HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES-07/03/1990-Regular1
July 3, 1990
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
Council -Manager Form of Government
Regular Meeting - 6:30 p.m.
A regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins was held on
Tuesday, July 3, 1990, at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers in the City of
Fort Collins City Hall. Roll call was answered by the following
Councilmembers: Azari, Edwards, Kirkpatrick, Mabry, Maxey, and Winokur.
Councilmembers Absent
Staff Members Present
Horak
Burkett, Krajicek, Roy
Citizen Participation
Jim Heaton, 416 North Roosevelt, requested bikeway improvements and
promotion of the bicycle as a commuter vehicle. He presented a report of a
survey of 536 people and a biking safety petition with 178 signatures
circulated as part of the Earth Day activities at Hewlett-Packard on April
18.
Aaenda Review: Citv Manager
City Manager Burkett stated there were no changes to the agenda as
published.
Councilmember Edwards requested Item #24, Resolution 90-100 Establishing a
Policy for the Elimination of Alternate Positions on Boards and
Commissions, be withdrawn from the Consent Calendar.
Councilmember Mabry requested that Item #12, Hearing and First Reading of
Ordinance No. 72, 1990, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves and Authorizing
the Transfer of Appropriations Between Capital Projects within the Parkland
Fund for Development of Rogers Park and Item #17, Resolution 90-93
Authorizing an Intergovernmental Agreement with the Cities of Loveland,
Berthoud, Estes Park, the County of Larimer, the District Attorney of the
Eighth Judicial District, and the State Board -'of Agricul-ture for the
Provision of Mutual Aid and the Development; of Inter -party Policies
Addressing Certain Law Enforcement Functions, be•withdrawn from'the Consent
Calendar.
S[IiM
July 3, 1990
Consent Calendar
This Calendar is intended to allow the City Council to spend its time and
energy on the important items on a lengthy agenda. Staff recommends
approval of the Consent Calendar. Anyone may request an item on this
calendar be "pulled" off the Consent Calendar and considered separately.
Agenda items pulled from the Consent Calendar will be considered separately
under Agenda Item #26, Pulled Consent Items.
5.
W
7.
go
This ordinance was tabled during the April 17, 1990 City Council
Meeting with the recommendation that it first be reviewed by the
Council Health and Safety Committee. The ordinance was subsequently
revised to include the Mayor as a member of the Disaster Council. The
Disaster Council's duties involve the direction and control of City
departments during an emergency, including responsibility for keeping
the City Council apprised of the situation.
This Ordinance was unanimously adopted on First Reading on June 5.
Police Services has been awarded a grant from the Colorado Division of
Highway Safety totalling $33,000. These monies are provided from fees
assessed against convicted drunk drivers across the state. These
funds will be used to support the already existing DUI enforcement
program within the Department. The grant will provide for the
majority of the salary for the DUI officer who is assigned to the lead
on drunk driving enforcement.
This Ordinance, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on June
5, appropriates $33,000 in grant funds for expenditure in Police
Services' DUI Enforcement Program.
Requirements of the Water Utility.
This Ordinance, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on June
5, increases the cash rate charged developers for satisfaction of raw
water requirements from $1,100 to $1,300 per acre foot. The cash rate
is adjusted periodically to reflect the current price•,of raw water.
1
-105-
July 3, 1990
I=
10.
A special city election has been called for July 10 for city voters to
consider a proposed ordinance relating to collective bargaining/
arbitration for police employees.
The estimated cost for the election is $15,914. Funds need to be
transferred to the election account to cover election costs incurred
by the City Clerk's office in the administration of the election.
This Ordinance, which was adopted 6-0 on First Reading on June 12,
makes the necessary appropriation.
The section of Lemay Avenue from Lincoln north to the Greenbriar
development just north of Willox is scheduled for repair this summer
as part of the annual Street Overlay & Sealcoat project. The project
will widen the two lane road slightly to provide shoulders to slow
deterioration of the roadway edges and overlay the road. The Street
Overlay & Sealcoat project did not propose to construct bikeways or
sidewalks as a part of the pavement maintenance efforts.
' This section of Lemay currently lacks adequate bicycle/pedestrian
facilities. It is one of four or five streets in the City which
receive the most complaints about the lack of bicycle/pedestrian
improvements. Some of the other frequently mentioned locations are
Harmony Road, Shields from Prospect north, and Taft Hill from Laporte
north to the trailhead.
Staff has looked at several alternatives for improving
bicycle/pedestrian access along North Lemay. The recommended
alternative would provide six (6) foot wide attached asphalt
bicycle/pedestrian paths on both sides of the road from Lincoln north
to the Greenbriar development just north of Willox. The estimated
cost of these improvements is $113,000.
11. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 71, 1990, Appropriating
Prior Year Reserves in the General Fund Totalling $19,873 for Cultural
Development & Programming Activities.
This ordinance appropriates prior year reserves in the General Fund
for Cultural Development & Programming activities totalling $19,873.
The Cultural Development and Programming account is funded by lodging
tax receipts that are dedicated in accordance with Ordinance No. 27,
1989.
-106-
July 3, 1990
12.
13
14.
Cultural Development and Programming Account
Balance 12/31/88
1989 Revenues - Lodging Tax
1989 Revenues - Other
1989 Expenditures
Balance 12/31/89
1990 Appropriations
Reserves available for appropriation
$ 69,176
54,190
3,385
(51,709)
75,042
(55,169)
$ 19,873
This appropriation reduces General Fund Reserves restricted for other
purposes by $19,873.
Rogers Park.
In 1989, $500,000 was appropriated for development of Rogers Park.
Final design cost estimates have increased to $600,000. The increase
is due to unanticipated costs for extension of utilities and higher
than anticipated costs for street improvements. The ordinance would
appropriate the rental income and project savings from the Troutman
Park project for construction of Rogers Park.
Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 73, 1990, Amending Section
4-117 of the Code Relating to the Sale of Chickens and Ducklings.
Section 4-117 of the City Code currently prohibits the sale of
chickens and ducklings under eight (8) weeks of age in quantities of
less than twenty-five (25) to a single purchaser. The apparent
purpose of this ordinance is to discourage the purchase of chicks and
ducklings as pets. The ordinance, however, also discourages many
purchases that are for a bona fide agricultural purpose. The
ordinance, therefore, is being amended to reduce the minimum purchase
amount from twenty-five (25) chicks or ducklings per single purchaser
to six (6) per single purchaser. After the amendment, the ordinance
should still discourage the purchase of chicks and ducklings as pets,
but at the same time permit most purchases which are for a bona fide
agricultural purpose.
The City recently purchased a lot in the Foothills Park Resubdivision
in order to obtain a twenty foot sewerline easement along the north
lot boundary. The entire lot was purchased at a cost of $10,000,
since the lot remainder would be difficult to develop with a house
C
-107-
July 3, 1990
' that is compatible to the neighborhood. The remaining lot size is
4,119 square feet, with a lot width of 43.5 feet.
15.
16
The City has entered into an agreement to sell the property for $6,000
to a neighboring property owner, contingent on Council approval. The
$6,000 sales price adjusts for the twenty foot sewerline easement as
well as the development considerations mentioned above.
This Ordinance would authorize the Mayor to execute a Deed of
Conveyance for sale of the property.
Staff is requesting additional appropriations in the amount of $35,000
in order to retire four additional employees under the General
Employees Retirement Plan and to implement the cost -of -living
increases approved by Resolution 90-80 on June 5.
Resolution 90-92 Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to Enter into an
Today in the City of Fort Collins, base maps are manually drafted
using pen and ink. At least seven agencies are creating, updating,
and maintaining their own map sets on a regular basis. Studies have
identified 86 different maps with variations of the same basic data
that are kept within the City. The map sets are often inconsistent
with each other and contain inaccuracies in the data that is displayed
on them. Maps are often out of date, but users are reluctant to
update them because of the work involved in overlaying the information
that is specific to their own requirements. Existing maps are often
not always available at a scale or size that best fits the needs of an
individual user.
In October 1988, the consulting firm of Plangraphics, Inc. was
selected via competitive proposal to conduct a preliminary study of
Geographic Information System (GIS) feasibility for the City of Fort
Collins. Although in August, 1989 Council decided not to pursue full
GIS functionality, the study helped to identify serious deficiencies
with the City's. present mapping systems, some of which were mentioned
above. The immediate objective' of this project is to deal with the
City's mapping concerns. However,, it would'be irresponsible to solve
today's problems without considering future`'.needs and the overall
direction of the mapping/GIS industry. Because there is a very strong
possibility that the best solution may include the use of computer
technology, and because the organizational questions may be even more
difficult than the technological questions, staff believes that
Plangraphics should be retained to help guide the project and ensure
that the mapping solution does not preclude the incorporation of GIS
am
July 3, 1990
17.
F�
functionality in the future. Given this perspective, the Plangraphics '
proposal incorporates the following task groups:
1. Overall project management and coordination.
2. Identification of critical mapping problems and solutions.
3. Definition and prioritization of user applications.
4. Preparation of a plan for data conversion.
5. Identification of requirements for a solution system.
6. Benefit/cost analysis.
7. System implementation plan.
This resolution will allow Fort Collins Police Services to enter into
agreements with the law enforcement agencies of participating
government bodies. Effective law enforcement practices necessitate
the close working relationship between area agencies. It is desirable
to draft cooperative inter -agency policies which describe each
agency's role and responsibility in various enforcement functions
which may cross jurisdictional boundaries.
For example, a policy governing vehicle pursuits by Larimer County law
enforcement agencies has been drafted to provide clear direction and
understanding to participants who may be involved in pursuit
situations outside of their own jurisdiction.
Formal mutual aid agreements for the exchange of law enforcement
resources to obtain a stated goal also require the adoption of this
resolution. The administrative head of a participating law
enforcement agency may enter into operational policies addressing
specific law enforcement functions, duties or activities and may enter
into mutual aid agreements which do not involve the expenditure of any
unbudgeted funds.
From time to time Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District (NCWCD)
water (CBT water) is acquired or turned over to the City of Fort
Collins. As a part of the recent purchase of land for a future
wastewater treatment plant site,, 25 units of CBT water was acquired.
To accomplish the transfer, NCWCD requires that an application for a
Temporary Use Permit be approved by Council resolution. Since
transfers using permanent contracts take longer and are more
complicated, they are initially made using the Temporary Use Permits. ,
-109-
July 3, 1990
Every few years, all CBT water owned and used under a Temporary Use
Permit is converted to use under a permanent contract.
19. Resolution 90-95 Approving the Purchase of Shares in the Pleasant
Valley and Lake Canal Company.
This resolution will approve the purchase of Pleasant Valley and Lake
Canal Company shares from two individuals who wish to sell them to the
City.
Growth in the Fort Collins service area is expected to continue at a
moderate pace during the next several decades. With present market
conditions, it is believed that acquiring additional supplies in
advance of the City's actual needs is prudent.
The City of Fort Collins proposes to hire Shalkey Walker Associates,
Inc. to aid in the development of design guidelines, mitigation
standards, and amendments to existing development regulations in order
to preserve important wetlands and wildlife habitats within the Urban
Growth Area. The design and mitigation manual and proposed
' modifications to the land development guidance system will be elements
of the Natural Areas Policy Plan which is being developed by the
Natural Resources Division, in cooperation with other City Departments
and the public. Development of the Natural Areas Policy Plan is one
element of the City Council's 1990-91 Policy Agenda.
21.
Fixed Assets.
This Resolution provides for the transfer of City -owned recycling
equipment, purchased with the 1987 Exxon Overcharge Grant to the
Larimer County Natural Resources Department. The equipment includes:
a 1988 Chevrolet pickup truck, a 1987 Mobile Equipment fifth -wheel
trailer, and thirty-eight (38) 3-yard capacity front load containers
purchased for $37,833.
This equipment is no longer needed by the City for on -going or
proposed recycling programs. The Larimer County Department of Natural
Resources proposes to use the equipment to set .up 'and service
recycling drop-off facilities at the Berthoud, Red Feather Lakes, and
Wellington waste transfer stations so that these citizens can easily
recycle.
-110-
July 3, 1990
22.
23.
The applicant and property owner, the City of Fort Collins, is
requesting annexation of approximately 4.61 acres located north of
Prospect Road (extended) and west of Overland Trail. The property is
generally located northwest of the CSU football stadium and north of
the Maxwell Open Space area, which is also owned by the City. This
property is the current location of one of the City's water tanks.
The proposed Resolution makes a finding that the annexation
substantially complies with the Municipal Annexation Act. The
annexation and zoning ordinances will be presented to Council for
First Reading on August 7, 1990 in order to provide the County with 35
days review as required by the IGA for the Urban Growth Area.
The property is located outside the Fort Collins Urban Growth Area.
According to policies and agreements between the City of Fort Collins
and Larimer County, contained in the Intergovernmental Agreement for
the Fort Collins Urban Growth Area, the City can consider the
annexation of property outside of the UGA by giving the County proper
notice and justification for the annexation. The City has recently
annexed other City -owned open space areas along the foothills when
they satisfied the contiguity requirements. The property gains the
required 1/6 contiguity to existing city limits from a common boundary
with the Maxwell Open Space Annexation to the south.
During the annual appointment process, a vacancy on the Commission on
the Status of Women was inadvertently overlooked. Councilmembers
Horak and Kirkpatrick reviewed the applications on file and are
recommending that Sally Miles be appointed to fill the vacancy.
A vacancy exists on the Water Board because an alternate position was
not filled during the annual appointment process. Councilmembers
Maxey and Winokur would now like to recommend David Stewart for
appointment to the alternate position.
The recommended appointees and the expiration dates of the terms they
are filling are as follows:
Commission on the Status of Women
Sally Miles
Water Board
David Stewart (Alt.)
Expiration of Term
July 1, 1991
Expiration of Term
July 1, 1992
u
-111-
July 3, 1990
24. Resolution 90-100 Establishing a Policy for the Elimination of
Alternate Positions on Boards and Commissions.
At its May 29, 1990 worksession, Council discussed the advisability of
retaining alternate positions on boards and commissions. Based upon
discussion at that worksession, many of the alternate positions on the
boards and commissions were not filled during the annual appointment
process.
This Resolution establishes a policy for the eventual elimination of
alternate positions. The Resolution provides:
o that all alternate positions to be phased out no later than July 1,
1991;
o that the Council liaison recommend a change in the composition of
the board or commission to which he or she is assigned to achieve
the elimination of alternate positions;
o that elimination of an alternate position shall not result in the
termination of any individual's membership on a board or
commission; and
o that the City Clerk submit for Council consideration ordinances
amending appropriate provisions of the Code to reflect the deletion
of alternate positions.
25. Routine Deeds and Easements.
a. Powerline easement from Paul E. Feltz and Linda L. Feltz, 609 West
Mountain Avenue, needed to underground existing overhead electric
services. Monetary consideration: $10.
b. Powerline easement from James D. Fox and Peggy J. Fox, 915 Akin,
needed to underground existing overhead electric services.
Monetary consideration: $10.
c. Mulberry Street Right-of-way Agreements to be used to construct a
pedestrian bridge across the New Mercer Canal by the City Park
golf course as well as sidewalk and street light improvements in
the area.
(1) Agreement from Thomas C. Lloyd, 1820 West Mulberry Street.
Monetary consideration: $185.
(2) Agreement from Gregory C. and Theresa I. Evans, 1808 West
Mulberry Street. Monetary consideration: $103.
' d. Land Acquisition from Shirley M. Benton and Linda L. Bailey, 1130
Stover Street, needed for Stover/Stuart Bridge Project. Monetary
consideration: $73,000.
112-
July 3, 1990
e. Agreement of Purchase and Sale from Century Bank for a parcel '
located at Redwood and Conifer needed for the construction of an
open storm drainage channel for the Evergreen Park Eastern
Drainage Project. This is a requirement contained in the
Evergreen/Greenbriar Basin Master Plan. Monetary consideration:
$17,400.
f. Deed of dedication from James W. Day, Patricia M. Day, Robert L.
Lee and Judy C. Lee located on the west side of Lemay Avenue
needed for a stormwater detention pond in accordance with the
Greenbriar Drainage Basin Master Plan. Monetary consideration:
$62,620.
Ordinances on Second Reading were read by title by Wanda Krajicek, City
Clerk.
Item #6.
Item V.
Item #8.
Item #9.
Management.
Driving Enforcement Program.
Expenses.
Ordinances on First Reading were read by title by Wanda Krajicek, City
Clerk.
Item #10.
Item #11.
Item #12.
Item #13.
Overlay & Sealcoat Project.
1
-113-
July 3, 1990
Item #14.
Item #15.
Councilmember Edwards made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Azari, to
adopt and approve all items not removed from the Consent Calendar. Yeas:
Councilmembers Azari, Edwards, Kirkpatrick, Mabry, Maxey, and Winokur.
Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Ordinance No. 72, 1990, Appropriating
Prior Year Reserves and Authorizing
the Transfer of Appropriations Between
Capital Projects within the Parkland Fund for
Development of Rogers Park. Adopted on First Reading
Following is staff's memorandum on this item:
"FINANCIAL IMPACT
The preliminary cost estimate and appropriation for Rogers Park was
$500,000. The final cost estimates for development is $600,000; $22,000 is
available from rental income from the Rogers house, .and $78,000 is
available in project savings from Troutman Park to make up the $100,000
shortfall.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In 1989, $500,000 was appropriated for development of Rogers Park. Final
design cost estimates have increased to $600,000. The increase is due to
unanticipated costs for extension of utilities and higher than anticipated
costs for street improvements. The ordinance would appropriate the rental
income and project savings from the Troutman Park project for construction
of Rogers Park.
BACKGROUND
Cost estimates to determine the original budget for Rogers Park were based
on the average development costs for new parks during the previous three
years. The estimate was then inflated to, include' extensions of the
adjacent residential streets and widening of Mulberry Street.
During final design, it was determined that utilities would have to be
extended across the park for the availability of property owners to the
west. Utilities to be extended include a storm drain line and sanitary
-114-
July 3, 1990
sewer Line. Street improvement costs are also somewhat higher than
anticipated. The house, barn, and pasture at Rogers Park were rented from
the time the City acquired the property in December, 1984 until March,
1989. Revenue from the rental income totals $22,201.45. Council action is
necessary to appropriate this income.
The construction bid for Troutman Park was substantially less than the
final estimate. $120,000 is available in the Troutman Park account. The
project will be closed out at year end and any remaining funds will become
available for appropriation in other Parkland projects. Council action is
necessary to reappropriate Parkland Funds.
The Parks and Recreation Board, at its meeting on May 23, 1990, voted
unanimously (7-0) to endorse the transfer of funds from the Thornton Park
Construction account to the Rogers Park Construction account."
Councilmember Mabry asked whether this project is the most appropriate use
for these funds and whether there were any projects competing for the
funds.
Randy Balok, Superintendent, Parks Planning and Development, responded that
the process is one that has been used before. When there is a capital
project nearing close out phase with a balance and an upcoming capital
project in final design phase with inadequate appropriated funding (both in
the Parkland Fund), it is appropriate to transfer from the completed
project to the new one. There were no other competing projects.
Councilmember Mabry asked if cutting back the scope of the project to
within the original budget was considered.
Randy Balok responded the preliminary budget was developed approximately a
year ago. The primary raise in the estimated budget was on utilities. A
final design is necessary to get a hard cost on these items.
Councilmember Mabry made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Azari, to
adopt Ordinance No. 72, 1990 on First Reading.
Mayor Kirkpatrick asked if the project savings from Troutman Park would be
available to put an elevator in City Park Center.
Randy Balok replied that is not normally a Parkland Funds function.
The vote on Councilmember Mabry's motion to adopt Ordinance No. 72, 1990 on
First Reading was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Azari, Kirkpatrick,
Maxey, Edwards, Winokur, and Mabry. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
1
-115-
July 3, 1990
' Resolution 90-93 Authorizing
an Intergovernmental Agreement
with the Cities of Loveland, Berthoud,
Estes Park, the County of Larimer,
the District Attorney of the Eighth Judicial District,
and the State Board of Agriculture for the Provision of
Mutual Aid and the Development of Inter -party Policies
Following is staff's memorandum on this item:
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This resolution will allow Fort Collins Police Services to enter into
agreements with the law enforcement agencies of participating government
bodies. Effective law enforcement practices necessitate the close working
relationship between area agencies. It is desirable to draft cooperative
inter -agency policies which describe each agency's role and responsibility
in various enforcement functions which may cross jurisdictional boundaries.
For example, a policy governing vehicle pursuits by Larimer County law
enforcement agencies has been drafted to provide clear direction and
understanding to participants who may be involved in pursuit situations
outside of their own jurisdiction.
' Formal mutual aid agreements for the exchange of law enforcement resources
to obtain a stated goal also require the adoption of this resolution. The
administrative head of a participating law enforcement agency may enter
into operational policies addressing specific law enforcement functions,
duties or activities and may enter into mutual aid agreements which do not
involve the expenditure of any unbudgeted funds."
Councilmember Maxey made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Winokur, to
adopt Resolution 90-93.
Councilmember Mabry expressed his concern about the broad area of
discretional authority contained in the Resolution.
The vote on Councilmember Maxey's motion to adopt Resolution 90-93 was as
follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Maxey, Edwards, Winokur, and Azari. Nays:
Councilmembers Kirkpatrick and Mabry.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Resolution 90-100 Establishing a'
Policy for the Elimination of Alternate
Positions on Boards and Commissions, Adopted
Following is staff's memorandum on this item:
-116-
July 3, 1990
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
At its May 29, 1990 worksession, Council discussed the advisability of
'
retaining alternate positions on boards and commissions. Based upon
discussion at that worksession, many of the alternate positions on the
boards and commissions were not filled during the annual appointment
process.
This Resolution establishes a policy for the eventual elimination of
alternate positions. The Resolution provides:
o that all alternate positions to be phased out no later than
July 1, 1991;
o that the Council liaison recommend a change in the composition
of the board or commission to which he or she is assigned to
achieve the elimination of alternate positions;
o that elimination of an alternate position shall not result in
the termination of any individual's membership on a board or
commission; and
o that the City Clerk submit for Council consideration
ordinances amending appropriate provisions of the Code to
reflect the deletion of alternate positions."
Councilmember Edwards made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Winokur, to
adopt Resolution 90-100.
Councilmember Edwards stated he had received calls from members of boards
and commissions expressing concerns about the elimination of alternate
positions but added he favored eliminating the positions since they don't
have the same privileges and status as regular members.
The vote on Councilmember Edwards' motion to adopt Resolution 90-100 was as
follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Maxey, Edwards, Winokur, Mabry, Azari, and
Kirkpatrick. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Reports
Mayor Kirkpatrick thanked the members of Council who attended the Colorado
Municipal League meeting in Colorado Springs and supported her campaign for
a position on the CML Executive Board.
-117-
July 3, 1990
Ordinance No. 61, 1990, Requesting
Termination of the Fort Collins -Loveland
Airport Authority, Adopted on Second Reading
Following is staff's memorandum on this item:
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On May 9, 1990 the Fort Collins -Loveland Airport Authority unanimously
elected to terminate its lease of the Fort Collins -Loveland Municipal
Airport. Thirty days notice expires on June 9, 1990, at which time the
cities of Fort Collins and Loveland will officially resume management
responsibility of the Fort Collins -Loveland Municipal Airport. As the
Airport Authority will no longer have an Airport facility to operate, it is
prudent for the two cities to jointly abolish the Fort Collins -Loveland
Airport Authority. This Ordinance, which was adopted 5-1 on First Reading
on June 5, requests termination of the authority."
Councilmember Maxey withdrew from discussion and vote on this item due to a
perceived conflict of interest.
Councilmember Azari made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Edwards, to
adopt Ordinance No. 61, 1990 on Second Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers
Edwards, Winokur, Azari, Kirkpatrick. Nay: Councilmember Mabry.
FP.I�Tili(iPtiLl:�iiil►)A
Ordinance No. 62, 1990, Appropriating
Prior Year Reserves in the General
Fund and Authorizing the Transfer
of Appropriated Amounts to the Capital
Projects Fund to Construct a Commercial
Air Terminal, Parking Lot, and Match an FAA
Grant for Air -side Development of Infrastructure at
the Fort Collins -Loveland
Municipal Airport, Option "A" Adopted on Second Reading
Following is staff's memorandum on this item:
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Ordinance, which was adopted 4-2 on First Reading on June 5,
appropriates $135,O00 to build this Airport improvement project.
On First Reading, Mayor Kirkpatrick
Ordinance on Second Reading unless
future Airport expenditure until a
reached between the two cities. Per
drafted and attached (see Option
Councilmembers wish to consider such a
indicated she,'would not support this
the Ordinance was amended to limit
new intergovernmental agreement is
this request, an amendment has been
8) for consideration should the
n amendment."
-118-
July 3, 1990
Councilmember Maxey withdrew from discussion and vote on this item due to a
perceived conflict of interest.
Councilmember Azari made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Mabry, to
adopt Option "A" of Ordinance No. 62, 1990 on Second Reading.
City Manager Burkett clarified that Option "A" appropriates the money and
Option "B" appropriates the money but provides that no further money be
appropriated for the Airport until issues are worked out between the
partners (Fort Collins and Loveland).
Mayor Kirkpatrick stated she preferred Option "B" since it encourages
progress on the new intergovernmental agreement with Loveland and has no
effect on the Continental Express deal.
Mike Hauser, Executive Director of the Chamber of Commerce, reiterated the
Chamber of Commerce's support for the program. Either option accomplishes
the goal, but Option "B" forces the issue of a new intergovernmental
agreement with Loveland.
Councilmember Azari stated her support of Option "A" because she believed
that both cities were committed to pursuing a new intergovernmental
agreement. The Continental Express issue should be separate from the new
intergovernmental agreement issue. If the Airport needs emergency funding,
the City needs flexibility during the agreement negotiation period.
Councilmember Mabry added that the only way additional funds could be
appropriated for use at the Airport would be through Council action. He
would not like to see a necessary appropriation hampered by provisions of
Option "B" and therefore supported Option "A".
Councilmember Edwards stated his concerns about the lack of progress in
working out issues with Loveland. Option "A" does not send the message
that it is critically important to get the agreement issue resolved.
Mayor Kirkpatrick restated her preference for Option "B", which states
publicly that the two cities will negotiate an intergovernmental agreement
before the next crisis at the Airport. She stated her support of the
Continental Express item but preferred Council's public commitment to the
intergovernmental agreement.
Councilmember Winokur stated he looked forward to the joint meeting with
the Loveland City Council on July 31 to discuss the airport issues.
The vote on Councilmember Azari's motion to adopt Ordinance No. 62, 1990
(Option A) on Second Reading, was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Mabry,
Azari, and Edwards. Nays: Councilmembers Winokur and Kirkpatrick.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
-119-
July 3, 1990
' Ordinance No. 63, 1990, Authorizing the
Lease of Certain Property at the Fort
Collins -Loveland Municipal Airport by
Rocky Mountain Airways, Inc., d/b/a/
Continental Express Airlines. Adopted on Second Reading
Following is staff's memorandum of this item:
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Ordinance, which was adopted 6-0 on First Reading on June 5,
authorizes the Mayor to sign a lease with Rocky Mountain Airways for five
years. The ordinance sets forth significant business issues of concern to
the City of Fort Collins in negotiating a lease with Continental Express
Airlines."
Councilmember Maxey withdrew from discussion and vote on this item due to a
perceived conflict of interest.
Councilmember Azari made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Winokur, to
adopt Ordinance No. 63, 1990 on Second Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers
Mabry, Azari, Kirkpatrick, Edwards, and Winokur. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
' Items Appropriating Funds from
Undesignated General Fund Reserves
Following is staff's memorandum on this item:
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Rather than going through a complex mid -year process for appropriating from
General Fund undesignated reserves, Council, at an earlier worksession,
suggested that staff bring forth any issues that need to be funded in 1990
so that each issue could be discussed and decided individually. The
following Ordinances appropriate monies from General Fund for the specified
purposes:
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 64, 1990, Appropriating Prior Year
Reserves in the General Fund and 'Authorizing the Transfer of
Appropriated Amounts to the Recreation Fund and the Cultural Services
and Facilities Fund for Computer Hardware and Software Upgrades.
This Ordinance, which was adopted 4-2 on First Reading on June 12,
appropriates $174,80O for replacement or upgrade of existing personal
computer equipment to meet minimum recommended hardware standards and to
provide replacement word processing software for General Fund departments
' that have not been able to accommodate these costs within their current
1990 budget.
-120-
July 3, 1990
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 65, 1990, Appropriating Prior Year
'
Undesignated Reserves in the General Fund for Changes to the Financial
Management Information System.
This Ordinance, which was adopted 5-1 on First Reading on June 12,
appropriates $113,906 for programming modifications and additional disk
storage so that the financial management information system will meet
requirements and can be completed on schedule.
C. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 66, 1990, Appropriating Prior Year
Reserves in the General Fund and Authorizing the Transfer of Certain
Appropriated Amounts to the Cultural Services and Facilities Fund for
Replacement of Box Office Computer Ticketing System.
This Ordinance, which was adopted 6-0 on First Reading on June 12,
appropriates $137,102 and authorizes the purchase of a new computer system
from Artsoft, Inc., to replace the Lincoln Center Box Office ticketing
system.
D. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 68, 1990, Appropriating Prior Year
Reserves in the General Fund and Authorizing the Transfer of
Appropriated Amounts to the Cultural Services and Facilities Fund for
Replacement of Backstage Rigging Equipment.
In addition to the appropriations from undesignated reserves, staff
recommends that Council appropriate $18,0O0 from the General Fund reserve
for buildings and improvements to replace the backstage rigging equipment
at the Lincoln Center. This Ordinance, which was adopted 4-2 on First
Reading on June 12, makes this appropriation."
Councilmember Winokur made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Azari, to
adopt Ordinance No. 64, 1990 on Second Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers
Azari, Kirkpatrick, Maxey, and Winokur. Nays: Councilmembers Edwards and
Mabry.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Winokur made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Mabry, to
adopt Ordinance No. 65, 1990 on Second Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers
Azari, Kirkpatrick, Maxey, Edwards, Winokur and Mabry. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Azari made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Maxey, to
adopt Ordinance No. 66, 1990 on Second Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers
Kirkpatrick, Maxey, Edwards, Winokur, Mabry and Azari. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
-121-
July 3, 1990
I
Councilmember Maxey made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Azari, to
adopt Ordinance No. 68, 1990 on Second Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers
Maxey, Winokur, Mabry, Azari and Kirkpatrick. Nays: Councilmember Edwards.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Items Related to the City's
Fiscal Year 1990-91 Community
Development Block Grant Program
Following is staff's memorandum on this item:
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A. Public Hearing and Resolution 90-101 Allocating $50,000 of Fiscal Year
1990-91 Community Development Block Grant Funds.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 57, 1990, Appropriating Unanticipated
Revenue and Authorizing the Transfer of Appropriations Between Projects
in the Community Development Block Grant Fund.
The Community Development Block Grant Program provides federal funds from
the Department of Housing and Urban Development to the City of Fort Collins
' which can be allocated to housing and community development related
programs and projects, thereby reducing the demand on the City's General
Fund Budget to address such needs.
On June 5, Council unanimously adopted Ordinance No. 57, 1990 on First
Reading which appropriates funds for the approved Community Development
Block Grant Fund projects.
On June 5, Council also unanimously adopted Resolution 90-73 which
allocated $675,000 to a variety of programs and projects to be funded with
Community Development Block Grant funds from the Department of Housing and
Urban Development for the FY 1990-91 Program year which begins October 1,
1990. The total amount of CDBG funds available to the City is $725,000. The
Council referred $50,000 back to the CDBG Citizens Steering Committee for
another recommendation. The Steering Committee has met and recommends that
the $50,000 be allocated to the City of Fort Collins CDBG Program office to
establish a revolving loan program for payment of the non-federal share
requirement of rental rehabilitation program projects. These monies. will
be used to fund about 50Y of rental rehabilitation project costs. The
other 50Y per project would come from funds which come'to the City from a
separate HUD grant.
BACKGROUND
I The CDBG Program is an
Department of Housing
received CDBG Program
ongoing grant administration program funded by the
and Urban Development. The City of Fort Collins has
funds since 1975. In 1975 and FY 1976-77 the City
-122-
July 3, 1990
received HUD discretionary grants. Since FY 1977-78, the City has been an '
Entitlement Recipient of CDBG funds, meaning the City is guaranteed a
certain level of funding each year. The level of funding is dependent on
the total amount of funds allocated to the program by Congress and on a
formula developed by HUD, which includes data on total population, minority
percentage of population, income levels, housing stock conditions, etc.
Programs and projects funded with Community Development Block Grants have
to address at least one of the following three broad National Objectives:
1) be a benefit to low- and moderate -income persons,
2) eliminate or prevent slum and blight conditions, and
3) to meet urgent needs.
CDBG grants can fund a wide range of activities including, acquiring
deteriorated and/or inappropriately developed real property (including
property for the purpose of building new housing) and acquiring,
constructing, rehabilitating or installing publicly owned facilities and
improvements. CDBG funds can also be used for restoration of historic
sites, beautification of urban land, conservation of open spaces and
preservation of natural resources and scenic areas. Housing rehabilitation
can be funded if it benefits low- and moderate -income people.
Economic development activities are eligible expenditures if they stimulate
private investment or community revitalization and expand economic
opportunities for low- and moderate -income people and the handicapped.
Certain activities are ineligible, under most circumstances, for CDBG funds
including, purchase of equipment, operating and maintenance expenses
including repair expenses and salaries, general government expenses,
political activities, and new housing construction.
Since its inception in 1975, the City's CDBG Program has focused on
programs of housing rehabilitation and neighborhood revitalization. Three
neighborhood strategy areas have been identified as in need of special
assistance and attention. These neighborhoods are the Holy Family area,
B.A.V.A. (Buckingham, Alta Vista, and Andersonville), and Laurel School
neighborhoods. The downtown area is included in the strategy
neighborhoods.
Available Funds
The City's Entitlement Grant for FY 1990-91 is $645,000. The Entitlement
Grant will be combined with $50,000 of reprogrammed funds from cancelled
projects and contingency funds from the FY 1989-90 program year, and
$30,000 of Program Income. HUD requires the City to estimate the total
amount of anticipated Program Income which will be received during the
program year. Combining all sources of income provides a total of $725,000
available for programs and projects during the next CDBG Program year.
-123-
July 3, 1990
' Selection Process
The selection process for the City's FY 1909-91 CDBG Program began on
February 8, 1990, when the CDBG Citizens Steering Committee held a public
hearing to obtain citizen input on community development and housing needs.
The CDBG Program office placed legal advertisements in local newspapers
starting on March 1, 1989, to solicit requests for CDBG funded programs and
projects for FY 1990-91. The application deadline was Friday March 30,
1990. At the close of the deadline the City received 30 applications
requesting a total of approximately $1.5 million.
Copies of all applications were forwarded to the City Council through the
City Manager's office on April 5, 1990. Copies of all applications were
distributed to the CDBG Citizens Steering Committee at their regular
monthly meeting on Thursday April 12, 1990. On Wednesday May 9, and
Thursday May 10, 1990, the Steering Committee met to ask clarification
questions from each applicant.
The Steering Committee met on Wednesday May 16, 1990, for the purpose of
preparing a list of priorities to the City Council as to which programs and
projects should be funded for the FY 1990-91 program year. At this meeting
the Committee reviewed the written applications, the information provided
during the question and answer session, and reviewed the performance of
agencies who received FY 1989-90 CDBG funds. The Committee then worked on
formulating their list of priorities.
At the June 5, 1990, City Council meeting, the Council passed Resolution
90-73 which allocated $675,000 to a variety of programs and projects to be
funded with Community Development Block Grant funds from the Department of
Housing and Urban Development for the FY 1990-91 Program year which begins
October 1, 1990. The total amount of CDBG funds available to the City is
$725,000. The Council referred $50,000 back to the CDBG Citizens Steering
Committee for another recommendation. The Steering Committee has met and
recommends that the $50,000 be allocated to the City of Fort Co'11ins CDBG
Program office to establish a revolving loan program for payment of the
non-federal share requirement of rental rehabilitation program projects.
These monies will be used to fund about 50% of rental rehabilitation
project costs. The other 50Y per project would come from funds which come
to the City from a separate HUD grant. The attached Resolution formally
adopts the Steering Committee's recommendation as a part of the City's FY
1990-91 CDBG Program."
Ken Waido, Chief Planner, stated the recommendation of the CDBG Steering
Committee was to allocate the $50,000 to the City's CDBG Program Office to
be used for the local share for matching; funds for the federal program
known as rental rehabilitation.
Councilmember Azari clarified that these funds were in addition to the
$40,000 returned to the Housing Authority for a match grant.
' Ken Waido stated that owners of rental property could make an application
for CDBG monies to rehabilitate a structure but some program objectives to
-124-
July 3, 1990
provide housing for low and moderate income people would have to be '
addressed in the project.
Councilmember Edwards made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Mabry, to
adopt Resolution 90-101.
Councilmember Edwards thanked the CDBG Steering Committee for its
additional time and energy.
The vote on Councilmember Edwards' motion to adopt Resolution 90-101 was as
follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Edwards, Winokur, Mabry, Azari, Kirkpatrick,
and Maxey. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Maxey made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Mabry, to
adopt Ordinance No. 57, 1990 on Second Reading.
Councilmember Edwards expressed the hope that in the 1991 Budget there
would be a reduced reliance on federal CDBG dollars for Development
Services staff salaries.
Mayor Kirkpatrick stated there will be an opportunity during the next year
for discussion of the way in which the Steering Committee is constituted.
The vote on Councilmember Maxey's motion to adopt Ordinance No. 57, 1990
on Second Reading was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Winokur, Mabry,
Azari, Kirkpatrick, Maxey and Edwards. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Appeal of the May 7, 1990 Final
Decision of the Planning and Zoning
Board Approving the Four Seasons 6th
Filing, PUD Preliminary and Final Plan, Upheld
Following is staff's memorandum on this item:
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On May 7, 1990 the Planning and Zoning Board voted 7-0 to approve the Four
Seasons 6th Filing, PUD Preliminary and Final Plan.
On May 21, 1990, an appeal of that final decision was made for the
appellants, Bill and Susan Hansen, David and Mary Hughes, Jeff and Kay King
and Gary and Becky Keigan, by Peter W. Bullard.
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
The Four Seasons 6th Filing, PUD, is a preliminary and final plan '
consisting of 45 single family lots on 13.6 acres. The site is located 112
-125-
July 3, 1990
mile south of Horsetooth Road, west of Moss Creek Drive and is zoned R-L-P,
Low Density Planned Residential.
In 1985, a similar plan (which was also called Four Seasons 6th) was
approved by the Planning and Zoning Board, as the second phase of Four
Seasons 5th Filing. That plan, which consisted of 43 single family lots,
expired in 1987. The current Four Seasons 6th proposal includes a change
in the location of the McC1ellands Creek Drainage Easement, which was
previously located along the eastern edge of the site.
The proposed PUD plan was evaluated against the "Residential Density Chart"
and the "All Development Chart" of the Land Development Guidance System.
The proposed density of 3.3 DU/acre is supported by the 80Y achieved on the
Density Chart. Planning staff found that the proposed project met the
applicable "All Development" criteria of the Land Development Guidance
System and that the proposed development was compatible with the
surrounding area. On this basis, staff recommended approval of the Four
Seasons 6th Filing, PUD Preliminary and Final Plan.
In voting to approve this proposal, Planning and Zoning Board members
stated that the project met the criteria of the Land Development Guidance
System, citing A71 Development Criteria #28, which asks "Is the design and
arrangement of elements of the site plan (e.g., buildings, circulation,
open space and landscaping, etc.) in favorable relationship to the existing
natural topography; natural water bodies and water courses; existing
' desirable trees; exposure to sunlight and wind; and views?"
THE APPEAL
The appellant has filed the appeal on the following grounds:
1. The board abused its discretion, in that its decision was arbitrary and
without the support of competent evidence in the record.
2. The board failed to properly interpret and apply the relevant
provisions of the Code and Charter.
3. The board failed to conduct a fair hearing in that the board exceeded
its authority or jurisdiction as contained in the Code or Charter, by
the following: (a) The board conducted a preliminary and final hearing
without good cause being shown for the acceleration of the proceedings,
contrary to the Code. (b) Tho board failed to give adequate notice of
the public meeting in that the letter notice contained'1 he misleading
statement that the same plan which had been:approved previously was to
be considered at the meeting; and (c) The board failed to publish
adequate notice of the hearing fifteen (15) days pribr to May 7,
contrary to statute.
4. The board failed to conduct a fair hearing in that the board
' substantially ignored its previously established rules of procedure.
-126-
July 3, 1990
5. The board failed to conduct a fair hearing in that the board improperly '
failed to receive all relevant evidence offered by the appellant.
These grounds of appeal are valid as set forth in Section 2-48 of the Code.
SCOPE OF COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
The issues that Council must resolve in this appeal (in addition to its
ultimate decision to uphold, overturn, modify or remand) are as follows:
1. Did the Board abuse its discretion, in that its decision was arbitrary
and without the support of competent evidence in the record?
2. Did the Board fail to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions
of the Code and Charter?
3. Did the Board fail to conduct a fair hearing by:
a. exceeding its authority or jurisdiction as contained in the Code or
Charter?
b. substantially ignoring its previously established rules of procedure?
c. improperly failing to receive all relevant evidence offered by the
appellant?"
Councilmember Mabry withdrew from discussion and vote on this item due to a
perceived conflict of interest.
City Attorney Steve Roy explained the appeal procedure in general. He
reminded that this is an appeal based on the record.
Councilmember Winokur made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Maxey, to
hear the appeal on the grounds that the allegations conform to the
requirements of the Code. Yeas: Councilmembers Azari, Kirkpatrick, Maxey,
Edwards, and Winokur. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Sherry Albertson -Clark, Chief Planner, made a presentation on the project
and listed the grounds for the appeal.
Councilmember Azari asked for clarification on the location change of the
easement from 1985.
Peter Bullard, attorney representing the Keigans and the Hughes, stated
that the appeal had' to do with people being misled and that the City
unwittingly contributed to that misleading. When the homeowners bought
their property, it was represented that they would essentially have a 50 '
foot easement behind their properties. This would guarantee a good view
and green belt which would enhance the value of their properties. The
-127-
July 3, 1990
' barrier appeared in the title commitment work for these properties. This
was a major factor in the appellant's decisions not only to buy their
properties but to pay the price they paid for those properties. On the
advice of the Assistant City Attorney Paul Eckman, the Planning and Zoning
Board considered that issue to be a civil matter between the homeowners and
the developer and something that was not a matter of its concern. This is
a matter of private property rights but those issues became a matter of
City concern when the City approved the final plan for this development in
1985. In doing so, the easement became a matter of law. The City has a
right to change its mind but has an obligation to treat people fairly. The
homeowners believed until just prior to the May 7 hearing meeting that
there would not be any change in the plans. The notice from the City was
unintentionally misleading. The language of the notice stated the
requested project had previously been approved but the approval had expired
and the applicant was seeking approval again for this plan. The notice led
the homeowners to believe there would not be any changes. The fact that
there are 2 additional lots in the plan indicates a significant change.
Because of staff's determination that these changes were not substantial,
the homeowners received no notice of the changes. The notice did advise
people there would be a hearing but that was not enough.
Bill Hansen, appellant, 4013 Moss Creek Drive, submitted comments from Jeff
King, also a resident on Moss Creek Drive. Four Seasons 6th Filing is an
example of a developer trying to accelerate a request through the system
without adequate public involvement. The City and the developer failed to
' follow the public participation process in the following ways:
1. There wasn't ample opportunity to express concerns to the developer.
2. The resolution of the map sent was so poor that the drainage easement
placement was impossible to tell at that time.
3. Staff was aware of neighborhood concerns but recommended approval to
the Board.
4. The homeowners did not have knowledge at the November 14 meeting that
the ditch was being moved.
5. The developer did not contact the homeowners about the design
changes.
6. There was no neighborhood meeting.
David Hughes, appellant, 4025 Moss Creek Drive, spoke of being poorly
informed of the potential change and its effect on their investment.
Peter Bullard stated that the section of the Land Development Guidance
System which has to do with considerations of adverse impact on
neighborhoods mandated the consideration by the Planning and Zoning Board
of the information that the homeowners attempted to present. Therefore,
for procedural fairness, an appropriate remedy would be a new hearing.
Lucia Liley, attorney representing the applicant, discussed the legal
grounds stated in the appeal. In general, the appeal fails to recognize a
fundamental difference between home rule cities and statutory cities and
towns. There is
long established
case
law in Colorado which
clearly states
'
that zoning is a
matter of local
and
municipal concern and
therefore home
-128-
July 3, 1990
rule communities may legislate on all zoning matters regardless of any t
statutory provisions to the contrary. Local zoning ordinances will
supersede all statutory provisions. The applicable standards then are not
the state statutes that by and large were cited in the appeal but the
regulations of the Land Development Guidance System and the City Code.
Many appeal grounds are then not applicable. Two provisions of the Land
Development Guidance System (LDGS) were relied on in the appeal. The first
was the issue of whether there was good cause for having a combined
preliminary and final hearing as the LDGS requires. This issue was not
raised at hearing. The record does clearly show that the Planning Director
made a determination that this should go as a combined preliminary and
final and there were grounds for the Planning Director to make that
decision. The second reference is to whether or not the amendment was a
substantial change. The LDGS provision cited does not apply because it
references bringing a final plan with substantial changes after a
preliminary plan was approved. Lastly, there were a couple of
miscellaneous legal arguments cited. The notice is consistent with other
notices sent in like projects and meets all the requirements of the LDGS.
These allegations were not made at the Planning and Zoning Board hearing.
The record shows that Mike Jones, the engineer for the project, testified
that in March he called Mr. Hansen and told him of the decision to do the
relocation. The last argument made was that the Board was estopped from
substantially altering the plan. This was not a plan amendment but a
preliminary and final which met all the requirements of the LDGS. We are
not talking about an open space but a regional concrete -lined drainage
channel. As the engineers began designing the regional drainage channel,
it was discovered there was a better way to do this hydraulically. The
relocated channel is more hydraulically efficient. Since there are no
policy issues, no issues with broad planning implications, and no legal
evidence of abuse or arbitrariness of the board, the decision of the
Planning and Zoning Board should be upheld.
Councilmember Edwards asked if the drainage facility exists now or was only
shown on a previous P.U.D. plan which expired.
Ms. Albertson -Clark replied that it does not exist on the property at this
time.
Mayor Kirkpatrick asked whether there had been a neighborhood meeting.
Ms. Albertson -Clark replied there was not a neighborhood meeting because
this was a proposed land use that was consistent with those uses existing
in the area now and staff believed the changes proposed were minor.
Councilmember Azari asked about the notice and if it was necessary to
mention there was any change in the new plan.
Ms. Albertson -Clark stated there could have been better notice of specific
changes. Staff does not routinely make an itemized listing of certain
design elements on a project. However, the intent of the Code was
accomplished by providing notice 14 days prior to the hearing. I
IW4JD
July 3, 1990
' Councilmember Edwards asked about the original plan.
Ms. Albertson -Clark stated the original plan was approved in 1985 for 3
years. In order to retain the validity of the original approval, the
developer would have had to substantially complete the development
(construct all public improvements) prior to 1988. This was not done. The
streets as outlined and the drainage facility do not exist.
Councilmember Edwards clarified that the developers were seeking approval
of a brand new plan.
Mayor Kirkpatrick asked about the legal implications of easements to
adjoining property owners.
City Attorney Steve Roy stated that easements are dedicated for public use
for certain specified purposes. Easements are shown on deeds only if the
easement is on that property.
Councilmember Edwards made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Maxey, to
uphold the decision of the Planning and Zoning Board based on the opinion
that the Board did not abuse its discretion, did not fail to properly
interpret and apply the relevant provisions of the Code and Charter,and did
not fail to conduct a fair hearing. The evidence as put forth shows that a
fair hearing was conducted and the appropriate criteria and provisions of
' the Land Development Guidance System were interpreted and followed.
Councilmember Azari asked about the criteria for allowing a preliminary and
final plan to go concurrently.
Ms. Albertson -Clark stated that one criterion is no perceived controversy.
All engineering work must be done and the land use must be consistent with
what is currently on the property.
Councilmember Azari inquired what the usual timeframe between a preliminary
plan and a final hearing before the Planning and Zoning Board would be.
Ms. Albertson -Clark stated that typically there is about a 2-month gap.
There is also the ability to overlap the submittals, meaning that the Board
would hear a preliminary one month and the next month a final.
Councilmember Edwards verified that the Planning and Zoning Board could
approve a plan preliminarily and defer the final, or could approve the plan
preliminarily and finally based on all the criteria put forth during the
hearing.
Mayor Kirkpatrick stated she heard the homeowners concern about lack of
input with the developer but remanding the decision back to the Planning
and Zoning Board would probably not result in a different decision. It
seems that the Board made th'e decision that follows the requirements of the
LDGS and is in keeping with policies regarding land use.
-130-
July 3, 1990
Councilmember Azari stated her concern that the notice did not indicate '
substantial change in the plan. She also stated her belief that if the
decision were remanded to the Board there would be no change in the
decision of the Board.
Councilmember Edwards stated that he would uphold the decision of the Board
and clarified that planning and land use decisions are delegated to the
Planning and Zoning Board. When the Council hears an appeal of those
decisions, it is in a quasi-judicial capacity. In this capacity, Council's
responsibility is to determine whether the decision of the Board was based
on the criteria in the Code.
The vote on Councilmember Edwards' motion to uphold the decision of the
Planning and Zoning Board was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Kirkpatrick,
Maxey, Edwards, Winokur. Nays: Councilmember Azari.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Appeal of the May 7, 1990 Planning
and Zoning Board Recommendation
to Deny an Administrative Change
for lighting at Raintree Commercial
PUD, Phase 1 Tracts A 8 B. Decision Overturned
Following is staff's memorandum on this item:
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On May 7, 1990 the Planning and Zoning Board voted to recommend denial of
an administrative change for lighting at Raintree Commercial PUD, when a
motion to recommend approval failed on a 3-4 vote.
On May 21, 1990, an appeal of that final decision was filed by Timothy
Stein, owner of Accurate Sign Maintenance.
The Land Development Guidance System allows minor changes to a PUD to be
approved administratively, if at all, by the Planning Director. The
Planning Director may elect to request a recommendation from the Planning
and Zoning Board on an administrative change. Under current City Code
provisions, any decision of the Planning and Zoning Board, including a
decision regarding a recommendation, may be appealed to City Council.
The Raintree Commercial PUD
(aka Raintree Village.
Shopping Center) is
located at the northwest corner
of Shields Street and
Drake Road. Phase 1,
Tracts A and B, includes the
southern portion of the
site and was approved
in July of 1985. This plan
consisted of the Western Sizzlin' Restaurant
and the adjacent parking lot
that plan consisted of parking
improvements. The only
lot fixtures that presently
lighting approved on
exist throughout
the shopping center parking area.
I
-131-
July 3, 1990
' The appellant installed lighting near the intersection of Shields Street
and Drake Road, in the parking and landscaped area of the shopping center.
This installation occurred without the benefit of City review and approval.
Upon being informed by staff that the lighting had not received the
necessary approval, the appellant submitted an administrative change
request, which was denied by staff in December of 1989, due to concerns
regarding glare and light spillage beyond the site. The appellant appealed
the staff's denial to the Planning and Zoning Board. This request was
recommended for denial by the Board on March 26, 1990.
ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGE DESCRIPTION
The appellant submitted a revised administrative change request, which was
heard by the Board on May 7, 1990 and is now the topic of this appeal. The
proposed administrative change consists of amending the approved PUD site
plan, with respect to lighting proposed for portions of the site. The
specific lighting elements are as follows:
1. Installation of 3-1000 watt metal halide area flood fixtures on a
signal pole. This pole is located east of the Western Sizzlin'
Restaurant.
2. Installation of 1 ground mounted 1000 watt metal halide area flood
fixture and 2 ground mounted 1500 watt metal halide sportslighter
' fixtures. These fixtures are located beneath, north and south of the
large group of trees near the east property line.
3. Lighting on the readerboard portion of the site's identification sign
will be eliminated.
4. Glare shields have been installed on the 3 pole mounted fixtures and 2
of the ground mounted fixtures. Glare shields on fixtures 1 and 3
would be painted to match the fixtures.
5. Glare screens have been installed on 2 of the 3 pole mounted fixtures
that could cast glare towards any street. A glare screen has also been
installed on the fixture directly beneath the trees.
5. Fixture number 5 on the pole has been repositioned towards the
northwest. This fixture would be repositioned further towards the
north when the trees are without foliage.
This revised request addressed staff's previous concerns regarding glare
and Iight spillage beyond the site. The P1ann'ing and Zoning Board
recommended to the Planning Director that this request be denied, after a
motion to recommend approval failed. In failing to recommend approval of
the administrative change, Board members expressed concerns about the
lighting, citing a number of All Development Criteria from the Land
Development Guidance System. These criteria are as follows:
-132-
July 3, 1990
#2 "Is the development compatible with and sensitive to the immediate
,
environment of the site and neighborhood relative to architectural design,
scale, bulk and building height, identity and historical character,
disposition and orientation of buildings on the lot, and visual integrity?"
#10 "Are all vehicular use areas, pedestrian circulation paths and exterior
portions of buildings provided with adequate security lighting?"
#22 "If the proposed activity produces intense glare or heat, whether
direct or reflected, is the operation conducted within an enclosed building
or with other effective screening in such a manner as to make such glare or
heat completely imperceptible from any point along the property line?
Detailed plans for the elimination of intense glare or heat may be required
before issuance of a building permit."
#24 "Is the exterior lighting, except for overhead street lighting and
warning emergency or traffic signals, installed in such a manner that the
light source will be sufficiently obscured to prevent excessive glare on
public streets and walkways or into any residential area? The installation
or erection of any lighting which may be confused with warning signals,
emergency signals or traffic signals shall not be permitted."
#28 "Is the design and arrangement of elements of the site plan (e.g.,
buildings, circulation, open space and landscaping, etc.) in favorable
relationship to the existing natural topography; natural water bodies and
water courses; existing desirable trees; exposure to sunlight and wind; and
views?"
#29 "Does the design and arrangement of elements of the site plan (e.g.,
building construction, orientation, and placement; selection and placement
of landscape materials; and/or use of renewable energy sources, etc.)
contribute to the overall reduction of energy use by the project?"
THE APPEAL
The appellant has filed the appeal on the following grounds:
1. The Planning and Zoning Board abused its discretion in denying the
requested administrative change to the Raintree Village Shopping Center
PUD to allow the proposed site lighting. The decision was arbitrary
and without the support of competent evidence in the record.
2. The Panning and Zoning Board failed to properly interpret and apply
the relevant provisions of Activity Category A of Section 29-526 of The
Code of the City of Fort Collins.
These grounds of appeal are valid as set forth in Section 2-48 of the Code.
-133-
July 3, 1990
SCOPE OF COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
The issues that Council must resolve in this appeal (in addition to its
ultimate decision to either uphold, overturn or modify) are as follows:
1. Did the Board abuse its discretion, in that its recommendation was
arbitrary and without the support of competent evidence in the record?
2. Did the Board fail to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions
of the Code?"
Councilmember Maxey made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Edwards, that
there are sufficient grounds for hearing the appeal. Yeas: Councilmembers
Mabry, Azari, Kirkpatrick, Maxey, Edwards, and Winokur. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Sherry Albertson -Clark, Chief Planner, made a presentation on the lighting
that is the subject of the appeal, gave a brief overview of past action on
this proposal, and highlighted the grounds of the appeal.
Tim Stein, owner of Accurate Sign Maintenance, stated that there is not
excessive glare and spillage compared to other locations in town.
Regarding neighborhood compatibility, there are letters of support on
record from people within the neighborhood.
' Mitch Morgan, Horizon West Properties, stated the intent of the property
owners was to enhance the beauty of the existing landscape. The property
owners are willing to make further modifications to the lights or to
install additional landscape plantings to further minimize any light
spillage or glare.
Jane Davis, 2500 S. Shields, commented that presently the ground level
spillage and glare affect her living room and south bedroom.
Based on the record, Councilmember Edwards inquired about the original
intent of the installation.
Ms. Albertson -Clark replied the appellant wanted to provide security
lighting for employees of the Western Sizzlin' Restaurant and enhance the
existing mature trees.
Councilmember Edwards clarified with Ms. Albertson -Clark that, security
lighting was a secondary issue.
Councilmember Maxey made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Azari, to
overturn the decision of the Planning and Zoning Board.
Councilmember Winokur asked about the potential impact of the lighting on
' the trees.
134-
July 3, 1990
Mabry
to the motion,
seconded by
'
Councilmember
proposed an
amendment
Councilmember
Winokur, that would
include a condition to require additional
landscaping and
screening so that
the ground glare will not
be noticeable
off the site
and that the landscaping
and/or screening that is
proposed be
submitted to
and approved by the
Planning staff as a part
of the final
approval of this
project.
Councilmember Maxey clarified that, in overturning the decision of the
Planning and Zoning Board, Council would be accepting the 6 administrative
changes listed in the summary as part of the requirement.
Councilmember Mabry withdrew his amendment to the motion.
Councilmember Winokur proposed an amendment to the motion, seconded by
Councilmember Azari, to add the condition that, if any of the illuminated
trees were to be significantly adversely affected in the opinion of the
City Forester, appropriate remedial action as determined by the City
Forester and Planning staff would be taken to alleviate any damage.
Councilmember Edwards inquired if in hearing an appeal, there is an
opportunity to raise issues of concern which were not part of the record.
City Attorney Steve Roy advised it is permissible in a modification of a
decision.
Councilmember Azari asked if the health of the trees was considered at any
time in the review process.
City Manager Burkett stated that if there was a concern by the City
Forester that this or something else would damage the trees, action would
be taken.
Councilmember Winokur added that the issue of the viability and continued
health of the trees was raised at the Planning and Zoning Board.
City Attorney Roy advised that even though the issue was raised, no
evidence was presented on that point at the Planning and Zoning Board
meeting and that Council's decision should be based on the evidence that
the Planning and Zoning Board had. That does not eliminate the possibility
of having that issue addressed on a motion to modify.
Councilmember Winokur stated that the Planning and Zoning Board never
reached the issue of conditions because the whole project was defeated.
City Attorney Roy stated that it would be within the prerogative of the
Planning Director to look at the issue of the trees if the decision of the
Board is overturned.
Councilmember Winokur stated he proposed the amendment because it was I
consistent with the intent of those who proposed to allow the lighting.
-135-
July 3, 1990
The vote on the Councilmember Winokur's motion to amend was as follows:
Yeas: Councilmembers Winokur, Mabry, and Azari. Nays: Councilmembers
Kirkpatrick, Maxey, and Edwards.
THE MOTION FAILED.
Councilmember Edwards supported the motion to overturn for two reasons.
One, the Board erred in its discretion because the majority decision was
swayed by relating the lights to signage. Also, on the issue of light
spillage, quantitative information was provided to indicate that spillage
was minimal. The subjective evaluation of the amount of spillage on the
prevailing side was an abuse of discretion.
The vote on Councilmember Maxey's motion to overturn the Planning and
Zoning Board's decision was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Maxey,
Edwards, Mabry, Azari, and Kirkpatrick. Nays: Councilmember Winokur.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Motion to direct Staff to Pursue
a Certain Option Related to the
Preservation of the Rhodes/Trimble House,
Following is staff's memorandum on this item:
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On March 6, 1990, City Council directed that staff work with the Heritage
Roundtable on alternatives to demolition of the Rhodes/Trimble House. The
Roundtable has proposed a public/private partnership that would allow for
the adaptive reuse of the building for an elderly/handicapped demonstration
project. Staff has, as requested, examined several options for the house.
The first option involves the purchase of the Jefferson Street Park and
moving the house. The second involves the purchase of the Everitt
property, leaving the house in place. The third option would involve the
purchase of a small portion of the Everitt property. The fourth option
would be to limit City involvement.
The following options have been explored for the Rhodes House.
Option I
The City acquires the Jefferson Street' Park site from Union Pacific
Railroad; 26,000 square feet at $5.50/square foot or'$143,000. The Rhodes
House is relocated to this site at a cost of approximately $20,000 and
restored at a cost of $61,000. A proposal has
Roundtable that calls for the adaptive reuse
elderly/handicapped demonstration project. The
$61,000 in -kind contribution to pay for
contributions have been offered by the Everitt
been` made by the Heritage
of the building for an
Roundtable has offered a
restoration. Additional
Companies ($2,500) and the
-136-
July 3, 1990
Downtown Development Authority ($5,000). This would leave a balance of '
$155,500 to be addressed by the City or some other entity.
The Jefferson Street site has several advantages for the City. It moves
the oldest brick house in Fort Collins to the Old Town Historic District.
The building could then be placed in an area with high visibility, easy
access, and within an historic context.
The park site acquisition and development would be consistent with the
objectives of the Downtown Plan (1989), the Poudre River Trust Plan (1986),
and the Parks and Recreation Master Plan (1988). This alternative has been
endorsed by the Parks and Recreation Board. The Parks and Recreation
Department has no funds available for this acquisition. Both the Landmark
Preservation Commission and the Cultural Resources Board recommend using
this site.
The site which is currently leased from Union Pacific has already been
improved with sprinklers, sidewalks, and signage. Attached is a schematic
plan for the park which was developed several years ago and suggests that
space be set aside for an historic building.
Under this scenario, the Rhodes House would be saved from demolition and
the Everitt site would become available for development. The City might,
however, have to provide either the full cost or a portion thereof in order
to complete the project. Union Pacific has indicated that it would not be
agreeable to a partial sale of the site nor be willing to allow the
relocation of the house to the site under a lease situation.
Total Cost of Option I = $155,500
Ootion 2
The City acquires the 38,000 square foot Everitt site for $5.50/square foot
or a total of $209,000 and retains the Rhodes House in the existing
location. Parking created on the balance of the property; approximately
33,000 square feet at a cost of $3.00 per square foot or roughly $100,000
(85 parking spaces created). Building restoration costs would be
consistent with Option I and landscaping would be required. The moving
costs ($20,000) and foundation costs ($25,000) would, however, not be
required. This option clearly reduces the potential for damage to the
building and preserves the original historic context of the structure.
Total Cost of Option 2 = $ 209,000 (acquisition)
+ 100,000 (parking)
+ 61,000 (restoration)
_ $ 370,000'
The cost per space would be approximately $4,300, including restoration of
the building. An average parking lot in downtown is estimated to cost
$3,000 - $4,000 per space. I
-137-
July 3, 1990
IOption 3
The City acquires a smaller segment of the Everitt site which would
accommodate the Rhodes House in its existing location as well as
landscaping improvements. This would likely involve acquisition of
approximately 5,000 square feet at a cost of $5.50/square foot ($27,500).
The owner is concerned about damages, which could increase the square foot
acquisition price. Restoration costs are consistent with the previous
option, however, parking development, relocation and foundation costs would
not apply. Staff has approached the owner regarding this scenario. He has
indicated limited interest in subdividing and selling a small portion of
the property.
Total Cost of Option 3 = $88,500
It is anticipated that the in -kind contribution of $61,000 from the
Heritage Roundtable would apply in each of these options as well as the
contributions offered by the Everitt Companies and DDA of $2,500 and $5,000
respectively. This reduces the bottom line balance to the City or some
other entity to the costs indicated below:
Option 1 = $154,500 Acquisition and relocation of Rhodes House to
Jefferson Street Park site
Option 2 = $301,500 Acquisition of the Everitt site, creation of
parking, and restoration of the Rhodes House
(covered by Heritage Roundtable and the
Everitt, DDA donations)
Option 3 = $ 27,500 Acquisition of a small segment of the Everitt
site (no parking) and restoration of the Rhodes
House (covered by Heritage Roundtable and the
Everitt, DDA donations)
Option 4
No action. If Option 3 does not work out, staff believes that the
preferred alternative is not to involve the City with the Rhodes House.
Although it is not a_perfect solution, staff believes that Option 3 is the
most appropriate and prudent for the City to pursue.
The high costs involved with the acquisition and/or .moving of the Rhodes
House do not warrant a substantial public investment. Although the Rhodes
House has some historic character,, there are other downtown projects which
would be of greater benefit to the community. Staff recommends that if
Option 3 is not successful, Council forego the opportunity to be involved
with the Rhodes House.
-138-
July 3, 1990
The Heritage Roundtable would then have the opportunity to pursue other '
resources in the community for preservation.
SUMMARY
Although staff does not recommend Options I and 2, if Council wishes to
pursue any of the purchase options, the following steps and timetables
would apply:
1. An option agreement would need to be obtained as soon as possible on a
specified site.
2. This would freeze the demolition date for the Rhodes House and allow
preservation and acquisition options to be finalized.
3. Staff believes that acquisition of either site could be completed
within 120 days of exercising an option."
Planning Director Tom Peterson made a presentation outlining the options.
Councilmember Mabry inquired about sources of funds for the 3 options.
Tom Peterson stated funds are not presently set aside for Option 1, the
acquisition of the Jefferson Street Park site. For Option 2, the source
would be the Transportation Fund. On Option 3, there is no identified
source of funds.
City Manager Burkett responded that the park could be acquired with funds
set aside for park acquisition and improvement. This site is not one of
the higher priority needs. On Option 2, there are other options for
parking in the downtown which would have a lower cost per parking space.
Regarding Option 3, there is not money identified in the budget. Staff is
recommending the lowest cost option.
Councilmember Maxey asked whether the dollar amounts in Option 2 and Option
3 were the amounts associated with the square footage of property being
acquired.
Tom Peterson replied that Option 2 includes acquisition and funds for
parking development. Option 3 includes only a square footage cost for
acquisition.
Councilmember Edwards mentioned that the letter from Everitt Enterprises
indicates they are not interested in Option 3.
Councilmember Mabry inquired why the revolving fund for acquisition and
restoration of historic structures wasn't one of the funding areas
considered.
Tom Peterson replied that the fund does not exist at the present time.
1
-139-
I
July 3, 1990
' Councilmember Mabry asked about the fund that was set up as a revolving
fund to acquire the McCue House.
Tom Peterson replied that the money set aside for that has not revolved
back.
Joan Day, President of Fort Collins Historical Society, supported
preservation of Rhodes/Trimble House.
Councilmember Maxey made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Winokur, to
direct staff to pursue Option 2.
Thad Anderson, new Fort Collins resident, spoke in favor of preserving the
Rhodes/Trimble House.
Dick Beardmore, 2212 Kiowa Court, gave information on other communities'
efforts towards preserving historic buildings.
Wayne Sundberg, 1108 Lynnwood Drive, charged the Council to become more
active in historic preservation and to preserve the Rhodes House.
Ruth Weatherford, 338 E. Pitkin, member of the Landmark Preservation
Commission and Heritage Roundtable, spoke in economic terms about
preservation of the Rhodes House.
' Councilmember Maxey spoke in favor of purchasing the total property package
to obtain the house. The portion not needed for the restoration can be
utilized or sold later.
Councilmember Edwards spoke in favor of preserving the property through
Option 2.
Mayor Kirkpatrick contended that the cost is too great for this property.
Councilmember Mabry reflected on the historic preservation that has been
done in Fort Collins. His concerns were about the lack of follow through
on the preservation program funded in the past, the need for limits on the
City purchase of historic structures, and the present process on this
property.
Councilmember Winokur pointed out that Council is only giving staff
direction on options to pursue. Specific agreements and appropriations
must come back to Council for formal approval.
Councilmember Azari spoke in support•of Option 2, knowing that additional
work must be done.
The vote on Councilmember Maxey's motion to direct staff to pursue Option 2
was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Azari, Maxey,. Edwards, and Winokur.
I
Nays: Councilmembers Mabry and Kirkpatrick.
-140-
July 3, 1990
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Resolution 90-104 Directing
the Development of a Historic
Preservation Program, Postponed
Following is staff's memorandum on this item:
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City, in the past, has found itself responding in an ad -hoc manner to
threats to historic buildings. This has been an extremely inefficient
process whose results have not always been worth the effort. Staff is
recommending a pro -active strategy to make the best use of staff time and
resources to protect Fort Collins' unique historical assets.
BACKGROUND
In reviewing the Rhodes/Trimble House in context with the City's past
historic preservation efforts (such as the Avery Carriage House, the
Downtown Plan, and the Landmark Preservation Commission's (LPC) Strategic
Plan), the question of whether or not the City can find a more strategic
mechanism for preserving unique historical assets in Fort Collins has been
raised.
Periodically, the City seems to be in a posture of attempting to preserve
on an emergency basis, some historic structure. Whether it is a
significant commercial structure such as the linden Hotel, or a residential
building such as the Avery House, enormous energy is spent trying to patch
together a solution.
Staff suggests that Council consider developing a strategy to identify and
preserve historical structures. More specifically, a list of prioritized
historic buildings and a set of qualifying criteria could be developed by
the LPC and the Historic Preservation staff. Also, setting up an incentive
fund for significant historical renovation projects would be explored. The
fund could be structured in a similar manner to the Fort Fund, and subject
to an annual appropriation review.
Staff believes that preserving Fort Collins' unique historic buildings
would be a significant step toward strengthening the future. It could have
a significant positive impact on the community in the following ways:
ECONOMIC
o Renovation is economic development. It creates jobs and increased
construction sales and use tax on materials purchased in the community.
The resulting economic gains would infuse a number of aspects of Fort
Collins' local economic activity. I
-141-
July 3, 1990
' o Other Colorado cities recognize the value of historic preservation and
have been encouraging historic preservation incentives. (Boulder and
Aspen provide historic preservation grants and loans.) The LPC believes
that incentives should be an important component of the City's historic
preservation program.
o Historic preservation stimulates tourism and economic activity. Local
historic attractions such as Old Town and the Avery House, are visited
extensively by the public. This generates both business activity and
tax revenues.
o Seed money is important for preservation projects. 'With a program, the
City would be able to leverage private investment funds.
o As the value of rejuvenated properties increases, additional property
tax revenues will be generated from the increased value of land and
improvements. This would also protect past investment. Historic
preservation has a positive effect on adjacent property values.
HISTORIC VALUE
o It would be a pro -active step for historic preservation by the City. It
is reinforcement of Ordinance No. 20, 1986, which states, "It is hereby
declared as a matter of public policy that the protection, enhancement
and perpetuation of site, structures, objects and districts of
' historical, architectural or geographic significance located within the
City of Fort Collins are a public necessity and are required in the
interest of the prosperity, civic pride and general welfare of the
people."
Many historic buildings are lost because of lack of maintenance and
upkeep. A public funding mechanism (for example a low -interest
rehabilitation loan program) could help motivate owners to maintain
their properties in a stable condition.
Such a program would allow the opportunity to save more of Fort Collins'
significant historic structures and, have the advantage of a renewing
investment in the community's historic fabric.
QUALITY OF LIFE
o Public funding for rehabilitation of significant historic structures
often contributes towards the revitalization of a community. Historic
character can contribute to the quality of life.
CONSERVATION OF COMMUNITY RESOURCES
o Essentially, an incentive program would allow the reuse of Fort Collins'
building stock. In a sense, recycle Fort Collins resources.
142-
July 3, 1990
RECOMMENDATION:
'
Council should direct staff and the Landmark Preservation Commission (LPQ
to develop a process and criteria to evaluate qualified historic buildings
for renovation assistance."
City Manager Burkett spoke of the importance of setting a policy on
historic preservation.
Planning Director Tom Peterson made a presentation on the proposal.
Councilmember Maxey inquired whether the recommendation would evolve into a
program and timetable for the program.
Tom Peterson replied that a 6-9 month timeframe is a reasonable
expectation.
Councilmember Maxey made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Azari, to
adopt Resolution 90-104.
Jim Tanner, 215 Park Street, member of the Landmark Preservation
Commission, spoke to redirection of City preservation staff efforts.
Rheba Massey, 1400 Freedom Lane, Chair of the Landmark Preservation
Commission, urged that the Resolution be amended to direct the development
of a historic preservation fund and the addition of sufficient staff to
implement the program.
Mayor Kirkpatrick referred to the change in the staffing levels.
Councilmember Maxey inquired if there was any critical timeframe for action
for the formulation of the 1991 Budget.
City Manager Burkett replied that this would be considered on the list of
supplementals for 1991.
Councilmember Mabry asked how this Resolution was different from the
Landmark Preservation Commission's work program.
Tom Peterson replied that the Resolution was different in the focus on
process and identification of the most important structures and districts.
Mayor Kirkpatrick requested the Resolution give narrower policy direction.
Councilmember Edwards spoke of the concerns of the preservation community
about the Resolution as presently worded.
Councilmember Winokur supported giving the item more thought.
Councilmember Edwards made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Winokur, to
postpone consideration of Resolution 90-104 to August 7. Yeas:
'
-143-
July 3, 1990
' Councilmembers Mabry, Azari, Kirkpatrick, Maxey, Edwards and Winokur.
Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Resolution 90-102 Adopting Financial
and Management Policies Relating
to the 1991 Annual Budget, Adopted as Amended
Following is staff's memorandum on this item:
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Financial and Management Policies are used to establish guidelines for the
1991 Annual Budget and long range financial plans. These policies reflect
Council direction and commitment to sound financial planning.
BACKGROUND
The Financial and Management Policies form the basis for the City of Fort
Collins' Annual Budget. Staff and Council have reviewed the policies and
made the following changes to be incorporated in the 1991 Annual Budget.
Section 1.2(c) Adoption Process was revised based on Council's suggestions
' to incorporate Council direction earlier in the budget process. Also
establishes staff Budget Committee and describes the May, June & July
worksessions.
Section 1.2(d)2 Budget Decreases has been amended to eliminate the service
reduction plan as part of the budget submittal. It now requires service
areas to develop reduction plans closer to the time of need.
Section 3.1 Administrative Charges includes a revised formula which more
accurately assesses service costs by specific departments. It also
provides for an annual review of these charges as part of the budget
process.
Section 3.8(b) PFA Revenue Allocation Formula revises the allocation of
property tax mills to the Poudre Fire Authority. The amount of revenue
generated is expected to meet operations and maintenance needs in 1991
based on PFA projected costs. It is consistent with the PFA agreement and
past practices.
Section 4.2(a)1.2 Light & Power Utility was edited to include an updated
mission statement for the Light & Power Utility.
Section 5.2(a) General City Capital Projects/Street Capital Maintenance
more accurately describes Street Capital Maintenance by specifically
' listing types of repair included.
-144-
July 3, 1990
Section 6.2 Types of Reserves has been modified to explain reserve ,
policies and the method of calculating reserves. The Equipment Replacement
Reserve has been expanded to include personal computers in the category of
equipment covered by this reserve.
Section 7.1 Cash Management and Investment Policv is amended to summarize
the recently adopted cash management and investment policy.
Section 8.1 Debt Policy has been revised to more clearly state the
provisions of the Charter regarding debt issuance. A new section has been
added to direct that debt service be assessed as a percent of general fund
expenditures when evaluating the impact of new debt on the City."
Finance Director Alan Krcmarik gave a brief overview of the major changes
in the policies.
Councilmember Edwards asked about the interpretation of the first sentence
of Section 8.3.
Alan Krcmarik replied that the inclusion of the word "all" wouldn't create
a significant change to the policy.
Councilmember Edwards proposed to add the word "all" for clarity's sake.
Councilmember Winokur made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Mabry, to
adopt Resolution 90-102 with the aforementioned changes. Yeas:
Councilmembers Mabry, Azari, Kirkpatrick, Maxey, Edwards, and Winokur.
Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Items Pertaining to a Resource
Assessment of the Poudre River
in Preparation for National
Heritage Corridor (NHC) Designation
Following is staff's memorandum on this item:
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A. Resolution 90-103 Authorizing an Intergovernmental Agreement with the
National Park Service for a Resource Assessment of the Poudre River.
B. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 76, 1990, Appropriating
Unanticipated Revenue to the NHC Capital Project Fund.
The Intergovernmental Agreement between the City and the Rocky Mountain
Region of the National Park Service outlines the scope of work and roles ,
and responsibilities for carrying out a Resource Assessment, in preparation
-145-
July 3, 1990
' for National Heritage Corridor designation of the lower portions of the
Poudre River.
The Ordinance appropriates unanticipated revenue to the capital project
fund established for the Poudre River NHC to supplement previous
allocations for advance planning work on NHC designation. Larimer County,
Colorado State University and the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy
District have each committed $5,000 to share in the cost of the Resource
Assessment.
BACKGROUND
On April 17, 1990, Council adopted Resolution 90-56, directing staff to
take such actions as are necessary to obtain National Heritage Corridor
(NHC) designation for the lower Poudre River. Council also appropriated
$32,500 (Ordinance No. 43, 1990) to commence advance planning work for
designation.
The Resource Assessment by the National Park Service will help set the
stage for NHC designation. It is part of the phased implementation
strategy proposed by staff, and discussed at the April 10 worksession.
A Council Resolution authorizing the Intergovernmental Agreement is
necessary due to the interaction and coordination of the governmental
' agencies involved, coupled with the commitment of City funding and staff
time for the work effort.
An appropriation Ordinance is necessary to direct unanticipated revenue to
the NHC capital project fund, to supplement previous allocations intended
for advance planning work for NHC designation.
ANALYSIS
As part of the preliminary implementation planning for NHC designation, the
National Park Service must evaluate the historic, cultural and
environmental resources of the river basin so that it is in a position to
assist local entities in the development of an NHC Plan. The National Park
Service has experience as the federal partner in other NHC's, but at this
time Park Service staff has relatively little knowledge of the Poudre River
Basin.
Under the proposed Agreement, the City would act as the project manager for
the Resource Assessment, providing the data base and other support to the
Park Service for the necessary field work and analysis. The Park Service
has a standard process for this kind of assessment, enabling it to
determine how local resources fit into the larger picture of national
significance.
The Park Service will utilize a great deal of the data and information
' accumulated through the National Recreation Area feasibility study,
minimizing the cost of this work effort. The participation of key players
-146-
July 3, 1990
and affected interests in the previous phases of this project will also
support the Park Service undertaking.
The Resource Assessment will take four to six months to complete, at an
estimated cost of $25,000. It is an important step in setting the stage
for NHC designation, as it will enable the Park Service to provide informed
testimony before Congressional subcommittees on the proposed NHC
legislation. Without the testimony of the federal partner, NHC legislation
could be defeated.
Sometimes, the National Park Service is directed by Congress to undertake
resource assessments. In such cases, the Park Service receives the funding
through the Office of Management and Budget. This process can take several
months to a year, or more.
Because the proposal for NHC designation of the Poudre River comes to the
Park Service as a local initiative, the most cost-effective and efficient
way to accomplish the Resource Assessment is to direct local funds to the
affected Park Service Regional Office. This is the route recommended by
City staff.
Other affected local entities have joined with the City to offset the total
cost of the Resource Assessment. Larimer County, Colorado State University
and the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District have committed $5,000
each to the assessment. The remaining $10,000 will be contributed by the
City, from the funding allocated by Council for advance planning of the
NHC. The City will take the lead, in partnership with the other entities,
in directing the Resource Assessment by the Park Service.
The Intergovernmental Agreement between the City and the National Park
Service (called a "Task Directive" by the National Park Service) will
define:
o scope of work for the Resource Assessment
o timeframe for completion
o reimbursement procedures
o roles and responsibilities of affected entities
The accomplishment of the Resource Assessment will:
enable the informed testimony of the Park Service before
Congressional subcommittees evaluating the proposed NHC legislation
bring the Park Service on board as a fully informed and willing
federal partner in the development of an NHC Plan
add significant Ty to the accumulated data base pertaining to the
historic, culturat and environmental resources of the river
corridor
-147-
July 3, 1990
' CONCLUSION
Adoption of the Resolution authorizing the Intergovernmental Agreement with
the National Park Service for the Resource Assessment is an important part
of setting the stage for NHC designation. The work and costs involved are
covered by the phased implementation strategy for NHC designation and the
appropriation made by Council on April 17.
A coalition of other affected local entities has been formed to support
this effort. The City will take the lead in this cooperative interagency
undertaking, which will significantly advance the progress toward achieving
National Heritage Corridor designation for the Poudre River."
Councilmember Winokur withdrew from discussion and vote on this item due to
a perceived conflict of interest.
Councilmember Mabry made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Azari, to
adopt Resolution 90-103.
Councilmember Edwards asked about the probability of financial
participation by other entities.
City Planner Kari Van Meter assured that other entities have made funding
commitments.
' Councilmember Maxey asked if the $25,000 appropriated for the 1990 work
program paid for staff.
Planning Director Tom Peterson replied that it did not.
The vote on Councilmember Mabry's motion to adopt Resolution 90-103 was as
follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Azari, Kirkpatrick, Maxey, Edwards and Mabry.
Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Mabry made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Azari, to
adopt Ordinance No. 76, 1990 on First Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers
Kirkpatrick, Maxey, Edwards, Mabry, and Azari. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
-148-
July 3, 1990
Ordinance No. 77, 1990, Amending the '
Definition of "Final Decision" as
Contained in Section 2-46 of the Code
and Amending Section 29-372, 29-419 and
29-526(F)(2(c) and (5)(a) Pertaining to
the Referring of Decisions by the Director
of Planning to the Planning and Zoning
Board. Adopted as Amended on First Reading
Following is staff's memorandum on this item:
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
At present, the definition of a "final decision" of a City board or
commission includes decisions in which the board or commission is merely
making a recommendation. Additionally, the Land Development Guidance
System presently provides that minor changes to master plans and final
plans may either be approved administratively by the Director of Planning
or, at the discretion of the Director, referred to the Planning and Zoning
Board for a recommendation. Finally, the RC (River Corridor) and IL
(Limited Industrial) zones contain site plan review provisions that allow
the Planning Director to request a recommendation from the Planning and
Zoning Board. The net effect of these provisions is that when the Planning
and Zoning Board makes such a recommendation, it is appealable to the City
Council and Council's decision on appeal also constitutes a recommendation
to the Director of Planning. The proposed changes in the Code would (1)
eliminate recommendations from the definition of "final decisions," (2)
vest final authority in the Planning and Zoning Board to decide, upon
referral by the Director of Planning, when minor changes to master and
final plans should be permitted, and (3) vest final authority in the
Planning and Zoning Board to decide, upon referral by the Director of
Planning, to approve site plans in the RC and IL zones.
BACKGROUND
Recent appeals from the Planning and Zoning Board to the City Council have
included instances in which a decision of the Planning and Zoning Board
constituted a recommendation to the Director of Planning about a proposed
minor change to a previously approved master or final plan. In this
situation, the recommendations of the Board nonetheless constitutes a
"final decision" within the meaning of the appeals provisions of the City
Code, since no further rehearing is available before the Planning and
Zoning Board. When_the matter comes before the, City Council for hearing,
the effect of City Council's decision is the same as that of the Planning
and Zoning Board, namely, it constitutes only`a recommendation to the
Director of Planning.
Certain changes are proposed to the relevant sections of the City Code so
that the decision of the City Council on appeal of these matters would be
final
rather than advisory in nature. The
first change would be to Section
'
2-46 of the City Code, which contains the definition of a "final decision"
which is appealable to the City Council. This change would clarify that
-149-
July 3, 1990
the decision of a board or commission would constitute a "final decision"
when no further rehearing is available before the board or commission
except when the decision constitutes the making of a recommendation only.
The other changes that are proposed are to those sections of the City Code
that define the process for reviewing minor changes to P.U.D. master plans
and final plans and for reviewing site plans in the RC and IL zones. The
proposed changes would provide that, when the Director of Planning refers a
decision regarding a proposed minor administrative change or a site plan
(in the RC or IL zones) to the Planning and Zoning Board, the Board's
decision shall constitute a final decision rather than a recommendation to
the Director of Planning.
As proposed, these changes would remove City Council from the situation of
hearing any decisions of boards or commissions when they are merely
advisory in nature. In assessing the advisability of this proposed change,
staff recommends that City Council consider the fact that there are other
contexts in which the Planning and Zoning Board makes recommendations, some
of which City Council may wish to review. Some examples include
recommendations to the Larimer County Board of Commissioners regarding
proposed land uses in the Urban Growth Area, and recommendations to the
Board of Education regarding the proposed location of new school sites.
If City Council would like to change the effect of its reviewing authority
in the context of proposed minor administrative changes to P.U.D. master
A plans or final plans and site plans in the RC and IL zones but, at the same
time, retain its prerogative to review other kinds of recommendations made
by boards or commissions, it should amend the proposed ordinance by
deleting Section 1. This would mean that the definition of a "final
decision" would remain unchanged and would continue to include decisions
which are recommendations only. Sections 2 through 5 of the proposed
ordinance would, in themselves, change the effect of City Council decisions
in the particular context of proposed minor administrative changes to
P.U.D. master plans or final plans and site plan approval in the RC and IL
zones, because those changes would provide that the decision of the
Planning and Zoning Board would be final rather than advisory in nature.
The Planning and Zoning Board's decision would no longer merely constitute
a recommendation, and City Council's review of its decision would become a
final decision about the proposed minor changes and site plans."
Councilmember Edwards made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Winokur, to
adopt Ordinance No. 77, 1990 on First Reading.
City Attorney Steve Roy reviewed the' background for this item and the
options available.
Mayor Kirkpatrick spoke against the ordinance
The vote on Councilmember Edwards' motion to adopt Ordinance No. 77, 1990
on First Reading was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Winokur and Mabry.
' Nays: Councilmembers Maxey, Edwards, Azari, and Kirkpatrick.
-150-
July 3, 1990
THE MOTION FAILED. I
Councilmember Winokur made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Azari, to
adopt Ordinance No. 77, 1990 deleting Section 1.
Councilmember Winokur acknowledged that this Ordinance clarifies the
process.
The vote on Councilmember Winokur's motion to adopt Ordinance No. 77, 1990
deleting Section 1 was as follows: Yeas: Councilmember Edwards, Winokur,
Mabry, Azari, Kirkpatrick, and Maxey. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Ordinance No. 78, 1990, Adding Section
17-126 to the Code of the City of Fort Collins
to Prohibit Harassment, Adopted Option 8 on First Reading
Following is staff's memorandum on this item:
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
At City Council's May 1, 1990, meeting an ordinance was presented to
Council which would have prohibited certain begging practices in public
places within the City. By a 2-4 vote, the Council turned down adoption of
the ordinance.
In turning down the proposed ordinance, some Councilmembers expressed a
concern that the ordinance was narrowly directed against only certain kinds
of harassing conduct, specifically harassing conduct associated with
begging or panhandling. These Councilmembers thought that if any conduct
constitutes harassment it should be prohibited regardless of whether it is
associated with panhandling or not. Staff was, therefore, directed by
Council to investigate and research the possible enactment of a harassment
ordinance that was broader in scope.
At the City Council's worksession on May 29, 1990, Council and staff again
discussed the issue of harassment and the related issue of panhandling.
Based upon the staff's investigation and research and the input received
from Council at the worksession, staff has prepared two ordinances. The
first ordinance (Option A) is essentially the State's harassment statute
(Section 18-9-111, C.R.S.), but with some of the State's provisions
omitted. The second ordinance (Option B) is identical to the first
ordinance except that it has an additional provision, Section 17-126(a)(6),
which prohibits harassing conduct associated with the solicitation of a
gift of money or anything of value in a public place. This additional
provision has been included to give Council the option of enacting a
provision that more directly addresses objectionable conduct which might be
associated with aggressive panhandling. '
-151-
July 3, 1990
Coincidentally, at the time City Council gave its initial direction to
staff on these issues, Police Services was already considering presenting
to Council a harassment ordinance based upon the State's harassment
statute. Police Services has been considering the incorporation of the
State's harassment statute into the City Code in order to be able to
prosecute harassment cases in Municipal Court rather than in County Court.
Police Services believes that harassment cases can be prosecuted more
expeditiously and with more certainty of punishment in Municipal Court than
they can now be in County Court. Also, by enacting a City harassment
ordinance, some law enforcement gaps that now exist under the City Code
will be filled.
For example, if an individual strikes, shoves or kicks another person on
the premises of a private apartment, residence or dorm room and there are
no bodily injuries, that individual cannot be charged with assault under
the City Code (Section 17-21) because bodily injury is a required element
of the crime of assault under the Code. In addition, he or she cannot be
charged with disorderly conduct under the City Code (Section 17-124)
because the disorderly conduct did not occur in a public place. Under
either of the proposed harassment ordinances, harassment charges could be
brought in such a situation because bodily injury does not have to occur
and the conduct does not have to occur in a public place in order to be
prosecutable.
' Another gap in law enforcement which would be filled by either of the
proposed ordinances is in the area of harassing and obscene telephone
calls. Section 17-126(a)(4) in each of the proposed ordinances prohibits
telephone communications that are intended to harass, or threaten bodily
injury or property damage, or that are obscene. The City Code does not
currently have an ordinance that would prohibit such telephone calls.
Individuals making harassing or obscene telephone calls are currently being
charged in County Court under the State's harassment statute.
Staff does not prefer the adoption of one ordinance over the other (Option
A or B). As already stated, the only difference between the two ordinances
is that the second ordinance (Option B) contains an additional provision
that directly addresses conduct which might be associated with aggressive
panhandling (see, Section 17-126[a][6]). This additional provision would
make it easier to charge an individual with harassment for aggressive
panhandling. But, even without this provision, it will probably still be
possible to charge an individual with harassment in many cases related to
aggressive panhandling with the provisions of the first harassment
ordinance (Option A) depending, of course, upon the specific facts of the
panhandling incident in question. There will, however, likely be some
cases related to aggressive panhandling, that would not fit into any of the
provisions of the first ordinance (Option A) and, therefore, would not be
prosecutable absent the additional provision (Section 17-126[a][6]) of the
second ordinance (Option B)."
' Councilmember Mabry made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Edwards, to
adopt Ordinance No. 76, 1990, Option "B", on First Reading.
-152-
July 3, 1990
Police Division Commander Brad Hurst clarified that begging in itself is I
not prohibited, but behaviors associated with harassment are.
Councilmember Azari spoke against the Ordinance as duplicating state
statute.
Councilmember Winokur spoke against the need for the Ordinance.
The vote on Councilmember Mabry's motion to adopt Option "B" of Ordinance
No. 78, 1990 on First Reading was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Mabry,
Kirkpatrick, Maxey, and Edwards. Nays: Councilmembers Winokur and Azari.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Other Business
Councilmember Edwards requested a 2-page memo relating to authority on
noise abatement requirements for certain types of aircraft used at Fort
Collins/Loveland Airport.
Councilmember Maxey reported that during the past week the Missouri Valley
Fire Chiefs Association conference met in Fort Collins. There were over
100 fire chiefs and support personnel present. Poudre Fire Authority was
acknowledged as one of the best fire suppression services in the
conference.
Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 11:05 p.m. L"
yor
AST:
Q
City Clerk
-153-