Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES-02/15/1994-RegularFebruary 15, 1994 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 15, 1994, 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: Apt, Azari, Horak, Janett, Kneeland, and McCluskey. Staff Members Present: Burkett, Krajicek and Roy. Citizen Participation Al Baccili, 520 Galaxy Court, believed there should have been more citizen participation on the privatization of Poudre Valley Hospital. He stated his concerns with the PRPA Board's responses to citizens questions. He believed the PRPA Board has no concerns for providing proper facilities and parking for the handicapped. Kevin Cummings, 4006 Sunstone Drive, stated his concerns with the traffic on Harmony Road and the safety of the children who will be attending the new Junior High School. He stated that additional traffic signals and the reduction in the rate of speed should be high priority projects before the Junior High opens. He asked if the City is studying the traffic concerns for the area surrounding the Junior High and if so, what might be the outcomes of those studies. Citizen Participation Follow-up Councilmember McCluskey asked if there were plans for a lighted intersection at County Road 9 and Harmony Road. City Manager Burkett replied that the traffic signal at that intersection is being installed at this time. Mayor Azari stated her concerns with the PRPA Board's inappropriate listening at the meeting and will address this issue with the chairman of the PRPA Board. She stated there should be an opportunity for public input at the Board's meeting. Councilmember Horak stated he approached the Board and asked what procedures there were for public input and the answer was it was up to the discretion of the chairperson. He suggested that the Board put together some procedures for the public to participate in the Board's meetings. Mayor Azari asked if the maintenance of Harmony Road was too costly for the City to take responsibility of the road. City Manager Burkett stated the maintenance of Harmony Road would be rather expensive for the City to maintain; however, the City is working with State so the cost of the maintenance would be lowered. ' Agenda Review City Manager Burkett brought Council's attention to Item 15 which focuses on City -owned structures. February 15, 1994 ***CONSENT CALENDAR*** ' The Consent Calendar consists of Item Numbers 7 through 26. 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 by the Public will be considered separately under Agenda Item #27, Public Pulled Consent Items. Items pulled from the Consent Calendar by staff or Councilmembers may be considered separately under Agenda Item #36, Council/Staff Pulled Consent Items. Consider Approving the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of January 4 1994 8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 9, 1994, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves. Funds were appropriated in 1993 for specific purposes as described below, but not spent. The unspent funds were added to reserves at the end of 1993. Appropriations were typically not spent because there was not sufficient time to complete bidding in 1993, and thus there was no known vendor or binding contract to encumber the funds for expenditure in 1994. This Ordinance, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on February 1, 1994, reappropriates the 1993 funds for the .same uses as were originally approved by Council in 1993. 9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 10, 1994, Authorizing the Purchasing Agent I to Enter into an Agreement for the Lease -Purchase of Vehicles and Equipment. 10. This Ordinance, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on February 1, 1994, authorizes the Purchasing Agent to enter into a lease -purchase agreement with Municipal Services Group, Inc., (MSG) at 5.88% percent interest rate for the purchase of the required vehicles and equipment. MSG is the only firm the City has found who is willing to sign lease purchase documents acceptable to the City since the voters adopted Article X, Section 20 of the Colorado Constitution. This lease -purchase is consistent with the financial policies of the City of Fort Collins. The CSU use of the Power Plant was determined through a RFP process and was approved by City Council Resolution 93-30, February 16, 1993. It was the conclusion of the RFP interview committee that the CSU use provides the City with opportunities for input on the long term use of the property, is a beneficial use of the property, has sufficient financial backing, has identified means to preserve the historical nature of the building and is, therefore, in the best interests of the City and of the citizens of Fort Collins. I 93 February 15, 1994 ' This Ordinance, which was unanimously adopted 1, 1994, authorizes the lease to allow on First Reading the Mechanical on February Engineering Department of Colorado State University (CSU) to use the Power Plant as an engines and energy conversion laboratory for a period of up to twenty five years. 11. The bridge on North College is defective and is scheduled for replacement by the Colorado Department of Transportation (the State) during the summer of 1994. To make these improvements, the State needs to purchase land from all surrounding landowners, including the City. City staff has been coordinating with the State to construct the Poudre Trail under the new bridge and the two railroads simultaneously. As a result, the State will be purchasing 15,839 square feet of the Old Power Plant property (Parcel 2) and a 2,301 square foot temporary construction easement from the City. The fee simple purchase is valued at $31,700. The temporary construction easement is valued at $700. To accomplish the City's trail project, the City will be receiving two parcels from the State when it has completed its purchases in the area. This Ordinance was unanimously adopted on First Reading on February 1, 1994. ' 12. Second Reading of OrdinancE Right -of -Way for McMurry A% Drainage Easement Purposes. The property owner of Lot 1, Golden Meadows 3rd Filing (1600 Shenandoah Circle) has requested the vacation of a portion of excess street right-of- way for McMurry Avenue. The portion of right-of-way proposed for vacation is no longer necessary to retain for public street purposes since McMurry Avenue is constructed at its ultimate width in this location. However, there are existing utilities in the area proposed for vacation and therefore the City is retaining the area as a utility and drainage easement. Originally, in 1978, McMurry Avenue was constructed at a collector street width in the Golden Meadows Business Park. In 1979, the residential portion of Golden Meadows was platted and changed the remainder of McMurry Avenue to a local street width. Although the street was constructed to transition from a collector width to a local width, a portion of the originally platted street right-of-way for the collector street remains adjacent to 1600 Shenandoah Circle. This Ordinance, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on February 1, 1994, vacates that portion of excess right-of-way for McMurry Avenue. 13. ' This Ordinance, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on February 1, 1994, appropriates $70,000 from the Storm Drainage Fund prior year 94 February 15, 1994 14 15. reserves for acquisition and initial cleanup of the property. The Old ' Town Basin has insufficient appropriations available to cover the acquisition costs, therefore, a request for additional appropriation is being made. Items Relating to the Fox Hills Annexation. A. Resolution 94-24 Setting Forth Findings of Fact and Determinations Regarding the Fox Hills Annexation. Hearing and First Reading Ordinance No. 15, 1994, Annexing Property Known as the Fox Hills Annexation to the City of Fort Collins. Hearing and First Reading Ordinance No. 16, 1994, Amending the Zoning District Map Contained in Chapter 29 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the Fox Hills Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado. The applicant, Cityscape Urban Design, Inc; on behalf of the property owner, Springfield Subdivision Sixth Filing, Joint Venture, has submitted a written petition requesting annexation of approximately 33.17 acres located west of Taft Hill Road and south of County Road 38E. 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 30 days of prior notice is required by Colorado 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 consider the annexation property in the UGA when the property is eligible for annexation according to state law. The property gains the required 1/6 contiguity to existing city limits from a common boundary with the Taft Canyon Second Annexation to the east. a City -Owned Building_ In 1994, Crossroads plans to construct a 4,000 square foot addition to the 5,260 square foot facility presently leased to them by the City for $1 per year. The lease requires the tenant to maintain the property at the sole expense of the tenant, but is silent on how development fees should be addressed, should the building be expanded. Crossroads has requested that the City pay the approximately $15,000 in development fees since the City ' owns the property and improvements will become the property of the City. Crossroads has indicated that it is currently not able to pay these development fees with its available funding. 99 February 15, 1994 Staff recommends that the City pay the development fees. This recommendation is appropriate because the City will own the added space, and because of the benefit to the community from the addition. Should this ordinance not be adopted, Crossroads will need to identify a non -City funding source to pay the development fees. 16. First Reading of Ordinance No. 18, 1994, Vacating an Easement for Utilities Between Lots 17 and 18 Reserved on the Plat of South College Heights First Subdivision. 17. In This Subdivision was platted in 1954. There is a ten foot easement reserved for utilities between Lots 17 and 18 (five feet on either side). These lots were sold and in the late fifties a house was built between Lots 17 and 18 right over the easement area. The problem did not surface until the present owners were preparing to sell their home. A check has been made with Light and Power and Water Utilities, and there is nothing buried in this easement area. All public and private utilities were notified and asked if they had a need for this easement reservation, and there was no need or interest expressed. This easement needs to be vacated so the homeowners can convey clear title to the new owners. On November 15, 1993, the Planning and Zoning Board granted final approval to the Summerhill P.U.D. located south of Prospect Road between Underhill Drive and Westbridge Drive. The Summerhill P.U.D. replats part of Underhill P.U.D. including a portion of right-of-way for Underhill Drive. When Underhill P.U.D. was originally platted, Underhill Drive was planned to extend south across the New Mercer Canal. However, since that time, the City has purchased the property on the south side of the canal for drainage and open space purposes. Therefore, Underhill Drive is no longer planned to extend across the canal and will terminate in a cul-de-sac. The developer of Summerhill P.U.D is requesting vacation of the excess public street right-of-way for Underhill Drive between the cul-de-sac and the New Mercer Canal. The right-of-way proposed for vacation is no longer necessary to retain for public street purposes; however, the area will be retained as a public access, drainage and utility easement. Since there is a box culvert crossing constructed across the canal, the access easement will allow non -vehicular public access to the open space as well as provide the potential to cross the canal to a parking area should vehicular access be desirable in the future. In 1976, the Light and Power Department purchased this 2.64 acre site located at the southwest corner of East Willox Lane and Redwood Street for a proposed substation. The purchase price in 1976 was $22,000. When the February 15, 1994 Utilities Master Plan was revised, the Linden Tech Station (built in 1989) replaced the need for this site and the power plant substation. Since the site is no longer required by the Light and Power Department, it was offered to all other City departments and the Housing Authority in October 1992. No other departments had a use for the property. The site was then posted with a "For Sale" sign. The City received a contract in May of 1993, contingent upon the Purchaser submitting its project to conceptual review. This contract was canceled because the Purchaser failed to submit the project to the Conceptual Review Committee. The Right -of -Way Office has received a new offer for this site. This contract is for $51,750, contingent upon Council approval. The estimated value range of this site is between $50,000 and $51,750. The proposed purchaser is ZTI Development Group, Inc. ZTI has other developments in this area and is planning residential housing for this parcel. This Ordinance would authorize the Mayor to execute a Deed of Conveyance for sale of this land to ZTI Development Group, Inc. 19. Resolution 94- 21. This Resolution makes disbursements from funds in the City's Cultural Development and Programming Account. These recommendations made by the Cultural Resources Board at its regular meeting of January 26, 1994. Resolution 94-26 Authorizing a Waiver from the UGA Public Street Capacity I Requirement to Construct Off -Site Street Improvements for Springfield Court Preliminary PUD. This waiver request pertains to the Springfield Court Preliminary PUD, which consists of 63 residential units on a 4.2 acre parcel, targeting low-income families. The site is located on the west side of Taft Hill Road (County Road 19) about 1/4 mile south of Horsetooth Road (County Road 40). The site is zoned for multi -family residential use. The site is not eligible for annexation because it does not meet the 1/6 contiguity requirements. City limits are presently located approximately 400' south of the site. In order for a property to be subdivided in the Urban Growth Area, it must be shown that the property will conform to the UGA Phasing Criteria. Of the four Urban Growth Area Phasing Criteria, the proposed preliminary plan meets the requirements for public water capacity, public sewer capacity, and 1/6 contiguity to existing development. A waiver is being requested for the requirements for public street capacity. The applicants and property owners, Glen and Calvin Johnson, have ' submitted a written petition requesting annexation of approximately 199 acres located east of County Road #9 and north of Harmony Road. 97 February 15, 1994 ' 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 to 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 Colorado law. 22. The State of Colorado currently reimburses the City of Fort Collins for the maintenance of traffic signals, crosswalks, stop bar, signs and pavement markings. The contract covers 45 intersections that are on State highways within or contiguous to the city limits. This allows the future addition of five intersections at the current reimbursement rate without a new contract. 23. Resolution 94- From time to time, Colorado -Big Thompson (CBT) project water is turned over to the City of Fort Collins to satisfy raw water requirements. The developer of the Hampshire Pond PUD has requested that the City accept 25 units of CBT water as partial satisfaction of the raw water requirement. This resolution authorizes the City Manager to execute an application for a Temporary Use Permit. The Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District (NCWCD) requires that a Temporary Use Permit application be approved by a City Council resolution. Transfers of water are initially made using Temporary Use Permits since permanent contracts are more complicated and take longer. Every two or three years, the Utility converts all CBT water owned and used under Temporary Use Permits to a permanent contract. The City currently owns 18,674 units of CBT water, which represents approximately 20% of the City's total supply. This water is all delivered to the City through Horsetooth Reservoir. The 1994 annual NCWCD assessment for these 25 units will be $13.85 per unit. 24. Resolution 94-30 Authorizing the City of Fort Collins to enter into a Farm Lease Agreement with Greg Walker. In 1982, the City began using the Resource Recovery farm at Prospect and I-25 as a sludge disposal site. Typically, sludge is applied to fields from December to March prior to planting corn in the early spring. During the first four years of operation, the farming was contracted to a local farmer. In 1988, the staff decided to run the farming operation instead of utilizing a contract farmer. After reevaluating the variables ' (risk and potential income) associated with the do-it-yourself farming option versus the contract farming option, the staff has concluded it . would be preferable to return to a contract farming option. Receiving a moderate, but steady, level of income from contracting or leasing the land 99 February 15, 1994 25. to a farmer is preferable to the potential profits or losses associated with do-it-yourself farming. Staff is recommending that the City enter into a one-year lease agreement with Greg Walker to farm the Resource Recovery farm property, with a one- year option to renew the lease for an additional one-year term. In 1985, the City and the South Fort Collins Sanitation District entered into an intergovernmental agreement which addressed service area boundaries and provided for sharing master plans and cooperating in providing wastewater utility services to the customers of the City and the District. The agreement expired in 1990. District and City representatives feel that the agreement worked well, provided an orderly process for discussing and resolving service issues, and resulted in high quality and cost efficient wastewater utility service to the customers of both parties. City and District staff drafted the proposed agreement. Similar to the previous agreement, it includes provisions for a steering committee, for establishing service area boundaries, for updating and sharing master plans, and for continued cooperative exchange of information, operational assistance and emergency aid. 26. Routine Deeds and Easements. A. Powerline Easement from Meldrum Properties, Inc., 519 South Meldrum, needed to underground existing overhead electric system. Monetary consideration: $378. Items on Second Reading were read by title by City Clerk Wanda Krajicek. W a 10. II. 12. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 9, 1994, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 12, 1994, Authorizing the Mayor to Execute a Deed of Conveyance and a Temporary Construction Easement in Favor of the Colorado Department of Transportation for Part of the Old Power Plant Site Located on North College Avenue. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 13, 1994, Vacating a Portion of Street , Right-of-Wav for McMurry Avenue and Retaining the Same for Utility and Drainage Easement Purposes. February 15, 1994 1 13. 32. Items on First Reading were read by title by City Clerk Wanda Krajicek. 14. Items Relating to the Fox Hills Annexation. 15. 16. 33 B. Hearing and First Reading Ordinance No. 15, 1994, Annexing Property Known as the Fox Hills Annexation to the City of Fort Collins. C. Hearing and First Reading Ordinance No. 16, 1994, Amending the Zoning District Map Contained in Chapter 29 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the Fox Hills Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado. Items Relating to Amending the Building Mechanical Plumbing Building Conservation, and Electric Codes. A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 21, 1994, Repealing Chapter 5, Division 2 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins and Adopting the Uniform Building Code 1991 Edition, with Amendments. B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 22, 1994, Repealing Chapter 5, Article IV, of the Code of the City of Fort Collins and Adopting the Uniform Mechanical Code, 1991 Edition, with Amendments. C. First Reading of Ordinance No. 23, 1994, Repealing Chapter 5, Article V of the Code of the City of Fort Collins and Adopting the Uniform Plumbing Code 1991 Edition, with Amendments. 100 February 15, 1994 34. 35 First Reading of Ordinance No. 24, 1994, Amending Chapter 5 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins by Adopting Chapter 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 and Appendix Chapter 4 of the Uniform Code for Building Conservation, 1991 Edition. First Reading of Ordinance No. 25, 1994, Repealing Chapter 5, Article III of the Code of the City of Fort Collins and Adopting the National Electric Code 1993 Edition, with Amendments. Items Relating to Affordable Housing and Establishing a Development Review Fee Schedule. A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 27, 1994, Amending Chapter 29 of the City Code of the City of Fort Collins to Establish a Development Review Fee Schedule and Authorize a Waiver for Affordable Housing Projects (Option A and Option B). First Reading of Ordinance No. 28, 1994, Amending Chapter 23 of the City Code of the City of Fort Collins with Regard to the Payment of the Parkland Fee for Affordable Housing Projects and Appropriating Funds for such Purpose (Option A). or C. First Reading of Ordinance No. 28, 1994, Appropriating Additional Funds for Affordable Housing Purposes and Seeking a Recommendation from the Staff and Affordable Housing Board Regarding the Use of Such Funds (Option B). Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember McCluskey, to adopt and approve all items not removed from the Consent Calendar. The vote on Councilmember Horak's motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Apt, Azari, Horak, Janett, Kneeland, and McCluskey. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Reports Councilmember Horak stated the Crossroads Safehouse is an example of where the Affordable Housing Policy and the Human Services Policy need to work together. Councilmember Apt stated the Growth Management Committee had discussed City/County development issues, as well as transferable development rights. He stated various issues would be brought before several Boards and Commissions to review the development throughout the city. 101 February 15, 1994 ' Resolution 94-32 Making Findings of Fact and Conclusions Regarding the Appeal from a Decision of the Planning and Zoning Board Relating to the Preliminary Plan for the Fossil Creek Estates PUD, Adopted The following is staff's memorandum on this item. "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY On December 16, 1993 the Planning and Zoning Board voted 6-1 to approve the Fossil Creek Estates PUD preliminary plans. On December 30, 1993 an appeal of the Board's decision was filed by James and Sandra Robbins, adjacent property owners. On January 10, 1994 an amended appeal was filed by the same individuals. On February 1, 1994, Council voted 5-0 to uphold the decision of the Planning and Zoning Board concerning the Fossil Creek Estates PUD preliminary plans. In order to complete the record regarding this appeal, the Council should adopt a Resolution making findings of fact and finalizing its decision on the appeal. BACKGROUND: The appellant's notice of appeal was based on allegations that: 1. The Planning and Zoning Board failed to conduct a fair hearing in that the ' Board exceeded its authority or jurisdiction. 2. The Planning and Zoning Board abused its discretion in that its decision was arbitrary and without the support of competent evidence in the record. At the February 1, 1994 hearing on this matter, Council considered the testimony of City staff, the appellants, and the applicants of the Fossil Creek Estates PUD. In subsequent discussion at this hearing, Council determined that the Planning and Zoning Board conducted a fair hearing and that the Board did not abuse its discretion in that the decision was supported by competent evidence in the record. Council upheld the Planning and Zoning Board's decision to approve the preliminary PUD plans." Councilmember Janett withdrew from discussion and vote on this item due to a perceived conflict of interest. Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kneeland, to adopt Resolution 94-32. The vote on Councilmember Horak's motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Apt, Azari, Horak, Kneeland, and McCluskey. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. 102 February 15, 1994 Resolution 94-33 ' Making Findings of Fact and Conclusions Regarding the Appeal from a Decision of the Planning and Zoning Board Relating to the Preliminary Plan for the Spring Creek Village PUD, Adopted The following is staff's memorandum on this item. "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The appeal by the affected parties - in- interest was based on the allegation that: 1. Regarding the Request to Increase the Number of Unrelated Persons in 66 Units from Three to a Maximum of Four: The Planning and Zoning Board approval was improper in that the Board failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Code and Charter. 2. Regarding the Preliminary P.U.D., As Conditioned by the Planning and Zoning Board: The Planning and Zoning Board approval was improper in that the Board failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Code and Charter. At the February 1, 1994 hearing on this matter, Council considered the testimony ' of City staff, the appellants, and the applicants of Spring Creek Village Preliminary P.U.D. After discussion at this hearing, Council determined that the Board failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Code and Charter on both allegations." Councilmember Janett withdrew from discussion and vote on this item due to a perceived conflict of interest. Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kneeland, to adopt Resolution 94-33. The vote on Councilmember Horak's motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Apt, Azari, Horak, Kneeland, and McCluskey. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Ordinance No. 8, 1994 Amending Chapter 29 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins Relating to Sign Regulations, Adopted as Amended The following is staff's memorandum on this item. "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY On January 18, 1994 the City Council adopted the provisions of this ordinance by a vote of 5-1. The ordinance contains recommended changes to the Sign Code as I a result of the recently concluded sign code review. In general, the regulations are two -fold: 103 February 15, 1994 First, a number of the changes are housekeeping in nature. They are designed to close identified loopholes or add clarity to existing provisions. Second, a number of the changes are substantive in that they establish new regulations or significantly alter existing regulations. Some of these changes would 1) create regulations for window signs, 2) reduce the maximum allowed size and height for certain signs, 3) eliminate all bonus programs and sign transfer provisions 4) create adjacency and orientation requirements for freestanding signs, 5) establish a setback table for ground signs, and 6) prohibit certain types of product displays. Section 19 of the ordinance appears in the form it was adopted on First Reading. It replaces the current "cap and replacement" regulation for off -premise signs with a regulation that would ban the construction of any new commercial off - premise signs and prohibit illumination from being added to existing off -premise signs. This Ordinance, which was adopted 5-1 as amended on First Reading on January 18, 1994, contained 3 options for Council to choose from regarding the treatment of such signs. Council adopted Option 2 of the ordinance, and that now appears as Section 19. (Option 1 maintained the "cap and replacement" ordinance, but added a provision which would prohibit the addition of illumination to new and existing off -premise signs. Staff has that option available if Council should decide to discuss the issue again). Amortization - Nonconforming Sians: On First -Reading, Council directed staff to prepare a possible amendment establishing a 10 year amortization period for the removal of all signs which would be made nonconforming by this ordinance. In response, the ordinance to be considered on Second Reading has three options dealing with nonconforming signs. These options are found in Section 4 of the ordinance. Option I is the same as presented on First Reading. It grandfathers in all nonconforming signs, but requires that such signs must be brought into compliance when any of a number of scenarios occurs, such as a change of use of the property or building. Option 2 contains all of Option 1, but additionally requires that all nonconforming signs must be brought into compliance after a 10 year amortization period (except those on property annexed to the city, which have a shorter 5 year amortization period). Option 3 contains all of Option 2, but requires that all nonconforming signs must be brought into compliance after a 10 year amortization period only if they exceed the new size and height limits by more than 20%. Those signs which exceed the new size and height limits by 20Y or less will be classified as conforming signs, and may remain indefinitely, subject to the scenarios which would trigger compliance of nonconforming signs. Common to all three options is the deletion of subparagraph (a), the deletion of some repetitive language in the current subparagraph (b) and the inclusion of some additional wording in subparagraph (c) of Section 29-563 of the existing code. Subparagraph (a) should have been deleted a number of years ago. All of the types of signs listed in (a) are now prohibited by Section 29-562, therefore (a) is redundant and unnecessary. Subparagraph (c) currently provides for a 5 ' year amortization period for nonconforming signs which are annexed to the city. All 3 options add a provision to (c) which refers to the proposed limitations imposed upon the continuance of nonconforming signs during their relative amortization periods. For instance, the new wording would require that an 104 February 15, 1994 annexed nonconforming sign would have to come into compliance sooner than 5 years ' if the use of the property changes. Staff believes that it is reasonable to keep in place the shorter, 5 year amortization period for county signs which are annexed, while at the same time allowing for a longer, 10 year period for existing city signs made nonconforming by the adoption of this ordinance. This is because signs in the City have been erected in compliance with the current Code. Consequently, the vast majority of such signs will be far less out of conformity with the new Sign Code provisions than the County signs which will be annexed. For instance, many of the properties in the County currently contain (1) more signs than allowed by the current Code, (2) signs which are taller than City signs, (3) rooftop signs and (4) other signs and sign features which are contrary to the foundation of the existing Code. Additionally, it is estimated that approximately 20Y of County signs were erected without a County sign permit. It is not unusual to be able to determine approximately where the city limits begin and end just by noticing the difference in the signs. Because of this general disparity in the degree of nonconformity between County signs and City signs, it is reasonable to maintain 2 different amortization periods. Neon Sionave Staff was also asked to prepare a possible amendment regulating neon signage for consideration at Second Reading. Since neon sign regulation was never discussed by the Planning and Zoning Board, the Council cannot take action until the P&Z Board has had the opportunity to review a proposal and make a recommendation to ' City Council (Section 29-44 of the City Code). If the Council wants staff to pursue such an amendment, staff will present something to the P&Z Board in the near future. Possible wording of a neon regulation would read as follows: "When any illuminated signs on a building or premise contain exposed neon tubing, the cumulative amount of such tubing shall not exceed ten (10) percent of the total allowable sign area for the premises." Any Councilmember making a motion regarding the adoption of Ordinance No. 8, 1994 should specify which option of Section 4 is to be considered as part of the motion." Peter Barnes, Code Administrator, stated that Section 4 has detailed changes for all three options which address the methods dealing with signs which will become non -conforming as a result of the proposed Code changes. He stated amortization applies to ground signs, pole -mounted signs, and back -lit awnings. He asked Council for guidance on whether to draft an amortization ordinance that addresses unprotected off -premise signs. Councilmember McCluskey asked what the percentage of signs would be affected by these changes. Barnes stated there are 463 freestanding signs and 432 ground signs. He stated it is estimated that 197 ground signs would be non -conforming which is under 50 percent and about the same number of freestanding signs. He stated about 25 ' percent of those non -conforming signs would be within the 20 percent tolerance. 105 February 15, 1994 ' Councilmember Janett asked that the location of the ground signs on site be determined by the business as long as it is within the requirements. Barnes stated the size and height of freestanding and ground signs is relative to the setback from the property line. Mayor Azari asked what the impact would be on those individuals dealing with off - premise signs. Barnes stated the amendment to the Code would repeal the Cap and Replacement Ordinance and replace it with an ordinance which would prohibit the construction of any new off -premise signs after February 25, 1994. Councilmember Apt made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Janett, to adopt Ordinance No. 8, 1994, with Option 2 for Section 4, on Second Reading. Tony Fonte, Little Caesars Pizza, stated all businesses need the opportunity to market their products and the restriction of window signage to four square feet eliminates that opportunity. He urged Council to increase the square footage so the business could be marketable to the consumer. Randy Morgan, owner of Outpost Sunsport, stated his business relies a great deal on signage for advertising and identification. He opposed any regulations which restrict any space located within the building such as window display or lighting. He asked where the funding was going to come from to enforce these regulations. He stated the lighted awning for their business reduces vandalism to the building. Sandra Cordova, sign painter, stated the window signs do need to be regulated; however, the four square foot of window signage allowed is not enough room for any type of advertising. Winette Payne, 1000 West Laurel, stated she was appalled at the off -premise billboard signs throughout the community. She stated the city needs fewer off - premise signs and supported the proposed amortization of off -premise signs. Loren Maxey, representative of Chamber of Commerce Legislative Committee, asked Council to consider tabling the item to review it in further detail. He stated amortization is basically a deadline for signs to conform with the Code or be forced out. He believed the existing signs should be grandfathered by the proposed Code change. Fred Gardner, Gardner Signs, believed the existing Code is reasonable and should not be changed. He provided slides of existing signs which would become non- conforming uses if the Ordinance were adopted. He stated the new Ordinance creates many hardships for the sign community and the small business community. He stated he strongly disagrees with the amortization proposed. Scott Mason, 861 Sandy Cove Lane, encouraged Council to adopt the Ordinance. He stated the Sign Code protects the community from unwanted signage. He stated the [ ' community is more visually acceptable. 106 February 15, 1994 Virgil Kline, Farmers Table Restaurant, stated he strongly opposed the Ordinance ' and asked Council to table the item until further review of what the outcome would be to the small business community. He stated losing a few parking spaces would hurt his business. He stated the current sign code is very effective and the adoption of this ordinance would be hurtful to the sign industry as well as the small business owners. He stated if the sign code keeps changing in this direction it will detrimental eternal affect on the small businesses. John Walker, Director of Scenic Colorado, stated he supported the Ordinance. He stated the community is sensitive to the scenery surrounding the city and signs are a type of visual pollution. Kelly Ohlson, 2040 Bennington Circle, stated he supported the Ordinance. He stated the review process has been more than adequate to inform various people affected by the sign code changes. He believed the amortization aspect of the Code is fair to all businesses affected by the proposed change. Gary Young, owner of Outdoor Promotions, stated he supported Option 3 of the Ordinance. He stated that ten billboard signs have been removed in the past three years and believed billboards are not a problem in this community. He stated there were nine meetings held to discuss the changes in the sign code and very few people attended. Connie Shawn, manager of Super 8 Motel, stated the motel currently supports six billboards throughout the community and that the proposed changes would adversely affect the motel's business. ' Tim Olson, representative of Gilsdorf Canvas and Awnings, stated his concerns with the proposed change relating to back -lit awnings. He stated the change in the Code would greatly affect this business if the Ordinance were to be adopted. He stated the brightness of the lighted awnings could be toned down, but backlighting should not be eliminated from the Code. John Stratsky, 2802 Garrett Drive, stated he supported outdoor advertising. He believed outdoor advertising is the most cost efficient way for restaurants to advertise. He opposed changes in the Code. Matt Hughes, Root Outdoor Advertising, stated the current sign code should not be altered. He stated the company has worked with the City in restricting the billboard industry and would like the opportunity to grow with the city. He stated the billboards provided by his company are maintained and are not an eyesore to the community. He urged Council to adopt Option 3 of Section 4 of the Ordinance. Al Anderson, American Outdoor Advertising, stated the current sign code works for the industry, small business owners, and the community and it should not be altered. He stated there has been not public outcry to change the sign code. Councilmember McCluskey asked why the percentage of ground signs were decreased so drastically. 107 February 15, 1994 ' Barnes stated ground signs and freestanding signs both have the staff recommendation of a decrease by 25 percent. He stated the height is different between ground signs and freestanding signs because a setback scale currently exists for the freestanding signs. Councilmember Kneeland asked if there was a component to monitor the upkeep of off -premise signs in the cap and replacement ordinance. Barnes stated the Code has a present requirement on maintenance that addresses structural issues. Mayor Azari asked if the aesthetic appearance on signs would change if the new sign code were to be adopted. Barnes stated it would allow for more creativity; however, some of the vertical ability in the designing of signs would be taken away. Councilmember Apt asked if the four foot limit on window signs starts after the maximum signage has been reached. Barnes stated that was correct and under this proposal it would only allow a business the four foot limit if it was at the maximum use. Councilmember Kneeland asked how the four foot restriction was decided upon. Barnes stated the sign code currently classifies certain types of signs as non - signs if they are under a certain size and advertise a certain type of message. He stated this four foot limit is constant with the current Code which exempts signs that are no larger then four feet. He stated the four foot sign is to advertise to foot traffic; whereas, the larger sign is to attract vehicular traffic. Councilmember McCluskey what the seven foot height requirement applies to. Barnes stated the seven foot height requirement applies to signs that are erected against the wall of a building. He stated the majority of signage throughout the city meet that requirement and just a small percentage are over the seven foot requirement. Councilmember Kneeland asked if the issue of lighted awning providing security for the business was raised. Barnes stated security lighting was discussed as a benefit from backlit awnings. He stated the proposal does not eliminate lit awnings, but it requires the lighting to be toned down. Councilmember Apt stated the amount of public process has been sufficient and believed the proposal is reasonable. He stated he would support the Ordinance and believed it was beneficial for the community. i, Councilmember Apt offered a friendly amendment to his previous motion to increase the window signage to a six square foot limit instead of four square feet. Councilmember Janett accepted the friendly amendment to the original motion. Wl February 15, 1994 Councilmember McCluskey stated the Code changes are feasible and enhance the community. He believed the amortization segment of the proposed Ordinance is unjust to the small businesses throughout the community. He stated placing signage in parking lots is unsafe and unattractive; however, the proposed changes do leave a path for more creativity in sign design. Mayor Azari believed Option 3 of Section 4 of the Ordinance is more reasonable than the motion to adopt Option 2. She stated there is an ongoing need to review the sign code and that there was adequate public discussion for the proposed changes to the Code. She stated she would not support the Ordinance; however, she did believe the sign code is a necessary part of the community. Councilmember Kneeland stated the Ordinance has a negative impact on small business owners. Councilmember Kneeland offered an amendment to the previous motion to increase the amortization to 15 years. The motion was seconded by Councilmember McCluskey. Kelly Ohlson, 2040 Bennington Circle, asked if the motion was a 15 year amortization with a 20 percent variance. He believed the previous motion was more preferable. John Walker, Director of Scenic Colorado, stated that a vote of the people is still more preferable than the Council deciding what to do with signage. Fred Gardner, President of Gardner Signs, stated he is in favor of a longer term because it complies with what the business community wants and needs. Councilmember McCluskey offered a friendly amendment to the previous friendly amendment to delete the 20 percent variance. Councilmember Kneeland accepted the motion as a friendly amendment to her previous motion. The vote on Councilmember Kneeland's motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Apt, Horak, Janett, Kneeland, and McCluskey. Nays: Councilmember Azari. THE MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Apt believed the Ordinance was a good compromise between the community and the businessowners. Councilmember Janett stated the new sign code is intended to reduce the size of signage throughout the city. She believed it created equity between the small businesses and the large businesses in this community. Mayor Azari stated the policy provides improvement among the signage around the city and provides aesthetic quality to the community. The vote on Councilmember Apt's motion as amended was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Apt, Azari, Horak, Janett, Kneeland, and McCluskey. THE MOTION CARRIED. 109 February 15, 1994 Items Relating to Amending the Building, Mechanical, Plumbing, Building Conservation and Electric Codes The following is staff's memorandum on this item. "FINANCIAL IMPACT The adoption of these Codes as proposed construction. Housing in particular is the range of $300 to $500 per unit. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY will have some impact on the cost of new likely to experience a cost increase in A. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 21, 1994, Repealing Chapter 5, Division 2 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins and Adopting the Uniform Building Code 1991 Edition, with Amendments. B. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 22, 1994, Repealing Chapter 5, Article IV, of the Code of the City of Fort Collins and Adopting the Uniform Mechanical Code, 1991 Edition, with Amendments. C. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 23, 1994, Repealing Chapter 5, Article V of the Code of the City of Fort Collins and Adopting the Uniform Plumbing Code 1991 Edition, with Amendments. D. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 24, 1994, Amending Chapter 5 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins by Adopting Chapter 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 and Appendix Chapter 4 of the Uniform Code for Building Conservation, 1991 Edition. E. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 25, 1994, Repealing Chapter 5, Article III of the Code of the City of Fort Collins and Adopting the National Electric Code 1993 Edition, with Amendments. The proposed model codes have undergone extensive review by staff, the Building Review Board (BRB), and the Code Review Committee. After nearly ten months of biweekly code review meetings, the vast majority of the new codes and amendments were endorsed by consensus. However, it was also clear that there would not be consensus on certain issues. Rather than present numerous options and in the interest of updating the main body of Fort Collins building codes without further delays, staff is recommending that Council act on the proposed package on First Reading. This package is the product of the Code Review Committee, staff, and BRB consensus where possible and the staff's best judgement for serving the community interest on those specific issues where consensus could not be achieved. Additionally, the Electric Board recently conservation standards beyond the model code. staff are recommending the energy component separate item in October to accomplish the a, integrated regulation with a prescriptive re current energy code is included by reference i expressed interest in electric The Electric Board, the BRB, and return for consideration as a iditional analysis needed for an sidential option, as well. The n this package. 110 February 15, 1994 The question of why not wait and raised. Because of a complete uniformity with other national delayed until 1995. BACKGROUND: Citizen Review Process: adopt the upcoming '94 UNIFORM codes was also format/organization change in a move toward codes, publication of the 1994 codes will be In early 1993 an ad hoc Code Review Committee, commissioned by the BRB, began the many hours examining the newest model codes and reviewing Fort Collins current amendments in detail. The Committee was a diverse group comprised of builders; professional designers; Building Review Board members; Commission on Disability members; regional code officials; a State energy office member; and various staff, including people from Utility Services, CPES, and PFA. At the suggestion of Committee members, staff conducted a mail survey last May of some 350 area contractors. The survey was in the form of an "open" question asking for opinions on effectiveness (or ineffectiveness) and cost vs. benefit of ANY requirements now in effect. Surprisingly, only a very small number of responses (about 5%), mostly from home builders, were returned in the postage paid envelopes provided. Though limited, the sampling provided an opportunity to examine some common industry concerns -- exterior landing size at patio doors, spacing of guardrail elements, and the proposed requirement for additional smoke detectors in homes. At the conclusion of the Committee's work, an evening open public forum was held on November 10 to gather reactions to the new codes and to identify any remaining issues not already discussed. The forum was advertised in the COLORADOAN, local trade association newsletters and in flyers at the Building Permits and Zoning customer counter. Attendance was light (about 10 people). Some of the same concerns as noted above from the surveys were expressed at the meeting. Attendees also commented extensively on the new Energy Code, voicing concerns about whether the standards had been adequately reviewed by the Committee and if the attendant costs of implementation had been fully considered, including City personnel resources needed to achieve adequate compliance. Among the other topics surfaced were accessibility standards as proposed by the Commission on Disability (COD) and radon mitigation systems for all new dwellings and further restricting wood roofing. A summary of the public forum comments is attached. A department newsletter, containing an article on the staff building code recommendations and adoption schedule, was mailed to all licensed contractors in early January. The BRB made its final recommendations to Council at the January 27th meeting, voting to adopt the proposed draft ordinances as presented with a number of specific exceptions detailed under the "Recommendations" section of this summary. 0 111 February 15, 1994 RECOMMENDATIONS: Only the significant or controversial issues, numbered I through 7, that were considered are individually summarized below. "Staff" (including consensus) recommendations, as contained in this package, are visually highlighted for clarity. Recommendations from the BRB and others are also noted in each item description. The bulk of the package, which contains non -controversial and housekeeping code revisions, is not discussed here. ACCESSIBILITY STANDARDS: UBC, Chapter 31 & Appendix Chapter 31 Amendment items (46), (47), and (72). Although there is general consensus for adopting Chapter 31 and Appendix Chapter 31 of the 1991 UNIFORM BUILDING CODE (the provisions that prescribe building accessibility and site accessibility requirements for people with disabilities), some members of the Commission on Disability are proposing the following three additional requirements that exceed both federal mandates (the ADA and the FAIR HOUSING ACT). 1. Include two- and three-family buildings under local accessibility regulations. (The federal FAIR HOUSING ACT applies only to four -unit and greater multi -family buildings. Current State law requires one accessible unit of every seven units in multi -unit residential "projects" containing more than 8 units.) 2. Specify a "ro11-in" (curbless) shower in at least one and in 109 of the required accessible units. (The new standards allow either a ro11-in shower or an accessible bathtub with a seat.) 3. Require ground floors of new individual, multi -level dwelling units within multi -unit buildings to be accessible. STAFF (COMMITTEE AND BRB) RECOMMENDATION: The committee discussed each COD proposal in great detail and concluded that the nationally recognized 1992 ANSI standard as referenced by the FAIR HOUSING ACT and the provisions in the model code together with the State law, without additional modifications should be used in Fort Collins. Reasons: In cases where two-family buildings and greater, totaling 7 units or more, are constructed on the same property as one "project" (as is typically done in most PUDs), State law supersedes the national threshold criterion of four - unit buildings. No data was presented supporting a greater need locally. Out of the thousands of public responses that contributed to developing the federal standards for the Act, the four -unit building was determined to be the economic threshold for continued accessible housing viability. The issue of requiring roll -in showers over an accessible tub sparked debate between disabled Committee participants. The Committee and staff believe the accessible bathtub is more "universally" accessible than a shower, especially for small children. 112 February 15, 1994 2. SMOKE DETECTORS: UBC, Section 1210(a) ' Several housing builders and the BRB oppose the new model code provision for the additional smoke detectors believing it is overkill and is not supported by evidence. Further, they maintain the additional $100 per unit for the extra two or three detectors is an unwarranted increase in the cost of new housing. Other comments in opposition relate to the belief that more detectors would increase the potential for false alarms causing occupants to disconnect the detectors altogether. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the provisions for additional smoke detectors as specified in the 191 UBC. Reasons: Staff believes the modest price is well worth the added early warning benefit and potential lives saved. National fire incident data suggests a significant number of fires start in bedrooms. We also feel strongly that Fort Collins should not have a lower standard than the model code for life safety. 3. GUARDRAIL SPACING: UBC, Section 1712, Amendment item (34) Some builders still believe the closer 4-inch spacing is not justified because they contend only tiny infants can fit through the 6-inch spacing previously allowed in the model code and in Fort Collins prior to our local amendment in 1990. Builders say there is significant cost associated with the closer dimension. The BRB also opposes this amendment as they did in 1990. ' STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Retain the current amendment for maximum 4-inch spacing between railing elements. Reasons: The model code now concurs with our current local amendment for maximum guard/stair rail spacing at 4 inches. After close examination of national data on injuries and toddler physiology four years ago, it was clear then the old 6- inch criteria could allow a significant population of small, ambulatory children to pass through. A follow-up study done last year using small children and mock- up test railings reinforced those earlier conclusions and Council's initial decision (see attached excerpt). We feel strongly that Fort Collins' early response to a serious child safety issue ahead of the model code should not be reverted to an outmoded standard. 4. EXTERIOR LANDINGS: UBC, Section 3304(i), Amendment item (55) Following the public meeting, staff concluded Fort Collins was virtually the only jurisdiction on the front range that enforced the full, 36-inch landing requirement at exterior residential patio doors. The single, extra deep 12-inch step compromise proposed seems to be consistent with the desires of most families without significantly affecting safety. CONSENSUS RECOMMENDATION: For the reasons described above, the 12-inch step option is contained in this I draft ordinance. 113 February 15, 1994 5. WOOD ROOFING The issue of further regulating wood roofing emerged late in the process. At the January 27 Health and Safety Committee meeting, PFA gave a presentation outlining its concerns over fire -spread potential in housing developments because of extensive use of wood roofing. The committee directed PFA and Building Permits staff to work together and return a recommendation on the appropriate public review process. CONSENSUS RECOMMENDATION: Based on the above action, the current standards for wood roofing are retained in the draft ordinance until the issue is given further study. 6. RADON MITIGATION The Committee reviewed this topic and concluded a "shotgun" approach requiring every new home to install a $1000 to $1500 passive sub -floor collection with a piped roof venting system is premature. Latest hazard potential maps produced by the EPA lack sufficient detail to make any intelligent code revision recommendations at this time. Additionally, the BRB and many builders believe this is an item of informed choice. CONSENSUS RECOMMENDATION: The BRB and Building Permits and Zoning staff believe further study is needed ' with more accurate site data before a wholesale local code is enacted mandating radon mitigation systems. 7. INDOOR AIR QUALITY: UBC, Section 605, Amendment item (17) UMC, Section 1002 (d), Amendment item (5) The above section of the '91 UBC increases outside air requirements for mechanically ventilated spaces from the current 10 cfm to 15 cfm per occupant in non-smoking areas. In rooms where smoking is allowed, the outside air requirement by local amendment would be increased from the current 15 cfm to 30 cfm per occupant. The proposed amended section of the UMC would prohibit the current practice of using conventional fabric duct tapes and require "approved" methods, such as commercial duct mastics and sealants. The added cost of construction is estimated at $300 for a typical home system. A number of builders argue that it is not cost-effective because, they contend, minimal air loss in heated spaces doesn't really affect furnace efficiency much, resulting in a very long-term pay- back. The BRB also opposes this added requirement. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the amended sections of the UBC and UMC. ' Reasons: Staff believes this is one area where minimal effort and cost on the front—end of home construction can really pay long-term benefits in comfort, energy efficiency, and improved indoor air quality. Better duct sealing methods ' is a relatively easy opportunity to improve indoor air quality and energy 114 February 15, 1994 efficiency, especially in homes. Studies have found that many home furnaces lose ' between 15% to %40 in operational efficiency due to pressure losses in the duct system. Also, unsealed ducts can introduce contaminants, such as insulation fibers and other known carcinogens, from non -habitable spaces. Typical fabric duct tapes nearly always lose adhesion in a few years. Felix Lee, Administrator of Building Permits and Inspections, stated the codes are published as a complete revised set of standards every three years. He summarized each code change in detail. Councilmember Janett asked when the wood roofing study would be completed. Councilmember Kneeland stated the Health and Safety Committee reviewed ratings of roofing and materials and believed more time was needed to review what was available to fit into the process at this time. Lee stated Poudre Fire Authority is currently reviewing this aspect and the plan is to return to the Health and Safety Committee with a recommendation on a timetable and public process within the next month or two. Councilmember McCluskey stated there is one insurance group that will provide reductions in a homeowner's premium if the house does not have wood shingles. Mayor Azari asked if the Commission on Disability will have more recommendations to add prior to Second Reading of the Ordinances. Lee stated the items were discussed at length with the Commission and he did not believe there would be further recommendations submitted. Councilmember McCluskey made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Apt, to adopt Ordinance No. 21, 1994, on First Reading. Rusty Collins, CSU Lecturer, believed the Commission on Disability is not satisfied with the proposed changes. He believed there is a need for accessible housing for the disabled in this community. He stated the units that are accessible for disabled persons have extremely high rents. Craig Larson, Poudre Valley Air, stated mastic seal of the duct systems is not any more effective than duct tape. He stated the costs of mastic seal are higher than the use of duct tape. He urged Council to postpone the Ordinance until more research on costs to the consumer are calculated. Bill Bartran, Bartran Homes, stated the use of mastic seal in homes does not assist affordable housing. He asked about the benefits to the consumer. He stated further research on mastic sealants in homes needs to be conducted prior to the adoption of the Ordinance. Dale Kirkley, 3020 West Prospect, stated the proposed changes will cost the consumer anywhere from $800 to $2,000 per unit depending upon the size of the structure. He stated the ACNC conditionally supports the changes to the codes. Les Corum, 1305 Remington, stated more research needs to be conducted on the I sealing of the heating systems. 115 February 15, 1994 Councilmember Horak asked for more explanation of the sealed heating systems. Lee stated there is a considerable amount of efficiency loss in the duct systems that are sealed with duct tape. He stated the mastic sealant would be more effective and provide for cleaner air throughout the home. Councilmember Horak asked about cost and benefits of the mastic sealant. Lee stated the mastic sealant improves efficiency by 10 or 20 percent in the heating system. He stated that percentage is a considerable pay back on the initial cost to the homeowner. Councilmember Kneeland asked if the inspection of the mastic sealant would be more cumbersome versus duct tape. Lee stated the material is visible from the outside and can be inspected for correct application of the product; however, it can not be taken apart to inspect the inside. Councilmember McCluskey asked if there are any other cities which have adopted standards using the mastic sealant. Lee stated studies have been completed on homes in Florida, Minnesota and South Carolina. The vote on Councilmember McCluskey's motion to adopt Ordinance No. 21, 1994 on ' First Reading was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Apt, Azari, Horak, Janett, Kneeland, and McCluskey. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember McCluskey, to adopt Ordinance No. 22, 1994, deleting Section 5-107 (5)(d), on First Reading. Councilmember Apt believed the usage of duct tape would be less efficient than the use of mastic sealant. He stated the duct tape needs to be re -applied more frequently than mastic sealant. Councilmember Horak asked for an analysis prior to Second Reading of why the City believes mastic sealant is the route to go. He stated a study should be conducted that would reveal the differences between mastic sealant and duct tape. He believed the Building Codes should be based on performance. The vote on Councilmember Horak's motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Apt, Azari, Horak, Janett, Kneeland, and McCluskey. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember McCluskey, to adopt Ordinance No. 23, 1994 on First Reading. The vote on Councilmember Horak's ' motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Apt, Azari, Horak, Janett, Kneeland, and McCluskey. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. 116 February 15, 1994 Councilmember McCluskey made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Horak, to adopt Ordinance No. 24, 1994 on First Reading. The vote on Councilmember McCluskey's motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Apt, Azari, Horak, Janett, Kneeland, and McCluskey. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kneeland, to adopt Ordinance No. 25, 1994 on First Reading. The vote on Councilmember Horak's motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Apt, Azari, Horak, Janett, Kneeland, and McCluskey. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Ordinance No. 26, 1994 Amending the Zoning District of the City of Fort Collins by Changing the Zoning Classification for that Certain Property Known as the Fossil Creek Estates Rezoning, Adopted The following is staff's.memorandum on this item. "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This is a request to rezone approximately 31.12 acres located west of South Shields Street approximately one mile south of Harmony Road and approximately 114 mile west of the southwest corner of South Shields Street and Fossil Creek Drive (extended). The property consists of one parcel of land under single ownership. The existing zoning is T, Transition, a zoning district for properties which are in a transitional stage with regard to ultimate development. The owner has petitioned the City to remove the property from the T Zoning District and place it in the RLP Zoning District, with a Planned Unit Development (PUD) condition. The applicants propose to develop this property with single family lots at a density of 3 dwelling units per acre. The proposed zoning of RLP is compatible with surrounding zoning and land uses and is in conformance with policies of the City's Land Use Policies Plan and the Intergovernmental Agreement. APPLICANT: Dr. Richard Wuerker c/o Jim Sell Design 117 East Mountain Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80524 OWNER: Dr. Richard Wuerker 363 West Drake Road, Suite Fort Collins, CO 80526 117 February 15, 1994 BACKGROUND: The owner of this property submitted a petition both for annexation and zoning, requesting the RLP Zoning District, on August 3, 1993. The Planning and Zoning Board considered the request at the September 27, 1993 hearing and recommended approval of both the annexation and zoning requests. City Council approved the requests on First Reading at the October 19, 1993 meeting, on the consent agenda. On November 2, 1993 Council approved the annexation request on Second Reading and placed the property in the T District. On December 21, 1993 the Council officially placed the property in the T District. On January 31, 1994 the Planning and Zoning Board considered this rezoning request and recommended approval of the proposed RLP zoning. - The property to the north, the Seven Springs/Hahn Annexation, known as the Cathy Fromme Prairie, was annexed to the City of Fort Collins on April 1, 1986. The owners had no immediate development plans for the property and requested that property be placed in the T, Transition Zone. The property was purchased by the City of Fort, Collins. The property to the east, known as the Wuerker Annexation, was annexed to the City on January 5, 1993 and because the owner had development plans for a single family subdivision, the owner requested and the property was placed in the RLP Zoning District, with a PUD condition. Zoning . The property is currently zoned T, Transition. The proposed zoning for this annexation is RLP, Low Density Planned Residential, with a PUD condition. The RLP District designation is for areas of low density residential development. The applicant intends to develop this property at a minimum density of 3 DU/acre. The T Zoning District does not permit any use, except such as existed on the date the property was placed in this District. According to Section 29-423 of the Code: "The owner of any property in the T District may at any time petition the city to remove the property from this zoning district and place it in another zoning district. Any such petition shall be referred to the Planning and Zoning Board to be considered at the next regular meeting of such board which is scheduled at least fifteen (15) days from the date the petition is filed with the City Clerk. Within sixty (60) days from the date the matter is considered by the Board, the City Council shall change the zoning for the property in question to another zoning district authorized under this Chapter." On January 7, 1994 the applicant filed a petition with the City Clerk, requesting that the property be placed in the RLP, with a PUD condition, Zoning District. ' The proposed RLP zoning is compatible with surrounding zoning and land uses. 118 February 15, 1994 The property to the north is in the T-Transition Zoning District and has recently been purchased as the Cathy Fromme Prairie, a Natural Open Space area. The property to the east is zoned R-L-P with a PUD condition. Properties to the south and west, in the County, are zoned FA-1, Farming, and consist of large rural parcels. Neighboring subdivisions within the City limits (within one half mile) include Clarendon Hills (zoned RLP) and the Ridge (zoned RLP). Subdivisions in the County include, Scenic Kno11s, Ader Acres, Applewood Estates, and Midway Subdivision. The proposed zoning of RLP for low density residential development within the Urban Growth Area is compatible with the surrounding zoning and land uses and meets the following land use policies of the City of Fort Collins: Policy #12 in Land Use Policies Plan states: "Urban density residential development usually at three or more units to the acre should be encouraged in the urban growth area." ' Policy #13 of the Land Use Policies Plan states: "Rural density residential development usually at one or less units to the acre shall not be allowed in the urban growth area." The property is located on the fringe of current urban development, although there are two large parcels of undeveloped property currently in the City with RLP zoning located approximately one mile to the south. Namely the Del Webb ' property on the east side of Shields (approximately 600 acres) and a parcel on the west side of Shields which is approximately 250 acres in size. The large residential lots to the north, in the Ridge Subdivision, are separated from this parcel by the one-half mile wide City Natural Area. The vacant property to the east, known as the Wuerker Annexation, is zoned RLP. The large residential lots to the east, known as Clarendon Hills, are zoned RLP and are separated from this parcel by Shields Street and the Wuerker parcel. An irrigation canal separates this property from the undeveloped rural parcel to the south, which is also within the UGA and zoned FA-1 in the County. Staff is recommending a PUD condition because the property is located adjacent to a City Natural Area, there are wetland areas on site, and there are other wildlife and environmental concerns, all of which are more successfully considered by the PUD process than by the current subdivision code. Additionally, the adjacent property to the east, which has PUD conditional zoning, is being combined with the subject property for development. A PUD condition is consistent with zoning in the area. Staff believes that the RLP Zoning District is an appropriate designation, given the location of the City's Natural Area, within an urban setting. The Natural Area was purchased of sufficient size to provide its own buffer to surrounding urban level development. Site specific environmental concerns, such as wetlands and wildlife impacts, relating to PUD development proposals for this property will be addressed through appropriate criteria of the Land Development Guidance I System. 119 February 15, 1994 Neighborhood Sign District Staff recommends that this property be included in the Residential Neighborhood Sign District and that the Residential Neighborhood Sign District Map be amended to reflect this addition: Approved by City Council on January 15, 1993, the Residential Neighborhood Sign District was established to regulate signage of non-residential uses in areas of the City which may be impacted by signage because of their predominantly residential use or character. The District includes neighborhood service centers, neighborhood convenience shopping centers, business services uses, and auto -related and roadside commercial areas that are in proximity to existing or planned residential areas. The District also includes residential areas in the City which may be impacted by the above listed uses. Areas located within the District are subject to all limitations and requirements of the District as defined in Sections 29-593 and 29-593.1 of the City Code. Findings On September 7, 1993, City Council considered a resolution setting forth the intent to annex this property and establishing the date of public hearing for the annexation and zoning ordinances. Ordinance to annex the property was approved by City Council on October 19, 1993. Ordinance to zone the property T, Transition, was approved by City Council on December 21, 1993. 2. The requested.zoning of RLP, Low Density Planned Residential with a PUD condition, is in conformance with the policies of the City's Land Use Policies Plan and the Intergovernmental Agreement and is compatible with the surrounding zoning districts and existing land uses. 3. The zoning of this property is required according to Section 29-423 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins. 4. On January 7, 1994 the applicant filed a petition, requesting to be removed from the T, Transition, District and be placed in the RLP, Low Density Planned Residential, District with a condition that the entire above described property be developed as a planned unit development (PUD) in accordance with the Ordinances of the City. 5. Site specific environmental concerns, such as wetlands and wildlife impacts, relating to PUD development proposals for this property will be addressed through appropriate criteria of the Land Development Guidance System. The area is to be included in the Residential Neighborhood Sign District and will be subject to all limitations and requirements of the district as defined in Sections 29-593 and 29-593.1 of the City Code. The Residential Neighborhood Sign District map will be amended to reflect this addition. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the requested zoning. 120 February 15, 1994 PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD RECOMMENDATION: t The Planning and Zoning Board, at its regular monthly meeting on January 31, 1994, voted 5-0 to recommend approval of the Fossil Creek Estates Rezoning to the RLP zoning district, with a PUD condition." Kirsten Whetstone, Project Planner, stated the property consists of one parcel of land under single ownership and the existing zoning is T-Transition. She stated the proposed change is to rezone the property into the RLP Zoning District. She stated the applicant proposes to develop the property with single family lots. She stated the project is in compliance with the City's Land Use Policies Plan and the Intergovernmental Agreement. Mayor Azari asked the types of conditions that would be placed on the project due to the surrounding natural area. Whetstone stated there are no specific conditions placed with the zoning. Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Apt, to adopt Ordinance No. 26, 1994, amending Section 3 to decrease the maximum density to two dwelling units per acre. , Councilmember Janett asked if the adjacent property to the east would be required to be developed with 3 dwelling units per acre. Whetstone stated the zoning for that property is RLP with the condition to allow the project to go lower than 3 dwelling units per acre. Councilmember Janett asked if there is buffering for the natural areas from the proposed project. Tom Shoemaker, Director of Natural Resources, stated the development would have some impact on the wildlife use of the natural area. He stated there is some buffering of the natural area. Councilmember McCluskey asked if two dwelling units per acre versus three dwelling units per acre would have a significant difference. Shoemaker stated that density is not necessarily the issue; whereas, the design and layout of the project might have more of an impact on the natural area. He stated the lower the density the more opportunity there is to increase the buffering of the natural area. Lucia Liley, representative of Fossil Creek Partners, stated the RLP Zoning with the PUD condition is consistent with the Land Use Policies Plan and several of the City's policy plans. She stated the project is compatible with the adjacent development and would be combined with the Wuerker Annexation as a single PUD. She stated as each phase comes forward for final approval it will deal with various environmental concern which could reduce the density. She stated the development needs to meet each and every condition that was placed on the property before any development can occur. She urged Council to adopt the I Ordinance. 121 February 15, 1994 Councilmember McCluskey believed a straight RLP zoning of the property is appropriate for that area. He stated the Planning and Zoning Board will review all the particulars and any conditions that need to be placed on the project. Mayor Azari stated the idea of increasing the overall density throughout the City has been reviewed; however, each project that comes forth for review will be handled individually. She believed the zoning of properties should not be in relationship to what the plan looks like, but that it is in the best interest to zone the property in its geographic area. Councilmember Janett stated she would not support the motion because density should not be decided because of the surrounding developments. She stated that there needs to be more discussion on how to develop next to natural areas because that is becoming more of a high priority to communities. Councilmember McCluskey made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Janett, to delete the portion of Councilmember Horak's motion amending Section 3 of Ordinance No. 26, 1994. Councilmember Janett asked if Council could place a condition on the Ordinance with regard to natural area management. City Attorney Roy stated there is an opportunity for Council to add any condition that is justifiable and reasonable in terms of protection of public health, safety, and welfare. He believed that a condition of this sort should not be added at this time. He stated any condition that Council would like to add might be more appropriate to the final review of the PUD for the property. The vote on Councilmember McCluskey's motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Apt, Janett, Kneeland, and McCluskey. Nays: Councilmembers Azari and Horak. THE MOTION CARRIED. The vote on Councilmember Horak's motion as amended was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Apt, Azari, Janett, Kneeland, and McCluskey. Nays: Councilmember Horak. THE MOTION CARRIED. Items Relating to Establishing a Development Review Fee Schedule and Reducing Affordable Housing Costs The following is staff's memorandum on this item. "FINANCIAL IMPACT To the City: If Ordinances are adopted by Council to recover 100% of the costs ' incurred for development review (planning) fees, the revenues received by these increased fees will be applied to the actual costs for planning review services. As a result, General Fund monies that have been used to cover these costs (planning review services) can now be used for other purposes, e.g., to pay the 122 February 15, 1994 impact fees for eligible housing projects. While this may not be perceived as ' having a detrimental impact to the General Fund in the short run, subsidizing impact fees may be viewed as a continuing service that will need to be funded in the future. It will be part of the spending base subject to growth limits under Article X, Section 20 of the Constitution. To Eligible Affordable Housing Projects: The financial impact would be to reduce some of the development costs for eligible affordable housing projects. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 27, 1994, Amending Chapter 29 of the City Code of the City of Fort Collins to Establish a Development Review Fee Schedule and Authorize a Waiver for Affordable Housing Projects (Option A and Option B). B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 28, 1994, Amending Chapter 23 of the City Code of the City of Fort Collins with Regard to the Payment of the Parkland Fee for Affordable Housing Projects and Appropriating Funds for such Purpose (Option A). or C. First Reading of Ordinance No. 28, 1994, Appropriating Additional Funds for Affordable Housing Purposes and Seeking a Recommendation from the Staff and Affordable Housing Board Regarding the Use of Such Funds (Option B) . The proposed ordinances to be considered by City Council will accomplish the Following: 1. Recover 100%'of the costs incurred for development review (planning) services: Option A of Ordinance No. 27, 1994, would increase planning fees for department's, excluding those departments or services that already recover such costs through other existing fee structures (Parks and 'Recreation, Zoning, Water and Wastewater, and Stormwater). • Option B of Ordinance No. 27, 1994, would increase planning Fees for departments except Parks and Recreation and Zoning, and would also establish new fees for Storm Water and Water/Wastewater planning review services. 2. Waive development review (planning) fees for Affordable Housing projects that meet certain eligibility requirements (Ordinance No. 27, 1994, Options A and B). 3. Appropriate monies from unanticipated General Fund Revenues for affordable housing purposes (Ordinance No. 28, 1994, Options A and I B). 123 February 15, 1994 4. Pay (subsidize) a portion (50q) of the parkland fees for eligible affordable housing projects (Ordinance No. 27, 1994, Option A) or refer this to staff and the Affordable Housing Board for additional analysis and recommendations by May 1994 (Ordinance No. 28, 1994, Option B). BACKGROUND: The Cost of Development Study, presented to City Council in 1993, included a study of Planning Review Fees. These fees are collected by the Development Review Division of the Planning Department for providing services specific to development -related items. During the City Council review of the Cost of Development Study, Council directed staff to develop a new schedule of fees to present for public input and for Council consideration. At the November 16, 1993, Council meeting, Council considered a number of options for establishing a Development Review Fee Schedule and voted 4-3 to direct staff to: (Section 1) Prepare an ordinance whereby 100% of the costs incurred for development review services by all City departments that provide such services would be recovered through a fee schedule. This would exclude those departments or services that presently recover such costs through other existing fee structures. The General Fund departments that would be excluded are Parks and Recreation and Zoning. The Utility Service departments that could be excluded (depending on which option the Council selects) are Stormwater and Water and Wastewater. These departments currently recoup their development review costs through their rate structure rather than as up- front fees. (Section 2) Prepare options whereby City use tax revenues would be used to defray the costs incurred by affordable housing projects for development review services and other related City fees. PLANNING REVIEW FEES Historically, Fort Collins has absorbed the costs associated with the review of planning items and maintained low fees; however, the policy base for the current fee schedule is unclear. Also it is not clear what costs these fees were intended to cover. The present costs of providing development review services were determined through data collected from City departments and divisions that regularly participate in reviewing development -related applications. "Typical" was defined as the best measure of an estimated amount of time spent on each type of application, since actual time spent per project varies and is not recorded for each project. ' Data was collected for both personal service costs (salary and benefits) and non -personal service costs (i.e. equipment depreciation, supplies, telephone charges) based on the amount of staff time and expenses devoted to development review activities. Indirect administrative costs were provided by the City's 124 February 15, 1994 Budget Office and include charges for those departments that provide internal support (i.e. City Manager, City Clerk, Finance and Employee Development). Planning Review Fee Policy The City's Fee Policy, adopted in 1992, contains criteria for determining the extent to which total cost of service should be recovered, as follows: 1. Nature of services. When a service is proprietary in nature, rather than governmental, a higher level of cost recovery is warranted. Governmental services are those which are provided for the public good (i.e. land use, maintaining streets, police and fire protection). 2. Nature and extent of the benefit to fee payers. When a particular service results in substantial, immediate and direct benefit to the fee payers, a higher percentage of the cost of providing the service should be recovered by the fee. When a particular service benefits not only the fee payer, but also a large portion of the community, lower cost recovery is warranted. Level of demand for a particular service. Full cost recovery is more appropriate when the market for the services is strong and will support a high level of cost recovery. Ease of collection. Although it may be determined that a high level of cost recovery is otherwise appropriate for a particular service, it may be impractical (too costly, too burdensome) to establish such a cost recovery system. I Citizen Involvement There have been two focus group meetings held to discuss these proposed planning review fees (see attached minutes). Several issues were raised at these meetings, as well as at the October 4 Planning and Zoning Board meeting. These issues are generally summarized as relating to why revenues (sales tax) were not considered in the proposed fee increases, how fees would be applied for affordable housing projects, sliding scale fees for particular types of projects, and why the appeal fee was not considered as part of this study. Planning and Zoning Board Recommendation At the October 4, 1993, Planning and Zoning Board meeting, the Board voted 4-3 to recommend that the Cost Recovery Level for Development Review Fees be set at 20% and that fees be based on the "A11 Costs" category, excluding those departments that are currently charging fees that recover development -review related costs (Parks and Recreation and Zoning). The Board also 'recommended the following actions be taken: 1. Establish a means of waiving or reducing fees for small scale projects; 2. Review fees on an annual basis for inflation, as well as for the costs of providing the service; ' 3. Record Data on the time actually spent on projects; and 4. Address the Appeals Fee under the same basis philosophy (determining costs and establishing level of cost recovery). 125 February 15, 1994 Stormwater Development Review Fees Under the current system within the Stormwater Utility, the Utility absorbs development review costs in its operations and maintenance (0&M) budget. The payment of monthly O&M fees by all properties in the City pays for these services. The development community pays no direct fees to Stormwater for plan review services. The current costs associated with the review of development plans in the 0&M budget is estimated to be $158,000 annually. Costs associated with this budget includes items such as staff salaries for review, issue resolution and processing of plans and permits, consultant time used to supplement staff, and overhead such as office space, telephone and utilities. In some instances, staff time is unnecessarily spent on the review of plans that are not as complete as others. Staff finds itself in the position of providing quality checks for consultants and research to ensure plans are complete. Other plans require little time because consultants do the research before submittal or the plans are complete and easy to understand. There is no one method or right answer in the method and the amount of the recovery of development` review costs. For Stormwater, the recommended method is to collect fees at the time of submittal, while for others collection at the time of building permit is the best possible method. The Storm Drainage Board, in discussions with the staff, has determined that the collection of development fees at the time of submittal is the best method to meet the objectives of rewarding good submittal and penalizing those that are not. Those doing a good job should be rewarded. The submittal method is defined as the collection of a ' fee for that type of land use classification each time a set of plans is submitted for review. When the plans are submitted for signature, no fees are collected. The Storm Drainage Board at its January 13, 1994, meeting unanimously adopted the method to recover development review costs through a fee each time a project is submitted for review. The Board recommendation and minutes are attached. Water & Wastewater Development Review Fees There are various methods which could be used to establish fees that recover 100 percent of the costs associated with development review. The staff's goal was to use a method that would be simple to calculate, provide equity among the various user categories (i.e. residential, commercial, etc.) and be easy to administer. The fees contained in the proposed ordinance are designed to recover 100 percent of the costs associated with the Utility's review of development plans and preparation of permit applications. The fees recover costs associated with conceptual, preliminary, and final plan review; field and TV inspection of lines; and administration of water rights, reimbursement agreements and permit programs. The fees are based on three years of historical information. The portion of the fee designed to recover the costs associated with plan review and inspection is based on a sliding scale, from $76 for single family dwellings to $500 for commercial users with water meters 1-112 inches or larger. The ' other portion of the fee, designed to recover costs associated with permit applications and administration, is a flat $96 per permit. 126 February 15, 1994 Based on three years of historical permit data, the proposed development review ' Fees should recover an estimated $150,000 in administrative costs associated with new development. Development review costs have not previously been identified and directly charged to the user. Rather, these costs have been covered, together with other administrative costs from revenue generated by monthly user fees. At its January 21, 1994, meeting, the Water Board voted 8-1 in favor of a motion "supporting the methodology and fee structure, but not necessarily endorsing the underlying philosophy." The Board member who voted against the motion clarified that he supported the methodology and fee structure, but did not support the "not necessarily endorsing the underlying philosophy" part of the motion. AFFORDABLE HOUSING IMPACT In conjunction with recovering a greater development reviews (planning) fees, staff costs to affordable housing projects. percentage of the costs incurred for is proposing several options to reduce If Council feels ready to implement some specific policy options to reduce the costs for affordable housing projects, the options proposed include: Facts 1. Waive development review (planning) fees for affordable housing projects that meet certain eligibility requirements (Ordinance No. 27, 1994, Options A and B). 2. Appropriate monies from unanticipated General Fund revenues for ' affordable housing purposes and use the monies to pay the parkland fees for eligible affordable housing projects (Ordinance No. 28, 1994, Option A). Council can also consider Option 8 of Ordinance No. 28, 1994. This would appropriate additional funds for affordable housing purposes (like Option A) but the monies would be held in abeyance, pending recommendations from the staff and Affordable Housing Board. a. In 1993, the City recovered $15,540 (or 4%) of the costs* for development review services; the total costs amounted to $359,860. Another way to view this is that the General Fund subsidized development review costs at approximately 96Y ($344,320) in 1993. b. Currently, the City does not have a policy for defraying costs incurred by affordable housing projects for development review services and/or impact fees. C. In 1993, the average price of all single family houses sold in Fort Collins was $116,000 per home. d. For low and moderate income families (4-person household size), an ' affordable price for a single family home ranges to a maximum of $85,000. 127 February 15, 1994 ' e. In 1993, the City approved one (1) low-income housing project; development review fees totaled $170 (at 100% cost recovery, planning fees would have totaled $5,360) and impact fees (parkland, water, wastewater, storm drainage, light and power, street oversizing) totaled $446,311 for this project. The project development costs (excluding interest costs; profit; other related costs) for this 120-unit project are approximately $5.65 million. *General Fund Costs Waive the development review (planning) fees for eligible affordable housing projects It is suggested that all planning fees (e.g., application fees for PUD plans) be waived for each eligible affordable housing project. This means that these fees would not be collected for planning review services for these projects. As an example, planning fees for the most recently proposed affordable housing project (Rose Tree Village) totaled $170; at 100Y cost recovery, planning fees for this project would have totaled $5,360. The benefits of such waivers include: reduction of up -front planning review costs for eligible affordable housing projects; such a reduction may translate into more affordable housing units or amenities for these projects; increasing the availability of affordable housing in our community is a public policy goal. The disadvantages include: may not be able to ensure that such waivers are ' applied to reduced project costs versus increased profits; prohibits 100% cost recovery for planning services; the timing of up -front fee waivers may not be as advantageous to reducing costs as some other approach, e.g., rebates after a project is completed. Further, it is suggested the criteria by which affordable housing projects would be considered eligible for fee waivers (planning fees) are as follows: Housing that can be purchased or rented by people of low or moderate incomes (i.e., incomes of less than 80% of the City's median income) where the occupant, either the owner or renter, pays no more than 30% of their gross income for housing costs, including utilities. Housing projects, where at least 51 percent of its dwelling units are available to rent or purchase on the terms stated above, would be eligible to have all (100%) planning review fees waived. These criteria are consistent with HUD criteria and the definition of "affordable housing" in the City's Affordable Housing Policy and by establishing some baseline criteria now, it enables the City to begin immediately to reduce the costs for affordable housing projects. Establish an ongoing General Fund appropriation that would be used for eligible affordable housing projects. Fort Collins has covered or subsidized the costs associated with reviewing and processing development plans. The Cost of Development Study (1993) indicated that the City's current level of cost recovery for providing planning review 128 February 15, 1994 services was approximately 2-I19 of the actual cost. Another way to view this I is that the City's General Fund (with taxes as the primary revenue source) has been subsidizing development review costs in a range of 89% to 98%. Questions of equity have been raised: why should the taxpayers pay for (subsidize) the costs associated with building new houses; if we are concerned with finding ways to provide more affordable housing units in our community and if we are willing to subsidize some housing costs, why not subsidize where the real needs are -- affordable housing? Providing additional funds for affordable housing projects could be achieved by: ► Using the new (increased) fees to cover the actual costs of providing planning review services -- rather than using General Fund revenues (predominantly sales and use taxes) to "subsidize" these costs as is the current practice. ► Using the "freed up" General Fund revenues to pay some impact fees (e.g., parkland fees) for eligible affordable housing projects. A certain dollar amount of these General Fund monies would be designated as an ongoing, annual appropriation for this purpose; this would be subject to periodic review to determine any necessary adjustments (to increase or decrease the appropriation related to what is needed to cover fees). Staff estimates that planning fee revenues (General Fund) will increase by $255,000 in 1994 -- this is a conservative estimate and is based on eight and ' one-half months of adjusted revenues. If this estimate is accurate, it means that General Fund monies of the same amount ($255,000) would be available to support other service needs. Staff is proposing that $165,000 be appropriated and placed into an account for affordable housing purposes. This proposed appropriation is based on: • the assumption that some impact fees, such as the parkland fees, may be paid (subsidized) by the General Fund. • as an example, parkland impact fees for three affordable housing projects (Hickory Hill, Willow Grove Village, and proposed Rose Tree Village) averaged $65,300 for each of the projects. • it is estimated that two to four eligible affordable housing projects will be processed annually. Pay (subsidize) the park7and fees for eligible affordable housing projects. 129 February 15, 1994 Another step to reduce the costs of affordable housing projects, would be to use the General Fund monies appropriated for affordable housing purposes to pay (subsidize) a portion (50q is suggested) of parkland fees. The City requires housing development projects to pay impact fees for public improvements needed to support such developments (i.e., parkland, street oversizing, storm drainage, water, sewer, and light and power). However, the need and demand for parks in our neighborhoods continues to outstrip the City's ability to acquire and develop parklands. This is not the case (to the same degree) with other infrastructure needs. The benefits of paying a portion of parkland fees include: it helps to ensure that adequate funds are available to acquire and develop parks in areas where affordable housing projects are built -- an outright waiver of parkland fees would reduce monies available for this purpose and contribute to a delay in parkland acquisition or development; this shifts the General Fund's "subsidy" from supporting planning service costs for average and expensive residential development to paying some of the parkland fees (and supporting the acquisition and development of parks that will benefit these housing projects) for and reducing a portion of the cost of affordable housing projects; at 50% there is a greater likelihood that monies would be available for a parkland fee subsidy for every eligible projects. However, while parks enhance the quality of life in neighborhoods, using these funds to pay (subsidize) parkland fees that would otherwise be paid by the (affordable housing) developer precludes their use for other affordable housing services and/or other general community services. Also, a staff analysis, public outreach, and review by the Affordable Housing Board has been limited concerning paying (subsidizing) parkland or any other impact fees for eligible affordable housing projects. Consequently, staff is recommending that staff, working with the Affordable Housing Board, conduct further analysis and formulate recommendations for the Council to consider in May 1994. Summary Council direction was to revise current policy to recover a greater share of the City's costs for providing development review (planning) services and to create new policies that will increase the availability of affordable housing in our community and achieve a more fair and equitable distribution of housing costs and subsidies. Staff feels the policies presented for Council consideration are in keeping with Council 's direction." Diane Jones, Deputy City Manager, stated that Ordinance No. 27, 1994, would recover 100 percent of the City's cost for providing planning review services and waive the fees for affordable housing projects that meet certain eligibility requirements. She explained that Ordinance No. 28, 1994, would appropriate monies for affordable housing purposes and provides the Council with the option to pay or subsidize a portion of the Parkland Fees or ask staff and the Affordable Housing Board for some additional analysis on the subsidization of impact fees and eligibility requirements. She explained the different options for each Ordinance and what the financial impacts to the City would be. ' Councilmember Janett asked if the waiver of fees would be paid by the City's General Fund. 130 February 15, 1994 Jones stated the fees would not be collected if they were waived. She stated the ' fees would be waived for low income projects and for moderate income projects half of the fees would be waived. Councilmember Horak stated that the General Fund would cover the cost of the review. Councilmember Apt asked if a line item would be included in the budget that shows the subsidies. Jones stated there currently is an item in the budget for affordable housing uses. Councilmember .McCluskey asked about the Planning and Zoning Board's recommendation'on the affordable housing aspect. Jones stated the Planning and Zoning Board has not reviewed the materials in its current format. She stated the Board's recommendation was sent to Council's November 16th meeting. Councilmember Apt asked how the 51% number of dwelling units are considered to be affordable units was arrived at. Ron Phillips, Interim Planning Director, stated the eligibility criteria follow the HUD Guidelines for affordable housing and the 51% is a part of the HUD Guidelines. Councilmember Janett asked if there would be a procedure or application that ' would standardize the materials submitted so that the proposed project would show that it is meeting the 51% criteria. Phillips stated the projects would follow the same guidelines that other projects follow when applying for tax credits. He stated a specific procedure has not been developed at this time. Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Janett, to adopt Ordinance No. 27, 1994, Option A.1 directed staff prior to Second Reading to add a section that deals with small projects and with projects that have an economic benefit, and changed the Second Reading date to March 15, 1994. Mary Cosgrove, Chairperson of the Affordable Housing Board, stated the Board supports the adoption of both Ordinances on First Reading. She stated all of the Board's concerns have been addressed. She stated the Ordinances are compatible with the affordable housing needs of Fort Collins. Kelly Ohlson, 2040 Bennington Circle, believed the community is highly concerned with the rapid rate of growth and the way it is being managed. He stated affordable housing and the cost of growth and development need to be equitable. He stated monies should be taken from the Enterprise Funds and not from the General Fund. He stated the City needs to state that growth and development pays its fair share. I 131 February 15, 1994 Becky Maloney, representative of the Larimer County Affordable Housing Task Force, stated the Task Force approves the concept of a sliding scale for planning fees based on the cost of the unit being constructed. She stated the Task Force endorses the waiver of planning fees for affordable housing units which need to be subsidized. She stated this kind of subsidy for affordable housing is necessary so it will be financially possible to build housing at the low end of the housing market. Lou Stitzel, 521 East Laurel, stated she supported the proposed Ordinances. She stated affordable housing is an aspect of growth and development for the city. She stated more research should be completed with regard to the percentages proposed and that a study should be completed based on the number of units and people in the development as a comparison. Mike Bennett, representative of the Chamber of Commerce Legislative Affairs Committee, stated the recovery of development costs is not unreasonable. He asked about the community benefit and the effects of a subdivision. He stated each new fee adds a cost to a house which is ultimately paid by the buyer consumer of the home. He stated when the cost of a new house is increased the demand for older homes will increase. He stated the Chamber recommends a process to allocate a fee of no more than 50% of that cost on a tiered basis. He recommended a specific line item be added to the City's budget so the public can see exactly what has been done to help affordable housing. Scott Mason, Citizen Planners, encouraged Council to adopt Ordinance No. 27, 1994 Option B. He encouraged staff to continue researching into other cases where ' taxpayers are subsidizing new development in Fort Collins. He stated this Ordinance is another opportunity to obtain more resources for affordable housing. He stated affordable housing policies need to be developed to determine eligibility, amount of money to be appropriated and issues of waivers and subsidies. He urged Council to adopt Ordinance No. 28, 1994 Option A. Sister Mary Alice Murphy, Catholic Community Services Northern, stated Fort Collins is in need of affordable housing for its residents. She believed the Ordinances are a step in the right direction for accomplishing the needs of the community. She stated guidelines such as these set examples for other communities to help its residents find the proper housing. Tim Johnson, 2939 Brookwood Place, urged Council to adopt Option B of Ordinance No. 27, 1994. He asked Council to direct staff to finish the Cost of Development Studies in all areas. Dale Kirkley, Associated Contractors of Northern Colorado, stated the Association is concerned with the proposed tier system of planning costs. He stated these proposed Ordinances greatly affect the small developer. He stated if the small developer is phased out of this city the larger developers will be able to dictate land costs. He stated infill projects will suffer and urban sprawl will be created if the proposed Ordinances are adopted. He believed affordable housing issues and concerns should be placed as a line item in the budget. He stated an efficiency review should be done in connection with any increases. ' David Roy, 1039 West Mountain, believed a 100% of the costs should be recovered. He urged Council to defeat Councilmember Horak's motion. He stated affordable housing should contribute 0% of the costs. 132 February 15, 1994 Ward Luthi, 1630 West Swallow, stated affordable housing should not be the main ' focus, but that the first issue should be growth paying its own way. He stated the concern just does not lie with housing but also with commercial development. He urged Council to adopt Option B of Ordinance No. 27, 1994 and believed the utilities should cover part of the costs. He believed the City should set its own master plan for affordable housing and should not use the HUD guidelines. Councilmember Janett asked if the rate schedule could be reviewed every year. She believed that a flat rate policy set for a certain amount of time is not effective. City Manager Burkett stated there are a variety of ways to calculate the costs. Byrne stated the costs were calculated on typical projects, which reviewed actual staff time spent in reviewing the projects. Councilmember Janett asked if a review has ever been done on a methodology for determining costs. Byrne stated that in reviewing the methodology aspect, staff found that it would involve a very complex accounting system for tracking hours. He stated that option was considered and declined because of the administrative costs involved. Councilmember Kneeland stated she would support the Ordinance. She stated the three tiered system addresses the majority of issues for the community. She stated there should be housing available to all income levels and not just high I or low end. Councilmember McCluskey stated the Planning and Zoning Board needs to review the affordable housing piece. He stated that it appears the Affordable Housing Board would like more time to review this project. Councilmember Janett stated she would support the Ordinance. She stated growth should pay its own way and that recovering the costs from development is a step in the right direction. Councilmember Apt stated he would support the Ordinance. He stated,there is still a lot of work to be done in several areas, but this Ordinance provides the step to recover a lot of the costs in this point in time. He believed the affordable housing aspect needs to be reviewed further in the future. Mayor Azari stated she would support the Ordinance and believed it was a step in the right direction for this community. She stated the City's planning processes are a public benefit. Councilmember Horak stated this Ordinance benefits both the City and the community. He stated this Ordinance benefits affordable housing. The vote on Councilmember Horak's motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Apt, Azari, Horak, Janett, and Kneeland. Nays: Councilmember McCluskey. THE MOTION CARRIED. 133 February 15, 1994 ' Diane Jones, Deputy City Manager, suggested $165,000 of the appropriated money stated in Section 1 of the Ordinance be changed to $133,000 to match the 80 percent level. Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kneeland, to adopt Ordinance No. 28, 1994, Option B and amending Section 1 changing the $165,000 to $133,000 and to change the Second Reading date to March 15, 1994. Mary Cosgrove, Affordable Housing Board. stated the Board would like to be involved in the funding aspect of the Ordinance. Lou Stitzel, 521 East Laurel, stated she supported the Ordinance and urged Council to adopt the Ordinance. Councilmember Horak stated the Ordinance helps to specify where the money would be appropriated other than the General Fund. He stated the Affordable Housing Board should participate in reviewing the funding aspect and fees for affordable housing. Councilmember McCluskey stated this Ordinance provides the opportunity for the various Boards to review what is best for the community. He stated he would support the Ordinance. The vote on Councilmember Horak's motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Apt, Azari, Horak, Janett, Kneeland, and McCluskey. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Other Business Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kneeland, to adjourn the meeting to 6:30 p.m. on February 17, 1994. The vote on Councilmember Horak's motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Apt, Azari, Horak, Janett, Kneeland, and McCluskey. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 12:25 a.m. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk 1 134