Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES-01/16/2007-RegularJanuary 16, 2007 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, January 16, 2007, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll Call was answered by the following Councilmembers: Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein, Manvel, Ohlson, Roy and Weitkunat. Staff Members Present: Atteberry, Krajicek, Roy. Citizen Participation Mayor Hutchinson announced the winners of the City's clean air "Track to Win" prizes, presented the grand prize to Kim Williams, and thanked the prize donors and participants. Mayor Hutchinson stated each citizen participant would have three minutes to speak. Caryl Schonbrun, 6327 Westchase Road, requested Council adoption of a chemical sensitivity ordinance to help save her life. Robert Schonbrun, 6327 Westchase Road, supported his wife's request for a chemical sensitivity ordinance. Ed Haynes, 3331 Santa Fe Court, stated he was with a group of Boy Scouts working on citizenship and merit badges. Jim Jeffreys, 612 Marigold Lane, supported Ms. Schonbrun's request for a chemical sensitivity ordinance. Martin Carcasson, 539 Dunraven Drive, stated the CSU Center for Public Deliberation was an organization dedicated to enhancing local democracy through improved public communication and community problem solving. He invited everyone to a kick-off event and community forum on January 24 at the Lincoln Center. Vivian Armendariz, 870 Merganser Drive, Apt. 908, expressed concerns that passengers who were older than 90 had been able to ride Dial -a -Ride for free and were now required to pay to ride. She stated passengers had not been informed about this and other changes relating to fees. She expressed concern about uncleared snow at the Transfort bus stops. Nancy York, 130 South Whitcomb Street, spoke in support of a gas rationing system in the event of petroleum shortages due to the international situation and adequate funding for Dial -a -Ride to serve 138 January 16, 2007 those who were dependent on the service. She also supported adoption of a chemical sensitivity ordinance. Citizen Participation Follow-up Mayor Hutchinson thanked those who spoke during Citizen Participation. Councilmember Manvel thanked the speaker who talked about the Center for Public Deliberation. He stated the City had a process called "UniverCity Discussion" among community leaders about the future of downtown and CSU. He stated the Center for Public Deliberation's invitation to everyone in town to come to the Lincoln Center on the 24th seemed to be an expansion of that discussion. He appreciated the willingness of someone at CSU to build the public deliberative process and urged people to attend the kick-off event on the 24th. Councilmember Ohlson noted mistakes were made in the original round of letters sent out on Dial -a - Ride and asked if new letters had been mailed. He asked if the new letters had indicated the transition period for night-time service to be discontinued. This was a sensitive issue that directly impacted people's lives and communications on these issues needed to be "sensitive." City Manager Atteberry stated the letters had been sent. Mark Jackson, Transportation Planning Manager, stated clarification letters were sent out last week and indicated that night-time service would be continued through March and then until further direction was received from the City Council. A Council Work Session was scheduled for February 27 for an update on the Dial -a -Ride changes, discussion on issues such as the night-time service, an update on the new Harmony Road fixed route, and a report on the task force's efforts to find more regional and community -based solutions to help people affected by the Dial -a -Ride decisions. Councilmember Ohlson commented there were federal limitations on the City's ability to set a sliding scale of fees and rules and regulations. Jackson stated there were parameters on how the City's fees could be set and that this would be discussed at the Work Session. Councilmember Brown asked about the scheduling of the next task force meeting. Jackson stated it would be Friday at 215 North Mason Street and the meetings were open to the public. Councilmember Manvel asked that staff comment further on the new expanded fixed route on Harmony Road. Jackson stated ridership numbers were strong and additional buses were on order to serve the Timberline and Prospect corridors. Councilmember Weitkunat asked if Council wanted to move forward on crafting a chemical sensitivity ordinance. This would involve an incredible amount of Council time and legal work. Mayor Hutchinson polled the Council on whether there was Council interest in bring a chemical sensitivity ordinance forward. Councilmember Kastein suggested discussing the options regarding a chemical sensitivity ordinance under Other Business. 139 January 16, 2007 Mayor Hutchinson asked for an indication of how the Council wanted to proceed and noted the consensus was to discuss options regarding a chemical sensitivity ordinance under Other Business. Councilmember Kastein stated Dial -a -Ride fees were definitely not being set to "keep people away from Dial -a -Ride." The fee was set to try to recover some of the costs of Dial -a -Ride. Councilmember Roy stated under Other Business he would support looking at the options regarding a chemical sensitivity ordinance. He thanked those who continued to bring forward issues relating to the "unintended consequences" of the Dial -a -Ride changes. Aeenda Review City Manager Atteberry stated item #18 First Reading of Ordinance No. 010, 2007, Authorizing Acquisition By Eminent Domain Proceedings Of Certain Flood Plain Easements Necessary To Construct The Fossil Creek Drainage Project would be removed from this agenda and rescheduled to February 6, 2007 and that item #32 First Reading of Ordinance No. 018, 2007, Amending Certain Provisions of the City Code Pertaining to Signs in the Right -of -Way had a revised Ordinance to clarify notice requirements before removal and disposal of signs. CONSENT CALENDAR 6. Consideration and Approval of the Minutes of the October 3, 2006 Regular Meeting. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 205, 2006, Authorizing the Lease of City -owned Property at 424 Pine Street for up to Twenty Years. United Way of Latimer County has held a ground lease on City -owned property, located at 424 Pine Street, since 1985. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on December 19, 2006, renews the lease for up to twenty years. 8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 206, 2006, Amending Chapter 10, Article II of the City Code to Update References to the Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Insurance Study and Flood Insurance Rate Map. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has prepared a revised Latimer County Flood Insurance Study (FIS) and Flood Insurance Rate Maps that become effective December 19, 2006. FEMA has requested that the County, and each incorporated community, revise ordinances to reflect the new effective date. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on December 19, 2006, revises Chapter 10-19(a) of the City Code to reflect the new effective date. It also revises the definition of Flood Insurance Study to correct an outdated reference to the mapping prepared by FEMA as part of the Study. 140 January 16, 2007 9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 207, 2006, Amending Section 2-575 of the City Code Relating to Councilmember Compensation. Article II, Section 3 of the City Charter provides that the compensation of Councilmembers shall be adjusted annually for inflation in accordance with the Denver/Boulder Consumer Price Index. In 2006, Councilmembers were compensated $606 per month, and the Mayor received $912 per month. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on December 19, 2006, amends Section 2-575 of the City Code to set the 2007 compensation of Councilmembers at $630 and the compensation of the Mayor at $945, as required by the City Charter. 10. Postponement of Items Relating to the Adoption of the Northwest Subarea Plan to February 6 2007. A. Postponement of Second Reading of Ordinance No. 208, 2006, Amending Division 4.24 of the Land Use Code. B. Postponement of Second Reading ofOrdinance No. 209, 2006, Amending the City's Zoning Map and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property known as the Northwest Subarea Plan Rezoning. The Northwest Subarea Plan was initiated in 2005 in response to City Plan (2004), which identified the Northwest Area as a priority for future subarea planning. It provides a more specific vision and policy framework for neighborhoods, commercial areas, open spaces and undeveloped land. The primary objective is to tailor City Plan principles to the specific circumstances of this area. The Northwest Subarea Plan was adopted on December 19, 2006 by Resolution 2006-120. This postponement is requested to allow for publication of the rezoning notice due to legal description errors that have been discovered. The Hearing and Second Reading of both Ordinances will be held on February 6, 2007. 11. First Reading of Ordinance No. 001, 2007, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue in the General Fund for the Police Services Victim Services Team. The Fort Collins Police Services Victim Services Team has been awarded a 12-month grant in the amount of $36,850 for the period from January 1, 2007 through December 31, 2007, by the Eighth Judicial District Victims Assistance and Law Enforcement (V.A.L.E.) Board to help fund services provided by this team. These funds will be used for a part-time paid victim advocate who provides crisis intervention services during weekday hours and is housed in the Victim Services office. These funds will also pay for some of the operational expenses needed to provide 24 hours a day, 7 days a week services to victims of crime in our community. 141 January 16, 2007 12. First Reading of Ordinance No. 002, 2007. Appropriating $250.000 from the Transportation Fund Reserves into the Mason Corridor Project Budget, This Ordinance appropriates the necessary funding into the Project budget to complete the Preliminary Engineering and Environmental Assessment (PE/EA) work for the Mason Corridor Project. This work is necessary to advance the City's funding request for the Mason Corridor Project with the Federal Transit Administration. The request is consistent with the Resolution approved by City Council on November 21, 2006, regarding the Mason Corridor PE/EA contract with the consulting firm of Felsburg Holt & Ullevig. 13. First Reading of Ordinance No. 003, 2007, Amending Section 2-656 of the City Code Relating to the Reporting of Gifts, Honoraria and Other Benefits. This Ordinance amends Section 2-656 of the City Code relating to the report of gifts, honoraria and other benefits, to conform to the state statute requirement for quarterly reporting. 14. First Reading of Ordinance No. 004, 2007, Amending Chapter 23 of the City Code by Changing Certain References therein From "Public" Property to "City' Property. Chapter 23 of the City Code contains many references to "public" property. The term "public" is, in some instances, subject to an interpretation that is too broad for lawful application because it might imply that the City has the power and jurisdiction to regulate property owned by the United States or the State of Colorado or other public entities which may be outside of the jurisdiction of the City. Therefore, staff is recommending that the Council change certain references in Chapter 23 so that the language will read "City" property rather than "public" property. 15. First Reading of Ordinance No. 005, 2007, Amending Chapter 2, Article V. Division 3 ofthe City Code Pertaining to City Service Areas. Following a detailed analysis and review, the City Manager has decided to implement some changes to the City's internal organizational structure. These changes impact some of the existing service areas and result in a new reporting structure, which necessitates updates to related provisions of the City Code. 16. Items Pertaining to the Plank PLD & PD Annexation and Zoning A. Resolution 2007-001 Setting Forth Findings of Fact and Determinations Regarding the Plank PLD & PD Annexation and Zoning. B. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 006, 2007, Annexing Property known as the Plank PLD & PD Annexation. 142 January 16, 2007 C. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 007, 2007, Amending the Zoning Map and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the Plank PLD & PD Annexation. This is a request to annex and zone 17.35 acres located at the southeast corner of Kechter Road and Ziegler Road. The property is developed as a single-family residence with outbuildings and is in the FA-1 Farming District in Larimer County. The area to be annexed is the entirety of an enclaved property that has been surrounded by the City of Fort Collins for more than three (3) years. The requested zoning for this annexation is LMN - Low Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood. 17. Items pertaining to the Liberty Farms Annexation and Zoning_ A. Resolution 2007-002 Setting Forth Findings of Fact and Determinations Regarding the Liberty Farms Annexation and Zoning. B. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 008, 2007, Annexing Property Known as the Liberty Farms Annexation. C. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 009, 2007, Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the Liberty Farms Annexation to the City. This is a request to annex and zone 22.32 acres located on the east side of North Timberline Road at the Larimer & Weld Canal, approximately 1 /4 to 1/3 mile north of East Vine Drive. The property contains two (2) existing single-family residences and agricultural land. It is in the FA 1 - Farming District in Larimer County. The requested zoning for this annexation is LMN - Low Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood. 18. First Reading of Ordinance No. 010, 2007, Authorizing Acquisition By Eminent Domain Proceedings Of Certain Flood Plain Easements Necessary To Construct The Fossil Creek Drainage Project. The present City 100-year floodplain boundary near Trilby Road and the Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way encompasses 105 homes presently constructed in the Paragon Point and Stanton Creek subdivisions. All 105 of these homes will be removed from the 100-year floodplain by the construction of two (2) 120-inch diameter culverts through the Union Pacific Railroad embankment on Fossil Creek, just south of Trilby Road. The collateral effect of these new culverts through the railroad embankment will cause an increased 100- year floodplain impact to two (2) landowners downstream of those new culverts. City staff has conducted several meetings and communications with the landowners and will continue these efforts into the future in order to obtain a settlement by mutual agreement. An eminent domain authorization is proposed for consideration by the Council in case no agreement can be reached regarding the acquisition of these two (2) 100-year flood plain easements from the landowners. 143 January 16, 2007 19. First Reading of Ordinance No. 011, 2007, Authorizing the Conveyance of Certain Small Tracts of Land in the Pineridge Natural Area Located Within the Burns Ranch at Ouail Ridge Subdivision from the City of Fort Collins to Burns Ranch Open Space Non -Profit Corporation. Natural Resources staff is requesting authorization to convey certain small tracts of land in the Pineridge Natural Area located within the Burns Ranch at Quail Ridge Subdivision to Burns Ranch Open Space Non -Profit Corporation, formed for the purpose of owning and maintaining the property to be conveyed in order to save the City costs associated with the maintenance of these areas. 20. First Reading of Ordinance No.012,2007,AuthorizingtheConveyanceofaPermanentNon- Exclusive Easement Over a Portion of the Eagle View Natural Area for Inundation by a Reservoir. John Jensen has requested a reservoir inundation easement over a portion of the Eagle View Natural Area. In order to augment an adjacent reservoir he owns, he will need this permission from the City for the possible inundation of an area of City property not to exceed 7,209 square feet at the proposed high water mark for the reservoir. The proposed area of inundation is located in a naturally depressed wetland area and will not require improvement, construction or re -grading to accommodate the inundation. The initial impact to existing wetlands is expected to be minimal and no long term negative impacts are expected. In fact, the project is likely to facilitate the expansion of existing wetlands due to the increased inundated area. Due to the small size of the water inundation area (less than one acre), the Army Corps of Engineers will not require an individual permit for the inundation. The adjacent reservoir is to be used for water storage and will provide habitat for water fowl; no motorized recreation will take place on the reservoir. Due to the benign impact ofthe request, and the possible positive benefits (increased wetland habitat and open water for water fowl), staff recommends this easement be granted. 21. First Reading of Ordinance No. 013, 2007, Authorizing the Conveyance of a Permanent Ditch Easement on Arapaho Bend Natural Area for Box Elder Ditch Lateral in Exchange for Vacation of Existing Prescriptive Ri ts. Flatiron Companies ("Flatiron") owns land on the east side of I-25, across from Arapaho Bend Natural Area. Historically, the land was farmed and irrigated via the Box Elder Ditch Lateral, which runs across Arapaho Bend. Flatiron mined gravel on the site and restored the site to a water storage reservoir many years prior to the City's acquisition of Arapaho Bend. Flatiron plans to fill the reservoir using the Box Elder Ditch Lateral. Although Flatiron has a prescriptive easement for the ditch lateral across Arapaho Bend, Flatiron has requested a permanent 60-foot wide easement that can be documented and conveyed to the future owners 144 January 16, 2007 of the storage reservoir —New Cache la Poudre Ditch Company ("New Cache"). New Cache will reconstruct and improve the existing ditch within the easement, and restore the area disturbed, according to the conditions agreed to in the new easement. 22. First Reading of Ordinance No. 014, 2007, Desi ign atine the David B. Lesher House, 1204 West Oak Street, as a Fort Collins Landmark Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the City Code. The owners of the property, Don V. Bath and Maureen Somervell-Bath, are initiating this request for Fort Collins Landmark designation for the property. The David B. Lesher House qualifies for Landmark designation under Standard 2, for its association with noted Fort Collins educator and Superintendent of Schools, Dr. David B. Lesher. While living in the home, Dr. Lesher served as superintendent of Larimer County School District 5, beginning in 1944, and later became the first superintendent for the Poudre R-1 School District, in 1960. In that same year Lesher Junior High School was opened in his honor. Additionally, the property qualifies for Landmark designation under Standard 3, for its architectural significance to Fort Collins as a very nice example of Craftsman architecture. 23. Resolution 2007-003 Stating the Intent of the City of Fort Collins to Annex Certain Property and Initiating Annexation Proceedings for Such Property to be Known as the Weiner Enclave Annexation. The area to be annexed is the entirety of an enclave that has been surrounded by the City of Fort Collins for more than three years; therefore, no annexation petition is required for this annexation. There are two properties (5117 Ziegler Road and 5305 Ziegler Road), totaling 7.55 acres in size, that are located on the west side of Ziegler Road, between Kechter Road (to the south) and Rock Creek Drive (to the north). Fossil Ridge High School is directly to the east, across Ziegler Road. They are currently properties that are developed as single-family residences with several outbuildings. The property at 5117 Ziegler Road contains a livestock feedlot and the property at 5305 Ziegler Road contains a commercial business (Express Concrete). The McClelland's Channel runs along the south property line of 5305 Ziegler Road. The proposed zoning for this annexation is LMN - Low Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood. The surrounding properties are zoned LMN - Low Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood to the north, east, west, and south. The proposed Resolution makes a finding that the annexation complies with the Municipal Annexation Act for annexation of an enclave, states the Council's intent to annex the Enclave, initiates the annexation, and directs that notice be given of the hearing. The hearing will be held at the time of First Reading of the annexation and zoning ordinances on February 20, 2007. Not less than thirty days of prior notice is required by State law. 145 January 16, 2007 24. Resolution 2007-004 Fixing the Ballot Language for Voter Consideration of Referred Ordinance No 137 2006 Annexing Propertv Known as the Southwest Enclave Annexation. On November 9, 2006, a referendum petition was filed with the City Clerk's Office seeking to repeal Ordinance No. 137, 2006, Annexing Property Known as the Southwest Enclave Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado. On December 15, the City Clerk determined that the petition contained a sufficient number of valid signatures. The petition was certified to the City Council on December 19, and the Council adopted Resolution 2006-132 Referring Ordinance No. 137, 2006, Annexing Property Known as the Southwest Enclave Annexation, to a Vote of the Registered Electors of the City at the Next Regular Municipal Election on April 3, 2007. Resolution 2006-132 directed the City Manager and City Attorney to present for Council's consideration no later than February 6, 2007, a resolution proposing the form of the ballot language for the foregoing referred measure. ***END CONSENT*** Ordinances on Second Reading were read by title by City Clerk Krajicek. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 205, 2006, Authorizing the Lease of City -owned Property at 424 Pine Street for up to Twenty Years. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 206, 2006, Amending Chapter 10, Article II of the City Code to Update References to the Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Insurance Study and Flood Insurance Rate Map. 9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 207, 2006, Amending Section 2-575 of the City Code Relating to Councilmember Compensation. 31. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 210, 2006, Amending Various Provisions of the City Code Pertaining to Unattended Displays on City Property. Ordinances on First Reading were read by title by City Clerk Krajicek. 11. First Reading of Ordinance No. 001, 2007, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue in the General Fund for the Police Services Victim Services Team. 12. First Reading of Ordinance No. 002, 2007, Appropriating $250,000 from the Transportation Fund Reserves into the Mason Corridor Project Budget. 13. First Reading of Ordinance No. 003, 2007, Amending Section 2-656 of the City Code Relating to the Reporting of Gifts, Honoraria and Other Benefits. 14. First Reading of Ordinance No. 004, 2007, Amending Chapter 23 of the City Code by 146 January 16, 2007 Changing Certain References therein From "Public" Property to "City" Property. 15. First Reading of Ordinance No. 005, 2007, Amending Chapter 2, Article V, Division 3 of the City Code Pertaining to City Service Areas. 16. Items Pertaining to the Plank PLD & PD Annexation and Zoning. B. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 006, 2007, Annexing Property known as the Plank PLD & PD Annexation. C. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 007, 2007, Amending the Zoning Map and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the Plank PLD & PD Annexation. 17. Items pertaining to the Liberty Farms Annexation and Zoning. B. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 008, 2007, Annexing Property Known as the Liberty Farms Annexation. C. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 009, 2007, Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the Liberty Farms Annexation to the City. 19. First Reading of Ordinance No. 011, 2007, Authorizing the Conveyance of Certain Small Tracts of Land in the Pineridge Natural Area Located Within the Bums Ranch at Quail Ridge Subdivision from the City of Fort Collins to Burns Ranch Open Space Non -Profit Corporation. 20. First Reading of Ordinance No. 012,2007, Authorizing the Conveyance of a Permanent Non - Exclusive Easement Over a Portion of the Eagle View Natural Area for Inundation by a Reservoir. 21. First Reading of Ordinance No. 013, 2007, Authorizing the Conveyance of a Permanent Ditch Easement on Arapaho Bend Natural Area for Box Elder Ditch Lateral in Exchange for Vacation of Existing Prescriptive Rights. 22. First Reading of Ordinance No. 014, 2007, Designating the David B. Lesher House, 1204 West Oak Street, as a Fort Collins Landmark Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the City Code. 28. First Reading of Ordinance No. 015, 2007, Amending Chapter 10 of the City Code Concerning Standards for Development in the Poudre River Floodplain in the City of Fort Collins. 147 January 16, 2007 29. Items Relating to the Issuance of City of Fort Collins Downtown Development Authority Subordinate Tax Increment Revenue Bonds, Series 2007A. A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 016, 2007, Authorizing the Issuance of City of Fort Collins, Colorado, Downtown Development Authority Taxable Subordinate Tax Increment Revenue Bonds, Series 2007A, Dated Their Delivery Date, in the Maximum Aggregate Principal Amount of 55,700,000 for the Purpose of Financing Certain Capital Improvements, Capital Projects and Development Projects Within the Downtown Development Authority Area; and Providing for the Pledge of Certain Incremental Ad Valorem Tax Revenues to Pay the Principal of and Interest on the Bonds; Approving Documents in Connection Therewith; and Ratifying Action Previously Taken and Appertaining Thereto. B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 0 17,2007, Appropriating Proceeds from the Issuance of City of Fort Collins, Colorado, Downtown Development Authority Taxable Subordinate Tax Increment Revenue Bonds, Series 2007A, for the Purpose of Making Certain Capital Improvements, Capital Projects and Development Projects Within the Downtown Area of Fort Collins, Authorizing the Transfer of Appropriations Between Funds and Appropriating Expenditures from the DDA Debt Service Fund to Make the 2007 Payment on the Bonds 32. First Reading of Ordinance No. 018, 2007, Amending Certain Provisions of the City Code Pertaining to Signs in the Right -of -Way. Councilmember Weitkunat made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Brown, to adopt and approve all items not withdrawn from the Consent Calendar. Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein, Manvel, Ohlson, Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Consent Calendar Follow-up Councilmember Kastein commented regarding item #12 First Reading of Ordinance No. 002, 2007, Appropriating $250, 000 from the Transportation Fund Reserves into the Mason Corridor Project Budget. He noted the minutes of the retreat discussion on the Mason Corridor Project indicated the Council supported the direction to move ahead and he believed the Council wanted to find out more about the status of the corridor and wanted discussions with those who had concerns about the corridor. Any money received was not "free money" and the City would have to find money for O&M in future years. He would like to hear more about the funding need for O&M in the next few months. City Manager Atteberry asked if Councilmember Kastein wanted to see this as a work session item prior to the April election. Councilmember Kastein stated he would like to see this discussion on the planning calendar on the "horizon." City Manager Atteberry stated this could be scheduled as a work session item. 10 January 16, 2007 Councilmember Kastein suggested the Leadership Team discuss scheduling of that item on the planning calendar. Staff Reports City Manager Atteberryreported New Belgium Brewing Company was recently listed by USA Today as one of the top 10 small brewery tours in the country. He publically thanked the Street Department and City departments working on snow removal issues. Mark Jackson, Interim Transportation Director, and Larry Schneider, Streets Superintendent, reported in detail and showed photos relating to the multi -departmental snow removal efforts for the major back-to-back snowstorms that brought accumulations of23 1/2 inches of snow (December 20) and 10 inches of snow (December 28). Mayor Hutchinson thanked the staff for the hard work in this "unprecedented" snow emergency. Councilmember Brown commented staff did a "fantastic job" of snow removal and there was a spirit of community with neighbors helping each other. Mayor Hutchinson commented the City budget was not a factor in decisions on snow removal and all available resources were used. City Manager Atteberry stated staff would present "Annexation 101" information. Greg Byrne, CPES Director, presented an update on annexations, their significance in the future of Fort Collins and their relationship to land use planning with Larimer County via the Growth Management Area intergovernmental agreement. He outlined the pros and cons of annexations and presented examples of annexations for different purposes. He stated annexation was a tool for the City to achieve its long range land use, planning, environmental, transportation, and financial objectives. City Manager Atteberry reported Greg Byrne was leaving the City for a position in the Pacific Northwest and thanked him for his service to the City. Mayor Hutchinson commented Greg Byrne was a "super professional" member of the City staff and thanked him for his service to the City organization and the community. Councilmember Weitkunat commented annexations were usually a non -controversial part of the City's business on a regular basis. She thanked Greg Byrne for his ability to condense complex information into an understandable form. Councilmember Reports Councilmember Weitkunat reported on the Library Board of Trustees appointment process. Mayor Hutchinson reported on Finance Committee discussions relating to "market standard" employee benefits. 149 January 16, 2007 Ordinance No. 015, 2007, Amending Chapter 10 of the City Code Concerning Standards for Development in the Poudre River Floodplain in the City of Fort Collins. Adopted on First Reading. The following is staff's memorandum on this item. "FINANCIAL IMPACT Adoption of the Ordinance will have no impact on the City budget or the amount offlood insurance premiums paid by citizens. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Ordinance modifies City Code to change the floodplain regulations for the Poudre River. Properties in the Poudre River floodplain in the City of Fort Collins are subject to different regulations than those located in Larimer County. City and County staffs have developed recommendations that would address most of the problems created by the different regulations. Public outreach was performed during the formulation of the regulation changes which included notices to owners of properties in the floodplain in both the City and the County about an open house, presentations to special interestgroups, review by City and County boards and commissions and information posted on the City's web page. City Council discussed this item at its December 12, 2006 work session. BACKGROUND Floodplain regulations were first adopted in the City in the mid 1970's for the Poudre River. The City of Fort Collins entered the National Flood Insurance Program in 1979 with the adoption of floodplain regulations for the Poudre River, Spring Creek, and Dry Creek basins. Undeveloped properties located in a floodplain can develop as long as they comply with the floodplain regulations. Properties in the Poudre River floodplain in the City of Fort Collins are subject to different regulations than those located in Larimer County. This creates numerous problems during development and annexation processes. The approved East Mulberry Corridor Plan directed City and County staffs to review the Poudre River floodplain regulations to make them as consistent as possible. Floodplain Maps and Property Statistics A map of the Poudre River floodplain within the City's Growth Management Area is Attachment 1. The 100 year 0.5 foot floodway (areas of greatest risk with high depths and velocities) are shown in dark blue. The 0.1 foot floodway is shown in the yellow outside of the 0. S foot floodway. The Product Corridor is delineated by a red line. The 100 year flood fringe is shown in light blue. The 150 January 16, 2007 moderate risk areas, shown in green, are either the existing Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 500 yearfloodplains or areas ofsheetflow in the 100 yearfloodplain with less than ]-foot of depth. Attachment 2 shows this same information with properties in public ownership highlighted. Attachment 3 is a table showing a detailed summary of the areas in the floodplain comparingprivate and public ownership and the various floodway configurations. The table and maps illustrate that there is a great deal ofpublic land in the floodplain and the regulation changes affect a relatively small amount of developable land. By preserving this large amount of land through public open space, Fort Collins has provided a high level of flood protection because of the limited amount of development subject to flooding. Proposed Floodplain Regulation Changes Staffs from both the City and County compared their respective regulations. There were eight areas of disagreement between the City and County regulations identified as a part of this project. Keeping in mind there are some areas where both the City would become less restrictive and the County would become more restrictive, the recommended changes include five areas where the City's regulations would become less restrictive, four areas where the County's regulations would become more restrictive, and one area where City and County staffs could not reach agreement, resulting in an ongoing difference in regulation. Attachment 4 is a summary table listing the proposed changes for both the City and County. These recommendations represent a negotiated compromise while still balancing riskwith regulation. The importance of protecting and enhancing the natural features and functions of the river were also considered. Attachment 5, "Proposed Floodplain Regulations for the Poudre River Quick Guide" was prepared to help illustrate the proposed regulations. Of the five areas where City staff is recommending City regulations be made less restrictive, two are proposed to be totally eliminated because they do not balance risk with regulation and are ineffective or are technically difficult to administer. Details of the proposed changes and the sections of City Code to be modified are as follows. Changes to Align City -County Regulations Floodwayefinition Current City Code defines the floodway for the Poudre River as arise of 0.1 foot. The current Countyfloodway rise definition is 0.5 foot. The current official FEMAfloodway is based on a 1-foot rise definition. It is proposed the City would change its floodway to the County's 0.5 foot rise definition. Section 10-16 Definitions — Foodway 151 January 16, 2007 Floodway Modification Current City Code states that only the City can modify the floodway for public infrastructure or publicly owned recreation facilities as long as there is a no -rise condition, channel stability is maintained and the natural environment along the river is either protected or enhanced. Current County regulations state that floodway modification is allowed by both the public and private sectors as long as the no -rise criterion is met. It is proposed the County would add the channel stability and environmental considerations criteria. The City would not change its criteria except to allow floodway modification by both public and private entities. • Section 10-27(d)(5) Stability analysis • Section 10-45 Floodway modification • Section 10-71(8) Floodway modification • Section 10-72(2,3,4 and 5) Fill • Section 10-80(a)(1) LOMR/PMR Critical Facilities in the 100-year Flood plain Critical facilities are made up of three categories: life safety, emergency response and hazardous materials. The County does not have regulations pertaining to criticalfacilities in the 100 year floodplain. The City has regulations prohibiting criticalfacilities in the 100 year floodplain. It is proposed the County add the provision that life safety and emergency response criticalfacilities not be allowed in the 100 year floodplain. However, City and County staff have not reached an agreement on the hazardous materials criteria. City staff believes that it should be included and County staff is hesitant to include the provision due to the anticipated large number ofparcels with hazardous materials in the Airpark area. At the work session some members of Council encouraged the County to adopt the City standard for hazardous materials. City staffrecommends the City Code not be changed regarding this issue. The result may be that City and County regulations do not agree on this issue. Critical Facilities in the 500-Year Floodplain Current City Code does not allow criticalfacilities, including life safety, emergency response, and hazardous materials facilities in the 500 year floodplain. The County does not regulate critical facilities in the 500 year floodplain. The County would begin regulating life safety and emergency response criticalfacilities in the 500 yearfloodplain. The City would continue to regulate life safety and emergency response criticalfacilities but would allow hazardous material criticalfacilities in the 500 yearfloodplain. Section 10-81 Specific standardsforPoudre Riverfive-hundredyearfloodplain and zone X shaded areas 152 January 16, 2007 Freeboard Level The current freeboard requirement in the County is 18-inches. The City's requirement is 24-inches. It is proposed the County will change the freeboard requirement to 24-inches consistent with the City's. Letter ofMap Revision (LOMR)-Fill Requirements Currently FEMA requires local governments to sign off on LOMR-Fill applications stating that structures are safe from flooding when structures are removed from the Foodplain through the LOMR-Fill process. Currently the City has a provision requiring that structures must be elevated 24-inches above the flood elevation and not allowing critical facilities in LOMR-Fill areas. The County currently doesn't have these provisions. It is proposed the County would add the 24-inch freeboard and the no new critical facilities criteria in LOMR-Fill areas. Changes to Balance Risk with Regulation and Remove Ineffective Provisions (Also Aligns City -County Regulations) Product Corridor Current City Code defines the Product Corridor using 500 year discharges as an area when the velocity times the depth is six. No encroachment and no variances are allowed in the Product Corridor. Staffhas found this regulation to be excessive, not allowingfor special circumstances and technically impractical to administer due to difficulty in making accurate determinations. The product corridor is also a redundant layer of regulation, since the area in the 500 year product corridor is substantially the same as the 100 year floodway. Currently the County does not have a product corridor regulation. It is proposed the City would remove from the Code the provisions or references pertaining to the Product Corridor. • Section 10-16 Definitions - Product Corridor • Section 10-16 Definitions — Floodway modification • Section 10-19 Flood hazard area designation • Section 10-27(a) Floodplain use permit • Section 10-27(c)(3) Floodplain use permit • Section 10-27(d)(3) Floodplain use permit • Section 10-2969 Conditions for variances • Section 10-42(a) Specific standards for recreational vehicles • Section 10-45 Floodway evaluations • Section 10-45(b) Floodway evaluations • Section 10-71 Specific standards for development in Poudre River floodway • Section 10-71(8) Floodway modification • Section 10-72 Specific standards for nonstructural development in Poudre River floodway • Section 10-72(4) Fill • Section 10-73 Floodway encroachments in Poudre River floodway 153 January 16, 2007 Section 10-74 Change of use in Poudre River floodway Section 10-201 Designation of erosion buffer zones Dryland Access Current City Code states that new development must have dry access to any new structure. Staff has found that often times offsite roads leading to a property are under water making the requirement irrelevant and variances are often granted. Current County regulations do not have a dryland access regulation. It is proposed that the City remove from the Code the provisions or references pertaining to the dryland access. • Section 10-16 Definitions — Dryland access • Section 10-71(10) Dryland access • Section 10-75(9) Dryland access • Section 10-76(9) Dryland access • Section 10-77(9) Dryland access • Section 10-80(a)(2) LOMR-F Housekeeping Changes There are some minor "housekeeping" items that are included in the proposed changes. These changes are needed to make the context of the Code language consistent throughout. The definition for redevelopment was changed to make it consistent with the definition that applies to other floodplains citywide. The LOMR-Fill section was reworded to make it consistent as well. Changes to the code have also been made to include reference to FEMA's Physical Map Revision (PMR) process. Community Rating System and Flood Insurance Considerations All structures in Fort Collins are eligible for flood insurance regardless of whether they are located in a floodplain or not. The cost offlood insurance depends on many variables including amount of coverage, deductibles, type ofstructure, and how high the structure is elevated above the flood level. The FEMA Community Rating System (CRS) is a voluntary incentive program that encourages communities to go beyond FEMA minimum requirements for floodplain management. Based on a rating of numerous stormwater management activities (public outreach, higher regulatory standards, drainage system maintenance, flood warning, preservation of open space, etc.) residents and businesses of a community receive a discount on their flood insurance premiums. The Cityof Fort Collins currently has one of the highest CRS ratings in the nation, providing our customers with a 30% discount on flood insurance premiums. It is anticipated the changes included in the Ordinance would not change the City's CRS rating. None ofthe proposed changes are below FEMA minimum standards. 154 January 16, 2007 Public Outreach A variety of communication tools such as floodplain property owner customer notices, information on the City's web page, a press release, public meetings and open houses, and outreach to both internal and external groups potentially affected were used. Presentations were made to four City Boards and Commissions and to City Council at a work session to solicit comments and recommendations. A joint City and County open house was held to solicit comments from the public on the proposed changes. Meetings were also held with the Mulberry Corridor Owner's Association and the Chamber's Local Legislative Affairs Committee. The County held meetings with County boards and commissions as well. The City of Fort Collins Following is a summary of discussion of the various boards and commissions. Excerpts of the minutes from the Water Board, Land Conservation and Stewardship Board and Natural Resources Advisory Board are included as Attachment 6. There are no minutes available from the Planning and Zoning Board because they discussed this item at a study session. The Water Board formally passed a motion (7-2) in support of the proposed changes with Alternative 2, to not allow hazardous materials critical facilities in the 100 year floodplain. Two members did not support the motion because they felt the Cityshouldn't lower any of its regulations for the Poudre River. The Planning and Zoning Board discussed this item at a study session and it was the consensus of the members present to support the proposed changes with Alternative 2, to not allow hazardous materials critical facilities in the 100 year floodplain. One member did not voice their opinion because they felt they did not have enough information to express an opinion. The Land Conservation and Stewardship Board did not act on the proposed changes as a whole. They supported staffs minimum recommendation to remove the product corridor and dryland access regulations. They also supported staffs proposal to add stability and environmental factors to the County'sfloodway modification regulations. Finally, they recommended Council adopt A lternative 2, to not allow hazardous material critical facilities in the 100 year floodplain. The Board did not take action on the other staff recommendations because they felt it was not under their area of expertise to offer a recommendation. The Natural Resources Advisory Board discussed this item at two of its meetings and formally passed a motion unanimously in support of Alternative 2, the regulation of hazardous materials in the 100 year floodplain due to concerns about the environmental impacts of hazardous materials in flood waters. The Board chose not to take a position on the other recommended changes. On December 12, 2006 City Council held a work session on the proposed regulation revisions (see Attachment 7). The following key discussion points were raised: Development of the recommended changes was done in the spirit of compromise of trying to bring the City and County regulations closer together. 155 January 16, 2007 • The approach to balancing risk with regulation for the floodplain regulations seemed reasonable to protect people and property, however, it was also pointed out that floodplain regulations also protect the natural beneficial functions of the river. • The proposed changes will allow more lands to develop along the river corridor, but will also have some environmental benefits in enhancing the river corridor as well. • One member of Council raised a concern the City was going lower to the County level, when the County should be going to the City's level offloodplain regulation. • A majority of the Council supported the staff recommendation; however, concerns were expressed regarding the elimination of the product corridor regulations and going from a 0.1 foot floodway to a 0.5 foot floodway. Larimer County The Board of County Commissioners and County Planning Commission held a work session on November 8, 2006 to discuss the proposed changes. County staff presented history and salient points of the proposed changes to the floodplain regulations. Clarification was made that on a lot with an existing structure, any new structure would need to be 24-inches above the flood elevation or an increase of 6-inches over the current regulations. The question was raised if the proposed requirements for floodway modification would prevent "channelization" or narrowing of the floodway and staff responded that the language regarding stability was intended to do just that, although additional language might be appropriate. The comment was made given the degree of effort that has been expended by staff- they would like to see the effort move forward in a timely manner ifpossible. The County Planning Commission is scheduled to consider this item on January 17, 2007. The Board of County Commissioners is scheduled to consider this item on January 11, 2007. Any adjustments to the City's proposed changes resulting from the County Commissioner's action on January 22, 2007 will be made between the City's First and Second Reading. Other Outreach A joint open house for both the City and County was held on November 14th at the Lincoln Center. Approximately 3,500 notices were mailed to city and countyproperty owners in the floodplain along with a press release in the newspaper advertising the open house. Approximately 55 property owners attended the open house. At the open house comment sheets were available to solicit comments from those attending the open house. Three comment sheets were returned requesting copies of the open house materials and one stated more monies should be directed toward flood control projects. One citizen stated verbally that the regulations on floatable material should be less restrictive. Other verbal comments received by staff were overall in favor of the proposed changes. On December 12, 2006 City and County staffpresented the proposed revisions to the Mulberry Corridor Owner's Association. Afew clarification questions were raised and no adverse comments were received. 156 January 16, 2007 On December 1, 2006 City staff presented the proposed revisions to the Chamber of Commerce Local Legislative Affairs Committee. During the discussion questions were answered clarifying the proposed changes with comments overall in favor of the recommendations. " Bob Smith, Water Planning and Development Manager, stated the proposed change was in response to the adoption of the East Mulberry Corridor Plan. The Plan identified a need to make the City and County floodplain regulations more similar. Projects that would be allowed in the County would not be allowed in the City under the current regulations. City and County staff had developed a compromise proposal that would balance risk and regulation. The proposal related to the Poudre River floodplain in the Growth Management Area from Taft Hill Road to I-25. The proposed changes were as follows: the City would change to a half -foot floodway; private and public entities would both be allowed to modify the floodway as long as certain criteria were met; the City's product corridor criterion would be eliminated; the County's freeboard requirement would change to 24 inches to match the City's requirement; the City's dryland access requirement would be eliminated; the City's critical facilities requirements for life safety, emergency response and hazardous materials in the 100-year floodplain would remain unchanged and the County would have requirements for life safety and emergency response and not hazardous materials; the City would no longer regulate hazardous materials in the 500-year floodplain but would continue to regulate life safety and emergency response facilities and the County would add a provision to regulate life safety and emergency response facilities in the 500-year floodplain; the County's regulations for LOMR Fills would match the City's requirements; and both the City and County regulations would continue to allow for variances while the City Code would not allow variances in the product corridor. Staffs "minimum" recommendation was to eliminate the product corridor and the dryland access requirements. There had been substantial outreach to City and County boards and commissions, the public and special interest groups. The feedback had been generally supportive of the proposed changes. City Council was considering this item at this time and the County Commissioners would consider it next week. Second Reading of the ordinance would be in February. Mayor Hutchinson stated each audience participant would have five minutes to speak. Ravindra M. Srivastava, General Manager Boxelder Sanitation District, commented that good intentions were driving the changes. Boxelder Sanitation District provided sewer service to east Fort Collins and had a plant at the confluence of Boxelder Creek and the Poudre River. His concern was that the proposed regulations were "excessively stringent" and would prevent property owners from altering their properties. The regulations were not really necessary because the national floodplain standards already offered protection and were "more than adequate" in the area outside of the City's GMA. If adopted, the regulations should be based on recent maps. The maps being used were based on surveys done in the 1970s. He urged the Council to grant an exemption from these "onerous regulations" for Boxelder Sanitation District's treatment plant site and to adopt regulations based on maps reflecting today's reality. The River dynamics, mining and development had changed topography in the last 30 years. Lori Brunswig, 1901 Ridgewood Road, spoke in opposition to the proposed changes that would allow developers to build further into the flood fringe and floodway and modify the Poudre River by filling the banks and digging the River down in order to show no rise in the level of the River. She questioned whether adoption of the ordinance would result in increased stormwater utility fees 157 January 16, 2007 and whether County taxes would be increased. The ordinance should be "broken down into individual pieces" to allow separate consideration of the complicated issues. She suggested postponement to allow more time for people to research the changes. Councilmember Manvel asked if a national standard afforded the protection claimed by Mr. Srivastava. Smith stated FEMA had minimum standards that did not have requirements relating to critical facilities. The ordinance would prohibit a brand new facility on vacant ground or expansion of existing facilities. There was a variance process to address changes to the facility and the treatment facility was a critical facility that needed special review and consideration. Councilmember Manvel asked if the issue was the chemicals and sewage at the treatment plant and if this meant an exemption or grandfathering would not make sense for an expansion. Smith replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Weitkunat asked if the City's treatment facilities were on the Poudre River and if this meant the City had the same problem as Boxelder regarding upgrades, changes or expansions. Jim Hibbard, Water Engineering/Field Service Manager, stated the regulations would apply to the City's critical facilities as they would to any other public entity. The City had made provisions to take the Drake Road treatment facility out of the 100-year floodplain and protect it in the event of a 100-year flood. Provisions had been made for floodproofing some of the structures at the Mulberry Street treatment facility to allow the operation to be maintained and to prevent the release of any hazardous materials in a 100-year flood. Such work should be done at the Boxelder treatment facility or any other new critical facility. The extra level of review for such facilities was in the best interest of the City. Councilmember Weitkunat asked for confirmation that the ordinance would not prohibit the continuation of the facility or changes to the facility. Hibbard stated a variance would be required to allow such a facility to be changed. Marsha Himes-Robinson, Civil Engineer, stated existing facilities would be allowed to remain "as is" without a variance or review process. This regulation had been in the City Code since 1995. City Manager Atteberry asked if the conditions of the variance could be so `onerous" that it would prohibit facility expansion. Holmes -Robinson stated the Boxelder plant was, for the most part, outside of the product corridor. There could be some stringent requirements for protecting the facility if part of it was on the product corridor. The elimination of the product corridor was key to allowing the granting of variances based on unique locations or special circumstances. Councilmember Brown asked what the review process would cost the taxpayer in stormwater fees. Hibbard stated this change would have no effect on the City's capital improvement program related to the Poudre River and would therefore have no effect on stormwater fees. Councilmember Kastein asked staff to address the map issue. Smith stated the Poudre River floodplain was updated in the 1980s through a FEMA study. Redoing the study would require substantial and expensive City and FEMA work involving the entire Growth Management Area. As development takes place in the fringe area, structures were elevated to ensure compliance with the criteria. Hibbard stated gravel mining outside of the City caused major change to the terrain along 158 January 16, 2007 the River and this was regulated by the State rather than FEMA. Holmes -Robinson stated a large part of the City had in fact been re -mapped as a result of stormwater and road projects. Councilmember Kastein asked how likely it would be that the data being used for the Poudre River floodplain was different than what was shown on the maps. He asked for more information on this issue prior to Second Reading. Hibbard stated the floodplain as currently mapped was accurate except for current gravel mining locations. The City, County and Boxelder staff could jointly look at the Boxelder site before an expansion was brought forward. The map could be brought up to date without having to look at the entire River corridor. Councilmember Roy asked for a comparison of the City and County variance review processes and asked what kinds ofprojects could be considered for variances. Hilmes-Robinson described the City Water Board variance process and the criteria for consideration. Smith stated Water Board decisions were appealable to the City Council. Rex Burns, Larimer County Engineering Department, described the Larimer County Flood Review Board variance consideration process. An applicant could appeal the Board's decision to the Larimer County Board of Commissioners. Councilmember Manvel stated the City was "bending" by reducing its requirements to a six-inch rise and asked staff to explain the rise standard. Mayor Hutchinson asked if the FEMA standard was a one -foot rise. Hibbard stated the FEMA minimum was a one -foot rise and staff was proposing a six-inch rise. It was unlikely there would ever be a six-inch rise because of the amount of public land that would never develop. Smith explained the difference between the one -tenth foot floodway and the six-inch floodway. There would be a wider floodway under the one -tenth foot rise floodway. Councilmember Manvel stated the modification of the floodway and the flood fringe would be allowed and the floodway (the area of highest velocity and depth) could be modified only if no rise was produced. Smith stated the criteria were river and channel stability and environmental implications of the project. Councilmember Manvel asked if the requirements for no rise and lack of impact would limit any modifications allowed in the floodway and whether it was unusual to grant modifications of the floodway. Smith stated modifications were allowed as long as the criteria were met. Hibbard stated it was a "daunting task" to meet the criteria and there were few requests to modify the floodway. The typical applications were for public projects. Councilmember Manvel asked for confirmation that there were fewer restrictions in the flood fringe and this was where the six-inch rise would be allowed. He asked if the restriction would be that one could "impact oneself' or must get permission from anyone else that would be impacted. Smith stated it would be okay to do the development in the fringe area as long as the rise was no more than six inches. Councilmember Manvel asked if there was some restriction on who could be affected by the six-inch rise and whether easements must be obtained from those who would be impacted. Hilmes-Robinson stated this was the case with modifications to the floodway. An applicant could not impact another 159 January 16, 2007 property owner with the modification unless an easement was obtained. Because the Poudre River was a FEMA floodplain and a project could not cause a rise on an insurable structure even if was your own structure because of flood insurance issues. Development could occur and fill could be used in the flood fringe. It was being determined in advance that there could be up to six inches of rise if the entire area of the flood fringe was filled in. The natural areas would remain open and it was not expected that there would be a full six inches of rise over time. Councilmember Manvel asked what would happen if someone developed in the flood fringe and caused a rise that damaged someone else's property i.e., would the property that could be damaged have a lower value because the property could be impacted by the rise. Hilmes-Robinson stated the property owner could take it up with the property owner causing the rise. There must be a balance between the risk and the regulation. Hibbard stated the nation-wide FEMA standard was a one -foot rise and the Fort Collins standard would be stricter. This would give "advance permission" for the cumulative development to raise the water level up to six inches. The County was raising its freeboard standard to 24 inches to offset the potential six-inch rise. Mayor Hutchinson asked if the philosophy was to make some of the most stringent floodplain standards more "reasonable" while still exceeding the FEMA minimum standards. Hibbard replied in the affirmative and stated staff was trying to reach a "balance" in conjunction with the County. (**Secretary's Note: The Council took a recess at this point in the meeting.) Councilmember Roy asked for an inclusive list of hazardous materials. Hilmes-Robinson stated the list included hazardous, flammable, explosive, toxic and/or water -reactive materials. Councilmember Kastein made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Brown, to adopt Ordinance No. 015, 2007 on First Reading. Councilmember Ohlson stated the floodplain regulations should protect the natural functions of the River. He stated he might vote against this because the emphasis was on a balance between risk and regulation and there was no emphasis on protection of the natural environment. He questioned using local, state or federal dollars for rebuilding in flood areas and stated there must be a balance between private property rights and the use of public dollars to "rescue" those who continue to rebuild in such areas. He did not see where the natural functions of the River were factored into this ordinance and he would like more information before Second Reading as to why it was so important to make the City and County regulations more similar. He questioned whether the case was made that there was a need to lower some of the City's standards. He noted some of the changes made good sense but he questioned whether the change from one -tenth foot to a half foot should be done. The agenda material indicated the proposed changes would allow more development along the River corridor and if there would be environmental benefits in enhancing the River corridor. He requested additional information regarding the environmental benefits. Mayor Hutchinson stated there had been a work session on these issues and he understood that there was no "absolute standard." 160 January 16, 2007 Councilmember Ohlson stated he would likely vote no on First Reading and wanted to see information that would convince him to vote yes on Second Reading. Councilmember Manvel stated it made sense for the City and County to have the same regulations since much of the land in question may eventually be in the City. He had reservations about lowering the City's standards when restricting development in the floodplain "makes sense" due to societal, economic and environmental costs. This could mean benefits to some property owners and shifting impacts to other property owners. The work that had been done was professional and thoughtful and he appreciated the County's willingness to work with the City on these changes. He wanted to ensure that unified regulations were right for the City. Councilmember Weitkunat stated she would support the oridnance. The 1999 regulations were a response to the 1997 Spring Creek flood and the City may have `overreacted" and "over regulated" because of that flood. The risk and regulation may be "out of balance" and that the proposed changes were a logical direction. Much of the River corridor lands would never have any development or rise and this should be taken into consideration. This was a good balance between risk and regulation. Councilmember Roy acknowledged the collaborative work done by the City and County. He would not support the ordinance on First Reading for a number of reasons. The River itself must be part of the "balance" and the encroachment that these changes would allow could fundamentally change the River. He expressed concern about the reliance on variances by both the City and County. The regulations should not be made less restrictive to be more similar to the County's regulations when the lands in question could become part of the City in time. Councilmember Kastein stated he would support the ordinance and noted that there was a discussion at the work session about the River itself and how much of the land in the River corridor was public land. New development would be on non-public land and the amount of land that could still be developed was less than 50% of the River corridor acreage. It was important to reconcile the City and County regulations, and it was important to grandfather properties such as Boxelder's site. Other public entities needed to be considered in Council's decisions. There needed to be a variance process available. He considered the changes being made as "minor" compared to the changes made in 1999. Councilmember Ohlson stated he wanted more information on why it was necessaryto align the City and County regulations, since that seemed to be the main argument for making these changes. He questioned what was driving these changes i.e., what was the "big picture" for these changes and the City/County collaboration. Mayor Hutchinson stated FEMA found the 1997 disaster was minimized by the City's excellent floodplain regulations. Those regulations were made stricter in 1999 and this was now an effort to achieve greater balance between risk and regulation by eliminating some of the regulations that were not workable. Councilmember Weitkunat asked about FEMA's rating of the City's floodplain efforts. Hilmes- Robinson stated the City was Class 4 (among the top three in the country) in the Community Rating 161 January 16, 2007 System and that staff expected the City to be rated Class 5 (among the top 26 in the country) in the next evaluation. This would provide a 25% discount on flood insurance premiums. Councilmember Weitkunat stated these ratings showed the City was doing well at balancing risk and regulation. These changes were "minor" and were not placing the City at greater risk. Mayor Hutchinson asked how many communities were rated Class 1. Hilmes-Robinson stated one community in California had that rating. Councilmember Manvel stated if strong regulations were weakened the premiums for flood insurance would go up. Councilmember Weitkunat stated most of the properties in the floodplain did not have great value and the flood insurance premiums would be minimal. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein and Weitkunat. Nays: Councilmembers Manvel, Ohlson and Roy. THE MOTION CARRIED. Items Relating to the Issuance of City of Fort Collins Downtown Development Authority Subordinate Tax Increment Revenue Bonds, Series 2007A. Adopted on First Reading. The following is staff s memorandum on this item. "FINANCIAL IMPACT At the end of 2006, the Downtown Development Authority Debt Service Fund held $1,418, 359 of unreserved fund balance. By the end of 2011, the unreserved fund balance is projected to grow to between $16 million and $18 million. The Fort Collins Downtown Development Authority Board (the "Board') and City staff recommend using a portion of the unreserved find balance and tax increment over the next five years to make capital improvements in the downtown area consistent with the mission of the Fort Collins Downtown DevelopmentAuthority ("DDA ). Over the ensuing years, the projects receiving the benefit through the capital improvements will repay the value of the projects through increased tax increment. In addition to the capital improvements, a portion of the bond proceeds will also be used to fund a fagade grant program and the Beet Street Cultural Program (`Beet Street'). Beet Street is intended to become an economic engine to generate significant commerce within the downtown area. The DDA debt service fund is projected to have sufficient revenue to meet all required debt service payments and reserve requirements for 2007 through 2011. 162 January 16, 2007 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 016, 2007, Authorizing the Issuance of City of Fort Collins, Colorado, Downtown Development Authority Taxable Subordinate Tax Increment Revenue Bonds, Series 2007A, Dated Their Delivery Date, in the Maximum Aggregate Principal Amount of $5, 700, 000 for the Purpose of Financing Certain Capital Improvements, Capital Projects and Development Projects Within the Downtown DevelopmentAuthorityArea; and Providing for the Pledge of Certain Incremental Ad Valorem Tax Revenues to Pay the Principal ofand Interest on the Bonds; Approving Documents in Connection Therewith; and Ratifying Action Previously Taken and Appertaining Thereto. B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 017, 2007, Appropriating Proceeds from the Issuance of City ofFort Collins, Colorado, Downtown DevelopmentAuthority Taxable Subordinate Tax Increment Revenue Bonds, Series 2007A, for the Purpose of Making Certain Capital Improvements, Capital Projects and Development Projects Within the Downtown Area of Fort Collins, Authorizing the Transfer ofAppropriations Between Funds andAppropriating Expenditures from the DDA Debt Service Fund to Make the 2007 Payment on the Bonds The City of Fort Collins created the DDA to make desired improvements in the downtown area. Through tax incrementfinancing, the DDA has made significant contributions to the redevelopment and improvement of the downtown area. These two Ordinances contemplate additional improvements and initiate both a favade grant program and a cultural program in the downtown area. The first ordinance issues short term bonds for the projects which will be paid from the tax increment revenue. The second ordinance appropriates the bond proceeds to the DDA Operating Fund for the various projects. The total of the projects, programs and associated interest costs is $5, 700, 000. Project, Program and Administrative Cost Summary: Projects Bas Bleu Performing Arts Theater $ 250,000 Sears Trostel Building Renovation (CTL/Thompson) 175,000 252 East Mountain Avenue (Otter Industries) 290,000 Penny Flats Phase 1 Downtown Housing 547,085 Community Amphitheater 1,300,000 Downtown Hotel 500,000 Other Projects already approved by the DDA Board Including Tailgate Tommy's, Downtown Ice Rink, etc. 356,096 Miscellaneous Projects pending DDA Board Approval 800,000 Total Projects $4, 218,181 163 January 16, 2007 Programs Fagade Grant Program $ 500,000 Beet Street Cultural Program 737,753 Total Programs $1,237,753 Administrative Expenses $ 244.066 Total Project, Program and Administrative Costs S 700 000 I;�[NfeZ,ZIZi A summaryfor each project and the two programs is provided below. All the projects listed for funding through this bond issue have either been approved or are pending approval by the Board. All approvals by the Board are contingent upon City Council appropriation of the necessaryf nds to fulfill the DDA's commitment to the project. With the exception of those projects that are purely public in nature, no DDA expenditures are to be made until projects are completed and have received certificates of occupancy from the City. Bas Bleu Performing Arts Theater. $250,000 commitment toward faVade and ROW improvements. Bas Bleu has been redeveloping its property on Willow Street into a performing arts theater. It intends to renovate the exterior of the building and the DDA committed up to $250,000 toward that renovation contingent upon Bas Bleu raising the balance necessary to complete the project. 2. Sears Trostel Building Renovation (CTV Thompson Engineering). $175, 000 for fagade and ROW improvements. The Old Sears Trostel Building is being completely redeveloped into office space by CTL/Thompson, an engineeringf rm that bought the building earlier this year. The completed project will add 26 jobs to downtown. DDA investment is for fagade and ROW work 3. 252 East Mountain Avenue (Otter Industries). $290, 000 for faVade and ROW improvements. 252 East Mountain was purchased by Otter Industries which will invest around $4 million in a complete renovation of the building. The project retains jobs in the central business district. 4. Penny Flats Phase I Downtown Housing. $547, 085 for fagade and ROW improvements. The project is scheduled to break ground in December. This project will be built in four phases with DDA commitments made to three of those phases. Funds in this bond issue are for the first phase only. Subsequent investments by the DDA will be made only upon the completion of additional phases. 164 January 16, 2007 5. Community Amphitheather. $1.3 million. Subject to City Council approval, the DDA plans to begin work on a community amphitheater this year. Additional funds will be necessary to complete the project. 6. Downtown Hotel. $500,000 to begin the planning, feasibility, and design work for a new downtown hotel. Fagade Grant Program. $500, 000. Earlier this year the DDA created, subject to the appropriation offunds through a new bond issuance, a program to provide grants to building owners who would agree to undertake facade renovations. The program provides for DDA to share the cost of the facade improvement, up to 50 percent of the total cost not to exceed $50, 000, for any one facade. The Authority has made two commitments against this program: 210 South College (currently Vivian) which will get a completely new facade and become Elliot's Mess (a sandwich shop); and 215-217Jefferson, which is a restoration of the front and rear facades of the building. 8. Beet Street Cultural Program. The total DDA commitment to Beet Street is $3 million. $737, 753 (year one) is included in this bond issue. This program proposal has been in the works since 2003. It entails the establishment of 24 week-long themed events loosely modeled on the programs of the Chautauqua Institution in New York. The program is intended to become a significant economic engine for Fort Collins. Programs will be developed to attract both local and national audiences. The Board has approved the vision, workplan, and budget for Beet Street. The vision and workplan are available for review at the DDA website: www. downtownfortcollins. ore, SUMMARY The Board has met to review each of these projects as well as the facade grant program and Beet Street. For the reasons indicated above, the Board recommends each project and the two programs for funding through the issuance of subordinate taxable revenue bonds to be repaid with tax increments revenues that will be received in 2007 to 2011. The Board and its staff recommend adoption of the ordinances. City staff also recommends adoption of the ordinances. " City Manager Atteberry introduced the agenda item and handed out additional information on the Penny Flats project. Chuck Seest, Finance Director, presented background information relating to the bonds and the funding source to cover the payment on the bonds and the existing DDA debt. He stated there would 165 January 16, 2007 be adequate revenue flows to cover the bonds. The bond proceeds would be used for $4.2 million in projects and for the fagade grant program and Beet Street program. Chip Steiner, Downtown Development Authority Executive Director, presented background information on the proposed projects and programs. The DDA had adopted a series of resolutions relating to the projects and the bonds. The bonds would be used for capital projects, fagade grants for physical improvements, pre -development of the hotel and amphitheater, and program funding for Beet Street. He presented visual information relating to the various proposed projects and programs and described the DDA's financial commitments for each. City Manager Atteberry stated there had been Council questions about the hotel and the Council would formally participate in the decision -making on that project twice. Steiner stated work sessions could be scheduled on the hotel project's financing package. City Manager Atteberry stated the hotel would be on the Remington parking lot and this would be a high end hotel for the downtown, leveraging parking lot property currently owned by the City. Structured parking could replace the existing parking and provide additional parking. Councilwould be actively involved in consideration of this project. Councilmember Ohlson asked for information on the year-round farmer's market and community marketplace. Steiner stated this project could be brought forward within approximately the next 12 months. Councilmember Ohlson asked if the alleyprojects were additional projects. Steiner stated these were additional projects and staff was working with the property owners. Councilmember Ohlson asked if the cigar sign next to the old China Palace would remain fully visible. Steiner stated the City's Historic Preservation Office had signed off on the project. Councilmember Ohlson asked if historic elements were part of the criteria for the award of fagade grants. Steiner stated sensitivity to the surrounding environment included historic elements. Councilmember Ohlson stated he had concerns about the kayak course and its possible effect on the Riverbank. He understood that the kayak course must go through a City approval process but the agenda material indicated the City had agreed to build and operate the facility. He asked for clarification regarding whether or not the City had agreed to this already. City Manager Atteberry stated he would check with CLRS staff. He did not believe City funding would be used but the project would be built through Parks Planning. He understood that the operations costs would be minimal. He would provide a response under separate cover. Councilmember Ohlson asked if the appropriate people would be involved in the design to ensure that impacts to the Riverbank would be minimized. City Manager Atteberry stated the project must go through the development review process. January 16, 2007 Councilmember Ohlson stated his concern was that people were not going in and out of the River at many different places and impacting the Riverbank. Councilmember Brown asked why the bonds were not tax free, how they would be rated and what the impact would be on the future ability of the City to issue bonds in the fixture. Seest stated these bonds were for a period of five years due to the limits on the DDA's existence. The bonds would not be tax exempt and the City would purchase the bonds from the issuer (the DDA). This would cut some of the costs. The impact on the City's bond rating would be negligible. Steiner stated the City had no liability for tax increment financing bonds. Seest stated the projected revenue streams provided 125% coverage of the debt over the next five years. Councilmember Manvel asked for clarification that the $5.7 million would not include the interest. Seest replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Kastein asked if staff was talking with private interests who might have concerns about competition of the amphitheater and the hotel with their interests. Steiner stated this hotel would have more conference and convention space than the hotel's rooms could accommodate. The convention and conference space would therefore spin off business to the other hotels. Councilmember Kastein asked if that was how the other lodging interests saw this as well. Steiner replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Manvel noted the agenda materials indicated stages of development for the hotel and that the amphitheater costs were for start-up and that more funds would be needed. He asked where the additional funds would come from for the amphitheater. Steiner stated the issue of extension or replacement of the tax increment district needed to be resolved one way or another. The amphitheater facility would be crucial to the success of the entire Beet Street program and would be a valuable amenity for the City. The DDA Board felt it was important to get the project started and figure out later how the rest of the project would be funded. There would also be future funding requests for the hotel parking. Councilmember Manvel asked for an estimate of the future funding that would be needed for the two projects. Steiner stated the amphitheater costs would be $10 to 12 million, less the $1.3 million being spent now. City Manager Atteberry stated the City was an integral partner in the projects. The initial expenditures included a feasibility study of capital costs and ongoing operating expenses. An informed decision could be made after the feasibility study helped determine the costs. It would be difficult for the City to absorb more ongoing costs. A successful Beet Street would mean direct benefits to the City and the downtown. Councilmember Ohlson made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Manvel, to adopt Ordinance No. 016, 2007 on First Reading. Councilmember Roy stated a "great vision" for the downtown had been brought forward and he saw the name "Beet Street" as branding the area. It was important to remember that "pioneers" such as the Armstrong Hotel developers had taken significant risks to help revitalize the downtown. It was 167 January 16, 2007 important to leverage public -private partnerships for affordable housing and different types of vertical housing stock to contribute to the success of the downtown. Councilmember Weitkunat stated there were many exciting and dynamic projects that would help protect and preserve the downtown while creating new energy and direction. This was money well spent. Councilmember Manvel stated the $5.7 million would come from the downtown tax increment and would be channeled back into the downtown rather than City money that could be used for other purposes. Councilmember Kastein stated this was an "exciting and aggressive" new plan that could have quite an impact. The investment could rely on the life of the DDA being extended. Mayor Hutchinson stated this had been a "super effort." The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein, Manvel, Ohlson, Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Weitkunat made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Manvel, to adopt Ordinance No. 017, 2007 on First Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein, Manvel, Ohlson, Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Resolution 2007-005 Determining That a Modern Roundabout is the Appropriate Type of Intersection Improvement to be Constructed at the Intersection of Horsetooth Road and Ziegler Road, Adopted. The following is staff s memorandum on this item. "FINANCL4L IMPACT Improvements are planned in conjunction with the Street Oversizing Program. The intersection improvementproject is required to mitigate the traffic impacts oftheFrontRange Village Shopping Center project. Funding for Street Oversizing Program improvements are through developer participation and impactfees. Staffanticipates an appropriation ordinance to transferfunding into a capital project account for construction to follow the determination of this Resolution. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The intersection ofHorsetooth and ZieglerRoads is scheduled for improvements to lessen the traffic impacts ofthe Front Range Village Shopping Center Project. An Intersection Alternative Study has January 16, 2007 determined a roundabout at the intersection of Horsetooth/Ziegler is the best alternative for the intersection. This Resolution authorizes construction of a modern roundabout at this intersection. Ifapproved by Council, the City's Street Oversizing Program will construct the project during 2008 along with other improvements associated with the Bayer development along Ziegler Road. BACKGROUND On September 4, 2001, Council adopted Resolution 2001-120 requiring staff to conduct alternative analysesforall arterial/arterialintersectionprojects. The Resolution also requires the City Council to make the final approval for any intersection where the modern roundabout has been determined to be the best improvement/solution. The process for the analyses includes the following: 1. Transportation staffpreparesanIntersection Alternative Analysis whichaddresses6specific criteria. 2. If Transportation staff believes a modern roundabout is the most suitable intersection alternative, then they send a recommendation to the City Manager. 3. The City Manager then submits a proposal to City Council for review and final determination on arterial intersection improvements. The intersection is currently operating under an all -way stop condition. The west leg of the intersection has been improved to arterial standards. The north and south legs of the intersection have improvements (curb, gutter and sidewalk) on their west sides and unimproved on the east side. The east leg of the intersection is currently in gravel and no improvements have been made. The principal movements of the intersection are the eastbound to southbound and the northbound to westbound movements. The intersection currently is operating at Level of Service Fin the PMpeak hours and fails to meet the City's LOS standards. The Front Range Village Project is expected to increase the volumes at the intersection by approximately 20% when complete. An Intersection Alternative Study was completed by the Bayer Properties consulting traffic engineers and submitted to the Cityfor review. The results of the study determined that a roundabout at the intersection of Horsetooth/Ziegler was the best alternative for the intersection. The study was approved by the City Traffic Engineer and Transportation staff. Modern roundabouts are becoming a popular intersection control device around the country with Colorado being considered a leader in roundabout implementation. The safety and reduction in delay benefits continue to prove themselves to the public. The City constructed its first arterial/arterial roundabout this past summer at the intersection of Ziegler/Kechter. This roundabout has proven to be successful and is operating exceptionally well. The alternative analysis reported that was prepared and submitted to the City for approval compared six criteria between a traditional signalized intersection and a modern roundabout. The report recommended the construction of a modern roundabout. A review of the report is presented below. 169 January 16, 2007 Level of Service (LOS) LOS is a measurement system based on the delay time at an intersection. The levels of service are categorized into groups "A" through "F". LOS `A" has a range of delay from 0-10 seconds per vehicle and LOS "F"has a range greater than 80 seconds per vehicle. Using 25 year forecasted traffic volumes, the roundabout will operate at LOS "A" through the long-term future and the signalized intersection will operate at LOS " C". EmissionslAir Quality Emissions and air quality are directly related to delay. The pollutants of CO, NOx, and VOC were analyzed as part of the study. It was determined that with all pollutants, the roundabout would result in an approximately 83% reduction in pollution over the traditional intersection. Safety The National Institute for Highway Safety has determined roundabouts are one of the safest intersections. Studies have shown major reductions (60%-70%) in both property and injury related accidents with roundabouts. Ina standard 4-way signalized intersection, there are 32 separate ways for a vehicle to have a crash. In a roundabout, there are only 8 possible crash scenarios and the injury related crashes are minimized. Spatial Requirements In either scenario, right-of-way (ROW) will need to bepurchased. The roundabout takes less ROW than the traditional intersection but will also result in more utility relocations. Cost Preliminary cost estimates indicate the roundabout will cost $1.159 million to construct. A traditional intersection will cost $945,000. Although the roundabout constructions costs are approximately 22% higher than the traditional intersection, there are long term maintenance cost reductions and time savings with the roundabout that are not accounted for in the analysis. Alternative Modes Recent experience with roundabouts has indicated that alternative modes of transportation (bikes and pedestrians) do not have problems negotiating the intersection. Operating speeds in a roundabout are slow, traffic is moving in one direction, and there are sufficient gaps for alternative modes of transportation. Accident experience for alternative modes of transportation shows no difference between roundabouts and signalized intersections. For pedestrians, there are 24 vehicular conflicts in a traditional intersection and only 8 vehicular conflict points in a roundabout. In accordance with Resolution 2001-120, staff is recommending that a modern roundabout be constructed at the intersection of Horsetooth and Ziegler. The Transportation staff believes a 170 January 16, 2007 modern roundabout would bean outstanding alternativefor the improvement ofthis intersection and respectfully submits such proposal to Council for its consideration and determination. " Eric Bracke, Traffic Engineer, presented background information on the agenda item and stated Council was being asked to determine if a roundabout would be appropriate at the intersection of Horsetooth and Ziegler Roads. He noted the intersection carried approximately 17,000 vehicles per day and the intersection currently failed the City's standards at level of service F. He described the proposed roundabout configuration of the intersection which would improve the level of service to C. There would be approximately four seconds of delay per vehicle compared to 20-34 seconds of delay for a traditional intersection. The traditional intersection was projected to have about 10 accidents per year while there would be about six accidents per year with the roundabout. The annual accident cost savings with the roundabout would be about $78,560. There were 32 ways to have an accident in a standard intersection and eight ways to have an accident in a roundabout. There were 24 ways to have a pedestrian -vehicle conflict in a standard intersection and eight ways to get hit in a roundabout. Many people believed roundabouts caused more accidents but this was not true based on the data, which showed there was typically a 50% reduction in accidents with roundabouts compared to standard intersections. There was a 30% reduction in accident rates for multi -lane roundabouts. There would be an 80 to 88% reduction in emissions with the roundabout due to reductions in delays. The cost would be about $975,000 to construct the standard signalized intersection and slightly more than $1.1 million to build amodem roundabout. The difference would be due to a utility relocation. Roundabout costs and spatial requirements were site specific and traffic signal maintenance costs for the standard intersection would be about $3,000 per year. The costs and spatial requirements for a standard intersection and a roundabout would be approximately the same when everything was taken into consideration. The roundabout was about the same as a standard intersection for alternative modes of transportation. The public's perception ofroundabouts was improving as roundabouts were being built along the Front Range. The Transportation Board strongly recommended the adoption of the roundabout for this intersection and the Bayer Properties traffic consultant was also recommending the roundabout. Staff was recommending that Council adopt the Resolution. Councilmember Brown asked if there was a similar roundabout anywhere in the vicinity. Bracke stated there were multi -lane roundabouts in Loveland. Councilmember Kastein asked about public perception from the neighborhoods in the area. Bracke stated that during the design phase preliminary plans would be presented at neighborhood meetings. City Manager Atteberry asked if a roundabout was discussed at any of the Bayer Properties neighborhood meetings. Bracke replied in the affirmative and it was never identified as an issue. Councilmember Kastein asked when a decision would be made on the Harmony and Shields intersection. Bracke stated the analysis had been completed and was under review and that the decision was made in the next few months. City Manager Atteberry stated the Harmony and Shields roundabout would require a Council decision. Councilmember Manvel asked if the roundabout would be viable for the next 15-20 years. Bracke replied in the affirmative. 171 January 16, 2007 Councilmember Manvel noted the Transportation Board had questions about preserving right-of-way for future expansion and asked if this should be considered at this point. Bracke stated it was not a standard practice to acquire right-of-way for needs projected beyond 20 years. Councilmember Manvel asked if the roundabout could be sufficient "forever." Bracke replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Ohlson asked if anything was done to "soften the blow" for the last roundabout and if something similar was planned for this roundabout. Bracke stated for the last roundabout there were 40-50 people at an initial public meeting and 5-6 people were at a public meeting during a meeting on the final design. A "How to Drive a Roundabout" guide was distributed in the area. Matt Baker, Transportation Services, stated three information mailings were sent to all residents about upcoming meetings and the roundabout. Councilmember Ohlson stated it would be helpful for the City to send out information in "bullet form" on why the City was moving toward using more roundabouts i.e., pollution and safety. City Manager Atteberry stated staff was on -site when the Kechter and Ziegler roundabout was opened to watch traffic patterns. The roundabout had performed extremely well during school peak hours. He believed Horsetooth and Ziegler would be an ideal location for a roundabout. There was no intent to recommend a roundabout on every improved intersection in the City because there were different considerations for intersections such as Harmony and Shields. Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Weitkunat, to adopt Resolution 2007-005. Councilmember Kastein asked that staff e-mail the slides so that he could answer citizen questions. Mayor Hutchinson stated he had attended a seminar on roundabouts and appreciated the details provided by staff. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein, Manvel, Ohlson, Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Ordinance No. 210, 2006, Amending Various Provisions of the City Code Pertaining to Unattended Displays on City Property, Adopted on Second Reading. The following is staffs memorandum on this item. "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Ordinance, adopted on First Reading on December 19, 2006, by a vote of 6-1 (Nays: Kastein), prohibits all unattended displays other than newsracks. One amendment is being made on Second Reading to remove the fixed amount ofthe fee reguiredfor an encroachmentpermitfor newsracks. " 172 January 16, 2007 City Attorney Roy stated there were two agenda items that dealt with signs and public displays in the public right-of-way. He stated Ordinance No. 210, 2006 was approved on First Reading with direction to make a change to eliminate the fixed fee from the Code to allow the fee for newsracks to be established administratively. The purpose of the ordinance was to clarify the City's policy regarding unattended displays in the right-of-way i.e., that they were not permitted except for newsracks. There was also a provision addressing the conditions under which a person could obtain a permit for certain activities in natural areas and parks. There would be an expeditious appeal process if the requested permit that was denied related to a First Amendment activity. This was on the discussion agenda because the vote was not unanimous on First Reading. Councilmember Roy made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Ohlson, to adopt Ordinance No. 210, 2006 on Second Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Manvel, Ohlson, Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: Councilmember Kastein. THE MOTION CARRIED. Ordinance No. 018, 2007, Amending Certain Provisions of the City Code Pertaining to Signs in the Right -of -Way. Adopted on First Reading. The following is staff s memorandum on this item. "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Ordinance deals with the City's ability to remove illegally placed signs from public property and right-of-way and the circumstances under which the signs may be removed and destroyed without notice. BACKGROUND This Ordinance combines two sections of the Code dealing with the placement of signs on public property in the public right-of-way. Such signs are prohibited by Section 24-1 of the Code, subject to several exceptions. There is another section of the Code (Section 17-42) that also deals with the posting ofsigns on publicly owned property. These two provisions of the Code differ as to the way in which signs and handbills that violate these provisions may be removed by the City and subsequently destroyed. Section 24-1 states that notice must be sent to the sign owner, if known, and the owner has ten days to retrieve the sign. If the owner cannot be ascertained or ifhe or she fails to collect the sign after notice, the City may dispose of the sign in addition to issuing a citation. Section 17-42 establishes a more expeditious process for removing and disposing of signs. Under that provision, the person whose business, interests or activities are advertised, furthered or promoted by a sign posted in violation of the section must, within 24 hours after being notified by the City, remove the sign or else it will be summarily removed and destroyed without further notice. 173 January 16, 2007 The person who illegally posted the sign and/or failed to remove it after notice can be cited for violation of this Code section. Staffbelieves that the more summaryprocess contained in Section 17-42 is preferable for these kinds of violations because it does not require the City to remove and keep the illegal signs pending a response by the responsibleparty. Therefore, staffis recommending that thisprocess be consistently used for the removal of all signs illegally posted on publicproperty and this Ordinance would make that change. In addition, the Ordinance would provide that, if an illegally posted handbill or illegally placed sign is found on public property and the person responsible for the handbill or sign has been contacted within the preceding ten days for a similar violation, the City may summarily remove and dispose of the handbill or sign without further notice. The Ordinance would also clarify that Section 17-42(d) prohibits the placement ofadvertisingfliers on motor vehicles without the owner's consent, and it would also prohibit the fastening of advertising materials to residences if the owner or occupant of the residence has instructed a particular company to discontinue such practice. In response to Council direction, staff has added a provision whereby the City can summarily remove and destroy illegally placed signs without any notice, but only under limited circumstances when the placement and number of signs create a safety hazard or when the 24 hour notice is rendered meaningless due to the timing of the placement of the sign in relation to the advertised event or promoted occurrence. " City Attorney Roy noted this ordinance was continued on First Reading to allow staff to work on revisions. He stated Ordinance No. 018, 2007 would consolidate the provisions of two separate sections of the City Code relating to signs in the right-of-way. The ordinance would allow signs authorized by the City and would provide that the City would notify the business entity or the person whose interests were advanced by the sign that an illegally posted sign must be removed within 24 hours or it would be summarily removed and disposed of by the City. In response to Council direction the ordinance addressed election signs posted prior to an election day and special events held on a weekend. He stated the ordinance would provide that the City could summarily remove and destroy illegally placed signs without 24 hours notice when the number or placement of signs created a safety hazard, when the sign owners had been given a notice within the previous 10 days about a similar kind of sign, or when the sign advertised, promoted or related to an event, activity or election day that was to occur within 24 hours. He stated the ordinance would require permission from the property owner to post or place signs or handbills on motor vehicles or other personal property. He stated there were also some housekeeping provisions relating to the disposition of surplus or abandoned property. Councilmember Manvel asked if information on suggested changes was provided to the Council. City Attorney Roy highlighted changes that had been made to the ordinance as reflected in the revised version included in the Council packet. Councilmember Roy made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Weitkunat, to adopt Ordinance No. 018, 2007 on First Reading. 174 January 16, 2007 Councilmember Kastein expressed concern about a possible fine if the sign benefitting a candidate placed in the right-of-way by someone else was not picked up by the candidate. He wanted to see the person who posted the sign illegally rather than the candidate held accountable. Councilmember Manvel stated this would not be practical because it would be difficult to determine who posted the sign illegally. He asked if the consequence would usually be removal and destruction of the signs rather than a fine. Lance Newlin, Chief Construction Inspection, replied in the affirmative and stated staff contacted people to let them know that signs were illegally placed. He was not aware of any situation where the sign was not picked up. Councilmember Manvel stated it was not unreasonable to have a consequence ifpeople posting signs were not being educated by the campaign about the proper posting of signs. He did not believe that a fine was the typical consequence. Councilmember Ohlson believed there needed to be an alternative for a fine if it was ultimately needed to enforce the ordinance in cases where someone was "totally abusing" the provision. Councilmember Kastein stated this was "different' because the candidate would be held accountable for picking up the signs when they were posted by someone else. City Attorney Roy stated the ordinance had broader coverage than election signs and signs placed in the ground. It was difficult to determine who posted handbills and signs illegally and this would motivate those who benefitted from the signs or handbills to have them removed. This was already in the Code for handbills and it would now also apply to signs. This provision had already been helpful with regard to reducing the clutter of handbills. Councilmember Manvel stated the removal of political signs was "relatively simple" compared to a glued -on handbill and the price of a political sign was higher. The penalty for posting an election sign illegally would likely be "confiscation" while the penalty for illegally posted handbills not removed would be a fine. Newlin stated that to this point, no tickets had been issued for any signs. He typically contacted campaign managers rather than the candidates about illegally posted signs. Councilmember Kastein expressed a concern about the possibility that an opposing campaign could move a legally posted sign to an illegal location. This would force the candidate to remove the sign within 24 hours notice. City Attorney Roy stated the City would be able to remove the sign and hold it for 10 days. Newlin stated under the current provision the sign could be disposed of immediately. City Attorney Roy stated the provision that had applied only to handbills would now apply to other kinds of signs. A fine would be a last resort to deal with someone who repeatedly ignored the requirement. Councilmember Kastein stated there would no longer be any staff discretion on issuing a ticket. Councilmember Ohlson stated there would be a lot of discretion and staff would not have to issue a ticket. The intent was to deal with the "egregious abusers." Councilmember Kastein stated a candidate should not receive a ticket or have to pick up a sign posted illegally by someone else. 175 January 16, 2007 Councilmember Manvel stated the ordinance provided for a notice to remove the sign within 24 hours and allowed the City to remove the sign if it was not removed. City Attorney Roy stated it would be a violation to post the sign illegally or to fail to remove it after notice. The issuance of a citation would not be automatic. Councilmember Manvel stated the consequences would be the same as they would be for violating any City ordinance. City Attorney Roy stated the officer always had discretion to decide whether or not the situation warranted the issuance of a citation. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Manvel, Ohlson, Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: Councilmember Kastein. THE MOTION CARRIED. Other Business Boards and Commissions Workolan Revisions City Clerk Krajicek stated the boards and commissions manual required that all boards and commissions submit their workplans for the next year by November 30. All of the 2007 workplans were forwarded to the Council for the Council boards and commissions liaisons to comment on any revisions. Resolution 1996-140 provided that board or commission work could be initiated if there was support by three Councilmembers. A Resolution would be brought back on February 6 to make any proposed changes that had sufficient support. Councilmember Kastein made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Manvel, to incorporate all of the proposed revisions to the boards and commissions workplans in a Resolution to be presented for Council consideration on February 6, 2007. Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein, Manvel, Ohlson, Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Chemical Sensitivity Ordinance Mayor Hutchinson stated the Council needed to decide whether to proceed with work on a chemical sensitivity ordinance. City Attorney Roy stated the Council had not yet requested work on such an ordinance although a citizen had presented a proposed ordinance. Staff would prepare an ordinance if directed by Council to do so. The draft ordinance presented by the citizen would require identification of persons who had certain kinds of chemical sensitivity, notification to persons within a specified radius about the dangers to the chemically sensitive person of lawn spraying, and require persons within the designated area to use an alternative chemical that would not have a negative effect on the chemically sensitive person. 176 January 16, 2007 Mayor Hutchinson asked for clarification that the draft ordinance was presented by one person. City Attorney Roy stated the catalyst was Ms. Schonbrun's request. Councilmember Kastein asked if there were other options short of City adoption of an ordinance. City Attorney Roy stated there were remedies available to the individuals involved through civil actions in which the City would not be involved. A review could be done to determine if the situation was covered by any existing ordinances and that there was an initial request to review this situation as an "assault with a deadly weapon." A determination was made that this situation was not covered under that kind of ordinance. Another option was mediation and this voluntary process was tried and had failed. The final option would be for the City to craft a new ordinance to specifically address this kind of situation. The ordinance could entirely prohibit the use of certain chemicals within a radius of a person who had this kind of sensitivity or to impose some kind of notice requirement so that the activity could be done in a different way or with different chemicals. Councilmember Kastein asked if the draft ordinance had been used elsewhere. City Attorney Roy stated he did not know where the draft came from and noted staff had identified some issues that may require a different approach. The concept was manageable from a legal standpoint and he did not know if there were other "model" ordinances that could be reviewed. Staff did not have direction from Council on whether to work on this ordinance. Councilmember Manvel stated such a "specialized" ordinance would have limited impact although it would be important to a few people. He asked if this would be a major or minor project for staff. City Attorney Roy stated the next step would involve City management more than the legal staff. Staffs role to date had been to look into legal issues relating to the feasibility of enacting such an ordinance. This preliminary legal work had required quite a few staff hours. The next step would be to look at any model ordinances and to determine if there were any significant legal issues that would require a different approach than the models. If an ordinance was drafted it would need to effectively address the problem, be legally defensible and be readily enforceable. He estimated that legal staff would likely spend another 20 hours of work for research and writing. Mayor Hutchinson questioned how such an ordinance would be enforced. City Attorney Roy stated he would envision a need to verify that the person who claimed to have a sensitivity did, in fact, have such a sensitivity. It would then be necessary to determine that the appropriate notice had been given to people within the specified radius and whether they had responded appropriately or had, in fact, used a chemical that should not have been used. This could involve taking into evidence and testing the spray that was used. City Manager Atteberry stated there would be implications for City management and difficulties with enforcement of such an ordinance. Staff had been discussing who would enforce such an ordinance. Staff had significant concerns about the ability of the City to enforce such an ordinance and it would require a significant amount of time to develop an entirely new process. It would take time for staff to make an informed decision. Mayor Hutchinson stated the ordinance would be applied narrowly and staff's perspective was important. He asked for feedback from the Council on what kind of City action was appropriate in this kind of "neighborhood dispute" situation. 177 January 16, 2007 Councilmember Roy stated a key point was the need for verifications. It may be possible to create a mechanism to deal with such health and safety issues. There could be 20 hours of time invested for something that affected more than one individual in Fort Collins. He would be interested in knowing whether there were any similar laws in place around the country and whether the City would have the legal ability to be informed by a doctor about the health status of an individual. Councilmember Manvel stated there were quite a few people with chemical sensitivity in the community. He noted that usually such individuals could resolve the issue by explaining the situation and the use of chemical alternatives to the neighbors. The common sense solution for neighbors to work out a solution was not happening. He suggested that he would like information on ordinances and their enforcement elsewhere from the individuals who were most interested in this issue. Mayor Hutchinson questioned if it was a proper role for government to set up a new enforcement system to deal with one neighborhood issue. There could be unintended consequences associated with such "social engineering." Councilmember Weitkunat stated there were serious problems with verification, enforcement, notification and personal rights. There could be room for abuse associated with neighborhood disputes. She was not interested in bringing forward any kind of legislation at this time and that other means should be used to resolve such neighborhood issues. There were "civil implications" associated with adopting such an ordinance. Mayor Hutchinson questioned whether it was appropriate to put the City "machine" to work on a problem that affected a few. Councilmember Kastein stated he would not support spending more staff time on this issue. Such an ordinance would be "narrow" and would cover a special circumstance. This would be a "sledgehammer" and there were other ways, such as civil remedies or relocation, to solve the problem. Councilmember Ohlson stated this issue was not one of the top priorities but that he would not oppose staff looking at other options, time permitting, up to and including an ordinance. He did not support "full steam ahead" to make this a top priority and he did not support "cutting off all work on this." He supported having the City organization determine if there was some kind of solution to this, up to and including some kind of ordinance. Councilmember Weitkunat stated at this point in time staff needed to know how to proceed. The question was whether to make this a priority and put the staff time in now. She did not support doing this. Councilmember Ohlson stated he wanted to give staff direction to work on this in some general way to determine if there were other options. He supported "keeping this alive" in the organization. Mayor Hutchinson stated the Council guidance to staff not to do this now would not preclude working on it at some future time. 178 January 16, 2007 Councilmember Manvel asked that the staff keep a file open on this so the matter could be brought forward in the future if new information was received about model ordinances and enforcement elsewhere. Councilmember Brown thought this could lead to discussions about removing fluoride from drinking water or prohibiting farmers from using pesticide. A solution would require cooperation from many people. Neighborhood Services dealt with neighborhood issues and questioned if this department could have a database on chemically sensitive people that lawn companies must check before spraying or that the Streets Department could check before doing paving work. Courtesy could resolve this issue. Mayor Hutchinson stated this had become an issue because one person did not want to use organic herbicides. Creating and maintaining such a database could require a major effort. Councilmember Roy asked if there was a way for Neighborhood Services to ask the person who did not want to use organic herbicides to come to the table to talk again to arrive at a common sense solution. City Manager Atteberry stated he would personally make the call. Mayor Hutchinson polled the Council about whether staff should pursue the issue now until Council provided different direction. Councilmember Manvel replied "no" and stated he wanted staff to keep a file open. Councilmember Brown replied "no." Councilmember Ohlson stated he could not answer "yes" or ""no" and that staff could continue to do a "little research" and keep a file open to a "low key degree." Councilmember Weitkunat replied "no." Councilmember Roy stated Council's job was to deal primarily with health and safety and there was not a "minimum quota." There may be common sense ways to deal with the issue. Caring communities made sure that people who needed a little extra care got that. It was not unusual for Council to spend months working on ordinances that had a single interest outcome. He would like the City Manager make the phone call and would like to continue to look at ways to protect this individual's life. He replied "yes" to Mayor Hutchinson's question. Councilmember Weitkunat stated the issue was whether or not an ordinance should be crafted to deal with this issue. Time should not be put in on doing this now. Staff could continue to look at other ways to fix the problem and should not work on an ordinance now. Councilmember Roy stated he would like staff to look at whether there were ways to craft the ordinance. Councilmember Weitkunat stated this issue should not be addressed by a new law. 179 January 16, 2007 Councilmember Kastein replied "no" and stated an individual solution was the right approach. Mayor Hutchinson stated it was not appropriate to craft an ordinance to address this issue. Five Councilmembers had indicated that they did not want staff to pursue work on an ordinance. Staff and he could look at other ways to deal with the issue. Executive Session Authorized Councilmember Weitkunat made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Manvel, to adjourn into Executive Session, as permitted by Section 2-31(a)(2) of the City Code, to confer with the City Attorney regarding the manner in which particular policies, practices or regulations of the City may be affected by existing or proposed provisions of federal, State or local law. Councilmember Kastein asked if there was time sensitivity. City Attorney Roy suggested a motion to extend the meeting before the Council went into Executive Session. Councilmember Kastein asked how quickly these matters needed to be addressed. City Attorney Roy stated the matters needed to be addressed within the week. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein, Manvel, Ohlson and Weitkunat. Nays: Councilmember Roy. THE MOTION CARRIED. Meeting Extended Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Weitkunat, to extend the meeting. Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein, Manvel, Ohlson, Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. ("Secretary's Note: The Council adjourned into Executive Session at 10:55 p.m. and reconvened following the Executive Session at 11:25 p.m.) Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 11:25 p.m. Jayi; ATTEST: 41 V I mm � mm WEI