Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES-12/15/2009-RegularDecember 15, 2009 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, December 15, 2009, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll Call was answered by the following Councilmembers: Hutchinson, Kottwitz, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Roy, and Troxell. Staff Members Present: Atteberry, Krajicek, Roy. Citizen Participation Stacy Lynne, 221 Park Street, stated concerns with the pilot trash program and potential employee conflicts of interest with the program. Citizen Participation Follow-up Councilmember Poppaw asked for clarification of the proper channels for citizens to use when voicing a complaint against specific City employees. City Manager Atteberry stated any concern or complaint a citizen has concerning a City employee can be expressed to Councilmembers through email or phone calls, or citizens may contact the City Manager directly to voice complaints. Personnel matters are confidential and may not be discussed publicly. The project manager of the trash services study is Ann Turnquist, Policy and Project Manager for the City. Councilmember Poppaw stated Council is the decision making entity for the City and any criticisms or concerns should be directed at Council and not directly at specific employees. Agenda Review City Manager Atteberry stated there were no changes to the published Agenda. Eric Sutherland, 631' LaPorte, pulled Item #7 Second Reading of Ordinance No. 131, 2009, Amending Chapter 8, Article I of the City Code to Establish the Budget Term for the City. Councilmember Ohlson pulled Item #14 Resolution 2009-111 Approving the Stipulated Determination of Vested Rights Between the City and South Harmony, LLC. CONSENT CALENDAR 6. Second Reading of Ordinance No 130 2009 Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the Capital Projects Fund for the Fort Collins Museum/Discovery Science Center Joint Facilitv Project. 47 December 15, 2009 The City will receive $200,000 from the Energy and Mineral Assistance Program through the Colorado Department of Local Affairs to facilitate the environmental site improvements for the Fort Collins Museum and Discovery Science Center Joint Facility. The City will also receive $200,000 from the Brownfields Revolving Loan Fund through the Colorado Housing and Finance Authority in support of the environmental site cleanup for this project. A commitment of $3,000,000 was received from the Downtown Development Authority supporting the construction of the new Fort Collins Museum and Discovery Science Center Joint Facility. A Grant Agreement with the Downtown Development Authority will be completed as required. The Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on December 13 2009, appropriates a total of $3,400,000 in the Building on Basics (BOB), New Museum Facility Project. 7. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 131 2009 Amending Chapter 8, Article I of the City Code to Establish the Budget Term for the City. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on December 1, 2009, changes the next two-year budget term and all future two-year terms of the City budget. The City Council has just adopted the 2010-2011 City budget. With the adoption of this Ordinance, the next budget term will be 2011-2012 and future two-year budget terms will begin in the odd -numbered years. The Budget process will take place in the even -numbered years. 8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 132 2009, Amending Chapter 14 of the City Code by Replacing References to the Department of Advance Planning and the Director of Advance Planning to the Department of Community Development and Neighborhood Services and the Director of Community Development and Neighborhood Services. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on December 1, 2009, amends Chapter 14 of the City Code to replace references to the Department of Advance Planning and Director of Advance Planning to the Department of Community Development and Neighborhood Services and the Director of Community Development and Neighborhood Services. 9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 133, 2009, Vacating a Portion of the Harmony Road Right -of -Way as Originally Dedicated by the Larimer County Road Viewers Report. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on December 1, 2009, vacates an unused section of right-of-way on Harmony Road, adjacent to. the Harmony Ridge Subdivision, east of Seneca Street. The Harmony Ridge Subdivision Home Owners Association (HOA) has requested this section of unused right-of-way be vacated back to Harmony Ridge for the purpose of landscape improvements by the Harmony Ridge HOA. Once vacated, the Harmony Ridge HOA will accept all responsibility for maintenance of the property and all improvements to the property will be governed by the City Land Use Code requirements. A blanket utility easement will be reserved for maintenance of existing utilities. December 15, 2009 10. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 134, 2009 Authorizing Acquisition by Eminent Domain Proceedings of Certain Lands Necessary to Construct Public Improvements Related to the Mason Corridor Bus Rapid Transit Project Phase Three). The Mason Express ("MAX"), bus rapid transit project is currently within the right-of-way acquisition phase of the project. Project acquisitions have been broken into four phases, with the possibility of additional phases as needed. This Ordinance pertains to the third phase (Phase Three) and consists of six distinct property ownerships. Phases I and II were previously adopted by City Council earlier this year, and acquisitions for these phases are currently underway. As a federally funded transportation project, acquisitions will conform to the provisions of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisitions Policies Act of 1970, as amended (Public Law 91-646). In accordance with this act, property owners must be informed about the possible use of eminent domain and their rights pursuant to Colorado State Statute in the official Notice -of -Interest Letter. Authorization from City Council is needed prior to sending this information to property owners. This letter is the first official step in the acquisition phase, which must occur prior to the appraisals. Given the recommended construction schedule for the Project and the fact that acquisitions must be conducted under procedures for federally funded projects, timely acquisition fo the property interests is necessary. Therefore, staff requests authorization to utilize eminent domain for the MAX Project, if necessary, and only if good faith negotiations break down. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on December 1, 2009, authorizes the use of eminent domain for the MAX Project. 11. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 135 2009 Appropriating Prior Years Reserves in the Capital Proiects Fund and Authorizing the Transfer of Appropriated Amounts Between Funds for a Commercial Redevelopment Study for the Midtown Commercial Corridor Area Council directed staff to prepare a redevelopment study for the Midtown Commercial Corridor at the June 9, 2009 Work Session. Staff solicited requests for proposal, resulting in IS responses from across the nation. Five finalists were interviewed by a selection committee of Economic Health, Advanced Planning, and Current Planning staff. The selection committee, using the City's purchasing process, selected a team led by ELS Architecture and Urban Design, supported by Economic and Planning Systems and Warren Wilson. The Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on December 1, 2009, appropriates residual funds from the capital project fund prior year reserves to cover the cost of the Study and provide additional funds for implementation work. 12. First Reading of Ordinance No. 136 2009 Amending Section 1-15 W of the City Code Relating to General Penalties. Currently, drivers of motor vehicles who can be assessed at least one (1) point on a moving violation are required to pay an additional $35 traffic calming surcharge upon conviction. The City has experienced a proliferation of bicycles and other nonmotorized users of the December 15. 2009 City's roadways. It is recommended that bicyclists and other nonmotor vehicle operators who receive citations for what would be considered moving violations if committed by an operator of a motor vehicle also be required to pay the traffic calming surcharge. Examples of violations where this surcharge would be applicable are, but not limited to, driving on the wrong side of the road, failure to yield the right-of-way, driving at night with no lighting, failure to stop for a red light, etc. 13. First Reading of Ordinance No. 137, 2009, Amending Section 24-96 of the City Code Regarding Snow Emergencies. This Ordinance amends the City Code Section 24-96 to provide the City Manager with the authority to declare a snow emergency when conditions warrant. The current Code designates the City Engineer as the official with the authority to declare a snow emergency. 14. Resolution 2009-111 Approving the Stipulated Determination of Vested Rights Between the City and South Harmony, LLC. South Harmony, LLC is the developer of Brookfield Subdivision and has completed much of the project, but there remains about half of the dwelling units to be sold and constructed. The plan has expired. Accordingly, South Harmony, LLC has filed an application for a Determination of Vested Rights under Division 2.13 of the Land Use Code and the City Manager and City Attorney agree that the application for Determination of Vested Rights should be granted. The proposed resolution would formalize the determination of vested rights. 15. Resolution 2009-112 Making Appointments to Various Boards, Commissions, and Authorities of the City of Fort Collins. Vacancies currently exist on various boards, commissions, and authorities due to resignations of board members and the expiration of terms of current members. Applications were solicited during September and Council teams interviewed applicants during October and November. This Resolution appoints boardmembers to fill current vacancies and term expirations. ***END CONSENT*** Ordinances on Second Reading were read by title by City Clerk Krajicek. 6. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 130, 2009, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the Capital Projects Fund for the Fort Collins Museum/Discovery Science Center Joint Facility Project. 7. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 131, 2009, Amending Chapter 8, Article I of the City Code to Establish the Budget Term for the City. 50 December 15, 2009 8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 132, 2009, Amending Chapter 14 of the City Code by Replacing References to the Department of Advance Planning and the Director of Advance Planning to the Department of Community Development and Neighborhood Services and the Director of Community Development and Neighborhood Services. 9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 133, 2009, Vacating a Portion of the Harmony Road Right -of -Way as Originally Dedicated by the Larimer County Road Viewers Report. 10. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 134, 2009, Authorizing Acquisition by Eminent Domain Proceedings of Certain Lands Necessary to Construct Public Improvements Related to the Mason Corridor Bus Rapid Transit Project (Phase Three). 11. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 135, 2009, Appropriating Prior Years Reserves in the Capital Projects Fund and Authorizing the Transfer of Appropriated Amounts Between Funds for a Commercial Redevelopment Study for the Midtown Commercial Corridor Area. Ordinances on First Reading were read by title by City Clerk Krajicek. 12. First Reading of Ordinance No. 136, 2009, Amending Section 1-15 (g) of the City Code Relating to General Penalties. 13. First Reading of Ordinance No. 137, 2009, Amending Section 24-96 of the City Code Regarding Snow Emergencies. 19. First Reading of Ordinance No. 138, 2009, Amending Section 4 of the City Code Relating to Animals, Particularly Dogs. 20. Items Relating to the Fossil Creek 392 Annexation and Zoning. B. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 139, 2009, Annexing Property Known as the Fossil Creek 392 Annexation to the City. C. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 140, 2009, Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the Fossil Creek 392 Annexation to the City. Councilmember Troxell made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Roy, to adopt and approve all items not withdrawn from the Consent Calendar. Yeas: Hutchinson, Kottwitz, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Roy and Troxell. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. 51 December 15, 2009 Consent Calendar Follow-up Councilmember Roy asked for more information about the soil contamination at the site of the Museum/Discovery Center because the location is in a sensitive area. Staff Reports City Manager Atteberry stated the Council Tree Library has been certified LEED Platinum. City Manager Atteberry thanked Ward Stanford, Traffic Engineer and Rich Brubaker, Crew Chief, for their work in assisting CSU make traffic flow smoothly to and from CSU football games. Beth Sowder, Neighborhood Services Manager, introduced the new Code Compliance Officer, Dale Wood. Councilmember Reports Mayor Hutchinson stated the Platte River Power Authority Board has received Fort Collins' suggested changes to the Organic Contract. The next step is for the Platte River attorney to speak with the member city attorneys about the proposed changes, then the member cities will vote on whether to amend the contract. The Platte River Board discussed a potential analysis to determine an exit strategy to the use of coal at the Rawhide Power Plant. Ordinance No. 138, 2009, Amending Section 4 of the City Code Relating to Animals, Particularly Dogs, Adopted on First Reading The following is staff s memorandum for this item. "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The proposed changes to the animal provisions of the City Code are primarily intended to better identify and define behaviors associated with dangerous and vicious animals and specify more appropriate alternatives for dealing with such animals. Thus, the revisions set forth a number of requirements regarding the impounding and disposition of animals found to be dangerous or vicious. These provisions also provide a broader range of conditions that a judge may order in order for animal owners to keep an animal found to be dangerous or vicious as an alternative to surrendering the animal for euthanasia or removing it from the jurisdiction. In addition, the proposed revisions address the proper method of tethering animals. BA CKGR O UND/D IS C USSION The main purpose of animal ordinances is to keep people and animals cohabitating safely. It is also to promote the humane treatment of animals. Some of the older ordinances need to be changed to 52 December 15, 2009 reflect the population growth as well as animals in Fort Collins. They also need to be changed to promote safer keeping of animals. The current provisions of the City Code dealing with vicious animals are broadly worded and open to interpretation and have led to frustration and confusion from victims, defendants and enforcement agencies. In addition, if a person is found guilty of owning a vicious animal there are only two options - euthanasia or banning from the City. Therefore, under the current ordinance, if a dog barks and growls at a person walking their dog or chases a person on a skate board, that dog could be considered vicious and be ordered euthanized. A truly vicious dog could be banned from the City for lack of other viable alternatives, thereby transferring the problem to another jurisdiction. The proposed ordinance seeks to address these concerns by distinguishing between a "dangerous animal " and a "vicious animal " and providing different sentencing options. Another matter addressed by the proposed Ordinance is the tethering ofanimals, which also relates to vicious animal behavior. Dogs tethered for long periods can become highly aggressive. Dogs feel naturally protective of their territory; when confronted with a perceived threat, they respond according to their fight -or flight instinct. A chained dog, unable to take flight, often feels forced to fight, attacking any unfamiliar animal or person who unwittingly wanders into his or her territory. Unincorporated Larimer County and over 100 U.S. jurisdictions in 30 plus states have passed anti - tethering legislation regulating chaining. Chaining is proactive rather than reactive. Chaining laws gives officers a tool to crack down on illegal dogfighting, since most fighting dogs are chained out rather than kept in a kennel or inside a home. Proper chaining can help prevent dogs from becoming vicious. The proposed revisions to the Code would result in three basic changes. A new category of "dangerous animal" would be created, to be distinguished from the existing category of "vicious animal" which would be retained. It would be unlawful for any person to keep an animal that is the subject of a dangerous animal citation unless a permit had been issued for the animal by the animal control officer who issued the citation. Such a permit would be subject to conditions deemed necessary by the animal control officer to protect other animals and members of the public,.pending the disposition of the citation. Upon such disposition, the permit would either be made permanent, modified or rescinded as deemed appropriate by the Municipal Court Judge. Any animal that is the subject of a vicious dog citation would be impounded pending disposition of the citation. If the Municipal Judge determined that the animal was vicious, the animal would be euthanized unless the Judge authorized the return of the animal to the owner under conditions similar to, but more stringent than, those that might be imposed upon the issuance of a dangerous animal permit. The option of having the vicious animal removed from the City, which is currently available to the Judge, would be eliminated. Animals determined by the Judge to be dangerous would not be subject to euthanasia unless subsequently determined to be vicious. 53 December 15, 2009 More specifically: • Section 4-70 would address the proper tethering of animals to ensure humane treatment of the animal and the safety of both the animal and passersby. • Section 4-95 would exempt dangerous and vicious animals from the public nuisance category since they would be separately treated. • Section 4-96 would create a new category of "dangerous animal. " • Subsection (a) would make it unlawful for any person to keep a dangerous animal in the City without a permit. • Section 4-96(b) would: list the kinds ofrequirements thatAnimal Control could impose upon the owner ofa dangerous animal in orderfor such animal to be kept in the City; specify how a dangerous animal permit could be made permanent, modified or rescinded; authorize impoundment of a dangerous animal that is not kept or confined according to the permit requirements; and impose fees for the permit. Section 4-97, dealing with vicious animals, would prohibit the keeping ofa vicious animal in the City, except as approved by the Court and allow for its impoundment, at the owner's expense, until final disposition of the vicious animal citation. The affirmative defenses to such a charge would be retained. • Section 4-197 would change the remedies available to the Municipal Court if an animal is found to be dangerous or vicious. At present, the Court has two options if an animal is determined to be vicious: have the animal euthanized or removed from the City. The proposed revisions would provide the Judge with two options: have the dog euthanized or allow the animal to be kept in the City under strict constraints. These could include registration; the issuance ofan identifying collar; neutering ifnot already done; implanting an electronic identification microchip; no animal violations; and very specific measures to ensure that the animal is securely muzzled and harnessed when it is on a lead and properly confined, with appropriate warning signs, when it is not. SUSTAINABILITY: ECONOMIC, ENVIRONMENTAL, AND SOCIAL IMPACTS This Ordinance places greater responsibility and accountability on animal owners for the care and supervision of their animals. The intended result is that neighbors and citizens will be able to interact without fear of being attacked by a vicious animal. Additionally, it is anticipated that the expanded options for disposition of dangerous or vicious animals will help prevent a recurrence of vicious behavior of the animal. " City Manager Atteberry stated the Humane Society and the City Attorney's Office initiated this item to amend the City Code to provide reasonable problem solving solutions and give enforcement the right tools to address problems with vicious dogs. The proposed Ordinance distinguishes between 54 December 15, 2009 vicious animals and other less dangerous animals. The current Code does not differentiate between animals that threaten and those that inflict serious injury. The only options available for the disposition of dangerous and vicious animals is to euthanize the animal or remove the animal from the city. Removal only transfers the problem to another jurisdiction. Euthanasia may not be the correct solution. Teresa Ablao, Senior Assistant Attorney, stated the proposed provisions create a new category of dangerous animals in addition to the existing category of vicious animals. It will be unlawful to keep an allegedly dangerous animal unless a permit is issued by the Animal Control Officer. The permit would be subject to certain conditions to address the health and safety of the community. The current prohibition against vicious animals will be maintained. Immediate impoundment of an allegedly vicious animal will be required at the owner's expense, pending the outcome of the citation. The option of removing vicious animals' from the city will be eliminated. Once a determination is made that the animal is vicious, the animal will either be euthanized or left under the control of the owner under stringent requirements. Animals that are determined to be dangerous are not subject to euthanasia unless they are later determined to be vicious. Proper tethering is another provision of the proposed ordinance. This requirement is intended to ensure the humane treatment of animals and protect the safety of animals and others. Proper tethering can help prevent dogs from becoming vicious. A new category of dangerous animals will be created. The proposed Ordinance defines a dangerous animal and prohibits the keeping of a dangerous animal unless a permit is issued by Animal Control or the Municipal Judge. An owner can request to modify or rescind permit conditions, but only twelve months from the Judge's determination that the animal is dangerous. A fee will be charged for a modification of the permit or recission. The vicious animal provisions still prohibit keeping vicious animals except as permitted by the Municipal Judge. The proposed Ordinance defines a vicious animal and provides options for the Municipal Judge upon determination that an animal is vicious. City Attorney Roy read a revision to Section 15 of the proposed Ordinance into the record. Councilmember Ohlson asked if records will be kept to track an animal that attacks or bites twice or more outside the twelve-month period. Ablao stated twelve months is the statute of limitations within which the City has to file a particular case. The Municipal Judge has the option to take previous attacks into consideration when making a determination about the disposition of an animal. City Attorney Roy stated staff can determine whether to add other restrictions to the Ordinance for Second Reading. The intent is to distinguish between a dangerous animal with an isolated incident and a vicious animal with a recurrence of the problem. Councilmember Manvel noted an animal can be labeled "dangerous" with its first bite and be required to meet conditions of a permit. If an attack occurs again outside of the twelve-month time period, the Judge will have the option of modifying or rescinding the permit. 55 December 15, 2009 Councilmember Ohlson asked why attempting to stop a fight between the animal and any other animal is allowed as a defense against the charge of dangerous or vicious animal. Captain Bill Porter, Larimer Humane Society, stated this defense could be used if two dogs living in the same house are fighting and the owner attempts to stop the fight and get bitten in the process. City Attorney Roy stated the affirmative defenses listed in the Ordinance are not limited to the confines of one's home. Staff will review the intent to ensure the correct meaning. Councilmember Kottwitz asked who will be enforcing the Ordinance. Ablao stated the Animal Control officer will have the discretion to determine if a citation should be issued. Councilmember Kottwitz asked for information on the required owner education classes and the cost of permit fees. Captain Porter stated the owner will be required to attend educational classes on the responsible keeping of dangerous animals. The classes are privately run and the owner will pay for the classes with private trainers. The permit fee will be $75 if an officer issues' a dangerous dog citation. As part of the citation, the owner must comply with certain conditions, such ensuring the dangerous animal wears an identifying collar and posting a sign on the front door. The owner will receive a $50 refund when the sign and collar are returned to the Humane Society. The entire $75 fee will be refunded if the animal is found not guilty of the charge. If the animal is found guilty of the charge by the Municipal Judge, the fee will be approximately $200. The fee helps to pay for an officer to inspect the animal owner's house to -ensure all requirements of the permit are met. Councilmember Kottwitz asked if the Ordinance will make enforcement easier for Animal Control. Captain Porter stated the Ordinance provides greater clarification to animal owners than the current Code does and offers more options for different situations. City Attorney Roy noted future amendments to the Ordinance may be necessary to fine-tune the process. Councilmember Poppaw asked if other animal control jurisdictions will be notified when a dangerous or vicious animal is transferred out of the city. Captain Porter stated the Humane Society will notify other jurisdictions. Councilmember Troxell asked between Larimer County Animal Control, Humane Society and Police Services, who has jurisdiction in enforcing the animal regulations. Jim Szakmeister, Police Services, stated the Larimer County Humane Society is divided into two areas. One area provides care for animals and the other area is animal control. The City has no animal control officers and contracts with the Humane Society to enforce the animal control regulations. He is the liaison between the City and the Humane Society and handles any complaints. City Manager Atteberry stated enforcement is done by Animal Control officers and Lieutenant Szakmeister oversees the program. Ablao stated once a citation is written by an animal control officer, the citation is filed in Municipal Court. The animal owner enters a plea and a court date is set if the plea is "not guilty". Attorneys from the City Attorney's Office prosecute the cases and work closely with the animal control officers to determine the merits of a case and possible disposition. The attorneys make recommendations to the Municipal Judge regarding dangerous or vicious animals. City Attorney Roy noted the current Code limits the options the Judge has in offering ways to allow an animal to remain with its owner under stringent conditions. The proposed Ordinance provides a system where an animal can be kept 56 December 15, 2009 and regulated. When the new system is implemented, some unintended consequences or loopholes may arise and amendments to the Ordinance will be necessary to fine tune the process. Councilmember Roy asked if the signs must be posted before the animal is released to the owner and if a standard sign will be issued by the Humane Society. Captain Porter held up the sign and collar that would be issued to the animal owner when the animal control officer issues a permit. Councilmember Roy asked for the consequences to the animal owner if the sign is taken down or other conditions of the permit are not met. Ablao stated an annual registration of the animal will be required as part of the permit. An animal control officer would physically inspect the home before the registration is issued. Councilmember Manvel asked if the definition of a dangerous or vicious animal includes biting another animal only when off the owner's property. City Attorney Roy stated the Ordinance defines dangerous or vicious animal as one that, while off the property of its owner, killed or seriously injured another animal. Councilmember Manvel asked if an animal that bites a person or animal while on the owner's property is a different level of problem than if the animal bites a person or animal while off the owner's property. Captain Porter noted there is a difference between a dog biting another animal that has come onto its property and the same animal biting another animal with off its own property. Councilmember Roy made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to adopt Ordinance No. 138, 2009, as revised, on First Reading. Councilmember Ohlson stated the Ordinance will greatly improve enforcement of animal control regulations. He would prefer breed -specific regulations. Mayor Hutchinson stated the involvement of the Humane Society and animal control officers in the development of the Ordinance has helped to create regulations that will be more useful to Fort Collins. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Hutchinson, Kottwitz, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Roy and Troxell. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. Items Relating to the Fossil Creek 392 Annexation and Zoning Adopted on First Reading The following is staff s memorandum for this item. "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A. Resolution 2009-113 Setting Forth Findings of Fact and Determinations Regarding the Fossil Creek 392 Annexation and Zoning. 57 December 15, 2009 B. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 139, 2009, Annexing Property Known as the Fossil Creek 392 Annexation to the City.. C. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 140, 2009, Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the Fossil Creek 392 Annexation to the City. This is a request to annex and zone 28 acres located on the south side of Carpenter Road (SH 392), at the southwest corner of Interstate 25 and Carpenter Road. The property is undeveloped and is in the AP - Airport District in Larimer County. The requested zoning -for this annexation is C - Commercial. Staff is recommending that this property not be included in the Residential Neighborhood Sign District. A map amendment will be necessary to place this property on the Residential Neighborhood Sign District Map as an "Area Not in the Sign District ". The "Residential Neighborhood Sign District" was established for the purpose of regulating signs for nonresidential uses in certain geographical areas of the City which may be particularly affected by such signs because of their predominantly residential use and character. The subject property is in an identified commercial corridor along 1-25, with the closest predominantly residential uses approximately 1, 000feet to the west. BA CKGR O UND/DIS C USSION The applicant, Larry Gilleland, for the property owners, VPD 392 LLC and Peter Prato, has submitted a written petition requesting annexation of 28.9 acres located on the south side of Carpenter Road (SH 392), at the southwest corner of Interstate 25 and Carpenter Road. The property is undeveloped and is in the AP - Airport District in Larimer County. The requested zoning in the City of Fort Collins is C - Commercial. The surrounding properties are currently zoned POL — Public Open Lands in the City to the north, C— Commercial and T — Tourist in Larimer County to the north, AP - Airport in Larimer County to the west and south, and C - Commercial in the Town of Windsor to the east. This is a 100% voluntary annexation. The property is located within the Fort Collins Growth Management Area. According to policies and agreements between the City of Fort Collins and Larimer County contained in the Intergovernmental Agreement for the Fort Collins Urban Growth Area, the City will agree to consider annexation ofproperty in the UGA when the property is eligible for annexation according to State law. The property lies within the Corridor Activity Center boundary in the 1-251SH 392 Interchange Improvement Plan. It gains the required 116 contiguity to existing City limits from a common boundary with the Fossil Creek Reservoir Open Space Annexation (June, 2008) to the north. The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: N: POL in the City of Fort Collins, C and T in Larimer County; undeveloped E: C in the Town of Windsor; existing commercial development wo December 15, 2009 S: AP in Larimer County; existing large acreage residential, commercial W.• AP in Larimer County; existing large acreage residential, commercial The requested zoningfor this annexation is the C- Commercial ZoningDistrict. There are numerous uses permitted in this District, subject to either administrative review or review by the Planning and Zoning Board. The adopted City Structure Plan, a part of the Comprehensive Plan (City Plan), identifies that Commercial is appropriate in this location. The request is in conformance with the State of Colorado Revised Statutes as they relate to annexations, the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code, the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan, the Larimer County and City of Fort Collins Intergovernmental Agreement, the City of Fort Collins and Town of Windsor Intergovernmental Agreement, and the I-251SH 392 Interchange Improvement Plan. A few issues to be addressed as part of a future site specific development plan relate to coordination of the SH 392 and southwest frontage road alignments and right-of-way delineations and, potential impacts on the existing wetlands on the middle portion of the property. The development review process has protection measures within Section 3.4.1(E) of the Land Use Code to ensure that existing wetlands on the property are adequately protected and buffered. Within this section is the requirement for the provision of an ecological characterization study, which is the foundation for establishing buffer zones to protect the wetlands. Findings: 1. The annexation of this area is consistent with the policies and agreements between Larimer County and the City of Fort Collins contained in the Intergovernmental Agreement for the Fort Collins Urban Growth Area. 2. The area meets the eligibility requirements included in State law to qualify for a voluntary annexation to the City of Fort Collins. 3. On November 3, 2009, the City Council adopted Resolution 2009-099 which accepted the annexation petition and determined that the petition was in compliance with State law. The Resolution also initiated the annexation process for the property by establishing the date, time and place when a public hearing would be held regarding the readings of the Ordinances annexing and zoning the area. 4. The requested C — Commercial Zoning District is in conformance with the policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan. S US TA INA BILITY.- ECONOMIC, ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACTS No direct economic impacts will result with this proposed annexation and zoning as the property is undeveloped at the present time. With new commercial development, the City may participate in infrastructure financing along with private development. Future commercial development will also generate sales and use tax revenues for the City. 59 December 15, 2009 The physical environment will not be directly impacted by the proposed annexation and zoning of the property. The zoning standards described in the Land Use Code establish regulations to determine the appropriate land uses and design and development standards required for new development. New development is required to comply with the City's Land Use Code Natural Area Standards to assess and address any potential environmental impacts. The health, safety and well-being of the community and its citizens will not be adversely impacted by the proposed annexation and zoning of the property. The annexation request is in conformance with the State of Colorado Revised Statutes as they relate to annexations, the City of Fort Collins Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Code, the Fossil Creek ReservoirArea Plan, the Larimer County and City of Fort Collins Intergovernmental Agreement, the City of Fort Collins and Town of Windsor Intergovernmental Agreement, and the I-251SH 392 Interchange Improvement Plan. " Jeff Scheick, Planning, Development, and Transportation Director, stated the property is 28 acres, located on the southwest corner the I-25/SH 392 interchange. The property meets all state annexation requirements for voluntary annexation. The requested zoning is C-Commercial. Approval of the annexation of the property is not the same as approving a particular development for the property. Any development proposal would be required to go through the development review process to ensure the development is in compliance with the City's Land Use Code. Steve Olt, City Planner, stated the property is undeveloped and the center of the site contains wetland areas. Fossil Creek Reservoir is located just north of Carpenter Road (SH392). The proposed zoning is C-Commercial, which conforms with the City's Structure Plan designation for the property. The zoning request is in conformance with other City Plans and agreements. The Planning and Zoning Board recommends annexation of the property and zoning the property C-Commercial. Staff recommended a condition of approval of zoning for the property that required an ecological characterization study be completed prior to a developer submitting a complete project development plan. The Planning and Zoning Board did not recommend the condition of approval and the staff recommendation has not been included in the zoning ordinance. After lengthy discussion, the Planning and Zoning Board determined that requiring the ecological characterization study prior to formal submittal of a project development plan should be a Citywide policy and not applied only to one request. Staff did not bring its recommendation to Council because it determined the request can wait until a review of the policy requiring an ecological characterization study prior to submittal of a project development plan is completed as part of the Spring Land Use Code review. Pete Wray, Senior City Planner, stated the Northern Colorado Communities I-25 Corridor Plan, adopted in 2001, addressed the I-25 corridor from Berthoud north to Wellington. The Plan identifies activity centers at each interchange along I-25, with the intent of focusing development at the primary transportation interchanges and developing supportive land uses for the jurisdictions adjacent to the interchanges. The annexation and zoning of the subject property aligns with the vision and goals set forth in this Plan and conforms with other City Plans and agreements. The I-25 Subarea Plan, adopted in 2003, was a more specific Plan and focused on the Harmony Corridor north to Douglas Road and does not address the I-25/SH392 interchange. IN December 15, 2009 Dana Leavitt, Environmental Planner, stated an ecological characterization study identifies all the natural habitats and features on or adjacent to a proposed development parcel. The study includes an inventory and analysis of wildlife use, wetlands evaluation, prominent views, significant native vegetation, streams and bodies of water, sensitive and specially valued species, special habitat features, wildlife corridors, ecological function and issues pertaining to timing of development and relationship to the ecological character of the area. The study also requires mitigation measures to be proposed for any impacts to the natural features and habitats. The purpose of the study is to establish a baseline for buffer zones to protect features and habitats identified in the study. The Land Use Code requires an ecological characterization study as partof the project review. Councilmember Ohlson asked if staff recommends amending the zoning ordinance to include the condition that requires an ecological characterization study before the project development proposal is submitted. Steve Dush, Community Development and Neighborhood Services Director, stated staff does recommend the ecological characterization study be done before a development proposal is submitted to identify issues that need to be addressed. Councilmember Ohlson asked if staff is developing new gateway overlays or zoning requirements that would affect this interchange and other I-25 interchanges that lead into Fort Collins. Wray stated annexing and zoning the property C-Commercial does not preclude any future consideration for additional standards such as new gateway standards. The Town of Windsor has been supportive of developing gateway standards for this interchange. Development of gateway standards or overlays is not currently in staff s work plan but could be considered as part of the City Plan update that will be occurring in 2010. Gateway standards could be developed that would be above and beyond the current commercial zoning standards. Council directed that gateway standards be included in the City Plan update. City Manager Atteberry stated staff will include the development of gateway standards in its review of City Plan. The Town of Windsor has been supportive of developing joint standards and a vision for the entire interchange. Mayor Hutchinson asked about the difference between an ecological characterization study and other environmental impact studies. Leavitt stated an ecological characterization study is an actual inventory, down to a square foot, of what environmental features and habitats are located on the property. An environmental impact study is broader and does not provide as great detail of the property features. Councilmember Roy made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to adopt Resolution 2009-113. Yeas: Hutchinson, Kottwitz, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Roy and Troxell. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Roy made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to adopt Ordinance No. 139, 2009 on First Reading. Yeas: Hutchinson, Kottwitz, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Roy and Troxell. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. 61 December 15, 2009 Councilmember Roy made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to adopt Ordinance No. 140, 2009 on First Reading with the amendment to Section 1 of the Ordinance that the ecological characterization study be required as a condition of zoning. Yeas: Hutchinson, Kottwitz, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Roy and Troxell. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. Resolution 2009-114 Making an Appointment to the Planning and Zoning Board, Adopted The following is staff s memorandum for this item. "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A vacancy currently exists on the Planning and Zoning Board due to the expiration of term of Ruth Rollins who did not reapply. Councilmembers Poppaw and Troxell conducted interviews but did not agree on a recommendation for the Planning and Zoning Board. The Council interview team wishes to submit two names (John Hatfield and Daniel Lenskold, Sr.) for Council's consideration for that position. " Councilmember Troxell made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kottwitz, to adopt Resolution 2009-114, appointing Daniel Lenskold, Sr. to the Planning and Zoning Board. Yeas: Hutchinson, Kottwitz, and Troxell. Nays: Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Roy. THE MOTION FAILED. Councilmember Roy made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to adopt Resolution 2009-114, appointing John Hatfield to the Planning and Zoning Board. Yeas: Hutchinson, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Roy. Nays: Kottwitz, Troxell. THE MOTION CARRIED. Ordinance No. 131, 2009, Amending Chapter S, Article I of the City Code to Establish the Budget Term for the City, Adopted on Second Reading The following is staffs memorandum for this item. "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on December], 2009, changes the next two- year budget term and all future two-year terms of the City budget. The City Council has just adopted the 2010-2011 City budget. With the adoption of this Ordinance, the next budget term will 62 December 15, 2009 be 2011-2012 and future two-year budget terms will begin in the odd -numbered years. The Budget process will take place in the even -numbered years. " Eric Sutherland, 631 LaPorte, questioned the rationale for changing the budget cycle. Mayor Hutchinson noted Council requested this change in the budget cycle to shift the budget cycle so that future two-year budget terms will begin in odd -numbered years will allow new Councilmembers time to gain more experience and make better informed decisions. Councilmember Roy stated future Councils will have the ability to change the budget cycle if they determine it will better meet the needs of the community. Councilmember Roy made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Troxell, to adopt Ordinance No. 131, 2009 on Second Reading. Councilmember Manvel stated allowing extra time for new Councilmembers to gain experience will enable them to make better decisions regarding future budgets. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Hutchinson, Kottwitz, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Roy and Troxell. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. Resolution 2009-111 Approving the Stipulated Determination of Vested Rights Between the City and South Harmony, LLC, Adopted The following is staff s memorandum for this item. K/Jt1l% Y/1tJ/u'GLaI South Harmony, LLC is the developer of Brookfield Subdivision and has completed much of the project, but there remains about half of the dwelling units to be sold and constructed. The plan has expired. Accordingly, South Harmony, LLC has filed an application for a Determination of Vested Rights under Division 2.13 of the Land Use Code and the CityManager and CityAttorney agree that the application for Determination of Vested Rights should be granted. The proposed resolution would formalize the determination of vested rights. BA CKGR O UND/D IS C USSION Division 2.13 of the Land Use Code of the City establishes a procedure whereby the City can provide relief, where appropriate, to persons who claim that the application of the Land Use Code has interfered with their vested rights to develop property. This procedure has been established in order to prevent manifest injustice in cases where application of the 'lapse "provisions of the Land Use Code would work an undue hardship. Vested rights determinations are allowed where: 63 December 15, 2009 1. Some authorized act has been performed by the City; 2. There has been reasonable good faith reliance upon such act by the applicant; and 3. There has been a substantial change in position or expenditure by the applicant such that it would be highly inequitable and unjust to destroy the rights acquired. South Harmony, LLC owns a parcel ofproperty at the northeast corner of Cinquefoil Lane and Rock Creek Drive in the City which has been developed in the City under the name of "Brookfield". The entire parcel contains 42.39 acres and has been largely developed, but there remains about half of the dwelling units to be sold and constructed. This development has lapsed under the expiration provisions of the Land Use Code because the infrastructure has not been completed. Because of this lapse, South Harmony has sought relief under the vested rights determination process set out in Division 2.13 of the Land Use Code. Section 2.13.5 provides that if the Director and the City Attorney agree, based on the review and evaluation of the application, that the application should be granted, then they may enter into a written stipulation with the applicant, in lieu of the hearing which would otherwise be required under Division 2.13. Any such stipulated determination must be approved by the City Council by resolution and must include findings offact and conclusions of law upon which the determination is based. Both an overall developmentplan and final plans have been approved for the property and the City's utility or other utility servicing districts have also approved the completion of utilities for the property. The City has issued approximately 148 building permits for dwellings on the property and the applicant has received certificates of occupancy for 138 homes, all of which have been sold to purchasers. South Harmony maintains an active sales presence on the property, and has dedicated public rights -of -way to the City in accordance with the plans. South Harmony has received development financing for the entire parcel, and this financing was based upon the complete development of the entire parcel such that South Harmony is at risk of violating the terms of its development financing if it does not obtain a vested right to continue the project to completion. South Harmony has budgeted some $9, 749, 488 to develop the property and has spent $8, 733, 755 in doing so. From the perspective of the staff and the City Attorney's office, it appears that the applicant has incurred substantial expenditures in reliance upon the City's approval of the plans and that the applicant has been diligent in trying to develop the property to completion and that South Harmony should be afforded an additional three years within which to completely install the infrastructure improvements for the remaining portion of the property. " Councilmember Ohlson asked why an overall development plan (ODP) does not expire and if an extension to the development will allow the development to avoid meeting new land use requirements. He asked if a project requesting an extension would be required to meet any new Land Use Code regulations that might have been adopted since an ODP was issued. Steve Dush, Community Development and Neighborhood Services Director, stated staff has discretion on M December 15, 2009 whether to recommend an extension of vested rights. Staff could make a different recommendation if Land Use Code changes would greatly affect the project. Half of this development is already developed with the streets and utilities in place. If an application for this project were received today, no new regulations would apply. Any issuance of a building permit for the development requires compliance with all existing Codes. Councilmember Ohlson asked when a project development plan (PDP) expires. Dush stated a PDP expires after three years. Final development plans are also good for three years. Councilmember Roy made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Manvel, to adopt Resolution 2009-111. Yeas: Hutchinson, Kottwitz, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Roy and Troxell. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. Other Business Councilmember Roy asked when Council will consider the issue of pop -ups and scrape -offs at a work session. City Manager Atteberry stated a work session will be scheduled. The meeting adjourned at 8:20 p.m. ATTEST: City Clerk Adjournment 1W,