HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES-02/04/1992-RegularFebruary 4; 1992
' COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
Council -Manager Form of Government
Regular Meeting - 6:30 p.m.
A regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins was held on Tuesday,
February 4, 1992, at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort
Collins City Hall. Roll call was answered by the following Councilmembers:
Azari, Edwards, Fromme, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Maxey and Winokur.
Staff Members Present: Burkett, Krajicek, Roy.
Citizen Participation
Bob Gibson, Finance Director of the City of Arvada, representing the Colorado
Government Finance Officer's Association, presented a Certificate of Significant
Contribution to Finance Director Alan Krcmarik and Controller Dave Agee.
Al Bacilli, 520 Galaxy Court, commented on the vendors' fee.
' Agenda Review
City Manager Burkett requested that Item #27, Hearing and First Reading of
Ordinance No. 14, 1992, Amending Ordinance No. 144, 1991, Authorizing the
Purchasing Agent to Enter into an Agreement for Financing by Lease -Purchase of
Vehicles and Equipment, be removed from the agenda as -a contract was completed
with Public Finance Group, Inc.
Consent Calendar
This Calendar is intended to allow the City Council to spend its time and energy
on the important items on a lengthy agenda. Staff recommends approval of the
Consent Calendar. Anyone may request an item on this calendar to be "pulled" off
the Consent Calendar and considered separately. Agenda items pulled from the
Consent Calendar will be considered separately under Agenda Item #21, Pulled
Consent Items.
7. Consider approval of the minutes of the regular meeting of January 7
8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 4. 1992. Amendina Chantpr 29 of the C
This Ordinance, which was adopted unanimously on First Reading on January
' 21, amends Section 29-526 of the City Code, pertaining to the effect of
144
February 4, 1992 '
Planned Unit Developments. The change clarifies when a PUD process is
necessary and when property that was previously approved as a PUD may be
developed in accordance with the underlying zoning as a use -by -right.
9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 5, 1992, Amending Chapter 29 of the Code
of the City of Fort Collins, Pertaining to Minor Subdivisions.
10.
This Ordinance, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading January 21,
amends Section 29-644 of the City Code, relating to Minor Subdivisions.
The change is necessary to specify the time period in which appeals to
Minor Subdivisions may be filed.
"The Office of Development Services" is identified in Section 2-506 of the
Code as providing architectural and engineering services required
by the city This language does not accurately describe the
functions of the service area, which includes the Engineering Department,
the Planning Department, the Transportation Division, the Natural
Resources Division, the Building Permits and Inspection Division, and the
Economic Affairs Office. This Ordinance, which was unanimously adopted as '
amended on First Reading on January 21, changes the language to be more
representative of the functional aspects of the service area.
One of the Choices 95 projects is the improvement of Shields Street from
Prospect to Laurel. In 1989, $20,000 was appropriated for this project
for conceptual design. The Choices 95 program proposes appropriations of
$361,000 and $967,000 in 1993 and 1994, respectively, for design, right-
of-way acquisition and construction of this project.
Staff is currently designing three other Choices 95 projects --the
Prospect/Shields Intersection, Prospect -Shields to Taft, and the
Prospect/Taft Intersection. Because these three projects represent a
continuous set of improvements, it is necessary to design all of them at
the same time.
It is difficult to design the Prospect/Shields Intersection without
looking further north to the most likely improvements along Shields from
Prospect to Laurel. Consequently, pursuing the design of the Shields from
Prospect to Laurel project at this time would allow greater efficiency in
the design process. The work on Prospect requires extensive services from
an appraiser and right-of-way negotiator. Utilizing these consultants on
Shields at the same time they are working on Prospect would be an '
145
February 4, 1992
efficient use of the consultants and could avoid delays in the ROW
acquisition process for the Shields -Prospect to Laurel project.
12. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 8 1992 Appropriating Prior
Year Reserves.
13.
14.
Funds were appropriated in 1991 for specific purposes as described below,
but not spent. The unspent funds were added to the General Fund reserves
at the end of 1991. Appropriations were typically not spent because there
was not sufficient time to complete bidding in 1991, and thus there was no
known vendor or binding contract to encumber the funds for expenditure in
1992. This ordinance reappropriates the 1991 funds for the same uses as
were originally approved by Council in 1991.
On July 19, 1991, the City of Fort Collins was awarded a grant from the
Colorado Historical Society in the amount of $10,000 to undertake the
survey and documentation of a minimum of 125 properties within the
community. The survey and inventory work will focus on targeted
properties which are considered most significant and most threatened.
The Colorado Historical Society Building Inventory Record form will be
completed for each resource and will include a history of each resource,
architectural style, and historical significance. All resources will be
photographed. A final survey report detailing the scope of work, project
area, methodology, research design, historic overview, results and
recommendations will be submitted. The report will discuss significant
properties and potential historic districts (if any).
This information will be used to help construct the Historic Preservation
Program which is currently under preparation. It will help the community
identify its historic, cultural, and visual resources and establish
policies, procedures and strategies for maintaining and enhancing them.
The survey information will also be useful in undertaking future landmark
designations.
This is a request to rezone approximately 168.5 acres from the T-
Transition zone to the B-P, Planned Business zone (36.8 acres) and the R-
P, Planned Residential zone (131.7 acres) located east of Timberline Road
and north of East Horsetooth Road. The property is currently undeveloped.
146
15
16.
February 4, 1992 '
APPLICANT: Timberline Partnership OWNER: Same
4875 Pearl East Circle
Suite #300
Boulder, CO 80301
Resolution 92-18 Stating the Intent of the City to Annex Certain Property
and Initiating Annexation Proceedings for the Barnes Annexation.
The property being considered for annexation is approximately 2.31 acres
in size and is located at 2637 W. County Road 40, located south of
Horsetooth Road, west of Taft Hill Road, and north of County Road 38E.
The property is located within the Urban Growth Area. There is a single
family home on the property. The property is currently zoned FA, Farming,
in the County. The proposed zoning for this property is RLP, Low Density
Planned Residential. The surrounding properties are zoned RLP.
The proposed Resolution determines that the annexation complies with the
Municipal Annexation Act and the policies of the Intergovernmental
Agreement for the Fort Collins Urban Growth Area. The resolution also
determines that a hearing should be established regarding 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 ,
March 17, 1992.
The property being considered for annexation is approximately 5.78 acres
in size and is located west of Highway 287, south of Harmony Road and
north of Trilby Road at Cameron Drive. The annexation is comprised of 10
properties within Cameron Park Subdivision. The properties are currently
part of an existing business park. There are several office buildings
associated with the business park. Four of the lots are vacant. The
properties are currently zoned B, Business, in the County. The proposed
zoning for this annexation is BL, Limited Business.
The proposed Resolution determines that the annexation complies with the
Municipal Annexation Act and the policies of the Intergovernmental
Agreement for the Fort Collins Urban Growth Area. The Resolution also
determines that a hearing should be established regarding 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
March 17, 1992.
147 1
February 4, 1992
17. Resolution 92-20 Statino the Intent of the f.ity to Annoy rorrain ornnor+„
' 18.
The property being considered for annexation is approximately 29.72 acres
in size and is located east of I-25, north of Vine Drive and south of the
Larimer and Weld Canal. The property is located within the Urban Growth
Area. The annexation is comprised of three separate parcels and three
property owners. Approximately three quarters of the area is currently
vacant, undeveloped, or agricultural with the remaining areas used for
offices, warehouses, and minor repair and maintenance of trucks. There
are six metal buildings on the properties. The property is currently
zoned I, Industrial, (along the frontage road) and FA-1, Farming, in the
County. The proposed zoning for this annexation is IL, Limited Industrial
with a Planned Unit Development (PUD) condition. The surrounding
properties are zoned IL, with a PUD condition.
The proposed Resolution determines that the annexation complies with the
Municipal Annexation Act and the Intergovernmental Agreement for the Fort
Collins Urban Growth Area, determines that a hearing should be established
regarding 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 March 17, 1992.
The applicant, Greg Fisher, on behalf of the property owner, Calvin J.
Strobel, has submitted a written petition requesting annexation of 5.1614
acres located east of County Road No. 9 and south of East Horsetooth Road
(County Road No. 40).
The proposed Resolution makes a finding that the petition substantially
complies with the Municipal Annexation Act, determines that a hearing
should be established regarding 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. Not less than thirty
days of prior notice is required by State law.
The property is located within the Fort Collins Urban Growth Area.
According to policies and agreements between the City of Fort Collins and
Larimer County contained in the Intergovernmental Agreement for the Fort
Collins Urban Growth Area, the City will agree to consider annexation of
property in the UGA when the property is eligible for annexation according
to State law. This property gains the required 1/6 contiguity to existing
City limits from a common boundary with the Spring Creek Farms Third
Annexation to the west.
1 148
19.
February 4, 1992 '
Planning and Zoning Board Recommendation:
The Planning and Zoning Board will conduct a public hearing on the
annexation and zoning request at its regular monthly meeting on January
27, 1992, and will make its recommendation at that time. The Board's
recommendation will be forwarded to the City Council in time for first
reading of the annexation and zoning ordinances on March 17.
Colorado Program in Fort Collins.
The State Legislature earmarked $30,000 annually for Fort Collins
participation in the Clean Air Colorado program. As the fund
administrator, Colorado Department of Health contracts with the City for
performance of a specific work program. Because the contract is an
intergovernmental agreement, a Council Resolution is required.
20. Routine Easements.
a. Powerline Easement from Claudia J. & Edward H. Kotin, 252 East '
Mountain, needed for Padmount electric equipment to accommodate
underground electrical system. Monetary consideration: $ 1,071.
b. Powerline Easement from Douglas L. Hitchens, 1218 Hoffman Mill Road,
needed to underground existing overhead electric system. Monetary
consideration: $ 10.
C. Powerline Easement from Elmer D. & Gertrude E. Schneider, along the
North side of Hoffman Mill Road, needed to install overall oval
vault and underground existing overhead electric system. Monetary
consideration: $50.
d. Powerline Easement from Gail E. Unger, 527 E. Prospect, needed to
set electric oval vault and underground existing overhead electric
system. Monetary consideration: $64.
e. Powerline Easement from Lois E. Crull Trust, 1623 Mathews Street,
needed to instal a new street light. Monetary consideration: $10.
f. Powerline Easement from Alpha Gamma Rho Chapter house Loan Fund, 705
S. Shields, needed to set electric oval vault and underground
existing overhead electric system. Monetary consideration: $10.
Ordinances on Second Reading were read by title by City Clerk Wanda Krajicek.
149 '
0
February 4, 1992
Item # 8.
Item # 9.
Item #10.
Ordinances on First Reading were read by title by City Clerk Wanda Krajicek.
Item all.
Item #12. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 8 1992 Appropriating
Prior Year Reserves.
Item #13.
IItem #14.
Albert Barnes, 2637 W. County Road 40, requested that Item #15, Reso]ution 92-18
Stating the Intent of the City to Annex Certain Property and Initiating
Annexation Proceedings for the Barnes Annexation, be removed from the Consent
Calendar.
Councilmember Edwards made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Winokur, to adopt
and approve all items not removed from the Consent Calendar. Yeas:
Council members Azari, Edwards, Fromme, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Maxey and Winokur.
Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Resolution 92-18 Stating the Intent of the City
to Annex Certain Property and Initiating
Annexation Proceedings for the Barnes Annexation Adopted
The following is staff's memorandum on this item:
1 150
February 4, 1992 '
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The property being considered for annexation is approximately 2.31 acres in size
and is located at 2637 W. County Road 40, located south of Horsetooth Road, west
of Taft Hill Road, and north of County Road 38E. The property is located within
the Urban Growth Area. There is a single family home on the property. The
property is currently zoned FA, Farming, in the County. The proposed zoning for
this property is RLP, Low Density Planned Residential. The surrounding
properties are zoned RLP.
The proposed Resolution determines that the annexation complies with the
Municipal Annexation Act and the policies of the Intergovernmental Agreement for
the Fort Collins Urban Growth Area. The resolution also determines that a
hearing should be established regarding 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 March 17, 1992.
BACKGROUND:
The property is located within the Fort Collins Urban Growth Area. According to
policies and agreements between the City of Fort Collins and Larimer County
contained in the Intergovernmental Agreement for the Fort Collins Urban Growth '
Area (policy #2.10 c), the City will agree to consider annexation of property
in the UGA when.the property is eligible for annexation according to state law.
Enclave areas become eligible for annexation when they have been completely
surrounded, by properties annexed into the City, for at least three years. The
property became eligible for annexation as an enclave on October 6, 1990. The
property became completely surrounded by the City of Fort Collins through the
following annexation.
N: Overland
Hills
Annexation,
October
6,
1987
E: Overland
Hills
Annexation,
October
6,
1987
S: Overland
Hills
Annexation,
October
6,
1987
W: Overland
Hills
Annexation,
October
6,
1987
The owners of the property to be annexed are A) and Clare Barnes, 2537 W. County
Road 40, Fort Collins, CO 80526. The property is currently zoned FA, Farming,
in the County. The proposed zoning for this annexation is RLP, Low Density
Planned Residential, which is compatible with the existing uses and surrounding
zoning.
Planning and Zoning Board Recommendation:
The Planning and Zoning Board will conduct a public hearing on the annexation and
zoning request at its regular monthly meeting on January 27, 1992, and will make
its recommendation at that time. The Board's recommendation will be forwarded
to the City Council in time for the first readings of the ordinances annexing and '
151
February 4, 1992
zoning the area, scheduled for March 17, 1992."
Councilmember Fromme made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Horak, to adopt
Resolution 92-18.
Albert Barnes, 2637 W. County Road 40, property owner, expressed concerns about
the arbitrary nature of the three-year timing on enclave annexations and about
developed enclave properties which are not annexed.
Chief Planner Ken Waido clarified that part of the City boundary to the west of
Olander School is annexed as part of Horsetooth Road right-of-way and, according
to state law, right-of-way only cannot be used to create an enclave.
Mr. Barnes expressed his concern that his tract was being annexed while the large
tract to the north was not.
Waido clarified that the property in question was not eligible for annexation as
an enclave.
Councilmember Winokur requested more information regarding Mr. Barnes concern
that no City services would be available to him by virtue of annexation.
' Waido replied that existing utilities typically do not change upon annexation
except for electric which changes to Light and Power within one year. City
Police protection would extend to the property. The property is already within
the boundaries of the Poudre Fire Authority.
Councilmember Winokur clarified that there would be a reduction of property tax
assessment because the City's mill levy is lower than the Poudre Valley Fire
Protection District.
Councilmember Edwards inquired about the consequences of not annexing an enclave.
Waido replied there are no consequences but the policies in the Intergovernmental
Agreement with the County indicate that the City will pursue both voluntary and
involuntary annexations of properties within the UGA boundary when they become
eligible for annexation.
Councilmember Fromme inquired about the 3-year time frame and whether the City
was aware that Mr. Barnes did not want the annexation of his property.
Waido replied that the 3-year time frame is state law. The City has been aware
from discussions with Mr. Barnes that he is in opposition to the annexation. The
City is following the policy as set forth in the Intergovernmental Agreement.
Councilmember Fromme inquired if it would be detrimental to the City to postpone
annexation of the property at this time.
152
C
February 4, 1992 '
City Manager Burkett replied it would not be detrimental but there are good
reasons to pursue annexation so the City has more say on the land use.
Mayor Kirkpatrick inquired about police protection for County enclaves in the
City.
Burkett replied the land is presently in the jurisdiction of the sheriff.
Mr. Barnes stated there is no public right-of-way to his property and that he
would gain nothing by being in the city.
Councilmember Fromme spoke against the Resolution since there is no present
benefit for Mr. Barnes or the City in the annexation.
Councilmember Horak spoke in favor of annexing enclaves.
The vote on Councilmember Fromme's motion to adopt Resolution 92-18 was as
follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Azari, Edwards, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Maxey and
Winokur. Nays: Councilmember Fromme.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmembers Reports '
Councilmember Fromme reported that the Natural Resources Advisory Board would be
accepting applications for the annual environmental action awards which will be
presented in April.
Appeal of the December 16, 1991 Final decision
of the Planning and Zoning Board approving the
Overall Development Plan (Master Plan) and
Preliminary Phase Plan (Phase 1) of Paragon Point PUD
with the extension of Southridge Greens Boulevard,
Planning and Zoning Board Decision Upheld
The following is staff's memorandum on this item:
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
On December 16, 1991 the Planning and Zoning Board voted 7-0 to approve the
Paragon Point PUD Overall Development Plan and Phase I Preliminary Plan.
On December 30, 1991 an appeal of that final decision was made by Rick Zier,
Attorney, representing the Southridge Greens Community PUD Association.
153
February 4, 1992
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
The Paragon Point PUD Overall Development Plan is a 148.4 acre site proposed for
355 single family and multi -family dwelling units, commercial uses, parks/open
space, and natural areas. The site is located at the northeast corner of South
Lemay Avenue and Trilby Road and south of Southridge Golf Course.
The Paragon Point PUD, Phase 1 is a preliminary plan consisting of 62 single
family lots, a neighborhood park, and park/open space on 44 acres. This proposal
is located in the northeast and northwest corners of the Paragon Point Overall
Development Plan. Proposed access for this phase will be from South Lemay Avenue
and a southward extension of existing Southridge Greens Boulevard.
The proposed Phase 1 PUD was evaluated against the "Residential Density Chart"
and the "All Development Chart" of the Land Development Guidance System. The
proposed density of 2.5 dwelling units/acre is supported by the 50% achieved on
the Density Chart and the Planning and Zoning Board approved the applicant's
requested variance for a density of less than 3 DU/acre, as required in the LDGS.
Planning staff found that the proposed Paragon Point PUD, Phase 1 project was in
conformance with the Overall Development Plan and the All Development Criteria
in the, LDGS. On this basis, staff recommended approval with two conditions.
In voting to approve this proposal, the Planning and Zoning Board members
concurred with the findings and believed that the applicant had done a good job
of laying out the various use areas to mitigate concerns about the Fossil Creek
floodplain and natural areas. The Planning and Zoning Board voted 7-0 to approve
the Paragon Point PUD, Phase 1 Preliminary Plan with the following conditions:
1. No changes will be made from the present natural condition of the 15.3
acre Park/Open Space parcel unless and until the Planning and Zoning Board
approves such change to specific use(s) upon this site as a part of the
Final PUD Plan.
2. Due to the peculiar and unique characteristics of this development, which
characteristics include rock outcroppings as perching areas, roosting
trees, topographical characteristics which produce wind updrafts ideal for
the flight of birds of prey, water supply and the specific sightings of
eagles and hawks feeding on prairie dogs as prey on the site, the
conservation easement area shall be redrawn as necessary to include all
significant rock outcroppings suitable for perching of birds of prey (and
to include natural drainage channels) located on Lots 10 and 23 through
29. Any such change in the configuration of the conservation easement
shall be based on a field study to be conducted by the Developer and the
City prior to approval of the Final PUD Plan.
3. Southridge Greens Boulevard be barricaded at the very northern most
portion of this project until the first home is to be occupied.
154
r
February 4, 1992 '
THE APPEAL
The appellant has filed the appeal on the following grounds:
1. In approving this form of access for the east portion of Phase I of this
proposed PUD, the Planning and Zoning Board abused its discretion by
arbitrarily so acting without support of competent evidence.
2. The Planning and Zoning Board failed to conduct a fair hearing in that it
exceeded its authority and jurisdiction, substantially ignored its
established rules, and considered evidence relevant to its findings which
was substantially false or grossly misleading.
These grounds of appeal are valid as set forth in Section 2-48 of the Code.
SCOPE OF COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
The issue that Council must resolve in this appeal is as follows:
1. Did the Board abuse its discretion in that its decision was arbitrary and
without the support of competent evidence in the record.
2. Did the Board fail to conduct a fair hearing in that: '
a. The Board exceeded its authority or jurisdiction as contained in the
Code and Charter;
b. The Board substantially ignored its previously established rules of
procedure;
C. The Board considered evidence relevant to its findings which was
substantially false or grossly misleading.."
Councilmember Winokur made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Horak, to hear the
appeal of the Paragon Point PUD on the grounds that the allegations in the appeal
conform to the requirements of the City Code. Yeas: Councilmembers Azari,
Edwards, Fromme, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Maxey, and Winokur. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Steve Olt, City project planner, made a presentation on the Paragon Point PUD.
Councilmember Fromme inquired about the Board's condition requiring barricading
of Southridge Greens Boulevard until the first home is occupied.
Olt replied it was done to direct construction traffic.
Councilmember Horak inquired about the fire lane standards at the time the PUD '
155
February 4, 1992
was approved.
Development Engineering Manager Mike Herzig stated utility plans met the
standards which are the same today. The access as originally built met the
criteria, but over time the surface has not been well -maintained.
Councilmember Horak asked about the difference between a temporary access and a
permanent access.
Herzig replied that the fire department wants a street as a permanent access.
Councilmember Horak asked whether the definition of permanent and temporary
access are spelled out in the Fire Code and why the road ends in a cul-de-sac.
Herzig replied the developer elected to make the turn -around more permanent
because of the unknown timeframe for the extension.
Councilmember Horak clarified that the wider portion of Southridge Greens is
designed as a collector street above Hummel. He questioned how a street could
function as both A & B in traffic flow.
Matt Dellich, preparer of the traffic study for Paragon Point, replied the level
' of service would be A or B depending on the volume and the location on the
street.
Councilmember Horak asked who pays for the road across Southridge Greens.
Herzig replied there is an escrow account set up by the developer of the
Greenridge PUD to pay for the extension of the road to the south property line
of the golf course.
Councilmember Horak inquired about creating another temporary cul-de-sac on the
other end.
Herzig replied the developer didn't propose that type of development to the
south. The creation of the longer cul-de-sac would be a step toward eliminating
the cul-de-sac by carrying the street further south toward Trilby Road. A
temporary fire access would have to be constructed to Trilby Road.
Councilmember Horak clarified that the standards for fire access have remained
the same, i.e. a gravel access. He inquired about the fire lane approval.
Poudre Fire Authority Fire Marshall Warren Jones replied that a compromise was
worked out. A temporary access does not meet all the design criteria of a
permanent access. In this instance, there are problems with the grade. The
present criteria are: the access be of substantial construction, support the
weight of a fully loaded fire apparatus, be of a proper grade, surfaced with an
' all-weather surface and graded for drainage.
156
February 4, 1992 '
Councilmember Horak inquired if there is a Code definition difference between
permanent and temporary.
Jones replied there is not.
Councilmember Fromme asked if the plan was to bring Southridge Greens Boulevard
up to standards by widening the 36' width into proper collector street width.
Herzig replied that is not the plan. The proposed development doesn't add enough
traffic to justify a street widening.
Councilmember Fromme asked if the traffic volume would decrease when the road is
connected to Trilby.
Traffic Engineer Eric Bracke replied that once Phase IV is completed there will
be a better distribution of traffic. Currently, the only way into and out of the
development is on SouthRidge Greens Boulevard from Lemay Avenue. With another
access to Trilby Road, the traffic will split both ways. The design of the road
does not lend itself to use as a shortcut to Lemay.
Councilmember Fromme asked about standards for driveways backing out onto
collectors.
Bracke replied that Southridge Greens Boulevard is designed as a local street at ,
a 36' width, but has a minor collector function as it is the only way into and
out of the development. It was intended to go through if there was compatible
land use to the south.
Mayor Kirkpatrick clarified that in the All Development Criteria #6 and R35 were.
an issue for the Planning and Zoning Board.
Rick Zier, First Tower Building, attorney representing the SouthRidge Greens
Community PUD Association, objected to "new evidence" in the testimonies of Mike
Herzig, Warren Jones and Eric Bracke. He spoke against the approval of the
extension of Southridge Greens Boulevard southward across the golf course as a
through collector street for the following reasons:
1. The notice for the replat of the golf course, approved administratively in
summer, 1991, did not mention the right-of-way realignment.
2. The Planning and Zoning Board and staff relied on a 1984 site plan for
Greenridge showing a 54' right-of-way. Site plans are not recorded and
are not found in title searches. Site plans can be amended
administratively without notice.
3. No evidence was given in the hearing that Southridge Greens Boulevard was
designed as a collector or intended as a collector.
4. There are existing safety problems for the residents on that street and
Paragon Point will aggravate that further.
5. The golf course and existing cul-de-sac make it appear there were no plans '
157
February 4, 1992
to extend Southridge Greens Boulevard.
There is no assurance or security that the developer will complete the
road work.
The Fire Department twice recommended the emergency access across the golf
course to the west.
Paragon Point is contiguous to 2 arterial streets.
David Osborn, Old Town Square, attorney representing the developer, asked that
the decision of the Planning and Zoning Board be sustained. Based on the traffic
studies done by the City and the developer, the functioning of Southridge Greens
Boulevard was below acceptable standards. On the issue of safety, Mr. Jones
testified at the hearing that safety would be enhanced by the extension of
Southridge Greens Boulevard to Trilby. Regarding the extension of the street,
the intent on the Master Plan and dedications was that the street would be
extended. Further, a cul-de-sac with a length of 9/10 of a mile is not the
City's normal standard. With respect to the lack of assurance on the completion
of the road, this issue is addressed in final approval and in the required
development agreement.
John Huisjen, 1136 E. Stuart, attorney representing Lutheran Church Extension
Fund, owner of the property to the south, supported the property being completed
as planned and supported the Planning and Zoning Board decision.
In rebuttal, Rick Zier clarified that Center Greens and Paragon Point Phase I
will add 60+ units besides the additional units to be built in Southridge. The
golf hole in question is one of the best in northern Colorado. The street will
become a collector if it goes through to Trilby. He urged Council to overturn
the Planning and Zoning Board decision.
In rebuttal, Dave Osborn reminded that the level of traffic on complete build -out
will be well below the standards used by transportation experts. This extension
has been part of the Master Plan for almost 10 years and the present fire access
is inadequate. He stated there is substantial evidence in the record and urged
Council to sustain the Planning and Zoning Board decision.
Councilmember Winokur clarified the Fire Department's significant professional
concerns about fire access safety if the temporary access lane remains. He
inquired whether there would be an improvement in the emergency access if only
the preliminary phase is built.
Jones replied that the connection between the first phase and Trilby Road would
be improved so it would be superior to the present temporary access lane across
the golf course.
Councilmember Horak inquired about the difference in standards between a
temporary access lane and permanent access lane.
158
February 4, 1992 '
Jones replied there has been one permanent access lane approved in the City in
recent years. The major difference from a temporary access is surfacing material
and design characteristics.
Councilmember Maxey clarified that Southridge Greens Boulevard as presently
exists has been accepted by the City for maintenance. He further clarified that
there are funds in escrow to complete the street to the property line.
Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Fromme, to overturn
the decision of the Planning and Zoning Board.
Councilmember Horak expressed his concerns about continuing the street into a
longer cul-de-sac.
Councilmember Edwards spoke against the motion, supporting the process and
decision of the Planning and Zoning Board.
Mayor Kirkpatrick spoke against the motion, supporting the process and decision
of the Planning and Zoning Board.
Councilmember Azari spoke against the motion and gave her concerns about the lack
of clearness in information regarding future plans for undeveloped land.
Councilmember Fromme gave her concerns about a neighborhood being brought into '
an adversarial relationship with the City and about the fire standards used when
the development was built. She recommended seeking other solutions.
Mayor Kirkpatrick spoke in favor of policies and rules of development (the
Comprehensive Plan and All Development Criteria).
Councilmember Fromme expressed concern that no one on the cul-de-sac was told
that the street would be a through street when they purchased their property.
Councilmember Horak gave his concerns that the developer's proposal didn't show
access off Trilby then extending Southridge Greens through.
Councilmember Winokur spoke of his concerns about the fire access, traffic
access, and safety, stating there was not enough evidence that the Planning and
Zoning Board was wrong in its judgement.
Councilmember Maxey stated that, based on the record, the street was intended to
be connecting in the planning of the original Southridge development. The matter
.of the through access will be considered on final approval.
The vote on Councilmember Horak's motion to overturn the decision of the Planning
and Zoning Board was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Horak and Fromme. Nays:
Councilmembers Azari, Edwards, Kirkpatrick, Maxey, and Winokur. '
159
1
February 4, 1992
THE MOTION FAILED.
Councilmember Edwards made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Azari, to uphold
the decision of the Planning and Zoning Board.
Councilmember Winokur made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Maxey, to direct
the Planning and Zoning Board to consider the imposition of an additional
condition at the time of final PUD approval that Southridge Greens Boulevard be
extended to Trilby Road to standards that would meet the requirements of All
Development Criteria #9.
Councilmember Edwards accepted the motion as a friendly amendment. Councilmember
Edwards clarified that the Planning and Zoning Board would still be following
Council direction if, after consideration, it determined the condition to extend
the road was not warranted.
Councilmember Azari, as seconder on the motion, did not accept the friendly
amendment.
Councilmember Maxey seconded the main motion with the proposed amendment.
Councilmember Azari spoke against the amendment as confusing the issue.
' Councilmember Fromme spoke against the motion.
The vote on Councilmember Winokur's amendment was as follows: Yeas:
Councilmembers Edwards, Horak, Maxey, and Winokur. Nays: Councilmembers Azari,
Fromme, and Kirkpatrick.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Horak gave his concerns about the fire lane, the street design
versus the function, the issue of safety and the lack of exploration of
alternatives.
The vote on Councilmember Edwards' motion to uphold the decision of the Planning
and Zoning Board as amended was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Azari, Edwards,
Kirkpatrick, Maxey, and Winokur. Nays: Councilmembers Fromme and Horak.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Items Pertaining to the Transportation Utility Fee,
Option "C", Ordinance No. 13, 1992,
Repealing Chapter 26, Article VIII of the Code,
entitled "Transportation Utility" Adopted on First Reading
' The following is staff's memorandum on this item:
160
41
February 4, 1992 '
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
A. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 11, 1992, Amending Section 26-
580 of the Code Pertaining to the Transportation Utility Fee.
B. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 12, 1992, Amending Sections 26-
511 and 26-580 of the Code Pertaining to the Transportation Utility Fee.
C. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 13, 1992, Repealing Chapter 26,
Article VIII of the Code, entitled "Transportation Utility."
BACKGROUND:
In 1984, as a funding alternative to the General Fund for local street
maintenance, the City of Fort Collins adopted the Transportation Utility Fee
(TUF) on the premise that such maintenance should be funded by the parties most
frequently contributing to the use of the streets and most directly benefiting
from their maintenance. The City collected the fee for about three years
utilizing the fund for the stated purpose. A class action suit was filed against
the City in 1985 in District Court. The plaintiffs in the suit generally claimed
that the TUF was in fact a tax being disguised as a fee. They also challenged
the TUF under various other legal theories. The City lost the case in District '
Court but appealed to the Supreme Court where the TUF was successfully defended.
(The Supreme Court invalidated only the section of the Ordinance which permitted
excess revenues to be used for general municipal purposes.)
The collection of fees was suspended during the appeal process. During this
interim period, the citizens of Fort Collins approved a quarter cent sales ,tax
through December 31, 1997 to fund street maintenance. The majority of this money
goes towards the annual overlay program.
Approximately $400,000 of TUF money remains in a reserve account pending
completion of the legal process.
ISSUE:
The TUF is once again on appeal, but the trial court has dissolved the
injunctions which had previously prevented the City from enforcing the TUF or
expending the revenues collected.
The City currently faces two issues it must address in terms of the Code
provisions:
1. Whether to continue collecting the TUF. There seem to be three options:
a) amend the ordinance to delete the "pour over" provision and begin ,
collecting and spending the fee again,
161
{
February 4, 1992
b) amend the ordinance to make it inactive until directed by Council to
begin collections at a future date, or
c) repeal the ordinance in its entirety.
If either (a) or (b) above is chosen, Section 26-580 of the Municipal Code should
be revised to delete the provision that allows excess TUF monies to be
transferred to the General Fund, since this provision was invalidated by the
Supreme Court ruling.
2. Whether to attempt to collect past due fees now that the Court injunction
has been dissolved. None of the proposed ordinances would require
collection of these past due fees.
Options•
OPTION A - Adopt Ordinance No. 11, 1992, which would delete only the
"pour over" provision for excess revenues that was invalidated
by the Colorado Supreme Court. Under this option, staff would
being collecting the TUF again. All proceeds would be used
solely for street maintenance purposes.
' Advantages:
- At the current rate, the TUF would generate approximately
$500,000 a year in support of the street maintenance program.
Disadvantages:
- Citizens may view the collection of the TUF as "unfair" after
having approved a sales tax increase for a similar purpose.
Option B - Adopt Ordinance No. 12, 1992, which would amend Section 26-571
of the Code such that the TUF would be "dormant".
Advantages:
- Supports the previous City Council decisions that a
transportation utility fee is an appropriate option for the
City.
Provides an option to help address Council Work Plan items
dealing with the City's Transportation issues. Promotes
"rethinking" of traditional views about the overall
transportation system and how it should be funded.
Maintains the administrative and political "progress" we have
162
February 4, 1992 '
made with this new user fee concept.
Sends a message that reinstatement of the TUF is a viable
option at some point in time in the future.
Provides direction to staff to continue logging development
data for future TUF purposes, thus not losing the data base.
Disadvantages:
- Retains the TUF in the City Code without current authorization
to collect. This may generate some level of confusion or
uncertainty.
Option C - Adopt Ordinance No. 13, 1992, which would repeal Chapters 26,
Article VIII of the City Code which authorizes a
Transportation Utility Fee.
Advantages
- May eliminate any confusion
or uncertainty
from having an
ordinance on the books which
is not currently
in effect.
Disadvantages:
'
- May eliminate any "progress"
that has been made so far through
the initial TUF Ordinance and
subsequent Supreme Court ruling.
- Logging of newly developed property for
TUF collection
purposes would cease, making
it more difficult
to reinstate at
some point in the future.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
The Transportation Utility Fund currently has a reserve of approximately
S400,000. Per the language of the Code, those funds are restricted to use for
street maintenance related work on local streets. As such, the staff recommends
that appropriation of the money be made in the Spring of 1992 in conjunction with
the 1992 overlay program and other related street maintenance work.
CONCLUSION:
It is the staff's opinion that the City should continue to promote the use of
user fees whenever possible to support the delivery of municipal services.
National surveys as well as local feedback from our customers indicate a strong
desire to pay for municipal government services through fees rather than taxes
whenever possible.
163 1
February 4, 1992
Some of the opposition to the Transportation Utility Fee has generally revolved
around a belief that "streets are a basic municipal service which should be
funded through the tax base". Similar arguments were made when the Stormwater
Utility was being created. Certainly, the Transportation Utility Fee approach
to street maintenance is quite new from a national perspective. However, staff
believes it provides the best long-term method of planning for and providing a
high quality transportation system. The value of the Stormwater Utility has
grown over time to provide a method of responding to both iocal interests and
federal mandates which were not envisioned when it was originally created. Staff
believes the TUF has the same potential to address a variety of transportation
related needs in the future. What is important at this time is to reinforce the
City support for this method of funding at some time in the future.
A valid argument can be made that the quarter cent sales tax for street
maintenance was approved by the voters in part because the Transportation Utility
Fee was legally in question and the City had been enjoined from collecting it.
Thus any decision to reinstitute collection of the fees prior to 1998 would need
a significant public forum to address the issue of "fairness" in light of the
quarter cent sales tax. Staff does not recommend actually collecting TUF fees
before 1998.
As indicated above, the trial court's dismissal of the remaining challenges to
the TUF have been appealed to the Colorado Supreme Court. The plaintiffs in the
case are attempting to finalize an agreement subject to approval by the Court,
to dismiss that appeal if either Option 2 (suspending collection of the TUF) or
Option 3 (repealing the TUF) is approved by the Council; provided, however, that
the City would make reasonable efforts to notify the class action plaintiffs if
the Council chose at some point in the future to consider actively reinstating
and collecting the TUF.
As indicated above, staff recommends Option 8, which would waive past due fees
and modify the Code to suspend collection of the TUF indefinitely."
Utilities Director Rich Shannon gave the background and history of the TUF. He
described the 3 options before Council and recommended Option "B "
City Attorney Roy stated the court proceedings are not finally resolved. The
court ruling set some favorable precedents for municipalities.
Councilmember Winokur made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Horak, to adopt
Option "C", Ordinance No. 13, 1992 on First Reading.
Councilmember Edwards gave his concerns about having a law on the books which is
not enforced and the funding of street maintenance with a utility fee. The users
of the streets are more than just residential property owners.
Councilmember Winokur spoke in favor of the precedents established for home rule
' cities by this legislation but didn't feel a transportation utility fee was the
164
February 4, 1992 '
best way to provide street maintenance.
Councilmember Horak spoke against keeping the ordinance on the books.
Councilmember Maxey spoke against keeping the ordinance on the books.
Mayor Kirkpatrick spoke against the motion, preferring the option of maintaining
the fee as an option for the future. Street maintenance for local streets has
not been funded in many cities.
Councilmember Azari spoke in favor of the motion, supporting the funding of
street maintenance out of general revenue.
Councilmember Horak spoke in favor of using the funds collected from the fee to
fix local streets.
The vote on Councilmember Winokur's motion to adopt Ordinance No.. 13, 1992 on
First Reading was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Azari, Edwards, Fromme,
Horak, Maxey, and Winokur. Nays: Councilmember Kirkpatrick.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Resolution 92-23 Establishing a Policy '
With Regard to the Role of City Boards and
Commissions in the Allocation of City Funds, Adopted
The following is staff's memorandum on this item:
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
This Resolution, if approved by the Council, would establish a policy that any
board or commission of the City which assists in the allocation of City funds
should function in an advisory capacity by making recommendations to the Council,
rather than by making the final decision with regard to such allocations.
BACKGROUND:
Recently, the Council discussed at a work session the question of whether City
boards and commissions should be assigned the power to allocate funds
appropriated by the Council. At present, only one City board, the Cultural
Resources Board, is authorized to do so. This Resolution, if adopted, would state
that any board or commission which functions in such a capacity should make
recommendations to the Council rather than having final decision -making
authority. It would also restate the provision of Article IV, Section I of the
Charter that this function, like all other powers and duties of boards and
commissions, should be assigned by the Council by ordinance. ,
165
February 4, 1992
Councilmember Edwards made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Horak, to adopt
Resolution 92-23.
City Manager Burkett clarified that, if this Resolution is adopted, staff will
prepare an Ordinance to revise the authority of the Cultural Resources Board to
allocate funds.
City Attorney Roy clarified that the Ordinance would change the function of the
boards to make recommendations, not to make final decisions.
Councilmember Fromme made a motion to amend Section 2 of Resolution 92-23 to add
the word "advisory" before the word "function". Councilmember Edwards accepted
the motion as a friendly amendment.
Councilmember Azari referenced a letter from the Cultural Resources Board on this
matter. She supported allowing the Board to have the authority to allocate funds
in order to save Council's time by making decisions on small amounts of money.
She inquired where decisions would be appealable.
Roy replied that people could go to court, which is the present remedy.
Councilmember Maxey asked if the rules for distribution of funds were set up by
' the Cultural Resources Board.
Bill Kneeland, Cultural Resources Board Chairperson, replied the rules were set
up by the City Council and the Board has consulted Council for any changes over
the years.
Councilmember Horak spoke in support of the Resolution, stating that Council
should make the final decisions on the allocation of these types of funds.
Councilmember Edwards spoke in favor of the Council, not appointed citizens,
being accountable for the allocation of funds.
Councilmember Azari spoke of the time concerns of the Cultural Resources Board
in its biannual process.
Councilmember Winokur clarified that there may not be consistency because certain
separate entities such as the Housing Authority will not be governed by the
policy.
Councilmember Azari spoke against the policy as not giving enough flexibility in
delegating authority.
Mayor Kirkpatrick spoke in favor of Fort Fund and the change in the role of the
Cultural Resources Board and supported the Resolution as promoting regular
communication between the Board and the Council.
1 166
k
February 4, 1992 '
Councilmember Edwards spoke of his confidence in the Cultural Resources Board.
The vote on Councilmember Edwards' motion to adopt Resolution 92-23 as amended
was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Edwards, Fromme, Horak, Kirkpatrick, and
Maxey. Nays: Councilmembers Azari and Winokur.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Other Business
Councilmember Horak spoke of his review of the work plan of the Community
Development Block Grant Commission and comments from the Commission on
Disability. He requested that the human services policy include some percentage
of units be accessible to handicapped. He also requested better information for
buyers about future plans for the neighborhood, parks, etc.
Councilmember Azari requested that at closing it be required for buyers to
receive a copy of the plat of the subdivision, showing the future streets.
Councilmember Horak requested a copy of the old memo which discussed what buyers
receive at closing. He gave his concerns about the City's allowing a cul-de-sac
to be built giving the appearance that the street will not go through. ,
Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 9:45 p.m.
AAX411
Mayor
ATTEST:
a
City Clerk
167