Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES-04/19/1988-RegularApril 19, 1988 ' 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, April 19, 1988, at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers in the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll call was answered by the following Councilmembers: Estrada, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Mabry, Stoner, and Winokur. Absent: Councilmember Maxey Staff Members Present: Burkett, Huisjen, Krajicek Citizen Participation A. Proclamation Naming April 19 as Fort Collins High School Symphonic Band Day was accepted by Jeff Allen, member of the Fort Collins High School Symphonic Band. B. Proclamation Naming April as Barbershop Harmony Month was accepted by ' Lee Ischinger, president of the Fort Collins Chapter of the the Preservation and Encourage of Barbershop Quarter Society for Singing in America. C. Presentation highlighting Women's Collection at Fort Collins Public Library. Valerie Mauksch, member of the Commission on the Status of Women, spoke about the Women's Collection and thanked Council for their support regarding women's issues. Presentation to winners of essay contest sponsored by Commission on the Status of Women. Kay Short, member of the Commission on the Status of Women, presented awards to the winners of the essay contest. Presentation of Donation to Lincoln Center to enhance sound system for children's performances. Susan Gunstream and Deanna Atchison, members of the Fort Collins Junior League presented a check for $2,054 to Rick Goodale, Chairman of the Lincoln Center Board, for the acquisition of additional sound system equipment for the performance hall. -59- April 19, 1988 F. Rick Goodale, Chairman of the Lincoln Center Board, presented a check for $50,000 in payment of the private share of the costs for renovating the Canyon West room at the Lincoln Center. The following persons spoke regarding police enforcement during the month of April relating to College Days. 1. David Ronson, CSU student, spoke of his arrest for disorderly conduct during a party at the corner of Locust and College. He stated he believed the police officers involved acted inappropriately. 2. Robert Paul Church, 214 North Sherwood, described police action at a party he hosted. 3. Sandy Lemberg, Poudre Canyon resident, objected to police brutality and expressed his support for individuals involved in recent police actions. 4. David Lipp, 626 Remington, questioned police procedure in entering a citizen's home. ' Agenda Review: City Manager Councilmember Mabry requested Item #16, Resolution 88-53 Authorizing Professional Services Agreements with Black and Veatch Engineers for Water Treatment Capacity Optimization, be withdrawn from the Consent Agenda. Consent Calendar This Calendar is intended to allow the City Council to spend its time and energy on the important items on a lengthy, agenda. Staffrecommends approval of the Consent Calendar. Anyone may request an item on this calendar be "pulled" off the Consent Calendar and considered separately. Agenda items pulled from the Consent Calendar will be considered separately under Agenda Item #21, Pulled Consent Items. 5. AI Police Services has been awarded a grant from the Colorado Division of Criminal Justice under the "Communities for a ',Drug Free Colorado" 0 April 19, 1988 ' program, totalling $65,479. These funds will be used to provide additional manpower, sophisticated undercover operations training for four officers, surveillance van, and high-tech electronic equipment to be used by the narcotics/intelligence group. Further, it is the intent of this agency to reorganize our Investigations Division to allow a team of five investigators to focus strictly on narcotics, intelligence and white collar crimes. 1 This Ordinance, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on April 5, appropriates $65,479 in grant funds for expenditure in the Fort Collins Police Services Narcotics Investigations program. Items Relating to the Flatiron East Prospect Road First Annexation and Zoning. A. Resolution 88-52 Finding Substantial Compliance and Initiating Annexation Proceedings. First Reading of Ordinance No. 51, 1988, Annexing Approximately 144.498 Acres, Known as the Flatiron East Prospect Road First Annexation. First Reading of Ordinance No. 52, 1988, Zoning Approximately 144.498 Acres, Known as the Flatiron East Prospect Road First Annexation, into the I-G General Industrial District with Conditions as Stated in the Annexation Agreement. APPLICANT: Cottonwood Farms OWNERS: Flatiron Companies P.O. Box 229 Prospect Land Company Boulder, CO same address James G. Milne, Jr. Box 54 Lucerne, CO This is a request to annex and zone approximately 144.498 acres located south of East Prospect Road and east of"the Poudre River. The requested zoning is the I-G General Industrial District. The property is presently developed and utilized for sand and gravel' processing operations. Items Relating to the Sludge Farm Annexation and Zoning._ First Reading of Ordinance No. 53, 1988, Annexing Approximately 324.1479 Acres, Known as the Sludge Farm Annexation. First Reading of Ordinance No. 54, 1988, Zoning Approximately 324:1479 Acres, Known as the Sludge Farm Annexation, into the RC River Corridor District. -61- 10 April 19, 1988 APPLICANT: City of Fort Collins OWNER: Same This is a request to annex and zone approximately 324.1479 acres located south of East Prospect Road and west of I-25. The requested zoning is the RC River Corridor District. The property is presently developed as the City's Resource Recovery Farm. This is a voluntary annexation. Items Relating to the Strauss Cabin First Annexation First Reading of Ordinance No. 55, 1988, Annexing Approximately 27.6055 Acres, Known as the Strauss Cabin First Annexation. First Reading of Ordinance No. 56, 1988, Zoning Approximately 27.6055 Acres, Known as the Strauss Cabin First Annexation, into the RC River Corridor District. APPLICANT: City of Fort Collins OWNERS: Same This is a request to annex and zone approximately 27.6055 acres located south of East Prospect Road and west of I-25. The requested zoning is the RC River Corridor District. The property is presently developed as part of the City's Resource Recovery Farm. This is a voluntary annexation. Items Relating to the Strauss Cabin Second Annexation A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 57, 1988, Annexing Approximately 46.4996 Acres, Known as the Strauss Cabin Second Annexation. First Reading of Ordinance No. 58, 1988, Zoning Approximately 46.4996 Acres, Known as the Strauss Cabin Second Annexation, into the RC River Corridor District. APPLICANT: City of Fort Collins OWNERS: Same This is a request to annex and zone approximately 46-.4996 acres located south of East Prospect Road and west of I-25. The requested zoning is the RC River Corridor District. The property is presently developed as part of the City's Resource Recovery Farm. This is a voluntary annexation. On November 3, 1987, Ordinance No. 173, 1987, was adopted, which made certain changes to Section 2-353(4) of the Code. Then, on January 19, 1988, prior to the codification of the November 3, 1987 amendment, this Section was amended by Ordinance No. 4, .1988. This second ordinance failed to include the changes which were made on November 3, 1987. The reason for the omission was that the earlier amendment had -62- April 19, 1988 ' not yet appeared in the Code because the Code publisher had not, by the time of preparation of Ordinance No. 4, 1988, published the first change. This matter is, therefore, a housekeeping item for the purpose of including both revisions in Section 2-353(4) so that the language desired by the City for that Section will be, clear and understandable to the Code publisher. 12. 13. This Ordinance amends the definitions of food, prescription drug, and prosthetic device as contained in the sales and use tax provisions of the City Code. The changes are designed to make the definitions consistent with those of other home -rule municipalities in order to provide uniformity for vendors operating in more than one municipality. Staff continues to recommend lease purchase as a viable method of providing for equipment needs. This method spreads the cost of the vehicles over their useful life, thus leveling budget requirements. ' The City solicited lease/purchase financing proposals from the previous two lowest bidders and First Interstate Bank of Fort Collins by telephone on April 11, 1988. The lowest net effective interest rate of 7.95% was received from Maryland National Leasing Corporation (MNC Leasing) of Baltimore, Maryland. Money for the 1988 lease/purchase payments was budgeted when the 1988 Budget was adopted in October, 1987. 14. 15. This Ordinance contains certain rules and regulations regarding the use of the parks, open spaces and trails owned by the City. , Section 23-201 of the City Code authorizes the City Council to adopt such rules and regulations by ordinance. Upon adoption, such, rules and regulations will apply to areas within or without the city limits. The Code provides that it is unlawful for any person to knowingly violate any provision of such rules and regulations. The owner of the Replat of Bockman Subdivision is requesting the vacation of a portion of the right-of-way in Evergreen Drive, specifically, the area in the cul-de-sac. The cul-de-sac is being replatted as a 44-foot radius cul-de-sac; therefore, the 6-foot wide -63- April 19, 1988 strip between the original lat and the replat of the cul-de-sac ' P P needs to be vacated. The area being vacated shall be retained as a utility and drainage easement. All City agencies and utility companies have been contacted and have no objection to the proposed vacation. 16. Resolution 88- 17. Current projections indicate that the City will require additional water treatment plant capacity in 1992. A number of options are available in planning to meet future treatment needs. The recommended option is to conduct a study of structural and process modifications that could be made to the existing plant to increase capacity. It is anticipated that 6-8 mgd of capacity could be constructed at a cost of $2.5 to $3.5 million, delaying major expansion until 1996-1997. The Canal Importation Channel, located south of Prospect Street, is a tributary to Spring Creek. The Canal Importation Channel drains lands ' along the channel and the rmwater release from the regional pond at Taft Hill and Prospect. :a channel serves as an overflow for excess stormwater flows intercepted by the New Mercer and the Larimer Number 2 irrigation canals. The estimated construction cost of the channel system and crossings is $1.46 million. The construction will take place over several years. The first major construction item planned for summer, 1989, will be the crossing at Shields Street and enhancement of the wetland at Shields and Prospect. The standard consultant selection procedure was used to solicit and evaluate proposals for this work. Fifteen firms submitted proposals and the four firms receiving -the highest rating were interviewed. Greenhorne 6 O'Mara received the overall highest rating after the interview. 18. Resolution 88- This Resolution expresses Council support for the Community Development Block Grant Program; expresses concern over Program cuts proposed by the Administration and the Senate Budget Committee; and urges members of Congress to support full funding for the CDBG Program I at 1988 levels. -64- ' 19. Routine Deeds and Easements a. Powerline easement from needed to install Consideration: $1. April 19, 1988 D. June Jardine, 1017 Meadowbrook Drive, underground streetlight services. Street right-of-way deeded from the estate of Samuel J. Webster in connection with the San Cristo PUD. The deed provides a 12-foot wide parcel of land in existing Tenth Street that had been vacated in 1939 prior to the area being annexed. Consideration: $171.50. Agreement from Myron G. and Connie Jo Malone and Alma 0. Cook and Charles S. Cook for property located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Taft Hill Road and Horsetooth Road. This is one of five agreements needed for the Taft Hill Road/Horsetooth Road Widening Project. Consideration: $1,430. Agreement from Alma 0. Cook and Charles S. Cook for property located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Taft Hill Road and Horsetooth Road. This is one of five agreements needed for the Taft Hill Road/Horsetooth Road Widening Project. Consideration: $412. e. Agreement from Timothy T. and Kristina L. lahnert for property ' located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Taft Hill Road and Horsetooth Road. This is one of five agreements needed for the Taft Hill Road/Horsetooth Road Widening Project. Consideration: $1,620. Right-of-way from Jensen Enterprises, Inc., a Colorado Corporation, located in Quail Hollow PUD. The revised Overland Trail Corridor/Westside Water Transmission Main requires additional right-of-way over and above that already dedicated by Quail Hollow PUD. This additional right-of-way causes Quail Hollow to lose three lots. Consideration is based on an M.A.I. appraisal of the 3 lots. Consideration: $43,500. Ordinances on Second Reading were read by title by Wanda Krajicek, City Clerk. Item #6. Ordinances Clerk. Item #7. B. on First Reading were read by title by Wanda Krajicek, City -65- April 19, 1988 C. First Reading of Ordinance No. 52, 1988 Zoning Approximately I 144.498 Acres. Known as the Flatiron East Prospect Road First Annexation, into the I-G General Industrial District with Conditions as Stated in the Annexation Agreement Item #8. A. B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 54 1988 Zoning Approximately 324.1479 Acres. Known as the Sludge Farm Annexation into the RC River Corridor District. Item #9. A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 55, 1988 Annexing Approx- imately 27.6055 Acres, Known as the Strauss Cabin First Annexation. B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 56, 1988 Zoning Approximately 27.6055 Acres. Known as the Strauss Cabin First Annexation into the RC River Corridor District. Item #10. A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 57, 1988 Annexing Approx- imately 46.4996 Acres. Known as the Strauss Cabin Second Annexation. B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 58 1988 Zoning Approximately ' 46.4996 Acres, Known as the Strauss Cabin Second Annexation, into the RC River Corridor District. Item #11. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No 59 1988 Amending Section 2-353(4) of the Code Relating to the Functions of the Planning and Zoning Board. Item #12. Item #13. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No 61 1988 Authorizing the City Manager to Enter into an Agreement for the Lease/ Purchase of Vehicles and Eguipment Item #14. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No 62 1988 Adopting Rules and Regulations Governing the Use of Parks Open Spaces and Trails. Item #15. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No 64 1988 Vacating a Portion of the Right -of -Way of Evergreen Drive in the Replat of Bockman Subdivision. Councilmember Estrada made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Winokur, to adopt and approve all items not removed from the Consent Calendar. Yeas: I Councilmembers Estrada, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Mabry, Stoner, and Winokur. Nays: None. April 19, 1988 THE MOTION CARRIED. Resolution 88-53 Authorizing Professional Services Agreements with Black and Veatch Engineers for Water Treatment Capacity Optimization, Adopted Following is staff's memorandum on this item: "Financial Impact This Resolution authorizes a professional services agreement with Black and Veatch Engineers for a study of water treatment plant capacity optimization in an amount not to exceed $43,000. The Resolution also authorizes the City Manager to negotiate and enter into an additional agreement with Black and Veatch in an amount of $200,000 to $350,000 for design and engineering services of plant modifications to optimize treatment capacity. The treatment plant relocation project currently nearing completion has been designed and constructed approximately $2.5 million under the cost projections. Those carryover funds are budgeted and available in the 1988 Water Capital Improvements Fund to commit to the optimization project. Executive Summary Current projections indicate that the Ci treatment plant capacity in 1992. A nun planning to meet future treatment needs conduct a study of structural and process to the existing plant to increase capacity of capacity could be constructed at a delaying major expansion until 1996-1997. Background y will require additional water )er of options are available in The recommended option is to modifications that could be made It is anticipated that 6-8 mgd cost of $2.5 to $3.5 million, This Resolution authorizes the City Manager to: (1) enter into a professional services agreement with Black and Veatch Engineers to. conduct a study of water treatment plant capacity optimization at a cost not to exceed $43,000, and (2) negotiate and enter into an additional professional services agreement with Black and Veatch to provide design and engineering services for modifications to the plant at a cost ranging from $200,000 to $350,000. The second agreement would be entered into if cost-effective options for increasing treatment capacity are identified in the study and if the consulting services for the study are conducted in a timely and acceptable manner. Authorizing the agreements on a "case not requiring bidding" basis is preferable for a number of reasons. Black and Veatch has provided the ' engineering services for the plant relocation and expansion project presently nearing completion and is very knowledgeable about the plant and its potential for capacity optimization. This will be an advantage in -67- April 19, 1988 identifying options for increasing capacity that are feasible and cost-effective. Black and Veatch has recommended the use of new technology in the relocation project which has saved construction costs and may have potential for improving treatment efficiencies if retrofitted to the existing facility. The project can be performed at a lower cost by Black and Veatch since, a new engineering firm would have to spend considerable time becoming familiar with the plant in order to adequately carry out the study and design the modifications. Finally, staff has been pleased with the quality of engineering services provided by Black and Veatch for the relocation project. The initial professional services agreement in the amount of $43,000 is for purposes of conducting a study to identify opportunities to expand plant capacity through process improvements such as removal of flow restrictions and possible use of new technologies (i.e. ]amella plate clarification). General plant modifications, such as improvements to chemical feed and other systems, would also be investigated. A final report would be developed identifying the improvement options and the amount of increased capacity and costs associated with each. The study will be initiated upon approval and should be completed by October of 1988. Based on the final report, cost-effective options for plant modifications would be selected. An additional professional services agreement would then be negotiated for design and engineering services for the selected modifications. It is anticipated that the cost of those services would ' range from $200,000 to $350,000 depending on the number of cost-effective options identified. Construction costs for the project are expected to range from $2.5 to $3.5 million. Under existing conditions, the City is expected to need additional treatment capacity by 1992. Capacity optimization should result in increasing existing capacity by about 10-15% (or 6-8 mgd), delaying the need for a major expansion until 1996-1997. Pursuing plant optimization does not prevent the City from developing other options for meeting future treatment needs, such as watering restrictions or regional treatment facilities. However, the. City would need to begin design this year in order to have a major plant expansion on`iine in 1992. Attached is a memorandum to the Water Board providing more detail on the optimization project and the various options for providing future treatment capacity." Councilmember Kirkpatrick made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Winokur, to adopt Resolution 88-53. Water Utilities Director Mike Smith responded to questions from Council. The vote on Councilmember Kirkpatrick's motion to adopt Resolution 88-53 was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Estrada, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Mabry, I Stoner, and Winokur. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. CA April 19, 1988 Staff Reports City Manager Burkett brought the March sales and use tax report to Council's attention. City Attorney Huisjen, as a follow-up to earlier comments about student parties, pointed out that the City has a noise ordinance that allows enforcement action against unreasonable noise. Councilmember Reports Councilmember Horak reported he would be participating in the Audubon Bird-a-thon on May 6th along with Councilmember Kirkpatrick. He stated proceeds from the event would be used to develop the Gustav Swanson nature area. He stated he read to fourth -graders at Putnam Elementary earlier as part of National Reading Week. Councilmember Winokur stated he had participated in a demonstration ride, sponsored by the Downtown Development Authority and the Parking Commission, of a trolley bus for the downtown area. ' Councilmember Estrada noted Leenya Rideout had been chosen Miss Fort Collins and offered congratulations to the Ms. Rideout and her family. Mayor Stoner reported on a meeting he attended sponsored by the Development Services Department. He stated the meeting was designed to allow citizens to voice concerns about development processes. Ordinance No. 26, 1988 Amending Sections 26-278, 26-279, and 26-280 of the Code to Allow Certain Nonresidential Wastewater Customers to be Charged According to Winter Quarter Water Use. Adopted on Second Reading Following is staff's memorandum on this item: "Wastewater service charges for most 'nonresidential customers are based on monthly water use. Some customers who have high water use in the summer due to lawn watering have correspondingly high wastewater service charges. This Ordinance, which was adopted 5-1 on First Reading on April 5, provides an option for more equitable service charges by basing the charges on winter quarter water use." Councilmember Horak withdrew from the discussion and vote on this item due ' to a perceived conflict of interest. va April 19, 1988 ' Councilmember Winokur made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Estrada, to adopt Ordinance No. 26, 1988 on Second Reading. Councilmember Kirkpatrick stated this Ordinance represents additional flexibility for nonresidential wastewater customers, recognizing that not all wastewater customers are the same. The vote on Councilmember Winokur's motion to adopt Ordinance No. 26, 1988 on Second Reading was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Estrada, Kirkpatrick, Stoner, and Winokur. Nays: Councilmember Mabry. (Councilmember Horak withdrawn) THE MOTION CARRIED. Items Relating to the Union Pacific South Third No. 1 Annexation and Zoning Following is staff's memorandum on this item: "A. Hearing to Make Determinations and Findings Concerning the Union Pacific South Third No. 1 Annexation. ' B. Resolution 88-56 Setting Forth Findings of Fact and Determinations Regarding Union Pacific South Third No. 1 Annexation. C. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 34, 1988, Annexing Approximately 3.3655 Acres, Known as the Union Pacific South Third No. 1 Annexation. D. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 35, 1988, As Amended, Zoning Approximately 3.3655 Acres, Known as the Union Pacific South Third No. I Annexation, into the I-L Limited Industrial District. This Resolution sets forth findings and determinations that the area is eligible for annexation pursuant to Colorado state law. Ordinance. No. 34, 1988 and Ordinance No. 35, 1988, which were unanimously adopted on First Reading on March 15, annex and zone approximately 3.3655 acres located. north of Harmony Road and west of Timberline Road. Ordinance No. 35, 1988 is being amended on Second Reading to add a planned unit development condition. The requested zoning is the I-L Limited Industrial District. The property is presently developed with a warehouse. APPLICANT: Union Pacific Railroad OWNER: Same 1416 Dodge Street Omaha, NE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD RECOMMENDATION , The Planning and Zoning Board, at its regular monthly meeting on March 28, 1988, voted 6-0 to recommend approval of the requested annexation. The Board voted 6-0 to recommend approval of the requested I-L zoning with the -70- April 19, 1988 ' following two conditions: (1) that a PUD condition be attached to the zoning; and (2) that a neighborhood meeting be held so adjacent property owners may review the plans for the expansion of the existing warehouse. At the Board's meeting, several adjacent property owners raised questions about the proposed annexation, zoning, and expansion plans for the warehouse. Other complaints were made concerning air quality and noise from an existing industry located within the city limits. A draft copy of the Board's minutes is attached. There are two alternative methods through which the existing warehouse could receive City approval for expansion. They are: (1) as a PUD; and (2) as an expansion to a non -conforming use. It is very important to note that the expansion as a non -conforming use alternative is an available option even if a PUD zoning condition is placed on the property by the City. Stated another way, it is not possible for the City to require the utilization of the PUD for expansion of the existing warehouse. Both of the alternatives are briefly discussed below. 1. PUD. The expansion to the existing warehouse could be submitted as a PUD and be reviewed against the criteria of the Land Development Guidance System. Again, a PUD is only an option and can not be required even if a PUD condition were to be placed with the zoning of the property. The Planning ' and Zoning Board would then hold a public hearing and decide to approve or disapprove the expansion plans. Both a preliminary and final PUD plan would have to be submitted to the Board for review. The normal processing time of a PUD is between four and eight months. A PUD could be submitted as a combined preliminary/final upon approval by the Planning Director. 2. Expansion of a non -conforming use. When the City annexes and zones the existing warehouse, it will become a legal non -conforming use. The non -conforming status will apply to the existing warehouse even if the property is zoned 1-L without a PUD condition because the City has not approved a site plan for the existing use. According to City Code, a non -conforming use is any legally existing use which does not conform to the use regulations of the City's Zoning Code. Warehouses are only allowed within the I-L zone if shown on a site plan approved by the Planning Director. Enlargements of a non -conforming use requires the approval by the Planning and Zoning Board. The normal processing time for an expansion to a non -conforming use is between one and two months. Staff anticipates the owners of the warehouse to seek enlargement through the expansion to a non -conforming use process. The Planning and Zoning Board will likely review the request at its regular monthly meeting in may." ' Chief Planner Ken Waido gave a presentation on this item and the following related item. He responded to questions from Council. -71- April 19, 1988 Councilmember Mabry made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Estrada, to adopt Resolution 88-56. The following persons spoke regarding these annexations: Leonard Ewy, 4413 Timberline Road, requested Council accepted the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Board and City staff to include a planned unit development on the annexations. Robert Kapitsky, 1917 Harmony Drive, spoke of the advantages to the neighborhood to have the property developed as a planned unit development. He expressed concern about environmental impact and railroad traffic. Joe Heiney, 1912 Timberline Lane, spoke of high groundwater problems in the area and weed problems at the warehouse site. Virgil Kline, 1928 Timberline Lane, spoke of noise generated by the warehouse use. He requested the planned unit development condition to facilitate neighborhood input. City Attorney Huisjen indicated that the zoning ordinances have been amended on Second Reading to add a planned unit development condition. Chuck Jordan, Union -Pacific Manager of Industrial Development, stated Union -Pacific wants to have a good relationship with the neighborhood and described the use of the facility. The vote on Councilmember Mabry's motion to adopt Resolution 88-56 was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Estrada, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Mabry, Stoner, and Winokur. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Mabry made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kirkpatrick, to adopt Ordinance No. 34, 1988 onaSecond Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers Estrada, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Mabry,,,.Stoner, and Winokur. Nays: .None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Mabry made a motion, seconded by- Councilmember Winokur, to adopt Ordinance No. 34, 1988 as amended on Second Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers Estrada, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Mabry, Stoner, and Winokur. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. -72- April 19, 1988 Items Relating to the Union Pacific South Third No. 2 Annexation and Zoning Following is staff's memorandum on this item: "A. Hearing to Make Determinations and Findings Concerning the Union Pacific South Third No. 2 Annexation. B. Resolution 88-57 Setting Forth Findings of Fact and Determinations Regarding Union Pacific South Third No. 2 Annexation. C. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 36, 1988, Annexing Approximately 8.3201 Acres, Known as the Union Pacific South Third No. 2 Annexation. D. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 37, 1988, As Amended, Zoning Approximately 8.3201 Acres, Known as the Union Pacific South Third No. 2 Annexation, into the I-L Limited Industrial District. This Resolution sets forth findings and determinations that the area is eligible for annexation pursuant to Colorado state law. Ordinance No. 36, 1988 and Ordinance No. 37, 1988, which were unanimously adopted on First Reading on March 15, annex and zone approximately 8.3201 acres .located north of Harmony Road and west of Timberline Road. Ordinance No. 37, 1988 is being amended on Second Reading to add a planned unit development condition. The requested zoning is the I-L Limited Industrial District. The property is presently developed with a warehouse. APPLICANT: Union Pacific Railroad OWNER: Same 1416 Dodge Street Omaha, NE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD RECOMMENDATION The Planning and Zoning Board, at its regular monthly meeting on March 28, 1988, voted 6-0 to recommend. approval of the requested annexation. The Board voted 6-0 to recommend approval of the requested 1-L zoning with the following two conditions: (1) that a PUD condition be: attached to the zoning; and (2) that a neighborhood meeting.be held so'adjacent property owners may review the plans for the expansion of the existing warehouse. At the Board's meeting, several adjacent property owners raised- questions about the proposed annexation, zoning, and expansion plans for the warehouse. Other complaints were made concerning air quality and noise from an existing industry located within the city limits. A draft copy of the Board's minutes is attached. There are two alternative methods through which the existing warehouse could receive City approval for expansion. They are: (1) as a PUD; and (2) as an expansion to a non -conforming use. It is very important to note that the expansion as a non -conforming use alternative is an available option ' even if a PUD zoning condition is placed on the property by the City. Stated another way, it is not possible for the City to require the -73- April 19, 1988 utilization of the PUD for expansion of the existing warehouse. Both of the ' alternatives are briefly discussed below. 1. PUD. The expansion to the existing warehouse could be submitted as a PUD and be reviewed against the criteria of the Land Development Guidance System. Again, a PUD is only an option and can not be required even if a PUD condition were to be placed with the zoning of the property. The Planning and Zoning Board would then hold a public hearing and decide to approve or disapprove the expansion plans. Both a preliminary and final PUD plan would have to be submitted to the Board for review. The normal processing time of a PUD is between four and eight months. A PUD could be submitted as a combined preliminary/final upon approval by the Planning Director. 2. Expansion of a non -conforming use. When the City annexes and zones the existing warehouse, it will become a legal non -conforming use. The non -conforming status will apply to the existing warehouse even if the property is zoned I-L without a PUD condition because the City has not approved a site plan for the existing use. According to City Code, a non -conforming use is any legally existing use which does not conform to the use regulations of the City's Zoning Code. Warehouses are only allowed within the I-L zone if shown on a site plan approved by the Planning Director. Enlargements of a non -conforming ' use requires the approval by the Planning and Zoning Board. The normal processing time for an expansion to a non -conforming use is between one and two months. Staff anticipates the owners of the warehouse to seek enlargement through the expansion to a non -conforming use process. The Planning and Zoning Board will likely review the request at its regular monthly meeting in May. 10 Councilmember Kirkpatrick made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Horak, to adopt Resolution 88-57. Yeas: Councilmembers Estrada, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Mabry, Stoner, andiWinokur. Nays:. None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Estrada made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kirkpatrick, to adopt Ordinance No. 36, 1988 on Second Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers Estrada, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Mabry, Stoner, and Winokur. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Winokur made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kirkpatrick, to adopt Ordinance No. 37, 1988 as amended on Second Reading. Councilmember Kirkpatrick stated she believed the neighborhood would find ' annexation of theses properties would be to their advantage, noting the property would fall under City ordinances regarding weed control. She -74- April 19, 1988 stated she also believed the planned unit development will be as satisfactory as it can be. The vote on Councilmember Winokur's motion to adopt Ordinance No. 37, 1988, as amended on Second Reading was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Estrada, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Mabry, Stoner, and Winokur. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Ordinance No. 42, 1988 Amending Article VI of Chapter 25 of the Code Relating to "Gas Company Occupation Tax". Adopted on Second Reading Following is staff's memorandum on this item: "In September, 1987, City Council adopted an occupation tax ordinance. This ordinance granted to Public Service Company (PSC) the right to continue to operate within the City streets and rights -of -way, to serve natural gas customers in the city. It was also intended to protect the City revenue during the interim period without a franchise, as negotiations continued. The City's intent was to collect the occupation tax at a rate comparable to that collected in franchise fees by other Colorado cities, which is 3% in all recently negotiated PSC franchises. The rate established at that time was calculated based on the estimated retail sales and transportation volume during the winter months. It was not intended to cover the summer months. Since no agreement has been reached, the fee should now be adjusted to reflect volumes during the summer months. Staff recommends setting an annual rate, to be collected in monthly installments, rather than requiring semi-annual adjustments based on seasonal fluctuations in volume. This Ordinance, which was adopted 6-0 on First Reading on April 5, will change the current monthly occupation tax rate." Councilmember Estrada withdrew from discussion and vote on this item due to a perceived conflict of interest. Councilmember Mabry made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Winokur, to adopt Ordinance No. 42, 1988 on Second Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers Horak, Kirkpatrick, Mabry, Stoner, and Winokur. Nays: None. (Councilmember Estrada withdrawn) THE MOTION CARRIED. -75- April 19, 1988 Items Relating to the Northern Colorado Nature Center Third Annexation Following is staff's memorandum on this item: "Executive Summary Resolution 88-58 Finding Significant Compliance and Initiating Annexation Proceedings. First Reading of Ordinance No. 64, 1988, Annexing Approximately 13.861 Acres, Known as the Northern Colorado Nature Center Third Annexation. C. First Reading of Ordinance No. 65, 1988, Zoning Approximately 13.861 Acres, Known as the Northern Colorado Nature Center Third Annexation, into the T Transition District. APPLICANT: State Board of Agriculture OWNER: Same Room 202 Administration Building Colorado State University Fort Collins, CO 80523 This is a request to annex and zone north of East Drake Road (extended) requested zoning is the T Transition undeveloped and is part of a natural annexation. Background approximately 13.1861 acres located and east of the Poudre River. The District. The property is presently open space area. This is a voluntary The applicant and owner, the State Board of Agriculture, has submitted a written petition requesting annexation of approximately 13.1861 acres located north of East Drake Road (extended) and east of the Poudre River. The requested zoning is the T Transition District. The property is presently undeveloped and is part of a natural open space area.- This is a voluntary annexation. 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 annex property in the UGA when the property is eligible for annexation according to State law. The property gains the required 116 contiguity to existing city limits from a common boundary with the Flatiron East Prospect Road First Annexation to the west. The requested zoning for this annexation is the T Transition District. The T District designation is for properties in transition from a rural to an urban use. The property.is presently undeveloped and is part of a natural open space area, ..a use which will probably not change in the near future. As with other state-owned properties recently annexed into the City of Fort -76- April 19, 1988 Collins, the State Board of Agriculture has requested the following be added as conditions of the annexation: "Petitioner specifies as a condition of the proposed annexation that the proposed annexation in no sense shall be interpreted as: 1. Conveying to said City any right, title, or interest in the property so annexed; 2. Conveying any right to establish new streets or extend existing streets upon or across said property; or to construct utility lines of any kind upon or across said property; 3. Granting any right to apply the provision of any municipal ordinance, and specifically any building code, zoning code, or licensing ordinance, upon the above described property so long as title thereof shall remain in the State Board of Agriculture and the property continues to be used for educational, research, extension and related support services. Provided, however, that the jurisdiction of the City of Fort Collins shall extend over the property annexed in so far as ' it relates to the application of: a. City traffic ordinances; b. City ordinances relating to police enforcement of the traffic code, City ordinances relating to offenses against the person, offenses against public peace, offenses relating to morals, offenses relating to public health, and safety; 4. The jurisdiction of the Municipal court is extended to include violations of ordinances included in the foregoing items 1 and 2 of this paragraph occurring on the lands so annexed; providing, however, that nothing contained in the annexation ordinances shall be construed to limit the authority of the University officials, to exercise the authority provided in C.R.S. 23-5-106 and C.R.S. 23-5-107." Findings 1. The annexation of this area is consistent with the policies and agreements between Larimer County and the City of Fort Collins contained in the INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT FOR THE FORT COLLINS URBAN GROWTH AREA. I 2. The area meets all criteria included in State law to qualify for a voluntary annexation to the City of Fort Collins. -77- April 19, 1988 3. The attached Resolution accepts the annexation petition and determines ' that the petition is in compliance with State law. The Resolution also initiates the annexation process for this property by establishing the date, time and place when a public hearing will be held regarding the readings of the Ordinances annexing and zoning the area. Public hearing and second reading of the Ordinances annexing and zoning the property will be considered by the City Council on June 7, 1988. 4. The requested T Transition District is in conformance with the policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan. PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD RECOMMENDATION: The Planning and Zoning Board will review this annexation request on April 25, 1988, and will forward a recommendation to the City Council in time for the public hearing and second readings of the Ordinances scheduled for June 7, 1988." (Secretary's Note: Councilmember Estrada was withdrawn from the discussion and vote on this item due to a perceived conflict of interest.) Councilmember Winokur made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Horak, to adopt Resolution 88-58. Chief Planner Ken Waido gave a brief presentation on this item and ' responded to questions from Council. The vote on Councilmember Winokur's motion to adopt Resolution 88-58 was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Horak, Kirkpatrick, Mabry, Stoner, and Winokur. Nays: None. (Councilmember Estrada withdrawn) THE MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Winokur made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Horak, to adopt Ordinance No. 64, 1988 on First Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers Horak, Kirkpatrick, Mabry, Stoner, and Winokur. Nays: None. (Councilmember Estrada withdrawn) THE MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Winokur made a motion,. seconded by Councilmember Horak, to adopt Ordinance No. 65, 1988 on First Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers Horak, Kirkpatrick, Mabry, Stoner, and Winokur. Nays: None. (Councilmember Estrada withdrawn) THE MOTION CARRIED. IN April 19, 1988 Resolution 88-59 Authorizing the Financial Officer to Direct the Issuance of City of Fort Collins, Colorado Downtown Development Authority Tax Increment Revenue Refunding and Improvement Bonds. Tabled to May 3 Following is staff's memorandum on this item: "Financial Impact The Downtown Development Authority Tax Increment Bonds, Series 1985A, were approved for refunding on First Reading on June 2, 1987. A primary reason for the refunding was to take advantage of the market rate and to effect a minimum savings of $250,000. The City's goal was to avoid the projected use of pledged City sales and use tax revenue for as long as possible. Coupled with the refunding is an additional $3.3 million for the DDA to use for other projects within the District. The new structure proposed by the underwriters does not provide the $250,000 in net present value savings; however, it does better match the projected tax increment and should eliminate the use of sales and use tax revenue. Executive Summar ' This Resolution would authorize the Financial Officer to direct the issuance of the Downtown Development Authority Tax Increment Revenue Refunding and Improvement Bonds, Series 1988A, to refund, pay, and discharge the currently outstanding $8.85 million of 1985A Refunding Bonds and to provide $3.3 million in bond proceeds for additional public projects within the Downtown Development District. Background On June 2, 1987, City Council adopted on First Reading an ordinance authorizing $13,975,000 of refunding and improvement bonds. The issuance was justified on the following criteria: 1. The bonds would only be issued when $250,000 of net present value savings as compared to the 1985 Refunding were achieved. 2. The existing bond covenants could be improved in terms of the additional bonds test and the discharge of the lien on the Sales and Use tax fund. 3. The provisions of the present DDA Refunding bonds do not conform to requirements imposed in the City's Sales and Use Tax bond ordinance'. This situation would be corrected in the new bond ordinance. ' 4. In addition to the refunding, additional bonds would be issued at a parity with the current bonds in escrow. -79- April 19, 1988 Qualifying projects within the District could then be supported. If no projects use the bonds, the bond proceeds would be subject to early call. 5. The net effective interest rate could be reduced. At this time, market conditions will not provide the $250,000 in net present value savings. It is also important to note that the City's Sales and Use tax pledge will remain in place. The new structure only reduces the probability that it will actually be called upon. However, all other criteria can be met. Boettcher and Company, underwriter for the financing, has proposed a different structure for the refunding. The new structure has changed the maturities of the bonds so that they better match the projected growth of the tax increment. The new structure also extends the life of the bonds by about 1.5 years from 2004 to 2006. This adds two years of tax increment to help retire the debt. The new structure would increase the total amount of debt service to be paid by about $1.6 million as compared to the previous structure. Recommendation Staff is recommending passage of this Resolution so that the bonds may be issued ' as soon as possible. It is not expected that rates will show significant improvement before year-end. There is also the possibility that new tax provisions will preclude this refunding. Staff is presently preparing an up-to-date preliminary official statement for the issue and renewing the commitment for insurance from Municipal Bond Investors Assurance Corporation. With Council's approval of this Resolution, sale of the bonds could occur prior to Second Reading on May 3, 1988." Councilmember Mabry withdrew from the discussion and vote on this item due to a perceived conflict of interest. Finance Director Alan Krcmarik gave a brief history of this issue. He introduced Bond Counsel Loring Harkness and Boettcher and Company Underwriter Linda Clark. Mr. Krcmarik, City Manager Burkett, Mr. Harkness, Ms. Clark, and DDA Chairman Bill Friedrichsen responded to questions from Council. Barbara Allison, 1212 Lynnwood Drive, inquired about the total indebtedness of the Downtown Development Authority. She stated she was not in favor of using low -interest bonds for financing private business. Bruce Lockhart, 2500 East Harmony Road, posed several questions about this I refunding issue. EM April 19, 1988 ' Charles Wanner, 1242 West Mountain, Downtown Business Association member, expressed the Association's support for the refunding. Mayor Stoner stated he did not understand the logic of not issuing the additional $3.3 million. He stated any increment that is generated against existing debt lessens the City's exposure to use of sales and use tax funds. He added he believed Council should show a commitment to the downtown. Councilmember Estrada favored the position of Mayor Stoner in lessening the City's exposure while providing additional resources to facilitate projects and programs in the downtown area. Councilmember Kirkpatrick stated she was convinced that the band refunding portion of the Resolution was a good idea. She stated it was in the best interest of the community as a whole to not use sales tax monies to cover the ODA debt service. She stated she had difficulty supporting the additional $3.3 million of financing. She suggested tabling the Resolution until Councilmember Maxey was present as the DDA liaison, or amending the Resolution to delete the $3.3 million. She stated she would not support the Resolution as drafted. Councilmember Winokur expressed concern about the $3.3 million for additional projects. He stated that voting against an item does not mean a Councilmember is against the downtown, the DDA, or tax increment financing. He stated Council has a responsibility not only to the downtown and the DDA, but to the citizens and taxpayers of the whole community to look at things on an individual basis and make prudent financial decisions. He stated he would not support the Resolution. Councilmember Estrada made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kirkpatrick, - to adopt Resolution 88-59. Yeas: Councilmember Estrada. Nays: Councilmembers Horak, Kirkpatrick, Stoner, and Winokur. THE MOTION FAILED. Mayor Stoner made a reconsider Resolution Kirkpatrick, Stoner, withdrawn) THE MOTION CARRIED. motion, seconded by Councilmember Estrada, to 88-59. Yeas: Councilmembers Estrada,: Horak, and Winokur. Nays: None. (Councilmember Mabry Councilmember Estrada made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kirkpatrick, to amend Resolution 88-59 by deleting the phrase "and sufficient to finance projects within the Downtown Development District area through the issuance of approximately Three Million Three Hundred Thousand Dollars ($3,300,000) of additional parity bonds" from the NOW, THEREFORE clause. M. April 19, 1988 ' Jim Reidhead, property owner at 235 Linden, stated predictability is crucial for the downtown area and stated he believed it important to have an additional $3.3 million available. Councilmember Horak expressed concern about the issuance cost associated with this refunding. Councilmember Estrada made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kirkpatrick, to table Resolution 88-59 to May 3. Yeas: Councilmembers Estrada, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Stoner, and Winokur. Nays: None. (Councilmember Mabry withdrawn) THE MOTION CARRIED. Resolution 88-48 Authorizing the Mayor to Enter Into the Revised Intergovernmental Agreement with Larimer County for the Fort Collins Urban Growth Area, Adopted Following is staff's memorandum on this item: "Executive Summary ' This Resolution au` ;rizes the Mayor to sign, on behalf of the City of Fort Collins, the revi NTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT FOR THE FORT COLLINS URBAN GROWTH AREA with 1-arimer County which will reestablish urban growth management land use policies and implementation techniques for the urbanizing area surrounding the City of Fort Collins. A similar agreement has been developed for the Loveland Urban Growth Area. Background In 1980, the City entered into an intergovernmental agreement with Larimer County for the purposes of managing urban development in the urban, fringes of the city. The UGA agreement has been generally successful in managing urban sprawl and coordinating the phased expansion of public facilities and services. The initial agreement, which was for an effective period of five years, was revised in 1983 and is now due to expire in August of 1988. The planning staffs of Fort Collins, Loveland, and Larimer County, with the assistance of the engineering and parks and recreation staffs of the cities and county, have developed a revised UGA Agreement which addresses the problems identified by the Councils of both cities and the County Commissioners during a joint meeting in November of 1986. The planning staffs of Fort Collins, Loveland, and Larimer County, after long negotiations, have come to a tentative understanding on all the major I issues between the County and the two communities in regard.to the Urban Growth Area Agreements. N April 19, 1988 The proposed revisions the UGA Agreements are based on the identified "issues and concerns" which were presented at the joint Fort Collins, Loveland and Larimer County meeting held in November 1986. The staffs believe that the proposed agreement addresses all concerns in a mutually acceptable manner. City and County representatives have shared the points of the Agreement with one another. Presented below is a short discussion of major changes to the UGA Agreement. Attached is a Final Draft (4114188) of the Agreement which has numbered each line of every page, similar to proposed legislative bills, to facilitate review of the changes. In the discussion of the major changes presented below, this report will identify portions of the actual agreement by indicating the page number and line numbers (p. #, line # - line #) for ease of reference. MAJOR CHANGES TO THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT Establishment of an Urban Growth Area Review Board (p. 3, 25-26, p. 4, 1-8 and p. 5, 1-13). The Agreement calls for the establishment of a Fort Collins UGA Review Board to act as the single recommending body to the Larimer County Board of County Commissioners concerning development applications for properties located within the UGA which cannot annex into the city. This new Board would replace both the County Planning Commission and the City Planning and Zoning Board in the review of such development proposals. Members of this UGA Review Board would be appointed by the City Council and County Commissioners. 2. Establishment of Larimer County Street Standards (p. 4, 9-15, and Exhibit B Supplemental Regulations p. 2, 15-20). The Agreement indicates that all streets County urban street standard. These nt developed by the engineering staffs of t previous agreement required streets with city limits to conform to City street establish a single County urban street Loveland and Fort Collins UGAs. will conform to a new Larimer w standards will be mutually he County and two cities. The 'n the UGA and outside of the standards. The goal is to standard for use in both the Final Approval Authority Rests with the County Commissioners (p. 5, 16-22, and Exhibit B Supplemental Regulations p. 12, 1-10). The Agreement indicates that the final decision authority for development proposals outside of the city limits and waivers of phasing criteria rests with the County Commissioners. There was a concern from the County that the City had a veto power over development approval. Actually, the only approval ability the City Council had maintained in the- UGA concerned requests for waivers to the off -site street improvement phasing criteria which required joint approval by the UR 4 F1 ri J Commissioners and the Council perceptional problem. April 19, 1988 This change will help clarify a City Council Review of Waiver Requests (p. 6, 10-16). The City Council under the Agreement maintains the right to review waiver requests of development proposals which propose street standards less than the to -be -developed Larimer County urban street standards discussed above (2.). This ability to review waiver requests will give the Council an opportunity to review waiver requests which may impact the City's Capital Improvements Program. Establishment of a "Short Plat" Process (p. 7, 15-18). The Agreement indicates that an administrative "short platting" process should be established for minor development proposals. The previous process required all development proposals, regardless of size, to be heard by the City's Planning and Zoning Board (and possibly the City Council, if a waiver request was also made), and the County Planning Commission, before a final decision was made by the County Commissioners. Portion of County Park Fee for Regional Parks (p. 7, 19-26 and p. 8, 1-12). The Agreement indicates that the park fee collected by the County from developments within the UGA outside of the city limits can be designated for regional park development. Previously,. the entire park fee was designed for the development of neighborhood parks. The Agreement indicates that the County will annually provide 80Y of unused park fees to the City. Annexation Agreements (p. 4, 12 9, 8-26, and p. 9, 1-18). There are four major changes to the annexation policies and agreements: 1) The Agreement indicates that the City will not annex south of County Road 32 or Fossil Creek Reservoir (the Corridor Area). 2) The City agrees to annex entire street rights -of -way when annexing an, area (this change conforms to the new State annexation law). The City had been following such a practice for over a year. 3) The Agreement provides an opportunity for the City to annex property which is outside of the UGA boundary without the need to also process the request as an amendment to the UGA boundary requiring approval by both the County Commissioners and the City Council. The County must be notified of such actions by certified mail at least 35 days prior to approval by the City Council. 4) The Agreement indicates that a binding annexation agreement will be placed on development proposals not eligible for immediate d. Ll -84- April 19, 1988 annexation into the city limits as a condition of approval. This condition will make annexation possible in the future when contiguity to the development is achieved. 8. Extended Term (p. 11, 9-16). The Agreement is proposed for a period of ten years with automatic renewal for five-year terms. The previous agreement was for five years with one-year extensions. The City and County are also required to review the agreement biennially and prepare a joint staff report on the total UGA program. MAJOR CHANGES TO THE SUPPLEMENTAL REGULATIONS 1. Clarification of Application of UGA Regulations (Exhibit B Supplemental Regulations p. 3, 12-25). The Agreement clarifies which types of County development proposals the regulations of the UGA Agreement should, and should not, apply to. This helps clarify previous differing interpretations by the County and City. 2. Automatic Change to UGA Boundary Upon Annexation (Exhibit B Supplemental Regulations p. 6, 13-15). ' As previously discussed, the Agreement allows the City to consider annexation of property located outside of the UGA boundary. This section indicates that, if the City annexes an area outside the UGA boundary, the property shall be considered inside the UGA boundary. Previously, the City could not annex outside the UGA without first amending the UGA boundary. MAJOR CHANGES TO THE APPENDICES 1. Reduction of Minimum Off -Site Street Requirements (Appendix B p. 1, 10-15). The level of the required off -site street improvement standard is reduced in the Agreement from a fully developed arterial street to a minimum 36' wide paved section. This change was made to be consistent with the City's off -site street ordinance requirements. A proposed development must prepare a traffic impact study to determine the ievel of required improvements. As indicated, the minimum standard would be 36' of pavement, unless a waiver is granted. 2. Addition of Exemptions as Qualifiers of Existing Development (Appendix C p. 1, 8-12). Developments which were approved through the County's exemption ' process, under certain conditions, can be considered to satisfy the requirement that new development proposals be contiguous to existing 111.2 April 19, 1988 development. This change will reduce the need for new development ' proposals to seek waivers to the contiguity requirement. RECOMMENDATION Although the negotiation process has been arduous, staff believes that the draft Agreement meets the concerns the County and City had with the previous agreement and provides a better mechanism for development review within the urban growth area. Staff recommends adoption of the revised agreement." Councilmember Mabry made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Winokur, to adopt Resolution 88-48. Chief Planner Ken Waido briefly highlighted this item. Councilmember Estrada thanked staff for their work in negotiating the agreement. Councilmember Horak expressed dissatisfaction with the negotiation process in developing the revised agreement. He also expressed concern with the parkland fee provisions, and the process for appointing a fifth person to the planning review committee. Councilmember Estrada agreed that the agreement does not contain everything I the City wanted, but noted that occurs during contract negotiation. Councilmember Kirkpatrick stated she could deal with the Intergovernmental Agreement as developed, but indicated she believed the progress or lack of progress in specific areas needs to be monitored. Mayor Stoner also thanked staff for their work on the agreement. He stated he was pleased with many of the provisions of the agreement that were developed during negotiation. The vote on Councilmember Mabry's motion to adopt Resolution 88-48 was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Estrada, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Mabry,. Stoner, and Winokur. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Other Business Ordinance No. 66, 1988, Amending Section 24-1 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins Relating to Signs over Streets or Sidewalks. Adopted on First Reading Following is staff's memorandum on this item: , April 19, 1988 1 "Staff is implementing a number of activities to promote positive community awareness and pride. Colorful banners are one technique to promote special events or activities. Staff review of the Code noted that banners and signs in the rights -of -way are prohibited. This Ordinance allows the City to hang banners or signs in the rights -of -way in conjunction with community celebrations and to promote City activities. Banners for private groups and businesses are allowed on private property as part of the sign code." Councilmember Estrada made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kirkpatrick, to adopt Ordinance No. 66, 1988 on First Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers Estrada, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Mabry, Stoner, and Winokur. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Special Improvement District Meeting Councilmember Horak announced there would be a meeting on April 25th at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Information Center dealing with the special improvement district review being conducted by the consultants. Boards and Commissions Vacancy Policy ' Councilmembers discussed how to handle board and commission vacancies that may occur prior to resolution of the recommendations of the Boards and Commissions Review Subcommittee and the annual appointment process. Consensus was that vacancies due to resignation prior to the annual appointments will be evaluated by the Council liaison on a case -by -case basis to determine if immediate appointment is necessary. It was also determined that the annual appointment process should begin immediately for those boards and commissions that are not affected by the Subcommittee recommendations. Adjournment Councilmember Estrada made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Mabry, to adjourn the meeting. Yeas: Councilmembers Estrada, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Mabry, Maxey, Stoner, and Winokur. Nays: None. The meeting adjourned at 10:25 p.m. Mayor City Clerk Q's IF311