HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES-10/02/2012-RegularOctober 2, 2012
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
Council -Manager Form of Government
Regular Meeting - 6:00 p.m.
A regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins was held on Tuesday, October 2, 2012,
at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll call was answered
by the following Councilmembers: Horak, Kottwitz, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Troxell and
Weitkunat.
(Secretary's note: Councilmember Kottwitz arrived at 7:06 p.m.)
Staff Members Present: Atteberry; Nelson, Roy.
Agenda Review
City Manager Atteberry stated that Item No. 22, Resolution 2012-093, Adopting "The Parking Plan:
Downtown and Surrounding Neighborhoods" as an Element ofthe City's Comprehensive Plan and
Adopting Relating Changes to the Transportation Master Plan, is being postponed to a later date
in order to allow time for community input.
Citizen Participation
James Owiny, Human Relations Commission member, announced an Elder Abuse Forum to be held
October 22, 2012, at the Senior Center. ,
Liz Prusner, Fort Collins resident, expressed concern regarding the potential financial impacts of
the proposed on -campus stadium and opposed any funding by the City of Fort Collins.
Lynn Hall, Fort Collins resident, announced October as Arts and Humanities Month and supported
the arts community in Fort Collins.
Wes Kenney, Fort Collins Symphony Musical Director, thanked Council for its support of
performing arts and the Symphony and announced the upcoming Symphony season.
Catherine Douras, Fort Collins Women's Commission member, supported the Day of the Girl
proclamation.
Gary Peterson, Fort Collins resident, supported ballot question 301 and state ballot issue 64, the
medical marijuana items.
49
October 2, 2012
Citizen Participation Follow-up
Councilmember Troxell noted there is no consideration in the current budget for support of the on -
campus stadium and suggested the possibility of Council considering Resolutions regarding any type
of City costs for infrastructure related to the stadium. He stated information provided by Poudre
School District was cited with regard to ballot issue 301.
CONSENT CALENDAR
6. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 099, 2012, Amending the City Code and Adopting the
First Amendment to the City of Fort Collins General Employees' Retirement Plan as
Amended and Restated January 1, 2012. to Change the Make-up of the General Employees
Retirement Committee.
The existing structure of the General Employees' Retirement Committee (GERC) has 6
positions and must include at least 3 active employee members and only 1 retiree receiving
a benefit. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on September 18, 2012,
changes those 4 positions to be any of the following: an active employee, a former employee
that is vested but not yet receiving a benefit, or a retiree receiving a benefit.
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 100, 2012, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue
in the Transportation Services Fund for the State Fiscal Year 2012-2013 Safe Routes to
School Program.
The City of Fort Collins Transportation Planning Office has received a $27,500 federal grant
through the Colorado Department of Transportation for the FY 2012-13 Safe Routes to
School program. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on September 18,
2012, appropriates the funding. The grant allows the City's Safe Routes to School Program,
administered and staffed by Transportation Planning, to enhance its pedestrian and bicycle
safety education programs.
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 101, 2012, Adjusting the Terms of the Youth Advisory
Board to Coincide with the School Year.
At the request of the Youth Advisory Board, and at the direction of Council, this Ordinance,
unanimously adopted on First Reading on September 18, 2012, amends the terms of
members of the Youth Advisory Board so that terms begin June 1 and expire May 31. This
change will allow newly appointed members to include Youth Advisory Board meetings and
activities when planning for the upcoming school year. The Youth Advisory Board does not
meet during the summer months.
The terms of all City boards and commissions expire on December 31 as required by
Ordinance No. 070. 2000. This Ordinance provides that the next time the Boards. and
Commissions Manual is updated, the term expiration dates of the City Boards and
Commissions will be addressed in the Manual.
9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 102, 2012, Authorizingand nd Approving the Execution and
Delivery by the City of a Site and Improvement Lease and a Lease Purchase Agreement and
50
October 2, 2012
Related Documents, Concerning the Leasing by the City of Open Space and Natural Areas,
a Deicing Materials Storage Facility and a Centralized Police Services Building, to
Refinance the City's 2004 Lease Agreement at a Lower Interest Rate; Ratifying Action
Previously Taken; and Providing Other Matters Related Thereto.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on September 18, 2012, authorizes
the refinance of the 2004 Certificates of Participation (COPS). Bank of America has
proposed terms for the new debt that result in a net present value savings of $4.8 million and
equates to 13.4% of the refunded principal. The 2012 debt will mature in the same time
frames as before: Police through 2026, Natural Areas through 2019, and Transportation
through 2024.
10. First Reading of Ordinance No. 103, 2012, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves and
Unanticipated Revenue in Various City Funds.
The annual Clean-up Ordinance allows for the appropriation of expenses related to
unanticipated revenue, grants and unforeseen costs that had not previously been budgeted.
The details of these clean-up requests were reviewed by the Council Finance Committee on
September 17, 2012. At that meeting it was requested that all use of prior year reserves be
highlighted, as well as any changes not seen by the Committee. A table with the use of prior
year reserves appears at the end of the Agenda Item Summary. The only items included in
this Clean-up Ordinance that were not reviewed by the Council Finance Committee is a
request for $28,277 of unanticipated revenue in Forestry and $200,000 for a tandem dump
truck in the Water Fund.
The purpose of this annual Clean -Up Ordinance is to combine dedicated revenues or
reserves that need to be appropriated before the end of the year to cover the related expenses
that were not anticipated and, therefore, not included in the 2012 budget appropriation. The
unanticipated revenue is primarily from fees, charges, rents, contributions and grants that
have been paid to City departments to offset specific expenses. Prior year reserves are
primarily being appropriated for unanticipated operation expenses from reserves that are set
aside for that purpose. This Ordinance appropriates prior year reserves and unanticipated
revenue in various City funds. The City Charter permits the City Council to provide by
ordinance for payment of any expense from prior year reserves. The Charter also permits
the City Council to appropriate unanticipated revenue received as a result of rate or fee
increases or new revenue sources. If these appropriations are not approved, the City will
have to reduce expenditures even though revenue and reimbursements have been received
to cover those expenditures.
11. First Reading of Ordinance No. 104, 2012, Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to Enter into
an Agreement for the Financing by Lease -Purchase of Equipment.
The City of Fort Collins is lease -purchasing desktop computers and laptops for various City
departments. The cost of the items to be lease -purchased is $294,000. Payments at the
2.28% interest rate will not exceed $15,596 in 2013. Money for 2013 lease -purchase
payments is included in the 2013 budget requests. The effect of the debt position for the
purpose of financial rating of the City will be to raise the total City debt by 0.21%. A
competitive process was used to select Pinnacle Public Finance for this lease. Staff believes
acceptance of this lease rate is in the City's best interest.
51
October 2. 2012
12. First Reading of Ordinance No. 105, 2012, Amending Chanter 7 of the City Code Relating
to Redistricting.
This Ordinance will amend Section 7-87(b) of the City Code to enact language that is
consistent with the original intent that the City Clerk, within 18 months after the decennial
publication of the U.S. Census, recommend district boundary changes necessary to ensure
that, to the extent reasonably possible, there is no more than a 10% deviation between the
most populous and the least populous Council district.
13. First Reading of Ordinance No. 106, 2012, Vacating the City's Interest in the Streets Known
as Daisy Street and Columbine Street.
Daisy Street and Columbine Street have existed since 1956. The City has not found any
record that would indicate that the street right-of-way has been dedicated to the City by plat
or separate document, but the City believes that under the doctrine of "common law
dedication" it is the legitimate owner of the streets. The roads are improved with curb,
sidewalk and asphalt and have been maintained by the City. All lots adjacent to these two
short street stubs have been included within the District at Campus West development
proposal that was approved by administrative hearing on May 7, 2012 and upheld on July
17, 2012 after an appeal to overturn the approval of the administrative hearing of said project
was heard at City Council. The property owner of the adjacent lots (the District at Campus
West developer) has requested that Daisy Street and Columbine Streets be vacated to allow
the parcels and the streets to be replatted to accommodate the multifamily development.
Vacations of public right-of-way are governed by City Code Section 23-115, which provides
for an application and review process prior to submission to the City Council for formal
consideration. The process includes review by potentially affected utility agencies, City
staff, emergency service providers, and affected property owners in the vicinity of the right-
of-way proposed to be vacated. This review process was followed in connection with this
proposal, and based on comments received; the City Engineer has recommended that the
vacation be approved.
All public and private utilities have been notified of the proposed vacation and they report
.no objections to the vacation.
14. Routine Easement.
Easement for construction and maintenance of public utilities from S. Edward and Phyllis
Stoner, to install a telecommunication equipment for water meter readings for the Advanced
meter Fort Collins Project.
***END CONSENT***
Ordinances on Second Reading were read by title by City Clerk Nelson.
6. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 099, 2012, Amending the City Code and Adopting the
First Amendment to the City of Fort Collins General Employees' Retirement Plan as
52
October 2, 2012
Amended and Restated January 1, 2012, to Change the Make-up of the General Employees
Retirement Committee.
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 100, 2012, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue
in the Transportation Services Fund for the State Fiscal Year 2012-2013 Safe Routes to
School Program.
8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 101, 2012, Adjusting the Terms of the Youth Advisory
Board to Coincide with the School Year.
9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 102, 2012, Authorizing and Approving the Execution and
Delivery by the City of a Site and Improvement Lease and a Lease Purchase Agreement and
Related Documents. Concerning the Leasing by the City of Open Space and Natural Areas,
a Deicing Materials Storage Facility and a Centralized Police Services Building, to
Refinance the City's 2004 Lease Agreement at a Lower Interest Rate; Ratifying Action
Previously Taken; and Providing Other Matters Related Thereto.
19. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 078,.2012, Amending Article XII of Chapter 23 of the
City Code relating to Art in Public Places.
Ordinances on First Reading were read by title by City Clerk Nelson.
10. First Reading of Ordinance No. 103, 2012, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves and
Unanticipated Revenue in Various City Funds.
11. First Reading of Ordinance No. 104, 2012, Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to Enter into
an Agreement for the Financing by Lease -Purchase of Equipment.
12. First Reading of Ordinance No. 105, 2012, Amending Chapter 7 of the City Code Relating
to Redistricting.
13. First Reading of Ordinance No. 106, 2012, Vacating the City's Interest in the Streets Known
as Daisy Street and Columbine Street.
Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to adopt all items
on the Consent Calendar. Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak and Troxell. Nays:
none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Staff Reports
City Attorney Roy announced some letters were included this evening in the record relating to
Council's consideration of an appeal of the Planning and Zoning Board's July 19, 2012 decision to
approve Regency Lakeview Addition of a Permitted Use for Multi -Family Dwellings at Christ
Center Community Church and Project Development Plan.
53
October 2, 2012
Councilmember Reports
Mayor Weitkunat announced the extension of the deadline for board and commission applications
to October 17, 2012.
Councilmember Horak reported on the Platte River Power Authority meeting and discussed water
leases and policies relating to those leases.
Ordinance No. 078, 2012,
Amending Article X11 of Chapter 23 of the City Code
Relating to Art in Public Places, Adopted on Second Reading
The following is staffs memorandum for this item.
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Ordinance was unanimously adopted on First Reading on August 21, 2012. At that time,
Council provided direction to staff and the Art in Public Places (APP) Board to reexamine the
modification included in the Ordinance that caps the total annual contribution to APP from each
Utility Fund (Water, Waste Water, Stormwater, and Light & Power) at S100,000. A revised
Ordinance is being presented for Second Reading that includes a revised cap option for Council
consideration and approval.
BACKGROUND /DISCUSSION
On First Reading ofthis Ordinance, Council provided direction to staffand the Art in Public Places
(APP) Board to reexamine the modification to the APP program that caps the total annual
contribution to APP from each Utility Fund (Water, Waste Water, Stormwater, and Light & Power)
at SIOQ 000. APP, Utility staff and the APP Board reviewed different options for the cap and are
presentingfor Council consideration on Second Reading a revised method ofcalculating the Utility
cap.
APP UTILITY CAP REVISION FOR SECOND READING
Art in Public Places continues as a 1 %program, meaning City capital projects with a budget over
S250, 000 designate I % of their project budget for art. The revised Ordinance.for Second Reading
includes the following APP cap for Utility projects:
The APP Utility contribution cap would beset as .5% of each Utility's annual budgeted Operating
Revenue.
• Operating Revenue is made up of the payments received from the rate payer.
• Each Utility's revenue from the rate payer varies in accordance with the size of that Utility;
therefore the cap would vary and be right -sized for each Utilityfund.
• This option specifically limits the maximum impact to the rate payer to no more than .5%
of the Operating Revenue per Utility.
• Using a percentage allows the cap amount to potentially change over time, if Operating
Revenue increases or decreases, but never impact the rate payer more than .5%.
54
October 2, 2012
The cap limits contributions from the largest Utility projects. For example, the Mulberry
Water Reclamation Project was budgeted at 525,650,000 in 2009. The uncapped APP
contribution was $265,500. A cap calculated at .5% of Wastewater Operating Revenue
would have been $90,803 (5% of $18,160,570 Operating Revenue in 2009). Therefore the
Wastewater APP contribution would have been capped at $90,803, a reduction ofS165, 967.
Other large projects that would have been or will be capped under this scenario are the
Spring Creek and Fossil Creek Basins; Canal Importation; Drake Water Reclamation
Project; Halligan improvements; or service center improvements.
The Average Cap at. 5% of Operating Revenue, based on 2008-2012 actuals, would be:
Light & Power:
5461, 813 *
Water.
$130,425
Wastewater.
$90,491
Stormwater:
568.348
*Because the Light & Power Operating Revenue is the highest of the four Utility
Funds, averaging over S90 million annually, the. 5% cap is also the highest cap. A
lower percentage cap on Light & Power could be considered. At. 25%, the average
cap on Light & Power would be $230,906. Although still above the average Light
& Power APP contribution amount of approximately $73,836, the .25% cap would
further limit potential Light & Power contributions to APP.
In 2012, the total Utility Budget is S180,401, 672 with Operating Revenues of $164,341, 682. Art in
Public Places actual contributions were $100, 266 or. 019% of the total Utility Budget. Below are
two tables showing the Utility Rate Payer Typical Customer Bill for 2012 and 2013. The tables
illustrate the relationship between APP and the rate payer bill, based on actual and projected APP
budgets and show the maximum impact to the rate payer if the .5% or .25% of Operating Revenues
caps is reached
2012 Rates
Typical CosVMonth
Electric $ 59.68
Water $ 33.66
Wastewater $ 30.26
Stormwater $ 14.26
Monthly Total $ 137.85
Annual Total $ 1.654.23
2012
APP Actual
APP Maximum
APP Cap
per Rate Payer
.5% of bill
.25% of bill
$ 0.01
$ 0.30
$ 0.15
$ 0.06
$ 0,17
$ 0.08
$ 0.04
$ 0.15
$ 0.08
$ 0.01
$ 0.07
$ 0.04
$ 0.12
$ 0.69
$ 0.34
$ 1.41
$ 8.27
$ 4.14
(1) Electric total of 8075 kWh over 12 months (2010 monthly average use)
(2) Water total of 98213 gallons over 12 months (2010 monthly average use)
(3) Wastewater 4600 Gallons Winter Quarter Water Use
(4) 8600 sq ft lot with light run off
ZU73
2013 Est. Rates
APP Actual
Typical Cost/Month
per Rate Payer
Electric
$ 62.26
$ 0.01
Water
$ 35.01
$ 0.07
Wastewater
$ 30.26
$ 0.05
Stormwater
$ 14.26
$ 0.02
APP Maximum
.5% of bill
$ 0.31
$ 0.18
$ 0.15
$ 0.07
APP Maximum
.25% of bill
$ 0.16
$ 0.09
$ 0.08
$ 0.04
55
October 2, 2012
Monthly Total $ 141.79 $0.15 $ 0.71 $0.35
Annual Total $ 1,701.48 $1.79 I $ 8.51 $4.25
Average Increases for 2013: Electric 4.33%; Water 4. %; Wastewater 0%; Stannwater 0%
The revised Ordinance on Second Reading includes the. 5% of Operating Revenue cap option. The
following two tables detail the past five years and next five years of Utility total budgets, Operating
Revenue, actual or projected APP contributions from capital projects, and both the .5% and 25%
cap options with impacts to APP for comparison.
APP Utility Cap as .5% or.25% of Opera q Revenue 2008-2012
2008
1 2009
2010
2011 1
2012
Total
Light BPower
Total Budget
100 843 892
95 792 694
107,246,097
106,977,193
112,752,791
523,612,667
Operating Revenue
83 752 596
86,957 098
91,213,692
95,892,159
103,997,211
461,812,756
Actual contribution to APP
138,815
49,256
142,835
16,950
21,326
369,182
APP as % of Total Bud et
.138%
.051%
.133%
.016%
.019%
0.071 %
APP as % of Op Rev
.166%
.057%
.157%
.018%
.021 %
0.080%
Cap at .5% of Op Rev
418,763
434 785
456,068
479.461
519,986
NIA
Reduction to APP w Cap
0
1 0
0
0
0
0
Cap at .25% of Op Rev
209,381
217,393
228,034
239,730
259,993
N/A
Reduction to APP w Cap
0
0
0
0
0
0
Wastewater
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Total Budget
31,681,336
50,588,597
23,115,680
22,431,628
21,235,473
149,052,714
Operating Revenue
16,305,707
18,160,570
17,622,768
18,713,219
19,688,506
90,490,770
Actual contribution to APP
89,000
1 256,500
28,750
38,050
24,450
437,750
APP as % of Total Budget
0.281 %
1 0.507%
0.124%
0.170%
0.120%
0.294%
App as % of Op Rev
0.546%
1.412%
0.163%
0.203%
0.129%
0.484%
Cap at. 5% of Op Rev
81,529
90,803
88,114
93,566
98,443
NIA
Reduction to APP w Cap
7 471
165,697
0
0
0
173,169
Cap at .25% of Op Rev
40,764
45,401
44,057
46,783
49,221
N/A
Reduction to APP w Cap
48,236
211,099
0
0
0
259,334
Water
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Total Budget
30,618,969
1 40 031 414
32,851,744
30 370 924
32,063,681
165,936,732
Operating Revenue
26,789,947
25,43 648
26,448,689
25 008 022
26,748,036
130,425,342
Actual contribution to APP
35,850
123,550
72,400
40,600
47,000
1 319,400
APP as % of Total Bud et
0.117%
0.309%
0.220%
0.134%
0.147%
1 0.192%
APP as % of Op Rev
0.134%
0.486%
0.274%
0.162%
0,176%
0.2450
Cap at .5% of Op Rev
133.950
127,153
132,243
125,040
133,740
NIA
Reduction to APP w Cap
0
0
0
0
0
0
Cap at.25% of Op Rev
66,975
63,577
66,122
62,520
66,870
N/A
Reduction to APP w Cap
0
59 973
6,278
0
0
66,252
Stormwater
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Total Budget
17 470 888
16 644 536
15,723,422
14,229,352
14,349,727
1 78 417 925
Operating Revenue
13,328.099
13 588 955
13,724,845
13,798,078
13,907.929
68,347,906
Actual contribution to APP
73 650
66 650
37,100
32,100
7,400
216,900
APP as % of Total Budget
0,422%
0.400%
0.236%
0.226%
0.052%
0,277%
APP as % of Op Rev
1 0.553%
0.490%
0.270%
0.233%
0.053%
0.31.7%
56
October 2, 2012
Cap at. 5% of Op Rev
66.640
1 67,945
68.624
1 68.990
1 69.540
1 N/A
Reduction to APP w Cap
7,010
0
0
0
0
7,010
J
Cap at .25% of Op Rev
33.320
33,972
34,312
34,495
34,770
N/A
Reduction to APP w Ca
40,330
32,678
2,788
0
0
75,795
57
October 2, 2012
Cap at. 5%of0 Rev
69,265
69,870
70,219
70,570
70,923 -
N/A
Reduction to APP w Cap
0
0
0
0
0
0
Cap at. 25% of Op Rev
34,633
34,935
35,110
35,285
35,085
N/A
Reduction to APP w Cap
0
0
0
0
0
0
UPDATES TO "ACCOUNTS ESTABLISHED" FOR SECOND READING
APP worked with Finance to address the non -lapsing status of APP projects to improve
accountability and transparency. This change was primarily addressed through an administrative
policy change; however, in making the changes as requested, Finance is recommending some
updates to the APP Code to accurately reflect the accounting process, update terminology, and
make section titles clearer and more easily understood.
The updates recommended for consideration on Second Reading are as follows:
23-302 Definitions: remove the "APP reserve account " definition and add the new defined
term "cost center" to accurately describe the fund for APP. Also remove the wording
"reserve account " throughout the Ordinance.
23-303 Accounts Established: retitle this section to "Accounting Methods" and revise
language in the Code to explain where the money is going, use current terminology, ana
reflect the administrative change ofbudgetsforworksofartasnon-lapsing. Administration
and maintenance budgets will remain as lapsing. Utility funds will still be held separately,
but the wording is updated.
Change the headings for Sections 23-304, 23-305, 23-306 to more accurately reflect the
three program levels ofA PP.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
Implementing a cap on APP contributionsfrom each Utility Fund (Water, Waste Water, Stormwater,
Light and Power) as a calculation of.5% of the budgeted Operating Revenues in each fund will
reduce the contributions from Utility Capital Projects to APP. If the .5 % of Operating Revenue cap
were in placefrom 2008-2012, $180,179 would not have been contributed to the APP program from
Utility capital projects, a reduction of 13%.
Compared to the S100.000 cap proposed on First Reading, had it been in place for the same time
period, $261, 700 would not have been contributed to APP from Utility capital projects.
Looking ahead (2013-2017) atthe projected Utility capital projects, ifthe. 5% of0perating Revenue
cap is in place, APP Utility budgets will fall well below the projected cap amount, unless new
projects are added.
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
The APP Board reviewed the revised Cap option at its September 19, 2012 meeting. The APP Board
supports the .5% of Operating Revenue Cap as presented in the revised Ordinance."
58
October 2, 2012
Jill Stilwell, Cultural Services and Facilities Director, introduced the Second Reading of the
Ordinance.
Ellen Martin, Visual Arts Administrator, discussed the modifications approved by Council on First
Reading. She stated staff is recommending capping utility contributions to the Art in Public Places
(APP) program at 0.5% of each utility's annual budgeted operating revenue.
Stilwell stated utility capital projects over $250,000 would continue to contribute 1% of their
budgets to Art in Public Places. The proposed cap is a separate calculation based on the rate payers'
payments into each utility. The cap limits the impact to the utility rate payers to a maximum of
$0.71 per month; however, the anticipated impact is expected to be $0.15 per month. At this point,
the anticipated Art in Public Places projects for the year should be funded in full, despite the cap.
York, Art in Public Places Board Chairman, stated the Board supports the proposed cap as a
reasonable compromise.
Harry Rose, 504 Edwards Street, opposed a cap on funding for Art in Public Places and urged a
flexible cap rather than a hard cap.
Carole Hossan; 504 Edwards Street; opposed a cap on funding for Art in Public Places.
Nancy York, 130 South Whitcomb, supported the subsidy of arts in the community and opposed
changing the funding for Art in Public Places.
Beth Flowers, 200 West Mountain, Beet Street Executive Director, opposed a cap on funding for
Art in Public Places.
Councilmember Manvel asked about the discontinuity regarding the Light and Power budget
contribution. Marty Heffernan, Community Services Director, replied the operating budget for
Light and Power is far greater than that of the other utilities; therefore, the 0.5% cap is quite a large
number coming from that utility. The number of capital projects for Light and Power, and the other
utilities, is quite modest over the next five years. The impact of the cap will be somewhat muted
until a large capital project occurs. Over the past five years, given the number of capital projects,
the impact of the cap would have been to cut about 13% of the Art in Public Places budget.
Councilmember Troxell asked about the meaning of non -lapsing. Stilwell replied non -lapsing
accounts do not end at the end of a year.
Mayor Weitkunat stated she does not understand the rationale in using the operating revenues as the
cap. Stilwell replied the operating revenues were used in order to limit the potential impact to rate
payers.
Mayor Weitkunat stated it seems illogical to impose a cap that will never be achieved. Heffernan
replied the cap, had it been in place over the last five years, would have had an impact. The overall
capital projects for utilities over the next five years are fairly modest at this point; therefore, the cap
would not apply.
59
October 2, 2012
Mayor Weitkunat noted there was never intent to end the Art in Public Places program; however,
the funding being attached to utilities was never publically considered. She expressed concern
regarding the large build-up of reserves with no projects to fund. Heffernan stated any large capital
project will have the effect of having significant reductions on the APP budget.
Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Troxell, to adopt Ordinance
No. 078, 2012, on Second Reading.
Councilmember Manvel noted there are several changes since First Reading.
City Attorney Roy clarified the Second Reading includes several changes; including the 0.5% cap.
City Manager Atteberry noted the Executive Summary of this item erroneously states the item was
adopted unanimously on First Reading. Councilmembers Ohlson and Poppaw voted against
adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading.
Councilmember Horak supported the compromise.
Councilmember Poppaw stated she would prefer no cap, but expressed appreciation for the
compromise.
Councilmember Manvel thanked staff for work on the item and stated he would support the motion.
Councilmember Troxell stated he would support the motion and its compromise.
Mayor Weitkunat expressed appreciation for the compromise and stated she would support the
motion despite her concerns regarding the extensive levels of reserves resulting from the program.
Councilmember Poppaw disagreed that the reserves were inappropriate.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak and
Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED
Resolution 2012-092
Supporting an Amendment to the United States Constitution That Would Limit
Constitutional Rights to Natural Persons and Would State That Political Contributions
and Expenditures Are Not Constitutionally Protected Speech, Adopted as Amended
The following is staffs memorandum for this item.
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
City Council has directed staff to present a resolution urging the City's representatives in the U.S.
Congress to propose an amendment to the U S. Constitution stating that: (1) only human beings, not
corporations, are entitled to constitutional rights; and (2) money is not speech, and therefore
regulatingpolitical contributions and expenditures is not equivalent to limilingpolitical speech. In
October.2, 2012
a US. Supreme Court decision, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the court held that
those portions of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 that prohibited expenditures on
"electioneering communications "by corporations were an unconstitutional infringement on the First
Amendment rights of corporations'. In response to the Citizens United decision, some cities, states
and individual lawmakers have proposed amending the US. Constitution in the manner described
above.
BACKGROUND /DISCUSSION
The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 prohibited corporations and unions from using their
general treasury to fund "electioneering communications" (broadcast advertisements mentioning
a candidate) within 30 days before a primary or 60 days before a general election. The Citizens
United decision held that portions of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 that prohibited
expenditures on electioneering communications by corporations were an unconstitutional
infringement on the First Amendment rights of corporations. The Citizens United court held that
the First Amendment does not permit restrictions on speech on the basis of the speaker's corporate
identity. The court further held that the categorical ban on corporate political speech imposed by
the applicable provisions of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 could not be justified on
the grounds that it was necessary to prevent quid pro quo corruption.
The Citizens United decision has resulted in several governmental entities and individual lawmakers
proposing to amend the US. Constitution similar to or as described above. According to a website
called "movetoamend.org", the list of local and state governments that have passed resolutions
similar to the proposed resolution includes but is nor limited to Boulder, CO, Seattle, WA, Telluride,
CO, Albany, NY, Chicago, IL, and the State of Vermont. "
Bruce Hendee, Chief Sustainability Officer, stated this Resolution is being brought forth at the
request of Council.
Dan Weinheimer, Policy and Project Manager, noted this Resolution was brought forth by citizens
and discussed the history of Citizens United and its case against the Federal Elections Commission.
The information would likely go to the U.S. Congressional delegation if Council adopts the
Resolution.
(Secretary's note: Councilmember Kottwitz arrived at this point in the meeting.)
City Attorney Roy stated the Resolution was slightly rewritten from the version presented by
citizens.
Councilmember Horak noted this was not a citizen initiative, but was rather a suggestion for Council
consideration. He stated he will support adding "and labor organizations" in two places in the
Resolution.
Roger Dodds; 2102 Creekwood Court, thanked Council for its consideration of the item and thanked
City Attorney Roy for his thoughtful changes to the Resolution. He supported the Resolution as
written.
' 558 U.S. 310 (January 21, 2010).
61
October 2. 2012
Cheryl Distaso, Fort Collins Community Action Network, supported the Resolution and thanked
City Attorney Roy for his changes to the Resolution.
David Bell, Fort Collins resident, thanked Council for its consideration of the item. He supported
the Resolution as written.
Eric Fried, 4255 Kingsbury Drive, stated corporations are not people and supported the Resolution
as written. He discussed the differences between corporations and labor organizations.
Bob Overbeck, 302 Parker Street, supported the Resolution as written.
Nancy York, 130 South Whitcomb, supported the Resolution as written and discussed the idea that
money is not speech.
Kevin Cross, 300 Peterson, supported the Resolution as written.
City Attorney Roy noted the version of the Resolution his office worked on was the product of a
meeting held by Councilmember Horak and proponents of the item.
Councilmember Troxell asked how this impacts Fort Collins elections. City Attorney Roy stated
the City does not regulate independent expenditures but does have a limit on direct contributions.
Councilmember Troxell asked how the City, as a municipality, relates to the Federal Election
Commission. City Attorney Roy replied the City's elections are governed by the City Code as a
home rule municipality.
Councilmember Troxell asked what other legal entities exist beyond corporations and labor unions.
City Attorney Roy replied there are a number of legal entities including limited liability
corporations, partnerships, and other kinds of associations. The Resolution only speaks to
corporations and labor organizations because the portion of the federal act that was the subject of
the case had to do only with those and with federal elections. The wording is such because the
couWs ruling was limited to invalidating that portion of the act and spoke to just those two types
of entities. The implications of the ruling is likely to go beyond those two types of entities.
Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Manvel, to adopt Resolution
2012-092, with the addition of `labor organizations" in two places.
Councilmember Manvel expressed support forthe Resolution and noted a change in the Constitution
which would be supported by this Resolution would result in allowing Congressional representatives
the ability to debate and decide the appropriate level for corporate contributions.
Councilmember Kottwitz stated this type of Resolution is not the role of city government and
cautioned against its potential unintended consequences.
Councilmember Troxell stated this type of Resolution is not the role of city government and
expressed concern regarding Council's consideration of non -binding issues.
62
October 2, 2012
Mayor Weitkunat stated she would not support the Resolution as it reflects the opinion of a citizen
group and is not the appropriate role of local government.
Councilmember Horak stated local government does have the ability to affect change on a federal
level.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw and Horak. Nays:
Weitkunat, Kottwitz and Troxell.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Mayor Weitkunat asked that the letter written to the U.S. Congressional delegation reflect the
divided Council vote.
Public Hearing on the 2013-2014 Recommended Biennial
Budget for the City of Fort Collins. Hearine was Held
The following is staff s memorandum for this item.
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This is the second official public hearing on the City Manager's 2013-2014 Recommended Biennial
Budget for the City of Fort Collins. The purpose of this public hearing is to gather public input on
the 2013-2014 Budget. Public input will also be taken during the budget adoption meetings on
Tuesday, October 16 and Tuesday, November 20, 2012 at 6: 00 p. m. in the Council Chambers.
The City Manager's 2013-2014 Recommended Budget can be reviewed at the Main Library, the
Harmony Branch Library, Council Tree Library, or the City Clerk's Office. The recommended
budget can also be viewed online at wwiv. fcgov. com/budget ".
Myles Crane, 4913 Langdale Court, supported the Senior Center expansion and requested the
additional $1 million in funding from Building Community Choices.
Irene Vernon, Poudre Canyon Road, supported funding for the Poudre School District after school
programs.
Nancy York, 130 South Whitcomb; opposed the proposed funding for electric vehicle charging
stations and supported additional funding for public transit.
Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, opposed the budgeting process.
Cheryl Distaso, Fort Collins Community Action Network, supported funding for the Landscape to
Xeriscape budget offer and more funding for Transfort and Dial -a -Ride services. She supported
funding for the Poudre School District after school programs.
Bruce Henderson, Fort Collins resident, supported the Great Lawn budget offer.
October 2, 2012
Beth Flowers, 200 West Mountain, Beet Street Executive Director, supported the Great Lawn budget
offer and supported funding for the Arts Incubator of the Rockies.
Alex Blackmer, Atmosphere Conservancy Executive Director, supported FortZed funding.
Harry Rose, 504 Edwards Street, supported funding for the Great Lawn and the Arts Incubator of
the Rockies.
Bruce Freestone, 701 Peak Street, expressed support for arts funding, specifically the Great Lawn
project.
Carole Hossan, 504 Edwards Street, supported funding for the arts, specifically the Arts Incubator
of the Rockies project.
Dulcie Willis, Bas Bleu Theatre Company Executive Director, supported funding for the Great Lawn
project.
Rachel Vernon, 204 North Roosevelt, supported funding for the Poudre School District after school
programs.
Frank Martinez, 3815 Celtic Lane, supported funding for the Poudre School District after school
programs.
York, Fort Collins resident, supported funding for the Great Lawn project and the Poudre School
District after school programs.
Rob Cagen, 1225 Buttonwood Drive, supported funding for the Great Lawn budget offer.
Jim Cambon, 3517 Canadian Parkway, supported funding for the ClimateWise program.
(Secretary's note: The Council took a brief recess at this point in the meeting.)
Consideration of an Appeal of the Planning and Zoning Board's July 19, 2012 Decision to
Approve Regency Lakeview Addition of a Permitted Use for Multi -family Dwellings at
Christ Center Community Church and Project Development Plan, Postponed
The following is staffs memorandum for this item.
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In April 2012, Regency Residential Partners submitted a request for an Addition ofa Permitted Use
for Multi -Family Dwellings in the Low Density Residential (R-L) zone district and Project
Development Plan for an 11-acre parcel located on the east side of the Christ Center Community
Church. The parcel is located at the southeast corner of Drake Road and Lemay Avenue. As
proposed, the project consists of] 75 dwelling units divided among eight buildingsplus a clubhouse.
On July 19, 2012, the Planning and Zoning Board conducted a public hearing regarding an
application for an Addition ofa Permitted Use and for approval of the Regency Lakeview P. D.P.
64
October 2, 2012
After receiving testimony from the applicant, the public and staff, and after deliberation, the Board
voted 4 — 2 to approve the request for an Addition ofa Permitted Use for Multi -Family Dwellings,
and then voted 5 — I to approve the Regency Lakeview Project Development Plan.
On August 2, 2012, Andrew Lewis et. al., filed a Notice of Appeal alleging that the Planning and
Zoning Board (].)Jailed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Land Use Code
and (2.) failed to conduct a fair hearing.
BACKGROUND /DISCUSSION
The project consists of two components because a request for an Addition ofa Permitted Use must
be accompanied by either an Overall Development Plan or a Project Development Plan.
As mentioned, the project would consist of 175 dwelling units divided among eight buildings plus
a clubhouse. There would be a mix of one, two and three -bedroom units. There would be 292
parking spaces divided among attached garages, detached garages and surface parking, and 283
bike spaces. Amenities would include a clubhouse, pool and walkways. There are no four bedroom
units. Leases would be by the unit, not the bedroom. The dwelling units are intended to be leased
at the market rate and do not include any public subsidy for affordable housing purposes. The
applicant has indicated that there is no specific targeting ofany one particular demographic group.
The existing stormwater detention pond at the south end of the parcel would be enlarged and
improved as a two -acre, private pocket park. There would be no new access drives from either
Lemay Avenue a• Drake Road The parcel is presently used as an athletic_field as part of the 25-
acre Christ Center Community Church campus.
ACTION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
The Board took two actions.
Voted 4 — 2 to allow Multi -Family Dwellings in the R-L zone on the subject parcel only and
as specifically depicted on the Regency Lakeview P.D.P.
Voted 5 — I to approve the Regency Lakeview P. D.P.
THE QUESTIONS COUNCIL NEEDS TO ANSWER
Did the Planning and Zoning Board fail to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions
of the Land Use Code?
2. Did the Planning and Zoning Board fail to conduct a fair hearing in that the Board exceeded
its authority or jurisdiction as contained in the Land Use Code or Charter?
3. Did the Planning and Zoning Board fail to conduct a fair hearing in that the Board
substantially ignored its previously established rules ofprocedure?
4. Did the Planning and Zoning Board fail to conduct a fair hearing in that the Board
considered evidence relevant to its findings which were substantially false or grossly
misleading?
65
October 2, 2012
ALLEGATIONS ONAPPEAL
A. Failure to Properly Interpret and Apply Relevant Provisions of the Land Use Code
Specifically Section 1.3.4(A)(1).
Land Use Code Section 1.3.4(A)(1) reads as follows:
"Such use is appropriate in the zone district to which it is added. "
The appellants assert that Multi -Family Dwellings, as indicated by the Regency Lakeview P.D.P.,
are not appropriate within the R-L zone district because the R-L zone is for low density housing, not
multi family housing.
The Planning and Zoning Board not only considered the underlying zoning but also evaluated the
context of the individual parcel and its relationship to the surrounding area. Given the site's
location within this existing urban context, the addition ofMulti-Family Dwellings, at thisparticular
location, was considered appropriate.
As noted in the transcript (page 59, lines 20 — 23), board member Schmidt commented:
"I was on the Board when the church came jar the rezone several years ago, and 1
think at that time, I supported, actually, the rezoning. I thought the higher density
housing was appropriate in this area because of the two arterials, the City's
commitment to the inftll. "
Also as noted in the transcript (page 61, lines 35 — 39), board member Smith commented:
"So, with that said, I still looked at this one as being, you've still got to fit the zone
district. Is this... is it more appropriate for this to be rezoned or is it going to be
acceptable and appropriate to go through the Addition ofa Permitted Use process?
And, so, looking at it line by line, it does seem that it does fit all the criteria that's
laid out to be accepted for an addition of a permitted use. "
B. Failure to Properly Interpret and Apply Relevant Provisions of the Land Use Code
Specifically Section 1.3.4(A)(2).
Land Use Code Section 1.3.4(A)(2) reads as follows:
"Such use conforms to the basic characteristics of the zone district and the other
permitted uses in the zone district to which it is added "
The appellants state that adding Multi -Family Dwellings to the R-L zone does not conform to the
basic characteristics of the zone and other permitted uses.
The Planning and Zoning Board discussed this standard. As noted in the transcript (page 61, lines
40 — 42 and page 62, lines I — 2) board member Schmidt commented:
October 2, 2012
"Ijust wanted to say quickly, too, I think 1 had a concern, too, whether the addition
of a permitted use was the right way to go with this, and I think, again, because
we're keeping it residential, which goes with the character of the neighborhood.
You've got a project that has garages, so I think when people, you know, have cars,
these are going to be the kinds of tenants who are going to want to stay and become
apart of the neighborhood "
Also as noted in the transcript (page 62, lines 10 — 14), board member Smith commented.
"... by and large, the zone districts in the city expect a high degree of mixed -use,
every one of them essentially. And so, when 1 got into the purpose statement of the
RL; which, again, it is one sentence' And it talks about predominant single-family
residential areas, located throughout the city which were existing at the time of
adoption of the Land Use Code. This is clearly a hold -over in order to be able to
accommodate some' large swaths of land that were going through the process. "
C. Failure to Properly Interpret and Apply Relevant Provisions of the Land. Use Code
Specifically Section 1.3.4(A)(3).
Land Use Code Section 1.3.4(A)(3) reads as follows:
"Such use does not create any more of noise, vibration, dust, heat, smoke,
odor, glare or other objectionable influences or any more traffic hazards, traffic
generation or attraction, adverse environmental impacts, adverse impacts on public
or quasi publicfacilities, utilities or services, adverse effect on public health, safety,
morals or aesthetics, or other adverse impacts of development, than the amount
normally resulting from the other permitted uses listed in the zone district to which
it is added. "
The appellants state that the addition bf Multi -Family Dwellings as indicated by the Regency
Lakeview P.D.P. would create more adverse impacts than the amount normally resulting from the
other permitted uses in the R-L zone.
The Planning and Zoning Board evaluated this criterion. For example, as noted in the transcript
(page 61, lines 7 — 23), board member Smith commented:
"And so, holding that up against what the criteria for Additions of a Permitted Use
are, I went through each one. I've looked at each one of them. Clearly, it's not a
medical marijuana dispensary, or cultivation facility, not specifically listed as a
permitted. use. Went through each one of them, and I think what it boiled down to
me for was that, ultimately, you get into some of these tangible effects, how a
property performs as it's proposed, to whether it's going to, you know... relative to
what would be otherwise approved, if it were to be specifically allowed and
permitted by the Code. Does it create more offensive noise, vibration, dust, heat,
smoke, odor, glare or other objectionable influences, and there's a litany of these,
and 1 think everybody in the room has gone through and seen what these all are.
And, then I think about... as I think the applicant had said that, you know, the way
that this is set up is that you actually invite that analysis of being able to look at the
67
October 2, 2012
project as proposed, relative to something that were to be just explicitly allowed by
the Code, and whether or not it would be excessive as it performs in the
neighborhood beyond what is... a project that would just, by right, approved. I
could not come up ... I could not be convinced that this project wouldbe creating any
more adverse effects than, say, if the church were to go and fully develop out a
campus, for instance, that had a lot of different uses, including a school. "
In summary, the Board found that the request for Multi -Family Dwellings, as proposed on the
subject parcel and the accompanying P.D.P., complies with the applicable criteria related to
adverse impacts. The Board found that the project would not create any more offensive or adverse
impacts or any other objectionable influences than the amount normally resulting from the other
permitted uses listed in the R-L zone.
D. Failure to Properly Interpret and Apply Relevant Provisions of the Land Use Code
Specifically Section 1.3.4(B).
Land Use Code Section 1.3.4(B) reads as follows:
"The Planning and Zoning Board may add a proposed use if the Board specifically
finds that such use would not be detrimental to the public good. "
The appellants assert that by using the Addition of a Permitted Use process is improper because it
is in effect a rezoning.
The Planning and Zoning Board evaluated this criterion. For example, as noted in the transcript
(page 60, lines 7 — 9), board member Carpenter commented:
`7 guess when I look at this, I... on the question of whether this is detrimental to the
public good, I just cannot see that it is. It's city-wide, it fits City Plan, it is what we
wanted to do with City Plan, so I really can't see that it is detrimental to the public
good. "
Also as noted in the transcript (page .i9, lines 20 — 28), board member Schmidt commented.
"I was on the Board when the church came for the rezone several years ago, and]
think at that time, I supported actually, the rezoning. The members ofthe Board, I'll
speak for some of them that aren't here anymore, I think had a concern that if you
just rezone, it makes things more unpredictable for the neighborhood, and you could
get commercial, you could get different things. And, so, our direction to the church
at the time was, we'd like to see a specific project and then the neighbors could
weigh in and see how compatible that is. So, I think the church has taken that
direction and tried to move forward with something to actually present and use the
Addition of Permitted Use process to do that. "
E. Failure to Properly Interpret and Apply Relevant Provisions of the Land Use Code
Specifically Section 1.3.4(A)(4) and 1.3.4(B).
Land Use Code Section 1.3.4(A)(4) reads as follows:
.:
October 2, 2012
"Such use is compatible with the other listed permitted uses in the zone district to
which it is added "
Land Use Code Section 1.3.4(B) reads as follows:
"The Planning and Zoning Board may add a proposed use if the Board specifically
finds that such use would be in compliance with the requirements and criteria
contained in Section 3.5.1. "
Section 3.5.1 of the Land Use Code addresses issues related to project compatibility with the
surrounding area. It is considered in conjunction with the definition of compatibility which is as
follows:
"Compatibility shall mean the characteristics ofdifferent uses or activities or design
which allow them to be located near or adjacent to each other in harmony. Some
elements affecting compatibility include height, scale, mass and bulk of structures.
Other characteristics include pedestrian or vehicular traffic, circulation, access and
parking impacts. Other important characteristics that affect compatibility are
landscaping, lighting, noise, odor and architecture. Compatibility does not mean
"the same as. " Rather, compatibility refers to the sensitivity of development
proposals in maintaining the character of existing development. "
The appellants assert that Multi -Family Dwellings are not compatible with the existing singlefam ily
detached homes by virtue of the fact that the two uses are incongruent. Further, the assertion is
made that Section 3.5.1 only addresses physical and operational characteristics of buildings and
cannot be used in a compatibility analysis.
The Board evaluated these two criteria. As noted in the transcript (page 60, lines 2 — 5), board
member Schmidt stated:
"So I can see that in all the design work that they've put into this project, they've
tried to make it as compatible as possible to the neighborhood, and have the least
impact on the surrounding neighbors, and 1 really appreciate that. "
Also as noted in the transcript (page 60, lines 20 — 22), board member Campana commented:
"And, frankly, I think that the design is very good. I think you've done... as I put on
my designer hat, I think you've done about everything you can to transition, buffer,
mitigate an existing neighborhood. "
In summary, the Board evaluated the proposed use not in isolation but in conjunction with the
various characteristics as found in the aforementioned definition. Considerable testimony was
provided to the Board regarding how the project would be compatible with the surrounding
neighborhood For example, the project is designed with a specific objective to buffer the existing
neighborhood to the east with landscaping, building setbacks, one-story garages, architectural
detail and varying building heights. To the south, buffering is achieved by virtue of open space
gained by the stormwater detention pond, approximately two acres in size, which would be upgraded
M
October 2, 2012
to a pocket park. Finally, the traffic impact on surrounding streets was evaluated and determined
to comply with the adopted level ofservice standards.
F. The Board Failed To Conduct a Fair Hearing By Considering Evidence Relevant To Its
Findings Which Was Substantially False Or Grossly Misleading — Section 3.6.4.
Land Use Code Section 3.6.4 reads as follows:
"All development plans shall adequately provide vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle
facilities necessary to maintain the adopted transportation Level of Service
standards contained in Part II of the City of Fort Collins Multi -modal
Transportation Level of Service Manual for the following modes of travel: motor
vehicle, bicycle and pedestrian. The Transit LOS standards contained in Part H of
the Multi -modal Transportation Manual will not be applied for the purposes of this
Section. "
This assertion relates to the motion to approve the PDP. The appellants assert that the pedestrian
level of service cannot be achieved because there are no medians in either arterial street which
would act as pedestrian refuge islands. Further, the assertion continues that, as stated by the
applicant's traffic engineering consultant, since the existing sidewalks along both arterials would
not be deconstructed and then reconstructed to feature detached sidewalks separated by parkways,
the pedestrian level of service cannot be achieved. It is asserted that new medians and sidewalks
can indeed be installed as there appears to be sufficient land area in which to retrofit these
improvements.
In addition, the allegation is that traffic information provided to the board did not properly assess
the potential traffic patterns across the existing church parking lot in order to gain access to Lemay
Avenue. Evidence was presented to the Board by the applicant's n affic engineering consultant that
the north access (which aligns with Scotch Pines shopping center) would be used more frequently
than the southern access (which aligns with Strachan Drive) and yet there is no basis for this
assumption. Traf/ic using the using the southern access will impact the neighbors to the south.
Finally, the allegation is that the traffic delay analysis oftraffic leaving the church or neighborhood
onto Lemay Avenue was not properly considered.
With regard to the pedestrian level of service, the applicant's traffic engineering consultant
addressed the Board. This testimony is on page 48, lines 1 - 11 of the transcript.
In addition, on page 54, lines 35 — 38 of the transcript,' there was this exchange:
"Boardmember Kirkpatrick: Just to confirm, where there are no plans to put
medians on Lemay are there? "
"Mr. Stanford (City of Fort Collins Traffic Engineer): Alone that 1 am aware of I
think it would be difficult just to find the room to do it with the current build -out
characteristic. "
70
October 2, 2012
With regard to the existing attached sidewalks on Drake Road and Lemay Avenue, the following
testimony was provided to the Board by the applicant's traffic engineering consultant (transcript
page 48, lines I — 5):
"In the traffic study, we talked about the fact that under the pedestrian level of
service criteria, that some criteria could not be met. On site, all ofthe criteria would
be met, but off site, since this is an older area of Fort Collins, standard streets and
sidewalks and so on were built under previous standards, not the Lorimer County
Urban Street Standards. The fact of the matter is you can't meet them."
The Board had no follow-up discussion regarding this matter.
With regard to traffic patterns across the existing church parking lot, the fundamental design
objective is to minimize traffic from the apartments from traveling along the length of the southern
property line which is separated from the backyards of the existing houses by a six foot high solid
privacy, fence. Residents along this shared property line indicated at the neighborhood meetings
a preference for this traffic to be directed away from their backyards. In response, the site plan was
revised such that Regency Lakeview traffic heading west to Lemay Avenue would be directed as far
to the north as possible in order to prioritize the north access (which aligns with Scotch Pines
shopping center).
Consequently westbound drivers will traverse the parking lot at the north edge of the parking lot
away from the houses. While it maybe possible for these drivers to decide to exit at the southern
driveway (which aligns with Strachan Drive on the west side ofLemay Avenue), instead ofthe north
driveway (which aligns with the shopping center drive), for the most part, this traverse is north of
the existing houses. Diverting this traffic pattern thus accomplishes the essence ofthe design intent
which is to minimize the impact along the southern property line.
Regarding the church south access, and traffic delay, the City's traffic engineer, Ward Stanford,
states on page 53, lines 12 - 20:
"The development has done efforts to try and move the traffic to the north access,
which we applaud And, the south access is expected much lower quantities of
traffic. We also don't have an existing accident history therefor that characteristic.
So, I'm assuming that the motorists are pretty cognitive of it, and will continue to be
able to drive adequately to use it appropriately. At this point, we don't have a
concern with that characteristic. Will it possibly cause a little delay to somebody
exiting when they're trying to consider what the other person maybe doing? Yes,
they certainly can. Is it going to be a common, frequent activity? We don't believe
so. If it does become something of an accident quantity, it's also an aspect that we
have a responsibility to address, and at that time, that we will do so. "
Regarding the church north access, the City's traffic engineer, Ward Stanford, states on page 54,
lines 5 —12:
"Let's see, in ... the north access to the church on Lemay, or... which will be their
access also (Regency Lakeview), we don't see it as being an exit or entrance
problem, basically, just to the geometric layout, the left turns don't conflict with each
71
October 2, 2012
other. And, we do expect... it was at my direction, the basically, the distribution of
traffic. And, we expect that most of the traffic that's going towards Lemay from the
side (site), or using Lemay from the side (site), will either be going north, towards
the higher business area, or to the west, to the also higher business area. And, so,
with that, the right turn out there is the higher movement anyway than the left turn. "
(Parentheticals added for clarity.)
G The Board Failed To Conduct a Fair Hearing By Exceeding Its Authority and Ignoring
Its Previously Established Rules of Procedure
This assertion relates to the motion to approve the PDP. The appellants contend that the Planning
and Zoning Board failed to conduct o fair hearing primarily because theyfailed to consider that the
level of service for pedestrians falls below the required minimum.
This is the same assertion as in the previous section and is repeated but under a different ground
for appeal. As stated in the preceding section:
With regard to the existing attached sidewalks on Drake Road and Lemay Avenue, the following
testimony was provided to the Board by the applicant's traffic engineering consultant (transcript
page 48, lines 1 — 5):
"In the traffic study, we talked about the fact that under the pedestrian level of
service criteria, that some criteria could not be met. On site, all oflhe criteria would
be met, but off site, since this is an older area of Fort Collins, standard streets and
sidewalks and so on were built under previous standards, not the Lorimer County
Urban Street Standards. The fact of the matter is you can't meet them."
The Board had no follow-up discussion regarding this matter. "
City Attorney Roy provided a brief explanation of the appeal process and noted only parties -in -
interest are allowed to speak at this appeal hearing. He stated there were some letters that had been
submitted to the Planning and Zoning Board prior to its hearing that were initially omitted from the
Council packet. Those letters were provided to Council today and made available to certain parties -
in -interest earlier today. Those letters were also made available earlier this evening for meeting
attendees.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson asked about the time limits. City Attorney Roy replied the initial
presentations are usually twenty minutes with a ten minute rebuttal time. However, the Code allows
the Mayor to establish those time limits.
Kathryn Dubiel, 2936 Eindborough Drive, stated the additional letters were not provided to Council
until this afternoon and suggested their late receipt violates the rules of procedure for the record of
appeal. She also stated there was a misclassification of some documents received by Council and
stated there were parties -in -interest who did not receive notice of the appeal hearing.
Mayor Weitkunat asked if any Councilmembers needed additional time to read the letters in
question.
72
October 2, 2012
Laurie Kadrich, Community Development and Neighborhood Services Director, stated she was
unaware of the notification issue. City Clerk Nelson stated she would need to do additional research
regarding the notification issue.
Councilmember Horak asked what redress Ms. Dubiel would like. Ms. Dubiel replied that
responsibility should not be placed with her.
Paul Patterson, 2936 Eindborough Drive, stated the Planning and Zoning Board did not receive the
same PowerPoint presentation as did Council and opposed the order of questions as presented in a
document summarizing the Council site visit.
Ted Shepard, Chief Planner, stated the font was enlarged for the street names on some of the slides.
He stated he was asked by the City Attorney's Office and the members of Council who attended the
site visit to write a summary of that visit.
Lucia Liley, attorney for the applicant, stated the record should be corrected; however, the applicant
does not have any procedural issues.
City Attorney Roy stated Council could vote to continue the item due to the irregularities.
Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to postpone the
appeal hearing in order to allow time for the correction of procedural issues and accurate re -
notification.
Mayor Pro Tern Ohlson suggested the possibility of holding the hearing on a different night given
Council's full schedule.
Mr. Lewis, appellant, stated he supported,postponement.
Ms. Liley stated the postponement would negatively affect the applicant; however, the applicant
would like to participate in a fair hearing and would not have any objection to a postponement, if
necessary.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Kottwitz, Horak, Troxell, Poppaw, Manvel, Ohlson
and Weitkunat. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
City Attorney Roy noted the appeal hearing should be heard within 75 days of the filing of the
appeal. He asked if there is any objection to going beyond that timeframe.
Ms. Liley stated the applicant would be willing to waive any objection to that timeframe as long as
the re -hearing is scheduled as expeditiously as possible.
City Manager Atteberry stated the October 16 agenda is full.
Ms. Liley asked if the City would provide re -notification and asked about the timeframe for that
notice. City Clerk Nelson stated re -notification would occur.
73
October Z 2012
Mayor Weitkunat stated the appeal hearing will be postponed until a date agreeable to all parties is
agreed upon.
Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m.
`�O�•FORT CO``Z
ATTEST: / 7 �• SEAL tN
City Clerk
74