City of Brighton
500 S. 4th Avenue
Brighton, CO 80601
Meeting Minutes - Draft
Tuesday, December 1, 2020
6:00 PM
Virtual Meeting
City Council
MAYOR - GREGORY MILLS
MAYOR PRO TEM - MATT JOHNSTON
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
CLINT BLACKHURST, ADAM CUSHING,
MARK HUMBERT, KRIS JORDINELLI, MARY ELLEN POLLACK,
ANN TADDEO, TIM WATTS
1. CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Mills called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m.
A. Pledge of Allegiance to the American Flag
Councilmember Watts led the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance to the American Flag.
B. Roll Call
Present: 8 - Mayor Mills, Councilmember Blackhurst, Councilmember Cushing,
Councilmember Humbert, Councilmember Jordinelli, Councilmember Pollack,
Councilmember Taddeo, and Councilmember Watts
Not Present: 1 - Mayor Pro Tem Johnston
2. APPROVAL OF REGULAR AGENDA
Motion by Councilmember Watts, seconded by Councilmember Blackhurst, to approve the Regular Agenda as presented. Motion passed by the following vote:
Aye: 7 - Mayor Mills, Councilmember Blackhurst, Councilmember Cushing, Councilmember Jordinelli, Councilmember Pollack, Councilmember Taddeo, and Councilmember Watts
Absent: 1 - Mayor Pro Tem Johnston
Councilmember Humbert had technical issues.
3. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Approval of the November 3, 2020 City Council Minutes
B. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BRIGHTON, COLORADO, SETTING THE CITY OF BRIGHTON HOLIDAY SCHEDULE AND GENERAL LEAVE FOR 2021 CALENDAR YEAR
Resolution No: 2020-119
C. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BRIGHTON, COLORADO, APPROVING THE ALLOCATION OF TWO HUNDRED SIX THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED NINETY THREE DOLLARS AND FORTY-FIVE CENTS FROM THE UNDERGROUNDING FUND AS PROVIDED IN THE FRANCHISE AGREEMENT WITH UNITED POWER, INC. FOR THE 144TH AVENUE AND SABLE BLVD TRAFFIC SIGNAL PROJECT; AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTATION FOR SUCH ALLOCATION; AND AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF SAID FUNDS FOR THE UNDERGROUNDING OF OVERHEAD UTILITIES AT THE INTERSECTION OF 144TH AVENUE AND SABLE BLVD
Resolution No: 2020-120
D. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BRIGHTON, COLORADO, AMENDING RATE OF CONTRIBUTION TO THE FPPA DEFINED BENEFIT PLAN ADMINISTERED BY THE FIRE AND POLICE PENSION ASSOCIATION FOR REENTRY POLICE OFFICERS FOR THE CITY OF BRIGHTON, COLORADO
Resolution No: 2020-121
E. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BRIGHTON, COLORADO, AMENDING RATE OF CONTRIBUTION TO THE FPPA MULTI-EMPLOYER DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN ADMINISTERED BY THE FIRE AND POLICE PENSION ASSOCIATION FOR POLICE OFFICERS HIRED AFTER 2005 FOR THE CITY OF BRIGHTON, COLORADO
Resolution No: 2020-122
F. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BRIGHTON, COLORADO, AMENDING RATE OF CONTRIBUTION TO THE DEATH AND DISABILITY PLAN PREMIUM ADMINISTERED BY THE FIRE AND POLICE PENSION ASSOCIATION FOR POLICE OFFICERS FOR THE CITY OF BRIGHTON, COLORADO
Resolution No: 2020-123
Motion by Councilmember Blackhurst, seconded by Councilmember Cushing, to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. Motion passed by the following vote:
Aye: 7 - Mayor Mills, Councilmember Blackhurst, Councilmember Cushing, Councilmember
Jordinelli, Councilmember Pollack, Councilmember Taddeo, and Councilmember
Watts
Absent: 1 - Mayor Pro Tem Johnston
Councilmember Humbert had technical issues.
4. CEREMONIES
5. PUBLIC INVITED TO BE HEARD ON MATTERS NOT ON THE AGENDA (Speakers limited to five minutes)
6. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BRIGHTON, COLORADO, AMENDING CERTAIN SECTIONS OF THE BRIGHTON MUNICIPAL CODE IN CHAPTER 17, LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT CODE, RELATED TO FAMILY CHILD CARE HOMES, TEMPORARY USES, STORAGE USES, AND ADJUSTMENTS TO PROCESSES AND PROCEDURES (FIRST READING)
Mayor Mills read the title of the Ordinance into the record.
Mayor Mills opened the public hearing at 6:08 p.m. and City Clerk Natalie Hoel verified the required postings and publications (November 12, 2020 on the City of Brighton Website) for this public hearing were completed.
City Manager Jane Bais DiSessa introduced Long Range Planner Shannon McDowell.
Long Range Planner Shannon McDowell presented Code Amendments to the Land Use and Development Code Articles 2, 3, and 4. Staff was directed by City Council to modify the family child care home regulations. The City adopted a new Land Use and Development Code at the beginning of 2020 and these adjustments are being made due to the new Code.
Article 2 of the Land Use and Development Code focuses on Processes and Procedures for land use applications and development. The first change being proposed is related to neighborhood meeting requirements. There are two proposed changes, the first being related to family child care homes. Certain family child care homes in the City, or large family child care homes where seven to twelve children are cared for, require the approval of a Conditional Use Permit. That process requires the applicant to hold a neighborhood meeting. A neighborhood meeting generally allows the applicant to get feedback on site consideration including buffering, landscaping and noise. Because most family child care homes do not require any modification outside of the building, staff feels the neighborhood meeting requirement for this case type does not provide much value to the community or to staff as reviewers and does add to the complexity of the process for the caregivers. Staff is proposing to eliminate this requirement. The second change for neighborhood meetings is to allow virtual meetings. The Code requires in person meetings and this has been challenging for the applicants this year. There have been citizens that have asked for virtual neighborhood meetings. Staff proposes modifying the Code to allow the Community Development Director to permit a virtual meeting by replacing the in person meeting or adding the virtual meeting in addition to the in person meeting. This would help to accommodate everyone and allow the developers some flexibility.
A modification is being proposed to the Posted Notice Requirements. The Code requires notice to be posted by the applicant and that a reasonable effort be made to maintain the posted notice throughout the hearing period. This year because of COVID, some projects were delayed, yet the applicant had to maintain the sign posted on the site. The sign was on the site with a hearing date that had already passed. The proposed change would allow the applicant to remove the sign if their hearing has been delayed and then meet the normal requirement of posting the sign at least fifteen days prior to the hearing and allowing the applicant to post the new hearing date on the sign. This would create more transparency with the public and allow them time to attend the hearing.
The final recommended change in Article 2 pertains to the Appeal of an Administrative Decision. The Code indicates that an application for an appeal would be submitted to the City Clerk, but the City Clerk does not process this type of application, it is processed through the Board of Adjustment. Staff is proposing to change City Clerk to Director, meaning the Director of Community Development.
Article 3 focuses on the Subdivision Standards including streets, lot configuration and public improvements. It specifically has requirements for performance guarantees. The performance guarantees are funds that the developer would submit to the City to ensure that they do what they are supposed to. They would submit funds that would cover the improvement for any type of public improvement they are completing. If the developer fails to complete the improvements, the City would draw on those funds and make the improvements. The proposed change is related to the release of a performance guarantee. The Code indicates that a developer would submit a request in writing to the City Council; this has been an administrative function for some time. The proposed change would amend the language to say Director and not City Council. The Community Development staff monitors the development process closely and is involved in all permits so once a developer has meet all requirements and closed out the permits, staff would release the performance guarantee.
Article 4 includes the Zone District Regulations including allowed and prohibited uses and standards for specific uses. The first change in Article 4 is storage uses in the C-3 zone district. Staff receives many calls regarding new mini-storage facilities. In the new Code, storage uses were included in the C-3 zone district to expand the areas where storage would be allowed. In the past, it was allowed in the industrial zones and this put pressure on the industrial areas to fulfill that need. Staff found that storage uses are not compatible with the C-3 zone district. C-3 is meant to provide retail services and employment that requires a high level of visibility and access. C-3 zoning in the City is located west of Highway 85, in the Safeway shopping center on Bridge Street and at the southwest corner of Bromley Lane and Prairie Center Parkway. These are visible locations and not where one would like to see mini-storage. C-3 is also meant to foster businesses that create sales tax and storage does not do that. The Comprehensive Plan does not support storage uses in C-3 and staff feels storage uses would be more compatible with a less visible location but one that has wonderful access.
Staff was asked to create an exemption for family child care homes that would follow the State Licensing Standards. The state does not require a license for family child care homes where the children being cared for are related to the caregiver, where they are related to each other as siblings from a single family that is unrelated to the caregiver or when there are no more than four children being cared for with no more than two children under the age of two. This proposed modification would create an exemption from obtaining a Home Occupation Permit, which reduces the barriers to family child care home providers being able to operate in the City.
Temporary Uses are addressed in the Municipal Code and the Land Use and Development Code and staff has found some inconsistencies between those. These changes are related to private property uses. Because the Municipal Code clearly covers public property uses, some of the uses mentioned in the Land Use and Development Code need to be eliminated. Things like street fairs, sidewalk sales and truck sales need to be deleted since they are regulated by the Municipal Code. Staff would like to create two categories for temporary uses, a short term for ninety days or less for small-scale events and business expansion, and long-term uses up to one year for construction trailers, sales offices, generally uses related to development. In both cases, it is being proposed that flexibility be allowed for the Director to approve a longer period if necessary. This provision exists in the Municipal Code; it would be added to the Land Use and Development Code. The last change for temporary uses is the adjustment of processing time. Both the Municipal Code and Land Use and Development Code give a period in which the City must process a permit. The Municipal Code states twenty business days, and the Land Use and Development Code states ten calendar days and a typical processing time is two weeks. The proposed change to the Land Use and Development Code would be changes to fifteen calendar days.
Notice of the hearing was published on the City of Brighton website and on social media by November 16, 2020. No formal comments have been received. This was heard by the Planning Commission and one member of the public commented in favor of the changes to family child care homes.
Staff finds that the Code amendment to the Land Use and Development Code furthers the purpose of the Land Use and Development Code as stated in Section 1.01.C. The amendment is in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan and has been considered for both its long-range affects as well as immediate impacts. The amendment promotes the public safety, health and general welfare of the community in the City of Brighton. The Amendment improves the effectiveness and efficiency of administering the Land Use and Development Code.
The Planning Commission heard the request at their hearing on November 12, 2020 and recommended approval unanimously. Staff recommends approval of the Code amendments.
Mayor Mills asked if anyone in the audience had questions for the applicant, there was none.
Mayor Mills asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak on behalf of or against the request, there was none.
Mayor Mills asked if there were questions from City Council.
Councilmember Blackhurst stated that the recommended changes make sense and noted that if a person wanted a large daycare center up to twelve children, they are required to have a certain number of adults per child. If this were going into a residential area, a public notice or meeting with the neighbors would be a good idea. This could create a lot of traffic and asked how the affected neighborhood would be affected and able to understand the impact to the neighborhood. Planner McDowell agreed that this use would generate some traffic, but the applicant would not be required to add parking spaces or landscaping for a buffer. The elimination of the neighborhood-meeting requirement does not eliminate the public hearing portion of the process. There is an opportunity for a neighbor to voice their concern and have them addressed. Councilmember Blackhurst explained that in the past when a group of neighbors were concerned about a development, the ability to speak one on one and not in a City Council meeting helped to work out some problems and concern prior to the public hearing. If there is a center with up to twelve kids, there may be a need for buffering or modifications if using the back yard.
Councilmember Jordinelli asked what the catalyst is for these changes, is there a full time person going over these changes and are these ongoing changes. Planner McDowell explained that she is in charge of the changes and as staff reads different sections of the Code, it is discovered that changes are needed to apply the Code to certain situations; some things are not working well and need to be adjusted.
Mayor Mills closed the public hearing at 6:31 p.m.
Motion by Councilmember Jordinelli, seconded by Councilmember Cushing, to approve the Ordinance. Motion passed by the following vote:
Aye: 8 - Mayor Mills, Councilmember Blackhurst, Councilmember Cushing, Councilmember
Humbert, Councilmember Jordinelli, Councilmember Pollack, Councilmember
Taddeo, and Councilmember Watts
Absent: 1 - Mayor Pro Tem Johnston
7. CONSOLIDATED ITEMS FOR SEQUENTIAL REVIEW
A. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BRIGHTON, COLORADO, ADOPTING THE FISCAL YEAR 2021 BUDGET, AND APPROPRIATING SUMS OF MONEY TO THE VARIOUS FUNDS AND SPENDING AGENCIES IN THE AMOUNTS SPECIFIED BELOW IN THE AMOUNT OF $138,197,981, FOR THE CITY OF BRIGHTON, COLORADO, FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2021 (PUBLIC HEARING)
Mayor Mills read the title of the Resolution into the record.
Mayor Mills opened the public hearing at 6:33 p.m. and City Clerk Natalie Hoel verified the required postings and publications (November 11, 2020 and November 18, 2020 in the Brighton Standard Blade) for this public hearing were completed.
City Manager Bais DiSessa introduced Finance Director Maria Ostrom.
Finance Director Maria Ostrom explained that there has been an additional change in the budget book from the time it was given to City Council. Staff will go over the proposed budget, the highlighted projects from 2020, the Mill Levy Resolution and the Annual Fee Resolution for 2021. Some of the 2020 projects include the kickoff of the Water Treatment Plan design, which is underway and will come back in 2021 with information regarding design and cost. Downtown Plaza Phase 1 was completed in 2020 and Phase 2 is planned for 2021. COVID-19 assistance and the time and resources that were spent on this was incredible. Staff is grateful for the CARES funding and the ability to get this into the community was great, good feedback was received from citizens. Director Ostrom introduced Budget and Performance Fellow Kathryn Mortensen.
Budget and Performance Fellow Kathryn Mortensen presented the timeline that has taken place regarding the budget from April to the hearing tonight. In April, staff knew that due to COVID the City would be working with revenue restraints for the 2021 budget. Staff worked to identify operating efficiencies so there would not be a need to make cuts to service or furlough and lay off employees. Staff was successful and a structurally sound budget was presented. During the budget forum, staff took feedback from Council regarding key initiatives Council wanted back in the proposed budget as well as outline some areas that could change including Capital carryover. Staff is presenting the City Manager’s final budget recommendation and seeking Council approval of the Budget Resolution, Mill Levy Resolution and the Annual Fee Resolution.
These are the budget refinements that took place between the budget forum and the budget book. The Capital Carryover for $2.5 million, this was based on the work that staff expected to occur by the end of the year. There were still unknowns due to supply chain issues on several projects due to COVID-19. These concerns have come to fruition on several projects including traffic signals, signal improvements and right-of-way lighting projects. The manufacturers are expecting delivery of these products after the first of the year. The next largest adjustment is the Ken Mitchell Grant for $1.4 million. This grant award was approved by City Council and was applied for prior to the pandemic. The County did not know if they could make this award this year, but they are able to. This has been added to the budget to ensure the funds could be spent in 2021. The next item is the COVID-19 Response for $500,000. Multiple Councilmembers expressed concern regarding how the City could continue to address COVID-19 as the CARES funding runs out. The City Manager is recommending the use of $500,000 of the 2020 Oil and Gas Revenue to support whatever COVID-19 response programs Council deems necessary in the new year. The City Properties Use Assessment for $100,000 was included to maximize the use of the City’s assets. These funds would allow the City to hire an outside consultant with expertise in space usage and real estate to review all facilities and properties owned by the City and give an assessment of the opportunities for each property and how the City could maximize the benefit of these assets. The Workers Comp for $90,000 and Property Casualty Insurance for $80,000 are a function of timing. These costs are set by CIRSA and they do not finalize their numbers until the fall. Staff was working with estimates, but these numbers include the final costs. The Water Assistance Program was set for $25,000, but due to the increased need, staff is recommending that this be changed to $50,000. There is a difference from the presentation tonight and the proposed budget book of $119,230. This is due to the amendment made for Lodging Tax to allow the use of the 2020 grant funds in 2021.
Highlights of the 2021 budget include the design and testing of permeable pavement for the Bridge Street Widening project, Phase 1 and 2 of the North Outfall, the purchase of body cameras for the Police Department in 2021, and the reopening of recreation amenities as allowed by State and County mandates.
The 2021 budget by type includes 55% for Ongoing Operations like personnel, daily operation supplies and contracts, 9% for Capital Maintenance to keep city assets in good working order, and 35% for One Time Capital projects. The recommended budget is $138,197,981.
Budget Manager Kayla Barber-Perrotta presented Items 7B and 7C. The Mill Levy Resolution remains unchanged for 2021. Staff is recommending the Mill Levy be fixed at 6.65 mills as it has been for the past two decades. This is projected to result in $3.6 million in revenues for the 2021 budget.
The 2021 Fee Resolution sets fees and charges for government services and programs each year. The Resolution does contain minimal changes for 2021 including some clean-up items and flexibility in the COVID-19 environment. There will be minimal impact to revenues.
The first change is to remove the bi-annual renewal fee for business licenses. This removes a $10 fee to renew Business Licenses. It is burdensome for businesses and City staff and typically generates only $27,000 in revenues every other year. It costs more to process the payments than the City makes on this fee. The Occupation Fee is something the City is required to collect by Code. In 2020, the fee was mistakenly left off the Fee Resolution. The recommendation is to bring back this table with no price changes to fix the discrepancy between City Code and the Fee Resolution. Community Development is requesting to extend the waiver on temporary use permits for businesses to expand outdoors. This was approved by Council in 2020 and Council gave direction to continue this in 2021. Community Development is requesting the reduction in the conditional use permit fee for large in home day cares of seven to twelve kids. A less burdensome process has been implemented for this permit so staff can change this fee from $1,000 to $400. There was previously a discussion regarding credit card fees. These fees have increased due to issues with COVID and City facilities being closed. It was proposed that staff negotiate fees with Visa and Mastercard. The City is not large enough to negotiate with those entities, but staff has worked with the City’s banks to negotiate the merchant service fees, staff is optimistic that there may be an opportunity for savings. Staff is not recommending any fee changes at this time, but there will be additional discussions after the analysis. Parks and Recreation has some changes directly related to COVID-19. The Recreation Center has been closed or open in limited capacity for most of the year and the level of traffic to regular activities has not materialized. An expansion to the Director of Parks and Recreation’s ability to run promotions in 2021 is being recommended. This expands the ability to run promotions from just passes to individual classes and programs in the hopes of drawing people back to the Recreation Center when it is open again and to ensure the programs are accessible throughout the community despite the economic hardships.
Staff is recommending the adoption of the Budget Resolution, the adoption of the Mill Levy Resolution and the Adoption of the Fee Resolution.
Mayor Mills asked if anyone in the audience had questions for the applicant, there was none.
Mayor Mills asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak on behalf of or against the request, there was none.
Mayor Mills asked if there were questions from City Council.
Councilmember Watts appreciates the work done by the Finance staff.
Councilmember Cushing asked how the budget would be adjusted based on actual revenues. Budget Manager Barber-Perrotta explained that staff used a base budget for the projected 2021 revenues. Each department then identified programs that could be cut from the budget if there was a need to adjust by 5% and similarly if the revenues were 5% over. Councilmember Cushing asked if the 2020 budget was down by 10%. Finance Director Ostrom reported that revenues are less and the sales tax trajectory is not as quick as expected. Adjustments were made early on with the Acting City Manager where vacant positions were cut and a few positions were cut back to thirty-two hours instead of forty moving forward. Those savings meant that in the five-year period, the financial models show that the City is sound. If things get worse, staff would look at this again. Councilmember Cushing expressed concern and asked that Council be involved in these discussions as Council priorities may be different from staff. City Manager Bais DiSessa explained that the budget is a living document. Staff reviews the budget monthly and if things are not going well, they will report to Council for any changes that need to be made.
Councilmember Jordinelli asked if on the Master Equivalent Lease Purchase Agreement, is the City purchasing or leasing. Director Ostrom explained that the City would end up owning the equipment at the end of the lease. Councilmember Jordinelli asked if the City is leasing, why the City would not continue to upgrade to better equipment. Director Ostrom stated that the Public Works Director might come back and have a recommendation as the life cycle of the equipment approaches.
Councilmember Blackhurst thanked staff for a magnificent job on the budget.
Councilmember Taddeo appreciates that the budget process began earlier this year. Councilmember Taddeo asked if there is an opportunity to increase the hours of employees that had their hours cut to thirty-two hours back to forty hours and fill the positions that were not filled. Director Ostrom explained that any department director that had staff impacted by the reduction of hours has made this a priority as part of the 5% revenue increase to bring the employees back to forty hours.
Mayor Mills closed the public hearing at 7:07 p.m.
Motion by Councilmember Blackhurst, seconded by Councilmember Humbert, to approve Resolution 2020-124. Motion passed by the following vote:
Aye: 8 - Mayor Mills, Councilmember Blackhurst, Councilmember Cushing, Councilmember
Humbert, Councilmember Jordinelli, Councilmember Pollack, Councilmember
Taddeo, and Councilmember Watts
Absent: 1 - Mayor Pro Tem Johnston
B. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BRIGHTON, COLORADO, LEVYING GENERAL PROPERTY TAXES FOR THE YEAR 2020, TO HELP DEFRAY THE COSTS OF GOVERNMENT FOR THE CITY OF BRIGHTON, COLORADO, AND SETTING THE MILL LEVY AT 6.650 MILLS FOR THE 2021 BUDGET YEAR
Mayor Mills read the title of the Resolution into the record.
Motion by Councilmember Watts, seconded by Councilmember Jordinelli, to approve Resolution 2020-125. Motion passed by the following vote:
Aye: 8 - Mayor Mills, Councilmember Blackhurst, Councilmember Cushing, Councilmember
Humbert, Councilmember Jordinelli, Councilmember Pollack, Councilmember
Taddeo, and Councilmember Watts
Absent: 1 - Mayor Pro Tem Johnston
C. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BRIGHTON, COLORADO, SETTING FORTH CERTAIN FEES AND CHARGES ASSESSED BY THE CITY OF BRIGHTON, EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 2021
Mayor Mills read the title of the Resolution into the record.
Motion by Councilmember Humbert, seconded by Councilmember Cushing, to approve Resolution 2020-126. Motion passed by the following vote:
Aye: 8 - Mayor Mills, Councilmember Blackhurst, Councilmember Cushing, Councilmember
Humbert, Councilmember Jordinelli, Councilmember Pollack, Councilmember
Taddeo, and Councilmember Watts
Absent: 1 - Mayor Pro Tem Johnston
D. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BRIGHTON, COLORADO, MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS OF FACT REGARDING THE PROPOSED ANNEXATION OF AN APPROXIMATE 0.488 ACRES OF CONTIGUOUS LAND, KNOWN AS THE NEFF REMAINDER PROPERTY ANNEXATION, IN THE NORTHWEST ¼ OF SECTION 1, TOWNSHIP 1 SOUTH, RANGE 66 WEST, OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, COUNTY OF ADAMS, STATE OF COLORADO (PUBLIC HEARING)
Mayor Mills read the title of the Resolution into the record.
Mayor Mills opened the public hearing at 7:12 p.m. and City Clerk Natalie Hoel verified the required postings and publications (October 28, 2020, November 4, 2020, November 11, 2020 and November 18, 2020 in the Brighton Standard Blade) for this public hearing were completed.
City Manager Bais DiSessa introduced Assistant Planner Sean Pesek.
Assistant Planner Sean Pesek reminded City Council that they accepted the public improvements associated with the Ridgeline Vista Subdivision at the last meeting with a few conditions. One of those conditions included the successful annexation of a piece of land in the northeast corner of the proposed subdivision known as the Neff Remainder parcel. This item is for the annexation of the remainder parcel. The applicant is Travis Frazier with Redland and the owner is Eric Eckberg on behalf of CW-Blue Sky. The property is generally located in the northeast corner of Brighton, east of the intersection of Baseline Road and North 60th Avenue. The property is just outside of city limits directly east of the subject property.
Municipal Annexations are regulated primarily by State Statutes and consist of a four-step process. The first step is a Petition for Annexation; this was approved by City Council on October 20, 2020 and found compliance with Section 107 of the Colorado Revised Statutes. The next step is the Annexation Eligibility Resolution or findings of fact. This determines whether the proposal complies with Sections 104 and 105 of the Colorado Revised Statutes. If approved, there would be a first reading of an Annexation Ordinance, this Ordinance and the Eligibility Resolution would be presented later this evening. There would be a second reading for the Annexation Ordinance scheduled for December 15, 2020. An Annexation Agreement could be approved at that meeting with a Resolution.
This property was integrated into the Ridgeline Vista Major Subdivision Plan that was approved on October 8, 2020 by the Planning Commission and the public improvements were accepted by City Council on November 17, 2020.
Annexations are reviewed against the Comprehensive Plan, the review criteria in the Land Use and Development Code and the Colorado Revised Statutes. The Comprehensive Plan has designated this property as compatible with high density residential. It is in the City’s growth boundary. Secondary uses for high density residential include open space and trails and the intended use for the property includes critical drainage for the structure and a segment of trail, both resulting in open space. Staff finds that this generally complies with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan and the future Land Use designation. Section 11 of Article 2 of the Land Use and Development Code outlines six approval criteria as follows:
a. The annexation complies with the Municipal Annexation Act. Staff finds that annexation complies with the Municipal Annexation Act.
b. The annexation is in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan. Staff finds that the annexation generally complies with the Comprehensive Plan, specifically the future land use designation for the Remainder parcel.
c. The property is capable of being integrated into the City of Brighton. Staff finds that the annexation will be integrated into the City, specifically the Ridgeline Vista Subdivision, contingent on the annexation of the property.
d. Municipal and governmental services and facilities will be extended to these areas in a timely manner. Considering the size and intended use of private drainage infrastructure, it is not anticipated that municipal and governmental services and facilities would need to be extended to the area to be annexed. However, if services were required in the future, they would be integrated in a timely and fiscally responsible manner.
e. There will be adequate capacity to serve the residents of the area to be annexed. Residents are not anticipated in the parcel to be annexed due to its size as a 0.488-acre parcel.
f. The annexation will encourage well-ordered development. Staff finds that completion of the Ridgeline Vista Subdivision depends on the successful annexation of the subject property.
City Council is responsible for determining if the annexation complies with the following requirements in the Colorado Revised Statutes Section 104:
a. Not less than 1/6 of the perimeter of the area to be annexed is contiguous with the annexing municipality. Staff finds that the total contiguous boundary is approximately 35.87%, which meets the state requirement. Because of that, a community of interest is existing between the area to be annexed and the municipality.
b. The area to be annexed and said area is urban or is to be urbanized. Staff finds that this area is capable of being urbanized with the Ridgeline Subdivision to the west.
Section 105 requirements of the Colorado Revised Statutes:
a. An annexation cannot separate property held in identical ownership. That is not the case in this annexation.
b. The City cannot annex more than twenty acres and more than $200,000 in assessed value without written consent of the owners, this property is 0.488 acres in size so that provision is not applicable in this case.
c. No resolution or petition is valid if annexation proceedings have commenced for another municipality. That is not the case with this annexation.
d. The City cannot extend municipal boundaries more than three miles in one year. The City will not be extending the municipal boundaries more than three miles this year.
e. There must be a plan in place regarding services and land uses. There is a plan in place that was approved on November 17, 2020.
f. If annexation includes a portion of a street or an alley, all of the street or alley must be annexed. There are no proposed streets or alleys in this piece of land.
g. The City cannot deny reasonable access to adjoining landowners as a result of proposed annexation. The City will not deny access to adjoining landowners as a result of this annexation.
The noticing requirements set forth in Section 8 include that the publication of the date, time, and place of the public hearing must be published in the Brighton Standard Blade for four successive weeks; this was done on October 28, 2002, November 4, 2020, November 11, 2020 and November 18, 2020. The first publication was posted at least thirty days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the notice, resolution and petition was sent to the applicable special districts on October 30, 2020, at least twenty-five days before schedule public hearing.
Staff finds that the annexation does comply with State Statutes Sections 104-110. Publication of the public hearing have been provided to all applicable entities as required in Section 108. The request for annexation complies with the requirements of the Land Use and Development Code and the requirements in the Municipal Annexation Act and the Comprehensive Plan.
Mayor Mills asked if the applicant would like to add anything to the presentation, he did not.
Mayor Mills asked if anyone in the audience had questions for the applicant, there was none.
Mayor Mills asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak on behalf of or against the request, there was none.
Mayor Mills asked if there were questions from City Council.
Councilmember Jordinelli asked why this is being done now and not done with the other annexations. Planner Pesek does not know why this was not included in either of the previous annexations done in 1987 or in 2018. Councilmember Jordinelli asked if this is being added for drainage. Planner Pesek explained that the developer wanted to incorporate some drainage infrastructure and the only way to do that is to include this piece of land that was not previously annexed into the City and zoned. Councilmember Jordinelli asked if this happens often. Planning Manager Jason Bradford explained that it is rare to have this situation. This could have been a surveyor error or a map error when the annexation was done in the 1980’s and the legal description was put together. Eric Eckberg explained that this was discovered through the surveying process and felt that it was intended to be annexed into the City but was not done originally. This is more of a clean-up issue.
Councilmember Taddeo asked if these notices are posted anywhere else besides the newspaper and asked if all notices are being posted regardless of content. Planner Pesek explained that in addition to publishing in the Brighton Standard Blade, signs are posted on the property and notices are sent to adjacent property owners. Planning Manager Bradford explained that at the direction of City Council, notices are also being placed on the City website and social media. The notice was published in the newspaper to follow the requirements in the State Statutes regarding annexations.
Mayor Mills closed the public hearing at 7:32 p.m.
Motion by Councilmember Humbert, seconded by Councilmember Taddeo, to approve Resolution 2020-127. Motion passed by the following vote:
Aye: 8 - Mayor Mills, Councilmember Blackhurst, Councilmember Cushing, Councilmember
Humbert, Councilmember Jordinelli, Councilmember Pollack, Councilmember
Taddeo, and Councilmember Watts
Absent: 1 - Mayor Pro Tem Johnston
E. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BRIGHTON, COLORADO, ANNEXING TO THE CITY OF BRIGHTON APPROXIMATELY 0.488 ACRES OF CONTIGUOUS LAND, IN THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 1, TOWNSHIP 1 SOUTH, RANGE 66 WEST, OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, COUNTY OF ADAMS, STATE OF COLORADO; KNOWN AS THE NEFF REMAINDER PROPERTY ANNEXATION (FIRST READING)
Mayor Mills read the title of the Ordinance into the record.
Motion by Councilmember Watts, seconded by Councilmember Humbert, to approve the Ordinance. Motion passed by the following vote:
Aye: 8 - Mayor Mills, Councilmember Blackhurst, Councilmember Cushing, Councilmember
Humbert, Councilmember Jordinelli, Councilmember Pollack, Councilmember
Taddeo, and Councilmember Watts
Absent: 1 - Mayor Pro Tem Johnston
F. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BRIGHTON, COLORADO, APPROVING A ZONING MAP AMENDMENT OF AN APPROXIMATELY 0.388 ACRE AREA OF LAND, TO BE KNOWN AS THE NEFF REMAINDER PROPERTY, GENERALLY LOCATED IN THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 1, TOWNSHIP 1 SOUTH, RANGE 66 WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, CITY OF BRIGHTON, COUNTY OF ADAMS, STATE OF COLORADO, TO ZONING DESIGNATION OF OPEN SPACE (O) (PUBLIC HEARING) (FIRST READING)
Mayor Mills read the title of the Ordinance into the record.
Mayor Mills opened the public hearing at 7:37 p.m. and City Clerk Natalie Hoel verified the required postings and publications (November 6, 2020 on the City of Brighton website) for this public hearing were completed.
City Manager Bais DiSessa introduced Assistant Planner Sean Pesek and asked if the acreage in the title should be changed to 0.488 acres instead of 0.388 acres.
Assistant Planner Sean Pesek explained that a portion of the property consists of right-of-way and right-of-way is not zoned.
Mayor Mills asked if the applicant would like to add anything to the presentation, he did not.
Mayor Mills asked if anyone in the audience had questions for the applicant, there was none.
Mayor Mills asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak on behalf of or against the request, there was none.
Mayor Mills asked if there were questions from City Council, there was none.
Mayor Mills closed the public hearing at 7:39 p.m.
Motion by Councilmember Jordinelli, seconded by Councilmember Humbert, to approve the Ordinance. Motion passed by the following vote:
Aye: 8 - Mayor Mills, Councilmember Blackhurst, Councilmember Cushing, Councilmember
Humbert, Councilmember Jordinelli, Councilmember Pollack, Councilmember
Taddeo, and Councilmember Watts
Absent: 1 - Mayor Pro Tem Johnston
Mayor Mills called for a break at 7:40 p.m.
Mayor Mills reconvened the meeting at 7:50 p.m.
8. ORDINANCES FOR INITIAL CONSIDERATION
9. ORDINANCES FOR FINAL CONSIDERATION
10. RESOLUTIONS
A. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BRIGHTON, COLORADO, APPROVING THE PLACEMENT OF A PLAQUE ON MEMORIAL PARKWAY RECOGNIZING THURSTON WILLIAM “BILL” WALLACE FOR HIS SERVICE TO THE BRIGHTON COMMUNITY
Mayor Mills read the title of the Resolution into the record.
City Manager Bais DiSessa introduced Parks and Recreation Director Travis Haines and thanked Councilmember Blackhurst for bringing forth this petition.
Parks and Recreation Director Travis Haines presented the approval of placing a plaque on Memorial Parkway for Thurston William “Bill” Wallace for his service to the Brighton community. City Council approved a Resolution establishing a policy for naming public amenities and parks and recreation facilities in the City, including a procedure for selecting names for recognition on the Memorial Parkway. The City Clerk received a petition requesting the recognition of Thurston William “Bill” Wallace for his service to the community. The Parks and Recreation Advisory Board reviewed the petition at their meeting on October 7, 2020 and determined that the petition properly meets all the relevant criteria established by the naming policy. The Parks and Recreation Advisory Board held a public meeting on November 4, 2020 and unanimously approved the petition to place a plaque on Memorial Parkway.
Councilmember Blackhurst explained that Bill Wallace was an attorney in the City and was a good person and fixture in the Brighton community. He served as the City Attorney for Fort Lupton for many years and would fill in as acting City Attorney for the City of Brighton when needed. He was very active in a low-key fashion in several groups in the City and County. He donated a lot of time and effort back into the community doing a lot of pro bono work in the Adams County Court representing the indigent and underserved. Bill is certainly in the category of others represented on the Memorial Parkway as an outstanding member of the community. Former City Attorney Margaret Brubaker knew Bill well and since she lives out of the City, she asked Councilmember Blackhurst to submit his name to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board for consideration of this honor.
Motion by Councilmember Blackhurst, seconded by Councilmember Watts, to approve Resolution 2020-128. Motion passed by the following vote:
Aye: 7 - Mayor Mills, Councilmember Blackhurst, Councilmember Cushing, Councilmember
Jordinelli, Councilmember Pollack, Councilmember Taddeo, and Councilmember
Watts
Absent: 1 - Mayor Pro Tem Johnston
Councilmember Humbert had technical issues.
11. UTILITIES BUSINESS ITEMS
12. GENERAL BUSINESS
A. Review of COVID Statistics
Assistant City Manager Michael Martinez updated City Council on the Special Legislative Session regarding the needs related to COVID-19 and the 5 Star Pilot Program allowing businesses to reopen under Level Orange with fewer restrictions.
Emergency Management Coordinator Stephanie Hackett presented the COVID statistics for Brighton, Adams County and Colorado.
Finance Director Maria Ostrom updated City Council regarding the spending of the CARES funding and asked that the City Manager be given the authority to use funds as needed. There is a great need for business assistance in the community and this would ensure that no funds would need to be returned. The COVID Testing site would run through December 19, 2020 and any remaining funds could be used where needed.
Motion by Councilmember Blackhurst, seconded by Councilmember Humbert, to 1. Allocate $100,000 for business grants; 2. To continue the COVID Testing site at whatever cost through December 19, 2020; and 3. To give staff the flexibility to divert funds to the business grants program if the time is running out to use the CARES funding without Council approval. Motion passed by the following vote:
Aye: 8 - Mayor Mills, Councilmember Blackhurst, Councilmember Cushing, Councilmember
Humbert, Councilmember Jordinelli, Councilmember Pollack, Councilmember
Taddeo, and Councilmember Watts
Absent: 1 - Mayor Pro Tem Johnston
13. REPORTS
A. By the Mayor
Mayor Mills reported that the Tree Lighting ceremony is tomorrow at Founders Plaza, the Parade drive through is the second Saturday of December and the Study Session next week will begin at 5:30 p.m. for Planning Commission interviews.
B. By Department Heads
Public Works Director Mike Woodruff announced that 168th Avenue will be closed east of 50th Avenue from Monday, January 4th and will open Monday, March 1st. Notices will be sent to residents in the area.
C. By the City Attorney
D. By the City Manager
City Manager Bais DiSessa thanked staff for their work on the budget.
14. REPORTS BY COUNCIL ON BOARDS & COMMISSIONS
Councilmember Watts encouraged everyone to support local restaurants.
Councilmember Humbert announced that the Brighton Housing Authority meeting is this Thursday.
Councilmember Cushing visited the COVID testing site.
15. EXECUTIVE SESSION
Motion by Councilmember Humbert, seconded by Councilmember Jordinelli, to go into Executive Session at 9:25 p.m. for a conference with the City Attorney for the purpose of receiving legal advice on specific legal questions under C.R.S. Section 24-6-402(4)(b) regarding Litigation Issues and for discussion of a personnel matter under C.R.S. Section 24-6-402(4)(f) and not involving: any specific employees who have requested discussion of the matter in open session; any member of this body or any elected official; the appointment of any person to fill an office of this body or of an elected official; or personnel policies that do not require the discussion of matters personal to particular employees regarding the Deputy Municipal Judge. Motion passed by the following vote:
Aye: 8 - Mayor Mills, Councilmember Blackhurst, Councilmember Cushing, Councilmember
Humbert, Councilmember Jordinelli, Councilmember Pollack, Councilmember
Taddeo, and Councilmember Watts
Absent: 1 - Mayor Pro Tem Johnston
Mayor Mills reconvened the meeting at 10:58 p.m.
16. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Mills adjourned the meeting at 10:59 p.m.
CITY OF BRIGHTON, COLORADO
_____________________________
Gregory Mills, Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
Natalie Hoel, City Clerk
______________________________
Approval Date