Zoning Map of the City by
Changing the Zoning Classification for that Certain Property Known as the Willow Brook
Parcel F Rezoning.
18. First Reading of Ordinance No. 083,2006,Designating the Ernest and Anna Meyer House,
309 East Mulberry Street, Fort Collins, Colorado, as a Fort Collins Landmark Pursuant to
Chapter 14 of the City Code.
28. Items Relating to the Completion of the Spring Cycle of the Competitive Process for
Allocating City Financial Resources to Affordable Housing and Community Development
Activities Utilizing the Federal Community Development Block Grant Program and Home
Investment Partnership Program Grants,and the City's Affordable Housing Fund and Human
Services Program.
C. First Reading of Ordinance No.084,2006,Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue and
Authorizing the Transfer of Appropriations Between Program Years in the
Community Development Block Grant Fund.
D. First Reading ofOrdinance No.085,2006,Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue and
Authorizing the Transfer of Appropriations Between Program Years in the Home
Investment Partnerships Fund.
29. First Reading of Ordinance No. 086, 2006, Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Fort
Collins by Changing the Zoning Classification for That Certain Property Known as the
Spring Creek Farms Rezoning.
30. First Reading of Ordinance No. 087,2006,Amending Chapter 3 of the City Code to Allow
Alcohol Beverage Tastings
31. Items Relating to the Amendment of the Appeals Process Contained in Chapter 2,Article II,
Division 3 of the City Code.
A. First Reading of Ordinance No.088,2006,Making Various Amendments to Chapter
2,Article II Division 3 of the City Code Pertaining to the Appeals Process.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No.089,2006,Amending Chapter 2,Article II,Division
3 of the City Code with Regard to the Grounds upon which Appeals to the City
Council are Decided.
C. First Reading of Ordinance No.090,2006,Amending Chapter 2,Article II,Division
3 of the City Code Pertaining to the Filing of Appeals by Members of the City
Council.
26
May 16, 2006
Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Weitkunat, to adopt and
approve all items on the Consent Calendar. Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein,
Manvel, Ohlson,Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Consent Calendar Follow-up
Councilmember Kastein spoke regarding item #13 First Reading of Ordinance No. 078, 2006,
Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the Street Oversizing Fund and Authorizing the Transfer
of Appropriations from the Street Oversizing Fund to the Capital Project Fund-Lemay Avenue,
Trilby Road to Carpenter Road Capital Project. He asked that staff provide information regarding
whether the project was in the City limits.
Councilmember Manvel commented on item #15 First Reading of Ordinance No. 080, 2006,
Authorizing the Lease of City-Owned Property at 200 West Mountain Avenue, Suite C, For Up to
Five Years and stated this was for the technology incubator. City Manager Atteberry stated Council
would receive the incubator's annual report in the Thursday packets.
Staff Reports
City Manager Atteberry recognized the work of Cameron Gloss and Kathleen Bracke, who were
presenters at the American Planning Association annual national conference. He also reported the
City had been listed as#6 in the Frommer's book Best Places to Raise Your Family and by the June
Kiplinger Magazine as one of the 50 best places to live. He reported the Fort Collins Museum had
hosted a visit from the producers of Discovery Channel Europe doing research on flash floods who
were interested in the Museum's exhibit on the Fort Collins flood; approximately 1,500 Poudre
School District fourth graders attended the annual rendezvous in which the Mayor participated;and
a French film maker visited the Museum last week to research the Calamity Jane collection.
Mayor Hutchinson spoke regarding the work of the Museum on the rendezvous.
Councilmember Reports
Councilmember Weitkunat reported on discussions at the City-School District-County monthly
liaison meeting regarding the school resource officer program,Poudre School District boundary and
schools of choice issues, the library district, and the County's criminal justice center ballot issue.
She stated London had sent six police officers to Fort Collins to study the school resource officer
program.
Councilmember Kastein reported on discussions of the North Front Range Air Quality and
Transportation Planning Council regarding park `n ride improvements funding, adding SAINT to
the list of approved transportation carriers eligible for federal funding, and the upcoming
transportation summit. He also reported he was hosting an upcoming District meeting.
27
May 16, 2006
Items Relating to the Completion of the Spring Cycle of the
Competitive Process for Allocating City Financial Resources to
Affordable Housing and Community Development Activities
Utilizing the Federal Community Development Block Grant Program
and Home Investment Partnership Program Grants, and the
City's Affordable Housine Fund and Human Services Program,Adopted
The following is stairs memorandum on this item.
"FINANCIAL IMPACT
The Community Development Block Grant("CDBG')Program and Home Investment Partnership
("HOME') Program provide Federal funds from the Department of Housing and Urban
Development("HUD')to the City ofFort Collins which can be allocated to housing and community
development related programs and projects, thereby reducing the demand on the City's General
Fund Budget to address such needs. City funds for this item were appropriated as part of the
Affordable Housing Fund and the Human Services Program in December, 2005.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A. Resolution 2006-059 Approving the Programs and Projects that Will Receive Funds from
the Federal Community Development Block Grant Program and Home Investment
Partnership Program Grants and the City's Affordable Housing Fund and Human Services
Program.
B. Resolution 2006-060 Approving the FY 2006 Home Investment Partnerships Program for
the City of Fort Collins.
C. First Reading of Ordinance No. 084, 2006, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue and
Authorizing the Transfer of Appropriations Between Program Years in the Community
Development Block Grant Fund.
D. First Reading of Ordinance No. 085, 2006, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue and
Authorizing the Transfer ofAppropriations Between Program Years in the Home Investment
Partnerships Fund.
These Resolutions and Ordinances will complete the spring cycle of the competitive process for
allocating City financial resources to affordable housing projects/programs and community
development activities (CDBG/HOME/Affordable Housing/Human Services funds).
BACKGROUND
The two Resolutions relate to funding under the CDBG and HOME Programs and available City
funds.
28
May 16, 2006
Resolution 2006-059 establishes which programs and projects will receive finding with CDBG
fends for the FY 2006 Program year, which starts on October 1, 2006, and the use of
Reprogrammed CDBG Entitlement Grant funds, CDBG Program Income,funds from the FY2006
HOME Grant, Unprogrammed FY 04 HOME Grant Funds, HOME Program Income,f ends from
the HOME FY 04-05 Community Housing Development Organization Set Aside and finds from the
City s Affordable Housing Fund and Human Services Program. The CDBG Commission presents
a list of recommendations as to which programs and projects should receive funding.
Resolution 2006-060 establishes the major funding categories within the HOME Program for the
FY 2006 Program year, which also starts on October 1, 2006. Specific projects for the use of
HOME funds will be determined in November as a result of the fall fending cycle ofthe competitive
process for the allocation of the City's financial resources to affordable housingprograms/projects
and community development activities.
The following table summarizes the amount and sources ofavailable fends:
AMOUNT SOURCE
$1,037,758 FY 2006 CDBG Entitlement Grant
39,012 Reprogrammed CDBG Funds
62,000 CDBG Program Income
306,981 Unprogrammed FY05 HOME Funds
51,312 Unprogrammed FY 04-05 HOME CHDO Funds
74,541 FY 2006 HOME Grant and Program Income for Administration
237,931 Affordable Housing Fund(previously appropriated in December,
2005)
332,000 Human Services Program (previously appropriated in December,
2005)
$2,141,535 Total Funding Available
Unprogrammed funding is the amount ofgrant fiends available from a fiscal year federal grant that
has yet to be allocated to a specific project.Reprogrammed funding is the amount ofgrant funds that
were previously allocated to a projects) but have been returned to the City due to failure to
complete the project(s).
The CDBG Commission presents recommendations as to which programs and projects should
receive funding from the available finding sources presented above. The following tables present
the allocations recommended by the Commission to the City Council within each major category:
29
May 16, 2006
PLANNING AND ADMINISTRATION
Applicant Funding Commission's Unfunded
Project/Program Request Recommendation Balance
PA-1 City of Fort Collins $74,541 $74,541 $0
HOME Administration
PA-2 City of Fort Collins $112,306 $212,306 $0
CDBG Administration
The HOME FY 2006 Grant and Program Income totals $745,419. HUD regulations limit a
maximum of 10%for Administrative purposes, or$74,541.
The CDBG FY 2006 Entitlement Grant and Program Income totals$1,099,758. HUD regulations
limit a maximum of20%ofthesefundsforPlanningandAdministrativepurposes, or$219,952. The
recommended amount of$212,306 represents $19.3%of the maximum 20%allowed. The amount
of CDBGfunds beingproposed for administrative purposes for FY2006 is not significantly different
than the amount used in FY 2005. The higher percentage for administrative purposes is due to a
10%reduction in the City s Entitlement Grant amount.
AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND PUBLIC FACILITIES
Applicant Funding Commission's Unfunded
Project/Program Request Recommendation Balance
HO-1 FCHC- Village on $324,964 $300,000 $24,964
Swallow Rehabilitation
HO-2 FCHA -First Step Rental $229,920 $194,912 $35,008
Assistance for Homeless and (Grant) (Grant)
Near Homeless Families
HO-3 Accessible Space, Inc. $350,000 $350,000 $0
Supportive Housing Phase II
HO-4Redstone Village $341,800 Withdrawn by
Apartments request ofapplicant
HO-5 CARE Housing "Green $700,000 $400,000 $300,000
Built"Land Acquisition
PF-1 Harmony House Visitation $7,025 $7,025 $0
Center Window Rehabilitation
30
May 16, 2006
Excepted as noted above, all funding recommendations in the Affordable Housing and Public
Facilities category are in the form of a "Due on Sale Loan + 5%Simple Interest."
PUBLIC SERVICE
Applicant Funding Commission's Unfunded
Project/Program Request Recommendation Balance
PS-1 FCHC $60,171 $0 $60,171
Case Management
PS-2 Springfield Court $18,000 $18,000 $0
Sliding Scale Assistance (CDBG grant)
PS-3 Springfield Court $10,400 $10,400 $0
Pre-School Assistance (CDBG grant)
PS-4 B.A.S.E. Camp Sliding $33,815 $33,815 $0
Scale Assistance (CDBG grant)
PS-5 RVNA Home Health Care $35,000 $25,000 (HSPgrant) $10,000
PS-6 Elderhaus Therapy Center $21,000 $16,920 (HSP grant) $4,080
PS-7 ELTC $20,000 $20,000 $0
Employment Skills (CDBG grant)
PS-8 PS-S $18,000 $18,000 $0
Service for Single Parents (CDBG grant)
PS-9 United Way $35,000 $35,000 (HSPgrant) $0
HPI Rent Assistance
PS-10 VOA Meal Program $14,600 $14,600 (HSPgrant) $0
PS-11 Neighbor-to-Neighbor $61,120 $58,599 (HSP grant) $2,521
Housing Counseling
PS-12 DRS $20,002 $20,002 $0
Access to Independence (HSPgrant)
PS-13 Neighbor-to-Neighbor $15,000 $15,000 $0
Rent Assistance (HSP grant)
PS-14 NCAP $19,000 $16,409 (HSPgrant) $0
Case Management $2,591 (CDBG grant)
PS-15 CCN Shelter Operations $42,158 $42,158 (CDBG $0
grant)
31
May 16, 2006
Applicant Funding Commission's Unfunded
Project,Program Request Recommendation Balance
PS-16 CCN Senior Services $15,000 $0 $15,000
PS-17 Turning Point STEP $16,000 $0 $16,000
PS-18 Respite Care $20,000 $20,000 $0
Sliding Scale Assistance (CDBG grant)
PS-19 Food Bank Kids Cafe $15,472 $15,472 (HSPgrant) $0
!, PS-20 LCMH Case Manager $25,000 $0 $25,000
PS-21 United Day Care $60,500 $60,500 $0
Sliding Scale Assistance (HSP grant)
PS-22 United Way 2-1-1 $35,300 $0 $35,300
PS-23 Crossroads Safehouse $46,800 $36,400 $10,400
Advocacy Program (HSP grant)
PS-24 Women's Resource Center $18,098 $18,098 (HSP grant) $0
PS-25 CASA Harmony House $7,856 $0
Scholarship
The CDBG FY 2006 Entitlement Grant and Program Income totals $1,099,758. HUD regulations
limit a maximum 15%ofthesefunds,or$164,964,for use in the Public Services category. The City s
Human Services Program adds$332,000 for use in the category,for a total of$496,964 ofavailable
funding.
Asummary ofthe Commission's funding recommendations by category is presented in the following
table:
Recommended %of Total Category
Funding
$ 286,847 14.1°%a CDBG and HOME Administration
$1,244,912 61.2% Affordable Housing
$ 7,025 .3% Public Facilities
$ 496,964 24.4% Public Services
$2,035,748 100.0% Total
32
May 16, 2006
The CDBG Commission has recommended that $2,035,748 of the available funding amount of
$2,141,535 be allocated leaving a balance of$105,787. The Commission recommends all of the
funds from all sources be utilized except for$105,787 from the FY2006 CDBG Entitlement Grant.
The $105,787 will be carried over and will be available for allocation in the fall cycle of the
competitive process.
The City's HOME Participating Jurisdiction Grant of$645,419 and the unanticipated HOME
Program income of$100,000, less$74,541 which is being expended on administrative expenses as
identified above, will be available for allocation in the fall cycle of the competitive process. "
Mayor Hutchinson stated there were two Resolutions and two Ordinances to be considered. There
would be one opportunity for a staff presentation and one opportunity for citizens to address all of
the items. He would then entertain a motion to adopt the two Resolutions and a motion to approve
the two Ordinances.
City Manager Atteberry introduced the agenda item and stated there would be a staff presentation.
Ken Waido,Chief Planner,presented background information regarding the agenda item. He stated
there was slightly more than$2.1 million available for allocation from the funding sources and 33
applications for close to$2.6 million were received. Not all of the applications could be funded and
some could not be fully funded. He outlined the review and recommendation process and stated the
Council was the final decision maker regarding funding allocations. The CDBG Commission's
recommendations were that about 61% of the money be allocated to affordable housing programs
(slightly more than$1.2 million),that public and human resources receive about 25%of the money,
that some money be allocated for administrative purposes, and that one public facility be funded.
He stated staff and the chair of the CDBG Commission were available to answer any questions.
David McDanel, Disabled Resource Services, thanked the City Council for fimding for the
organization.
Emily Zaynard,Crossroads Safehouse,thanked the CDBG Commission for recommending funding
for the organization and spoke regarding the services provided by Crossroads Safehouse.
Valerie Baker-Easley,Homeless Prevention Initiative Director,expressed appreciation for funding
for the organization.
Chadrick Martinez, CARE Housing Executive Director, encouraged the Council to approve the
recommendation for affordable housing funding.
Linda Preston, BASE Camp Executive Director, thanked the Council and CDBG Commission for
the allocation of dollars for the program.
Helen Somersall, Catholic Charities Northern Regional Director, urged the Council to support the
public services portion of the funding recommendation.
33
May 16, 2006
Sherry Talbot, Respite Care Executive Director, urged Council to approve the recommended
funding.
Anne Porter,United Day Care Center Executive Director,expressed appreciation for funding for the
organization.
Councilmember Roy made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Manvel, to adopt Resolution
2006-059 and Resolution 2006-060.
Councilmember Weitkunat stated this program was a"plus"for the City and the CDBG Commission
had a "rigorous criteria-driven" approach to determining allocations. The Council held a work
session with the Commission on the recommended allocations. She thanked the Commission for
its "excellent work"on developing recommendations.
Councilmember Roy stated there had been a lengthy work session on this and the CDBG
Commission's hard work had been"thorough."
Councilmember Ohlson thanked those who spoke and commented that the CDBG program appeared
to be "under assault"at the federal level while there were"more needs"every year. He stated the
money did an "incredible amount of good work", thanks to the organizations and the CDBG
Commission.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein,
Manvel, Ohlson, Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Weitkunat made a motion,seconded by Councilmember Ohlson,to adopt Ordinance
No. 084, 2006 and Ordinance No. 085, 2006 on First Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers Brown,
Hutchinson, Kastein, Manvel, Ohlson,Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Items Relating to Spring Creek Farms
Rezoning and Amendment to the Structure Plan Failed
The following is staffs memorandum on this item.
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A. Resolution 2006-061 Amending the City's Structure Plan Map.
34
May 16, 2006
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 086, 2006, Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Fort
Collins by Changing the Zoning Classification for That Certain Property Known as the
Spring Creek Farms Rezoning.
APPLICANT: Jim Sell Design, Inc.
do Dave Shoup
153 West Mountain Avenue
Fort Collins, CO 80524
OWNER: SC Group Investments, LLC
6300 South Syracuse Way, Suite 293
Englewood, CO 80111
This is a request to amend the City Plan Structure Plan map and a concurrent request for a
corresponding rezoning. Staff fends the amendment to the Structure Plan to be inconsistent with the
vision,goals,principles and policies of City Plan. The Structure Plan amendment is not warranted
since the existing mix of retail and service uses found within the Rigden Farm Neighborhood
Commercial Center located directly across Timberline Road provides sufficient goods and services
necessary to sustain nearby neighborhoods. The rezoningfails to satisfy the criteria ofSection 2.9.4
of the Land Use Code.
The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows:
N.• MMN and E; Vacant. Planned and approved City Police Administration Building
I' Recently approved retail and industrial (Timberline Center) and existing
industrial uses
S: RL; Meadows East Neighborhood(single family housing),
SE: NC; The Shops at Rigden Farm Neighborhood Commercial Center
MMN,' Rigden Farm multifamily housing
LMN,' Rigden Farm multifamily and single family housing, Timberline Church
E: MAN.- Multi family and single family housing (Sidehill), Cargil seed research
facility
W RL; Existing Parkwood East neighborhood, UPISP Railroad
tracks, city trail running adjacent(west on the railroad tracks
NW- MMN,' Parkwood East Apartments,
POL; Edora Pool and Ice Center, Edora Park, Spring Creek Trail.
The property was annexed in November 1997 as a portion of the "Timberline Annexation. "
The property was later zoned in 2001, as part of the larger 55-acre Johnson Farm Rezone at the
northwest corner of Timberline Road and Drake Road. This larger property was rezoned from T-
Transition to a combination ofMMN(30 acres), LAN(18.6 acres)and E-Employment(7.2 acres).
35
May 16, 2006
The present 5-acre Spring Creek rezone request represents a portion of the Johnson Farm property
included within the 2001 rezoning.
In the 2001 rezoning, a market analysis of the site based on (then) current and future land use
inventory and absorption rates was submitted as one of a number of considerations. The market
analysis concluded that "this location is at competitive disadvantagefor retail or employment uses
because it has no direct connection to I-25"and that "nearby retail development in Rigden Farm
will provide an attractive convenience to prospective residents within walking distance ofthis site".
During the review of the 2001 rezone request, when the subject property received MMNzoning, the
staff and Planning and Zoning Board concluded that:
the location ofMMN is appropriate given the close proximity to the Neighborhood
Commercial Center in Rigden Farm with the MMN neighborhood supporting the
commercial uses and vice versa;
• the site is well suited for MMN uses because it is on a designated future high
frequency transit route; and
the location is well suited for MMN uses because of the close proximity to
employment centers along Prospect, further south on Timberline, and along
Harmony Road.
Recently, a request for a 93,000 squarefoot Citypolice servicesfacility was approved on 7.53 acres
located approximately 250 feet north of the requested rezoning area on a parcel located at the
southwest corner of Timberline Road and Nancy Gray Drive.
The Planning and Zoning Board approved the Timberline Center Project Development Plan in
December 2005, a mixed use project located just north of the proposed Police Services
Administration Building and within the I-Industrial zone district. Specific non-residential and non-
industrial uses within the Timberline Center include a convenience shopping center,general office,
bank, and standard and fast food restaurants. Total gross leasable square footage within the entire
development is 179,200 square feet.
Land Use Code:
The regulations covering rezonings in the City of Fort Collins are contained in Division 2.9 of the
Land Use Code. Section 2.9.4 (H) (2) indicates the following:
Mandatory Requirements for Quasi-Judicial Rezonings. Any amendment to the
Zoning Map involving the zoning or rezoning ofsix hundredforty(640)acres ofland
or less (a quasi-judicial rezoning) shall be recommended for approval by the
Planning and Zoning Board or approved by the City Council only if the proposed
amendment is:
(a) consistent with the City Comprehensive Plan; and/or
36
May 16, 2006
(b) warranted by changed conditions within the neighborhood surrounding and
including the subject property.
Section 2.9.4 (H) (3) of the Land Use Code indicates the following:
Additional Considerations for Quasi-Judicial Rezonings. In determining whether to
recommend approval of any such proposed amendment, the City Council may
consider the following additional factors:
(a) whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment is compatible with
existing and proposed uses surrounding the subject land, and is the
appropriate zone district for the land;
(b) whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in
significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment, including, but not
limited to, water, air, noise, stormwater management, wildlife, vegetation,
wetlands and natural f nctioning of the environment;
(c) whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in a
logical and orderly development pattern.
APPLICANT'S REQUEST AND JUSTIFICATION:
Dave Shoup of Jim Sell Design, Inc., an authorized representative of the property owner, has
submitted a rezoning petition and corresponding request to amend the Structure Plan.
A summary of the applicant's reasons for the request is captured below. The applicant's more
detailed written statement, along with corresponding City Plan policies and financial analyses, are
attached.
• The proposed amendment would slightly expand the physical size of the
existing NC zone and bring the MMNzone closer to a 114 mile depth on the
northerly boundary. This would result in a more logical and orderly
development pattern.
• The existing RL neighborhood to the west represents 800 acres of housing
with no access to existing or planned centers between the Prospect/Lemay
Center and the Harmony Corridor without crossing a major north-south
arterial street.
• Expanding the NCzone across Timberline willprovide convenient accessfor
the existing RL neighborhoods to the west and easy in-out access for south
bound traffic on Timberline and west bound traffic on Drake. The net effect
will be a reduction in vehicle miles traveled.
37
May 16, 2006
• Expanding the NC zone across Timberline will allow more goods and
services to be available to bicyclists from the west without crossing a major
arterial street.
• Expanding the NC zone across Timberline will allow more goods and
services to be available to pedestrians from the west without crossing a
major arterial street.
• The planned and existing neighborhoods west of Timberline will be much
better served if there are NC uses also on the west side of Timberline.
• The currentMMNzoning on the west side of Timberline extends north nearly
a half-mile from Drake. This would be brought more in line with this Policy
if the subject property were rezoned to NC.
• The existing RL neighborhood and the currently MMN district to the west,
have no access to the existing Rigden Center without crossing Timberline.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
City Plan Structure Plan Map Minor Amendment:
The City Structure Plan, an element of the City s comprehensive plan, is a map that sets forth a
basic pattern of development, showing how Fort Collins should grow and evolve over the next 20
years. The map designates the L-shaped subject parcel at the northwest corner of Drake and
Timberline Roads as Medium Density Mixed Use Neighborhood.
The applicant's request is to redesignate the property as "Neighborhood Commercial Center".
Review Criteria for Structure Plan Minor Amendments
Appendix C of City Plan outlines mandatory requirements for public notice, review process and
evaluation criteria for minor amendments to City Plan, including Structure Plan map amendments.
The Plan text states:
`A plan amendment will be approved if the City Council makes specific findings
that:
The existing City Plan and/or related element thereof is in need of the proposed
amendment; and
Theproposed plan amendment will promote thepublic welfare and will be consistent
with the vision,goals,principles and policies of City Plan and the elements thereof. "
38
May 16, 2006
Relevant Principles and Policies of City Plan:
PRINCIPLE MMN-3:ANeighborhood Commercial Center will provide uses to meet
consumer demands from surrounding Residential Districts for everyday goods and
services, and will be pedestrian-oriented places as a focal point for the surrounding
neighborhoods.
Policy MM7V-3.1 Land Uses/Grocery Store Anchor. A grocery store, supermarket,
or other type of anchor(e.g., drugstore) should be the primary functional offering
of these Centers. A mix of retail,professional office, and other services oriented to
serve surrounding neighborhoods are the secondary offerings. The Neighborhood
Commercial Center will provide locations for some limited auto-related uses.
Policy MMN-3.2 Surrounding Neighborhoods. The Neighborhood Commercial
Center should be integrated in the surrounding Medium Density Mixed-Use
Neighborhood, contributing to the neighborhood's positive identity and image.
Residents should be able to easily get to the Center without the need to use an
arterial street.
The strength ofthe applicant's justification for rezoning lies in City Plan's emphasis on bicycle and
pedestrian mobility. Policy MMN-3.2 clearly states that "(r)esidents should be able to easily get to
the Center without the need to use an arterial street". The applicant correctly points out that
residents of the surrounding Parkwood, Parkwood East and Meadows East neighborhoods must
cross either Timberline Road or Lemay Avenue to access the neighborhood-scale commercial
centers that serve their neighborhoods: The Shops at Rigden Farm and Scotch Pines Shopping
Center. It is acknowledged that recent Timberline Road improvements include enhanced crosswalks,
but the relatively high existing traffcspeeds and volumes,makes thepedestrian and bicycle crossing
experience safe, but not particularly desirable. With Timberline potentially widened to 6 lanes in
the future, crossing Timberline on foot or by bike will become more challenging.
The applicant also makes a case that the rezoning will bring the development pattern more in line
with the policy regarding the size of the MMN district. Policy MMN-2.1:stipulates that an MMN
district "should extend an average ofabout one-quarter(114)ofa mile from the edge ofthe adjacent
Neighborhood Commercial Center... " While the applicant accurately states that the MMN district
extends beyond 114 mile(actually 113 mile where the applicant has incorrectly stated Y,mile)north
of the NC district on Drake Road, the impact of the new Police Services building has not been
accounted for. The Police Services building, which is defined as a "community facility", is located
within the MMNzone district.Ifthe Police Services site were netted out ofthe district, since it is not
a residential use, the resulting MMN district is almost exactly 114 mile in length.
The applicant has submitted a market analysis, demographic profile and current retail inventory
(documents attached) contending the existing NC zoning at Rigden Farm does not satisfy
commercial demand within a 1.5 mile radius trade area. The market analysis concludes that a need
exists for an additional 182,000 square feet of commercial space. In part, the Applicant attributes
39
May 16, 2006
this to the transfer of three(3)acres of the Rigden Farm development zoned NC as a senior housing
development that will not be developed for commercial uses, and that no other additional land
within the trade area is available to satisfy commercial demand.
While the applicant has made a good point about the challenges to bicycle and pedestrian access
to existing neighborhood centers, other fundamental City Plan polices outweigh and override this
particular concern.
Staff contends a change in the Structure Plan is not warranted primarily given the existence of the
Shops at Rigden Farm. This new commercial center, located diagonally across the intersection from
the property,fu6611s the basic consumer demands needed to serve multiple neighborhoods located
within a one mile radius. The center provides the land development pattern and uses described in
City Plan. Tenants include a King Soopers supermarket with a pharmacy, a freestanding bank,gas
station, restaurants, and several existing and future inline retailers providing a range ofgoods and
services.
In fact, the applicant's submitted Market Conditions Map(labeled Exhibit E in Attachment 3)quite
clearly substantiates staff'sposition. The map shows how Neighborhood Commercial Centers have
been strategicallyplaced to capture the market within a short vehicle commute and can also readily
allow for alternative travel methods, while limiting their location so as to enhance the economic
strength ofNC districts so they are able to provide high quality amenities, and site and architectural
design, as envisioned under City Plan.
The submitted market analysis is flawed with respect to use of a 1.5 mile trade area radius versus
a one-mile trade area radius, and the lack ofattention given to otherpotential non-residential uses
within the immediate area. If a one-mile trade radius is utilized for Neighborhood Commercial
centers within this quadrant of the community, area residents are clearly served by existing and
planned neighborhood scale commercial centers. Those residing closer to Lemay Avenue, for
example, are conveniently located near the Scotch Pines Shopping Center, which is anchored by the
Sunflower Market and provides several other essential services. Similarly, the approved(but not
constructed) Harmony School Shops at the northeast corner of Timberline and Harmony will
provide a full range of services to neighborhoods south of Horsetooth Road. The study failed to
incorporate planned retail, restaurant and service uses provided within the recently approved
Timberline Center, located 114 mile north ofthe subject property, and within the approved Sidehill
neighborhood center planned across the street and approximately '/s mile to the north.
Ifthe applicant desires to provide trulysecondary and supportive commercial uses within the MMN
zone district, the existing zoning provides additional opportunities. First, the Code allows up to
15% of the MMNzoned property for `secondary uses", including Personal and Business Service
Shops. Such uses are defined as "shops engaged in providing services generally involving the care
of the person or such person's apparel or rendering services to business establishments such as
laundry or dry cleaning retail outlets, portrait/photographic studios, beauty or barber shops,
employment service, or mailing or copy shops". Second, the Land Use Code was amended this past
year to make provision for small-scale restaurants, deli's, coffee shops, and similar uses to be
40
May 16, 2006
incorporated into mixed-use buildings within the MMN zone under specific size and operational
limits.
The segment of Timberline Road between Harmony Road to Conifer (extended) has also been
designated as an Enhanced Travel Corridor (ETC) within the Comprehensive Plan. An ETC
provides high frequency/high efficiency travel opportunities, including transit services that link
activity centers within the City. The Rigden Farm Neighborhood Center provides special design
opportunities, including a future bus stop and a site plan with enhanced pedestrian access to and
from the future bus stop located along Timberline Road.
Since there is no adopted Subarea or Corridor Plan for the Timberline road frontage, staff relies
on the Structure Plan andzone district designations toprovide guidance. The direction ofthese two
documents points to a concentration ofretail rather than along street frontages i.e., the area is not
zoned C, Commercial because the community is trying to avoid replication of the pattern of
commercial development along major arterial streets.
Request to rezone from Medium Density Mixed Neighborhood, M-M-N to Neighborhood
Commercial, NC—Section 2.9.4(H):
The request to rezone from MMN to the NC zone district is considered quasi-judicial (versus
legislative) since the parcel is less than 640 acres. There are f ve standards that maybe used in
evaluating a request for a quasi-judicial rezoning. These standards, and how the request complies,
are summarized below:
A. Any amendment to the Zoning Map shall be recommended for approval only
iftheproposed amendment is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan;
and/or.
As stated above under the Structure Plan amendment analysis, staff has
concluded that the proposal is inconsistent with the principles and policies
of City Plan.
B. Any amendment to the Zoning Map shall be recommended for approval only
if the proposed amendment is warranted by changed conditions within the
neighborhood surrounding and including the subject property.
Changes to the immediate area since 2001, when the property was zoned
MMN, including improvements to Timberline Road and anticipated Police
Services building, do not trigger the need to rezone the property. The
recently constructed Shops at Rigden Farm, located diagonally across the
intersection from the property,fulfills the basic consumer demands needed
to serve multiple neighborhoods located within a reasonable distance.
Tenants ofthis Center include a King Soopers supermarket with a pharmacy,
a freestanding bank gas station, and several existing and future inline
41
May 16, 2006
retailers providing a range of goods and services. Further, the Timberline
Center, which was approved in December 2005 forpropertyjust north ofthe
Police Services Administration Building,provides additional services within
the Timberline Road corridor.
C Whether and the extent to which theproposed amendment is compatible with
existing and proposed uses surrounding the subject land, and is the
appropriate zone district for the land.
As mentioned, the proposed NC zone district is not an appropriate zone
district given the property's proximity to the NC district in place cater-
cornered from the site and the other opportunities for non-residential
opportunities already afforded within the MMNzone district.
D. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in
significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment, including but not
limited to, water, air, noise, stormwater management, wildlife, vegetation,
wetlands and the natural functioning of the environment.
There is no evidence that the rezoning will result in significant adverse
impacts to the natural environment.
E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in a
logical and orderly development pattern.
The rezoning is inconsistent with the development pattern envisioned under
the City s Structure Plan. This City Structure Plan configuration for
Neighborhood Centers is a different approach to commercial area design
than the past. Structure Plan limitations have been a response to
proliferation of commercial developments along arterial streets. The limits
focus commercial services in a way that best address the aesthetic and urban
form implications, as well as traffic impacts, brought about by strip
development oriented to arterial streets.
Findings of Fact/Conclusion:
In evaluating the request to amend the Spring Creek Farms Structure Plan minor amendment and
rezone, Staff makes the following findings offact:
A. The Structure Plan amendment is not warranted since the existing mix ofretail and service
uses found within the Rigden Farm Neighborhood Commercial Center located directly
across Timberline Road provides sufficient goods and services necessary to sustain nearby
neighborhoods. Further, the Rigden Farm Neighborhood Center has been effectively
integrated with an overall street pattern, design and scale that is compatible with the
42
May 16, 2006
surrounding neighborhoods and not segregated from them, and has been designed in a
manner that fosters transit service for the Center and surrounding neighborhoods.
B. The proposed Structure Plan amendment and rezone is not supported by the City s
Comprehensive Plan policies and will not promote the public welfare.
C. There are no changed conditions within the neighborhood surrounding and including the
subject property that warrant the rezone.
D. The proposed rezoning is not compatible with the existing and proposed uses surrounding
the subject land, and is not the appropriate zone district for the land.
E. The proposed rezoning will not result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural
environment.
F. The proposed rezoning does not result in a logical and orderly development pattern.
NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATIONMEETING
Although quasi-judicial rezone applications are exempt from the neighborhood meeting
requirements, a neighborhood meeting was held to discuss the rezoning and structure plan
amendment on March 2, 2006. A summary of this meeting is attached. In general, area residents
provided a mixed response to the applicant's request. Some residents expressed support for
providing retail and restaurant uses closer to their neighborhood, allowing convenient access to
services without negotiating the Drake and Timberline intersection. Others questioned the need for
additional retail uses along the Timberline frontage and expressed a fear that the minor rezoning
request would `open the door"for future commercial rezonings within the area. In the opinion of
some residents, the rezoning might increase the intensity of traffic and decrease the level ofsafety.
During the course ofthe meeting, there was considerable discussion about the anticipated increase
in traffic volumes along Timberline Road in the future,particularly in light of the upcoming road
widening project, and a fear that associated safety and congestion issues will be exacerbated as the
area becomes more developed.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the following:
A. Denial of the requested Structure Plan Map amendment from Medium Density Mixed Use
Neighborhood to Neighborhood Commercial Center on a 5.05 acre parcel located at the
northwest corner of Timberline and Drake Roads.
B. Denial of the requested rezoning from MMN,Medium Density Mixed Use Neighborhood to
NC, Neighborhood Commercial on a 5.05 acre parcel located at the northwest corner of
Timberline and Drake Roads.
43
May 16, 2006
PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD RECOMMENDATION
The Planning and Zoning Board, at its regular monthly meeting on April20, 2006, voted 4-1 (Fries
opposed;Stockover and Meyer absent)to recommend denial to the City Council ofthe change to the
City Plan Structure Plan map and denial of the requested rezoning. The rezoning request was
originally scheduled for the March 16,2006hearing,but was continued for one month at the request
of the applicant.
Public testimony was limited to that provided by one resident of the Parkwood neighborhood who
expressed support for the applicant's request. "
Mayor Hutchinson asked the City Attorney to provide a framework for discussion.
City Attorney Roy stated this involved a quasi-judicial decision in which the Council would conduct
a public hearing and decide how established criteria should be applied to a specific case. The Code
established the criteria that were to be applied to rezoning applications and applications for
amendments of the City Structure Plan. The criteria for a rezoning were as follows: there were two
mandatory requirements that the requested zone district must either be consistent with the City's
Comprehensive Plan, or it must be warranted by changed conditions within the neighborhood
surrounding and including the subject property, or both. There were additional considerations:
whether, and the extent to which, the proposed amendment was compatible with existing and
proposed uses surrounding the subject land, and whether it was the appropriate zone district for the
land; whether, and the extent to which, the proposed amendment would result in significantly
adverse impacts on the natural environment,including but not limited to air,water,noise,stormwater
management, wildlife, vegetation, wetlands, and natural functioning of the environment; and
whether, and the extent to which, the proposed amendment would result in a logical and orderly
development pattern. When a zone district was requested that was not consistent with the existing
Structure Plan,Council was presented with a proposed amendment to the Structure Plan. If Council
believed the requested rezoning was appropriate, the Structure Plan would need to be amended to
make the rezoning consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The criteria for amending the Structure
Plan were: the existing City Plan (or related element of City Plan) was in need of the proposed
amendment;and the proposed amendment would promote the public welfare and be consistent with
the vision, goals,principles,and policies of City Plan and its elements. The agenda item summary
included the principles and policies the staff believed were relevant and had led to the formulation
of the staff recommendation. There were two separate but related decisions: (1)whether to amend
the Structure Plan,which would depend on whether the Council believed that the proposed change
was necessary and would be consistent with the policies; and(2)the rezoning,using the described
criteria.
Mayor Hutchinson stated the two items would be handled as two separate motions and actions and
there would be one staff presentation and one opportunity for citizen comments on one or either of
the issues.
44
May 16, 2006
Cameron Gloss,Current Planning Director,stated this was a request to rezone a 5.05 acre parcel on
the northwest comer of Drake and Timberline Roads from MMN - Medium Density Mixed Use
Neighborhood to NC - Neighborhood Commercial. He presented visual information showing an
aerial photograph of the L-shaped site and its surroundings. In 2001, there was a request for
rezoning from Employment to MMN along the east half of the site, LMN as a transition to the
Parkwood neighborhood to the west, and Employment on the north end for the original 55 acre
Spring Creek Farms property. He presented visual information showing a one-quarter mile radius
and noted the applicant had made some statements about that distance. He noted it was almost
exactly one-quarter mile from the NC designation across the street to the edge of this property,with
the exception of the Police Services Building,which was largely in the MMN zone and which was
permitted as a community facility in that zone district as a secondary use. Staff believed the size of
the MMN district in this case satisfied the City Structure Plan and the policy stating the MMN
district should extend approximately one-quarter of a mile from the NC district. He presented visual
information showing the other zoning designations in the area. He stated the present designation of
MMN was primarily a residential district with detached and attached residential units. In December,
the Council approved a Code change that would allow a greater amount of secondary uses of a
commercial nature(coffee shops,delis, small scale restaurants, etc.)with small size. Convenience
retail (personal and business services)was also permitted. He stated 15%of the zone district was
permitted to have those types of uses. The NC zone was more intensive and allowed a wide range
of goods and services to be provided,primarily at the neighborhood scale. Those uses were typically
anchored by a grocery store or supermarket. He presented visual information showing the most
recently constructed neighborhood center(The Shops at Rigden Farm)and surrounding parcels. The
applicant had made a number of arguments about this proposal and staff had reviewed related City
Plan and policies. Policy MMN-3.2 provided that: "Residents should be able to easily get to the
center without the need to use an arterial street." This was an issue for NC centers at arterial
intersections when the intention was to serve four or five neighborhoods whose residents would have
to cross an arterial to reach the center. He presented visual information showing pedestrian routes
from nearby developments to the site and the Rigden Farm center. He presented a graphic depicting
the one-mile service area for the neighborhood center. He stated other centers were existing,
proposed, or approved and not yet built within the Timberline corridor. He presented visual
information showing the overlap in one-mile service areas and stated staff believed there was good
coverage for services to be provided under the existing zoning and approvals. Staff understood the
applicant's arguments relating to pedestrian/bicycle accessibility. He stated"on balance"the staff
believed that the existing condition with the NC center at the Rigden Farm satisfied needs for basic
goods and services for this area. Staff acknowledged there were many changing conditions since
2001 and believed the NC center designation had been satisfied with the present zoning. Staff felt
that there was no need to change the Structure Plan.
Mayor Hutchinson stated at a recent work session, the Council expressed a desire to give the
applicant 10 minutes to speak in these types of situations. He stated the applicant would have 10
minutes to speak and others would have five minutes to speak.
Peter Cudlip, SC Group Investments, LLC, 5460 South Quebec Street, Greenwood Village,
representing the applicant, stated the applicant was requesting a zoning change from MMN to NC
45
May 16, 2006
for the five acres on the northwest comer of Drake and Timberline Roads and an amendment to the
City's Structure Plan. The Council had information comparing MMN and NC, and the Council
packet also included a list of uses that would be covenant restricted. Those uses would be restricted
as a result of input received at meetings with representatives of the two HOAs. He stated 980 people
from the surrounding area were invited to the general meeting and the applicant was only required
to invite 184. The City received only one negative comment and the person making that comment
supported the application at the Planning and Zoning Board hearing. The applicant agreed to deed
restrict the property from undesirable NC uses i.e., bars and taverns, fuel stations, auto repair and
drive-through restaurants. The applicant was asking for the zoning change and Structure Plan
amendment for the following reason: five acres of Commercial could be built in the MMN zone but
the MMN zone was too restrictive. Restaurants were only allowed up to 1,400 square feet, but a
normal neighborhood restaurant was 2,000 to 4,500 square feet. Until the recent change in the
allowed uses in the MMN zone, the applicant could not even have a coffee shop. Even with the
recent changes there could not be a breakfast restaurant. MMN would also not allow for general
retail and would only allow personal services retail. The neighborhood and the Police Services
employees would need expanded uses so they would not have to cross Timberline,which was being
widened. He stated staff had verified that not one square foot of Commercial had been built in nine
years in the MMN zone. This meant that no sales tax had been generated from the MMN zone.
Changed conditions warranted modifying the Structure Plan. The new Police Administration
Building was being built in the MMN zone, not in the Employment zone, and the widening of
Timberline had created the need for a neighborhood center that would allow general retail,
neighborhood restaurants,and a gathering place that would be accessible without having to cross one
of the largest intersections in Fort Collins. There was a need for additional NC zoning. The
applicant's studies showed a need for an additional 180,000 square feet of retail in the market area.
Staff supported using a one-mile radius for all neighborhoods i.e.,a"one size fit all approach for the
entire City"regardless of the zoning mix and the market area. The applicant had developed over 4.5
million square feet of retail and analyses were done on population density, disposable income,
employment base,and traffic patterns in the market areas. Not all neighborhoods were the same and
a 1.5 mile market area was used to determine the market area demand. Three acres of the Rigden
Farm NC was being used for senior housing and that this equated to 20,000 square feet of retail that
would not be developed in Rigden Farm. The recently approved Timberline Center to the north was
in an Industrial zone and would be self-storage and automotive uses with a coffee shop and a quick
serve restaurant. It would not be a neighborhood center catering to the neighborhood and would not
be easily accessible from the neighborhood. The Summerhill Commercial across Timberline and
to the north was zoned LMN. It was not built and had no tenants and would have a problem with
developing under the LMN zoning. Ifthe zoning change was approved,the applicant would develop
a 35,000 square foot center in four buildings that would be a pedestrian-friendly, cohesive
neighborhood center overlooking a water feature at the corner of Drake and Timberline Roads. NC
was needed across the street from Rigden Farm because the new 96,000 square foot Police
Administration Building was being built and would employ up to 400 people. There was no
neighborhood center servicing this area that was accessible without crossing the arterial street.
Timberline Road would be one of the widest arterials in Fort Collins and would be unsafe to cross
for pedestrians and bicycles. The City had previously allowed NC zoning across arterials. The
landowners of the balance of Spring Creek Farms had agreed there would be no more Commercial
46
May 16, 2006
development on the remaining property. This would not create another Commercial strip like
College Avenue. The project would have 650 feet fronting Timberline Road, 600 feet of MMN
zoning would be residential,and the Police Administration Building would be 600 feet of frontage.
There was residential across Timberline Road, to the south (west of Timberline Road) was
residential, and across the street was Rigden Farm. The application met one or more of the criteria
required under Section 2.9.4 of the Land Use Code. The request was consistent with the City's
Comprehensive Plan;changed conditions warranted modifying the City's Structure Plan;there were
other places in the City with NC zones across arterials;the new Police Administration Building and
the widening ofTimberline Road had greatly changed the complexity of the neighborhood;there was
a market demand for additional services; walking across Timberline would be less pedestrian-
friendly after the widening was completed; the rezoning request was compatible with existing and
proposed uses surrounding the subject land; this would be the appropriate zone district; that
undesirable uses would be deed restricted; and the services could not be provided under MMN
zoning. Market analyses showed there was enough demand for both Rigden Farm and this project.
Adding additional retail would create "synergy" between the two locations. There would be no
negative impact to the environment and it would provide the ability for people to bike and walk to
a neighborhood center instead of driving. The rezoning would result in a logical and orderly
development pattern and would generate new sales tax revenue amounting to about $315,000 per
year for the City. The City did not have a PUD process to allow determination of an exact zone and
it was necessary to go from MMN to NC and restrict the uses.
Brock Chapman,SC Group Investments, 10766 East Crestline Circle,Englewood,property owner,
supported the application. He stated the Timberline adequate public facilities requirements restricted
development in this entire area. The property owner was one of two groups of property owners that
stepped forward to work with the City to fund a $2.3 million shortfall to go forward with the
Timberline Road improvements and formation of a special improvement district. The property
owner was contacted about a year ago by the City Real Estate Services Department regarding a
location for the Police facility. The property owner had six weeks to put together a transaction for
the City to acquire the 10 acres for the Police Administration Building. The property owner
recognized this would change the character of the project. The property owner was assured by staff
of"cooperation" in evaluating project needs because of the changed conditions. The Facilities
Department informed the property owner this was the single largest capital project of its kind in the
history of the City. He pointed out it"constituted a changed condition"to be in the middle of a 48
acre community. One of the strongest arguments for this rezoning was to allow pedestrian and
bicycle access for this future community and for everyone in Parkwood East and Parkwood. The
property owner was in full support of the application.
Jim Sell, 1737 Norwood Lane,asked ifhe would be allowed to speak. He stated his firm represented
the applicant and he was also a resident of the neighborhood. He stated he would like to "speak as
a neighbor."
City Attorney Roy stated this was allowable.
Mayor Hutchinson stated Mr. Sell would have five minutes to speak.
47
May 16, 2006
Mr. Sell stated this was a neighborhood that was not"walkable." It was difficult to cross Timberline
to get from his neighborhood to Rigden Farm. It would be possible to walk the Power Trail to get
to this new project. He did not believe this project would have a negative impact on Rigden Farm.
There were two square miles of residential in this area with no Commercial activity except at the
corner of Prospect Road and Lemay Avenue. This project would be a "convenience" to the
neighborhood.
City Manager Atteberry stated he would like to address one of the issues brought up by the property
owner. He stated the City had enjoyed a"positive relationship"with the property owner of this site.
He was confident the property owner would agree that in reaching past agreements for acquisition
of the Police site the City did not make a commitment to any particular outcome relating to a
Structure Plan change or rezoning. The Council's decision should be based on the criteria outlined
by the City Attorney earlier.
Councilmember Kastein stated the City Manager's statement was supported by the fact that staffwas
recommending against the rezoning. He asked about the testimony regarding changed conditions
resulting from the new Police building with 400 employees. He stated the argument that there was
a need to provide food and other services through a Commercial development was "compelling."
He asked where those people would receive service if this development did not occur. Gloss stated
they would be able to obtain service at the Ridgen Farm center or the approved Timberline Center
250 to the north,which would have Commercial uses(including restaurants)on the easterly half of
the parcel. He stated it was staff s opinion that those two centers would satisfy the needs of
individuals working at the Police building.
Councilmember Kastein asked about the map showing the areas of influence of the commercial
centers. He asked if any"empirical analysis"had been done to see if customers for such centers
actually come from the one-mile radius. Gloss stated he was not aware of any detailed market
analysis. He stated the market had been"responding"by building centers in those locations. It was
staff s understanding that the market was supporting development of grocery store anchored NC
centers.
Councilmember Kastein asked if staffhad any issues with the applicant's study of the market except
for the fact that the applicant used a 1.5 mile radius. Gloss stated the same argument could be made
for other centers. In the Structure Plan the City had determined that between 15 and 20 acres was
the appropriate size. The Rigden Farm center was about 17 acres. Staff did not see a need for this
project. The entire east side of Illinois Drive was designated NC but not yet developed. There was
therefore additional capacity available within the Rigden Farm center.
Councilmember Kastein stated he felt it was necessary to "test" City documents against real
situations and market conditions. He noted the applicant had market data to show that in the overlap
area there was enough population to support more than one center. Staff appeared to believe that
City Plan's one-mile guideline should still be followed. Gloss replied in the affirmative.
48
May 16, 2006
Councilmember Brown asked if there was a traffic feasibility study since that seemed to be an issue.
Gloss stated there was a consultant's report on a traffic analysis that was part of the application. The
determination was that it would meet the requirements of the adequate public facilities ordinance.
Councilmember Brown asked if there was a traffic issue relating to access to the property with the
widening of Timberline ifthis property was to be rezoned. Gloss stated when the Spring Creek Farm
rezoning occurred in 2001 and the Sidehill property was master planned the City looked carefully
at access along Timberline and determined the spacing for roadways. The access road spacing would
be the same regardless of the zoning on this property and was based on the flow of traffic on
Timberline. This determination took future widening into consideration.
Councilmember Brown asked if this would be an issue for the property if it was rezoned. Gloss
replied in the negative.
Councilmember Ohlson noted that the Planning and Zoning Board and staff were recommending
denial. He stated City Plan should"mean something"and there should be predictability. Aside from
this and"fairness"to Rigden Farm,he was trying to determine why it would matter if the Structure
Plan and the rezoning were to be changed in this case. He asked how"important"this denial was
to staff. Gloss stated the basic tenets of the NC designation and Commercial development in general
in City Plan called for a different approach. Instead of promoting Commercial development along
arterial streets in a linear fashion, City Plan called for concentrating centers and providing
neighborhood centers with a full range of services. The intent was that these centers would have
"critical mass,"public gathering spaces, architectural quality and uniqueness. The vision was that
neighborhood centers should be true gathering places for four or five neighborhoods. The Rigden
Farm developer spent a substantial amount of money and energy to provide the desired amenities.
Staff felt that this was`very important." In this case,staff did not believe there was a need to change
the Structure Plan. Existing development would provide the desired amount ofneighborhood service
and provide the desired amenities and connectivity. Greg Byrne, CPES Director, supported the
statement made by Gloss.
Councilmember Weitkunat noted five acres would be taken from the MMN zone ifthis rezoning was
approved. She stated the assumption was that a particular use was desired that would not be possible
in the current zone district. Gloss stated the applicant had expressed this in testimony before the
Planning and Zoning Board and the Council. The Code had been changed to add some uses to the
MMN zone and provide more flexibility. The MMN zone district was intended to be predominantly
residential. Byrne stated staff was concerned that the MMN zone be a mixed use district and there
would be potential to do other things. Staff also had a concern about the MMN district"bleeding
off'the nonresidential intensity that was necessary to get the kind of center described earlier. Best
practice was to designate those areas and"hold to them"so that the centers would work. Allowing
Commercial to "bleed out"along the arterials would mean that such centers would never be built.
Councilmember Weitkunat stated the request was for NC zoning and the applicant had expressed
a willingness to place deed restrictions on over 19 uses allowed in the NC zone. This indicated to
her that the "applicant really doesn't want an NC zone"but instead "wants a particular use."
49
May 16, 2006
Councilmember Kastein noted staffhad presented concerns about"bleeding off'the MMN zone and
had indicated residential was needed to support the Commercial center. He noted the zoning was
Employment until a few years ago and suggested that people in the Employment district would also
have used the Commercial. Byrne stated there were a limited number of retail or support services
allowed in the Employment district to preserve the concentration of employment base and to provide
an intensity of retail development in centers.
Councilmember Weitkunat stated that since 19 NC uses were not wanted and because this was a
five-acre site,it appeared that NC was not really what was desired. It appeared that a restaurant and
retail use was what was desired. She asked if there was anyway to achieve that through the planning
process without a zoning change i.e., a variance, modification, etc. Gloss stated the Fort Collins
Code did not allow conditional uses or use variances. The Code provided a list of approved uses for
the district. The two options in this case were to rezone or to stay with the present zoning.
Councilmember Brown ask if the area to the west was platted with lots laid out. Gloss stated there
was a preliminary subdivision plat for that area and that the plat was not finalized and recorded.
Councilmember Brown noted that there were 118 lots and asked about the average number ofpeople
per household in Fort Collins. Gloss stated there were approximately 2.3 people per household.
Councilmember Brown stated there would be about 300 residents at some point,plus 400 working
at the Police Administration Building. He noted it would be difficult for that many people to cross
the street to go to a retail center. Gloss stated that was an argument for the rezoning and this logic
could be applied to other places in the City as well. This argument could lead to a pattern that was
not envisioned by the City i.e., that there should be NC on all four comers of such intersections.
Councilmember Manvel stated it would be difficult for pedestrians to cross the wide street. One
issue on the other side of the argument was that there could be a destination restaurant or retail store
at this location and people would have to cross the street from the other side to get to this location.
He believed the issue of having to cross the street was therefore a`wash."Having the retail center
on one side of the street made it possible for people who were there to go from one store to another
by foot or bicycle without having to cross the street. Gloss stated it would also provide the critical
mass in terms of size and amenities to "create a place."
Councilmember Manvel noted staffhad mentioned that Rigden Farm had gone beyond the minimum
standards to make the project work. He noted there was empty space there and that building another
center across the street did not seem to be "City Plan."
("Secretary's Note: The Council took a brief recess at this point.)
Mayor Hutchinson stated the applicant would be given two minutes to present additional information
"in the interest of fairness."
50
May 16, 2006
Mr. Cudlip stated as the applicant he was not able to present information about the project that was
envisioned,while staffwas allowed to use examples such as Rigden Farm to illustrate neighborhood
centers. He stated the applicant intended to create the kind of project that would "create a place"
with a water feature and a gathering place for the neighborhood. This should be considered. It was
also important to note the one person who sent a letter of opposition to the Planning Department
ended up supporting the project because of the design. His company was one of the largest retail
developers in Colorado and was knowledgeable about trade and market areas and demand. The
applicant's market study showed that there was enough demand for Rigden Farm and the applicant's
project.
Mayor Hutchinson asked if the Council should consider such issues. City Attorney Roy stated the
Council could consider everything that had been said on both sides of the issue. He noted the criteria
were listed in the agenda item summary. The general rule was that applicants hold off on presenting
information on proposed plans until the Project Development Plan stage. The issues for Council to
discuss included changed conditions and compatibility with existing and proposed uses. It was
appropriate to talk about approved plans that were built or submitted. With regard to an applicant's
future applications of a Project Development Plan, there was no assurance that the particular plan
would be filed. Staff generally suggested Council not rely upon representations about what might
be filed but rather look at the kinds of uses that were permitted or existing in one zone district or the
other. The other concern about talking about future applications for PDPs was that Council may
have to hear on appeal the approval or denial of a PDP, which meant there was a need for the
Council to remain impartial. He suggested Council look at the criteria,determine what was relevant
and make a determination based on the criteria. City Manager Atteberry asked Gloss to give a
clarification regarding his response to Councilmember Weitkunat's question. Gloss stated
Councilmember Weitkunat had asked whether there was a use variance process available to the
applicant to limit the type of uses. His response was the City did not have a use variance process or
a conditional use permit, and this was correct. Potentially the Council was empowered to agree to
some kind of terms that would limit the uses. Staff did not recommend using that approach due to
administrative difficulties. City Attorney Roy stated conditional zoning and rezoning was possible.
Staff was concerned this could set a precedent and undermine the predictability of City Plan by
making everything"negotiable."
Councilmember Weitkunat stated it appeared that in 2001 at the time of the Johnson Farm Rezoning,
the NC center was already on the property and the NC was removed from the Structure Plan at that
time, based on the applicant's desire to do something else. Gloss stated that was correct and the
decision was made to shift it to the southeast corner.
Councilmember Weitkunat stated that was the clarification she needed. She asked if the NC was
originally on the west side of Timberline on this site. Byrne replied in the negative and stated it was
on the north side of Drake Road east of Timberline Road. At that time there were two large vacant
pieces of property,a neighborhood center was being established at the intersection,and Timberline
would become a six-lane arterial. It was true that Timberline was now being widened but when the
Structure Plan was adopted it was based on the plans for the wider road. The neighborhood retail
center was all placed on the east side of the road. The Sidehill and Rigden Farm developers
51
May 16, 2006
negotiated the location of the retail center on Rigden Farm. The Structure Plan was amended to
reflect the rezonings that took place as properties came into the City.
Councilmember Manvel asked about changed conditions relating to the Police building,which was
not in the plan when the NC was established on the southeast comer. He asked if this building
created changed conditions for more demand for NC on the northwest corner. Gloss stated staff did
not do a detailed analysis of the exact traffic generation for the Police building versus LMN or MMN
on the balance of the property. There was a substantial residential component approved on the
northwest corner of Drake and Timberline Roads that was intended to support the Rigden Farm
neighborhood center. Replacing aportion ofthat residential with the Police Administration Building
did not "tip the scales" from the staff perspective. A relatively large group of residents would be
replaced by a relatively large group of residents and office workers. Both groups would need the NC
center and staff believed the existing NC center would satisfy that need. Byme stated a big office
building changed the character of an area and if the vacant area to the south had already been
developed with residential the City would have had to be more careful about the development of the
Police building. It was a permitted use in the zoning district but the big office building did change
the character of the neighborhood, traffic patterns, uses, etc., in positive and negative ways. The
Council needed to take these"changed conditions"into consideration in making a decision.
Councilmember Manvel stated there were changed conditions and the question was whether those
changes meant a need for additional NC on the corner. The issue was whether this big office
building was a "radical change" from high density residential. Gloss stated this was a fair
characterization of the issue.
Councilmember Kastein noted the criteria were consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and/or
changed conditions and asked for clarification regarding the first criterion. Gloss stated the criterion
relating to consistency with the Comprehensive Plan meant consistency with the City Plan policies.
The staff report indicated the policies that staff felt were relevant, and examples were the
concentration of Commercial in centers instead ofstretched out along arterial streets and accessibility
to an NC zone.
Councilmember Kastein asked about the one-mile radius issue. Gloss stated there were sections in
the NC district portion of the Code about the service area for centers.
Councilmember Kastein stated the issue to him was the overlapping service areas. He stated the
intent of the Structure Map was to consider economics and enable"wildly successful"developments.
The issue of "competing businesses" in an area was important and in this case there were
overlapping service areas. The applicant's study showed there was"significant business"and asked
how the City should decide how much overlap between the commercial centers was allowable.
Gloss stated the Structure Plan talked about the number of neighborhoods served by a NC district
(typically 4 to 5). This was the first center processed under the City Plan "template" and staff felt
that there were sufficient services provided today and in the future by the existing Rigden Farm
center.
52
May 16, 2006
Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Weitkunat, to adopt
Resolution 2006-061.
Councilmember Weitkunat stated Rigden Farm was an "important prototype"that began the City
Plan process"in earnest." She supported City Plan and it was important to follow-through on it. She
stated she would not support the motion because she believed the rezoning would not be consistent
with what the City was trying to accomplish with City Plan. Rigden Farm needed to be given its
'Just dues" and the concept be given a chance to work. She expressed a concern that the MMN
"rooftops"were needed to make it work.
Councilmember Kastein stated he agreed with Councilmember Weitkunat for the most part and he
understood the logic of the developer's request. City Plan tried to ensure economic success for
developments that were existing and planned. The Rigden Farm development was expensive and
there was a proposed development north of the Police building. The Structure Plan was set up to
spread out the neighborhood centers so they would be supported by their neighborhoods.
"Backtracking" on this would be cutting into the feasibility of those commercial centers. The
Council must work within the context of the adopted City Plan. He would oppose the motion.
Councilmember Roy stated the other part of equation was creation of a successful community
"center"for the residents of the area. The proposed amendment would work against both economic
success and creation of a gathering spot.
Councilmember Brown stated there had been discussion about the need to change City Plan when
appeals were brought before the Council and no changes had been made. He believed the Police
building changed the conditions by adding 400 more individuals to the area who would need
services. There were 118 homes platted to the west of this location. There was good access to the
site. Development on this site could also bring people to Rigden Farm to shop. He would support
the motion.
Councilmember Manvel stated he would not support the motion. People would be able to cross
Timberline Road,just as they had to cross College Avenue. He believed it was important to "hold
the retail together"instead of"spreading it around."
Councilmember Kastein stated the issue of changing City Plan was important but that rezoning
requests should not be used to change City Plan. There may need to be changes to City Plan and the
Land Use Code and staff had begun work on major revisions. The existing rules needed to be
followed and if the rules needed to be changed that should happen in other ways and not as part of
quasijudicial actions.
Councilmember Ohlson stated he believed the intent of City Plan was to create"people places that
did not look like the old College Avenue." Rigden Farm"played by the new rules"and the applicant
was offering something that was different than what was laid out in the City Plan vision. He asked
if his comment was accurate. Gloss replied in the affirmative.
53
May 16, 2006
Councilmember Ohlson stated he did not want to approve a change that would violate the
"aesthetics"of the vision relating to urban design,people-friendly places, etc. He stated he would
likely vote against the motion.
Councilmember Weitkunat stated the rezoning and Structure Map amendment were allowed
processes. The Structure Map was a"best guess"that was never intended to be"set in stone." This
entire process was acceptable as a way to change things. She did not want to `negate"the process
in any way.
Councilmember Brown stated more than 900 people were invited to the applicant's neighborhood
meeting and only one person objected and later supported the application. It appeared the
community supported this application. Approval would give people other choices for restaurants.
He did not believe that the existing retail would handle the capacity when the area filled up.
Mayor Hutchinson stated staff had presented its professional recommendation and had provided the
rationale for the recommendation. He had been persuaded that it was important to have consistency.
He stated he would not support the motion.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmember Brown. Nays: Councihnembers
Hutchinson, Kastein, Manvel, Ohlson,Roy and Weitkunat.
THE MOTION FAILED.
Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Weitkunat, to adopt
Ordinance No.086,2006 on First Reading. Yeas:Councilmember Brown. Nays:Councilmembers
Hutchinson, Kastein, Manvel, Ohlson, Roy and Weitkunat.
THE MOTION FAILED.
Ordinance No. 087,2006,
Amending Chapter 3 of the City Code
to Allow Alcohol Beverage Tastin s (Options A and B Option A Adopted
The following is staffs memorandum on this item.
"FINANCIAL IMPACT
This Ordinance will set an application fee of$150 to defray the administrative costs of issuing and
tracking tasting permits. Revenue received will be placed in the City's General Fund.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Ordinance will amend the City Code to allow alcohol beverage tastings at retail liquor stores.
Staff is presenting two options for Council consideration. Option A will limit alcohol beverage
54
May 16, 2006
tastings to beer and wine. Option B will allow tastings of spirituous liquors as well as beer and
wine. The number of tasting events for a retail liquor store license would be limited to 52 days per
year.
BACKGROUND
In 2004, the Colorado General Assembly adopted, and the Governor signed into law,House Bill04-
1021[now codified as C.R.S. §12-47-30](10)j permitting local jurisdictions to allow retail liquor
stores and liquor-licensed drugstores to conduct sample tastings of alcohol beverages (beer, wine
and liquor)in their establishments without charging for such samples. This bill also requires that,
ifa local government desires to allow such tastings in its jurisdiction, the local governmental body
must do so by ordinance.
In response to requests from several Councilmembers,staffreviewed tastings ordinances from other
jurisdictions and weighed the advantages and disadvantages ofpermitting tastings in Fort Collins,
the cost to the City to do so, and safety and law enforcement concerns.
Afterdiscussion at theApri125,2006worksession, Council reviewed information regarding alcohol
beverage tastings and directed staff to present two optional versions of a tastings ordinance.
Option A -Limits Alcohol Beverage Tastings to Beer and Wine
This option will result in minimal additional staffand police services. It is estimated that 16+staff
hours would be required annually for administration and enforcement. The administrative costs
(Deputy City Clerk, Assistant City Attorney and Municipal Judge) would be approximately$600,
depending on how many stores applyfor apermit. There are currently 29 retail liquor stores in Fort
Collins.
A fee would be imposed for the issuance of a tastings permit. Staff is recommending the fee for
processing an initial application be in the amount of$150 with a renewal fee of$50.
State law prohibits the City from taking law enforcement costs into consideration in determining
the amount of the application fee. Enforcement would be driven by complaint only. A proactive
approach to enforcement(random compliance checks)would increase administrative costs to$1200
(32+hours).
Larimer County has opted to limit retail liquor store licenses to beer and wine tastings only and, to
date, has issued two tastings permits in unincorporated Larimer County-one in south Fort Collins
and one outside of Loveland. See spreadsheet (Attachment 2)for other jurisdictions'fees and
limitations.
55
May 16, 2006
Option B-Allows Tastings of Spirituous Liquors as Well as Beer and Wine
This option will require staff and police resources of 16+ hours annually (approximate
administrative cost$600), depending on how many stores apply for a permit. State statute allows
a local jurisdiction to impose stricter requirements than the State requirements regarding the days
on which tastings can be held, the duration ofa tastings and the number of tastings that can be held
each year per licensee.
During the April25th worksession,staffrecommended thefollowing requirements and restrictions
to alcohol beverage tastings. These recommendations are included in both options.
• Tastings will be limited to 52 days per year per licensee(to minimize chance of violations).
• Tasting samples will be served in clear containers(to facilitate visual monitoring o(product
samples).
The Authority could deny the application fora tastings permit ifthe applicant had a previous
liquor code violation in the preceding two years or if he or she could not demonstrate an
ability to conduct the tastings in accordance with the law and without creating a safety risk
to the neighborhood.
• The applicant will need to provide a schedule of the anticipated tastings and a log of
completed tastings upon renewal(to ensure that licensees do not exceed allowable days and
hours).
• Enforcement will be by complaint only(reactive)due to limited staffandfenancial resources.
Questions from Work Session
At the Council Work Session, staff was asked to respond to the following questions:
• What do micro-breweries think of the tasting ordinance?
Comments from three local breweries ranged from neutral to supportive. Anheuser-Busch
will submit its comments at a later time, and those comments will be provided to Council
under separate cover as soon as they are received.
• How is it that micro-breweries can offer tastings now?
The term "micro-breweries"is not defined by the State Liquor Code.
The State has given local jurisdictions the authority to grant, deny, and disciplinary actions
against retail liquor licenses (i.e., hotel-restaurant, tavern, retail liquor stores, brew pubs,
etc). Brew pubs are allowed to host tastings since they are licensed for 'on premise'
56
May 16, 2006
consumption, meaning patrons can consume alcohol inside the brew pub (i.e.,
CooperSmith's, C.B. &Potts, and ConorO'Neills). Retail liquor stores hold "off-premise"
licenses, which do not permit consumption within a store unless there is a tastings permit
in place.
According to the State Liquor Authority, beer manufacturers are allowed to have "sales
rooms",allowing them to conduct tastings,serve andsell food,sellgeneral merchandise and
beverages to be taken off the premises by the consumer.
• Why did Larimer County not include spirituous liquors?
According to Gael Cookman, Staff Services Manager, the Larimer County Board of
Commissioners opted to limit tastingpermits to beer and wine for two reasons. First, it was
concerned with the high alcohol content ofspirituous liquors as opposed to beer and wine,
and,second, none ofthe interested retail licensees requestedspirituous liquors be included-
the licensees were interested in beer and wine only.
The Board of Commissioners stated it may consider adding spirituous liquors to its tastings
ordinance in the future.
• What licensing fees does the State allow?
C.R.S. §12-47-505(4)(a)states that each application for a license must be accompanied by
an application fee (with limits set by the State) in an amount determined by the local
licensing authority to cover actual and necessary expenses attendant to processing the
applications. Application fees are separate from license fees, which are also determined by
the State. These fees are paid to the City of Fort Collins.
A [icadon Fees New License $500.00 fmaximum allowed b State
Transfer of Ownership 3400.00(maximum allowed by State is
$500-staff could not justify a transfer
a lication ee o $500
Renewal Fee $50.00 maximum allowed b State
Under separate cover, the City Attorneys Office will be responding to additional questions
regarding cost recovery and fees and taxes. "
City Manager Atteberry stated there would be a staff presentation.
Aimee Jensen, Deputy City Clerk, presented background information relating to the agenda and
stated two options were being presented for consideration. The first option would allow only beer
and wine tastings in retail liquor stores,and the second option would allow beer,wine and spiritous
liquors tastings.
57
May 16, 2006
Lori Brunswig, 1901 Ridgewood Road, opposed adoption of an alcohol tastings ordinance. She
stated allowing tastings would enable people to become "victims"of a"lucrative marketing tool."
She questioned how adoption of a tastings ordinance would improve Fort Collins.
Chuck Carlson, Old Town Wine and Spirits, stated this ordinance would enable a group of
businesses in Fort Collins to respond to competition from businesses outside of the City and keep
sales tax dollars in Fort Collins. He stated either of the two options would guarantee that tastings
could be done safely. Either option would represent a minimal increase in the availability and use
of alcohol. Experiences in other communities showed that a minority of stores would actually apply
for tastings permits. Tastings were heavily regulated in terms of frequency,duration and the amount
of alcohol that could be served to an individual.
John Lund,Fort Collins resident, spoke in support of a tastings ordinance.
Dennis Dinsmore, 2201 South College Avenue, Wilbur's Wines and Spirits, spoke in support of
Option B of the ordinance. He stated the ordinance would allow local merchants to gain a
competitive position. He suggested that the amount of spiritous liquor that could be served at a
tasting could be limited to half of the State's maximum to eliminate"store hopping"and reduce the
negative impacts of Option B.
Councilmember Weitkunat asked if Mr. Carlson or Mr. Dinsmore could provide clarification
regarding the sampling offerings to retail stores by distributors. Mr. Carlson stated under State law
distributors could not contribute in any fashion (training,personnel or products) to the tastings.
Councilmember Weitkunat asked for clarification regarding spiritous liquors.
Mr.Dinsmore stated most spiritous liquors tastings would probably be at Christmas time for certain
products such as liqueurs. He stated tastings would not make sense for inexpensive spiritous liquors
such as vodka.
Mayor Hutchinson questioned the value of tastings of spiritous liquors when products such as vodka
would typically be mixed with something else.
Mr.Dinsmore stated vodka was a tasteless,odorless alcoholic beverage and it would not make sense
to offer tastings. He stated people might be interested in tasting and comparing specific products
such as Scotch.
Councilmember Roy stated he favored Option A and asked if the licensees who spoke would still
be interested in tastings if Option A was adopted instead of Option B.
Mr. Dinsmore stated he would be interested in tastings if Option A was adopted. He stated the
biggest"educational issue"was wine,followed by beer. He noted his store carried 12,000 different
kinds of wines. Tastings of spiritous liquors would be more important at Christmas time for
products such as aperitifs and liqueurs.
58
May 16, 2006
Councilmember Weitkunat made amotion,seconded by Councilmember Brown,to adopt Ordinance
No. 087, 2006 (Option B) on First Reading.
Councilmember Weitkunat asked if Option B allowed serving a half ounce. Teresa Ablao,Assistant
City Attorney, stated the State law limitation was not to exceed a half ounce.
Councilmember Weitkunat stated one of the licensees suggested a maximum of a quarter of an
ounce. She would like to amend the ordinance to establish a limit of one-quarter ounce. City
Attorney Roy stated there were three areas in which the State law permitted the Council to be more
restrictive and this was not one of the three areas. He recommended that such an amendment not be
considered. Ablao stated licensees would not be prohibited from limiting the amount to one-quarter
ounce.
Councilmember Weitkunat asked staffto address the limitations and regulations that would go along
with a tasting to assure the publicthere would be City oversight. Jensen stated tastings would be
limited to 52 days a year, each person could have no more than four individual samples, tastings
would not exceed more than five hours in a day,days of tastings could not i consecutive, and the
hours for tastings would be from 11 a.m. to 7 p.m. If a licensee violated the Liquor Code the
licensee would lose the tastings permit for two years.
Councilmember Kastein asked how many ounces were in a"shot." Mr.Dinsmore stated it was one
ounce.
Councilmember Kastein asked for clarification that someone could have four one-halfounce samples
of spiritous liquors i.e., two shots. Ablao replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Kastein stated this was a reason not to support tastings for spiritous liquors. He
asked how much a serving of wine would be. Jensen stated it would be 3 1/2 ounces.
Mr.Carlson stated a four-ounce serving of wine was approximately alcohol content as 12 ounces of
beer. He stated typical bars and restaurants would serve between four and seven ounces of wine per
glass.
Councilmember Roy stated he would prefer an ordinance for beer and wine tastings but not spiritous
liquors tastings. One of the purposes of a tastings ordinance was to give Fort Collins businesses a
"level playing field"with County businesses,and Larimer County did not include spiritous liquors.
Councilmember Manvel stated since the City could not be more restrictive on the maximum amount
for spiritous liquors he would prefer to limit the tastings ordinance to beer and wine. He offered a
friendly amendment to the motion to adopt Option A instead of Option B.
Councilmember Weitkunat asked if there was a way to limit spiritous liquors to liqueurs or aperitifs.
Jensen stated there was no distinction made between types of spiritous liquors.
59
May 16, 2006
Mayor Hutchinson asked for clarification that this was one area in which the City could not be more
restrictive than the State law. City Attorney Roy stated the courts had held the State regulates the
distribution of liquor and the City was preempted from conflicting with the State law except where
the State expressly allowed the City to do that. He stated the three areas in which the City could be
more strict were the areas on which the Council should focus. He recommended that to Council stay
with the ordinance as drafted since it was patterned after the State law.
Councilmembers Weitkunat and Brown accepted the friendly amendment offered by Councilmember
Manvel.
Councilmember Ohlson noted the Council could take a position different than what was
recommended by the City Attorney. He spoke in opposition to adoption of the ordinance because
of the"huge problems caused by alcohol in this culture." Allowing alcohol to be legal was not the
same as allowing its"promotion." Adoption of this ordinance would send"mixed messages"about
drinking and driving. He spoke about the serving of beer at the Budweiser Center where family
events were held. He noted for the record that Budweiser"did not pay one penny'for the Budweiser
Center or for the $33,000 sign. The City had task forces on alcoholism, then did these kinds of
things. He stated he would not support the motion.
Councilmember Manvel stated alcohol caused many problems for society. He stated he would
oppose this ordinance if it would increase alcohol consumption and he did not think that would be
the result. He hoped that it would lead to"more discriminating alcohol consumption"ifpeople were
drinking costlier wines. He hoped this would keep some tax dollars in Fort Collins and it would be
an "amenity' for people looking for something good to drink.
Councilmember Brown stated he saw this as a way to"educate the public"before they spend dollars
on wine they would not like. He stated he would support the motion.
Councilmember Roy stated he would support the motion. He stated alcohol could be"destructive"
but manypeople were simply interested in"enjoying life and being educated about different places,
different tastes." Tastings might show people there was another side to alcohol consumption than
getting a"buzz."
Councilmember Kastein stated problems were not with the alcohol but with the"abuse"of alcohol.
He would oppose the ordinance if he felt that tastings would not be safe. Tastings should be safe
because of the way the ordinance was drafted and how it must be applied. The purpose was so that
people could"enjoy the nice things that come with alcohol." This was one area in which a bit more
freedom could be given to help businesses and to help people enjoy their"liberties."
Mayor Hutchinson stated he had been concerned about possible abuses and he was assured at the
Study Session that there would be adequate controls to prevent abuse. He stated he would support
the motion.
60
May 16, 2006
The vote on the motion to adopt Option A was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Brown,
Hutchinson, Kastein, Manvel, Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: Councilmember Ohlson.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Items Relating to the Amendment of
the Appeals Process Contained in Chapter 2,
Article II.Division 3 of the City Code Adopted as Amended
The following is staffs memorandum on this item.
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 088, 2006, Making Various Amendments to Chapter 2,
Article II Division 3 of the City Code Pertaining to the Appeals Process.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 089,2006,Amending Chapter 2,Article II,Division 3ofthe
City Code with Regard to the Grounds upon which Appeals to the City Council are Decided.
C. First Reading of OrdinanceNo. 090, 2006,AmendingChapter2,Article II Division 3 ofthe
City Code Pertaining to the Filing of Appeals by Members of the City Council.
Ordinance No. 088, 2006, makes various amendments to the appeals process that are perceived to
be non-controversial.
Ordinance No. 089, 2006, (Options 1 and 2)pertains to the basis for Council's decision on appeal.
Option #1 would retain the existingprovision that limits the grounds to those stated in the notice of
appeal and eliminates the opportunity for Councilmembers to add additional issues prior to the
appeal. Option #2 would allow the Council to address issues relevant to the appeal even if they
were not raised by the appellant in the notice of appeal.
Ordinance No. 090, 2006, (Options], 2 and 3)pertains to appeals fled by Councilmembers. Option
#1 would eliminate the ability of Councilmembers to file an appeal. Option #2 would retain
Councilmembers'ability to file an appeal and states that the fact that a Councilmember has filed an
appeal does not, in itself, prevent the Councilmember from participating in hearing the appeal.
Option #3 again retains Councilmembers'ability to file an appeal but states that a Councilmember
who does so should not participate in hearing the appeal.
One other possible change discussed at the work session on April 1, 2006, that is not in in
these ordinances is a proposed amendment that would eliminate the ability of members of the
general public to file an appeal or participate in the hearing of an appeal. The City Attorney is
recommending consideration of that proposed amendment be postponed pending the outcome of a
civil action in the local District Court in which the Court is expected to address the question of
61
May 16, 2006
whether members of the general public have standing to contest City Council's site-specific land use
decisions in court.
BACKGROUND
At the work session on April 11, 2006, Council considered several proposed amendments to the
process contained in Chapter 2, Article II, Division 3 of the City Code pertaining to appeals to the
Council. At the conclusion of the discussion, Council directed staff to prepare several ordinances
that would allow Council to first adopt those changes that were perceived as noncontroversial and
fairly routine in nature, and then consider options relating to certain other changes. Toward that
end, staff has prepared three ordinances for Council's consideration.
Ordinance No. 088,2006,Making VariousAmendments to Chapter 2,ArticleHDivision 3 ofthe
Code of the City of Fort Collins Pertaining to the Appeals Process.
This ordinance would:
• add a definition of evidence;
• limit the submission of written materials prior to the appeal hearing to those
materials that are relevant to allegations that the decision maker considered
evidence relevant to its findings which was substantially false or grossly misleading;
• discourage ex parte contacts on the part of Councilmembers prior to hearing an
appeal;
• state that, if Council remands the matter for rehearing, such remand shall include
direction as to the scope of the rehearing.
Ordinance No. 089, 2006,Amending Chapter 2,Article II,Division 3 of the Code of the City of
Fort Collins with Regard to the Grounds upon which Appeals to the City Council are Decided.
This ordinance presents two options relating to the scope of the appeal hearing. At present, the
Code states Council's decision on appeal will be based upon the record on appeal, the relevant
provisions of the Code and Charter, the grounds for appeal cited in the notice of appeal and any
additional issues identified by a member of the City Council at least seven calendar days prior to
the date of the hearing. Staff believes this provision unduly limits the scope of the appeal and
prevents Council from addressing issues relevant to the appeal that might not have been raised by
the appellant. Two options are presented for Council's consideration. Both would eliminate the
need for Council members to identify additional issues prior to the appeal hearing.
Option #1 would continue to limit the scope of Council's review to the grounds stated in the notice
of appeal.
Option #2 would allow the Council to raise additional issues at the appeal hearing even if those
issues have not been raised by the appellant in the notice of appeal. Staff recommends adoption of
Option #2.
62
May 16, 2006
Ordinance No. 090, 2006,Amending Chapter 2,Article II,Division 3 of the Code of the City of
Fort Collins Pertaining to the Filing of Appeals by Members of the City Council.
This ordinance deals with appeals filed by Councilmembers.
Option#1 would eliminate the ability of Councilmembers to file appeals. Option#2 would continue
to allow for the filing of appeals by Councilmembers and would allow Councilmembers who file a
notice of appeal to still participate in the appeal hearing unless other circumstances exist which call
into question the impartiality of the Councilmembers. Option #3 would continue to allow
Councilmembers to file appeals and would require Councilmembers who do so to refrain from
participating in the appeal hearing.
One other change that had been recommended by staffprior to the work session was to eliminate
the ability ofinembers of the general public to file an appeal or to participate in an appeal hearing.
Staffbased this recommendation on their opinion that the appeal process should be reserved to those
parties-in-interest who are more directly affected by the decision in question than members of the
generalpublic. Staffis recommending Councilpostpone consideration ofthisproposed amendment
pending the outcome of a lawsuit in the Larimer County District Court where the Court is
considering the City's motion to dismiss based upon the plaintiffs lack of standing. Staff believes
the Court's ruling may alleviate the need to consider this Code change if it appears from the ruling
that granting a member of the public the right to file an appeal to Council and participate in the
appeal hearing does not necessarily give that person standing to challenge the Council's decision
in Court.
At the work session, Council also directed the City Attorney to consult with other Front Range
municipalities regarding their appeals process in order to see how those municipalities deal with
some of the issues addressed at the Work Session. Four municipalities responded to staffs inquiry.
The appeal procedures in those municipalities vary widely as to whether appeal hearings are based
on the record or are "de novo" (entirely new hearings); whether the record on appeal can be
supplemented by additional evidence at the appeal hearing; whether participation is open to any
member of the public or limited to the applicant and abuttingproperty owners;and whether Council
members can appeal (or is "call up for review') decisions of boards and commissions. "
City Attorney Roy stated the first ordinance would add a definition of"evidence"to the provisions
of the Code pertaining to the appeals, limit written materials filed with the City Clerk prior to an
appeal hearing to those that were relevant to an allegation of false or misleading evidence,
discourage ex parte contacts, and require remands to be accompanied by direction as to the scope
of the rehearing. The second ordinance would pertain to the scope of review by the Council on an
appeal. In Option 1,the review would be limited to the grounds stated in the notice of appeal. In
Option 2,the Council would be free to consider any issues relevant to the applicable criteria whether
or not those issues were raised in the notice of appeal. Both options would eliminate the existing
provision that required Councilmembers to identify additional issues they believed should be
considered prior to the appeal hearing. The third ordinance dealt with appeals filed by
Councilmembers. Option 1 would eliminate the provision that allowed Councilmembers to file
63
May 16, 2006
appeals and Options 2 and 3 would leave that provision in place. Option 2 would state
Councilmembers who filed an appeal may participate in the appeal hearing unless there were other
considerations that indicated some bias on their part. Under Option 3,Councilmembers who filed
an appeal would not be able to participate in the appeal hearing.
John Lund,Fort Collins resident,stated anything that would make the Land Use Code easier to read,
understand and adjudicate was good.
Nate Donovan, 2400 Hampshire Square, supported the staff recommendation of Option 2 for
Ordinance No. 089,2006 and stated the grounds for appeal cited in the notice of appeal should not
be deleted from the Code. He suggested that Council make an amendment to restore that language
in Option 2. He supported Option 3 for Ordinance No. 090, 2006 and stated he would like to see
members of the general public be able to file an appeal or participate in the hearing of appeal. He
stated Ordinance No. 088,2006 was"controversial"and supported the addition of the new Section
2-55 regarding no ex parte contacts with Councilmembers. He stated a technical change was needed
to Section 4 to indicate that the existing Section 2-56(d) [and not just Section 2-56(d)(2)] was
amended and added as a new Section 2-59 of the City Code. He urged caution when adding the
definition of"evidence" to Section 2-46 of the Code. He questioned who would decide whether
something submitted by the applicant, City staff or a member of the public was"legally probative
information that is not `argument' as to how information offered as evidence should be viewed by
the Council." He was concerned about the standing of applicants, staff or a member of the general
public to participate in the public process of development applications. Attached to the statement
submitted to the City Council was a written statement that he read into the record at the September
8,2005 public hearing on the City's development application for Spring Canyon Community Park.
He participated in that hearing because he was concerned the City's organizational goal to get that
park built led some senior staff to make material misstatements of fact to the Council regarding
requirements for compliance with the City Code. When he brought the question of compliance with
the Code to the attention of the Hearing Officer, the response of the lead staff person was to not
answer the question. The Hearing Officer's written decision simply stated the proposed application
met the City Code. If he had been able as a community member to appeal this decision to the City
Council he was not certain that his written statement would be considered to be "evidence"under
the proposed definition. The larger question was whether a property owner or a customer of the
proposed business or public park or a community resident who participated in the market could bring
his or her concerns to the public process of development review. The question was whether that
person could access the public file, participate in the public hearing, participate in the public
Planning and Zoning Board meeting, and bring his or her concerns (within limits) to the City
Council. He expressed concerns that the elected officials would have a"judicial"rather than"quasi-
judicial"role. Council should be able to consider(within limits) the values of taxpayers.
Mayor Hutchinson stated the ordinances would be discussed together and voted on separately.
Councilmember Kastein asked if staff was suggesting Option 2 on Ordinance No. 089,2006. City
Attorney Roy replied in the affirmative.
64
May 16, 2006
Councilmember Kastein asked for staff's rationale. City Attorney Roy stated in some past appeals
there had been some "awkwardness" and time spent addressing appeals in accordance with the
statement in the Code that said "an appeal will be decided based upon the notice of appeal, the
record, etc." The question was whether this meant consideration based only on the grounds stated
in the notice of appeal. Council was ultimately responsible for the way in which its laws were
interpreted, implemented and applied. Staff believed Council should not be unnecessarily
constrained from being able to determine that an issue was germane to the appeal. Staff believed
this issue needed to be addressed and clarified. The existing language seemed to be"unnecessarily
constraining."
Councilmember Kastein asked if any item that came before the Council would be"wide open"for
discussion. City Attorney Roy replied in the affirmative and stated the downside was that the Board,
the applicant and the parties objecting may not have a problem with an issue that the Council wanted
to discuss. There was a possibility Council would overturn a decision for a reason that was not a
concern to anyone else. He noted that both versions were in use in other cities.
Councilmember Kastein asked if the Council would "start over" on the appeal item with the
applicant's presentation, appellant's presentation and community input. City Attorney Roy stated
the hearing on the appeal would not be any different in terms of presentations. If new issues were
raised at the hearing not previously identified in the notice of appeal,the parties-in-interest should
be given an opportunity to address those issues.
Councilmember Kastein stated he could envision that on every appeal some Councilmembers might
be thinking about elements beyond the grounds stated in the notice of appeal and the rest of the
Council could be"ill prepared"to discuss and decide on those new issues. City Attorney Roy stated
that was a legitimate concern. The question was whether this was a larger concern than being
constrained by the grounds stated in the notice of appeal even if another issue was seen as important.
Greg Byrne, CPES Director, stated it would also be possible the staff or applicant could also be
caught off guard and appear to be unprepared. Staff felt it was worth that risk because the staff and
applicant would typically be thoroughly familiar with every aspect of the application by the time it
comes to Council on appeal. This would "broaden the substance" and give an opportunity for
unexpected lines of questioning and argument.
Councilmember Manvel stated the two sides had been clearly expressed. On one hand he wanted
the Council to `reach the best possible decision"and in some cases the Council was"not allowed"
to make the"best decision"because of the constraints of the existing rules. In one case,the Council
"stretched the rules"to remand a matter for discussion of something that was not part of the appeal.
On the other hand,he was concerned an issue could"pop up"that nobody was prepared to discuss.
He was inclined to think the ability to raise all issues and make the "best decision" took priority.
City Attorney Roy stated the Council had a "null alternative" to leave the ordinance as is. The
current ordinance had language that would "strike an appropriate balance if it were more widely
used." The current provision required Councilmembers to identify the additional issues up-front so
that the parties and the other Councilmembers were prepared to deal with them at the hearing. The
65
May 16, 2006
problem has been that this had not been done because the Council did not receive the information
early enough to understand what those additional issues might be.
Councilmember Weitkunat stated her understanding was that many municipalities used the appeals
process for a new hearing. She did not believe adding relevant issues was the same thing as starting
from"ground zero." Option 1 related to sticking to what was set forth in the notice of appeal. There
was difficulty in differentiating between what the appellants were appealing(what was written)and
what was off limits. This was where Option 2 came in. Option 2 would not open up the whole
matter. The identification of additional issues was relevant in an appeal when the appellant had
overlooked such issues. Option 2 would give an opportunity for Councilmembers to identify
relevant issues that had been overlooked by an appellant. She did not see this as"starting over"but
as an improvement to the process.
Councilmember Kastein made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Weitkunat, to adopt
Ordinance No. 088, 2006 on First Reading.
Councilmember Weitkunat stated she viewed this as a"clean-up"ordinance. It was important to add
the definition of"evidence"and to include ex parte contacts. She liked the change to add direction
from Council for remands. She would support the motion.
Councilmember Roy stated he would support this ordinance because it clarified Council's
responsibility to avoid ex parte contacts.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein,
Manvel, Ohlson, Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Kastein made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Brown,to adopt Ordinance
No. 089, 2006 (Option 1)on First Reading.
Councilmember Roy stated there was a recent issue that was remanded and he believed this was a
"good choice." He believed Council should remain open to discovering relevant issues through a
review of the tapes, transcripts, etc. Council was in the best position to "assimilate" information
provided by the community. He believed it was likely Council could continue to determine that
issues had not been looked at as they needed to be looked at. Council should continue to have this
option and this had not been abused in the past.
Councilmember Ohlson questioned why the Council would want to give up its ability to come up
with the"best possible conclusion"and questioned limiting the discussion or the Council's decision-
making ability.
Councilmember Kastein stated he felt strongly about this issue. He "feared" having many
"frustrating,long,duplicate"hearings in which the Council could question any issues not necessarily
66
May 16, 2006
relevant to the appeal. There had been cases where the Council had"strayed"from what was being
appealed and he believed the focus should be the notice of appeal. He felt strongly Council should
not have that larger "purview" and the Council should address the matters in the appeal. The
Planning and Zoning Board had a role dealing with"everything"and Council should have a focused
role in the appeal. If the efforts were duplicated,the process would be further complicated. He felt
strongly about keeping the Council to the issues stated in the notice of appeal.
Councilmember Brown stated he agreed with Councilmember Kastein. There was a need to
"believe" in the staffs and Board's decisions. He believed Council should be debating a"fixed
subject" at the appeal hearing. He would support the motion.
Councilmember Manvel stated the Council had focused pretty well on the notice of appeal. He did
not want to"handcuff'the Council in what could be considered. He believed Council might decide
some appeals differently if they felt less "fettered." He did not believe Council would want to
"rehear everything." He would like to see this option defeated and the other option considered.
Councilmember Weitkunat stated it was necessary to understand the purpose of an appeal. She
stated the appellant was saying there was a specific problem, error or perceived"injustice" in the
process and this was what the Council should address in the appeal. Council should not"presume"
there were issues the appellant did not think about because this could"dilute the process."Focusing
on the notice of appeal kept the discussion focused on what the appellant thought was important.
Councilmember Roy stated a "complicated process that gives a better outcome" would be a
"complicated process worth having." Council should be open to making the best possible decisions.
Remanding did not"upset"anything.
Councilmember Weitkunat stated the notice of appeal sets forth the appellant's reasons for
appealing. The Council should"respect"that.
Councilmember Roy stated Council's role was to listen and"sort out"what should be dealt with on
an appeal. It was important to allow an opportunity for the Council to "discover" something that
would help in making a better decision.
Councilmember Manvel stated he wanted to be able to examine the"propriety of the decision based
on the evidence." He would like the Council to be able to make the best decision possible. It would
be possible to make a decision based on the grounds set forth in the appeal(such as an allegation that
there was not a fair hearing) and based on a finding that the right decision was not made. The
hearing might have been fair but that the evidence may not have been"convincing." Council should
be able to reach a different decision than the Planning and Zoning reached.
Councilmember Weitkunat stated would "defeat the whole purpose" of the Planning and Zoning
Board.
67
May 16, 2006
Councilmember Manvel stated he did not want to `rehear" everything done by the Planning and
Zoning Board but that, if a majority of Councilmembers had a different opinion than the Board,it
should be possible to reverse the Board's decision.
Councilmember Weitkunat requested clarification of Councilmember Manvel's position. It appeared
he wanted to be able to overturn a Board decision based on the decision that was made by the Board
rather than what was set out in the notice of appeal. This would be a different process than
addressing an appeal. City Attorney Roy stated if this change (Option 2) was made it would be
permissible to do this.
CouncilmemberWeitkunat questioned this change. City Attorney Roy stated this would be different
than the current process.
Councilmember Kastein requested clarification regarding Option 2. City Attorney Roy stated Option
2 would provide for the Council to have the latitude to identify additional issues that the appellant
did not identify in the notice of appeal. Council would therefore have the ability to overturn the
Board's decision based on reasons or issues other than those set forth in the notice of appeal. If
additional issues were raised at the hearing the parties-in-interest should be allowed to speak to
those. It would change and"expand"the ability of Council to make such determinations.
Councilmember Weitkunat asked if this meant that ifthe notice of appeal alleged there was not a fair
hearing Council would be able to findthere was a fair hearing but the Board was wrong on some
point. City Attorney Roy replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Weitkunat stated she would not support that change.
Mayor Hutchinson stated he had a strong opinion on this ordinance. Council should be a"policy
body"and that enabling the Council to`redo the hearing"(as allowed by Option 2)would bring the
purpose of the Planning and Zoning Board into question. Option 1 would allow the Council to look
at problems with the procedure. Allowing new evidence to be brought into the hearing to enable the
Council to"make a better decision"was`chilling." Council's role should be that of a"safety valve"
and the Council should not`retry"the issues addressed by the Board. He favored Council having
a specific list of issues to consider on appeals and that he did not favor Council rehearing planning
and zoning issues in detail to "make a better decision" than the Board would make. He would
support Option 1.
Councilmember Ohlson stated if Option 2 was approved it was not his intention to rehear such
matters. He would like Council to be able to make a"brilliant"decision based on the consideration
of additional issues. He would support Option 1 because a number of Councilmembers had
expressed strong opinions and because he did not have a strong opinion on Option 2.
Councilmember Roy asked what would constitute a"fair hearing." City Attorney Roy stated the
Code defined a"fair hearing"and that this definition comported with the fundamental principles of
due process. These principles were a fair opportunity to be heard, whether grossly misleading
68
May 16, 2006
evidence was improperly considered,whether there was relevant evidence offered that was denied,
and whether the Board had gone beyond its jurisdiction in hearing the matter.
Councilmember Manvel stated he did not believe that the adoption of Option 2 would result in
Council rehearing everything considered by the Board. He was confident of the"ability of Council
to stick to relevant and pertinent points." He stated he believed that the Council would not bring up
irrelevant issues.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein,
Ohlson and Weitkunat. Nays: Councilmembers Manvel and Roy.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Ohlson made a motion,seconded by Councilmember Roy,to adopt Ordinance No.
090, 2006 (Option 2) on First Reading.
Councilmember Ohlson stated he favored Option 2 because Councilmembers were the "highest
elected officials"and should not be removed from the decision-making process as far as the ability
to file an appeal or participate in the appeal. Councilmembers should not have "less rights" to
participate than citizens affected by the appeal. The filing of an appeal did not mean that the
Councilmember had already made a decision but did mean the Councilmember felt that there was
enough of a question about the matter that the Council should be the"ultimate decision-maker."
Mayor Hutchinson asked for clarification regarding Councilmember Ohlson's statement that Council
would have"less rights"than a citizen.
Councilmember Ohlson stated he was referring to the fact that Option 1 would mean that a
Councilmember would not have the ability to file an appeal.
Councilmember Kastein stated he originally preferred Option 1. He was concerned with a statement
made by a Councilmember that the Councilmember would"appeal every development proposal if
. . . ." He did not want that to be an option for a Councilmember. He asked whether a limitation
(i.e.,one appeal per calendar year)could be added to guard against such a"hypothetical"eventuality.
Councilmember Ohlson stated he made the statement about appealing every proposal referenced by
Councilmember Kastein in connection with "packing the Board with one particular political
viewpoint"because he questioned whether the Board could make the best decisions in that situation.
!, He noted he had not filed any such appeals in his time on City Council.
Councilmember Kastein stated he was concerned with any option that would allow any
Councilmember to file an unlimited number of appeals. City Attorney Roy stated the Council could
set a limit but that any such limit would be "arbitrary." This could interfere with the purpose for
which the provision was included since there could be more than one situation that legitimately
69
May 16, 2006
warranted consideration by the Council in a period of time. He suggested that Council could allow
Councilmember appeals and then reconsider if there was"abuse."
Councilmember Manvel stated he did not believe that other Councilmembers would accept having
any Councilmember file multiple appeals"without reason."
Councilmember Kastein noted the Code provided that Councilmembers did not have to provide
specific reasons for an appeal. City Attorney Roy that stated was correct and the reason was to avoid
the appearance that the Councilmember had already made a decision or taken a position on the
matter.
Councilmember Manvel stated there had been"rare instances"of appeals by Councilmembers and
there should be an opportunity for an appeal if something was"egregious." He did not believe this
would happen very frequently.
Councilmember Weitkunat asked about the language in Option 2 that specified". . . unless other
circumstances exist which call into question the impartiality . . . ." She asked if that had been
defined and how such a determination would be made. City Attorney Roy stated such a
determination would need to be made on a case-by-case basis. The case law established a strong
presumption of integrity and regularity on the part of the decision-makers and that the courts were
disinclined to overturn a decision based upon the partiality of one of the decision-makers unless there
was some strong indication that the decision-maker could not be fair. Many different circumstances
might evidence a bias. It was important to not just unequivocally state that any Councilmember who
files an appeal could participate because there could be circumstances besides the filing ofthe appeal
that could indicate a strong bias that would mean that the Councilmember should not participate.
Councilmember Weitkunat asked if this would mean a case-by-case determination rather than a
"blanket"prohibition against participation. City Attorney Roy stated circumstances that might be
considered in making this determination were whether the notice of the appeal indicated a"strong
bias,"ifthe Councilmember had"engaged in ex parte conversations"indicating that his or her"mind
was made up going into the appeal," if the Councilmember had made public statements about the
matter, or if the Councilmember had a "close relationship" with one of the parties. He stated
examples could be included in the ordinance.
Councilmember Weitkunat asked if there would ever be an opportunity for a Councilmember who
filed an appeal to be an"appellant"during the hearing. City Attorney Roy stated a Code provision
prohibited a Councilmember from speaking to the Council as a citizen at the podium. He stated that
choice was whether the Councilmember would be"in or out as a decision-maker."
Councilmember Weitkunat asked if the Councilmember could be a decision-maker regarding his or
her own appeal. City Attorney Roy stated Option 2 would provide that the filing of an appeal would
not disqualify a Councilmember from participating and hearing the appeal.
70
May 16, 2006
Councilmember Weitkunat asked who would present the appeal in that case if the Councilmember
was sitting in judgment. City Attorney Roy stated the Councilmember filing the appeal would be
given an opportunity to explain why the appeal should be heard. The Councilmember would be
filing the appeal in his or her capacity as a Councilmember rather than as a private citizen.
Councilmember Brown asked if adoption of Option 2 would negate the ordinance that was just
passed. City Attorney Roy replied in the negative. The first ordinance limited the determination to
the notice of appeal in situations in which a Councilmember was not an appellant. There would be
an opportunity for the Councilmember to be an appellant to bring his or her issues to the rest of the
Council. He believed the two ordinances could work together.
Councilmember Brown asked if, after a citizen appeal was filed based on one set of facts,whether
a Councilmember could say that the appeal should be made on a different set of facts. City Attorney
Roy replied in the negative and stated the Councilmember could file his or her own appeal within
14 days after the Planning and Zoning Board hearing.
Councilmember Brown stated he believed this would negate the previous ordinance because a
Councilmember could"dig up another reason"for appealing the matter. City Attorney Roy stated
the Councilmember would not be required to state a reason for his or her appeal.
Councilmember Kastein agreed with Councilmember Brown and stated the Council would be limited
to discussing what the Councilmember raised on appeal. City Attorney Roy stated Councilmembers
were not required to state the grounds for appeal in the current version of the ordinance. The
ordinance could be changed to provide that the Councilmember filing the appeal must state the
grounds for the appeal. Council would not be limited to the grounds for a Councilmember-initiated
appeal and the hearings on such appeals would be"wide open."
Councilmember Ohlson stated requiring the Councilmember to state the grounds could bring into
question the objectivity and impartiality of the Councilmember filing the appeal.
Councilmember Kastein stated a lack of stated grounds only addressed the "perception of
impartiality." City Attorney Roy stated requiring a statement of grounds by the Councilmember
would create a"strong appearance of bias." Allowing a Councilmember to file without any grounds
provided an opportunity for the Councilmember to show that there was no bias.
Mayor Hutchinson stated Option 3 would address all of those issues. Councilmembers should be
able to file appeals and Councilmember filing the appeal should not participate in the hearing so that
the process could be kept"pure and ethical." Prohibiting the Councilmember who filed the appeal
from participating in the hearing would reduce the possibility that the appeal process could be abused
for a"political agenda."Allowing an appeal by a Councilmember and requiring that Councilmember
to "step back"would keep the process at a"high level."
71
May 16, 2006
Councilmember Roy asked if a Councilmember filed an appeal and was not allowed to participate
in the deliberations, how a 3-3 tie vote would be resolved. City Attorney Roy stated a 3-3 vote
would mean the original decision would stand.
Councilmember Weitkunat asked if the Councilmember would be allowed to state the reasons for
the appeal. City Attorney Roy stated additional changes would need to be made to the ordinance to
allow that.
Councilmember Ohlson questioned why anyone would make an assumption on how the
Councilmember filing the appeal would vote.
Mayor Hutchinson stated he would like Councilmember-initiated appeals to focus on a higher level
than someone's political agenda.
Councilmember Ohlson stated for the record he was not part of the one Council-initiated appeal that
had been filed. He did not believe the appeal was"political" and it was a"proper appeal."
Councilmember Roy stated he was one of the two Councilmembers who filed that appeal and he
took exception to the statement that the appeal was"political abuse."
Councilmember Weitkunat stated this ordinance was on the table because of a remark made by a
Councilmember regarding an intent to appeal all planning and zoning decisions. That remark
"opened the door" to the possibility that a Councilmember could"stifle the system"by appealing
every decision made by the Board. This had not happened but there was a possibility that it could
happen. There needed to be some kind of"check and balance" so that kind of abuse could not
happen.
Councilmember Ohlson stated a Councilmember who would try to "gum up the works" and slow
down the process would have"no credibility'with the Council.
Councilmember Manvel asked for clarification regarding the language that provided that a
Councilmember who filed the appeal could"refrain from participating in the appeal hearing." He
asked if the Councilmember would not be allowed to speak as a member of the community or
whether this meant that the Councilmember would not be allowed to vote. City Attorney Roy stated
there was a Code provision that provided as follows:"No Councilmember shall represent any person
or interest before the Council or any board or commission." He viewed this as meaning the
Councilmember could not try to influence the vote and must recuse himself or herself as on a conflict
of interest.
Councilmember Manvel asked if this meant the Councilmember could not explain why the appeal
was being filed. City Attorney Roy stated the Council could decide to make an amendment on
Second Reading to allow the Councilmember filing the appeal to speak to an appeal. He
recommended that if the Councilmember filing the appeal was to be allowed to participate and
debate in the same manner as other Councilmembers then he or she should be allowed to vote. If
72
May 16, 2006
the Councilmember was not to be allowed to participate and vote then he or she should be allowed
to present the appeal from the podium under the same rules as a citizen.
The vote on the motion for Option 2 was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Manvel, Ohlson and
Roy. Nays: Councilmembers Brown,Hutchinson, Kastein and Weitkunat.
THE MOTION FAILED.
Councilmember Kastein made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Brown,to adopt Ordinance
No. 090, 2006 (Option 3) on First Reading.
Councilmember Kastein stated there needed to be a means for Councilmembers to file appeals. He
stated it also made sense to rule the Councilmember filing the appeal out of the decision-making
process.
Councilmember Manvel stated this would provide a"safety outlet" for a Councilmember to file an
appeal. He asked if the Councilmember would be allowed to make a written statement of the
grounds for the appeal under Option 3.
Councilmember Brown asked if the Councilmember filing the appeal would be allowed to speak
from the podium but not as a seated Councilmember under this option. City Attorney Roy stated the
Councilmember could file a notice of appeal with an explanation about the grounds for appeal. He
stated language would be included on Second Reading pursuant to Council direction to provide that
the appeal would contain the grounds. Councilmembers would not be allowed to speak from the
podium unless Council directed that language be prepared to amend the current Code provision to
allow that.
Councilmember Weitkunat stated she believed that the Councilmember should be allowed to speak
from the podium. City Attorney Roy stated if this was Council's intent, a friendly amendment
should be offered to direct that language be prepared for consideration to amend the other Code
provision at the time of Second Reading of this ordinance. This change could possibly be
incorporated into this ordinance.
Councilmember Weitkunat made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Brown,to amend Option
3 to allow Councilmembers filing appeals to participate as a party-in-interest from the podium in
such appeals.
Councilmember Ohlson stated the Council may need to revisit the issue of Councilmembers
participating as liaisons to boards and commissions. City Attorney Roy stated the Code provision
prohibited a Councilmember from "representing any person or interest before a board or
commission."
73
May 16, 2006
Councilmember Brown asked what would happen if two Councilmembers filed an appeal i.e.,
whether both would be able to speak and neither would be allowed to vote. City Attorney Roy stated
they would be allowed to speak as citizens from the podium.
Mayor Hutchinson asked if the motion to amend would be accepted as a friendly amendment.
Councilmembers Kastein and Brown stated they would accept it as a friendly amendment.
Councilmember Roy stated he was interested in seeing the differences in Council opinions on this
issue. He would not support the motion because he believed this action would"not allow the best
processes to go forward."
The vote on the motion to adopt Option 3 as amended to allow Councilmembers to participate as a
party-in-interest from the podium was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson,
Kastein, Manvel and Weitkunat. Nays: Councilmembers Ohlson and Roy.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Meeting Time Extended
Councilmember Roy made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Brown, to extend the meeting
past 10:30 p.m.
Councilmember Kastein asked about the urgency of the matter that needed to be discussed in
Executive Session. City Manager Atteberry stated it was "urgent" and recommended that the
Executive Session be held.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein,
Manvel, Ohlson,Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Other Business
Councilmember Ohlson asked for support to ask the City Manager to look into preserving Jack
Benny's hand print at the corner of College and Mountain Avenues. He noted it was being worn
down by people walking on it.
Executive Session Authorized
Councilmember Weitkunat made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Roy, to adjourn into
Executive Session pursuant to Section 2-31(a)(2) and (a)(3) of the City Code for the purpose of
discussing the possible acquisition of real property and to discuss related legal issues with the City
74
May 16, 2006
Attorney. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson,
Kastein, Manvel, Ohlson,Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
("Secretary's Note: The Council adjourned into Executive Session at 10:40 p.m. and reconvened
following the Executive Session at 11:20 p.m.)
Adjournment
Councilmember Weitkunat made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Roy, to adjourn the
meeting to 6:00 p.m. on May 23, 2006 to discuss any matters that might come before the Council.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein,
Manvel, Ohlson, Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
The meeting adjourned at 11:22 p.m.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
75
May 23, 2006
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS,COLORADO
Council-Manager Form of Government
Adjourned Meeting- 6:00 p.m.
An adjourned meeting of the Council ofthe City of Fort Collins was held on Tuesday,May 23,2006,
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: Hutchinson,Kastein, Manvel, Ohlson, Roy, and Weitkunat.
Councilmembers Absent: Brown
Staff Members Present: Atteberry, Krajicek,Roy.
Mayor Hutchinson asked if there was any business to come before the Council.
No business was brought forth.
Adjournment
Meeting adjourned at 6:05 p.m.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
76
June 6, 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, June 6, 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: Attebeny, Krajicek, Roy.
Citizen Participation
Dolores Williams, 415 Mason Court 7A, asked Council to adopt a Resolution endorsing HR 676
relating to single payer universal health care.
Rich Salas, 319 Bluebird Court, representing the Defend Aztlan Citizen's Committee, expressed
concerns about efforts to change the name of the Northside Aztlan Community Center and asked the
Council to retain the current name and preserve the identity of the Center during the facility upgrade.
Betty Aragon Mitotes, 140 2nd Street,asked the Council to retain the current name for the Northside
Aztlan Community Center.
Rich Harter, 2701 Brookwood Court, supported retaining the name Northside Aztlan Community
Center.
Chuck Washington, 1125 Deercroft Court,spoke regarding the Ten-Year Plan for the Fort Collins-
Loveland Airport and expressed concerns regarding the encroachment of development around the
airport,the 1,000 foot runway extension and the lack of a written airport business or strategic plan.
Steve Yurash, 2920 Waterstone Court, stated the ethnocentric name"Aztlan"was now being used
by Communist groups and that the name was"too specific to the Hispanic community"and was not
"inclusive to the rest of the community." He stated he would like to see a different name for the
Community Center that would be "positive and supportive of the Hispanic community" or more
generic, such as the"Riverside Community Center." He suggested that rooms at the Center could
be named after Hispanic Medal of Honor winners.
Colby Thomas,2620 Kit Fox Court,stated the Youth Activity Center was important to the youth of
Fort Collins and opposed shutting it down.
77
June 6, 2006
Mary Detweiler, 4255 Westshore Way B3, supported keeping the name Northside Aztlan
Community Center.
Gil Kiefer, 6232 West Chase Road, commented regarding the airport master plan update and the
impact of the flight path on surrounding residential and commercial areas. He questioned the maps
included in the master plan, the data regarding the number of flights per day and the need for an
airport expansion.
Wendie Robinson, 3539 Sunflower Way, Executive Director of Neighbor-to-Neighbor, expressed
concerns regarding potential City budget cuts that could impact affordable housing.
Jim Ling, 6575 Rookery Road, expressed concerns regarding the airport master plan update,
questioned the data included in the plan and opposed the runway extension.
David Williams, 1600 Birmingham Drive, urged the Council to retain the current name for the
Northside Aztlan Community Center and spoke regarding the benefits of the Center.
Mayor Hutchinson asked if the Council was willing to extend the time for Citizen Participation. The
consensus was to continue. Mayor Hutchinson stated additional participants would have two
minutes to speak.
Jesse Ramirez, 1066 Tierra Lane Unit B, supported keeping the existing name for the Northside
Aztlan Community Center.
Kristin Candella, 815 Candlewood Drive,Habitat for Humanity, expressed concerns that possible
City budget cuts could have an effect on affordable housing.
Cannel"Chuck"Solano,2200 Berkshire Drive,asked the Council to keep the current name for the
Northside Aztlan Community Center.
Ray Martinez,4121 Stoneridge Court,spoke in support ofkeeping the name for the Northside Aztlan
Community Center. He thanked the City for continuing to work on solutions for the Youth Activity
Center.
Citizen Participation Follow-up
Mayor Hutchinson thanked those who spoke during Citizen Participation and stated he would bring
up the Northside Aztlan Community Center naming issue under Other Business.
Councilmember Ohlson stated the Northside Aztlan Community Center naming issue was not related
to the immigration issue whatsoever and that it was being discussed because a new facility was going
to be built. He stated he supported the name change because of concerns that the name implied
"exclusivity." He stated he did not support"Northside"because he did not want the town divided
78
June 6, 2006
into "northside, southside, eastside, westside" and that he did not even like the name "Senior
Center." He stated he no longer supported the name "Aztlan" He stated the `Balkanization" of
anything was"unwise"and would"isolate people"rather than"bring people together."He stated he
believed that the name Northside Aztlan Community Center was an"inappropriate name that breeds
isolation and exclusivity rather than inclusivity."He stated he would like to see the Council decide
to move forward with the discussion when the issue was brought up under Other Business.
Agenda Review
City Manager Atteberry stated he was suggesting one change to item#33 First Reading of Ordinance
No. 104,2006,Making Various Amendments to the Land Use Code. He asked that Council consider
on First Reading the entire item with the exception of#730 relating to revising the building height
standards in the downtown zone districts. He stated he would ask that Council schedule item#730
for a Study Session discussion.
Bruce Lockhart,2500 East Harmony Road,withdrew item#26 First Reading of Ordinance No. 103,
2006, Calling a Special Municipal Election on September 12, 2006 and Authorizing the Conduct of
Said Election as a Mail Ballot Election from the Consent Calendar.
Councilmember Ohlson withdrew item #18 First Reading of Ordinance No. 092, 2006,
Appropriating Prior Year Reserves Designated for Fire Services in the Fire Protection Capital
Improvement Expansion Fund for Payment to the Poudre Fire Authority to be Used for
Headquarters Building Expansion from the Consent Calendar.
CONSENT CALENDAR
6. Consideration and Annroval of the Minutes of the Al2ril 18, 2006 Regular Meeting;
7. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 075, 2006, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the
General Fund for Cultural Development and Programming Activities and the Fort Collins
Convention and Visitor's Bureau.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on May 16, 2006, appropriates
lodging tax revenues that were in excess of 2005 budgeted lodging tax receipts to Cultural
Development and Programming("CDP"),Visitor Events,and the Convention and Visitors
Bureau("CVB")accounts. Lodging tax revenue for 2005 was estimated to be$593,122 and
the 2006 budget appropriated an equal amount. However, actual receipts totaled $668,499
for 2005 and the difference of$75,377 has not been appropriated.
79
June 6, 2006
8. Second Reading of Ordinance No 076 2006.Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue
in the Cultural Services and Facilities Fund to Be Used for Research and Documentation of
the Soapstone Natural Area.
Ordinance No. 076, 2006, unanimously adopted on First Reading on May 16, 2006,
appropriates$147,563 in grant money from the National Park Service to be used for the Fort
Collins Museum's Soapstone Natural Area grant project.
9. Second Reading of Ordinance No 077 2006,Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue
in the Cultural Services and Facilities Fund to Be Used for Repatriation of Human Remains
and Cultural Artifacts in the Holdings of the Fort Collins Museum.
The City was awarded two grants from the National Park Service for $16,375. This
Ordinance,which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on May 16,2006, appropriates
the grant money in the Fort Collins Museum's Native American Graves Protection and
Repatriation Act("NAGPRA")Repatriation grant project.
10. Second Reading of Ordinance No 078 2006 Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the
Street Oversizine Fund and Authorizing the Transfer of Appropriations from the Street
Oversizing Fund to the Capital Project Fund - Lemay Avenue, Trilby Road to CaMenter
Road Capital Project.
Intersection and arterial street improvements are planned for Lemay Avenue, from Trilby
Road south to Carpenter Road (approximately 5280 linear feet). This Ordinance,
unanimously adopted on First Reading on May 16, 2006, appropriates $522,119 in
unanticipated revenue from Contributions-in-Aid-of-Construction in the Street Oversizing
Fund (received from the Provincetowne Filing 2 and Everitt Enterprises) and transfers an
additional $1,141,110 from existing appropriations in the Street Oversizing Fund into the
Capital Projects Fund for this project.
11. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 079, 2006, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the
Wastewater Fund for the Purpose of Purchasing Property.
The Wastewater Utility has a time sensitive opportunity to purchase land. This Ordinance,
unanimously adopted on First Reading on May 16,2006,appropriates funds for this purchase
by utilizing prior year reserves.
12. Second Reading ofOrdinance No.080,2006,Authorizing the Lease of City-OwnedPropertv
at 200 West Mountain Avenue. Suite C.For Up to Five Years.
The Fort Collins Technology Incubator(FCTI) provides critical business assistance to the
most promising high tech startup companies in the community. As part of its service,FCTI
offers below market lease space to its client companies. In 2004, the Council approved
Resolution 2004-069, which authorized the lease of City-owned property at 200 West
80
June 6, 2006
Mountain, Suite C,to FCTI and its clients. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First
Reading on May 16, 2006, allows the lease to FCTI and its participants to continue for up
to five years.
13. Second Reading of Ordinance No 081 2006 Amending the Zoninja May of the City of Fort
Collins by Changing the Zoning Classification for That Certain Property Known as the
MountainNrey Rezoning.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on May 16, 2006, approves the
rezoning of most of the Frey Subdivision(approximately 11.6 acres) from the L-M-N,Low
Density Mixed Use Neighborhood, District designation to the N-C-L, Neighborhood
Conservation Low Density,District designation.
14. Second Reading of Ordinance No 082 2006 Amending the Zoning Map of the City by
Changing the Zoning_Classification for that Certain Property Known as the Willow Brook
Parcel F Rezoning.
Ordinance No.082,2006,unanimously adopted on First Reading on May 16,2006,rezones
a.28 acre parcel created by the curving alignment of Rock Creek Drive platted as part of the
Willow Brook Subdivision. The parcel will be rezoned from L-M-N,Low Density Mixed-
Use Neighborhood,to U-E,Urban Estate and made a part of Lot One of Sunrise Ridge First
Filing.
15. Second Reading of Ordinance No 083 2006, Desi ng atine the Ernest and Anna Meyer
House 309 East Mulberry Street Fort Collins, Colorado. as a Fort Collins Landmark
Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the City Code.
Ordinance No. 083, 2006, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on May 16,
2006,designates the Ernest and Anna Meyer House as a Fort Collins Landmark. The owner
of the property, Linda J. Bova, is initiating this request.
16. Items Relating to the Completion of the Spring Cycle of the Competitive Process for
Allocating City Financial Resources to Affordable Housing and Community Development
Activities Utilizing the Federal Community Development Block Grant Program and Home
Investment Partnership Program Grants.and the City's Affordable Housing Fund and Human
Services Program.
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No.084,2006,Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue
and Authorizing the Transfer of Appropriations Between Program Years in the
Community Development Block Grant Fund.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No.085,2006,Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue
and Authorizing the Transfer ofAppropriations Between Program Years in the Home
Investment Partnerships Fund.
81
June 6, 2006
These Ordinances, unanimously adopted on First Reading on May 16, 2006, complete the
spring cycle of the competitive process for allocating City financial resources to affordable
housing projects/programs and community development activities
(CDBG/HOME/Affordable Housing/Human Services funds).
17. First Reading of Ordinance No 091 2006, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the
CgRital Projects Fund - Willow Street Environmental Remediation Project and Northside
Aztlan Community Center Replacement Project to be Used for Environmental Site
Mitigation in the Vicinity of Willow Street.
This Ordinance appropriates$200,000 in unanticipated revenue in the Capital Projects Fund
-Willow Street Environmental Remediation capital project,in the form of a payment from
Public Service Company of Colorado,and up to$50,000 in the Northside Aztlan Community
Center Replacement Project in the form of a payment from Schrader Oil Company of
Colorado. The payment will help offset some of the City's costs in complying with
Environmental Protection Agency requirements to mitigate contamination and take
reasonable steps required in connection with contamination that passes across and under
Willow Street and the Northside Aztlan Community Center site. The payment from Schrader
is designated for design and construction of a passive vapor barrier/venting system for the
Northside Aztlan Community Center.
18. First Reading of Ordinance No 092 2006 Appropriating Prior Year Reserves Designated
for Fire Services in the Fire Protection Capital Improvement Expansion Fund for Payment
to the Poudre Fire Authority to be Used for Headquarters Building Expansion.
The Headquarters Building, located at 102 Remington, houses the Fire Prevention Bureau
as well as operations and administrative personnel for the Poudre Fire Authority (the
"Authority"). The Authority is planning to expand the Headquarters Building as there is a
shortage of space for current and future needs. In order to pay for the expansion, the
Authority is requesting Council appropriate prior year reserves collected from the fire
protection capital expansion fee in the amount of$1,400,176,and transfer that amount to the
Authority capital budget.
19. First Reading of Ordinance No 093 2006, Amending Section 2-447 of the City Code
Relating to Membership of the Youth Advisory Board.
The Team Fort Collins Leadership Team has indicated it no longer wishes to make
appointments to the Youth Advisory Board. The Youth Advisory Board supports this
request. This Ordinance, if adopted, will reduce the membership of the Youth Advisory
Board from 9 members to 7 and will no longer require any members to be appointed by Team
Fort Collins.
82
June 6, 2006
20. First Reading of Ordinance No 094 2006, Amending Section 2-182 of the City Code
Relatingto Membership ofthe CommunityDevelopment Block Grant Commission("CDBG
Commission"),
The membership of the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Commission
("Commission") consists of 11 members appointed by City Council. For the past several
years it has become difficult to recruit and maintain full membership. The Commission has
been experiencing difficulty in obtaining a quorum for some of its meetings, making it
difficult to conduct its duties and functions. Commission members and staff have requested
that the membership be reduced to 9 members in an effort to make it easier to obtain
quorums and to perform its duties in a more efficient and timely manner.
21. First Reading of Ordinance No 095 2006 Authorizing the Conveyance of Certain Real
Property along Cedarwood Drive Subject to a Perpetual Utility Easement.
The City acquired the 3,935 square-foot parcel of land that is the subject of this Ordinance
in order to install a sewer line to serve surrounding development. The City is presently
maintaining and mowing this small strip of ground. Staff has determined it is not necessary
for the City to own the property and the maintenance costs associated with owning the
property can be avoided by conveying the property to an interested adjoining property owner.
The City will reserve and retain a utility easement on and under this tract for the existing
sewer line and in order to utilize the easement for any other utility purposes.
22. First Reading of Ordinance No 096 2006 Amending the Zoning Map by Changing the
Zoning Classification for That Certain Property Known as the Cargill Rezoning_
This is a request to rezone 29.5 acres located on the north side of Drake Road,approximately
1/2 mile east of Timberline Road. The site currently contains the Cargill canola research
facility and test fields. It is in the T - Transition District. The requested zoning for this
property is LMN - Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood.
23. Items Relating to the Peterson Annexation and Zoning.
A. Resolution 2006-062 Setting Forth Findings of Fact and Determinations Regarding
the Peterson Annexation.
B. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 097, 2006,Annexing Property Known
as the Peterson Annexation.
C. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 098,2006,Amending the Zoning Map
of the City of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included
in the Peterson Annexation.
This is a request to annex and zone 27.89 acres located on the south side of East Vine Drive
between Interstate 25 and County Road 5. The property is undeveloped and located in the
83
June 6, 2006
FAl -Farming District in Larimer County.The requested zoning for this annexation is UE-
Urban Estate,which is consistent with the Structure Plan designation and is in conformance
with the I-25 Subarea Plan.
Staff is recommending this property be included in the Residential Neighborhood Sign
District. A map amendment will not be necessary to place this property on the Residential
Neighborhood Sign District Map because the property is shown to already be outside of the
Areas Not In The Sign District.
24. Items Relating to the Streamside Annexation and Zoning.
A. Resolution 2006-063 Setting Forth Findings of Fact and Determinations Regarding
the Streamside Annexation.
B. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 099,2006,Annexing Property Known
as the Streamside Annexation.
C. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 100,2006,Amending the Zoning Map
of the City of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included
in the Streamside Annexation to the City.
This is a request to annex and zone 73.67 acres located on the south side of East Vine Drive
between Interstate 25 and County Road 5.Contiguity is gained along west property lines that
abut the Peterson Annexation being evaluated concurrent to this request. The property is
undeveloped and located in the FAl - Farming District in Larimer County. The requested
zoning for this annexation is UE-Urban Estate,which is consistent with the Structure Plan
designation and is in conformance with the I-25 Subarea Plan.
Staff is recommending this property be included in the Residential Neighborhood Sign
District. A map amendment will not be necessary to place this property on the Residential
Neighborhood Sign District Map because the property is shown to already be outside of the
Areas Not In The Sign District.
25. Items Relating to the Johnston Annexation and Zoning.
A. Resolution 2006-064 Setting Forth Findings of Fact and Determinations Regarding
the Johnston Annexation.
B. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 101,2006,Annexing Property Known
as the Johnston Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado.
C. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 102,2006,Amending the Zoning Map
of the City of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included
in the Johnston Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado.
84
June 6, 2006
This is a 100%voluntary annexation and zoning of a property approximately 36.82 acres in
size. The site is 6111 S. Timberline Road located approximately one-half mile south of
Kechter Road on the west side of Timberline Road. Contiguity with the existing municipal
boundary is gained along the entire south boundary which is shared with the Keating
Annexation (Linden Park Subdivision). Contiguity is also gained along the entire east
boundary which is shared with Westchase Annexation Number One and along the entire west
boundary which is shared with the Union Pacific Railroad Fourth Annexation.
26. First Reading_of Ordinance No 103 2006 Calling a Special Municipal Election on
Spptember 12 2006 and Authorizing the Conduct of Said Election as a Mail Ballot Election.
On May 19, 2006, the City Clerk's Office received an initiative petition to amend the City
Charter relating to collective bargaining. The Clerk's Office has completed its review of the
petition and has determined that the petition contains a sufficient number of signatures to
place the initiated measure on a special election ballot. Pursuant to C.R.S. 31-2-210(4), if
the petition is certified as sufficient by the City Clerk, the election must be held as near as
possible to the approximate date stated in the petition(September 12,2006). A Resolution
submitting the measure to the voters will be brought to Council at an adjourned meeting on
June 13.
27. Resolution 2006 065 Making Appointments to the Community Development Block Grant
Commission the Electric Board and the Youth Advisory Board.
A vacancy currently exists on the Community Development Block Grant Commission due
to the resignation of William Slye. Applications were solicited and Councilmembers Manvel
and Brown conducted interviews. The Council interview team is recommending Tom
LeSavage to fill the vacancy with a term to begin immediately and set to expire on December
31, 2010.
A vacancy currently exists on the Electric Board due to the resignation of Tracy Babst-
Wiedenbrug. Applications were solicited and Councilmembers Kastein and Brown
conducted interviews. The Council interview team is recommending Steven Wolley to fill
the vacancy with a term to begin immediately and set to expire on December 31, 2010.
Ordinance No. 093, 2006,considered on First Reading on June 6, eliminates two positions
on the Youth Advisory Board appointed by Youth Leadership Committee of Team Fort
Collins. The Youth Leadership Committee no longer exits,therefore, Team Fort Collins and
the Youth Advisory Board initiated a request to remove those two positions from the Board.
Currently one of those positions is vacant and the other is filled by Ryan Hennig who desires
to remain on the Board. A Council appointment to the Youth Advisory Board is currently
vacant due to the resignation ofKristi Thomas. This Resolution would appoint Ryan Hennig
to fill the current Council appointed vacancy.
***END CONSENT***
85
June 6, 2006
Ordinances on Second Reading were read by title by City Clerk Krajicek.
7. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 075, 2006, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the
General Fund for Cultural Development and Programming Activities and the Fort Collins
Convention and Visitor's Bureau.
8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 076, 2006,Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue
in the Cultural Services and Facilities Fund to Be Used for Research and Documentation of
the Soapstone Natural Area.
9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 077,2006,Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue
in the Cultural Services and Facilities Fund to Be Used for Repatriation of Human Remains
and Cultural Artifacts in the Holdings of the Fort Collins Museum.
10. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 078, 2006,Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the
Street Oversizing Fund and Authorizing the Transfer of Appropriations from the Street
Oversizing Fund to the Capital Project Fund - Lemay Avenue, Trilby Road to Carpenter
Road Capital Project.
11. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 079, 2006, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the
Wastewater Fund for the Purpose of Purchasing Property.
12. Second Reading of Ordinance No.080,2006,Authorizing the Lease of City-Owned Property
at 200 West Mountain Avenue, Suite C, For Up to Five Years.
13. Second Reading of Ordinance No.081,2006,Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Fort
Collins by Changing the Zoning Classification for That Certain Property Known as the
Mountain/Frey Rezoning.
14. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 082, 2006, Amending the Zoning Map of the City by
Changing the Zoning Classification for that Certain Property Known as the Willow Brook
Parcel F Rezoning.
15. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 083, 2006, Designating the Ernest and Anna Meyer
House, 309 East Mulberry Street, Fort Collins, Colorado, as a Fort Collins Landmark
Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the City Code.
16. Items Relating to the Completion of the Spring Cycle of the Competitive Process for
Allocating City Financial Resources to Affordable Housing and Community Development
Activities Utilizing the Federal Community Development Block Grant Program and Home
Investment Partnership Program Grants,and the City's Affordable Housing Fund and Human
Services Program.
86
June 6, 2006
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No.084,2006,Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue
and Authorizing the Transfer of Appropriations Between Program Years in the
Community Development Block Grant Fund.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No.085,2006,Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue
and Authorizing the Transfer of Appropriations Between Program Years in the Home
Investment Partnerships Fund.
31. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 087, 2006, Amending Chapter 3 of the City Code to
Allow Alcohol Beverage Tastings.
32. Items Relating to the Amendment of the Appeals Process Contained in Chapter 2,Article II,
Division 3 of the City Code.
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 088, 2006, Making Various Amendments to
Chapter 2,Article II Division 3 of the City Code Pertaining to the Appeals Process.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 089, 2006, Amending Chapter 2, Article II,
Division 3 of the City Code with Regard to the Grounds upon which Appeals to the
City Council are Decided.
C. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 090, 2006, Amending Chapter 2, Article II,
Division 3 of the City Code Pertaining to the Filing of Appeals by Members of the
City Council.
Ordinances on First Reading were read by title by City Clerk Krajicek.
17. First Reading of Ordinance No. 091, 2006, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the
Capital Projects Fund - Willow Street Environmental Remediation Project and Northside
Aztlan Community Center Replacement Project to be Used for Environmental Site
Mitigation in the Vicinity of Willow Street.
18. First Reading of Ordinance No. 092, 2006, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves Designated
for Fire Services in the Fire Protection Capital Improvement Expansion Fund for Payment
to the Poudre Fire Authority to be Used for Headquarters Building Expansion.
19. First Reading of Ordinance No. 093, 2006, Amending Section 2-447 of the City Code
Relating to Membership of the Youth Advisory Board.
20. First Reading of Ordinance No. 094, 2006, Amending Section 2-182 of the City Code
Relating to Membership ofthe Community Development Block Grant Commission("CDBG
Commission").
21. First Reading of Ordinance No. 095, 2006, Authorizing the Conveyance of Certain Real
Property along Cedarwood Drive Subject to a Perpetual Utility Easement.
87
June 6, 2006
22. First Reading of Ordinance No. 096, 2006, Amending the Zoning Map by Changing the
Zoning Classification for That Certain Property Known as the Cargill Rezoning.
23. Items Relating to the Peterson Annexation and Zoning.
B. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 097, 2006,Annexing Property Known
as the Peterson Annexation.
C. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 098,2006,Amending the Zoning Map
of the City of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included
in the Peterson Annexation.
24. Items Relating to the Streamside Annexation and Zoning.
B. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 099, 2006,Annexing Property Known
as the Streamside Annexation.
C. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 100,2006,Amending the Zoning Map
ofthe City of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included
in the Streamside Annexation to the City.
25. Items Relating to the Johnston Annexation and Zoning.
B. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 101,2006,Annexing Property Known
as the Johnston Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado.
C. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 102,2006,Amending the Zoning Map
of the City of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property included
in the Johnston Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado.
26. First Reading of Ordinance No. 103, 2006, Calling a Special Municipal Election on
September 12,2006 and Authorizing the Conduct of Said Election as a Mail Ballot Election.
33. First Reading of Ordinance No. 104, 2006, Making Various Amendments to the Land Use
Code.
Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Roy, to adopt and approve
all items not withdrawn from the Consent Calendar. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas:
Councilmembers Brown,Hutchinson,Kastein,Manvel,Ohlson,Roy and Weitkunat. Nays:None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
88
June 6, 2006
Consent Calendar Follow-up
Councilmember Weitkunat commented regarding item#7 Second Reading of Ordinance No. 075,
2006, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the General Fund for Cultural Development and
Programming Activities and the Fort Collins Convention and Visitor's Bureau. She noted the
importance of generating tourism dollars
Councilmember Kastein spoke regarding item #10 Second Reading of Ordinance No. 078, 2006,
Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the Street Oversizing Fund and Authorizing the Transfer
of Appropriations from the Street Oversizing Fund to the Capital Project Fund-Lemay Avenue,
Trilby Road to Carpenter Road Capital Project. He commented on discussions relating to payment
for out-of-City improvements based on the assumption that the property would eventually be part
of the City and suggested that this issue as related to the southwest enclave annexation be scheduled
for Council discussion at a future work session.
Staff Reports
City Manager Atteberry reported that the library awareness ("Read at Your Library") poster
campaign had received an award from the Colorado State Libraries System. He also reported that
Police Services staff members had been invited to give a presentation on liquor enforcement in
college towns at the National Liquor Law Enforcement Association conference. He recognized the
support provided by the City Attorney's Office and City Clerk's Office to liquor law enforcement
in Fort Collins. He noted that City staff members were frequently asked to present at "best
practices"symposiums.
Ordinance No. 087,2006
Amending Chapter 3 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins
to Allow Alcohol Beverage Tastings,Adopted on Second Reading
The following is staff s memorandum on this item.
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Ordinance amends the City Code to allow beer and wine tastings at retail liquor stores. The
number of tasting events for a retail liquor store license will be limited to 52 days per year. It was
adopted on First Reading on May 16, 2006 with a vote of 6-1 (Nays: Ohlson). "
City Manager Atteberry stated staff would be available to answer questions.
Councilmember Weitkunat made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Roy,to adopt Ordinance
No. 087, 2006 on Second Reading.
89
June 6, 2006
Councilmember Manvel requested clarification regarding the option that was on the table for
discussion.
Mayor Hutchinson stated the option being was considered was for controlled tastings for beer and
wine.
Councilmember Ohlson stated he would vote against the motion because he believed that tastings
were inappropriate in a culture with alcohol consumption problems.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein,
Manvel,Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: Councilmember Ohlson.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Items Relating to the Amendment of the
Appeals Process Contained in Chapter 2,Article II,
Division 3 of the City Code,Adopted on Second Reading
The following is stafrs memorandum on this item.
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 088, 2006, Making Various Amendments to Chapter 2,
Article II Division 3 of the City Code Pertaining to the Appeals Process.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 089, 2006,Amending Chapter 2,Article II,Division 3 of
the City Code with Regard to the Grounds upon which Appeals to the City Council are
Decided.
C. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 090, 2006,Amending Chapter 2,Article II, Division 3 of
the City Code Pertaining to the Filing of Appeals by Members of the City Council.
Ordinance No. 088, 2006, unanimously adopted on First Reading on May 16, 2006, makes various
amendments to the appeals process that are perceived to be non-controversial.
Ordinance No. 089, 2006,pertains to the basis for Council's decision on appeal and retains the
existing provision that limits the grounds to those stated in the notice of appeal and eliminates the
opportunity for Councilmembers to add additional issues prior to the appeal. This Ordinance was
adopted on First Reading on May 16, 2006 with a vote of 5-2 (Nays: Manvel, Roy).
Ordinance No. 090, 2006, pertains to appeals filed by Councilmembers. It retains Council-
members'ability to file an appeal but states that Councilmembers who do so should not participate
in deciding the appeal, although they may participate in the appeal hearing in the same manner as
90
June 6, 2006
other appellants. This Ordinance was adopted on First Reading, with amendments, on May 16,
2006 with a vote of 5-2 (Nays: Ohlson, Roy). "
City Manager Atteberry stated staff was available to answer any questions. City Attorney Roy
recommended voting on the three ordinances separately.
Councilmember Kastein made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Weitkunat, to adopt
Ordinance No. 088, 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.
Councilmember Roy stated he would vote against Ordinance No. 089, 2006 on Second Reading.
He stated it might limit Council's ability to make good decisions.
Councilmember Kastein made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Weitkunat, to adopt
Ordinance No. 089, 2006 on Second Reading.
Councilmember Kastein asked if this would be a "small change." City Attorney Roy stated the
ordinance would limit the ability of Councilmembers to file a notice of additional issues before the
hearing and clarify that no issue should be considered at the hearing other than those raised in the
notice of appeal.
Councilmember Kastein asked if the change that was made for Second Reading was to limit the
ability of Councilmembers to add new issues seven days ahead of the hearing. City Attorney Roy
stated was correct.
Councilmember Manvel stated there needed to be some clarification in the procedure but that it was
"unfortunate"that the process was being changed to make it "neater"but not necessarily one that
would help the Council arrive at as"good a decision." He stated he would not support the motion
because this would"tie the hands"of future Councils in making decisions to correct errors that were
identified. He stated he understood the position that clarification was needed in the process.
Councilmember Ohlson stated he did not view this as a"minor change." He stated this would limit
the Council to making its decision based on the grounds set forth in the notice of appeal. He
questioned why other Councilmembers would support this limitation when it could prevent the
Council from making the"best decision."
Councilmember Kastein stated the Council had given the responsibility for development review to
the City staff and the Planning and Zoning Board. He stated when appeals came to the Council he
relied upon the fact that the item had already been dealt with through the development review
process. He stated he also relied on the appellants raising the"proper grounds" for the appeal and
that it would be"inefficient"for the Council to"find a different rationale"than what was set out in
the notice of appeal. He noted that the Council was not"reevaluating every other item that had come
91
June 6, 2006
through the development review." He stated it would be"inconsistent" for the Council to choose
to reevaluate a particular item because it was coming to the Council on appeal. He favored trusting
the system.
Councilmember Ohlson stated there was an appeal on which the Council ruled against the
development because the appellant cited the "wrong grounds,"when the majority of the Council
would have otherwise ruled in favor of the development.
Councilmember Kastein stated there was a difference of opinion on that particular appeal.
Councilmember Manvel stated there was an appeal on the basis of an unfair hearing and the Council
believed that the interpretation of the rules was wrong.
Councilmember Weitkunat stated the Council should be"cautious"in this discussion. She stated
the appeal process was an opportunity for citizens to come forward to present their perceptions about
the issue. She stated the issue should not be how Council perceived the matter. She stated the
Council should interpret the matter based on specific rules and that the Council was not a"judge"
over what took place in the development review process. She stated the role of the Council was to
hear what the appellant was bringing forward. She stated it was important that the Council not"re-
hash"what happened at the Planning and Zoning Board or administrative hearing. She stated the
Council should deal the specific issues presented by the appellant in accordance with the established
rules.
Councilmember Roy stated a great deal ofinformation was presented to Councilmembers on appeals.
He stated it was likely that Councilmembers "might come up with something that makes the end
result even better." He stated this change would prevent that possibility.
Councilmember Manvel asked if the Council would have any opportunity to correct a "grievous
error"that had been identified in the appeal hearing. He asked if the Council could remand an issue
in such cases for further consideration. City Attorney Roy stated the new ordinance would not allow
that. He stated there seemed to be some Council interest in having the ability to raise an issue if an
appellant did not raise an issue, and that the next ordinance would allow a Councilmember to file
an appeal. He stated some revisions would be needed to allow extra time if the Council wanted to
allow a Councilmember to raise issues in an appeal that were not set forth in the appellant's notice
of appeal. He stated at the present time a notice of appeal would have to be filed by a citizen or a
Councilmember within 14 days.
Councilmember Manvel asked if multiple appeals relating to the same issue could be filed. City
Attorney Roy replied in the affirmative.
Mayor Hutchinson stated this was an"important issue." He stated the Planning and Zoning Board
spent a lot of time on these issues and that the Council was a"policy level"body. He stated appeals
were a"last resort" and an appeal to Council should not be a rehearing to "redo the decision." He
92
June 6, 2006
stated if Council was going to rehear the matter this would be an"unmotivator"for the Planning and
Zoning Board to do detailed work on an issue.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein and
Weitkunat. Nays: Councilmembers Manvel, Ohlson and Roy.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Weitkunat made amotion,seconded by Councilmember Brown,to adopt Ordinance
No. 090, 2006 on Second Reading.
Councilmember Roy stated he voted against this ordinance on First Reading because
Councilmembers making appeals would not able to participate in the appeal hearing and because a
"super majority"would be necessary for a vote to be successful. He stated he did not believe that
this change was necessary and that it would have "implications" for future outcomes.
Councilmember Brown asked about adding extra days for Councilmembers to file appeals. City
Attorney Roy stated extra days would need to be added if the Council wanted to provide an
opportunity for Councilmembers to see what was filed before deciding whether to file a
Councilmember-initiated appeal.
Councilmember Brown offered a friendly amendment to change the deadline for Council-initiated
appeals from 14 to 16 days. City Attorney Roy stated he had not had an opportunity to ask if there
were staff concerns about the change to 16 days. City Clerk Krajicek noted that Councilmembers
typically did not have the appeal until a later date. City Attorney Roy stated staff would have to
devise an administrative process to provide the Council with a copy as soon as a citizen appeal was
filed.
Councilmember Brown asked if it would be possible for the Council to receive the transcript and the
video recording of the hearing when they received the copy of the appeal. City Attorney Roy stated
it may be impractical for Councilmembers to file appeals after a citizen appeal had been filed. He
stated Councilmember appeals would only be practical when a Councilmember had been"following
an issue"being discussed by the Planning and Zoning Board. He stated changing the deadline for
a Councilmember to file an appeal to 16 days would only allow Councilmembers to determine if the
appeal "hit on the issues" of concern to the Council. City Manager Atteberry suggested that
extending the deadline by several days would not be a problem but that delaying a hearing on a
matter by several weeks could create difficulties.
Councilmember Weitkunat stated the issue was whether a Councilmember should have the ability
to file an appeal once another appeal had already been filed. She stated this discussion was beyond
the scope of the proposed ordinance. City Attorney Roy stated the discussion was going beyond the
ability of a Councilmember to file an appeal and the circumstances of such appeals.
Councilmember Weitkunat stated this should be discussed at another time.
93
June 6, 2006
Mayor Hutchinson asked for clarification that this ordinance would retain the ability of
Councilmembers to file an appeal and would provide that the Councilmembers filing the appeal
should not participate in the decision-making on the appeal. He questioned the need to change the
deadline for the filing of appeals by Councilmembers. City Attorney Roy stated he was trying to
respond to the Council's discussion about the circumstance in which there was a"pressing issue"
that Council wanted to address because nobody else had raised the issue. He stated the change in
the deadline would be one way to address that issue.
Councilmember Ohlson asked if the Councilmember would have to give a reason for the appeal.
City Attorney Roy replied in the negative.
Councilmember Ohlson stated the deadline would therefore not need to be changed because the
Councilmember would not have to have a reason that was different than what was set forth in the
original appellant's notice of appeal.
Mayor Hutchinson stated it was important for Councilmembers to have the ability to file an appeal
and that he supported the change to remove the Councilmember filing the appeal from the decision-
making process. He asked if Councilmember Brown was still offering a friendly amendment.
Councilmember Brown withdrew the offer of a friendly amendment.
Councilmember Kastein asked if a Councilmember filing an appeal would be excluded from the
decision-making process on a second appeal filed by someone else. City Attorney Roy stated once
the Councilmember filed an appeal he or she would be opting out by filing the appeal without having
seen whether someone else had appealed.
Mayor Hutchinson noted that the Councilmember would be allowed to participate at the podium by
presenting his or her views.
Councilmember Manvel asked for clarification regarding the Councilmember's participation ifthere
were two different appeals. He asked if there would be one appeal process for both appeals. City
Attorney Roy stated the Code provided that the Mayor"may"combine the two hearings so that the
two appeals could be heard together and that this had been the practice in the past. He stated
"technically"the Councilmember could participate in deciding the other appeal but that this might
not be a good idea.
Councilmember Kastein stated he would support explicit language to address the issue of a
Councilmember's participation regarding a parallel appeal i.e. the Councilmember should not
participate on either appeal. He stated the filing of an appeal by a Councilmember gave the
perception of"bias"on the matter. He stated he would prefer to address this matter now rather than
dealing with it when this happened.
Councilmember Roy stated the Council could choose to allow the Councilmember to participate in
the appeal hearing if another appeal was filed.
94
June 6, 2006
Councilmember Ohlson stated there would be "no"votes on this ordinance.
Mayor Hutchinson stated the Code"wisely"allowed some decision-making that could be"tailored
to the unique situation."He stated no two situations were the same. He stated he believed that this
process would be rarely used and that it would provide a"safety valve."
Councilmember Kastein asked if the Mayor was suggesting that this be left to the discretion of the
Mayor as currently provided in the Code.
Mayor Hutchinson stated this was his proposal and that this should be a flexible process. He noted
that Councilmembers were not required to set forth a rationale for filing an appeal.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein and
Weitkunat. Nays: Councilmembers Manvel, Ohlson and Roy.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Ordinance No. 104, 2006
Making Various Amendments to the
Land Use Code.Adopted on First Reading
The following is staff s memorandum on this item.
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Staff has identified a variety of proposed changes, additions and clarifications in the Spring
biannual update of the Land Use Code. The proposed changes are offered in order to resolve
implementation issues and to continuously improve both the overall quality and"user friendliness"
of the Code.
BACKGROUND
The Land Use Code was first adopted in March 1997. Subsequent revisions have been
recommended on a biannual basis to make changes,additions, deletions and clarifications that have
been identified in the preceding six months. "
Mayor Hutchinson requested clarification regarding the staffproposal to exclude item#730 from the
ordinance. City Attorney Roy stated this was included in Section 28 of the ordinance.
City Manager Atteber yrecommended adoption of the ordinance on First Reading except for Section
28, which he would schedule on an upcoming work session.
95
June 6, 2006
Cameron Gloss,Current Planning Director,stated item#730 related to downtown heights. He stated
this was the spring cycle of the biannual Land Use Code amendments process. He stated 15 items
were proposed for consideration and that he would highlight several of the proposed items. He
stated there were proposed changes relating to the posting of notification signs and changes to the
required notification distances for various applications. He stated staff was recommending that the
base notification distance be changed from 500 feet to 800 feet and that the requirement for 750 feet
be changed to 800 feet. He stated cost would be 2'/s times the current cost to expand the notification
area from 500 feet to 800 feet. He stated staff also did an analysis regarding the impact to the City
Clerk's Office and that the cost differential would be the same. He stated staff believed that the
additional notification costs would be reasonable. He stated another item related to the definition
of"block face." He stated staff determined that properties across the street and properties diagonally
across the intersection should be included in the block face. He stated the proposed text was: "The
opposing block face,or a catter-corner block face at the nearest intersection. . . ." He stated the last
major issue was the addition of 12-plexes in the LMN zone district. He presented visual information
illustrating examples of how this change could be applied. He stated the maximum size of the
building would be changed from two-and-one-half stories to three stories. He stated staffs
recommendation to the Planning and Zoning Board was for a maximum of 1,200 square feet for a
12-plex and that the majority of the Board was to expand the size to 1,400 square feet. He stated the
rationale was that a typical unit was 1,200 to 1,300 square feet for a market rate unit. He stated staff
proposed a 1,200 square foot maximum because of a concern that a 14,000 square foot building in
the LMN zone might seem"incongruous"with the character of the area. He stated the Planning and
Zoning Board asked the staff to forward a recommendation for the larger size. He stated there were
recommended changes to design standards relating to building materials, roof articulation, and
building facade articulation dealing with mass,bulk and scale issues.
David Herrera, attorney, stated he was representing himself and partnership with which he was
associated,questioned the wisdom of withdrawing item#730 from the ordinance. He stated people
interested in the development ofthe downtown area were"skittish"about anyproposed changes such
as item#730. He stated removing this item from the ordinance would cause"uncertainty,doubt and
a withdrawal of commitments." He stated the Council needed to make a decision about the
downtown and that withdrawing the item from consideration indefinitely would have a"chilling
effect"on those who wanted to invest in the downtown area. He asked that item#730 be brought
forward expeditiously.
City Manager Atteberry stated item#730 would be brought forwared as quickly as possible.
Mayor Hutchinson stated this item was postponed because of all the questions on this "complex"
issue and the need for Council to make a well-informed decision.
Councilmember Kastein asked when this item could be scheduled for work session discussion. City
Manager Atteberry stated he would discuss with the Leadership Team the scheduling of this item
for July 11 or July 25.
96
June 6, 2006
Councilmember Kastein stated the Downtown Development Authority board members expressed
an interest in adding more "certainty" to the Code to provide more assurances to downtown
developers. He stated he would be looking for that during the Study Session discussion. He asked
about the issue of increasing the size of a 12-plex from 12,000 to 14,000 square feet. He stated there
appeared to be a good case for the Planning and Zoning Board's argument in favor of 14,000 square
feet. Gloss stated many units could exceed the square footage per unit and automatically throw out
the 12,000 square foot maximum. He stated staff s hesitation was in introducing larger buildings
in the LMN zone.
Councilmember Kastein asked where the Planning and Zoning Board came up with the idea that
14,000 square feet would be better than 12,000 square feet. Gloss stated there was discussion about
a larger size at a work session. He stated there was some concern that 14,000 square feet was too
big.
Councilmember Kastein asked if the discussion started out at 14,000 square feet. Gloss stated staff
and the Board reviewed various options between 12,000 and 14,000 square feet during the initial
discussions.
Councilmember Weitkunat asked if the point of allowing a 12-plex in the LMN zone had to do with
affordable housing and the ability to build. Gloss stated there were multiple aspects. He stated the
Council had discussed the preservation ofopen space through aggregating more units under one roof
He stated affordable housing was also an issue and that another issue was a"balancing act"to spread
open space throughout a development. He stated the criticism heard about the LMN zone was that
there was a lot of small lot development without a lot of variety. He stated it was difficult to design
within the LMN zone to get a broad range of densities within a neighborhood. He stated having
bigger lots might be one way to do that to offset higher density areas.
Councilmember Weitkunat asked if an 8-plex would have a maximum size of 14,000 square feet.
Gloss replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Weitkunat questioned the logic that a 12-plex could not be done. Gloss stated the
market had not responded to smaller 12-plex units.
Councilmember Weitkunat asked if the rationale for 14,000 square feet offered by the Planning and
Zoning Board was market conditions. Gloss replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Manvel asked if the developer could ask by appeal for a larger square footage if the
maximum was set at 12,000 square foot. Gloss replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Manvel stated it would not make sense to set a standard that would always be
modified by appeal. Gloss stated this was the Board's logic and that compliance with the 12,000
square foot requirement would be difficult.
97
June 6, 2006
Councilmember Manvel made a motion,seconded by Councilmember Roy,to adopt Ordinance No.
104, 2006 on First Reading as amended to delete Section 28.
Councilmember Weidmat asked if this motion would mean that the maximum square footage for
a 12-plex in the LMN zone would be 14,000 square feet. Gloss replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Ohlson requested clarification regarding the 14,000 square foot maximum. He
stated it appeared that the 14,000 square requirement could be appealed. He expressed concerns
about the process i.e.the Planning and Zoning Board's recommendation for 14,000 square feet was
incorporated in the ordinance rather than the staff s recommendation for 12,000 square feet. He
stated he believed that the staffs recommendation should always be presented in such ordinances
or that the recommendation put forth should always be the Board's.
Councilmember Weitkunat stated staff presented a recommendation to the Planning and Zoning
Board and that generally what was brought to the Council was the Board's recommendation.
Councilmember Ohlson stated it should be consistent and that it should be staff s recommendation
presented to the Council, with the Board's position clearly outlined.
Councilmember Manvel stated he agreed with Councilmember Ohlson's comment and that in this
case the staff may have been influenced by the Planning and Zoning Board's recommendation. He
stated he would like to see such ordinances reflect the staffs recommendation.
Councilmember Weitkunat stated the Council needed to decide what the role of the Planning and
Zoning Board should be i.e., whether it should be a quasi-judicial body or a"rubber stamp"to the
staff's recommendations.
Councilmember Ohlson stated the staff s recommendation should be reflected in the ordinance and
the Board's recommendation should be clearly outlined. He stated he did not want the Council to
have to debate every one of the Land Use Code changes on which the opinions of the staff and the
Board differed.
Councilmember Weitkunat asked why the matter should even go to the Planning and Zoning Board
in that case.
Councilmember Ohlson stated he wanted the Board's recommendation but that he wanted the staff s
recommendation to be the "ultimate" one. He stated in this case he would support the Board's
recommendation rather than the staffs recommendation. He stated he was most interested in the
staffs recommendation on Land Use Code changes.
Mayor Hutchinson asked how the procedural question was relevant to the matter on the table.
Councilmember Ohlson stated it was relevant because the language of the ordinance reflected the
Board's recommendation rather than the staffs recommendation. He questioned why the ordinance
98
June 6, 2006
was written that way. He stated if Council wanted to adopt the staff recommendation amendments
would need to be made to the ordinance. He stated the process should be reversed.
Councilmember Kastein stated he supported having the staff come to Council with its best
recommendation after soliciting input from the community and the boards and commissions. He
stated he would prefer to see the staff s recommendation reflected in such ordinances in the future.
City Manager Atteberry stated he believed that it was important for the staff to give Council its best
professional judgment and recommendation after soliciting feedback from boards and commissions.
Councilmember Roynoted that the agenda item summary indicated that staffrecommended adoption
of the ordinance on First Reading and that staff in fact did not recommend the change to 14,000
square feet.
Mayor Hutchinson noted that the consensus was to direct staff to reflect the staff recommendation
in such ordinances. Gloss stated a 14,000 square foot building would be a relatively massive
building for a LMN neighborhood. He stated staff made an effort to accommodate the density while
reducing the size of the building as much as possible. He stated staff believed that the Board came
up with some practical considerations based on the marketplace. He stated staffhad"struggled"with
this issue since this was a "low" density district. He stated the staff and Board positions on the
square footage both had merit.
Councilmember Manvel stated the agenda material gave examples of 12-plexes that had 1,100 to
1,500 square feet and that these were not in the LMN zone. Gloss stated that was correct.
Councilmember Manvel asked if the larger buildings in the LMN zone would be softened by
architectural elements and the open space requirements. Gloss replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Ohlson stated the`wiser course"would be 12,000 square feet because developers
could appeal if they had a"higher bar"of setback and architectural standards. He stated he would
vote against the option because developers could request a larger building if they could prove their
case. He stated adjoining landlords and properties also had property rights. He stated he would
prefer 12,000 square feet in this"low"density zone.
Councilmember Kastein asked about a change to the sign code suggested by a local church and asked
if that change was evaluated for this round of Land Use Code changes. Gloss stated the suggestion
came into the process too late.
Councilmember Ohlson suggested that staff work on the confusing language referring to "open
space." He suggested that staff look at language such as`open area, common area,green space"in
place of"open space." He stated he would like signs on pending developments to be done in a
different"glaring"color to denote pending change. He stated he did not share the concern expressed
by Councilmember Kastein regarding"assurances"to downtown developers for high rises. He stated
development should be"high risk, high reward" instead of assured.
99
June 6, 2006
Councilmember Weitkunat called for a point of order and requested that the discussion focus on the
motion.
Councilmember Ohlson noted that Councilmember Kastein brought up the issue of "more
assurances" for development.
Councilmember Weitkunat stated Councilmember Kastein indicated he would bring up the matter
under Other Business.
Councilmember Ohlson stated that was a different issue.
Mayor Hutchinson stated the downtown building height issue was being postponed to a work
session. He asked if Councilmember Kastein planned to bring up the issue that was to be postponed.
Councilmember Kastein stated there would be a good discussion at the work session.
Councilmember Ohlson stated he was responding to Councilmember Kastein's comments so that
staff would be aware that there would be two different viewpoints.
Mayor Hutchinson asked if 14,000 square feet was included in the motion.
Councilmember Manvel stated was part of the motion. He stated 14,000 square feet seemed to be
"dictated by the 12-plex." He stated provided there were restrictions on the appearance of the
building and setbacks he would support the 14,000 square foot figure.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein,
Manvel, Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: Councilmember Ohlson.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
("Secretary's Note:The Council took a brief recess at this point for the benefit of the stenographer
and reconvened at 8:30 p.m.)
Ordinance No. 092, 2006,
Appropriating Prior Year Reserves Designated for
Fire Services in the Fire Protection Capital Improvement
Expansion Fund for Payment to the Poudre Fire Authority
to be Used for Headquarters Building Expansion Adopted on First Reading
The following is staffs memorandum on this item.
100
June 6, 2006
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Headquarters Building, located at 102 Remington, houses the Fire Prevention Bureau as well
as operations and administrative personnel for the Poudre Fire Authority(the "Authority'). The
Authority is planning to expand the Headquarters Building as there is a shortage of space for
current and future needs. In order to pay for the expansion, the Authority is requesting Council
appropriate prior year reserves collected from the fire protection capital expansion fee in the
amount of$1,400,176, and transfer that amount to the Authority capital budget.
BACKGROUND
Expansion of the Headquarters Building has been a priority for several years. The current
Headquarters Building houses 21 people and there is a shortage of restrooms, storage and office
space, conference rooms and other space requirements. Theproposed expansion will accommodate
these needs as well as provide space for the next 20 years.
The necessary property for the expansion has been identified. The Fort Collins Downtown
Development Authority Board of Directors voted unanimously in May 2005 to lease a small pocket
park adjacent to the current headquarters building for a dollar per year.
The architect and staff estimate that the Headquarters Building expansion will cost approximately
$2,165,000. However,final costs will not be known until actual contractor costs are received.
Vaught Frye Architects is currently putting together biddable plans for the expansion. The PFA
Board ofDirectors reviewed and approved theproject and will provide the balance ofthe necessary
funds from existing appropriations for the Authority. The fire protection capital expansion fee fund
currently totals $1,400,176.
Since the Headquarters Building will house staff and firefighters to manage and coordinate the
Authority's city-wideprevention,public education,and emergency services,staffbelieves this meets
the requirements for expenditure ofthe capital expansion fee revenue as set out in Section 7.5-30(a)
of the Code of the City of Fort Collins. "
City Manager Atteberry stated staff would be available to respond to any questions.
Councilmember Ohlson expressed concerns about the pocket park and the construction of a $2
million dollar structure at that location. He asked about the process that resulted in the DDA giving
"free land"to the PFA. He asked where City planning would come into play. He stated he would
vote against this Ordinance because he believed that this was an"unwise move that runs contrary
to urban planning."He stated another location should have been found for the expansion of the PFA.
Guy Boyd,PFA Director of Administrative Services,stated the project was going through the same
development review process as any other project. He stated other sites were explored and that the
pocket park site was recommended because it would be a cost-effective use of public funds because
other property would not need to be purchased;it would be convenient for PFA customers;and PFA
employees would be shopping and working in downtown.
101
June 6, 2006
Councilmember Ohlson asked if the project had gone through the development review process.
Boyd stated the PFA had gone through a substantial part of the development process and was
confident that the project would be approved in accordance with City guidelines.
Councilmember Ohlson stated he was concerned that DDA,PFA and City Council approvals did not
come before the development review process. He stated he would like to know the status of the
development review process before Second Reading. Boyd stated every PFA facility went through
the development review process.
Councilmember Kastein stated the PFA was asking for an appropriation for the project at a specific
location and that he did not think that it was important when the project went through the
development review process since these were separate processes. He stated he hoped that the
development review process had enough integrity that the standards would be upheld whether or not
the Council was in support of a project. He stated it would be a waste of taxpayer dollars to go
through the development review process before the PFA knew that funds would be appropriated for
the project at this location. City Manager Atteberry stated this Council action would not make any
statement about the development review process and that this project would be treated like any other
public or private sector project.
Councilmember Manvel asked for an explanation of the indefinite$1 per year lease from the DDA
to the PFA. He asked if in effect the property was being given "indefinitely" to the PFA. Boyd
stated the lease was for$1 per year for 50 years, with an option for an additional 30 years.
Councilmember Manvel asked if the project would eliminate the pocket park. Boyd replied in the
affirmative.
Councilmember Manvel asked if this would double the space for the PFA. Boyd stated it would
more than double the size of the existing building. He stated the building footprint would remain
the same and that three floors were being proposed for the expansion.
Councilmember Manvel asked if that would entirely close off the west side of the parking garage.
Boyd replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Ohlson asked if there were any City staff concerns about taking away the award-
winning pocket park and changing the character of that area. He stated this change"ran contrary to
lots of good thinking." City Manager Atteberry stated staff would prepare information prior to
Second Reading.
Councilmember Weitkunat made amotion,seconded by Councilmember Brown,to adopt Ordinance
No. 092, 2006 on First Reading. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers
Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein, Manvel, Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: Councilmember Ohlson.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
102
June 6, 2006
Ordinance No. 103,2006,
Calling a Special Municipal Election
on September 12, 2006 and Authorizing the Conduct of
Said Election as a Mail Ballot Election.Adopted on First Reading
The following is staff s memorandum on this item.
"FINANCIAL IMPACT
Staff estimates that the cost of this special election will be $100,000.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On May 19, 2006, the City Clerk's Office received an initiative petition to amend the City Charter
relating to collective bargaining. The Clerk's Office has completed its review of the petition and
has determined that the petition contains a sufficient number of signatures to place the initiated
measure on a special election ballot. Pursuant to C.R.S. 31-2-210(4), if the petition is certified as
sufficient by the City Clerk, the election must be held as near as possible to the approximate date
stated in the petition(September 12, 2006). A Resolution submitting the measure to the voters will
be brought to Council at an adjourned meeting on June 13. "
Bruce Lockhart, 2500 East Harmony Road, objected to the special election and adding 14 pages to
the City Charter,which could thereafter not be changed without another City election. He stated this
was"excessive"and that there should not be a"lot of unions"working for the City. He stated union
leaders tended to"exacerbate"issues and to destroy labor-management relations. He stated he hoped
that this was not passed as a"stealth measure." He stated he hoped that the citizens of Fort Collins
would defeat the Charter amendment.
Councilmember Kastein asked if the Council had an option to defeat this ordinance. City Attorney
Roy stated the requisite number of signatures had been certified and that the Council had an
obligation to call the election and to place the measure on the ballot. He stated staff would be
bringing forward a Resolution for the purpose of placing the measure on the ballot whether or not
the Council agreed with the measure.
Councilmember Kastein asked if the Council had the option of placing the measure on the General
Election ballot. City Attorney Roy stated the requisite number of signatures were certified to require
the calling of a special election.
Councilmember Kastein asked what language would be included on the ballot. City Clerk Krajicek
stated the 14 pages of the ordinance would be included in the Charter if the measure passed. She
stated the Resolution to be considered by the Council would set forth the ballot language. City
Manager Atteberry stated the Council had adopted a Resolution urging Fort Collins citizens to not
sign the petition. He stated the Council would also be presented with a Resolution opposing the
ballot measure and asking the voters not to approve the measure.
103
June 6, 2006
Councilmember Manvel made a motion,seconded by Councilmember Roy,to adopt Ordinance No.
103, 2006 on First Reading.
Councilmember Brown pointed out that a majority of the Council did not favor this election that
would cost the City$100,000.
Mayor Hutchinson stated adoption of this Ordinance did not constitute endorsement of the measure.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein,
Marvel, Ohlson, Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Other Business
Mayor Hutchinson asked the Council to decide not to reopen the existing Council policy that was
set over 20 years ago about the name of the Northside Aztlan Community Center. He stated the
existing policy should not be revisited because the original decision was made through a thorough
and length community process. He stated the Council adopted a Resolution in 1983 to name the
Community Center. He stated when voters approved the taxes to build a new center in April of 1997
as part of Building Community Choices the ballot language said: "Other capital projects: new
Northside Aztlan Community Center." He stated Council had received some a-mails and statements
that sought to tie the name issue to the national illegal immigration discussions. He stated the name
of the Community Center was a"City issue"that had no connection to the current national debate
on immigration. He stated the current Community Center had carried the name for decades and that
the name was a part of Fort Collins community history from long before the current national issue.
He stated an "emotional squabble" over the name could be "divisive" and could"overshadow the
good news of this new facility." He stated he would entertain a motion that the Council not reopen
the policy about the name Northside Aztlan
Councilmember Roy made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Weitkunat, not to change the
name of the Northside Aztlan Community Center.
After discussion regarding whether citizen participation should be allowed on an Other Business
item, the Mayor stated citizen comments would be heard because there was a motion on the floor.
He stated citizen participants would each have three minutes to speak.
Rich Salas, 319 Bluebird Court, urged the Council to vote in favor of the motion and stated
reopening the issue would create divisiveness. He asked that the name Northside Aztlan Community
Center be kept for the new facility to make a statement for"inclusiveness."
Jesse Ramirez, CSU graduate student, 1066 Tierra Lane Unit B, spoke in favor of the motion to
retain the name Northside Aztlan Community Center to continue to provide a"sense of identity."
104
June 6, 2006
Olivia Abeyta-Gonzales,415 South Howes Street,asked the Council to adopt the motion and spoke
regarding the importance of the Northside Aztlan Community Center to a"mix"of people.
Ray Martinez,4121 Stoneridge Court,spoke in favor of the motion and stated the Mayor's statement
articulated the issues regarding"inclusiveness"and"multiculturism"very well.
Councilmember Ohlson stated he wanted "inclusivity" rather than "exclusivity." He stated he
thought that the Council should have this discussion because "good things can come from it"and
because almost"anything worth doing ends up divisive." He stated the current name did not"unite"
people and "separates and isolates"people. He stated he thought the City could "do better." He
stated if the Council decided to approve the motion that he hoped that an effort would be made to
make it clear that this was "not an ethnic center." He stated it should be viewed as a Community
Center that welcomed everyone. He stated the"Northside"portion of the name bothered him more
than the "Aztlan"portion of the name. He stated he believed that many people in the community
did not feel comfortable going to the Community Center with the current name. He stated he would
like to see the Council go forward with the discussion on the name.
Councilmember Manvel stated he did not want the name issue to overshadow the new Community
Center. He stated there was agreement that the naming debate was not tied to the national debate
on illegal immigration. He stated the issue was how the community viewed the Community Center.
He noted that citizen speakers had indicated that the Hispanic community felt"especially welcome"
at the Community Center and that other people felt"less welcome." He stated was his issue with
the name. He stated he did not believe that the name should single out a specific geographic area
or ethnic group. He stated the current name felt"exclusionary"to some people. He stated he would
like to see the discussion on the name take place and that he would like to know "what harm had
been done"by the current name.
Councilmember Weitkunat stated she did not want to see a division between the north and south
sides of Fort Collins. She stated there was a"civil war brewing"if there was too much divisiveness
between the geographic areas of the city. She stated she would support the motion because there had
not been a problem with the name and that she believed that the timing of the discussion was bad
because of the national debate about illegal immigration.
Mayor Hutchinson stated there was an opportunity to"put all of our energy"into other issues rather
than this divisive issue. He stated this should be an inclusive City and that the challenge was to
make sure that everyone would feel welcome at the Community Center. He stated the opportunity
would"get lost in the noise"if the Council focused on the name rather than the idea of an inclusive
Community Center.
Councilmember Roy stated he appreciated the Mayor's opening remarks. He stated the citizens of
Fort Collins had already voted on this issue. He stated the a-mails that brought this issue forward
were"anti-immigrant"and that the Council would be"misguided"to bring this discussion forward.
He stated the Council should not spend its time on changing a name that had been approved by the
voters when there were major issues the Council should be discussing.
105
June 6, 2006
Councilmember Brown stated the discussion on the issue of the name began before the national
movement against illegal immigration. He stated he had not made up his mind about the name and
questioned whether the youth of Fort Collins would feel as comfortable at the Northside Aztlan
Community Center as they felt at the Youth Activity Center.
Councilmember Manvel stated he believed that the argument that the voters voted on the name of
the Community Center in 1997 was a"weak argument'and was irrelevant to the debate.
Councilmember Ohlson stated he did not view the argument about illegal immigration as
"xenophobic" and that he believed that a discussion on population growth in the United State was
a valid discussion. He stated he wanted to see it made clear on every level that this was a
"Community Center." He stated the timing was"unfortunate"but that he believed that it was a good
decision to change the name. He stated he believed that the Council should have the"courage"to
go forward with this discussion.
Councilmember Kastein stated there was a lot of"fervor"about immigration and illegal immigration
at this time. He stated this was not an issue about either issue and that there could be a valid reason
to change the name. He stated there was a difference of opinion on whether this name was bad. He
stated it was not necessarily courageous to make the most difficult decision. He stated the issue was
one of"political correctness"and that he believed that the name of a City facility should be allowed
to reflect ethnicity. He noted that the decision on the name was made years ago and that there would
have to be a clear rationale to change the name when there would be significant "controversy,
heartache and alienation." He stated he did not believe that the name change was worth the
controversy.
Mayor Hutchinson stated the motion was to leave the name as is.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson,Kastein,Roy
and Weitkunat. Nays: Councilmembers Manvel and Ohlson.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Executive Session Authorized
Councilmember Weitkunat made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Manvel, to adjourn into
Executive Session pursuant to Section 2-31(a)(3)of the City Code for the purpose of discussing the
possible acquisition of real property by the City and related legal matters. The vote on the motion
was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein, Manvel, Ohlson, Roy and
Weitkunat. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
106
June 6, 2006
(*'"Secretary's Note: The Council adjourned into Executive Session at 9:25 p.m. and reconvened
following the Executive Session at 10:24 p.m.)
Adjournment
Councilmember Weitkunat made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kastein, to adjourn the
meeting to 6:00 p.m. on June 13, 2006. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas:
Councilmembers Brown,Hutchinson,Kastein,Manvel,Ohlson,Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
The meeting adjourned at 10:25 p.m.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
107
June 13, 2006
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
Council-Manager Form of Government
Adjourned Meeting- 6:00 p.m.
An adjourned meeting ofthe Council ofthe City ofFort Collins was held on Tuesday,June 13,2006,
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, Ohlson, Roy, and Weitkunat.
Councilmembers Absent: Manvel
Staff Members Present: Atteberry, Krajicek, Roy.
Resolution No. 2006-067
Submitting a Citizen-initiated Charter Amendment
to a Vote of the Registered Electors of the City
at a Special Municipal Election of September 12 2006 Adopted
Following is staffs memorandum on this item:
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On May 19, 2006, the City Clerk's Office received an initiative petition to amend the City Charter
relating to collective bargaining. The petition was determined to contain a sufficient number of
signatures to place the initiated measure on a special election ballot. Pursuant to C.R.S. 31-2-
210(4), if the petition is certified as sufficient by the City Clerk, the election must be held as near as
possible to the approximate date stated in the petition (September 12, 2006).
On June 6, 2006, Council adopted on First Reading Ordinance No. 103, 2006 calling a special
election on September 12, 2006 This Resolution submits the measure to the voters at that election
and sets the ballot language for the measure. "
City Manager Atteberry stated there would be a brief staff presentation.
City Clerk Krajicek presented background information regarding the agenda item and stated this
Resolution submits the citizen-initiated Charter amendment regarding collective bargaining to the
September 12 ballot.
Mayor Hutchinson asked if this Resolution is the obligation of Council to place this issue on the
ballot because of the citizen petition. Krajicek answered in the affirmative.
108
June 13, 2006
Councilmember Roy made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Ohlson, to adopt Resolution
2006-067. Yeas:Councilmembers Brown,Hutchinson,Kastein,Ohlson,Roy and Weitkunat. Nays:
None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Resolution 2006-068
Expressing the City Council's Opposition to
a Citizen-initiated Charter Amendment
Pertainine to Collective Bareainin¢ Adopted
Following is staffs memorandum on this item:
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A special election has been called for September 12, 2006,for the purpose of submitting to the
electors of the City a proposed amendment to the City Charter which would establish a system of
collective bargaining to replace the system that is contained in the City Code. City staff
recommends that Council express its opposition to the proposed Charter amendment and urge the
electors not to vote for the amendment,primarily because the system, unlike the one contained in
the City Code, would entail binding arbitration, it would allow for renegotiation of the collective
bargaining agreement already in place between the Fraternal Order of Police and the City, and it
would preclude any reduction in compensation or benefits of police employees unless the members
of the bargaining unit consented to such reduction. Staff believes that the system of collective
bargaining contained in the City Code offers adequate opportunity for good faith bargaining
between the City and its police employees.
BACKGROUND
An initiative petition proposing an amendment to the City Charter pertaining to collective
bargaining has been submitted to the City Clerk and has been determined to be sufficient forplacing
the proposed measure on the ballot at a special election to be held September 12, 2006. The
collective bargaining provisions which would be added to the City Charter under the proposed
Charter amendment would replace an existing system of collective bargaining established in
Chapter 2, Article VII, Division 7 of the City Code. That system, which had been approved by the
electors of the City in August of 2004, was subsequently modified by order of Court,primarily to
eliminate the binding arbitration provisions of the system since those provisions were inconsistent
with the City Charter. The new collective bargaining system that would be established pursuant to
theproposed Charter amendment would be similar inmost respects to the existing system in the City
Code except that it would re-establish binding arbitration if an impasse was reached between the
City and the bargaining unit with regard to the terms and conditions of a collective bargaining
agreement. It would also allow the existing collective bargaining agreement that was reached last
year to be re-opened and renegotiated, with that agreement being the `.floor"for any future
109
June 13, 2006
negotiations, so that the compensation and benefits of members of the bargaining unit could only
be increased in thefuture and not decreased unless the bargainingagent agreed to such a reduction.
These concerns are discussed at greater length below.
1. The Fraternal Order of Police("FOP')has claimed that the City has ignored the will of
the voters and failed to negotiate in good faith,and that binding arbitration is necessary to bring
the City to the table.
Why this statement is a problem: From May through September, 2005, the City and the FOP
negotiated the terms of the current contract with give and take on both sides. The City voluntarily
gave five FOP negotiators paid time off to negotiate with the City. When the FOP declared an
impasse in the negotiations, the City exercised its right to challenge portions of the collective
bargaining ordinance in court. The FOP and the Court agreed that portions of the ordinance were
inconsistent with the City Charter and those provisions were invalidated. The provisions of the
ordinance that were left in place permit collective bargaining and mandate good faith negotiations,
and those provisions resulted in a collective bargaining agreement that was signed by both the City
and the FOP. The City remains willing to follow the valid provisions of that ordinance, including
those provisions which allow the police employees to organize and bargain collectively, engage in
bargaining in good faith, and enter into a contract that both the City and the FOP consider fair.
City employees, whether in Police Services or other service areas of the City, are valued and
appreciated. They are competitively compensated, with due consideration given to the financial
condition and needs of the City. The Charter amendment, with its binding arbitration and
prohibition on any reduction in pay or benefits, will skew the job market concept of employment,
drive up the cost of government, and severely limit local control of City finances, all to the
taxpayers'detriment.
2. The adoption of the Charter amendment would allow the FOP to reject the two year
collective bargaining agreement it signed with the City on September 21, 2005, and require the
City to re-negotiate a new agreement for 2007.
Why this provision is a problem: Under the existing collective bargaining system, the City and
the FOP bargained in good faith to come up with a two-year agreement that runs through 2007.
The FOP is asking the voters to allow them to repudiate the agreement. Negotiations are costly and
time consuming, requiring both sides to dedicate upper-level staff time to the process and to hire
attorneys, consultants, and experts. Staff believes that it makes no sense to go through this process
again when the City and the FOP reached an agreement acceptable to both at the time.
Not only would the FOP have a right to reopen all of the terms in the current agreement dealing
with mandatory subjects of bargaining and renegotiate them for 2007, it would have the right to
introduce any other mandatory subjects that are not covered in the existing agreement and allow
them to take all of those to binding arbitration. Significantly, that agreement and all of its terms
were conditioned on a two year agreement; the FOP now wants the right to get the benefits of the
110
June 13, 2006
first year of the agreement(many of which would not have been in place if it had simply been a one
year agreement) and not be bound by any of the provisions in the second year.
3. Under theproposed Charter amendment the current contract benefits and any additional
benefits offered to police employees outside the contract could never be reduced, no matter what
the financial condition ofthe City or the citizens'willingness topay, unless the FOP agreed to the
reduction. Not even an arbitrator could rule that lower benefits were appropriate. This `floor"
means that benefits could only be increased but never decreased.
Why this provision is a problem• If the FOP were allowed to renegotiate its agreement, that
agreement and all the other employeepolicies in place at thepresent time would become the "floor"
for such future negotiations under this Charter amendment, because the Charter amendment would
prohibit pay range reductions, reductions in leave accruals, reductions in insurance coverage, and
increases in insurance premiums, deductibles and co pays, unless the FOP agreed to the change.
This one-sided provision would drive the cost to the taxpayer in only one direction for this group
of employees. The taxpayer foots the bill when salaries and benefits go up. In the tough financial
times that Fort Collins is currently experiencing, salaries and benefits cannot always go up.
Sometimes, insurance co pays and deductibles must be raised and insurance coverage reduced to
avoid huge cost increases and to stay in line with other cities and private employers.
4. Under the proposed Charter amendment, if the City and FOP were unable to agree on an
issue such as rate of pay or days of vacation, the City would have to go through binding
arbitration. A professional arbitrator would be brought in to conduct a hearing and decide what
the pay and benefits will be for up to two years.
Why this provision is a problem: Binding arbitration means that an unelected third party not
accountable to the taxpayers would make the final decision as to how City tax revenues should be
spent. And, arbitration is costly. While the City would pick the pool ofarbitrators,for all practical
purposes, the minimum qualifications for the arbitrators set forth by the Charter amendment would
limit the pool to attorneys who specialize in labor issues. The daily rates for preparing for the
hearing, conducting the hearing, and writing a decision range from $750 to $2,100 per day plus
costs and expenses and from $100 to$300 per hour for partial days. The taxpayers would pay half
of these costs. Depending on the number of issues reaching impasse, the arbitrator hearings could
be lengthy. The staff time dedicated to arbitration hearings would be substantial and with the
financial stakes associated with a two year contract being so high, it's likely that both the City and
the FOP would incur the costs of expert witnesses.
Not only is binding arbitration expensive and time consuming but, more importantly, it removes the
taxpayers'elected representatives and the CityManagerfrom theprocess ofdeciding where limited
City financial resources are to be spent. Absent fraud, corruption, or arbitrariness on the part of
the arbitrator, it is almost impossible to have an arbitrator's decision reversed by a court. Staff
believes that it is not in the best interests of the taxpayers to have critical financial issues decided
by an attorney from a different city or state who probably has no idea about the local issues that are
facing Fort Collins and who is not in touch with community values.
ill
June 13, 2006
5. The Charter amendment would use national salary and benefit data to establish to local
compensation and benefits.
Why this statement is a problem: Section 17.10(E) of the Charter amendment would direct an
arbitrator to consider, in resolving an impasse as to compensation and benefits, the compensation,
benefits, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment of other law enforcement employees
performing comparable services in public employment in comparable national and local
communities. Requiring comparison with comparable "national" communities could be
problematic, since the market and cost of living in other areas of the country may differ very
substantially from Fort Collins, the cost of sampling on a national basis will likely be substantial.
6. The FOP has claimed that the Charter amendment is needed because police employees
have been under-compensated by the City.
Why this statement is a Droblem: This claim is simply not true.
While the majority of City employees had to adhere to a pay freeze for merit and skill increases in
2004 and 2005, only the Police Sworn positions continued to receive skill increases to the maximum
of their pay range. The 2004 and 2005 skill increases for Police Sworn positions ranged from
6.94% to 13.74%. All of this occurred prior to the implementation of the collective bargaining
agreement between the City of Fort Collins and the FOP.
In 2006, the City implemented a new pay plan and granted pay increases to all employees including
members of the bargaining unit. The 2006 skill increases for the bargaining unit members ranged
from 7.93%to 14.83%. Those that are not at the 2006 pay range maximum are eligible to continue
to receive additional skill increases in 2006. The 2006 COLA, merit, and skill increases for the
remainder of the City employees ranged from 5.9% to 10%. Other City employees are not eligible
to receive additional merit or skill increases in 2006.
Pay range maximums for all City employees, including members of the bargaining unit, are based
upon market data gathered from a variety of organizations along the Front Range of Colorado.
While the benchmark organizations used in this process(and recommended by a consultant in 2004)
may not be totally agreed upon by the FOP, the City's benchmark organizations are those that are
similar in size and services to Fort Collins. The benchmark organizations include twelve cities,five
counties, and the State of Colorado. The City has been acknowledged as a "safer community"and
an "ideal place to work"where other organizations along the Front Range have not. Based on size,
services, safer community, etc., organizations such as the City/County of Denver are not included
as a benchmark
In addition, an average actual pay analysis was recently conducted by the City's HR department.
The average actual pay of the members of the bargaining unit average actual pay falls anywhere
from 2.19%to 13.99%above the benchmark organizations'average actualpay. Thesepercentages
include the five counties and the State of Colorado. Some might say that county sheriffs perform
different duties than patrol/detective officers, so if you takeout the counties and State of Colorado
112
June 13, 2006
from this analysis, average the actual pay of the members of the bargaining unit falls fom 1.13%
to 13.36% above the 12 benchmark City's average actual pay depending on the job being
considered. In summary, not only are thepay range maximums set at the 70th percentile ofthe labor
market but the bargaining unit members'average actual pay falls well above those of their peers
along the Front Range of Colorado.
Lastly, members of the bargaining unit continue to contribute to their retirement plans (401 a and
457) at a higher percentage than other City employees. In addition, the employer contribution
(match) into the retirement plans for these employees is greater than the contribution made by the
City for the remainder ofthe organization with the exception ofthe Council Employees and Service
Area Directors (a total of 11 employees).
7. The Charter amendment states that the provisions of a collective bargaining agreement
would override any conflicting ordinance of the City.
Why this statement is a problem: The City Council has elected to make important policy
decisions for the City and its members are accountable to the citizens for those decisions. The
Charter amendment states in Section 17.14(B) that whenever there is a conflict between the terms
of a collective bargaining agreement and any rule, executive order,procedure,policy or even any
ordinance of the City which is applicable only to employees of the City, the provisions of the
collective bargaining agreement, would prevail. This means that the decision of an unelected,
arbitrator could override ordinances adopted by the Council or even any ordinance adopted by the
electors of the City.
8. The FOP has claimed that the City has plenty of money in the form of reserves which
could easily be used to fund increased salary and benefits for police employees.
Why this statement is a problem: Many ofthe reserves referred to by the FOP are restricted for
specific uses that cannot be legally diverted to other uses. For example,Art.X, Sec. 20 ofthe state
constitution requires that the City maintain an emergency reserve to respond to natural disasters
such as the 1997 flood or the 2003 blizzard. As of year end 2005, this reserve balance was $3.6
million. In addition, reserves resulting from specific program revenues are set aside to be spent
exclusively on thoseprograms. 7ivosignificant examples are the Police Department's camera radar
program and its participation in the Lorimer County Drug Task Force. Reserves for these two
programs totaled$1.1 million at year-end 2005. Additionally, expenditure of resources does not
always occur uniformly within a 12 month period as presented in the budget. Asa result, the related
program or project encumbers the finds that are committed to third party vendors for its
completion. As ofyear-end 2005,approximately$8.2 million ofthe reserves were committed to third
party vendors.
So while the City General Fund Balance actually increased by $3.2 million during 2005, a
significant portion of that increase was used to find the restricted reserves described above. It
should be noted that, aside from the restricted reserves, the City continues to maintain a fnancial
uncertainty designation set at a minimum of 3.5%ofthe General Fund expenditures. Prior to the
113
June 13, 2006
2002 recession, this reserve stood at approximately $5.9 million, well above the minimum. As of
year-end 2005, this balance(funded at the minimum level)totaled$3.2 million. While this amount
is still significant, it is only intended for unforeseen budget shortfalls. It is not intended to be spent
on enhancing the salary and benefits of City personnel.
Even ithe reserves could be used to fund increases in police pay and benefits, the reserves are one-
time moneys. The flow offunds into these reserve accounts is insufficient to pay the ongoing year-
after-year amounts that would be necessary for salary and benefit increases. Remember that the
Charter Amendment provides that the salary and benefits can only be increased, not decreased, so
the need for additional fording will go up each year. The reserved funds won't be used for their
intended purposes and the cash flow necessary to fund salary and benefit increases will not be
available. It is not responsible to use reserved funds to satisfy ongoing salary and benefit increases,
especially in light of the anticipated$6.8 million 2007 budget shortfall.
9. The FOP has claimed that the Charter amendment is needed to improve police staffing,
services, and public safety.
Why this statement is a problem: The Charter amendment specifically states that "standards of
service"of the police department and the City and training of officers are prohibited subjects of
bargaining, and "staffing of the police department" is only a permissive subject for bargaining.
Thus, collective bargaining will do nothing to ensure public safety, higher staffing levels or higher
service levels of Police Services. If anything, the Charter amendment will lead to fewer dollars
being available for increased staffing and services because the dollars will instead go towards
negotiation and arbitration expenses and increased salaries and benefits for current police
employees.
The constant "negotiating"for salary and benefits required by the Charter Amendment is far more
likely to distract police personnel from law enforcement duties. Paying FOP negotiators to
negotiate instead of performing their law enforcement duties will do nothing to promote public
safety or add officers to the streets. The petition circulators and the FOP officials have not
accurately stated the substance and intent ofthe CharterAmendment. The CharterAmendment does
not help police officers fight crime, but rather will lead to a system of preferential treatment,
divisiveness, and mistrust that will harm the relationship amongpolice employees, other employees
of the City, City management, and citizens.
Staff Recommendation:
For theforegoing reasons,staf'recommends that Council adopt theproposedResolution expressing
Council's opposition to the proposed Charter amendment and urging the electors ofthe City to vote
against the Charter amendment."
City Manager Atteberry stated there was no staff presentation but staff was available to answer
questions.
114
June 13, 2006
Al Baccili, 520 Galaxy Court, stated the City should accept binding arbitration with the FOP.
Mayor Hutchinson asked City Attorney Roy to clarifywhether collective bargaining,now part of the
City Code,would be altered with this proposed Charter amendment. Roy stated there was an earlier
initiative that resulted in the adoption of an ordinance that established the system of collective
bargaining in the City Code. The system has since been modified by stipulation of the parties and
by order of the Court to eliminate binding arbitration and one or two other provisions but the
obligation to bargain "in good faith" already exists under City Code. The proposed Charter
amendment would establish a different system,including binding arbitration,in place of the one that
already exists.
City Manager Atteberry stated police officers do not serve at the pleasure of the Police Chief or the
City Manager and can only be terminated for"cause". Police officers are classified employees,not
unclassified management. If the Chief determines there is cause, then an extensive process is
followed to terminate a police officer.
Councilmember Weitkunat made amotion,seconded by Councilmember Brown,to adopt Resolution
2006-068.
Mayor Hutchinson noted Council had passed a Resolution urging citizens not to sign the petition but
since the petition did contain sufficient signatures, then Council had exercised its responsibility to
place the issue on the ballot. This Resolution answered the question that had been raised as to why
Council opposed the amendment.
Councilmember Roy stated the FOP had given misinformation in claiming the City had ignored the
will of the voters by failing to negotiate"in good faith"so that binding arbitration was necessary to
bring the City to the table. However, following voter approval of collective bargaining in August
of 2004,the City successfully negotiated the terms of the current contract with the FOP,which is a
contract agreed upon by all sides. Council and management appreciates the hard work and
dedication the police officers give to the City and the current contract reflects competitive
compensation. Five negotiators in the FOP were given time off by the City to conduct the contract
negotiations. The FOP and the City agreed that a portion of the voter-approved ordinance dealing
with having a third party make final compensation decisions was invalid as it conflicted with the City
Charter. A binding arbitration system will pass final decisions on pay and benefits to a third party.
Having a third party make those final decisions, instead of Council, takes control of scarce city
resources from Council.
Councilmember Ohlson stated he had a problem with binding arbitration, especially in the public
sector but not with collective bargaining, in general. Thorough job protection is in place for police
officers so that it is difficult to terminate an employee in the public sector. Also,to have an outside
arbitrator decide issues of compensation and benefits is expensive and to have an outsider make
these decisions at the expense of other employees could create a two-tier system for the City, as the
resources of the City are limited. Council, which is accountable to the citizens through the ballot
box, would not be the final decision makers.
115
June 13, 2006
Councilmember Brown stated one of the claims made by the FOP is that police employees are under
compensated by the City. The reality is police employees receive pay from a range of 2.1% to
13.99%above the benchmark average for police positions. The benchmark figures area comparison
of a variety of organizations along the Front Range,including 12 cities, 5 counties,and the State of
Colorado. Fort Collins paid a very competitive rate of salary and skills increases for 2006 ranging
from 8%to 14%. Police officers received a higher increase of pay than other city employees.
Councilmember Weitkunat addressed the claim by the FOP that the City has"plenty of money in the
form of reserves that could easily be used to fund increased salaries and benefits for public
employees". The claim is wrong and, even if it were correct, it would be reckless. The City
maintains its reserves for emergencies and unanticipated expenses. Tabor requirements limit what
the City can do with the reserves. Specific reserves are dedicated to the Police Department from
such sources as Camera Radar,but those funds are earmarked for specific programs and cannot be
used for general operating expenses. It is not responsible for the City to use reserve funds to satisfy
ongoing expenses such as salaries.
Councilmember Kastein noted having an arbitrator outside the City organization itself is difficult
and sets the FOP apart from other City employees and would give the FOP members preferential
treatment. The proposed Charter amendment contains language that states what is actually
negotiated has to be better deal than the deal made the previous year. Only the FOP can agree to
something less than they are receiving today. When negotiations go to an arbitrator, not even the
arbitrator has the ability to put any reduction of benefits on the table, unless the FOP agrees. If
employees are asked to pay more in health benefit coverage and the FOP doesn't agree to that,then
the FOP doesn't have to pay the extra amount. The FOP has claimed the Charter amendment will
improve police staffing and public safety. However,the Charter amendment specifically states that
"standards of service"of the Police Department and the City and training of officers are prohibited
subjects of the bargaining agreement. The claims of the FOP that the amendment will guarantee
increased staffing levels in Police Services are specifically contrary to the proposed Charter
Amendment. The constant negotiating for contracts will detract from levels of service. The
amendment does not help police officers fight crime, but instead creates a system that will lead to
preferential treatment, divisiveness, mistrust and creates an adverse environment.
Mayor Hutchinson stated these comments do not reflect Council's opinion of the police, as the
quality of police officers in the City is exceptional. Due to major shifts in the economy in Northern
Colorado and Fort Collins,the City is making adjustments to keep the cost of government low. One
of the cost adjustments to all City employees concerns health benefits. If no changes in health
benefits are made, a large percentage of the City budget will go to pay health costs in the next
decade. City employees will be asked to increase their cost contributions for health benefits to"not
break the City bank" in the future. The City needs the flexibility to adjust benefits such as health
benefits and the"floor"set by the proposed Charter amendment would cause great difficulty for the
City as changes could not be made to insurance deductibles and co-pays. Also, it is quite probable
the arbitrator,an unelected decision maker,would be quite familiar with the problems of the Police
Department but would be very unlikely to have any knowledge of the other problems throughout the
city organization. The Council does have that knowledge and brings that knowledge to the table.
116
June 13, 2006
Councilmember Ohlson echoed the praises of the Police Department and stated this issue is separate
from Council's opinion of Fort Collins police officers. It is a difference of policy and what Council
thinks is best for the community but is not reflective of the police force.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein,
Ohlson, Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Executive Session Authorized
Councilmember Weitkunat made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Brown, to adjourn into
Executive Session under Subsection 2-3 1(a)(1)(a) of the City Code for the purpose of conducting
the mid-year performance reviews of the City Manager,Municipal Judge, and City Attorney.Yeas:
Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein, Ohlson, Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
("Secretary's Note: The Council adjourned into Executive Session at 6:30 p.m. and reconvened
following the Executive Session at 8:45 p.m.)
Adjournment
Councilmember Weitkunat made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Roy, to adjourn the
meeting to 6:00 p.m. on June 27, 2006 to consider a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to
execute a capital funding grant agreement with the Federal Aviation Administration for
improvements at the Fort Collins-Loveland Airport. Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson,
Kastein, Ohlson, Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
The meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
117
June 27,2006
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
Council-Manager Form of Government
Adjourned Meeting- 6:00 p.m.
An adjourned meeting ofthe Council of the City ofFort Collins was held on Tuesday,June 27,2006,
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: Hutchinson, Kastein, Manvel, Ohlson, and Weitkunat.
Councilmembers Absent: Brown, Roy
Staff Members Present: Atteberry, Krajicek, Roy.
There being no business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 6:02 p.m.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
118