HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES-04/06/2004-RegularApril 6, 2004
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
Council -Manager Form of Government
Regular Meeting - 6:00 p.m.
A regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins was held on Tuesday, April 6, 2004, at
6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll Call was answered
by the following Councilmembers: Bertschy, Hamrick, Kastein, Martinez, Roy, Tharp and
Weitkunat.
Staff Members Present: Fischbach, Krajicek, Roy.
Citizen Participation
Brian Shorn, 5948 Colby Street, stated on March 16, 2004 he had requested a meeting with the City
Council relating to quasi-judicial matters associated with 209 East Skyway, that he had submitted
a letter to the City Manager on February 22, that his questions had not been answered and that he
would like Council's help with the issue. He stated he disagreed with the staff, that the staff was not
responsive, and that he did not understand the position taken by staff with regard to 209 East
Skyway. He referenced an e-mail received from the City Manager dated April 4, 2004. He stated
he would like to immediately meet with the Mayor and his Council representative to discuss matters
that were not quasi-judicial and that he would like to meet with the full Council on quasi-judicial
matters after he received answers to his questions from the City Manager's Office. He stated the
staff without Council's approval had authorized a deviation from the Structure Plan and had
authorized a rezoning in the County that he believed should be done at the City level. He stated the
City Manager's e-mail indicated that the property could not be annexed into the City because it
contained illegal land uses. He stated he believed that this was incorrect. He stated a December 12th
e-mail from the City Manager indicated that there was an exception allowed when the property
owner was proposing annexation and zoning and if the existing illegal use in the County would be
a permitted use in the City. He stated the December 12th e-mail indicated that the Structure Plan
calling for Urban Estates zoning would be upheld. He stated staff released 209 East Skyway from
the Structure Plan (U-E zoning) without a proposal being submitted and that he had to appear before
the Council to get staff to release records applicable to this situation.
Megan Walker and Erica Wertz, Lincoln Junior High School students, stated their English Honors
class was working on a land mines project and asked for a Resolution against the manufacture of
land mines.
143
April 6, 2004
Citizen Participation Follow-uo
Councilmember Hamrick requested a staff response to Mr. Shum's comments. City Manager
Fischbach stated he would furnish a response and indicated that staff had responded to every
question asked by Mr. Shum.
Councilmember Hamrick requested a copyof all communications with Mr. Shum since February 22.
Councilmember Hamrick thanked the Lincoln Junior High School students for speaking and stated
he would support a Resolution against land mines to be forwarded to the State.
Councilmember Roy thanked the students who spoke and commented that there was a significant
problem with land mines. He stated he would support a Resolution against the practice of using land
mines.
Mayor Martinez stated a group of students from Lincoln Junior High School worked on the same
project last year and raised over $5,000 to discover and dismantle land mines. He stated he would
like to know if the students were still doing a fund raising drive.
Agenda Review
City Manager Fischbach stated item #32 Resolution 2004-064 Repealing and Readopting City Plan
as the City's Comprehensive Plan, and Repealing Certain Other Obsolete Plans was being
withdrawn from the agenda and rescheduled to May 4, 2004. He also stated item #15 First Reading
of Ordinance No. 056, 2004, Amending the Land Use Code to Allow Small Scale Reception Centers
in the Urban Estate Zone District, Clarifying the Definition of Such Centers and Adopting
Performance Standards as Supplemental Regulations Relating Thereto and item #21 Resolution
2004-047 Declaring the Official Intent of the City to Use Proceeds of Tax -Exempt Obligations to
Reimburse Itselffor Certain Capital Expenditures Made from Other Sources would be withdrawn
from the Consent Calendar for discussion.
Steve Anderson, 4670 Woody Creek Lane, requested that item #16 First Reading of Ordinance No.
057, 2004, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code to Reflect the Adoption of Updated Master
Drainage Plans And to Revise the Official Repository of Plan Documents be pulled from the Consent
Calendar for discussion.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Consideration and approval of the Council meeting minutes of February 3, 2004.
144
April 6, 2004
S. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 034, 2004, Authorizing the Sublease to Larimer County
of Portions of the Fossil Creek Reservoir Property Leased by the City from North Poudre
Irrigation Company.
The Natural Areas Program holds a lease on 810 acres of land and surface water rights from
North Poudre Irrigation Company for Fossil Creek Reservoir. This Ordinance, which was
unanimously adopted on First Reading on March 16, 2004, approves a sublease of all or a
portion of that leased property to Larimer County. The sublease will allow Larimer County
Open Lands to lease, operate, maintain and manage a 150' strip (approximately 25 acres)
along the south shore of the reservoir adjacent to Fossil Creek Reservoir Regional Open
Space (FCRROS). FCRROS is jointly owned by the City and County, but it will be operated
by Larimer County. Larimer County has completed the design of the public improvements
for FCRROS, which will be constructed this spring/summer/fall and the site opened to the
public late this year.
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 040, 2004, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue
in the Capital Projects Fund - Traffic Signal Timing System Project to Be Used for the
Installation of Fiber Optic and Wireless Communications and the Purchase of Additional
Equipment for the Advanced Traffic Management System.
The City of Fort Collins has been awarded a Federal Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality
Grant. This Ordinance, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on March 16,
2004, appropriates the funds needed to complete this project.
10. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 047, 2004, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the
Capital Projects Fund Building Community Choices - Community Horticulture Center
Capital Project to be Used for Design and Construction of a Children's Garden.
In 1997, the voters approved Ordinance No. 29, 1997, which provided funding for the
establishment of the Community Horticulture Center (now referred to as the Gardens on
Spring Creek), as part of the Building Community Choices capital improvement program.
The first phase of construction has now been completed, and the Gardens on Spring Creek
is open to the public (with a Grand Opening scheduled for Saturday, May 8). This
Ordinance, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on March 16, 2004,
appropriates revenue to be used for design and construction of a Children's Garden.
11. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 048, 2004, Amending Chapter 23, Article 1I1, Division 3
of the City Code Pertaining to Encroachments.
This Ordinance, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on March 16, 2004,
revises Sections 23-81 and 23-82 of the City Code. The changes clarify the requirement for
145
April 6, 2004
encroachment permits when privately -owned utilities, telecommunications lines, irrigation
pipes, and similar facilities are allowed to reside within the public rights -of -way. The
changes also give the City Manager the ability to require liability insurance to protect the
City, if necessary and appropriate.
12. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 049, 2004, Authorizing the Lease of City -owned Property
at 6916 South College Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado, for up to Five Years.
The City acquired this property as part of the Affordable Housing Land Bank Program. The
property is composed of 17.11 acres of vacant development land. Prior to the City's
purchase and during last summer, the site was leased for hay production. This lease is for
land only and does not allow the use of City -owned water on the property. Ordinance No.
049, 2004, was unanimously adopted on First Reading on March 16, 2004.
13. First Reading of Ordinance No. 054, 2004, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the General
Fund for Police Seizure Activity.
Nearly 100 years ago, the Colorado Legislature passed legislation allowing for the seizure
of illegal contraband used in or gained from criminal activity. The intent is to deter crime and
to recover proceeds gained through criminal conduct and apply those assets to defraying the
costs of law enforcement.
Asset seizure and forfeiture actions are civil cases that have been reviewed, filed, and
pursued by the District Attorney's asset forfeiture specialist, and they are always
accompanied by a parallel criminal prosecution. The defendant is served with a written
summons, an affidavit detailing probable cause, and an advisement of legal rights and
procedures for exercising due process. The defendant is entitled to a civil trial.
Staff is confident that it demonstrates exceptional care, responsibility, and fairness regarding
when to file asset seizure and forfeiture actions. When Police Services has been involved
in an asset seizure and forfeiture action, the Courts have consistently ordered some or all of
the assets forfeited.
Colorado state law requires that the proceeds from successful asset seizure and forfeiture
actions are to be used for law enforcement purposes and that the governing body of the
seizing agency appropriate these proceeds to supplement the seizing agency's budget or, in
the alternative, forfeit the proceeds to the general fund of the State of Colorado. Colorado
state law also authorizes the creation of the Forfeiture Committee which must consist of the
Mayor, District Attorney and Chief of Police, or their designees. The Committee oversees
and approves the seizure budget and spending decisions made by the Chief of Police.
146
April 6, 2004
14. First Reading of Ordinance No. 055, 2004, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in Capital
Projects Fund - Natural Areas Capital Project for Transfer to the Natural Areas Fund and
Authorizing the Transfer of Appropriated Amounts to be Used for Natural Areas Acquisition,
Construction, Enhancement and Maintenance.
The Building Community Choices ("BCC") sales tax stipulates that revenues remaining
unencumbered after completion ofprojects set forth in the ordinance shall be used for natural
areas acquisition, construction, enhancement and maintenance. The unspent revenues in this
fund as of December 31, 2003 were $4,400,000. The recommendation is that these funds
now be appropriated for the above stated purposes.
In addition this ordinance will move appropriations of $4,635,364 from the BCC —Natural
Areas Fund within the Capital Projects Fund to the Natural Areas Fund in compliance with
the Governmental Accounting Standards Board requirements.
15. First Reading of Ordinance No. 056, 2004, Amending the Land Use Code to Allow Small
Scale Reception Centers in the Urban Estate Zone District. Clarifying the Definition of Such
Centers and Adopting Performance Standards as Supplemental Regulations Relating Thereto.
On December 2, 2003, during consideration of the Fall 2003 Land Use Code Revisions,
Council voted to remand this issue back to the Planning and Zoning Board for further
consideration. Since that time, staff has worked closely with two private parties on
expanding and refining the performance standards that would be necessary in order to ensure
neighborhood compatibility within the Urban Estate District.
In addition, a new required minimum parking standard has been added as well as minor
clarifications to the existing definition. The Planning and Zoning Board voted 6-1 at its
February 19, 2004, meeting to recommend approval of the proposed Ordinance. City
Council reviewed this item at its March 23, 2004 study session.
16. First Reading of Ordinance No. 057, 2004, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code to Reflect
the Adoption of Updated Master Drainage Plans And to Revise the Official Repository of
Plan Documents.
The Ordinance updates current City Code references to the master drainage plans for the
various basins in the city by repealing and reenacting Code Section 26-543(a). A number of
the master drainage plans have been updated or revised since the related Code language was
modified. This is in part due to the fact that in 1999, the City Council adopted a higher
rainfall standard based upon a technical analysis of rainfall statistics, which resulted in
modifications to the master plans. In addition, updated topographic information, changes in
conditions, and better technical data and methods has resulted in other improvements from
147
April 6, 2004
the previously listed plans. Staff has prepared a Stormwater Master Plan Executive Summary
Report that summarizes citywide information and presents brief summaries of the master
plan for each basin. The summarized basin master plans strive to design projects that provide
cost-effective flood protection for a 100-year rainfall event. The basin master plans
recommend a number of flood control and other types of improvements.
In addition, the Ordinance modifies City Code Section 26-543(b), so as to provide that the
master drainage plans and updates to those plans will be maintained on file in the office of
the Utilities, rather than the office of the City Clerk. This change is to improve the efficiency
and effectiveness of the use and maintenance of those records.
17. First Reading of Ordinance No. 058, 2004, Designating the Judge Claude C. Coffin House
as a Fort Collins Landmark Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the City Code.
The owner of the property, Anne T. Stewart, is initiating this request for Fort Collins
Landmark designation for the Judge Claude C. Coffin House. The residence is individually
eligible for landmark designation under City of Fort Collins Landmark Preservation Standard
(2), for its association with Judge C. C. Coffin, a nationally noted avocational archaeologist
known for the discovery of the Lindenmeier Site; and Landmark Preservation Standard (3),
for the home's architectural significance as a very well preserved representation of the Folk
Victorian style of architecture.
18. First Reading of Ordinance No. 059, 2004, Desit ating the Dr. C. E. Honstein House/ Diane
Louise Johnson Cultural Center, and the Honstein/Johnson Carriage House, Pool, and Pump
House as a Fort Collins Landmark Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the City Code.
The owners of the property, Don L. and Margaret Webber, are initiating this request for Fort
Collins Landmark designation for the Honstein/Johnson House, Carriage House, Pool and
Pump House. The buildings and structures are individually eligible for landmark designation
under City of Fort Collins Landmark Preservation Standards 2 and 3, for their association
with the lives of Dr. C. E. Honstein, a distinguished Fort Collins physician, and with noted
educator and former Superintendent of Schools, Don Webber; and for their architectural
merits as excellent examples of a vernacular colonial revival dwelling and carriage house,
with very good integrity; also significant under Standards 2 and 3 are the metal swimming
pool, likely the earliest residential swimming pool to be constructed in Fort Collins, and its
associated pump house.
K'n
April 6, 2004
19. First Reading of Ordinance No. 060, 2004, Designating the Charles H. Sheldon House as a
Fort Collins Landmark Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the City Code.
The owners of the property, Jack and Maryann Blackerby, are initiating this request for Fort
Collins Landmark designation for the Charles H. Sheldon House. The property is
individually eligible for landmark designation under City of Fort Collins Landmark
Preservation Standard 2, for its association with Charles H. Sheldon, an early day banker of
Fort Collins; with Arthur M. Garbutt, a prominent architect in the Fort Collins area; and with
Herman W. Schroeder, one of the most important contractors and builders in Fort Collins.
The Sheldon House is also significant under Standard 3, as a good representation of the
American Foursquare style of architecture. The property contains a non -historic garage
which does not contribute to the historic character of the property and is not a part of these
designation proceedings.
20. Items Relating to the Prospect East 4th Annexation and Zoning.
A. Resolution 2004-046 Setting Forth Findings of Fact and Determinations Regarding
the Prospect East 4th Annexation.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 061, 2004, Annexing Property Known as the
Prospect East 4th Annexation.
C. First Reading of Ordinance No. 062, 2004, Amending the Zoning Map of the City of
Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the
Prospect East 4th Annexation.
This is a request to annex and zone 21.18 acres located on the south side of East Prospect
Road, east of Sharp Point Drive, and west of the Cache La Poudre River. It is currently being
used as a farm & calving operation and is in the FA — Farming Zoning District in Larimer
County. The requested zoning in the City of Fort Collins is RC — River Conservation.
Staff is recommending that this property be included in the Residential Neighborhood Sign
District. A map amendment will not be necessary to place this property on the Residential
Neighborhood Sign District Map.
21. Resolution 2004-047 Declaring the Official Intent of the City to Use Proceeds of Tax -
Exempt Obligations to Reimburse Itself for Certain Capital Expenditures Made from Other
Sources.
This item facilitates for proper accounting of capital projects that the City may finance
through tax-exempt financing. It is essentially a "house -keeping" action. Based on
149
April 6, 2004
discussions with Service Areas and the Downtown Development Authority, the Finance
Department has identified five potential tax-exempt financial transactions that may need to
be completed in 2004. The projects to be financed include acquisition of property and
constructions of the new Police Services Building ($28 million), land conservation for
natural areas and community separators ($15 million), improvements in the Downtown
Development area ($6 million), a Transportation Facilities Building ($1.3 million) and
participation in a southeast branch of the Fort Collins Library ($5 million). The various
projects may require the City to spend money in advance of the financial transactions being
completed. Federal tax laws and regulations allow the City to reimburse itself for such costs
provided that the Council adopts a reimbursement resolution. Resolution 2004-047 declares
the Council's official intent to use proceeds of tax-exempt financing to reimburse the City
for expenditures made in conjunction with the projects.
22. Resolution 2004-048 Approving the Purchase of Twenty -Eight ISI Viking ST Self -Contained
Breathing Apparatus (SCBA) Units as an Exception to the Competitive Process.
Larimer County is the Lead Agency awarded a Federal grant from the Department of
Homeland Security for the purpose of supporting emergency preparedness in the event of
acts of terrorism or other emergency situations. Fort Collins Police Services (FCPS) is one
of the sub -grant agencies which has been awarded $159,514.50 for the procurement of self-
contained breathing apparatus equipment that will enable their law enforcement officers to
function in the event of chemical or biological emergency.
23. Resolution 2004-049 Adopting the Northern Colorado Regional Multi -Hazard Mitigation
Plan.
In July of 2002, the State of Colorado Office of Emergency Management ("OEM") informed
the City of Loveland, City of Fort Collins, City of Greeley, and Larimer County that FEMA
required an All Hazard Mitigation Plan to be completed and approved by the local, state and
FEMA officials by the end of 2003 in order to be eligible for future emergency funding
and/or grants. The State of Colorado OEM had FEMA pass -through grant money available
to complete these plans and wanted the four entities listed above to complete a regional plan.
Mike Gavin, Captain, Poudre Fire Authority, coordinated and wrote the Plan. The Plan
outlines the City's community profile, risk assessment; hazard specific goals and action items
and plan maintenance. The City submitted its completed plan to Colorado OEM in October
of 2003; it was approved and forwarded to FEMA. FEMA has conditionally approved the
Plan until such time that all governing bodies from each of the four entities approve the Plan.
Therefore, the City is currently eligible for future funding and grants through FEMA with the
condition of local approval.
150
Apri16, 2004
24. Resolution 2004-050 Making Annointments to Various Boards and Commissions.
A vacancy currently exists on the Community Development Block Grant Commission due
to the resignation of Shelley Steele. Councilmembers Bertschy and Tharp reviewed the
applications on file and are recommending Laura Sutherlin to fill said vacancy with a term
to begin immediately and set to expire on December 31, 2006.
A vacancy currently exists on the Golf Board due to the resignation of Manual Jimenez.
Councilmembers Bertschy and Hamrick reviewed the applications on file and are
recommending David Thilmany to fill said vacancy with a term to begin immediately and
set to expire on December 31, 2007.
A vacancy currently exists on the Senior Advisory Board due to the resignation of Mike
Buderus. Applications were solicited and Mayor Martinez and Councilmember Weitkunat
interviewed the applicants. The Council interview team is recommending Don Wells to fill
said vacancy with a term to begin immediately and set to expire on December 31, 2005.
***END CONSENT***
Ordinances on Second Reading were read by title by City Clerk Krajicek.
8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 034, 2004, Authorizing the Sublease to Larimer County
of Portions of the Fossil Creek Reservoir Property Leased by the City from North Poudre
Irrigation Company.
9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 040, 2004, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue
in the Capital Projects Fund - Traffic Signal Timing System Project to Be Used for the
Installation of Fiber Optic and Wireless Communications and the Purchase of Additional
Equipment for the Advanced Traffic Management System.
10. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 047, 2004, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the
Capital Projects Fund Building Community Choices - Community Horticulture Center
Capital Project to be Used for Design and Construction of a Children's Garden.
11. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 048, 2004, Amending Chapter 23, Article III, Division 3
of the City Code Pertaining to Encroachments.
12. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 049, 2004, Authorizing the Lease of City -owned Property
at 6916 South College Avenue, Fort Collins. Colorado, for up to Five Years.
151
Apri16, 2004
28. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 050, 2004, Authorizing the Acquisition by Eminent
Domain Proceedings of Certain Lands Necessary for the Construction of Public
Improvements in Connection with the Stormwater Utility Drainage Outfall for the North
Tributary System and the Street Oversizing Ziegler Road Realignment Project. (15 minutes)
29. Items Relating to the Adrian Annexation and Zoning.
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 051, 2004, Annexing Property Known as the
Adrian Annexation.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 052, 2004, Amending the Zoning Map and
Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the Adrian Annexation.
Ordinances on First Reading were read by title by City Clerk Krajicek.
13. First Reading of Ordinance No. 054, 2004, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the General
Fund for Police Seizure Activity.
14. First Reading of Ordinance No. 055, 2004, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in Capital
Projects Fund - Natural Areas Capital Project for Transfer to the Natural Areas Fund and
Authorizing the Transfer of Appropriated Amounts to be Used for Natural Areas Acquisition,
Construction, Enhancement and Maintenance.
15. First Reading of Ordinance No. 056, 2004, Amending the Land Use Code to Allow Small
Scale Reception Centers in the Urban Estate Zone District, Clarifying the Definition of Such
Centers and Adopting Performance Standards as Supplemental Regulations Relating Thereto.
16. First Reading of Ordinance No. 057, 2004, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code to Reflect
the Adoption of Updated Master Drainage Plans And to Revise the Official Repository of
Plan Documents.
17. First Reading of Ordinance No. 058, 2004, Designating the Judge Claude C. Coffin House
as a Fort Collins Landmark Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the City Code.
18. First Reading of Ordinance No. 059, 2004, Desi ng ating the Dr. C. E. Honstein House/ Diane
Louise Johnson Cultural Center, and the Honstein/Johnson Carriage House, Pool, and Pump
House as a Fort Collins Landmark Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the City Code.
19. First Reading of Ordinance No. 060, 2004, Designating the Charles H. Sheldon House as a
Fort Collins Landmark Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the City Code.
152
April6, 2004
20. Items Relating to the Prospect East 4th Annexation and Zoning.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 061, 2004, Annexing Property Known as the
Prospect East 4th Annexation.
C. First Reading of Ordinance No. 062, 2004, Amending the Zoning Map of the City of
Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the
Prospect East 4th Annexation.
30. Items Relating to Solid Waste Collection and Recycling Service.
A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 025, 2004, Amending Chapter 15, Article XV of the
City Code Relating to Solid Waste Collection and Recycling Services.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 053, 2004, Amending Chapter 12, Article II of the
City Code Relating to Collection of Garbage and Refuse.
31. First Readinp of Ordinance No. 063, 2004, Amending the Land Use Code to Address Issues
Pertaining to Carriage Houses and Accessory Buildings Within the NCL, NCM and NCB
Zone Districts.
Councilmember Kastein made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Weitkunat, to adopt and
approve all items not withdrawn from the Consent Calendar. The vote on the motion was as follows:
Yeas: Councilmembers Bertschy, Hamrick, Kastein, Martinez, Roy, Tharp and Weitkunat. Nays:
None.
THE MOTION CARRIED
Consent Calendar Follow-up
Councilmember Tharp spoke regarding item #8 Second Reading of Ordinance No. 034, 2004,
Authorizing the Sublease to Larimer County of Portions of the Fossil Creek Reservoir Property
Leased by the Cityfrom North Poudre Irrigation Company and the lack of County cooperation and
funding on the Fossil Creek lease.
Councilmember Kastein spoke regarding item #17 First Reading of Ordinance No. 058, 2004,
Designating the Judge Claude C. Coffin House as a Fort Collins Landmark Pursuant to Chapter
14 of the City Code; item #I 8 First Reading of Ordinance No. 059, 2004, Designating the Dr. C. E.
HonsteinHouse/Diane Louise Johnson Cultural Center, and theHonstein/Johnson Carriage House,
Pool, and Pump House as a Fort Collins Landmark Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the City Code; and
item #19 First Reading of Ordinance No. 060, 2004, Designating the Charles H. Sheldon House as
153
April 6, 2004
a Fort Collins Landmark Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the City Code. He stated he did not want to
hold up those three designations but would like to see discussion and clarification of the Code
provisions relating to the Landmark Preservation Commission under Other Business due to issues
brought up by citizens.
Councilmember Kastein indicated that he would look forward to seeing staffs response to Mr.
Shum's comments made under Citizen Participation.
Staff Reports
City Manager Fischbach reported that the Recreation Division's adaptive recreation opportunities
(ARO) program had been awarded a three-year grant in the amount of $43,000 from the Department
of Education Rehabilitative Service Administration for continuation of the Recreation Works
Project. He also presented an update relating to Allegient Air's consideration of adding a Tuesday
flight for a total of six flights per week from the Fort Collins -Loveland Airport to Las Vegas. He
reported on the staff update on Council items.
Councilmember Reports
Councilmember Hamrick reported on the Legislative Review Committee discussions relating to
proposed State legislation.
Councilmember Kastein reported on the North Front Range Air Quality and Transportation Planning
Council discussions relating to the 2030 Regional Transportation Plan. He requested Council
feedback on data that he would be sending for review. He stated the group also discussed the articles
of association for the Transit Advisory Group (TAG) which would parallel the Technical Advisory
Committee (TAC); an Intelligent Transportation Systems Strategic Plan; and retention and updates
of the weighted vote.
Mayor Martinez reported on the utilities payment assistance fund-raising efforts, which resulted in
response from over 500 utility customers who made 453 monthly donations totaling $1,350 and 63
one-time donations totaling $2,303.
Ordinance No. 050, 2004
Authorizing the Acquisition by Eminent Domain Proceedings
of Certain Lands Necessary for the Construction of Pubic
Improvements in Connection with the Stormwater Utility Drainage
Outfall for the North Tributary System and the Street Oversizing Ziegler Road
Realignment Project, Adopted on Second Reading.
The following is staffs memorandum on this item.
154
April 6, 2004
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A stormwater drainage easement is required for the North Tributary outfall across property east of
CR 9 owned by Ed McDowell. The North Tributary Stormwater pipe drains areas of existing
Parkwood, Parkwood East, and Meadows East neighborhoods. Installation ofthis storm water pipe
across Timberline Road was done in 1999, and currently floods property owned by the Rigden Farm
Development before spilling into the Fossi l Creek Reservoir Inlet Ditch (FCRID), overtopping CR13
and draining into the Poudre River.
The Street Oversizing Program has been working with the developer to obtain the right of way
necessary to construct Ziegler Road from Drake to Horsetooth on a new alignment west of the
FCRID. This new alignment will meet minor arterial standards and eliminate the current
substandard roadway with narrow one lane bridges. Ordinance No. 050, 2004, was adopted 5-2
(Councilmember Hamrick and Roy were opposed) on First Reading on March 16, 2004. "
City Manager Fischbach introduced the agenda item and stated the item was on the discussion
agenda due to the split vote (5-2) on First Reading.
Councilmember Hamrick asked for an update on negotiations. Basil Hamdan, Stormwater Utility,
stated he had been meeting with the property owners and that he believed that the parties were close
to an agreement.
Councilmember Kastein requested a two -page memo regarding eminent domain criteria in general.
Councilmember Tharp asked that the two -page memo address how new State legislation relating
eminent domain would impact the City. City Manager Fischbach stated staff would check to
determine what had been approved.
Councilmember W eitkunat made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Tharp, to adopt Ordinance
No. 050, 2004 on Second Reading. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers
Bertschy, Kastein, Martinez, Tharp and Weitkunat. Nays: Councilmembers Hamrick and Roy.
THE MOTION CARRIED
Items Relating to the Adrian Annexation and Zoning. Adopted.
The following is staffs memorandum on this item.
155
April 6, 2004
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 051, 2004, Annexing Property Known as the Adrian
Annexation.
B. Second Reading of OrdinanceNo.052,2004,AmendingtheZoningMapandClassifyingfor
Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the Adrian Annexation.
This is a request to annex and zone 2.18 acres located at the southeast corner West Vine Drive and
Impala Drive. The property is north ofLaPorte Avenue, west ofNorth Taft Hill Road, and east of
North Overland Trail. It is currently being used as an existing single-family residence (with house
and horse barn) and is in the FA —Farming Zoning District in Larimer County.
On March 16, 2004, Council unanimously adopted Resolution 2004-043, Setting Forth Findings
of Fact and Determinations Regarding the Adrian Annexation and Ordinance No. 051, 2004,
annexing the property.
Also, on March 16, 2004, Council voted 4-3 (Councilmembers Kastein, Martinez and Weitkunat
opposed) to adopt Ordinance No. 052, 2004, amending the zoning map and zoning the property
included in the Adrian Annexation. The recommended zoning, LMN—Low Density Mixed -Use
Neighborhood, was changed to Low Density Residential (RL). "
City Manager Fischbach stated the item was on the discussion agenda because of the split vote (4-3)
on First Reading of the zoning ordinance.
Julie Adrian, 2333 West Vine Drive, stated she did not agree with the choice of R-L zoning but that
she respected the process and was prepared to accept that decision. She asked that Councilmembers
answer several questions during their discussions. She noted that a statement was made at the March
16 Council meeting by Councilmember Hamrick in which he indicated that he would vote in line
with the Planning and Zoning Board's recommendation because of its technical expertise. She asked
if Councilmember Hamrick had read the minutes from the Planning and Zoning Board meeting
because it was clear that the decision to recommend R-L zoning was not based on the technical
merits of the property. She commented that it set an "interesting precedent" that her property was
"served up as an olive branch in reparation for previous unpopular decisions." She stated she
disagreed with Boardmember Craig's statement that the City would not suffer in any way if the
property was zoned R-L. She stated people who could not afford to buy a new home in Fort Collins
would benefit from the affordable housing that would have been allowed by L-M-N zoning. She
asked Councilmember Tharp about her concern regarding whether the project would ever be
submitted as affordable housing and asked if there were past occurrences that caused
Councilmember Tharp to question the property owner's commitment to affordable housing. She
156
April6, 2004
stated a vote in favor of R-L zoning was a vote against affordable housing. She stated the Planning
Department recommended L-M-N zoning and asked if they were not considered by the City Council
to be technical experts. She thanked Councilmember Roy for his apology for the "revolving door"
comment regarding the applicant's representative Troy Jones.
John Adrian, 2333 West Vine Drive, stated the Poudre Plains Subdivision was one street away from
this property. He stated there were roughly 22 homes in that subdivision and two streets: North
Briarwood Road and Plains Court. He stated some of the neighbors to the south opposed that
development for the same reasons they used to oppose the Adrian property zoning. He stated the
opponents would be hard pressed to show that negative impacts took place. He stated development
had a detention pond and was zoned L-M-N. He stated the Poudre Plains developer did not choose
to go with the highest available density and that the Adrian property would also not go to the highest
possible density. He stated some of the Poudre Plains residents had joined the neighbors to the south
to oppose the Adrian project and that the arguments had not changed. He questioned the logic of the
arguments about traffic impacts and stormwater hazards. He spoke regarding the need for affordable
housing. He stated there were 15 duplexes within a two -block radius. He stated the L-M-N zoning
would be the only zoning that would accommodate duplexes and the only zoning that would make
sense for offering affordable housing.
Mikal Torgerson, 223 North College Avenue, requested that the Council consider zoning the
property L-M-N. He stated a development review had never been done on an R-L zoned property
because R-L was originally intended to zone properties that were being annexed into the City that
were previously developed. He stated this property had a metes and bounds description. He stated
it seemed clear that R-L zoning was never intended to be given to developable properties. He stated
he felt that in this case, the R-L zoning was offered as an "olive branch" to neighbors that had
concerns about development densities. He stated the R-L zoning would not even permit the same
density as the surrounding areas. He asked that Council reconsider the R-L zoning designation.
Dr. Stephen Schafer, 601 North Impala Drive, thanked the Council for voting in favor of R-L zoning
on First Reading. He noted that the Briarwood neighborhood to the east was R-L until 1997. He
stated there were unresolved traffic and stormwater issues. He stated this was not an appropriate
area for low income affordable housing. He stated the issue was zoning rather than affordable
housing.
Councilmember Roy made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Tharp, to adopt Ordinance No.
051, 2004 on Second Reading.
Councilmember Kastein read into the record a portion of an e-mail that he had written to the
Council: "We decided in a 4-3 vote not to allow a developer L-M-N zoning when he had already
formally, in writing I believe, committed to construct affordable housing units on the property. His
testimony was that the affordable housing piece becomes very unlikely when the number of units is
157
Apri16, 2004
restricted to that allowed by R-L zoning. So we passed up an increase in affordable housing units
for the City which would have come at no additional cost to the City. Yet we continue to pour
taxpayer money into affordable housing, including land banks, hoping to provide housing to the poor
at a discount at some future date. This is a perfect example of over regulation — not allowing a
developer the opportunity to develop as he chooses even without compelling rationale to disallow
due to zoning incompatibilities. What's more is that the developer's goal was also the City's touted
goal of affordable housing."
Councilmember Tharp stated she would respond to the question posed by Ms. Adrian. She stated
it was her position that the Council was dealing with a zoning issue and not a development issue.
She stated once the property was zoned L-M-N that there was no way to know that the development
proposal would be for affordable housing. She stated the decision was made with regard to the
zoning rather than a development proposal. She stated she was still comfortable with that position
and with voting for R-L zoning.
Councilmember Weitkunat stated she would prefer to pose her questions regarding the zoning after
the vote on the annexation ordinance.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Bertschy, Hamrick, Kastein,
Martinez, Roy, Tharp and Weitkunat. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED
Councilmember Roy made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Tharp, to adopt Ordinance No.
052, 2004 on Second Reading (R-L zoning).
Councilmember Weitkunat made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kastein, to amend the
Ordinance to change the zoning from R-L to L-M-N.
Councilmember Weitkunat stated every member of the Council had reaffirmed a commitment to
affordable housing during the Priority Affordable Housing Needs and Strategies Report and Study.
She stated one of the goals was to motivate developers to increase production of affordable housing
for rent and for sale. She stated one of the objectives was to try to make it easier to find appropriate
sites for affordable housing. She stated this was an opportunity to zone this property L-M-N to
"walk the talk" about affordable housing. She stated R-L zoning would preclude affordable housing.
She stated affordable housing should be discussed when zoning was being discussed. She stated
there was little difference between R-L and L-M-N zoning except that L-M-N would allow
affordable housing. She stated this was a policy issue for the Council. She stated the neighborhoods
argued that affordable housing would impact the character of the neighborhood and diminish
property values. She stated this was not true and that the affordable housing throughout the City on
in -fill properties had not had such impacts. She stated varied affordable housing and multi -family
158
Apri16, 2004
housing was always in character with a neighborhood. She stated L-M-N zoning would not
jeopardize the neighborhood and that this had been proven throughout the City. She stated this was
a mixed area and that this was a small, in -fill project. She stated the impacts would be discussed at
the time of the development proposal and that those impacts could be mitigated. She stated the
zoning was a Council policy decision. She stated this matter dealt with many of the issues
considered to be important by the Council: variety, affordable housing and density. She asked the
Council to re -think the zoning of this property.
Mayor Martinez asked Mr. Torgerson about the vision for the project. Mr. Torgerson stated the plan
was for duplex lots. He stated a letter had been submitted to the City's Affordable Housing
Coordinator committing to 100% affordability as defined by the City. He stated development fee
waivers had been granted for affordable housing. He stated if the property was zoned L-M-N that
there would be affordable housing.
Mayor Martinez asked how many units would be part of the project. Mr. Torgerson stated there
would be 8-9 lots with duplexes.
Councilmember Roy stated he viewed as unfair Councilmember Weitkunat's comments that a vote
for R-L was a vote against affordable housing. He stated some "ideals" had to be given up when
making decisions involving policy plans to arrive at different goals. He stated it was not possible
to have every decision fit every policy statement.
Councilmember W eitkunat stated it was important that when the Council made policy decisions that
there be follow-through. She stated many land use decisions conflicted with the affordable housing
goal. She stated this was an opportunity for in -fill development with an affordable housing
component with appropriate zoning. She suggested that Council re -think the policy.
Councilmember Kastein stated there would continue to be issues with relation to affordable housing.
He stated a great deal of money was being spent toward affordable housing and that "making it
happen" would continue to be an issue. He stated affordable housing was needed and that it became
a "there but not here issue." He stated he did not believe that having affordable housing on this
property would change the character of the neighborhood. He stated given the desires of the property
owners and because the affordable housing would not overburden the neighborhood that he would
support L-M-N zoning.
Councilmember Tharp stated the decision in this case was based on the existing neighborhood and
the view of the neighborhood that L-M-N would not be acceptable. She stated even if there was a
commitment for affordable housing that there was uncertainty regarding how many units would be
built or how dense the project would be. She stated she believed that R-L zoning was the appropriate
zoning for the neighborhood.
159
April 6, 2004
Mayor Martinez stated even under L-M-N that the City would have the final decision regarding the
project to be built.
Councilmember Tharp stated once a decision was made for L-M-N that the density could increase
significantly. She stated if there was an affordable housing project that the density could increase
even more. She stated this particular development proposal was not finalized and that the project
could be significantly denser than the project that had been discussed if there was L-M-N zoning.
She stated a more rural and open designation was appropriate for this neighborhood.
Mayor Martinez asked about the development review process and if a limit could be put on the
density to be allowed. Cameron Gloss, Director of Current Planning, stated the L-M-N zone would
have a maximum of eight units per acre unless it was a certified affordable housing project, in which
case up to 12 units per acre would be allowed. He stated he believed that the applicant would be
authorized to go to the maximum density permitted under the Land Use Code. City Attorney Roy
stated conditional zoning was permissible under the Code and that a lower maximum density could
be imposed if there was a rational basis for doing so.
The vote on the motion to amend the Ordinance to provide for L-M-N zoning was as follows: Yeas:
Councilmembers Kastein, Martinez and Weitkunat. Nays: Councilmembers Bertschy, Hamrick, Roy
and Tharp.
THE MOTION FAILED
Councilmember Kastein stated he would vote for R-L zoning although he would have preferred L-
M-N zoning because the property owner had accepted the R-L designation.
Councilmember Weitkunat stated she would not support the motion. She stated she believed that
it would be a "serious error" with regard to the goals and objectives of the community. She stated
L-M-N zoning would be appropriate.
Councilmember Hamrick stated he considered the recommendations of the Planning and Zoning
Board carefully. He stated the Board supported R-L zoning for this property. He stated it was
difficult to discuss affordable housing within this limited context. He questioned whether it would
be appropriate to place affordable housing on the edge of town with no transit connections and no
access to shopping except via vehicle. He stated he would support the motion.
The vote on the main motion (R-L zoning) was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Bertschy,
Hamrick, Kastein, Roy and Tharp. Nays: Councilmembers Martinez and Weitkunat.
THE MOTION CARRIED
160
April 6, 2004
Items Relating to Solid Waste Collection
and Recycling Service, Adopted.
The following is staff s memorandum on this item.
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 025, 2004, Amending Chapter 15, Article XV of the City
Code Relating to Solid Waste Collection and Recycling Services.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 053, 2004, Amending Chapter 12, Article II ofthe City Code
Relating to Collection of Garbage and Refuse.
Since it was adopted in 1996, the pay -as you -throw (PAYT) Code provisions governing the provision
of solid waste collection services have been implemented by trash haulers as a condition of their
City license, with one amendment made in March 2000 to establish an audit system for the City's
use.
Clarification of the Code language is proposed to specifically state that all single family and two-
family residences in Fort Collins are subject to unit -based (PAYT) trash rates, including those
participating in group accounts for trash service. By including group accounts in the PAYT
Ordinance, staff estimates 10,000 more residences (approximately 19% of residences in Fort
Collins) will participate in the unit -based trash system, preventing up to 15,000 cubic yards of
municipal solid waste from being sent to local landfills for disposal. Staffalso expects to see a 4-6%
increase in recycling in these residences.
Code language is also being added to Chapter 12, requiring that persons arranging group accounts
for trash service do so in a manner consistent with the PAYT requirements.
BACKGROUND
In 1995, the City of Fort Collins adopted a PAYT trash requirement for trash haulers (Section 15-
412 of the City Code). By requiring that haulers charge a variable rate for trash, the PAYT system
provides economic incentives forsingle family and two-family residences to reduce their household
waste and increase efforts to recycle. The City requires trash hauling companies to apply these
variable rates as a condition of their license to provide residential trash services.
The Natural Resources Department continues to work at the request of the City Council to ensure
that the PAYT program is effective. One issue that has been brought to staffs attention is the
161
April6, 2004
difficulty of applying variable rates in situations where property management companies,
homeowner associations (HOAs), neighborhood associations, or other intermediaries negotiate with
trash haulers for group service and rates.
The City continues to endorse the practice ofconsolidated trash collection accounts because of their
positive environmental benefits (less damage to roads, traffic, noise and pollution). However, in
some cases staff has found that individual customers in group accounts are not being given their
choice of trash service level with unit -based rates. For example, an HOA may negotiate a contract
whereby all homes receive the same 90-gallon containerper week and are billed the same base rate,
and the option of choosing a lower service level (e.g. 30-gallon or 60-gallon) is not available. This
situation negates the economic incentive of the PAYT system and reduces its effectiveness.
Staff developed amendments to the PAYT requirement during 2003, with input from interested
citizens and the private sector. The proposed changes were discussed by the City Council on
February 3, 2004, and the first reading of this Ordinance was postponed to allow staff to respond
to Council direction. In response to direction given at that meeting, staffhas drafted two additional
amendments:
Revisions to Ordinance No. 025, 2004, (shown in boldfaced type) to
a. clarify that inspection or audit of records will occur at the hauler's place of
business or other reasonably convenient location designated by the hauler;
b. provide additional procedures to protect confidential records from release;
and
C. clarify that haulers may not be unfairly targeted for inspections.
2. Ordinance No. 054, 2004, enacting a new Article in Chapter 12 of the City Code to
require that representatives ofgroup accounts who negotiate for consolidated trash
services must also comply with the PAYT provisions (in addition to the regulated
trash hauling industry); and
The Natural Resources Advisory Board considered the proposed PAYT revisions on November 5,
2003, and recommended approval of the revisions. The NRAB had also inquired about holding
those who arrange group accounts responsiblefor compliance with the requirements. Theproposed
amendments to Chapter 12 address those concerns.
Most recently, staff met with representatives of local trash haulers on March, 25, 2004, and has
modified the proposed City Code language to address concerns noted by the haulers at that time. "
City Manager Fischbach introduced the agenda item.
162
Apri16, 2004
Susie Gordon, Natural Resources, presented background information regarding the agenda item. She
stated the intent was to apply the Ordinance adopted in 1995 to all residential trash services,
including those accounts that were part of a consolidated group account (such as Homeowners'
associations). She outlined the highlights of the proposed amendments. She stated additional
changes had been made since February 3 with regard to: (1) protecting the confidentiality of haulers'
records, (2) ensuring that investigations of any allegations against haulers must be based on
reasonable suspicion and that the results of such investigations would go solely to the City Manager,
(3) extending the responsibility for implementing PAYT rates to the representatives of group
accounts, and (4) phasing in the requirements. She stated the "grandfathering" of accounts until
January 2007 would give the haulers time to end existing long term contracts and comply with the
new requirements.
Linda Stanley, 2040 Bennington Circle, urged the Council to adopt the Ordinances and to speed up
implementation. She stated PAYT was a good market solution.
Kelly Ohlson, 2040 Bennington Circle, spoke regarding the history and evolution ofrecycling in Fort
Collins. He supported addressing multi -family recycling in the future. He asked that Council direct
staffprior to Second Reading to make the homeowners' associations more accountable for informing
residents of all options regarding recycling. He urged speeding up implementation and suggested
a January 1, 2005 deadline. He stated the 2007 deadline was too long.
Mark Glorioso, general manager of Gallegos Sanitation, stated the haulers supported PAYT and
would work with Homeowners' Associations to offer the three levels of service to residents. He
stated there was an issue regarding what to do about current contracts and that a staff member
suggested the 2007 deadline to comply. He stated current contracts were an issue because the
haulers had to spend a lot of money to provide equipment to homeowners' associations and that an
extended deadline was a way for the haulers to recoup some of their costs.
John Puma, president of Ram Waste Systems, stated the 2007 deadline was agreed upon by the
haulers and staff. He stated some contracts ran longer than that and that the deadline would give the
haulers time to meet with Associations to renegotiate contracts. He stated this would also give the
associations time to modify their budgets. He stated one of his competitors had a contract with the
Fort Collins Housing Authority and that these changes would impact the Housing Authority budget
and necessitate the Authority talking with the 100+ homeowners. He stated many contracts would
expire before the 2007 deadline and would go onto the new program immediately. He stated the
haulers' contracts with customers were legal and binding. He stated he supported the deadline
chosen in the meeting between the haulers and the City.
Mayor Martinez asked if there was any way of measuring how much each household threw away
when an apartment complex shared a dumpster. Gordon stated communal dumpsters were
specifically exempted from the Ordinance.
163
April 6, 2004
Councilmember Tharp stated she was concerned about the 2007 deadline. She asked if there would
be some way to get a rough estimate of how many contracts were long term. City Manager
Fischbach stated staff could attempt to obtain than information from the haulers before Second
Reading.
Councilmember Tharp asked which portion of the Ordinance would hold the Homeowners'
Associations responsible for their role in the implementation. City Attorney Roy stated language
appeared in the second Ordinance.
Councilmember Tharp expressed a concern about the 2007 deadline.
Councilmember Roy thanked Mayor Martinez and Councilmember Weitkunat for their roles in
working on the issue. He expressed a concern with the 2007 deadline. He asked if the citizens and
Homeowners' Associations had an opportunity to understand the laws of this community for the past
four years. City Attorney Roy stated there was a question raised regarding whether the ordinance
that was originally adopted imposed the obligations that were more clearly being imposed by these
two new Ordinances.
Councilmember Roy asked if PAYT had been City law since March of 2000. City Attorney Roy
stated PAYT had been in the law since then and that the obligation of the haulers and homeowners'
associations in the context of group accounts had been unclear. Gordon stated the original ordinance
was promulgated in January 1996.
Councilmember Bertschy asked about whether collectives (i.e. three or four households contracting
together for their trash service) were covered under the ordinance. City Attorney Roy stated
collectives were covered.
Councilmember Bertschy asked if there was an inconsistency with regard to the effective date of the
two ordinances. City Attorney Roy stated there were two separate ordinances because each
ordinance dealt with a single subject as required by the Charter. He stated the previous amendments
that had been discussed with regard to Ordinance No. 025, 2004 had to do with the regulation of
trash haulers. He stated the other ordinance had to do with a duty imposed upon homeowners'
associations and others who solicited solid waste collection services for residential customers
through a group account. He stated two different groups of people were being regulated and that two
different sections of the Code were involved. He stated the last page of Ordinance No. 053, 2004
stated: "No person who solicits solid waste collection services from a solid waste collector for
residential customers through a group account shall do any of these things: fail to arrange for service
in a manner that offers the customers choices from amongst volume categories and charges that are
based upon volume capacity categories." He stated the definition of "person" in the Code was broad
enough to include most any individual or kind of organization. He stated the Ordinance provided
that it was unlawful for any such "person" to fail to provide notice of volume -based rates to all
164
April 6, 2004
customers once a bid had been received from the trash haulers. He stated the Ordinance also
prohibited such "person" from providing disincentives to the customers in selecting a different
volume capacity category.
Councilmember Bertschy suggested that one would be speedier than the other and stated he favored
a shorter timeframe.
Councilmember Hamrick asked for clarification of the intent of the Ordinance. Gordon stated staffs
position was that the original Ordinance was intended to apply to all residential customers regardless
of whether billed quarterly or annually and that the new Ordinance was intended to make that clear.
Councilmember Hamrick asked why it took eight years to bring a clarification to the Council.
Gordon stated differences of opinion about the intent of the original Ordinance began to surface in
1997-98. She stated staff determined that the original Ordinance was not clear after discussions with
the haulers when they were working on implementation. She stated the clarification Ordinance was
identified as a new initiative during discussions with Council in 2000. She stated this had become
a controversial issue to work out with the haulers.
Councilmember Hamrick stated the delay in coming back to Council for clarification could be
interpreted as a desire to avoid implementing the policy.
Councilmember Tharp asked rhetorically about the negative wording in Section 12-19 i.e. statements
of what should not be done and asked if it would be more appropriate to indicate what should be
done. She asked if the reference to "person" in the Ordinance could specifically include
homeowners' associations and property management services even though there was a general Code
reference elsewhere. City Attorney Roy stated the language could say "included but not limited to"
those entities. He stated staff attempted to place each Ordinance within the context of the entire
Code and attempted not to redefine or limit terms such as "person" that were used throughout the
Code because it gave special emphasis that might have unintended consequences.
Councilmember Tharp stated she was interested in strengthening the wording and making the role
of the homeowners' associations and property management services clear. City Attorney Roy read
the Code definition of "person" and stated homeowners' associations would be included in that
definition.
Councilmember Tharp asked about the mechanics of the billing process for PAYT in an apartment
complex. Gordon stated this Ordinance would not apply to apartment complexes because they
shared a communal dumpster and it would be difficult to account for individual contributions. She
stated in effect there was a PAYT system because the apartment complex would have to pay extra
if a dumpster must be emptied twice in one week.
165
April 6, 2004
Councilmember Tharp asked if the ordinance would apply to complexes of townhouses. Gordon
stated it was intended to apply to single-family homes and perhaps duplexes and that it was not
meant to apply to units with more than eight dwellings.
Councilmember Tharp asked if the ordinance would then apply only to groups that represented
homes with individual pickup in cases when they were able to keep track of how much each home
threw away. Gordon replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Tharp asked when the PAYT ordinance could be extended to cover apartment
houses and complexes. Gordon stated was not in the 2004 work plan and that staff had discussed
the matter with the City Attorney's Office to determine that it would be legal to have such an
Ordinance that would apply to multifamily units.
Councilmember Kastein asked for confirmation that the trash hauler would negotiate with a
representative of an HOA to agree on the service to be provided and that the trash hauler would then
notify the HOA that it was responsible for communicating with the homeowners regarding the
available services. Gordon replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Kastein asked about previous discussion that the trash haulers were already required
to notify individual customers in some way. Gordon stated the current ordinance had an annual
requirement for the trash haulers to tell their customers about the recycling options.
Councilmember Kastein asked for confirmation that the new ordinances would not require two
notifications to repeat customers i.e. one from the trash hauler and one from the group account.
Gordon stated the customer would receive a single piece of information about service options.
Councilmember Kastein asked if would require all new or renegotiated contracts to have that
requirement. City Attorney Roy replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember W eitkunat made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Tharp, to adopt Ordinance
No. 025, 2004 on First Reading.
Councilmember Roy made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Hamrick, to amend the motion
to change the date to from January 1, 2007 to January 1, 2005 in the footnote on the second page of
the Ordinance.
Councilmember Weitkunat stated the date change would be inappropriate. She stated there had been
negotiation with staff, the trash haulers, the Natural Resources Advisory Board and Council to some
extent. She stated the ordinance would impact a business that had contracts with customers and that
time should be given to phase in the new ordinance. She stated the haulers had indicated that they
would work in good faith to renegotiate the long term contracts.
166
April6, 2004
Councilmember Hamrick stated there should be some "teeth" in the deadline. He asked what would
happen if a company had a contract with someone and the law changed during the period of the
contract. He asked how the change in the law would impact the contract. City Attorney Roy stated
research on this issue indicated that if an ordinance was enacted under the exercise of the City's
police powers that it could change the obligations of parties under existing private contracts. He
stated any reasonable deadline set forth in the ordinance would be legally defensible.
Councilmember Hamrick stated he believed that the 2005 deadline would be reasonable and would
provide sufficient time for contracts to be renegotiated. He noted that there had been negotiations
and discussions regarding this ordinance for the last eight years.
Councilmember Tharp stated she would not support the motion to amend and noted that she had
asked for estimate from staff of the percentage of long term contracts. She stated if this was a small
percentage that it would make sense to let those contracts run out.
Councilmember Roy stated PAYT had been done since 1995 with variable rates and that the
Ordinance was updated in 2000. He noted that there had been a lot of discussion regarding the
Zucker report and how things could be fast -tracked and accomplished in six months. He noted that
this ordinance had been discussed for nine years and that another 2% years was being requested for
implementation. He stated he did not believe that this was the best that could be done for this
community. He supported giving all users an opportunity to participate in the PAYT program as
quickly as possible.
Councilmember Bertschy stated he understood that the trash haulers were not the ones who requested
the 2007 deadline. He stated it was in everyone's best interest to get this going as soon as possible.
He stated he would support the amendment.
Mayor Martinez stated he would be interested in the information that was requested by
Councilmember Tharp prior to Second Reading on the number of long term contracts. He stated this
issue had nothing to do with the Zucker report.
Councilmember Kastein stated this ordinance was not about streamlining government and was about
giving businesses that had contracts with their customers some leniency in renegotiating those
contracts.
Councilmember Roy stated this ordinance should reflect stated policy.
Mayor Martinez stated he would not support the amendment to change the deadline from January
1, 2007 to January 1, 2005.
167
Apri16, 2004
The vote on the motion to amend was as follows: Yeas Councilmembers Bertschy, Hamrick and
Roy. Nays Councilmembers Kastein, Martinez, Tharp and Weitkunat.
THE MOTION FAILED
Councilmember Kastein stated the additional month of work on the ordinance had made some
improvements. He thanked the staff and the trash haulers for their work on this.
Councilmember Roy stated he would look forward to some slight changes on Second Reading. He
thanked staff and the haulers for keeping the conversation going.
Mayor Martinez thanked those who came to the table on these discussions.
The vote on the original motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Bertschy, Hamrick, Kastein,
Martinez, Roy, Tharp and Weitkunat. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED
Councilmember Weitkunat made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Tharp, to adopt Ordinance
No. 053, 2004 on First Reading.
Kelly Ohlson, 2040 Bennington Circle, asked that Council direct staff prior to Second Reading to
clarify that HOAs and other groups would be required to communicate with new residents more than
during the annual contract process. He stated the ordinance should make it clear how and when the
groups would have to let everyone including new residents know about the service options. He
stated he would like to see the language of the ordinance state that such communication must happen
a minimum of once per year or when anyone new moved into the neighborhood. He supported
including multifamily units in the PAYT and recycling programs. He noted that one of the recycling
positions had been frozen and that position would have moved the Council's adopted policy agenda
forward.
Councilmember Kastein asked if new homeowners would be required to receive notice regarding
service options. City Attorney Roy stated staff would take a look at improvements to the language
of the ordinance prior to Second Reading to address the issue of notification to new residents.
Councilmember Hamrick supported strengthening the language regarding notification to new
residents.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Bertschy, Hamrick, Kastein,
Martinez, Roy, Tharp and Weitkunat. Nays: None.
02
April 6, 2004
THE MOTION CARRIED
(**Secretary's Note: The Council took a brief recess at this point.)
Ordinance No. 063, 2004
Amending the Land Use Code to Address Issues
Pertaining to Carriage Houses and Accessory Buildings
Within the NCL, NCM and NCB Zone Districts, Adopted on First Reading.
The following is staff s memorandum on this item.
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This is a request for amendments to the Land Use Code related to the design and construction of
dwelling units and accessory buildings located along alleys within the Eastside and Westside
Neighborhoods. The Land Use Code changes are a response to issues raised in a moratorium
approved by City Council in January 2004.
1. Policy Basis
Public policies calling for the addition of dwelling units within the Old Town Area pre -date the
adoption of City Plan and the present Land Use Code. The underlying three zoning districts
composing the moratorium area: Neighborhood Conservation -Low Density (NCL), Neighborhood
Conservation -Medium Density (NCM) and Neighborhood Conservation -Buffer (NCB), were created
as a direct result of the Eastside (1986) and Westside (1989) Neighborhood Plans.
The City's strategy ofpermitting secondary units at the rear ofthe lot, typically referred to as "alley
houses" or "carriage houses", has been similar to efforts employed in Portland and Seattle. These
units have the potential ofproviding needed affordable housing options in closeproximity to activity
centers like the downtown and CSU, and that are served by existing infrastructure. They can
promote diversity- inhabitants of these small units are likely to be in a different income bracket or
different stage of life than those living in the main houses. An aging parent, for example can live
in such a unit, maintaining their autonomy yet having caregivers nearby -some communities even
describe the units as "granny flats" or "mother-in-law apartments". Young adults, for instance,
may be able to find units within family -oriented neighborhoods, as opposed to living in large rental
housing complexes. With housing prices rising rapidly in Fort Collins, income from a secondary
unit can be used to assist paying the mortgage.
Adopted City Plan Policy:
169
April 6, 2004
Policy EXN-1.4 Infill Development and Redevelopment. Infill/redevelopment policies, standards,
and procedures will apply to proposals forsuch activity in designated areas.... Forms ofcompatible
ifll development include:
The addition of new dwellings on vacant lots and other undeveloped parcels
surrounded by existing residential development.
Dwelling units added to existing houses (e.g., basement or upstairs apartments)
Small detached dwellings added to lots oisufficient size with existing houses (e.g.-
"alley houses " or "granny flats "1
Redevelopment ofproperties
Neighborhood related, non-residential development.
2. Density Limitations
The Land Use Code limits the number and location ofsecond detached dwellings constructed at the
rear of the lot based upon lot size. Within the NCM and NCB zones, a minimum lot area of 5,000
square feet is required per dwelling unit, where the NCL zones require a minimum of 6,000 square
feet oflot area. Therefore, NCL-zoned lots exceeding 12, 000 squarefeet, and NCM/NCB-zoned lots
exceeding 10,000 square feet, are eligible for additional units.
3. ExistingAlleyfronting Units/Potential for Additional Units
A recent windshield survey indicates that there are approximately 220 habitable structures along
alleys within the Old Town area, with the potential for more than 640 dwelling units that could be
added based upon the density standards. The survey did not ascertain how many were used as
dwelling units versus studio, workshop or home office space. Most of the existing units were built
prior to the 1950's and vary greatly in size. Some were built as "carriage houses ", expressly
designed and constructed to house workers supporting tenants of the main house, while others have
been accessory buildings, such as garages, stables and storage buildings, that have been converted
over time to living space. The most recent alley house construction began in 1991 when the
Eastside/Westside rezoning and implementing standards were adopted. These later alley houses have
been built primarily in the West Side neighborhoods, with a concentration of units within those
blocks immediately north of the CSUcampus, although there are other specific examples that have
been built within the East Side neighborhoods.
4. Adopted Design Standards
In addition to lot area limitations that restrict the density and location ofalley houses, their design
is subject to the following size, location (on the lot) and parking standards:
*800 square feet offioor area above grade . including attached garage space;
170
April 6, 2004
Maximum building height of two stories in NCL and NCMzone districts, and three stories in the
NCB zone; (a story can be up to 25 feet in height)
Minimum roofpitch of 2:12 and maximum roof pitch of 12:12.
5-foot minimum rearyard setbackfrom existing alleys and I5 foot rearyard setback in all other
conditions. Walls abutting the side property line exceeding 18 feet in height must be setback
further to accommodate the additional height.
Minimum off-streetparking requirements: one off-streetparkingspacepersinglefamily house;
multi -unit buildings require parking based on bedroom count.
Drainage and alley improvements may be required in conjunction with alley house construction
depending upon existing conditions and the size and impact of the house.
Lots can be subdivided, with the 'front" unit(s) and "rear" unit(s) on separate lots, provided
that the resulting lot areas match or exceed the minimum required under the density standards.
In addition to the lot size requirements, lot lines must be configured in a regular -shape, meet
minimum dimension requirements, provide sufficient alley right-of-way and/or easements
(usually for utility service), and meet the City's standards for storm drainage. No additional
performance criteria pertain to the subdivision process.
*The 800 square foot (sjg limit applies only if the new building and the existing building that is on
the front portion of the lot are on the same lot. The confusion often arises when an owner replats
a lot into 2 lots, and proposes to construct the new building on the newly created rear lot. In that
situation, the 800-sf limit does not apply since the buildings are not on the same lot.
These design and location standards identified in the NCL, NCM, and NCB district regulations
apply to all single and multi family units. The standards apply equally to any dwelling, which by
definition could be a single-family or a multi family building.
5. Design Guidelines
In 1996, when the City last revised the design standards for alley housing, the City Council also
elected to adopt guidelines. Standards are those design parameters that must be complied with. In
the context of the Neighborhood Character Guidelines for the East Side and West Side
Neighborhoods, guidelines are defined as "a suggested design approach that is not required to be
followed. Compliance is encouraged but not required".
The following are adopted Design Guidelines for alleyhouses located within the East Side and West
Side neighborhoods:
"Traditionally, alleys contained simple buildings and most appeared smaller in scale
than the primary structure, which was oriented to the street. This relationship should
be continued"
171
April 6, 2004
Alley houses should appear subordinate in scale to those seen traditionally along the street front.
52. Minimizing the perceived mass of an alley house is encouraged.
Dividing the mass of an alley house into "modules" to reduce its perceived scale is
encouraged.
A single wall plane should not exceed thirty (30) feet in width without a significant (5
foot minimum) change in setback.
Alley houses that include one and one -and -one -ha f story elements are preferred.
Alley houses should not exceed two stories in height.
53. An alley house should appear subordinate in height to those seen traditionally along the
street front.
54. An alley house should appear to be visually related to the primary structure.
Consider using similar materials and massing to convey a sense of relatedness.
Architectural Details of Alley Houses
While a wide latitude is appropriate in the treatment of architectural details on an alley
house, the overall character should be one that is subordinate to that of the primary
structure.
55. Architectural details on an alley house should appear simpler than those used traditionally
on primary structures.
6. Multi -family vs. Single Family Alley Units
Ifplaced on a separate subdivided lot, a multi family dwelling (duplex, triplex, fourplex) can exceed
800 sf. The zone district and the size of the lot on which the units are located dictate the maximum
floor area for multi family alley units. In the NCMorNCB zones, the minimum lot area must be the
equivalent of two (2) times the total floor area of the building, but no less than 5,000 sffor a single
family house or a duplex. Using a duplex in the NCM district as an example, if located on a 5,000
sf lot, it could be as large as 2,500 SF. The zone district would trigger the proposal to come for
review and action by the Planning and Zoning Board. In order to approve the duplex, the Planning
and Zoning Board would need to find that all of the City's design standards have been met,
including the Building and Project Compatibility standards of Section 3.5.1. and the off-street
parking requirements.
172
April 6, 2004
The land use code requires multi family units to be approved through a Type I or Type 2 public
hearing, where single family units can be approved by -right.
7. Perceived Problems
Testimony from recent public hearings and neighborhood meetings has highlighted the following
perceived problems. A summarized version of the issues was contained within the moratorium
ordinance adopted by City Council in January.
• Increased traffic on alleys, with greater amounts ofnoise and dust. Alleys are being utilized
as streets for alley houses, but the alleys cannot handle the increased traffic because they
can't be designed and improved to meet our street standards;
• If the alley is required to be paved in conjunction with an alley house, there will be higher
traffic speeds and volumes along the alley;
• If alleys are not paved in conjunction with the alley house, the alley will be inadequate to
serve the development and there will be an increase in the amount of dust and noise;
• Alley houses on the interior ofa block create more impact than those located on corner lots
due to the increased traffic on the alley. Some corner lots also have the potential to take
vehicular access off of the side street rather than the alley;
• Some alley house architecture is incompatible with neighborhood character, in terms of
mass, bulk, scale, height, and style;
Loss ofprivacy in backyards;
• Increased noise;
• Inadequate parking to serve the alley house causes parking spillover into the alley and
adjacent properties. The alleys can become impassable in some circumstances due to illegal
parking;
• Future conversion of unfinished basements into living space, particularly bedrooms. This
additional occupancy increases potential for adverse impacts to the neighborhood;
• Subdivision of the rear portion of the lot will promote the sale of units as a rental
"investment " as opposed to owner occupancy. If the alley house remains on the same lot
as the 'front " house, there is better policing of the alley house in terms ofnoise, occupancy
level and type of tenants;
173
April6, 2004
• Somepropertyownersaretaking advantage ofexistingregulations toconstruct multi -family
dwellings as alley houses and are then utilizing all of the dwelling units on the lot as rentals;
• Compared to single family alley houses, multi family units along alleys may have greater
impacts in terms of visual quality, noise, and traffic;
• A greater number of rental units has the potential to promote disinvestment in the
neighborhood; and
• While a small number ofalley houses may be acceptable within a given neighborhood, there
is no numeric cap other than the existing density (lot size) limitations of the zoning district.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION
The Current Planning Department developedan accelerated, but extensive publicprocess to address
issues raised in the moratorium discussion. The cornerstone of this process was a consecutive
multiple -day session known as a "charrette ". The charrette is an intense work effort, that combines
a variety of affected disciplines, and that is completed within a collaborative public setting. This
process brought stakeholders together in one place for a concentrated period of time to create a
detailed, feasible agreement that would otherwise take months to achieve. In addition, a series of
public meetings with affected Boards and Commissions has been developed to critique and build
upon the draft Standards developed during the charrette.
Staff has also distributed copies of the Draft standards to the City Council, Planning and Zoning
Board, Homebuilder'sAssociation (HBA) and Landmark Preservation Commission (LPC) in a Study
Session format and elicited comments. Much of the discussion has centered on two issues: 1)
continuation of the subdivision of alley lots and 2) the review process including the procedure to
vary the standards. A summary of the LPC's comments and concerns are outlined in the attached
letter. One Planning and Zoning Board member, who also was in attendance at the HBA
presentation, expressed concern that the modification procedure was too cumbersome for larger
structures and that the code should be modified to allow for larger buildings if located on larger
lots.
Planning and Zoning Board reviewed the proposed Land Use Code changes at a public hearing held
on March 18, 2004, The Board unanimously (5-0, Torgerson abstained, Meyer absent)
recommended approval oftheproposed code changes exceptfor theprovision forfuturesubdivision
of lots. With respect to subdividing, the Board stated the negative impacts on the neighborhoods
outweighed the addition of a relatively small number of affordable units, and they echoed historic
preservation concerns expressed by the LPC. The approved motion also included a request for
continued study of fire and emergency medical access issues raised by Poudre Fire Authority. A
summary of the Planning and Zoning Board hearing minutes is attached.
174
April 6, 2004
RECOMMENDATION
Based on input from the public Boards, Commissions and other groups, staff recommends the
following:
1. Prohibition of Multi-FamilvDwellin ssalongAllevs
The proposed LUC change calls for the prohibition of multi family dwellings along alleys.
2. Dwelling Unit Size Restrictions
The current size limitations have not ensured that alley housing is compatible with neighborhood
character. Many units are essentially full-size houses ofup to 1, 600 sf of total living space, with up
to 800 sf offloor area on the main level and 800 sf in the basement. A lack of massing restrictions
has allowed new units to be larger in scale than the primary house along the street.
Staff proposes limitations on the maximum building footprint, total square footage (including all
areas above- and below -grade) and the ridgeline and eave height (in feet). To reduce the apparent
mass of buildings, the first floor building coverage has been restricted to 600 sf which is roughly
the size ofan oversized two -car garage, the ridgelines are set at a maximum of 24 feet above grade
and roof eaves a maximum of l3 feet above grade. The maximum building floor area permitted per
zone district reflects a sliding scale based on the zoning district (see attached chart).
These standards would apply to all dwelling units and those accessory buildings with water and/or
sewer service.
3. Revised Standards for Accessory Buildings
Since accessory buildings are subordinate to the primary residence, the Draft standards also define
bulk standards limiting the building square footprint/square footage, ridgeline and eave heights.
The maximum building footprint for any accessory building is 600 square feet and the maximum
ridgeline and eave heights are 20 feet and 13 feet, respectively.
4. Proposed Review Process
Staff debated the merits of applying different types of review processes and has settled on an
amendment to the existing Project Development Plan (PDP) application as the mostpractical ofthe
alternatives. The code change calls for PDP criteria to be added that will address compatibility
issues specific to the addition of units adjacent alleys. Affected property owners have expressed
frustration in their lack ofineaningful input with respect to most alley -oriented development. Since
175
April 6, 2004
most alley housing, and all accessory buildings, only require a building permit review, they are
constructed without any public notification or public hearing. While this may not provide enough
public input, there has been an expressed fear that we may be swinging too far toward regulation
and "overprocessing" what is considered a relatively small building. Staffsperspective is that the
proposed process will strike the appropriate balance between under- and over -regulation.
The PDPprocess would apply to all detached single family houses at the rear of the lot, as well as
all accessory buildings that are served by water and/or sewer.
An expanded review process will also allow neighbors to discuss key compatibility issues with an
applicant at a required neighborhood meeting. The expanded criteria would allow the discussion
of the following key points that seem critical to ensuring neighborhood compatibility:
-Privacy. One of the top issues discussed in the Charrette conducted during the preparation of the
Draft standards was protecting the privacy of neighbors. The views of private and shared spaces,
acoustical privacy, and entry routes used by tenants were identified as concerns. To ensure a
measure ofprivacy, attention will need to be paid in the siting and designing the unit, including the
location of the entry, porches, private or shared outdoor spaces, window placement and closeness
to property lines. Privacy between the main house the rear unit should also be part of the site
planning.
-Solar Access. Access to the sun for gardens and yards can be an important concern. Placing a unit
too close to the property line, particularly along the north side, can impact a neighbor's solar
access.
-Parking. The Land Use Code sets standards for the number of off-street parking spaces required.
Under the Draft Ordinance, each bedroom of the alley unit requires a parking space. Care should
be given in the siting of parking to minimize impact to neighboring properties.
5. Modification to the Standards
During the course ofpreparing the DRAFT standards, staff received comments that there may not
be enough flexibility within the standards to address unique circumstances caused by larger lots.
Even though most lots within the Eastside/Westside Neighborhoods fall within a consistent range
ofsizes, there are some lots that are substantially bigger than those within the adjacent area.
To address this issue, staffis recommending that the modificationprocedures and criteria identified
in Section 2.8 of the Land Use Code provide the means to vary from the standards if unique
circumstances arise. With the recent Land Use Code change allowing consideration ofmodification
ofstandards request to be heard by an Administrative Hearings Officer, there should be little, ifany,
delay in the review process if a modification is warranted.
176
April 6, 2004
6. Subdivision
One of the most controversial issues has been whether to allow lots to be subdivided to
accommodate the front and alley units on separate lots. Staffrecommends that the present standard
be retained, allowing lots to be further subdivided. It is staffs perspective that the subdivision will
aid in the creation of more fee simple ownership of affordable housing within the Old Town area.
Clearly, the sentiment of most members of the public involved in the process to date is that the
ordinance should prohibit the creation of lots fronting on alleys. A summary ofcomments received
during the charrette and follow-up meetings regarding subdivisions is attached. As mentioned, the
Planning and Zoning Board recommends that the subdivision of alley -fronting lots be prohibited.
From the perspective of the Board and many neighborhood residents, the most recent alley units
have largely benefited the investment community at the expense of neighborhood character and
livability. Some stated alley units can offer an opportunity for home ownership, however, the
temptation for selling two properties created through subdivision may be so great that single family
owners will opt for this, regardless of the negative impacts.
It has been argued that a carriage house on the same lot as the front house might be less likely to
have the full impacts of completely separate households. There is also greater likelihood that
occupants could use the yard for pedestrian access to the street sidewalk, and less likely that the
alley fully becomes a street in terms of its function.
The staff has surveyed three communities that have used alley housing as part of its infill strategy,
Portland, Seattle, and Boulder, and found that none permit the subdivision of lots (the exception
being Boulder, which only allows alley housing on corner lots).
7. Alley Surface (To Pave or Not To Pave,)
The City technically considers all alleys "streets ". Alleys are the lowest classification of all street
types. In applying the adopted requirements of the Lorimer County Urban Area Street Standards and
the Land Use Code, the City typically requires that alleys are brought up to present standards. This
includes paving, provisions for drainage, undergrounded utilities and safe access for emergency
services.
The Land Use Code authorizes staff to require alley upgrades when there is a change of use or
construction activity that requires permits to be issued by the City. In addition to upgrading the
portion of the alley that is adjacent to a subject property, the City requires that the alley
improvements be extended to the nearest intersecting paved street. Sometimes, the cost of making
these alley improvements may discourage alley -accessed development that will furtheradopted City
goals for infill and redevelopment. While the improvements may help the City upgrade the alley
177
April 6, 2004
infrastructure, it may be placing unreasonable requirements on the applicant given the relatively
minor impact caused by the additional unit or habitable space.
The adopted policy and standards for alley paving seems to run counter to the opinion of the
majority of those involved in the most recent discussions. Public sentiment appears to be that alleys
should be maintained with their present surface treatment. Many residents have stated their
preference for the simple form and character that the existing unpaved Old Town alleys provide.
The comments are based on both the visual qualities, more "informal ", "historic ", and "park -like ",
and their functional attributes —some have stated their preference to walk or jog along alleys due
to the soft surface and the lack of driveways.
Staff proposes that construction of accessory buildings and detached single family units taking
access of alleys within the NCL, NCM and NCB zone districts, and that meet all of the design
standards setforth in the revised ordinance, be exempt from alley paving requirements. This change
would not extend to alleys abutting commercially zoned properties.
8. Public Salty Considerations:
The City Police Department and Poudre Fire Authority have raised several public safety issues.
Their concerns range from the ability of service providers to identify and access structures along
alleys to other design aspects that may impact safety. The following is a list of issues raised by
public safety specialists and staffs response:
• A Clear Addressing Scheme.
The City is authorized under the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards to assign
property addresses. Beyond that authorization, the City has no formally adopted protocol for
assigning addresses for dwelling units abutting alleys. Over the years, the Technical Services
staffhas informally been assigning the 'front - house with the address designation of "A"and
the alley fronting house as "B ". This has been used successfully to date in Fort Collins, as well
as in other jurisdictions, however, there are addressing details that still need to be worked out
with emergency service providers, including the Police Department and PFA. Staff is
recommending that these remaining street addressing issues for carriage houses be quickly
resolved and the practice formalized through an adopted addressing policy.
To address the issue of visibilityfrom a street, staff is requesting that the informal address
identification standards recommended by PFA be formalized, and that the Uniform Building
Code (UBC) sign standards continue to be enforced as written. The UBC requires all units to
have display address numbers such that they are 'plainly visible and legible from the street or
road fronting the property. " PFA has taken the position that all residential buildings need to
provide 4" high address numbers on a contrasting background.
178
Apri16, 2004
Prohibit dwelling units along alleys that do not have straight-line access to public
streets (T-intersecting or dead end access).
T-intersecting and dead end alleys can cause a significant access issue.for emergency service
providers. This problem is not widespread, as few lots within the Old Town area front on alleys
with this configuration and are ofsufftcient size to accommodate a carriage house. Nevertheless,
staff proposes that carriage houses not be permitted under these circumstances.
C. Prohibit situations where residents pay for parking.
Section 3.2.2(K) of the off-street parking standards was recently modified to allow only those
parking spaces that are available at no additional rental or purchase cost to be applied toward
fulfilling the parking requirements. Staffs perspective is that the present LUC language is
sufficient to address this issue.
D. Pedestrian easement from a public street to unit/lot.
A ten foot -wide pedestrian easement would be required during the subdivision process, ensuring
that occupants of the alley unit have unencumbered access to the public sidewalk.
Lighting and Landscaping.
The City Police Department and PFA have asked that minimum lighting standards of 0.8
footcandles be provided along alleys and that landscaping be limited to 18 inches in height
along sideyards and that no plant materials to encroach along alleys.
With respect to both lighting and landscaping, staffproposes no specific LUC changes at this
time, but recommends that the issues be addressed during the upcoming Eastside and Westside
Neighborhood Plan Updates. Section 3.2.4(D)(6), the design standards forsite lighting, identify
the need for design guidelines for lighting that address specific needs of unique neighborhoods.
The adopted Eastside/Westside Neighborhoods Design Guidelines actually encourage
landscaping along the edges ofalleys. The landscaping issue isfurther muddied by the privacy
concerns brought up by neighbors; their comments seem to indicate that landscaping may be an
appropriate way to mitigate visual impacts between properties.
Fire Sprinkler Systems.
PFA has stated all dwelling units along alleys will require a fire sprinkler system. This
requirement does not necessitate a change to the Land Use Code. "
179
April6, 2004
City Manager Fischbach introduced the agenda item.
Cameron Gloss, Director of Current Planning, presented background information regarding the
agenda item. He stated the ordinance responded to concerns raised by citizens and Council regarding
alley houses, carriage houses and other accessory buildings within the Old Town area and spoke
regarding the evolution of such buildings within that area. He also presented an overview of the
staff s recommendations and the issues that had arisen during the public process. He stated a survey
had been done and that it had been determined that there were about 220 existing units and a
potential for more than 600 units to be built. He presented visual information regarding existing
units. He stated the Eastside Neighborhood Plan was adopted in 1986 and the Westside
Neighborhood Plan was adopted in 1989. He stated there were incentives in the old Land
Development Guidance System for more in -fill development in Old Town. He stated there were
some bad examples of two-story structures built under the old Code provisions. He stated there were
examples where the accessory structure was larger than the front house and where there were parking
issues. He stated the City looked at design guidelines in 1996 as a result of some of the structures
that had been built. He stated new development standards with density limits were also considered
at that time to reduce the number of alley houses and carnage houses in Old Town. He stated the
new standards restricted the size of the unit to 800 square feet above grade. He stated there were
parking and other issues with some of the structures built in accordance with the new standards. He
stated the moratorium ordinance adopted in January cited issues relating to architectural
compatibility, alley traffic problems, loss of privacy and neighborhood destabilization due to rental
occupancy. He stated staff had worked for four months with a local architect to address the issues.
He stated the Landmark Preservation Commission had concerns about building heights and that
design options were developed to include a one-story floorplan with various layouts. He stated there
were issues with dust from alleys and that paving of alleys was discussed. He stated the public
response was negative with regard to paving of alleys and that the staff s recommendation was to
amend the Land Use Code to not require alley paving in circumstances where the design standards
were being met for the small carriage houses and accessory buildings. He stated staff was
recommending: the prohibition of multiple family units (duplexes, triplex, four-plexes, etc.) along
alleys; square footage restrictions; addition of an open space requirement; a floor area ratio
restriction; a requirement that fire sprinkler systems be installed; and continuing the process
allowance for subdivision. He stated the last recommendation was the most controversial. He noted
that the Planning and Zoning Board recommended that Council not allow further subdivision of lots
and that the Landmark Preservation Commission, Poudre Fire Authority and Police Department also
had that perspective. He stated the Board of Realtors and affordable housing interests and City staff
recommended that the subdivision process be continued in order to provide affordable housing in
the Old Town area. He stated the process would involve a public hearing in front of an
administrative hearing officer and a building permit. He stated there concerns about the length of
the process and that staff believed that there was a balance between over and under regulation. He
stated there would be performance standards that would deal with privacy and access issues. He
stated the Landmark Preservation Commission would have an opportunity to comment in cases
April 6, 2004
where there were historic structures in close proximity. He stated citizens with large lots had
concerns that they would not be able to construct structures larger than allowed by the standards.
He stated modification procedures would be available in the Land Use Code. He thanked those who
participated in the public process, including staff, the project architect, neighborhood residents,
developers, real estate interests and public service providers.
Mayor Martinez stated citizen participants would each have three minutes to speak.
Joe Gerdom, 708 Yarnell Court, stated alley houses did not promote affordable housing or
neighborhood conservation. He suggested that there be a requirement for a conditional use permit
that would require that the property owner retain ownership if an alley house was built to promote
neighborhood conservation. He stated subdivision would speedup appreciation of housing costs and
asked that Council remove the subdivision proposal from this ordinance. He stated subdivision
would allow larger units, encourage real estate speculation and accelerate the conversion of the
neighborhood to rental or investment properties.
Chris Campbell, Fort Collins Board of Realtors, read a statement from the Board in support of the
proposed standards to encourage development, promote neighborhood contiguity and satisfy
neighborhood needs while discouraging development that would detract from the integrity and
cohesiveness of the Old Town area. He stated the standards would protect inherent property rights.
He stated the Board had concerns with the drafted review process for carriage house developments.
He stated the Board supported neighborhood meetings as part of the review process and believed that
the purpose of such meetings should be informational purposes only. He stated if a carriage house
conformed to the adopted governmental standards that the project should be allowed to proceed
without any additional requirements or restrictions. He stated the Board supported the further ability
of owners to subdivide lots to accommodate lots on front and alley units on separate lots in the N-C-
L, N-C-M and N-C-B districts. He stated subdivision created more of an opportunity for affordable
housing in the Old Town area and that there would be no obligation to subdivide.
Janet Ore, Landmark Preservation Commission, stated the Commission supported the overall
ordinance. She stated the Commission had concerns about the subdivision of lots because this could
change the historic landscapes of older neighborhoods. She stated the addition of new lots lines,
landscaping and houses would reconfigure older neighborhoods and potentially eliminate the
possibility that such neighborhoods could become historic districts. She stated the Commission was
concerned that subdivision could have serious effects on existing historic districts and "water down"
the historic character of historic districts and jeopardize their National Register standing and the tax
incentives for property owners within the historic districts.
Eric Odell supported adoption of the ordinance and asked the Council to strike the subdivision clause
from the ordinance due to health, safety and cultural concerns. He stated there were no assurances
that subdivision would promote affordable housing.
181
Apri16, 2004
Dian Sparling, 324 Jackson Avenue, supported the removal of the subdivision provisions from the
Ordinance. She stated she was testifying regarding the need to preserve the resource known as Old
Town. She stated allowing the current trend of subdividing and building on the alleys would alter
the character of Old Town forever. She stated the prevailing citizen input was in opposition to
subdivision and that the Planning and Zoning Board voted 5-0 against the subdivision provision.
She stated the Landmark Preservation Commission and the Police and Fire Departments were also
concerned about subdivision.
Phil Friedman, 201 South Grant Avenue, supported the ordinance with the exception of the
subdivision provisions. He stated he supported density but not congestion. He stated he did not
believe that subdivision would promote affordable housing. He stated no other area of Fort Collins
would be able to subdivide existing lots at will.
Tim Vaughan, 123 South Sherwood Street, questioned whether the Ordinance included any exterior
design standards to ensure historic compatibility with neighborhood houses. He stated he did not
support the subdivision of existing lots to create alley houses. He stated there was considerable
opposition to allow subdivision to continue in Old Town.
Jim Swanson, 240 Wood Street, Fort Collins Board of Realtors, stated he was a homeowner in Old
Town. He stated the Board of Realtors wanted to encourage new development that fit the
neighborhood character and needs and to discourage development that would detract from the
integrity and cohesiveness of neighborhoods. He stated the key to long term neighborhood stability
and revitalization was having a core of owner occupied homes. He stated the Board supported
subdividing lots in Eastside and Westside neighborhoods to promote affordable housing. He stated
home ownership was a critical tool in reaching economic stability.
Eric Scowron, property owner of 625 South Meldrum, expressed concerns regarding the impacts of
neighboring multi -story in -fill projects on his property. He stated his family would like to build a
small single -story building with three single apartments at the rear of the lot. He stated it would be
inefficient to leave an empty lot surrounded by two-story multifamily buildings. He opposed the
language in the ordinance that would prohibit alley loaded multifamily projects. He stated it was
inappropriate for the City to deny him the right to build on his lot and that he would view that as a
"taking of property rights." He asked the Council to vote against the proposed changes and take a
look at an ordinance that would address hardships and impacts from neighboring structures by
providing an alternative planning criteria. He stated if the Ordinance was adopted that his family
planned to request a variance to allow the project to go forward.
Meegan Flenniken, 617 West Myrtle, asked that the Council adopt the ordinance without the
subdivision provisions to allow further investigation of that issue.
182
Apri16, 2004
Allen Skowron, joint property owner of 625 South Meldrum, stated it was acceptable to make the
carriage house standards tougher but that consideration of exceptions should be allowed for high
density areas in which there were already impacts from existing two-story accessory buildings.
Phil Hendricks, 1342 West Oak Street, supported adoption of the ordinance without the subdivision
provisions. He stated the Old Town neighborhoods were nonrenewable resources.
Councilmember Bertschy asked how the ordinance addressed exterior design standards. Gloss stated
this ordinance did not address stylistic issues (i.e. architectural style, building materials, etc.) and that
the focus of the ordinance was on height, mass, bulk and scale of units. He stated concerns had been
expressed that the diversity of Old Town could be lost. He stated the Landmark Preservation
Commission would have the ability to comment on materials and styles for structures that would be
in proximity to historic buildings or areas.
Councilmember Bertschy asked if 625 South Meldrum was in the N-C-B district and was therefore
eligible for multifamily under the proposed Ordinance. Gloss stated the permitted uses were for the
front of lots and that the Ordinance would prohibit multifamily units at the back of lots. He stated
the two individuals who spoke about 625 South Meldrum were addressing the development potential
at the rear of that lot. He stated there still could be development potential at the front of the lot.
Mayor Martinez asked if subdivision of lots was allowed in other parts of the City. Gloss stated in
order to subdivide in other parts of the City that there must be frontage on a public street. He stated
in Old Town lots could be subdivided off of alleys.
Mayor Martinez asked how allowing subdivision in Old Town would promote affordable housing.
Gloss stated housing would be less expensive based on the size of the unit.
Mayor Martinez asked why the police and fire departments did not believe that it was a good idea
to allow subdividing. Gloss stated written comments had been received.
Councilmember Weitkunat asked for an explanation of "subdivision." Gloss stated would entail
legally splitting a parcel of land into two more ownerships.
Councilmember Weitkunat asked if subdivision involved a size limitation. Gloss stated there was
a density restriction and a minimum lot size in these zoning districts. He stated in the N-C-L zone
there must be at least 6,000 square feet of lot area per dwelling unit and at least 5,000 square feet of
lot area per dwelling unit in the N-C-M and N-C-B districts.
Councilmember Weitkunat asked if this meant that there must be a lot of at least that size in order
to divide it. Gloss stated by way of example that a wide 15,000 square foot lot in the N-C-M zone
could conceivably be three lots and that a 10,000 square foot lot could be subdivided into two lots.
183
April 6, 2004
Councilmember Weitkunat asked if the concept of"subdivision" was therefore to make smaller lots
so that they could be sold to different owners. Gloss replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Weitkunat asked how many lots could be subdivided. Gloss stated there were 600
opportunities for additional units. He stated most of those lots could be subdivided and that there
had not been an exhaustive survey to determine whether subdivision would be feasible in each case
in light of setbacks, coverage standards, etc. He stated the majority of these lots probably could be
further subdivided.
Councilmember Weitkunat suggested that it was unlikely that 100% could be subdivided. She asked
how many structures could be placed on each of the lots that could be subdivided. Gloss stated each
could only have one dwelling unit with other accessory buildings. He stated there would be a
standard relating to maximum coverage.
Councilmember Weitkunat asked if there were neighborhood concerns about accessory structures
such as garages and shops or whether most of the concerns were about residential structures. Gloss
stated there was more concern about habitable space.
Councilmember Weitkunat stated other concerns related to historic preservation. She asked whether
subdivision would negate the historic district. Gloss stated a letter was received regarding those
points. Karen McWilliams, Landmark Preservation staff, stated the mechanism for creating a
historic district took into account the number of properties within the defined area and the number
of properties that contained as the primary building a "historic structure." She stated subdividing
the properties would increase the number of total properties and offset the number of historic
structures. She stated if the total number of properties approached 60% historic and 40% new that
there would be questions about why the historic district should exist. She stated if the percentage
was more than 50% new structures that the historic district would be in jeopardy and could be taken
off the National Register.
Councilmember Weitkunat asked about historic district designations in Fort Collins. McWilliams
stated the Laurel School National Register District contained about 650 properties. She stated that
other historic districts had been designated by the City of Fort Collins.
Councilmember Weitkunat asked if historic district borders could be changed. McWilliams stated
could be done with a valid reason for City historic districts and not for the National Register District.
Councilmember Weitkunat asked for further explanation about how subdivision would promote
affordable housing. Greg Byrne, CPES Director, stated the discussion related to "attainable housing"
and that the size of the units allowed would make these units more affordable. He stated the market
Im
Apri16, 2004
would determine selling or renting cost. He stated density would be based on lot area and that would
determine whether or not a carriage house could be built.
Mayor Martinez asked why alleys were built. Byrne stated alleys were built primarily to allow
service to the units (i.e. delivery of ice or fuel, trash collection, access to rear garages, etc.).
Mayor Martinez stated the Poudre Fire Authority indicated at the Planning and Zoning Board hearing
that there were problems with getting fire equipment and other vehicles through alleys when
obstructions existed (i.e. utility poles, large trees, fences, outbuildings, etc.). He noted that the PFA
testimony was that obstructions could crimp hoses and result in decreased water flow. He further
noted that the PFA indicated that alleys were never intended for emergency access purposes. He
asked if continuing to allow subdivision would create problems for emergency services. Glossstated
the PFA concern was that fences that would be constructed to separate front and rear lots would
reduce emergency access from the front. He stated the PFA also had a concern about addressing of
units and that Code changes would address that particular issue. He stated the PFA's position was
that a fire sprinkler system in the units would address the issue of access. He stated the Ordinance
would require installation of fire sprinkler systems in habitable structures along alleys.
Mayor Martinez stated the PFA indicated a concern regarding access even if fire sprinklers were
required because many of PFA's calls related to medical situations. Gloss stated he had a follow-up
conversation with the PFA and that the PFA indicated that it would support the Ordinance if the fire
sprinkler provision was included.
Mayor Martinez asked how the fire department would deal with the access issue. Gloss stated fire
sprinklers in the occupied space would give the PFA enough time to enter the property to fight the
fire from the street. He stated the PFA had changed its position slightly since the Planning and
Zoning Board hearing.
Mayor Martinez stated he would like to receive additional clarification from the PFA prior to Second
Reading.
Councilmember Kastein asked how subdivision would affect emergency services.
Mayor Martinez stated the PFA would have to respond to fires and provide medical care for people
living along alleys. Byrne stated subdivision would not increase density or increase the number of
potential carriage houses. He stated it would simply affect whether or not they were owned or
rented. He stated the problems raised by the police and fire departments would apply equally to a
rental house or an owned house.
185
April 6, 2004
Councilmember Kastein asked if there could be fences with rentals as well as owner -occupied
homes. Byrne stated was possible but that it would be more likely that there would be a fence if it
was a separately owned lot.
Councilmember Kastein asked if houses would be allowed through subdivision that would not be
allowed otherwise. Byrne stated was a loophole in the prior Ordinance. He stated the same size
limitations would apply regardless of whether the lot was subdivided or not.
Councilmember Kastein asked if there were the same concerns with an alley house on a bare lot as
there would be with a carnage house on a subdivided lot. Byrne stated the accessory building and
primary structure could both be used as a rentals.
Mayor Martinez stated prior to Second Reading he would like to hear more firsthand information
from the police and fire departments about their reasons for opposing subdivision.
Councilmember Tharp asked if there was a procedure for a variance in cases of hardship or particular
configurations. Gloss stated the modification procedures that were already in the Land Use Code
would be used and that set criteria would be applied to applications. He stated the applicant would
have to prove to the administrative hearing officer that there were unique circumstances that would
warrant the modification.
Councilmember Kastein made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Weitkunat, to adopt
Ordinance No. 063, 2004 on First Reading.
Councilmember Bertschy made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Roy, to amend the Ordinance
to bring back an amendment between First and Second Reading to eliminate references to
subdivision provisions.
Councilmember Kastein stated he would like to receive more feedback from Police and Fire
Departments prior to Second Reading regarding subdivision issues. He suggested that encouraging
home ownership through subdivision would be preferable to encouraging rentals.
Councilmember Bertschy stated if the owner was renting out the property that was behind the
owner's house, that could address some of the behavioral issues associated with rentals. He stated
he felt that the historic preservation piece was important as related to qualification for tax credits for
remodeling and building projects. He stated he would also like to receive more feedback from the
Police and Fire Departments relating to subdivision issues.
Councilmember Roy stated the Old Town neighborhoods have been revitalized in the last 25 years.
He noted that the Board of Realtors was the only group that strongly supported subdivision in this
area. He spoke regarding the need to preserve the integrity of the neighborhoods. He questioned
WE
April 6, 2004
creating an opportunity for investment in this area that would not be allowed in any other part of
town. He noted that the Police and Fire Departments had reservations about subdivision. He
expressed a concern that the City staff brought the subdivision provisions forward when no other
community in the United States allowed this sort of thing and when the overwhelming sentiment of
the neighborhood was to prohibit subdivision. He stated the only piece that did not make sense was
the subdivision provisions.
Councilmember Weitkunat asked for clarification regarding the motion to amend and where the
subdivision language appeared in the ordinance.
Councilmember Bertschy stated there were a number ofreferences within the ordinance and that staff
would need to determine the appropriate changes prior to Second Reading.
Councilmember Weitkunat asked if the references to subdivision existed elsewhere. Paul Eckman,
Deputy City Attorney, stated the references to the subdivision concept were in bold language in the
text of the ordinance. He stated if the motion to amend passed that the ordinance would be revised
on Second Reading to remove the subdivision language.
Councilmember Weitkunat asked if the Code referenced subdivision. Eckman replied in the
affirmative and stated this ordinance specifically addressed subdivision provisions in the context of
the carriage house.
Councilmember Weitkunat stated she would not support the motion to amend. She stated new
development should not be precluded in Old Town. She stated she doubted that this ordinance
would result in a proliferation of carriage houses. She stated only 12 carriage houses were built in
recent years. She stated Councilmember Kastein made a valid point regarding home ownership
versus rental properties.
Councilmember Tharp stated she had some concerns about ownership versus rental. She stated at
this time she would support removing the language relating to subdivision.
Mayor Martinez stated his main concern was hearing more from the emergency services about their
issues regarding subdivision. He stated he would like to know why the PFA changed its position
since the Planning and Zoning Board hearing. He stated he would support the amendment and that
he would reconsider depending on the information heard from the police and fire departments.
The vote on the motion to amend was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Bertschy, Hamrick,
Martinez, Roy and Tharp. Nays: Councilmembers Kastein and Weitkunat.
THE MOTION CARRIED
187
Apri16, 2004
Mayor Martinez stated he would like to receive direct firsthand information from the police and fire
departments and would like to be able to ask them questions on Second Reading.
Councilmember Roy thanked Dian Sparling, Meegan Flenniken and Eric Odell for their work on
bringing this issue forward.
Councilmember Bertschy thanked staff for their hard work on the issue and for completing the work
in a timely fashion.
Councilmember Kastein thanked the staff for its timely work.
The vote on the main motion as amended was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Bertschy, Hamrick,
Kastein, Martinez, Roy, Tharp and Weitkunat. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED
Ordinance No. 056, 2004
Amending the Land Use Code to Allow Small Scale Reception Centers
in the Urban Estate District, Clarifying the Definition of Such Centers
and Adopting Performance Standards as Supplemental
Regulations Relating_ Thereto. Adopted on First Reading.
The following is staff s memorandum on this item.
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On December 2, 2003, during consideration of the Fall 2003 Land Use Code Revisions, Council
voted to remand this issue back to the Planning and Zoning Board for further consideration. Since
that time, staff has worked closely with two private parties on expanding and refining the
performance standards that would be necessary in order to ensure neighborhood compatibility
within the Urban Estate District.
In addition, a new required minimum parking standard has been added as well as minor
clarifications to the existing definition.
The Planning and Zoning Board voted 6-1 at its February 19, 2004, meeting to recommend approval
of the proposed Ordinance. City Council reviewed this item at its March 23, 2004 study session. "
City Manager Fischbach introduced the agenda item and stated staff was available to answer
questions.
flEi'..]
April 6, 2004
Councilmember Roy stated he had concerns that this item was being fast tracked compared with
other items. He expressed concern about changing the Code to benefit one particular business
without any knowledge of what parts of the community might be affected by the change.
Ted Shepard, City Planner, stated this item was brought to the Council at the March 23 Study
Session as part of the discussion of the Spring 2004 Land Use Code changes. He stated this item
was a carryover from the Fall 2003 changes due to Council remanding the item to the Planning and
Zoning Board. He stated 18 items were brought forward at the March Study Session and that four
of those items were highlighted as being more substantive than the other items. He stated it was
staffs intention that this item would track separately as a carryover from 2003 and would be
expedited primarily at the request of the applicants. He stated staff had five private sector contacts
since late 2002 with regard to such a business. He stated the Land Use Code was amended to
respond to new situations. He noted that two potential applicants were at this meeting and that the
other three were doing preliminary investigations. He stated the issue was whether to allow this use
in the Urban Estates zone. He noted that a mapping analysis was done through GIS regarding
potential U-E sites within the City and within the Structure Plan inside the Growth Management
Area. He stated the potential sites were analyzed against the performance standards (i.e. contiguity
to Commercial zoning, seven acre minimum lot size, and other locational performance standards)
and that there were approximately 11 potential properties that were eligible for this type of use. He
stated this land use could never go inside an existing platted subdivision.
Councilmember Roy made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Tharp, to adopt Ordinance No.
056, 2004 on First Reading.
Councilmember Hamrick thanked staff for its further review and work on this issue.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Bertschy, Hamrick, Kastein,
Martinez, Roy, Tharp and Weitkunat. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED
Ordinance No. 057, 2004
Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code to
Reflect the Adoption of Updated Master Drainage Plans
And to Revise the Official Repository of Plan Documents, Adopted on First Reading.
The following is staff s memorandum on this item.
7
Apri16, 2004
"FINANCIAL IMPACT
Staff believes the recommended $132 million in City funded food control projects is achievable
under the current funding plan in approximately 25 years. This funding plan calls for 6 percent
increases in rates for each of the next four years, then level for the next twenty years. City Council
sets stormwater rates as a part of the budget process, which in turn determines the length of time
required to build out the master plans.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Ordinance updates current City Code references to the master drainage plans for the various
basins in the city by repealing and reenacting Code Section 26-543(a). A number of the master
drainage plans have been updated or revised since the related Code language was modified. This
is in part due to the fact that in 1999, the City Council adopted a higher rainfall standard based
upon a technical analysis of rainfall statistics, which resulted in modifications to the master plans.
In addition, updated topographic information, changes in conditions, and better technical data and
methods has resulted in other improvements from the previously listed plans. Staff has prepared a
Stormwater Master Plan Executive Summary Report that summarizes citywide information and
presents brief summaries of the master plan for each basin. The summarized basin master plans
strive to design projects that provide cost-effective food protection for a 100 year rainfall event.
The basin master plans recommend a number of flood control and other types of improvements.
In addition, the Ordinance modifies City Code Section 26-543(b), so as to provide that the master
drainage plans and updates to those plans will be maintained on file in the office of the Utilities,
rather than the office of the City Clerk. This change is to improve the efficiency and effectiveness
of the use and maintenance of those records.
BACKGROUND
The Master Plan Executive Summary takes a detailed look at the flooding and water quality
problems in each basin and provides the general direction for stormwater management in those
basins. The stormwater basin master plans include:
• Recommended projects to reduce food damage to homes and businesses, the
potential for loss of life, as well as reduce f ooding of roads,
• guidance for new development in the basin,
• guidancefor enhancements to the riparian habitat along stream corridors to improve
water quality, and
• guidance for stabilizing streams where necessary.
190
April 6, 2004
The stormwater master plans strive to design projects that provide cost-effective flood protection
for a 100 year rainfall event.
The Master Plan Executive summary outlines plan -recommended projects to solve existing flooding
problems on both structures and infrastructure. In some cases, projects do reduce the floodplain
on undeveloped land inadvertently. This usually occurs when the problem is downstream of
undeveloped land and the solution is upstream. Since water on undeveloped land does not constitute
a public problem, reduction of the floodplain on undeveloped land is not a goal of the master plan.
New development in a floodplain is required to adhere to the floodplain regulations.
In 1999, Council adopted a higher rainfall standard based upon a technical analysis of rainfall
statistics. Higher rainfall resulted in higher runoffand largerfloodplains. This required an update
to all master plans to reflect the higher rainfall and reevaluate the needed capital improvements.
In 2001, Council adopted a revised Canal -Importation Basin Master Plan.
In 2001, Council approved a plan to fund $120 million in stormwater improvements over the next
25 years on a pay-as-you-go basis. Monthly fees for atypical residential customer in 2004 are
$14.26. By 2008, monthlyfees.for the typical residential customer will be $18.35. Monthlyfees will
return to maintenance levels in approximately 25 years. New development pays a storm drainage
impact fee. Revision to the impact fee will be brought to Council after adoption of the new master
plan.
Colorado and Federal laws require the city to regulate to the 100 year storm event. This means the
100 year storm is used to map the regulatoryfloodplain and enforce floodplain regulations. The
City, through Storm Drainage Design Criteria and Construction Standards, also requires developers
to use the 100 year storm for the design of new drainage facilities. Current City policy is master
plans should recommend improvements that provide 100 year protection when the benefits of
projects outweigh their costs. In 2001 Council requested staff to include in future master planning
efforts an analysis ofprovidingflood protection for events less severe than the 100yearflood event.
Existing Conditions Damage Statistics
All basins have been analyzed based on the higher rainfall, resulting in higher runoffflows, and
deeper and wider floodplains. The studies show significant flooding problems in a variety of
locations around the city with the following results:
damage could occur to more than 2,600 structures during a 100 year storm,
the estimated damage from a single 100 year storm would be approximately $142 million,
and
191
April 6, 2004
ifnothing is done to the existing drainage system, flood damages over the next 50-years are
estimated to be over $353 million.
The 2003 Stormwater Master Plan Executive Summary
In general, the recommended projects include construction or enlargement of detention ponds,
construction ofopen channels and storm sewers, and enlargement ofroad culverts. Because master
plans are conceptual in nature, the projects proposed may change based upon actual field conditions
at the time of final design. The attached Stormwater Master Plan Executive Summary Report
(September 2003)provides an overview ofthe technicalprocess and recommendations ofthe master
plans from all basins. The first several pages contain a summary of citywide information. This is
followed by one or two page summaries of each basin. The basin master plans strive to design
projects that provide cost-effective flood protection for a 100 year rainfall event. The masterplans
recommend:
1. $164 million in flood control projects, $132 million in the City and $32 million funded by
the County and others,
2. $42 million in projects funded bypartners (development, grants, etc.) as opportunities arise
for water quality enhancements, and localized drainage improvements,
3. standardized development criteria to reduce peak flow leaving newly developed sites to 2-
years historic or equivalent (many basins already had this requirement),
4. regional water quality treatment opportunities to improve the quality of stormwater runoff
and,
5. expanded wetlands and improved riparian habitat opportunities along natural channels to
improve the quality ofstormwater runoff.
Overall, the basin master plans reduce or eliminate the majority of structural damages caused by
flooding in the city. Staff estimates flood damage will be eliminated on approximately 2,200
structures, almost 85% ofthe total number ofdamaged structures. Thefollowing table summarizes
the benefits of the recommended master plans.
Benefit of $164 Million in Flood Control Projects
Before After
Property Damage Over the Next
50-Years $353 million $63 million
Number of Structures Damaged
by100-Year Storm 2,600 400
In addition to the above tangible benefits ofreduced damages to structures, thefollowing intangible
benefits are not included in the estimates:
192
April6, 2004
• reduced damages to vehicles and public infrastructure,
• reduced emergency response, evacuation, clean-up, temporary housing costs,
• streets are open during flooding events for emergency response vehicles,
• improved water quality, environmental enhancement, and providing a feeling of safety and
securityfor citizens, and
• reduced risk of injury and/or loss of life.
To the extent possible, the proposed flood control projects provide opportunities to enhance and
expand wetlands and natural habitat areas to improve the quality of storm runoff.
Recommendations to retain and improve existing riparian habitat along the natural channels are
also included.
Staff believes the completion of $132 million in City funded flood control projects is achievable
under the approved funding plan in approximately 25 years.
The proposed Boxelder/Cooper Slough Master Plan currently recommends improvements in
Boxelder/Cooper Slough basin to solveflood damageproblems in the MulberrylI-25 area. However,
this basin does have a large amount of undeveloped land in the floodplain as well as a large amount
of land in the Mountain Vista Subarea that does not have an adequate drainage outfall. Additional
study by both the City and the County has begun in order to determine development guidance and
identify possible solutions to stormwater issues in these areas. Staffwill return to Council with the
results of this additional study if necessary.
Reduced Level of Protection Analysis
The recommended plan of improvements is based upon providing a 100 year level of flood
protection whenever it is cost effective. In 2001, Council asked staff to look at the costs and benefits
of providing a reduced level ofprotection in future master planning efforts. Staff looked at a 50-
year level of protection for this analysis. Under this scenario, the regulatory floodplain is still
mapped using the 100 year storm and property and structures remaining in the floodplain after
projects are built are subject to flood damages and floodplain regulations.
The following table shows the costs and benefits of the 50 year level ofprotection plan andprovides
a comparison with the recommended 100 year level -of -protection plan.
193
April 6, 2004
Reduced Level of Protection Analysis
100-Year Level of 50-Year Level of
Protection Protection
Cost of Flood Control
Projects $ 164 million $ 141 million
Property Damage
Reduced $ 290 million $ 146 million
Number of Structures -
Damages Eliminated 2,200 1,500
Although the cost of the 100 year plan is high, the favorable benefit to cost ratio shows the
effectiveness ofthe plan. Compared to the lower level ofprotection plan, an additional $20 million
in projects will result in $144 million in damage reduction on 700 structures. This extra investment
also represents a significant reduction in risk to the citizens.
At the January 13, 2004 Study Session, City Council supported the 100 year level of protection.
Public Outreach
The process of informingproperty owners in the City's 12 stormwater basins of upcoming changes
to both the master plans and floodplain regulations began in early 2002 and continued until late
2003. A variety of communication tools such as customer mailings, web pages, press releases and
media interviews, public meetings and open houses, and outreach to both internal and external
groups potentially affected were used.
In 2002, customers most affected byfloodplain boundaries and proposed regulations were identified
as the primaryfocus of initial outreach. Because a significant number of those within the mapped
floodplains are Larimer County residents, City and County staff collaborated on public outreach.
Eight public open houses were held to provide an opportunityfor customers and staff to discuss the
information included in the mailings as well as the master planning process. Customers received
mailed invitations and open houses were advertised in the Fort Collins Coloradoan and North Forty
News. At the same time, web pages were developed on the Utilities Web site to provide additional
information. Over 4, 000 packets were mailed, and 250 people attended the 8 open houses held
during the year.
In 2003, public outreach was expanded to include all property owners and renters in the City's
stormwater drainage basins, not just those within the mapped floodplains. At a kickoffopen house
held in February, property owners and renters were invited to learn more about the City's
stormwater drainage basins, (oodplains and regulations, safety and food protections, and the
regional weather patterns that can result in flash flooding.
194
April 6, 2004
Following the kickoff, nine additional public open houses were held. Information presented at the
open houses consisted of basin -specific information as well as information about the citywide
planning process, including:
• flooding histories for each basin,
• maps showing identified basin problems,
• maps showing proposed solutions,
• proposed floodplain regulations,
• stormwaterprojectfunding, and
• the process for adoption of master planning and floodplain regulations.
Over 62,000 pieces of mail were sent, including informational packets, basin -wide kickoff
invitations, open house invitations and letters to 24 community organizations. Publicity for the
outreach campaign included media releases and briefings, and advertising in local media.
The nine open houses were attended by 470people. Of the 24 community organizations contacted,
seven asked for presentations or more information. Presentations were made to six City Boards,
including the Water Board, the Natural Resources Advisory Board, the Planning and Zoning Board,
the Affordable Housing Board, Landmark Preservation Board and Parks and Recreation Board.
Comment forms were available at the open houses and on the Utilities Web site. Thirty-three
comment forms were submitted. Although most of those who attended open houses did not comment
formally on either the proposed master plans or floodplain regulations, almost everyone got a
chance to express their views to staff.
Comments received on master plan issues can generally be summarized as follows:
• support for specific projects, build as soon as possible,
• support for master planning as a whole, it seems reasonable,
• questions about local drainage issues,
• make sure water quality is an integral part of capital projects,
• concern projects don't encourage mosquitoes,
• support for the 100 year level ofprotection,
• do more to protect citizens,
• implementation of the master plans is too expensive, flooding is rare,
• balance habitat protection with recreational users,
• keep streams natural, not structural,
• questions about impact of recent nearby development,
• concern that projects remove vacant land from the floodplain, which allows development,
and
195
April6, 2004
• would like to see funding changed back to basin by basin, floodplain properties should pay
more.
In March of 2004, about 10,000 postcards were mailed to customers who live or have property in
floodplains, informing them that the updated basin master plans would be considered by City
Council on April 6. "
City Manager Fischbach stated staff was available to answer questions regarding the agenda item.
Steve Anderson, 4670 Woody Creek Lane, expressed the Forney Company's disapproval of the West
Vine Drainage Basin Plan. He stated the Company had discovered "accidentally" that the Plan called
for using a large portion of the Forney property for stormwater retention. He stated the Company
had met with City staff and that the company wished to formally express its disagreement with the
size and scope of the project. He stated the company was key to this project and had not been
informed of the nature of the Plan until recently, although the project had been going on for about
two years. He stated the Company would like the opportunity to suggest other options and to work
with the City to minimize the impact that this would have on the Forney property. He stated the
Forney Company did not want to bear the burden of past mistakes made by planners with regard to
the development of property east and west of Forney Industries. He stated the Company wanted to
work with the City to develop a plan that would be beneficial to the company and the City. He
questioned whether surrounding projects considered the impact to Forney when developing their
plans. He stated the company wanted to work in harmony with the City and County on this
important issue. He stated his goal at this time was to voice the company's objections to the
proposed Plan and to offer the Company's assistance in developing any future plans.
Steve Feister, 255 East Monroe, stated he represented 16 property owners east of I-25 along
Boxelder Creek. He stated there were concerns and areas of dispute with regard to Boxelder Creek
culverts under 1-25. He stated the property owners were concerned that there were only two culverts
and that water could breach an eight -foot ridge and come out of the 265 square mile basin and go
across country forming new basins and flooding the area east of Timnath. He stated a number of
property owners felt that there were major differences between historical floods and the "theoretical
flood." He stated the concern with the Ordinance was that seven culverts were needed to allow the
full flood to come through and that the plan was based on four culverts. He stated if stormwaters
were allowed to breach the eight -foot ridge and go cross country to the east side of Timnath that
those stormwaters would have to go a distance of 4'/2 miles versus 1'h miles on West Vine. He
stated there were approximately 200 acres that were subject to flooding on the west side and that
approximately 1,000 acres of entirely new floodplain would be added on the east side. He stated the
property owners were in the process of doing an evaluation of how many structures would be
damaged on the east side of 1-25 and that the number could be far more than would be damaged on
the west side. He asked that the Council not approve the portion of Boxelder Creek to the west of
1-25 until the property owners were able to complete their work with the stormwater department.
196
April 6, 2004
Councilmember Tharp asked staff to respond with regard to the impact of this plan on the Forney
property. Jim Hibbard, Water Operations and Planning Manager, stated the Forney property was
located between Vine Drive and LaPorte Avenue just east of Shields Street. He stated there was a
large open field that was the low spot in the basin (the former site of Soldier Creek) and the place
of two flow paths. He stated there was a substantial floodplain in that area. He stated the master
plan provided for a detention pond on that site and that this was a conceptual design at this point.
He stated the parcel in question was about 33 acres and that the detention pond would also spill over
into another 17 acre parcel owned by Forney Industries. He stated staff estimated that the detention
pond would probably take between 15-20 acres of the site. He stated this was a key piece of property
in the basin and that a combination of channels would be used to evacuate the water while detention
ponds would slow down the water in other areas. He stated staff had met with representatives from
Forney Industries to indicate that staff was committed to working with the company to minimize the
impact of the detention pond on their site and to acquire the minimum amount of right-of-way. He
stated staff had looked at other alternatives that were not as cost effective and that staff believed that
it would be possible to work with the Forneys regarding the final design and the development of the
Forney property. He stated the location of the property and the fact that it was in the flow path of
the West Vine basin meant that there would have to be some kind of stormwater facility on that site.
He stated staff and the County had attempted to do a substantial public outreach in this basin and that
it was unfortunate that the right people within Forney did not learn of this Plan until recently.
Councilmember Tharp asked if the Forney property was in the floodplain at this point. Hibbard
replied in the affirmative and stated approximately 20-25 acres of the 50 acres were already in the
floodplain. He stated the detention pond would free up some of the property that was in the
floodplain for development.
CouncilmemberTharp asked if Forney could realistically build within the floodplain. Hibbard stated
certain structures could be built in the floodplain if the developer followed the City's criteria. He
stated much of the property was in the floodway and that it would be difficult to build for that reason.
He stated the obliteration of Soldier Creek in the past meant that there was no outfall on this basin
for stormwater. He stated any upstream development had no place for the water to go. He stated
doing nothing meant that there would be no solutions to the floodplain problems and the existing
structures in the floodway. He stated doing something meant acquiring property for channels and
detention ponds.
Councilmember Tharp expressed confidence that staff could work this out with the property owner.
Mayor Martinez asked Mr. Anderson for a statement of what the Forney Industries wanted from the
City. Mr. Anderson stated the company would like to have improved communications with the City
and would like to be able to make recommendations regarding how the property was to be dealt with.
He stated staff had made it clear that this was a proposed plan and that the Company wanted to be
197
April6, 2004
a part of what was going on with regard to the plan. He stated the Company had been discussing
building baseball or soccer fields on the property if the property could not be developed.
Councilmember Weitkunat asked about the size of the proposed detention pond. Hibbard stated it
would be 15-20 acres due to the size of the West Vine basin and the lack of current detention areas.
He stated a 70-80 foot wide outfall channel would also have to be built from that detention pond
down through the basin to the Poudre River.
Councilmember W eitkunat asked why it would not be possible to have two smaller detention ponds.
Hibbard stated there were limitations imposed by topography and that detention ponds had to be built
at the low spots in the basin. He stated this was one of the few spots in the basin that was a low spot
with sufficient contiguous land. He stated staff would work toward a win -win situation that would
benefit all parties. He stated master plans were conceptual and that detailed design would be
determined in the final design work.
("Secretary's Note: The Council took a brief recess at this point.)
City Manager Fischbach apologized that the proper people at Forney Industries were not included
in the discussions until recently. He stated staff would continue to work with Forney Industries on
the issue and the detail work.
Mayor Martinez asked staff to let Council know how the discussions with Forney Industries were
working out prior to Second Reading.
Councilmember Bertschy asked for a staff response on the Boxelder question. City Manager
Fischbach stated Boxelder was not a part of this Plan. Hibbard stated the Boxelder basin on the east
side of I-25 was not part of this Plan. He stated staff was continuing studies on that basin and was
continuing discussions with the property owners. He stated staff was planning to unblock two
culverts that were placed under I-25 in the 1980s in anticipation of this Master Plan. He stated the
facilities on the west side of the interstate would be sized to handle the flow. He stated the solution
for any flooding on the east side of the interstate would be on the east side. He noted that none of
the stormwater improvements would be built soon and that there would be time to work on these
issues. He noted that the biggest portion of Boxelder was not included in this Plan.
Councilmember Kastein asked how long work had been going on with regard to the Master Plan.
Hibbard stated work had been in progress for 2-3 years.
Councilmember Kastein asked if Forney Industries had received notification about the Master Plan.
Hibbard stated the Company had been included on all mailing lists and notifications regarding open
houses.
IRD
April 6, 2004
Mayor Martinez asked that Mr. Anderson be included in all notifications.
Councilmember Bertschy made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Tharp, to adopt Ordinance
No. 057, 2004 on First Reading.
Councilmember Kastein stated it was his understanding that this was a conceptual master plan at this
point and that staff would continue to work with all interested parties. He expressed confidence that
staff would work out the issues with the property owners.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Bertschy, Hamrick, Kastein,
Martinez, Roy, Tharp and Weitkunat. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED
Resolution 2004-047
Declaring the Official Intent of the City to Use Proceeds
of Tax -Exempt Obligations to Reimburse Itself for Certain
Capital Expenditures Made from Other Sources, Adopted.
The following is staff s memorandum on this item.
"FINANCIAL IMPACT
Approximately $55 million of land acquisition and capital improvements have been identified by
various City departments and component units. Use of long-term tax-exempt financing is the most
efficient means by which to pay for the land acquisition and capital improvements. Council is not
committed to completing the tax-exempt financial transaction listed in the Reimbursement
Resolution. The Reimbursement Resolution merely provides the City with increased financial
accountingflexibility and allows the matching ofproceeds from tax-exemptfinancing with the land
and improvements being financed. This Resolution does not, in itself, authorize the expenditure of
any funds for the projects listed below.
.;
April6, 2004
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This item facilitates for proper accounting ofcapital projects that the City may finance through tax-
exempt financing. It is essentially a "house -keeping" action. Based on discussions with Service
Areas and the Downtown Development Authority, the Finance Department has identified five
potential tax-exempt financial transactions that may need to be completed in 2004. The projects to
be financed include acquisition of property and constructions of the new Police Services Building
($28 million), land conservation for natural areas and community separators ($15 million),
improvements in the Downtown Development area ($6 million), a Transportation Facilities Building
($1.3 million) and participation in a southeast branch of the Fort Collins Library ($5 million). The
various projects may require the City to spend money in advance of the financial transactions being
completed. Federal tax laws and regulations allow the City to reimburse itself for such costs
provided that the Council adopts a reimbursement resolution. Resolution 2004-047 declares the
Council's official intent to use proceeds of tax-exempt financing to reimburse the City for
expenditures made in conjunction with the projects.
BACKGROUND
Open Space
The Natural Resources Department has identified several open space acquisitions that fit into the
master plan. Currently, interest rates are at or near historic lows. As the availability ofparcels
cannot be guaranteed in the future and it is likely that interest rates will not remain as favorable as
they are now, it would be prudent for the City to use a tax-exempt lease purchase financing to
acquire selected sites. Based on the amount of money expected from the quarter cent sales tax levy
and other commitments for the Open Space program, staff estimates the optimal size of the financing
to be approximately $15 million.
Police Services Building
The City has been planning for the new Police Services Building for more than seven years. A
portion of the project financing was approved in the Building Community Choices capital project
list in 1997. In recent budget processes, the City has been reserving funds and earmarking
additional funds in the base budget to cover the cost ofa $28 million Police Services Building. The
project managers have identified a tentative completion date oflate 2007-early 2008. To meet this
objective, land acquisition would need to begin in 2004.
111
April6, 2004
Downtown Development Authority District Proiects
During recent meetings, the Downtown Development Authority Board has identified the possibility
ofDowntown Development Authority ("DDA') participation in several newprojects, including the
Cortina project, Home Deport, Pine Street Lofts, Mason Street North, a downtown hotel, and other
projects. Staff estimates the DDA commitment to such projects to be $6 million based on
preliminary discussions. The most recent projections ofDDA tax increment indicates that even with
$6 million of new commitments, the DDA will have additional reserves for other projects.
Transportation De-ice Storage Facility
A recent inspection of the de-icing storage facility shows that it is failing and probably has less than
three years of useful life. The Transportation Services Area has identified, funding for a portion of
the replacement facility and has sufficient revenue in future years to support a financing of
approximately $1.3 million. The new facility will also mitigate current environmental concerns
about the storage of de-icing materials.
Southeast Fort Collins Library
The City has been working toward a partnership solution for Library needs. The most likely
scenario is a cooperative relationship with PoudreHealth Systems ("PAS'). Similar to the Harmony
Library, the City would incur some capital costs and ongoing operating costs. PHS would share
the cost of building the facility. While there is some uncertainty about the size of thefacility and the
City's share, the capital cost will probably not be less than $S million.
Council approval of the Reimbursement Resolution does not commit the City to any of the potential
projects listed in this Agenda Item Summary. The Reimbursement Resolution allows the City to
reimburse itselfforplanning, design, andpreliminary costs should theprojects be completed. Ifthe
projects are not completed, the various City departments will not be able to reimburse themselves
for preliminary costs. "
City Manager Fischbach stated staff would be available to answer any questions.
Councilmember Hamrick asked if this was the same as "bonding" and asked for clarification. Alan
Krcmarik, Finance Director, stated this was connected with planned financing. He stated the City
was working on two major projects: the police building and the open space program. He stated bond
counsel would provide a legal opinion if a decision was made in favor of this financing. He stated
bond counsel recommended a Reimbursement Resolution due to the complexity of the projects and
to enable the City to include preliminary costs in the financing in the future. He stated this action
would not approve bonds and that the intent was to match costs with future financing.
201
Apri16, 2004
Councilmember Hamrick asked the Cityhad a "pay as you go philosophy" with many ofthese capital
projects i.e. asking the citizens to approve taxes to pay for projects. Krcmarik stated sales taxes had
been approved by the voters for capital projects and that financing had not been used except for the
ice center and pool at Edora Park. He stated the City had always planned to use financing for the
police building and that there was an opportunity to borrow money at low rates to buy open space
and to pay back the money from a long term revenue source. He stated staff felt that it was a prudent
move to buy open space now before they appreciated in value. City Manager Fischbach stated open
space money was being spent faster than it was coming in and that financing would enable the City
to buy properties now and pay back the money over a period of time.
Councilmember Hamrick asked if staff would have to come back to Council for approval before any
financing could take place. Krcmarik stated Council would be asked to approve an ordinance. City
Manager Fischbach stated the sources of revenue to pay back the money would have to be identified
before Council was asked to approve financing.
Councilmember Hamrick asked if the debt of the City would be increased if Council approved
financing at a point in the future. City Manager Fischbach replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Hamrick asked if this type of tax exempt obligations had been used in the past.
Krcmarik replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Hamrick expressed some concern regarding bonding because of costs. He stated
this could also be perceived as going around the voters to accomplish capital projects. He stated he
appreciated the information presented.
Councilmember Roy asked for confirmation that this would not commit the City Council to any
expenditures. Krcmarik stated an ordinance would have to be presented to the Council for each of
the transactions. He stated the resolution would allow preliminary costs with the final funding
mechanism.
Councilmember Roy stated some of the capital projects appeared to be projects that the citizens
would normally vote on and asked for a comparison. City Manager Fischbach stated money could
be borrowed at about 2.2% while lands were appreciating in value by 7-10% per year.
Councilmember Roy stated the resolution referenced projects in the aggregate of $55 million.
Krcmarik stated this was a good faith estimate of project costs. City Manager Fischbach spoke
regarding the purpose and intent of the resolution.
Councilmember Tharp made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Bertschy, to adopt Resolution
2004-047.
202
April 6, 2004
Mayor Martinez stated he believed that the taxpayers expected the Council to use conventional
wisdom and financing to accomplish projects instead of always going to the voters for more tax
money.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Bertschy, Hamrick, Kastein,
Martinez, Roy, Tharp and Weitkunat. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED
Other Business
Councilmember Tharp made a motion to extend the meeting to after the 10:30 deadline to deal with
an Other Business item.
THE MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND
Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 10:35 p.m.
a oM r
Y
ATTEST:
t1.�)la
City Clerk
203