HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES-10/16/2001-RegularOctober 16, 2001
• 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, October 16, 2001,
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, Tharp, Wanner and Weitkunat.
Councilmembers Absent: Mayor Martinez.
Staff Members Present: Fischbach, Krajicek, Roy.
(**Secretary's Note: Mayor Pro Tern Bertschy chaired the meeting.)
Citizen Participation
Dick Hill, local architect, spoke regarding the selection process for the design and designers of the
proposed performing arts center and library and spoke in favor of keeping the library at the current
Library Square.
• Alyson McGee,139 North Shields, expressed concerns regarding the ultramodern designs and visual
impact of the proposed designs for the performing arts center and library. She asked that input be
solicited from citizens, the preservation community and citizens in the Old Town neighborhoods.
Marian Hershcopf, 1516 Elm, library volunteer, expressed concern regarding library positions that
will not be funded for the next budget year.
Steve Sutter, representing the Employment Subcommittee of the Commission on Disability, spoke
regarding the annual Mayor's Award event scheduled on October 26.
Elaine Cullor, Historic Fort Collins Development Corporation, spoke regarding the proposed
ultramodern design for the library. She asked that the preservation community and general citizenry
be involved in the design selection.
Ryan Schaefer, 704 Birky Place, spoke regarding the I-25 Corridor Plan and Prospect Road Subarea
Plan. Mayor Pro Tern Bertschy stated that this item would be heard later in the meeting.
Kelly Ohlson, 2040 Bennington Circle, spoke regarding two budget issues: the pollution
prevention/Climate Wise program and compliance with natural resources and environmental issues.
He objected to spending money on streamlining the development review process and favored
0 144
October 16, 2001
funding for improved inspection, compliance and enforcement of City codes. He asked that funds
be added for pollution prevention and the Climate Wise program.
Citizen Participation Follow-up
Councilmember Hamrick asked if the design for the library has been finalized. City Manager
Fischbach stated that no design has been finalized and the citizen's committee selected the
ultramodern design to show in the newspaper.
Councilmember Hamrick requested background information regarding the compliance and
inspection as it relates to current staffing. He also requested background information regarding the
pollution prevention program.
Councilmember Tharp thanked the citizens who spoke during Citizen Participation and requested
information regarding the design selection process for the library and performing arts center.
Agenda Review
City Manager Fischbach stated that the agenda would stand as printed.
Councilmember Hamrick withdrew item #16 First Reading of ordinance No. 158, 2001, Amending
Sections 23-82 and 23-83 of the City Code Pertaining to Encroachments and item # 17 First Reading
of Ordinance No. 159, 2001, Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to Enter into an Agreement with
Outdoor Promotions, Inc. to Provide Bus Shelters, Bus Benches, andAdvertisingfor the City of Fort
Collins Transit Service for 20 Years from the Consent Calendar.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Consideration and approval of the Council Meeting minutes of September 18 and October
2, 2001.
8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 150, 2001, Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to Enter
into an Extension of the Golf Professional Services Agreement at Collindale Golf Course
for up to Five Additional Years.
The existing Agreement with Collindale Golf Course contractual Golf Professional James
H. Greer, PGA, expires on December 31, 2001. The performance of Mr. Greer has been
very satisfactory during the term, and staff has negotiated a mutually acceptable extension
to the Agreement. The City Code requires contracts over five years in length to be approved
by Council. Ordinance No. 150, 2001, was unanimously adopted on First Reading on
145
October 16, 2001
• October 2, 2001, extending the Golf Professional Services Agreement for up to an additional
five years.
9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 151 2001 Amending Chanter 2 of the City Code
Relating to the Functions of the Human Relations Commission
During the City Council's periodic review of the Human Relations Commission ("HRC")
at its July 24 study session, the HRC noted that its functions relating to human service needs
recommendations and its role in relation to the Citizen Review Board have changed. The
HRC requested that the City Code be changed to reflect these changes.
Because the procedures for the allocation of funds to meet basic human needs in the City
have changed and the HRC is no longer involved in that process, that function has been
removed. The wording of the function concerning the facilitation of the review of citizen
complaints concerning the actions ofpolice officers or community services officers has been
modified to clarify that the members of the HRC can assist citizens who wish to file
complaints. Ordinance No. 151, 2001, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading
on October 2, 2001, amends the Code to reflect that change.
10. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 152 2001 Authorizing the Conveyance to Legacv Land
Trust ofanUndivided Interest in the Sauer Open Space Conservation Easement Authorizing
• a Grant Agreement with Great Outdoors Colorado and Authorizing the Amendment of the
Intergovernmental Agreement with Larimer County and Loveland for the Sauer Open Space
Great Outdoors Colorado Trust Fund (GOCO) awarded a $500,000 grant to assist in
purchase of the property. GOCO places certain requirements on landowners in order to
protect the conservation values of the property. These restrictions are reflected in Ordinance
No. 42, 2000, adopted on Second Reading on May 2, 2000, authorizing the conveyance of
a conservation easement to Latimer County. After that Council action was taken, GOCO
determined that the proposed arrangement was not acceptable, and instead required that an
outside party have the power to enforce the easement. Since the conveyance of an interest
in the conservation easement to that party, the Legacy Land Trust, was not included in
Ordinance No. 42, 2000, this Ordinance authorizes that Legacy Land Trust be provided an
interest in the conservation easement. This Ordinance, which was unanimously adopted on
First Reading on October 2, 2001, authorizes the execution of the grant agreement with
GOCO for the grant funds.
The NRAB reviewed this item at its October 3 meeting (after First Reading of the
Ordinance) and recommended adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading.
0 146
October 16, 2001
11. First Reading of Ordinance No. 148, 2001, Amending Chapter 7 of the City Code Relating
to Election Campaigns.
This Ordinance amends Article V of Chapter 7 of the City Code relating to campaign
practices in local elections. The majority of the changes proposed are intended to provide
clarification of existing provisions.
12. First Reading of Ordinance No. 154, 2001, Amending Chapter 20, Article II of the City
Code Regarding Noise.
As part of an effort to improve noise enforcement, the City Manager initiated review of
the City's noise control ordinance (codified in Chapter 20, Article II of the City Code),
which was originally implemented in 1981. A staff team reviewed the ordinance and
proposed modest amendments to bring it up-to-date. The Council Health and Safety
Committee reviewed the proposed amendments and made some changes.
13. First Reading of Ordinance No. 155, 2001, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves and
Unanticipated Revenue in Various Funds and Authorizing the Transfer of Appropriated
Amounts Between Funds.
The purpose of the annual clean-up ordinance is to combine dedicated revenues or
reserves that need to be appropriated before the end of the year to cover the related
expenses that were not anticipated and, therefore not included in the 2001 budget. The
unanticipated revenue is primarily from fees, charges, rents, contributions and grants that
have been paid to City departments to offset specific expenses. Prior year reserves are
primarily being appropriated for unanticipated operation expenses from reserves that are
set aside for that purpose.
This Ordinance appropriates prior year reserves and unanticipated revenue in various
City funds, and authorizes the transfer of appropriated amounts between funds. The City
Charter permits the City Council to provide by ordinance for payment of any expense
from prior year reserves. The Charter also permits the City Council to appropriate
unanticipated revenue received as a result of rate or fee increases or new revenue sources.
Additionally, it authorizes the City Council to transfer any unexpended appropriated
amounts from one fund to another upon recommendation of the City Manager provided
the purpose for which the transferred funds are to be expended remains unchanged; or the .
purpose for which they were initially appropriated no longer exists; or the proposed
transfer is from a fund or capital project account in which the amount appropriated
exceeds the amount needed to accomplish the purpose specified in the appropriation
ordinance.
147
October 16, 2001
• 14. First Readine of Ordinance No. 156, 2001, Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to Enter
into an Agreement for the Financing by Lease -Purchase of Vehicles and Equipment
This Ordinance will authorize the Purchasing Agent to enter into a lease -purchase
financing agreement with Koch Financial Corporation at 4.533% interest rate. The
agreement shall be for an original term from the execution date of the agreements to the
end of the current fiscal year. The agreement shall provide for renewable one-year terms
thereafter, to a total term of five (5) years, subject to annual appropriation of funds
needed for lease payments. The total lease terms, including the original and all renewal
terms, will not exceed the useful life of the property. This lease -purchase financing is
consistent with the financial policies of the City of Fort Collins.
15. First Reading of Ordinance No. 157, 2001 Amending Sections 13-23 and 13-24 of the
City Code Concerning the Enforcement and Conciliation of Human Rights Violations
The City's Human Rights Code (Chapter 13 of the City Code) currently limits
conciliation efforts by the City Manager. The City Manager has delegated his role under
the Human Rights Code to the City's Human Rights Resource and Education Office.
Conciliation is only authorized after the City Manager makes a finding of probable cause
and any conciliation effort must be completed within 90 days of the filing of the
• complaint by a citizen alleging discrimination.
16. First Reading of Ordinance No. 158, 2001 Amending Sections 23-82 and 23-83 of the
City Code Pertainin¢ to Encroachments.
Presently the encroachment provisions of Sections 23-82 and 23-83 of the Code require
all applicants for encroachments to either be the fee owner of the adjoining real property
or obtain the consent of the fee owner. This requirement should only apply if the
encroachment is for the purpose of serving food or beverages and should not apply for
other encroachments, the most common of which are encroachments for news racks.
Furthermore, the Code should be clarified to ensure that there are no "prior restraint"
issues with regard to constitutionally protected speech, by simply waiving any fee
requirements for speech related encroachments such as news racks, and by ensuring that
any applications for such an encroachment must be processed by the City Manager
within 15 days of the receipt of the application.
17. First Reading of Ordinance No 159 2001 Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to Enter
into an Agreement with Outdoor Promotions Inc to Provide Bus Shelters Bus Benches
and Advertising for the City of Fort Collins Transit Service for 20 Years
0 148
October 16, 2001
Outdoor Promotions, Inc., submitted the successful proposal to the City's May 11, 2001,
Request for Proposal No. P-793 regarding providing bus shelters and bus benches and
sale of advertising space on the same. The City and Outdoor Promotions, Inc. currently
have a Services Agreement that expires December 31, 2001. This Ordinance authorizes
the City to extend that agreement for a 20-year period commencing January 1, 2002 and
extending through December 31, 2021. The 20-year term was negotiated recognizing the
substantial capital investment (over $1.3M) required by the contractor, and the agreement
by Outdoor Promotions, Inc., to increase the City's share of the net proceeds from the
advertising sold from 15% annually to 20% annually after the fifth year of the agreement.
The agreement will provide for installation of 105 bus shelters and 400 benches. The
contractor will be responsible for all installations, maintenance, selling of advertisements,
graffiti and snow removal, trash collection, cleaning and maintenance of the shelters and
benches. All advertising shall be commercial in nature, shall comply with the City Sign
Code and other limitations, and must be approved by the City prior to placement.
18. First Reading of Ordinance No. 160, 2001, Approving the Terms of the Sublease by the
City of a Portion of Rivendell School Property for a Community Recycling Drop-off
Facility.
Approval of the Sublease Agreement will allow the City to submit the Agreement to the
County in order to remove a one -acre portion of the Rivendell School site from the
property tax rolls.
The City Manager has executed a sublease agreement by which the City will sublease
from the executive board of Rivendell School a portion of the school's paved surface area
as the location for a community recycling collection facility ("drop-off site"), for an
initial period through the end of the current calendar year with up to 10 one-year
renewals. The City Council is being asked to approve the Sublease Agreement in order
for the one -acre parcel to be removed from the property tax rolls during the period of
time (up to 10 years) that it is subleased by the City.
19. First Reading of Ordinance No. 161, 2001, Repealing Ordinance No. 2, 2001 and
Designating the Deines Bam and Twin Silos as a Landmark Pursuant to Chapter 14 of
the City Code.
This is a housekeeping item. The Deines Barn and Twin Silos were originally designated
as a Landmark by Ordinance No. 2, 2001. When staff was preparing the final documents
for recordation, it was discovered that there was an invalid signature on the application.
The question of ownership of the Deines Barn and Twin Silos has since been resolved.
The legal owner, the Shenandoah Owners' Association, has expressed its desire that the
structures be designated. Staff, in consultation with the City Attorney's Office,
149
October 16, 2001
determined that the best course of action would be to repeal the original ordinance
adopted by Council, and treat the owner's request as a new designation action.
20. Routine Deeds and Easements.
A. Deed of dedication for easement for permanent right-of-way for public street
purposes, from Hewlett-Packard, located south of East Harmony Road, west of
Cambridge Avenue, and north of Rock Creek Drive. Monetary consideration:
$10. Staff: Marc Virata.
B. Deed of dedication for permanent right-of-way for public street purposes, from
Imago Enterprises, Inc., located south of East Harmony Road, west of Cambridge
Avenue, and north of Rock Creek Drive. Monetary consideration: $10. Staff:
Marc Virata.
C. Deed of dedication for permanent right-of-way for public street purposes, from
Imago Enterprises, Inc., located south of East Harmony Road, west of Cambridge
Avenue, and north of Rock Creek Drive. Monetary consideration: $10. Staff:
Marc Virata.
• D. Deed of dedication for construction and drainage easement from Imago
Enterprises, Inc., for storm drainage improvements, located south of East
Harmony Road, west of Cambridge Avenue, and north of Rock Creek Drive.
Monetary consideration: $10. Staff: Marc Virata.
E. Deed of dedication for utility easement from Imago Enterprises, Inc., for public
utilities, located south of East Harmony Road, west of Cambridge Avenue, and
north of Rock Creek Drive. Monetary consideration: $10. Staff. Marc Virata.
F. Deed of dedication for construction easement from Imago Enterprises, Inc., for
construction of drainage and street improvements, located south of East Harmony
Road, west of Cambridge Avenue, and north of Rock Creek Drive. Monetary
consideration: $10. Staff: Marc Virata.
G. Deed of dedication for utility easement from Hewlett-Packard Company, for a
permanent non-exclusive utility easement, located south of East Harmony Road,
west of Cambridge Avenue, and north of Rock Creek Drive. Monetary
consideration: $10. Staff: Marc Virata.
H. Deed of dedication for drainage easement from Hewlett-Packard Company, for
storm water drainage purposes, located south of East Harmony Road, west of
0 150
October 16, 2001
Cambridge Avenue, and north of Rock Creek Drive. Monetary consideration:
$10. Staff: Marc Virata.
Deed of dedication for emergency and construction access easement from
Hewlett-Packard, for emergency and construction access, located south of East
Harmony Road, west of Cambridge Avenue, and north of Rock Creek Drive.
Monetary consideration: $10. Staff. Marc Virata.
Deed of dedication for easement from Harmony Medical Investments, LLC, for a
temporary construction easement, located south of Harmony Road, west of
Wheaton Drive, and north of Oakridge Drive. Monetary consideration: $10. Staff:
Marc Virata.
K. Easement for construction and maintenance of public utilities from Gaetano and
Joan Di Matteo to underground electric system, located at 918 LaPorte Avenue.
Monetary consideration: $100. Staff: Patti Teraoka.
Ordinances on Second Reading were read by title by City Clerk Krajicek.
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 150, 2001, Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to Enter
into an Extension of the Golf Professional Services Agreement at Collindale Golf Course
for up to Five Additional Years.
9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 151, 2001, Amending Chapter 2 of the Cites
Relating to the Functions of the Human Relations Commission.
10. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 152, 2001, Authorizing the Convevance to Leaac
Land Trust of an Undivided Interest in the Sauer Open Space Conservation Easement,
Authorizing a Grant Agreement with Great Outdoors Colorado, and Authorizing the
Amendment of the Intergovernmental Agreement with Larimer County and Loveland for
the Sauer Open Space.
Ordinances on First Reading were read by title by City Clerk Krajicek.
11, First Reading of Ordinance No. 148, 2001, Amending Chapter 7 of the City Code
Relating to Election Campaigns.
12. First Reading of Ordinance No. 154, 2001, Amending Chapter 20, Article II of the City
Code Regarding Noise.
151
October 16, 2001
is13. First Reading of Ordinance No. 155, 2001, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves and
Unanticipated Revenue in Various Funds and Authorizing the Transfer of Appropriated
Amounts Between Funds.
14. First Reading of Ordinance No. 156 2001 Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to Enter
into an Agreement for the Financing by Lease -Purchase of Vehicles and Equipment.
15. First Reading of Ordinance No. 157, 2001 Amending Sections 13-23 and 13-24 of the
City Code Concerning the Enforcement and Conciliation of Human Rights Violations
16. First Reading of Ordinance No. 158 2001 Amending Sections 23-82 and 23-83 of the
City Code Pertaining to Encroachments
17. First Reading of Ordinance No 159 2001 Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to Enter
into an Agreement with Outdoor Promotions Inc to Provide Bus Shelters, Bus Benches
and Advertising for the City of Fort Collins Transit Service for 20 Years
18. First Reading of Ordinance No 160 2001 Approving the Terms of the Sublease by the
City of a Portion of Rivendell School Property for a Community Recycling Drop-off
Facility.
• 19. First Reading of Ordinance No 161 2001 Repealing Ordinance No 2 2001 and
Designating the Deines Barn and Twin Silos as a Landmark Pursuant to Chapter 14 of
the Cite.
Councilmember Kastein made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Tharp, 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, Tharp, Wanner and Weitkunat.
Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED
Staff Reports
City Manager Fischbach asked Greg Byrne, CPES Director, to introduce Michelle Wyman
Powar, the new Natural Resources Director, and thanked Susie Gordon for her service as interim
Natural Resources Director.
City Manager Fischbach thanked Dave Grant for his service in cablecasting Council meetings
for the last 10 years and stated that Dave would be leaving City service.
0 152
October 16, 2001
City Manager Fischbach stated that no study session would be held on October 23 and that there
would be a study session on October 30 instead. He stated that the I-25 Corridor vote has been
rescheduled to the November 20 Council meeting.
City Manager Fischbach stated that the City has been newly rated under the Community Rating
System (CRS) of the Federal Emergency Management Agency as a Class 4 Community, which
means that Fort Collins is the highest ranked CRS community in a six -state region. He stated
that the City of Fort Collins and King County, Washington are the only communities in the
country that have a Class 4 rating and that Tulsa, Oklahoma is the only community with a higher
Class 3 rating. He stated that this new rating will result in lower flood insurance fees for the
City.
Councilmember Reports
Councilmember Wanner reported on Growth Management Committee discussions regarding
Land Use Code revisions, the I-25 Subarea Plan, deletions to the 1-25 Corridor Plan, and the air
quality redesignation.
Councilmember Tharp reported on Legislative Review Committee discussions regarding the
work of the General Assembly in the second special session and Larimer County's regulations
pertaining to wood stoves.
Councilmember Kastein reported on North Front Range Transportation and Air Quality Planning
Council discussions regarding a presentation by the Director regarding MPOs, funding shortfalls
in the State that will impact regional transportation projects, the 2003 strategic investment plan
framework, a subcommittee report regarding a potential vote in 2003 for a regional
transportation authority, the regional SmartTrips program, and potential for an intercity bus route
between Greeley and Loveland.
Resolution 2001-135
Providing Direction to Staff on Completing the I-25 Subarea Plan,
Option A Adopted as Amended.
The following is staffs memorandum on this item.
"Executive Summary
Qption A
Resolution 2001-135 Directing Staff to Complete the 1-25 Subarea Plan Without an Expansion of
the City's Growth Management Area (GAM) Boundary.
153
October 16, 2001
• Oration B
Resolution 2001-135 Directing Staff to Complete the I-25 Subarea Plan With an Expansion of
the City's Growth Management Area (GMA) Boundary.
Staff is seeking direction whether or not the 1-25 Subarea Plan should include an expansion of
the existing Growth Management Area (GMA) boundary east of 1-25, as well as direction on
other major land use policy issues. The development of the 1-25 Subarea Plan started in
October 1999, as a commitment to complete City Plan for the areas adjacent to the 1-25
corridor. Thus, City Plan's basic philosophies and policies are inherently included in the I-25
Subarea Plan. There is also a section reserved in the City Plan document for additional
principles and policies to be specifically applied to the I-25 corridor. Eventually, land use and
transportation infrastructure decisions will also likely lead to amendments to the City of Fort
Collins Structure Plan, the Parks and Recreation Policy Plan, and the Master Street Plan.
Implementation techniques may include, but not be limited to, new or amended zoning districts,
rezonings, and new andlor increased development impact fees. Over the past two years the
planning process has developed two sets of three land use alternatives and a draft land use plan
(a.k.a. `preferred alternative'). All were subjected to review by the general public, City and
County advisory boards and commissions, and City and County elected officials. In September
2001, two draft land use plan options were developed — one that includes a GMA boundary
• expansion and one that restricts development east ofI-25 to areas already inside the City's GMA
boundary. The two options form the basis for discussing, and eventually providing the direction
on whether the 1-25 Subarea Plan should be completed with, or without, an expansion of the
existing GMA boundary east ofI-25 as well as other major land use policy issues. However, the
central growth management issue that needs to be decided is as follows:
• Should the plan be developed to include an expansion of the City's GMA boundary, or should
the plan be developed for only areas within the existing GMA boundary?
Staff is not asking the City Council to specifically approve either of the draft land use plan
option maps, per se. The Council may choose to provide direction on any of the other land use
policy issues at this time, especially those that may affect the decision on the GMA boundary.
These issues have been raised during the public review process. Staff would like to indicate that
if the decision is made to expand the GMA boundary as part of the 1-25 Subarea Plan process,
unless directed otherwise, the land use pattern would likely resemble the draft land use option
map showing the GMA boundary expansion. Likewise, if the decision is made not to expand the
GMA boundary as part of the I-25 Subarea Plan process, unless directed otherwise, the land use
pattern would likely resemble the option map showing development limited to areas within the
existing GMA boundary expansion.
154
October 16, 2001
The other issues include:
Should large tracts of land be preserved for the potential location of industry and businesses
in prime locations for such uses (most are currently zoned for such purposes), or should
some, or all, of these areas be planned for different uses and rezoned?
Should urban density residential neighborhoods be provided in close proximity to industrial
and shopping areas to allow people the opportunity to live, work and shop in their own
neighborhood?
Staff recognizes that there are some risks in recommending the 1-25 Subarea Plan be completed
without an expansion to the GAM boundary. These include:
Some properties east of the current GAM boundary will receive development approval under
County zoning and development regulations. These developments could be difficult to
integrate into the City's urban fabric (land uses, residential densities, and street connections)
at a future date.
There may not be sufficient residential development to provide adequate market support for
the neighborhood shopping activity center on County Road 50. This would likely require
area residents to travel further for daily goods and services.
• The City's participation in an expansion of the County's Transfer of Development Units
(TDU) Program based on the Fossil Creek TDU Program model as a tool for helping
preserve open lands would be eliminated.
BACKGROUND:
In March 1997, the City Council adopted the City of Fort Collins Structure Plan as a component
of City Plan, the City's Comprehensive Plan. The Structure Plan identified the need to do
additional planning for the 1-25 corridor by designating the area an 1-25 Special Study Corridor.
In addition, the City Plan Principles and Policies document contained the following:
PRINCIPLE LU-4. More specific Subarea Planning efforts will follow the adoption of
these City Plan Principles and Policies which tailor City Plan's city-wide perspective to
individual neighborhoods, districts, corridors, and edges.
POLICY LU-4.5 Priority Subareas. The following areas have been identified as priority
forfuture Subarea Planning:
• I-25 Corridor
• Mountain Vista
155
October 16, 2001
• Fossil Creek Reservoir Area
The Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan was adopted by the City Council on March 17, 1998, and
the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan was adopted on March 16, 1999. These plans established
policies and land uses for the areas west of 1-25. The 1-25 Subarea Plan fulfills the commitment
for additional planning for the 1-25 corridor.
Two Corridor Plans
At the time of development of the Fort Collins 1-25 Subarea Plan there was also a multi -
jurisdictional cooperative planning effort to develop the Northern Colorado Regional
Communities 1-25 Corridor Plan. The planning boundaries of the efforts overlapped The
regional plan studied the 1-25 corridor from County Road 52 on the north to an area south of
Berthoud, while the Subarea Plan studied the area from County Road 52 to County Road 32.
The most significant difference between the two plans was that the Subarea Plan was to deal
with land uses in a more detailed manner than the regional plan because the regional plan was
to be based on existing land use plans of the participating jurisdictions. The regional plan was
limited in its scope in dealing with land uses and, thus, focused on developing a set of Design
Guidelines, a transportation element, and open lands and natural areas policies. The Subarea
Plan will include the regional plan's efforts too, in a more detail manner.
Fort Collins 1-25 Subarea Plan — Planning Process
The 1-25 Subarea Plan's planning process has reached the stage where staff needs further
direction on the GMA boundary issue as well as other major land use policies. Two land use
plan options have been developed to aid discussion and reach a consensus on the appropriate
direction to be followed regarding the GAM boundary issue and other issues in completing the
plan. A brief history of the planning process to date is presented below:
October 1999
Three land use alternatives developed for public review and comment. The
alternatives were titled.•
1. Natural Resource Protection
2. Urban Corridors
3. Activity Centers
•
156
October 16, 2001
February 2000
The three alternatives were redrafted based on initial public comments. The
alternatives were subjected to additional public review and were titled:
1. Existing Zoning/Approved Subarea Plans
2. Pro -Active Open Lands Acquisition
3. Activity Centers
June 2001
A "Preferred Alternative" was developed based on public comments on the three
alternatives.
September 2001
Two draft land use plan options prepared for public review. The options are
titled:
1. Land Use Plan with an Expansion of the Fort Collins Growth
Management Area boundary
2. Land Use Plan within the Existing Fort Collins Growth Management Area
boundary
City Plan's Community Goals. Principles and Policies
As indicated earlier, the I-25 Subarea Plan will be a part of City Plan and, thus, City Plan's
basic philosophies and policies are inherently included in the I-25 Subarea Plan.
Presented below is a discussion of City Plan's Community Goals and Principles and Policies
that deal with the issue of a growth management boundary.
Community Goals: Land Use
Our community will have a compact land use pattern within a well-defined
boundary.
City Plan Principles and Policies: Land Use
PRINCIPLE LU-1: Growth within the city will promote a compact development
pattern within a well-defined boundary.
157
October 16, 2001
• City. Plan Principles and Policies: Urban Growth Boundaries
PRINCIPLE UGE-1: The City's development will be contained by well-defined
boundaries.
The process to modify the GMA boundary is covered under the following policy:
Policy GM-1.2 Community Growth Management Area Boundary.
.. The City's Community Growth Management Area boundary will be reviewed,
and if necessary, modified no less than every five years according to established
criteria and procedures, and/or will be reviewed in conjunction with a
comprehensive update of City Plan. "
City Plan clearly places an emphasis on the use of an urban growth area/growth management
area boundary as a major growth management tool in achieving the community's future vision.
Among the purposes of the boundary are: to promote a compact development pattern, to provide
for the provision of cost-effective public facilities and services, to preserve environmentally
sensitive natural areas, to direct preferred directions of growth, and to provide community
separators. Modifications to the GMA boundary are possible under a Subarea Planning effort,
• as was the case in the implementation actions of the Fossil Creek Reservoir Subarea Plan,
and/or as part of regularly scheduled updates to City Plan.
City Plan also directs the GMA boundary to be sized and configured to provide sufficient land to
accommodate growth over the next 20 years. The current GMA boundary contains
approximately 74.6 square miles and has a capacity of about 185,000 people (City Plan
Monitoring Project: 2001 Indicator Report, August 2001). The current populations estimate of
the City is 122, 000, with an estimated additional 20, 000 living in the GMA outside of the city
limits. City Plan's 2015 population estimate for the city is 150,000. The 2001 Indicator Report
concludes that the existing GMA boundary has a 10-15 year supply of land for new housing and
a 10-12 year supply of land for employment. The estimates are based on a 2.2% - 2. 7% growth
rate in housing units and a 2.4% - 3.0% growth rate for employment and assume City Plan's
expectations for residential densities, mix of land uses, and employment centers are achieved.
The draft land use plan option that includes a GMA expansion would add 1.4 square miles the
GMA boundary, making the GMA total to be approximately 76.0 square miles in size and would
raise the capacity of the GMA to approximately 191,800.
While the data suggests the City's GMA does not meet the requirements for a 20 year supply of
land, the GMA boundary expansion east of I-25 issue is an important community issue that staff
158
October 16, 2001
believes should be discussed in a much broader planning process, such as the update to City
Plan scheduled to start in January 2002.
Other Issues
In addition to the GMA boundary decision, there are a series of important policy decisions that
need to be made within the 1-25 Subarea Plan. These other issues include:
• Should large tracts of land be preserved for the potential location of industry and businesses
in prime locations for such uses (most are currently zoned for such purposes), or should
some, or all, of these areas be planned for different uses and rezoned?
Staff recommends areas currently planned/zoned for commercial and industrial uses remain
so with one exception for the northeast quadrant of the Prospect/I-25 interchange which is
currently zoned primarily for industrial uses. This area should be changed to a
community/regional commercial designation so the City has an option concerning the
location off Lure community/regional shopping uses.
• Should urban density residential neighborhoods be provided inclose proximity to industrial
and shopping areas to allow people the opportunity to live, work and shop in their own
neighborhood?
Staff suggests the areas within the existing GAM boundary and not designated for
industrial/commercial uses should be designated for urban density residential development
and the area have housing types affordable to families at all income levels.
As indicated, one negative aspect of the recommend option is that a TDU Program using the
Fossil Creek TDU Program as a model would not be possible. A similar program under the
expanded GAM boundary option has the potential of preserving between 2 and '/ and 3 square
miles of open lands.
The plan options propose that future development occur with a high quality of design. These
design aspects are not apparent if one were to just view the colors on the land use maps. The
more significant design aspects include:
• Requiring industrial development outside of activity centers to have certain setbacks
from I-25 (e.g., minimum 80' with perhaps a graduated scale requirement depending
on building size) and requiring buildings to be clustered to retain views/open space.
• Requiring low -density mixed -use residential neighborhoods to be setback at least 114
mile from 1-25.
159
October 16, 2001
. • Establishing gateway design features for Mountain Vista, Mulberry, and Prospect.
Restricting commercial development outside of activity centers that would prohibit a
strip development pattern along the interstate frontage.
The next two sections present summary descriptions of the two land use options and the key
issues and implementation techniques of the options.
Draft Land Use Plan - Expanded Growth Management Area (GAM) Boundary Option
This draft land use plan option calls for the expansion of urban development to the east of 1-25
and an expansion of the City's GAM boundary to County Road 5. Urban development in the
area would be supported by an integrated multi -modal transportation network that focuses auto
travel within the area away from I-25 and the existing frontage road system and onto a
supplemental street system. Urban development within the area would also be designed to
encourage and provide for the use of alternative modes (transit, cycling, and walking).
Industrial and employment districts will be located primarily within '% mile of I-25 and will
provide locations for future basic employment jobs. Uses in the industrial and employment
districts will be required to have appropriate setbacks and buffering from the 1-25 highway and
• any adjacent lower intensity uses. Commercial and highway oriented businesses typically
permitted in industrial and employment districts as "secondary uses" will be limited in order to
prohibit a commercial strip from being created along the interstate highway and to keep
residential uses set -back at least % mile from the highway.
Regional, community, and neighborhood shopping districts will provide locations for retail sales
and commercial services. Regional and community shopping will locate primarily in planned
activity centers adjacent to the interstate interchanges. A 12-acre neighborhood shopping
activity center is proposed about Y mile east of I-25 on Mountain Vista Drive (County Road 50)
to provide consumer goods and services needed on a daily basis.
The higher intensity industrial/employment and commercial districts and activity centers will
become the focal points for the expansion of transit services into the area. The higher intensity
districts and activity centers will be supported by mixed -use residential neighborhoods.
Residential densities will average at least 5 units per acre. Within activity centers residential
densities will be a minimum of 12 units per acre. These residential densities are critical for the
success of a Transfer of Development Unit (TDU) Program, a proposed implementation tool for
the plan. Residential uses would provide a land use transition from the higher intensity uses
near the interstate highway to the rural residential areas east of County Road 5. In the mixed -
use neighborhoods, lower residential densities would locate adjacent to existing rural
• 160
October 16, 2001
subdivisions. The mixed -use neighborhoods would have supporting uses, such as churches,
parks, and convenience retail and services.
Boxelder Creek, the only significant natural feature in the area, will be preserved as a "green
corridor" through f oodplain protection and natural area setback requirements. Boxelder Creek
will also provide an opportunityfor the development of a recreation trail through the area.
Key Issues/Implementation
• Expansion of the Growth Management Area (Urban Growth Area) boundary east to County
Road 5 from County Road 52 on the north to '/ mile south of Prospect Road. This would add
880 acres (about 1.4 square miles) to the existing 1, 760 acres (about 2 and 314 square miles)
of the GAM boundary east of I-25.
Establishment of a Transfer of Development Units (TDU) Program so that increased
residential densities from existing County zoning to higher urban densities results in the
preservation of open lands in areas designated as community separators and/or for
agricultural preservation.
• Annexation would be required of properties prior to development, andlor there would be a
requirement for properties to annex at the time of development if processed through the TDU
Program.
• Establishment of an integrated transportation network that focuses travel away from I-25
and onto a supplemental street system.
• Establishment of a cost recovery system (e.g., impact fees, taxing district, etc.) to generate
sufficient revenues for needed capital infrastructure improvements.
Draft Land Use Plan - Existing Growth Management Area (GMA) Boundary Option
This draft land use plan option limits expansion of urban development east of 1-25 to areas
within the City's existing GMA boundary. Urban development in the area would be supported
by an integrated multi -modal transportation network that focuses auto travel within the area
away from I-25 and the existing fontage road system and onto a supplemental street system.
Urban development within the area would also be designed to encourage and provide for the use
of alternative modes (transit, cycling, and walking).
Industrial and employment districts will be located primarily within '/. mile of 1-25 and will
provide locations for future basic employment jobs. Uses in the industrial and employment
districts will be required to have appropriate setbacks and buffering f •om the 1-25 highway and
any adjacent lower intensity uses. Commercial and highway oriented businesses typically
permitted in industrial and employment districts as "secondary uses" will be limited in order to
prohibit a commercial strip f•om being created along the interstate highway and to keep
residential uses set -back at least % mile f•om the highway.
161
October 16, 2001
• Regional and community shopping districts will provide locations for retail sales and
commercial services. Regional and community shopping will locate primarily in planned activity
centers adjacent to the interstate interchanges.
The higher intensity industrial/employment and commercial districts and activity centers will
become the focal points for the expansion of transit services into the area. The higher intensity
districts and activity centers will be supported by mixed -use residential neighborhoods.
Residential densities will average at least 5 units per acre. Within activity centers residential
densities will be a minimum of 12 units per acre. Residential uses would provide a land use
transition from the higher intensity uses near the interstate highway to the rural residential
areas east of the existing GMA boundary. In the mixed -use neighborhoods, lower residential
densities would locate adjacent to existing rural subdivisions. The mixed -use neighborhoods
would have supporting uses, such as churches, parks, and convenience retail and services.
Boxelder Creep the only significant natural feature in the area, will be preserved as a "green
corridor" through foodplain protection and natural area setback requirements. Boxelder Creek
will also provide an opportunityfor the development of a recreation trail through the area.
Key Issues/Implementation
. No expansion of the Growth Management Area (Urban Growth Area) boundary east of its
current location thus containing future development within the existing 1, 760 acres (about 2
and 314 square miles) of the GAM boundary east ofl-25.
• Annexation would be required of properties prior to development.
• Establishment of an integrated transportation network that focuses travel away from 1-25
and onto a supplemental street system.
• Establishment of a cost recovery system (e.g., impact fees, taxing district, etc.) to generate
sufficient revenues for needed capital infrastructure improvements.
Issues Analysis
During the planning process, various issues related to growth and development were raised by
the general public, advisory boards and commission, and elected officials. Perhaps the most
important of these issues was the cost of road infrastructure improvements. Traffic modeling of
the three alternative land use plans indicated the need for a supplemental road system to provide
travel opportunities in the corridor aside from the interstate highway. Presented below is a
summary of the estimated costs for road improvements:
$ 3,888,800 New Roadways
$ 39,282,600 Widened Roadways
$ 69,000,000 Interstate Interchanges
i 162
October 16, 2001
$112,171,400 Total
Of the above costs, the City's Street Oversizing Fee obligations would be as follows:
$ 1,088,864 New Roadways
$21,864,800 Widened Roadways
$ 0 Interstate Interchanges
$22, 953,664 Total
Estimated revenues from development under the two options would be as follows:
$34,991,668 Option with an expanded GAM boundary
$29,897,574 Option with the existing GMA boundary
I-25 Subarea Plan — Land Use Element - Public Review Process
The three land use alternatives and, starting in September 2001, the two land use options, have
been through the following public review process.
I-25 Subarea Plan Citizens Task Force
July 20, 2000
August 14, 2000
March 6, 2001
July 9, 2001
General Public Open Houses
November 1, 2000
February 22, 2001
April 10, 2001
September 12, 2001
Public Forum
June 25, 2001
Citv's Planning and Zoning Board
November 13, 2000
December 1, 2000
163
October 16, 2001
. May 18, 2001
City's Natural Resources Advisory Board
December 6, 2000
April4, 2001
May 9, 2001
October 3, 2001
Citv's Transportation Board
July 18, 2001
September 19, 2001
Citv's Air OualiU Advisory Board
July 24, 2001
September 25, 2001
Larimer County Agricultural Advisory Board
• December 13, 2000
March 14, 2001
April 11, 2001
May 9, 2001
July 11, 2001
Larimer County Board or Commissioners and Larimer County Planning Commission
October 4, 2000
January 10, 2001
March 14, 2001
East Mulberry Subarea Plan Citizens Task Force
April25, 2001
Fort Collins Chamber of Commerce Legislative Committee
April 6, 2001
• 164
October 16, 2001
Public comments are attached.
PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD RECOMMENDATION
On Thursday October 4, 2001, the Planning and Zoning Board conducted a public hearing and
voted to recommend the following to the City Council regarding the 1-25 Subarea Plan:
The Employment designation for a portion of the City's Resource Recovery Farm should
be changed to Rural Open Lands and Stream Corridors. The Commercial portion of the
Farm should remain Commercial. The City's Utilities and Natural Resources Advisory
Board should work together on a plan to compensate the ratepayers for acquisition of the
open lands portion of the property.
2. The designation of the 80 acres located at the southeast portion of the I-25/County Road
50 interchange should be changed from the Employment and Low -Density Mixed -Use
Neighborhood classifications to an Urban Estate classification.
3. Staff should re -look at the Regional I-25 Corridor vision and determine if any changes
are necessary to the Industrial designations on the east and west sides of 1-25 north of
Mulberry Street.
4. The City and County should look at the lakes and the Boxelder Creek areas east of I-25
and north of County Road 50 as a natural resource management area.
The Board also discussed, but motions for changes failed on a 3-3 vote on thefollowing:
Whether staff should be directed to complete the plan with an expansion to the City's
Growth Management Area (GMA) boundary, or should the plan be completed only for
areas currently within the City's GAM boundary.
2. Changing the designation of properties east of 1-25 and north and south of Prospect
Road from Commercial to Industrial, and changing the designation of property northeast
of the I-25/Mulberry Street interchange from Industrial to Commercial.
3. Reducing the GMA boundary for the area northeast of the 1-25/County Road 50
interchange to be used as a regional detention pond to reduce flooding potential along
the east side of I-25.
The Board also discussed and rejected the following:
165
October 16, 2001
• 1. Change the designation of residential areas east ofl-25 from the Low Density Mixed -Use
Neighborhood classification to Urban Estate classification.
A copy of the Board's draft minutes will be sent under separate cover.
I-25 Subarea Plan Land Use Alternatives
This section is presented for historic purposes. It presents a summary of the thee land use
alternatives reviewed during the public review process.
In October 1999, three alternative land use plans were developed to solicit public comments on
the policy options available to the City and County is dealing with growth and development east
of I-25. The alternatives were presented to the general public at a series of open houses and also
presented to City and County advisory boards and commissions. The alternatives were revised
in January 2000 after there seemed to be a general misunderstanding that if the City of Fort
Collins were to cease annexation of land east of I-25 the area would remain undeveloped. The
initial set of three alternatives were revised with one alternative specifically depicting a land use
pattern which would likely develop overtime based on existing City and County zoning. Another
alternative was presented based on a proactive public acquisition program. And, the third was
based on implementing the "activities centers " concept promoted in the 1-25 Regional Corridor
• Plan. Essentially, the three alternatives were designed to solicit public opinion on the major
policy decision, should the City of Fort Collins grow east oft-25?.
These alternatives are summarized below:
41 — Existing Zoning/Approved Subarea Plans Alternative
This alternative depicted a land use pattern likely to occur if no new planning policies or land
use regulations were prepared and adopted by Larimer County and the City of Fort Collins for
the area east of I-25. Development east of I-25 would, thus, proceed as allowed under existing
County and City zoning regulations. Development to the west of I-25 would be in accordance
with the land uses planned for under the adopted Mountain Vista and Fossil Creek Subarea
Plans. High intensity urban uses, such as, industrial and employment uses, regional, community,
and neighborhood retail would be concentrated within the area % mile on either side of 1-25.
These uses would utilize the existing street and frontage road system for access and circulation
and would likely congest I-25 and the frontage road system to the point offailure. Lower density
residential uses allowed under the FA-1, Farming (I unit/2.29 acres), and the O, Open (I unit/I0
acres) County zoning districts over time would consume the balance of the area to the east of I-
25. The area would likely resemble an "urban sprawl" type of land use pattern as the housing
market consumes lot sizes not currently or readily available within the city limits. The area
mile on either side of Mulberry Street would remain basically urban in character due to the
• 166
October 16, 2001
existing developments and approved development projects. The area % mile on either side of
Prospect Road and starting Y mile east of I-25 would also become a low -density residential
development area. The Prospect Road/I--25 interchange would likely develop with high intensity
industrial and employment uses as well as regional and community retail uses. An employment
district would extend along the west edge of I-25 from Prospect Road to the Poudre River
Corridor. The remainder of the western portion of the 1-25 corridor would develop as depicted
on the City's Structure Plan and the Fossil Creek Subarea Plan.
Key Issues/Implementation
No new annexations into the City and no expansion of the Growth Management Area
(Urban Growth Area) boundary.
Existing County and City zoning and design regulations would guide development.
Development would utilize the existing street/frontage road transportation network.
#2 — Pro -Active Open Lands Acquisition Alternative
This alternative presents the public land use policy position of making 1-25 the eastern "hard
edge" of urban development within the City of Fort Collins that would be accomplished through
a proactive public land acquisition program. Development to the west of I-25 would be the land
uses planned for under the adopted Mountain Vista and Fossil Creek Subarea Plans. The area
east of I-25 and extending to County Road No. 5 would be acquired through a new, or expanded,
public land acquisition program. Ultimately, the area east of I-25 would be an open lands edge
to the city, similar to the open lands edge being created west of the city in the foothills region.
The area from roughly % mile north of Mulberry Street to Prospect Road east of I-25 remains
basically urban in character due to the existing developments and approved development
projects. The southwest quadrant of I-25/Prospect Road becomes an employment district,
however, not all lands west of 1-25 become developed with urban uses under this alternative.
Starting at Poudre River Corridor and extending south to Fossil Creek Reservoir, the area is
also, for the most part, designated as rural/open lands. This area incorporates the Poudre River
corridor and floodplain and existing publicly owned open lands. However, the balance of the
area would not likely be acquired through the public land acquisition program developed for the
areas east of I-25. Development in the area west of I-25 and south of Prospect Road would be
limited to low -density residential uses and would provide a "soft edge" to Fort Collins'
urbanization. An Employment District would develop south of Harmony Road and east of
County Road 7 (this is actually just the eastern terminus of the Harmony Corridor District).
Key Issues/Implementation
Establishment of a proactive public open lands acquisition program.
167
October 16, 2001
• Establishment of a new funding source (e.g., sales tax, bond issue) to raise about S70
million for property acquisitions over a relatively short (3-5 year) time period.
• The need to negotiate for willing sellers of land (no use of eminent domain to obtain
property).
• No new annexation ofproperty into the city limits.
• Some properties, after public acquisition, could be leased back to farmers to remain in
agricultural production.
43 —Activity Centers Alternative
This alternative presents a land use plan for urban level development of the 1-25 corridor
incorporating the "activity centers " concept developed for the regional I-25 Corridor Plan. The
activity centers concept is dependent on the establishment of an integrated transportation
network that focuses travel within the corridor away from 1-25 and the existing frontage road
system onto a supplemental parallel street system. Land uses cover the full range of urban uses,
intensities and densities, including, industrial and employment uses; regional, community, and
neighborhood retail; and multi family and single-family residential development at a variety of
densities. The activity centers themselves are mixed -use areas with an urban design that helps
promote the utilization of alternative modes of transportation within and between the centers, as
well as within the regional corridor. The main new activity center in this alternative is centered
• % mile east of I-25 on Mountain Vista Drive (County Road 50). Additional urban development
east of I-25 attempts to incorporate existing uses into the urban fabric while dealing with the
limitations, especially the impacts on providing street connections caused by that existing
development. Activity centers are also depicted on the east side and west side of both the I-
25/Mulberry and I-25/Prospect interchanges to encourage redevelopment of these areas or to
manage new development in a manner friendly to pedestrians and the use of transit.
Key Issues/Implementation
• Expansion of the Growth Management Area (Urban Growth Area) boundary east to
County Road 5 from County Road 52 on the north to % mile south of Prospect Road.
• Establishment of a Cooperative Planning Area (CPA) east of the GMA from County Road
40 on the south to County Road 52 on the north, and then extending north of the GMA
boundary along County Road 52 for potential future urban expansions.
• Annexation ofproperties prior to development, and/or requirement ofproperties to annex
at the time ofdevelopment.
• Establishment of a Transfer of Development Units (TDU) Program so that increased
residential densities from existing County zoning to higher urban densities result in
preservation of open lands in areas designated as community separators and/or for
agricultural preservation; preliminary estimates are that about 1,700 acres could be
preserved through a TDU Program.
• 168
October 16, 2001
• Establishment of an integrated transportation network that focuses travel away from 1-25
onto a supplemental parallel street system.
• Establishment of a cost recovery system (e.g., impact fees, taxing district, etc.) to
generate sufficient revenues for needed capital infrastructure improvements. "
City Manager Fischbach introduced the agenda item.
Mayor Pro Tem Bertschy outlined the order of proceedings for this agenda item.
Greg Byrne, CPES Director, presented background information regarding the agenda item. He
stated that the Council is not being asked to vote to adopt a plan at this time and that staff is
requesting Council direction regarding several important issues. He stated that the basic
question relating to two alternatives is whether the Growth Management Area should be
expanded as a part of the Subarea Plan or whether the expansion decision should be deferred to
the City Plan update that will begin in January of 2002. He stated that staff is recommending
that this question of expanding the Growth Management Area should be deferred. He stated that
Council's decision on the basic question will affect other land use decisions that will need to be
addressed on a parcel by parcel or interchange by interchange basis. He outlined main issues
that were presented for Council discussion at a study session: (1) whether the Growth
Management Area should be expanded, (2) what the land use designations should be for
industrial and commercial land along the I-25 corridor, (3) whether urban residential densities
should be raised east of the interstate to support activity centers along the corridor. He stated
that issues have been identified by staff, Council, the Planning and Zoning Board, and other
boards and commissions and community members. He stated that staff work on this matter has
been going on at the same time as the I-25 Regional Corridor Plan, which has not been adopted
by the Council. He stated that many of the findings for the draft regional plan have provided
information for the work on the Subarea Plan. He presented visual information showing the
regional and Subarea Planning areas. He stated that staff has sought to incorporate into the
Subarea Plan the regional planning themes of improving the quality of development standards,
ensuring adequate transportation systems, and preserving key open spaces. He stated that the
recommendation of staff is that the Growth Management Area not be expanded and that this
issue receive consideration as part of the City Plan update.
Ken Waido, Chief Planner, presented a visual overview of the staff recommendations regarding
the Subarea Plan and activity centers. He stated that staff is requesting direction to complete the
I-25 Subarea Plan and is asking for direction regarding land use types in the study area. He
stated that staff is seeking direction regarding the Growth Management Area boundary, higher
intensity uses along the interstate and urban density neighborhoods. He explained the land use
impacts of changing industrial areas shown on the map to Employment District and stated that
staff is proposing the elimination of secondary uses in Employment zones that would be within
one -quarter mile of the interstate. He stated that staff believes that design standards are being
169
October 16, 2001
• developed that would be applicable to both the I or E zones. He showed the areas designated in
the plan as industrial along the interstate. He stated that questions have been asked regarding
how these proposed uses help the community's job/housing balance and that this issue is on the
staffs work plan for inclusion in the City Plan update. He stated that there is currently no policy
to address this issue.
Councilmember Tharp asked if the Prospect area is also designated as industrial. Waido stated
that the plan shows the Prospect area as commercial.
Mark Jackson, Transportation Planner, stated that Council has asked about proposed changes to
the Master Street Plan and that a series of recommended changes are proposed to the Master
Street Plan as part of both the I-25 Regional and Subarea Plans. He stated that these changes
include some east -west and north -south roadway widening and some new roadways. He stated
that the intent is to bring these Master Street Plan amendments forward concurrently with the
Subarea Plan adoption hearing. He stated that some of the proposed roadway changes fall
outside of the Subarea Plan and that the Regional Corridor Plan provided much of the framework
for roadway recommendations.
Councilmember Hamrick asked if the roadway changes that are outside of the Subarea Plan will
be included in the decision making process for the Subarea Plan. Jackson stated that the intent is
• to present the full package of roadway amendments and that there are only two roadway
amendments that fall outside of the Subarea Plan.
Jackson stated that some of the roadway changes fall outside of the growth management
boundary and that these changes are shown to present context and system continuity and that
there is no obligation for the City to fund these changes. He stated that the Master Street Plan is
a conceptual rather than engineered document. He stated that the Master Street Plan does reflect
the conceptual long term roadway build -out. He spoke regarding the east -west roadway
widening projects that are primarily east of I-25 on Mountain Vista, Vine Drive, Mulberry,
Prospect and Harmony Road. He stated that an upgrade to County Road 36 is also shown on the
map west of the interstate. He outlined the proposed north -south widening projects on County
Road 5 east of I-25 and Timberline Road south of Trilby. He stated that proposed new roadways
are primarily east of the interstate except for a collector roadway in the northeast quadrant,
extension of Carriage Parkway north of Prospect, and a four -lane arterial bypass around the City
core of Timnath. He stated that the Regional Corridor Plan recommends a new four -lane arterial
connecting Timberline to County Road 7 in the Loveland area via the Union Pacific Railroad
corridor and that this would be a new roadway connection recommended as part of the
Crossroads Subarea Analysis completed in 2000. He stated that questions have been asked
regarding whether Timberline Road could remain four lanes and if some burden could be shifted
to the parallel road network. He stated that the Regional Corridor Plan has always considered
the Timberline corridor to act as the parallel roadway system west of the interstate. He stated
• 170
October 16, 2001
that this plan will recommend that Timberline Road remain four lanes south of Harmony Road to
the Crossroads connection. He stated that Timberline Road north of Harmony Road must remain
a six -lane regional arterial. He stated that questions have been asked regarding access
restrictions for the I-25 frontage roads and that this issue could be explored in the future. He
stated that the street system would be paid for by development and street oversizing fees. He
stated that interchanges would be a special funding problem that could be addressed through
federal and state funding, developer contributions, specific funding mechanisms such as special
improvement districts or rural transportation authorities, developer impact fees, or a City capital
improvement fund.
Councilmember Hamrick asked if the changes to the Master Street Plan would be necessary
under both the expanded and non -expanded versions of the Growth Management Area. Jackson
stated modeling has been done for both versions and that there is little difference in the two
scenarios. He stated that many of the areas in question have existing development or have been
approved for development. Waido spoke regarding the modeling process and stated that the road
will need to be upgraded regardless of whether the Growth Management Area is expanded or
not.
Joe Frank, Advance Planning Director, stated that Council has asked about community
separators and noted that Council has adopted the Northern Colorado Community Separator
Study. He presented a map showing the three separators affected by the subarea: the Loveland -
Fort Collins separator, the Timnath-Windsor-Fort Collins separator, and the Fort Collins -
Wellington separator. He stated that the Subarea Plan has identified these future separator areas.
Waido stated that staff has been asked to compare and contrast the Mulberry and Prospect
interchanges with regard to the issue of changing commercial areas to industrial at Prospect and
changing industrial areas to commercial at Mulberry. He stated that the plan as drafted has two
activity centers at Prospect and Mulberry and outlined in detail the current zoning and proposed
changes to commercial and industrial property at the interchanges. He presented a map showing
property that has already been developed or is in the process of developing. He stated that the
plan includes options for regional commercial development under the City's land use control in
the community.
Councilmember Tharp asked if the property at Mulberry that is currently industrial is within the
existing Growth Management Area. Waido stated that the entire Mulberry corridor is within the
Growth Management Area.
Byrne stated that staff s recommendation is that land use designations on the maps should be
changed only if there can be an effect.
171
October 16, 2001
• She asked that Council not expand the Growth Management Area and that the amount of
industrial and commercial zoning in the I-25 area be reduced.
Ken Bonetti, Loveland resident, stated that the proposed plan will not help affordable housing
and will speed up growth and the inflation of land and housing prices. He stated that affordable
housing needs to be integrated into the City rather than placed on the edge of the City. He stated
that the development boundary should be established on the west side of the highway with
minimal additional development east of the highway, that the Vine Street intersection should not
be constructed, and that growth should pay its own way.
Nancy York, Fort Collins resident, spoke in opposition to expanding the Urban Growth Area,
setting aside land for Industrial and Employment, and placing housing along the highway. She
spoke regarding the findings of a recent community survey relating to growth related issues.
Ryan Schaefer, 704 Birky Place, urged the Council to maintain the activity center on Prospect
Road to serve as a welcoming point and gateway to Fort Collins.
Michelle Jacobs, Director of Community Affairs for the Homebuilders Association, urged
Council to move forward with adoption of the I-25 corridor and Subarea Plans. She stated that
planning is crucial for well planned progress.
• Steve Pfister, 531 Del Clair, landowner of property at the northeast corner of Prospect and I-25,
spoke in favor of the corridor plan and stated that tremendous effort has gone into the plan. He
stated that there is a shortage of commercial land and opposed changing the designation for the
property at the northeast corner of Prospect and I-25 from commercial to industrial. He stated
that the other property owners have asked him to state for the record that they have relied upon
the C-Commercial zoning that has been in place since 1990, that the Clarion study recommends
this site for an activity center, that they would like to hear the consultant's specific comments on
this corner, that the Planning staff has indicated that they support this corner as an activity
center, and that they urge Council to follow the recommendations of the City's consultant,
planners and the existing zoning.
Ruth Hurakopf, County Road 52 resident, spoke regarding the possible impacts of the proposed
changes on the existing uses and wildlife habitat in the area between County Road 50 and 52.
Ramon Ajero, 3712 Soderburg Drive, spoke in support of a decision not to expand the Growth
Management Area and urged an open discussion of the issue instead of deferment of the
discussion. He stated that the roadways and level and density of development within the Growth
Management Area will be used as an argument for higher density outside of the City's control.
0 173
October 16, 2001
Dr. Lisa Hurakopf, 7400 South Lemay Avenue, spoke regarding the impact of continued
annexation on horse owners and equestrians, wildlife populations, and open space. She spoke in
favor of continuing the mix of City and County and stopping the City limits at the west side of I-
25.
Paul Gallenstein, 6000 Tarwood Court, representing the Sunflower community located south of
Highway 14 near I-25, expressed concerns regarding the zoning changes that would impact
potential activity center at the Prospect interchange area. He submitted letters from two
Sunflower residents.
Bill Miller, 322 Scott Avenue, expressed concerns regarding the economic impacts of the
Subarea Plan to the taxpayers who do not live or work in that area, the lack of impact fees that
could be assessed because much of the area is already developed, the feathering of density
between high density City development and Urban Estates, land conservation and view sheds
and the possibility of using the Resource Recovery Farm as an open area, and the cost of the
upgraded interchange.
Bridget Schmidt, President of Citizen Planners, urged the Council to limit the Growth
Management Area and spoke regarding the lack of data for some key pieces of information such
as air quality.
James Day, 3401 Polk Circle West, spoke regarding the impact of Growth Management Area
expansions and annexations on farms. He spoke in favor of extending such boundaries to a
natural buffer such as a lake and spoke regarding the rights of property owners.
Margaret Griffin, 3245 Honeysuckle Court, spoke in favor of the proposed expansion of the
City's Growth Management Area to allow the City to expand to encompass future growth rather
than pushing growth further out into the County. She stated that delaying the Growth
Management Area expansion decision will mean lost opportunities.
Cherie Trine, 524 West Magnolia Street, disputed the argument that our economy is based on
continued growth and stated that the issue is a sustainable economy. She asked that the Council
establish a definite growth boundary.
Kelly Thompson, 5105 East County Road 52, supported the plan to provide some predictability
for everyone.
Susie Dallow, 5205 East County Road 52, spoke against extending industrial development on
land east of I-25.
174
October 16, 2001
• Waido stated that the Planning and Zoning Board made recommendations with regard to
changing the designation of the land at County Road 50 and I-25 from Employment Low
Density Mixed Use Residential to Urban Estate.
Councilmember Weitkunat asked for clarification regarding the County Road/Mountain
Visa/Vine Drive area. Waido provided an orientation for this area.
Councilmember Weitkunat asked if the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan stopped at I-25 and asked
about the Growth Management Area expansion considered in this area. Waido spoke regarding
the Growth Management Area boundary and activity centers considered for this area.
Councilmember Weitkunat asked if there is a transportation mechanism on the east side of I-25
between County Road 50 and Prospect. Waido stated that this would be one of the proposed
upgrades to the Master Street Plan.
Waido stated that the second recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Board related to the
designation of Resource Recovery Farm areas west of I-25 currently zoned Employment as Open
Lands or Stream Corridor.
Byrne stated that the Council has asked about the financial implications of the Resource
• Recovery Farm zoning designation. He stated that the City is closing out the sludge application
use of this property and presented information from the closeout study.
Councilmember Kastein asked for clarification that the Resource Recovery area zoned industrial
could supply about half of the potential revenue source for that interchange. Byrne stated that
property in the other quadrants is already developed to some degree.
Mayor Pro Tern Bertschy outlined the ground rules for public comment regarding this agenda
item.
Martha Roden, 1967 Massachusetts Street, listed construction projects that have taken place
during the years she has lived in her neighborhood and asked when this constant construction
will stop so that residents can enjoy the City. She asked that Council decide not to expand the
Growth Management Area and stated that a permanent boundary should be set and that a plan
should be established to maintain a dynamic and healthy community within that boundary. She
stated that an open space buffer is needed.
Linda Stanley, 2040 Bennington Circle, spoke regarding the economics of the Subarea Plan. She
stated that zoning properties along the interstate commercial and industrial invites further
population growth. She stated that the issue is quality of life and impacts to existing residents.
0 172
October 16, 2001
Eric Levine, Air Quality Advisory Board, spoke regarding the steps that create expectations of
development. He urged the Council not to expand the Urban Growth Area and suggested
looking at feathering of densities and establishment of a process regarding City borders. He
spoke regarding air quality issues.
Bob Cushon, 4550 Joy Dance Court, spoke against the change of zoning from commercial and
retail to industrial because of the need for retail shopping in that area of the community.
Cora Carpentier, Sunflower resident, spoke in support of the zoning because of expectations of
the Sunflower residents in that area regarding future retail development that would be nearby.
Bob Gallenstein, Sunflower resident, stated that growth will continue in this community because
of the climate, the university, and the quality of the community. He asked that industrial
development be kept along the railroad lines and spoke regarding the need for a proper balance
in industry to provide jobs for young people.
Les Kaplan, 140 Palmer Drive, spoke regard the plan as it relates to property in which he has an
ownership interest and questioned an Open Lands designation for his property. He stated that
there are no criteria for determining value of the property for acquisition as public open lands
and that there is no funding mechanism for acquisition public open lands. He stated that there
would be legal problems with the Open Lands designation and stated that there would be
uncertainty with this designation because of the possibility of reclassification from floodplain to
developable land. He stated that land just east of the property is show as E-Employment and that
this is the only area in the Subarea Plan where E-Employment is shown in an area not directly
adjacent to I-25. He stated that the E-Employment designation in this case is not viable because
it violates the E criteria of good visibility and accessibility. He proposed placing the areas zoned
Open Lands and Employment as L-M-N to allow the Open Lands objective to be accomplished
by doing density shifting to the east.
Brian Thompson, County Road 52 resident, spoke in favor of the Subarea Plan and expansion of
the Growth Management Area. He spoke regarding the need to manage growth in a constructive
way.
Karen Wagner, County resident and downtown property owner, asked that Council keep the
Growth Management Area in place with no further expansion east of I-25, consider the
appropriateness of the zoned uses and residential densities within the corridor after the public
has been notified that zonings may change, weigh the implications of the current recession and
rising unemployment before committing taxpayers to funding expensive new infrastructure,
gauge the sentiments of residents for establishing boundaries for the City in conjunction with
community separators and the preservation of viable agricultural lands, determine whether the
commercial zoning along the interstate will support City Plan objectives of keeping downtown
175
October 16, 2001
• and in -City shopping vital, envision interstate zoning uses that serve travelers and commerce
rather than competing with existing City businesses and determine whether Growth Management
Area expansion would stimulate greater vehicle miles traveled. She asked that Council direct
staff to use a more enlightened method of long range planning rather than the current method
driven by the sales tax dollar.
L.R. Hamilton, Sunflower resident, spoke regarding the need for retail commercial near the
Sunflower development and opposed locating industrial development near the new proposed
school.
Sally Craig, 1409 South Summitview, spoke regarding the Prospect/I-25 interchange and stated
that the intent is not to totally remove commercial from that interchange. She stated that a parcel
on the northeast side of the interchange north of the commercial area is currently zoned
industrial. She spoke regarding potential industrial uses and stated that there is a 5% industrial
vacancy rate.
Doug Hutchinson, 1315 Whedbee, spoke in support of expanding the Growth Management Area
to ensure City control of development in the expanded area. He stated that, if the area is not
added to the Growth Management Area, that growth will continue and the area will be developed
in accordance with County standards rather than being open space. He stated that delaying
• expansion of the Growth Management Area has opportunity risks and will delay the decision
regarding which standards will be used in the development of the area which will be developed
in the next two years. He urged that Council direct staff to complete the I-25 Subarea Plan with
the expansion of the Growth Management Area boundary.
Randy Fischer, 3007 Moore Lane, asked that Council not expand the Growth Management Area
boundary and urged that Council decisively act to not expand the boundary. He stated that the
Natural Resources Advisory Board has consistently recommended that the City not expand the
Urban Growth Area boundary. He spoke regarding the land conservation opportunities that will
be lost if the boundary is expanded.
(**Secretary's Note: The Council took a brief recess at this point and returned at 9:10 p.m.)
Councilmember Tharp asked noted the comments that the decision regarding the expansion of
the Growth Management Area would be a deferred decision. She stated that her intent is to give
direction to staff that the City is not expanding the Growth Management Area.
Councilmember Kastein stated that the Growth Management Area is bigger than the Subarea
Plan and the decision regarding expansion of the Growth Management Area should be done
through the five-year update of City Plan.
0 176
October 16, 2001
Councilmember Weitkunat clarified that the intent would be to look at other areas beyond the
Subarea Plan with regard to Growth Management Area expansion. Byrne stated that staff has
recommended not expanding the Growth Management Area with the Subarea Plan is because the
Growth Management Area issue has taken on greater significance and because of community
sensitivity regarding the issue, particularly east of the interstate. She stated that the Subarea Plan
issues need to be discussed at a time when attention to these important issues is not deflected by
discussions relating to the Growth Management Area expansion. She stated that the staff
recommendation is to set the Growth Management Area expansion issue aside and grapple with
it in the City Plan discussions.
Councilmember Tharp stated that she would like the Council to make a decision with regard to
the Growth Management Area east of I-25 in the Subarea Plan decision. She stated that the
overall Growth Management Area would also need to be addressed as part of the City Plan
update.
Councilmember Weitkunat asked for clarification that the expansion of the Growth Management
Area boundary within the I-25 Subarea Plan is an issue only in the County Road 50 area. Waido
stated that the area in question is 880 acres and that the option that includes the expansion is
bordered on the north by County Road 52, on the east by County Road 5 and near Vine on the
south.
Councilmember Weitkunat asked for further confirmation regarding the Growth Management
Area expansion. Waido indicated on the map the areas within the Growth Management Area
that have not yet been annexed.
Councilmember Hamrick spoke in support of making a decision at this time with regard to the
expansion of the Growth Management Area in this subarea.
Councilmember Kastein stated that this is a Subarea Plan and the question is whether this
subarea includes an expansion of the Growth Management Area. He stated that this is not a
decision regarding whether the Growth Management Area should be expanded. He spoke
regarding the importance of a future discussion of the entire Growth Management Area
expansion.
Councilmember Hamrick stated that the issue is the Growth Management Area for the subarea.
Councilmember Kastein spoke regarding the importance of separating the Growth Management
Area decision from the subarea decision.
Councilmember Wanner stated that there can be no "final' decision regarding the Growth
Management Area boundaries because future Councils can make different decisions. He stated
WA
October 16, 2001
• that any decision made by the Council at this point is necessarily somewhat temporary. He
spoke in support of not expanding the Growth Management Area for purposes of this Plan and
considering the concept of the Growth Management Area at the time of the City Plan update.
Councilmember Tharp supported giving direction to staff that in this Subarea Plan the Growth
Management Area should not be expanded.
Councilmember Kastein asked about the issue of TDUs and the ability to trade for land to the
north for a separator with Wellington. Waido spoke regarding the discussions that have taken
place with regard to this issue.
Councilmember Kastein asked if there was a financial analysis regarding what could be gained
from a TDU program. Waido stated that calculations were done that indicated that about 1,800
units would be potentially transferable into the receiving area. He stated that much more work
would be needed with regard to a TDU program.
Councilmember Kastein stated that it has been estimated that approximately $8 million would be
needed for a community separator program and asked how many acres that could acquire. Frank
stated that 400 acres could be acquired at $20,000 per acre. He noted that the TDU program was
not the only reason for the proposal to expand the Urban Growth Area and that the City Plan
principles and policies are more important to the City than TDUs.
• Councilmember Kastein noted that many Sunflower development residents spoke about
industrial versus commercial development, and he requested more information comparing the
two types of development. Waido showed the existing zoning configuration at the Prospect/I-25
interchange and the location of the Sunflower development.
Councilmember Kastein asked for clarification regarding proposed changes at this interchange.
Waido stated that the Plan proposes to enlarge the commercial area from about 30 acres to
around 50 acres in size and to change one area from industrial to predominantly residential.
Frank spoke regarding the history of the I zoning for the area.
Councilmember Kastein asked for more analysis regarding the impact of I-25 business on the
downtown area. City Manager Fischbach stated that no hard data has been obtained and that
staff would work to obtain such data.
Councilmember Wanner stated that information is needed regarding the housing/jobs balance for
different types of zoning before a final decision is made with regard to land uses in this plan. He
stated that a traffic impact analysis is also needed for each scenario.
Councilmember Hamrick made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Wanner, to adopt
Resolution 2001-135 (Option A) as amended by the deletion of Sections 2 and 3 and with the
0 178
October 16, 2001
addition of a new Section 2: "Section 2. That City staff is hereby directed to further review the
alternative land uses that might be appropriate in the area to be governed by the I-25 Subarea
Plan, including the possible acquisition of open space, and to present those alternatives, together
with an analysis of the projected impacts of such land uses on transportation in the planning area,
to the City Council prior to the Council's final consideration of the plan."
City Attorney Roy suggested clarifications to the proposed language that were accepted by the
motion maker and second as stated in the above motion.
Councilmember Weitkunat stated that the deletion of Section 3 eliminated the making of a
decision regarding residential development. She spoke regarding industrial development along
I-25 and stated that the current direction appears to be a reversal of previous discussions. She
asked if pushing for industrial is intended to negate residential development. Byrne stated that
staff s recommendation is to try to provide some residential density in close proximity to jobs in
employment and industrial areas. He stated that the suggestion is to prohibit residential
development in areas within one -quarter mile east of the interstate.
Councilmember Weitkunat noted that staff is requesting direction regarding whether urban
density residential neighborhoods should be provided in proximity to industrial and shopping.
She expressed concerns regarding the motion because a basic premise of City Plan is to place
people where they can live, work and play.
Councilmember Hamrick stated that his proposal is to give direction for staff to develop
alternatives for the land use end zoning for Council consideration.
Councilmember Tharp stated that Council needs to provide direction regarding whether urban
density should be placed east of I-25 and that the Council needs to vote on that issue.
Councilmember Kastein suggested that staff has already done the work proposed by
Councilmember Hamrick.
Councilmember Hamrick stated that no open space alternative has been presented regarding the
lands east of I-25.
Councilmember Kastein asked if Councilmember Hamrick would therefore like to see an open
lands alternative.
Councilmember Hamrick replied in the affirmative. He stated that the plan presented without
the expanded Growth Management Area is insufficient and that he would like to see some
different alternatives.
179
October 16 2001
• Councilmember Weitkunat asked if the intent is to open the door for a different plan that would
include open lands and eliminate other alternatives.
Councilmember Hamrick stated that he would like to see the development of several
alternatives.
Councilmember Kastein stated that this would be a rework of everything that has already been
done.
Councilmember Weitkunat expressed a concern that starting over with the process will leave
property owners and citizens without a clear direction. She stated that this would be a step in the
wrong direction.
Councilmember Wanner stated that he does not want to go back to square one but would like to
have answers to the questions he has asked regarding land use balance and transportation
impacts. He stated that his intent is to ask questions rather than take a backwards step and asked
for support of the motion.
Councilmember Tharp stated that she supports the motion and expressed concerns regarding
providing direction to staff regarding urban density. She stated that the proposed density is not
• what she wants to see. She spoke regarding the need for a feathering of densities between the
City and County areas.
City Attorney Roy suggested that all directions to staff be placed in a Resolution rather than
included in a Resolution and a separate motion.
Councilmembers Hamrick and Wanner stated that they would consider a friendly amendment to
the motion to include the direction proposed by Councilmember Tharp.
City Attorney Roy stated that the language of the existing Section 3 could be revised to read:
"Section 3. That residential neighborhoods at less than urban densities should be provided in
close proximity to industrial and shopping areas to allow people the opportunity to live, work
and shop in their own neighborhood."
Byrne asked for clarification regarding the motion giving direction to staff to prepare land use
alternatives that would provide open space and the friendly amendment that relates to lower
density residential development. He asked if the intent is for the City to try to acquire permanent
open space or to try to reduce densities to below urban densities east of the interstate.
Councilmember Hamrick stated that he had both intents.
0 180
October 16, 2001
Councilmember Kastein asked if one of the earlier plans addressed these issues. Byrne stated
that the second round of three alternatives presented an alternative that was primarily open
space. He spoke regarding the discussions regarding that alternative and stated that the price tag
for acquisition of open lands was approximately $70 million. He stated that this alternative was
processed through the public review process and that the alternative was not brought forward by
staff because of the high cost.
Councilmember Kastein stated that the acquisition of open space would be costly.
Councilmember Hamrick stated that this cost could be less than the cost for new interchanges.
Councilmember Tharp stated that there is residential land that is already zoned and developed
and that because this would not be bought for open space there would be a mix of residential and
agricultural. She supported addressing the urban density issue because the plan proposes higher
density than exists now. She stated that she does not want to see such increased density.
Councilmember Hamrick stated that he would also like to see some hybrid land use planning
alternatives beyond the option presented in the proposed plan.
Byrne requested further clarification regarding the motion and stated that staff would like
specific direction regarding the questions that have been asked. He asked if the direction
regarding land use intensity is to maintain it in lower intensities rather than to up -zone and if the
direction is to further look for areas where it might be appropriate to acquire open space based
on whether the land is already developed, if it is zoned in a use that is higher cost versus lower
cost, and if it has some natural resource or agricultural value that might be sustained over time.
Councilmembers Tharp and Hamrick stated that this paraphrasing captured the spirit of their
intent.
Councilmember Kastein asked if this would say that large tracts of land should not be preserved
for industry and business in prime locations.
Councilmember Wanner stated that the issue is understanding the balance of availability of
different types of lands in the City. He stated that land use in this corridor will depend on some
extent to the cost involved and the availability of lands for different types of uses.
Councilmember Weitkunat stated that she would not support the motion because it is an effort to
move in a different direction than what has been heard from public comment. She expressed
concerns regarding whether there is a long term vision for the community.
181
October 16, 2001
• Councilmember Wanner stated that he would support the motion and noted that the process will
continue regarding this plan.
Councilmember Tharp stated that she would support the motion as a way to look at the City in
terms of its geographic area and to look at the eastern boundary as a way of feathering densities.
She stated that there will be some industrial, commercial and employment in that area and that
she would like to see those uses without heavy urban densities. She stated that much of the
public input she has heard expressed a desire to contain growth to the east and to let this area
become a buffer.
Councilmember Kastein stated that the Council is not giving staff direction to narrow the focus
and expressed frustration that this is a step backwards. He spoke regarding the possibility of
gaining TDUs if the Growth Management Area would be expanded. He stated that both plans
proposed by staff reserve options and would allow for continued work on details. He stated that
the City must address the possibilities regarding what some of the real estate on I-25 can do for
the City. He expressed concerns that this has become a growth/no growth issue and stated that
this debate should be reserved for the larger context of the City Plan update.
Mayor Pro Tern Bertschy stated that the decision is based on several criteria. He stated that he
does not support expanding the Growth Management Area in this area and would therefore
• support the Resolution. He stated that one size does not fit all and that if the Growth
Management Area is not to be expanded in this area that the City needs to look at other options
regarding the appropriate zoning, acquisition of open space, and balancing the industrial,
commercial and residential uses. He stated that he supports the Resolution for these reasons.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Bertschy, Hamrick, Tharp and
Wanner. Nays: Councilmembers Kastein and Weitkunat.
THE MOTION CARRIED
Ordinance No. 158, 2001
Amending Sections 23-82 and 23-83 of the
City Code Pertaining to Encroachments Adopted on First Reading.
The following is staffs memorandum on this item.
"Executive Summary
Presently the encroachment provisions of Sections 23-82 and 23-83 of the Code require all
applicants for encroachments to either be the fee owner of the adjoining real property or obtain
the consent of the fee owner. This requirement should only apply if the encroachment is for the
0 182
October 16, 2001
purpose of serving food or beverages and should not apply for other encroachments, the most
common of which are encroachments for news racks. Furthermore, the Code should be clarified
to ensure that there are no `prior restraint" issues with regard to constitutionally protected
speech, by simply waiving any fee requirements for speech related encroachments such as news
racks, and by ensuring that any applications for such an encroachment must be processed by the
City Manager within 15 days of the receipt of the application.
Finally, wireless telecommunication companies have recently begun to request encroachment
permits for the construction of wireless telecommunication equipment and facilities in public
rights -of -way. Often municipalities regulate the type and appearance of telecommunication
facilities that can be located on private property, but fail to establish specific criteria for the
installation of such facilities in public rights -of -way. In Fort Collins, the Land Use Code
contains criteria and regulations for the installation of such facilities on private property.
However, with regard to encroachment permits issued under Chapter 23, there are no criteria
for measuring the appropriateness of wireless telecommunication equipment and facilities.
Therefore, staff suggests that the same criteria that are contained in the Land Use Code should
be applied when analyzing the appropriateness of a request for the installation of wireless
telecommunication facilities or equipment in a public right-of-way. "
Councilmember Hamrick asked if this would apply to real estate guides as well as newspapers.
City Attorney Roy stated that he would take a look at this issue before Second Reading of the
Ordinance. He stated that the language regarding constitutionally protected free speech may
require some refinement.
Councilmember Tharp made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Hamrick, to adopt
Ordinance No. 158, 2001 on First Reading. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas:
Councilmembers Bertschy, Hamrick, Kastein, Tharp, Wanner and Weitkunat. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED
Ordinance No. 159, 2001
Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to Enter into an Agreement
with Outdoor Promotions, Inc. to Provide Bus Shelters,
Bus Benches, and Advertising for the City of Fort Collins
Transit Service for 20 Years. Adopted on First Readine.
The following is staffs memorandum on this item.
183
October 16, 2001
"Financial • nact
The advertising on bus benches and shelters will provide a minimum $100,000 annually to the
404 Transit Fund. If all advertising is sold for the benches and shelters, the expected revenue
should be $130, 000 to 5150, 000 annually.
Executive Summary
Outdoor Promotions, Inc., submitted the successful proposal to the City's May 11, 2001, Request
for Proposal No. P-793 regarding providing bus shelters and bus benches and sale of
advertising space on the same. The City and Outdoor Promotions, Inc. currently have a Services
Agreement that expires December 31, 2001. This Ordinance authorizes the City to extend that
agreement for a 20 year period commencing January 1, 2002 and extending through December
31, 2021. The 20 year term was negotiated recognizing the substantial capital investment (over
$1.3M) required by the contractor, and the agreement by Outdoor Promotions, Inc., to increase
the City's share of the net proceeds from the advertising sold from 15% annually to 20%
annually after the fifth year of the agreement. The agreement will provide for installation of 105
bus shelters and 400 benches. The contractor will be responsible for all installations,
maintenance, selling of advertisements, graffiti and snow removal, trash collection, cleaning and
maintenance of the shelters and benches. All advertising shall be commercial in nature, shall
• comply with the City Sign Code and other limitations, and must be approved by the City prior to
placement.
If the City decides to discontinue the use of City bus benches or shelters for paid advertising, the
City may terminate this agreement by appropriating funds in an amount sufficient to purchase
the shelters and benches f •om Outdoor Promotions, Inc., for the agreed upon amount of $10, 000
per shelter and SI, 000 per bench, depreciated from the date of installation at a rate of 14.3%
per year. '
Councilmember Hamrick asked about the advertisement being limited to commercial and
requested background regarding whether the City could be at risk. City Attorney Roy stated that
the rationale for limiting advertising to commercial was to avoid the appearance that the City is
endorsing certain political or ideological positions or charitable causes, and to avoid the
appearance that the City was creating a public forum for any type of message.
Councilmember Tharp asked if it is standard operating procedure to have a twenty-year contract
period. James O'Neill, Director of Purchasing and Risk Management, stated that the previous
contract was for 15 years and that in the competitive bid negotiation process the City determined
that it would be to the City's advantage to increase the term. He stated that it is necessary to
have a long term because of the investment in the product.
0 184
October 16, 2001
Councilmember Weitkunat stated that the company would have some substantial capital costs
involved and for the system to work to increase the number of shelters there needs to be a long
term relationship with the City. She stated that favorable comments have been received with
regard to the shelters that have been put into place.
Councilmember Wanner made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Weitkunat, to adopt
Ordinance No. 159, 2001 on First Reading.
Councilmember Hamrick stated that he can not support advertisement in these areas and would
vote against the ordinance.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Bertschy, Kastein, Tharp,
Wanner and Weitkunat. Nays: Councilmember Hamrick.
THE MOTION CARRIED
Other Business
Councilmember Tharp requested a two page staff memo regarding the how the mill levy is
established in relation to the assessed valuation and the schedule of that action as pertains to this
year's budget.
Councilmember Tharp made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Hamrick, to direct that staff
provide copies of letters directed to the Mayor and Council in a timely fashion.
Councilmember Tharp expressed concerns regarding the lack of timeliness on forwarding letters
and responses to the Council, specifically a letter received from the Sierra Club and a letter
received from the League of Women Voters at some time in the past.
Councilmember Kastein asked that staff determine why the letters mentioned were not
forwarded to Council more quickly. City Manager Fischbach stated that he would find out.
Councilmember Weitkunat spoke about the possibility of human error and stated that
information is usually received in a timely manner.
Councilmember Tharp stated that when a civic group takes the time to send a letter to the
Council there should be a quick response.
Mayor Pro Tern Bertschy expressed a concern regarding putting this into the form of a motion
and stated that this could be addressed in another way.
185
October 16, 2001
• Councilmember Hamrick withdrew his second to the motion and requested a staff response to
the inquiry.
Councilmember Hamrick asked if the bike depot is still included in the budget. City Manager
Fischbach stated that this project is no longer included in the budget.
Councilmember Hamrick asked if the Oxbow purchase is in the budget. City Manager
Fischbach stated that it is not a budget item.
The meeting adjourned at 10:25 p.m.
ATTEST:
City Clerk
•
Adjournment
186