HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES-05/05/1987-RegularMay 5, 1987
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, May 5, 1987, at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers in the City of
Fort Collins City Hall. Roll call was answered by the following
Councilmembers: Estrada, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Mabry, Maxey, Stoner, and
Winokur.
Staff Members Present: Burkett, Huisjen, Krajicek
Agenda Review: City Manager
City Manager Burkett suggested Item #30, Items Relating to the Creation of
the Centre for Advanced Technology Special Improvement District #90, be
tabled until May 19 to allow the Finance Committee to review the item and
make a recommendation to Council. He noted that the property owners in the
district did not object to the tabling of this item.
Councilmember Kirkpatrick requested Item #23, Resolution 87-66 Amending the
' Policy Statement on Ethics for Members of Boards and Commissions, be
removed from the Consent Calendar.
Councilmember Maxey asked that Item #17, Second Reading of Ordinance No.
74, 1987 Vacating a Portion of an Existing Alley in Block 274, Westside
Addition, be withdrawn from the Consent Agenda.
Terry Foppe, 622 Whedbee, requested Item #20, Hearing and First Reading of
Ordinance No. 77, 1987 Amending Chapter 112 of the Code to Permit the
Granting of Exceptions to the Requirement that each Building have Separate,
Individual Water and Sewer Service Lines, and Item #22, Items Relating to
the Adoption of the General Form of Petitions for Nominations for Council
Office, and Petitions for Initiative, Referendum, and Recall, be withdrawn
from the Consent Calendar.
Bruce Lockhart, 2500 East Harmony Road, asked that Item #13, Items Relating
to the City Park Nine Golf Course Clubhouse Renovation and Maintenance/Golf
Car Storage Building Projects, be removed from the Consent Agenda.
Consent Calendar
This Calendar is intended to allow the City Council to spend its time and
energy on the important items on a lengthy agenda. Staff recommends
approval of the Consent Calendar. Anyone may request an item on this
-444-
May 5, 1987
calendar be "pulled" off the Consent Calendar and considered separately.
Agenda items pulled from the Consent Calendar will be considered separately
under Agenda Items #27 and #36, Pulled Consent Items, except items pulled
by anyone in the audience or items that any member of the audience is
present to discuss that were pulled by staff or Council. These items will
be discussed immediately following the Consent Calendar.
Items Relating to the Bath Annexation and Zoning
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 53, 1987, Annexing Approximately
8.09 Acres, Known as the Bath Annexation.
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 54, 1987, Zoning Approximately
8.09 Acres, Known as the Bath Annexation, Into the B-L, Limited
Business, Zoning District.
These Ordinances, which were unanimously adopted on First Reading on
April 21, are a request to annex and zone approximately 8.09 acres
located north of East Prospect Road and west of Timberline Road. The
site the location of Bath Landscaping, Inc., which is presently an
enclave of county area completely surrounded by incorporated area of
the City of Fort Collins. The requested zoning is the B-L, Limited
Business, Zoning District.
APPLICANT: City of Fort Collins
OWNERS: Harry Thomas Bath
2000 E. Prospect Road
Fort Collins, CO
Jackie C. Chismar % Roy Lundval
P.O. Box 632
Greeley, CO
Items Relating to the Dueck Colorado Properties Ltd Annexation and
Zoning.
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 55, 1987, Annexing Approximately
23.37 Acres, Known as the Dueck Colorado Properties, Ltd.
Annexation.
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 56, 1987, Zoning Approximately
23.37 Acres, Known as the Dueck Colorado Properties, Ltd.
Annexation, Into the T-Transitional Zoning District.
These Ordinances, which were unanimously adopted on First Reading on
April 21, are a request to annex and zone approximately 23.37 acres
located east of S. College Avenue, south of Trilby Road, and north of
Robert Benson Lake. The requested zoning is T-Transitional Zoning
District. This is a voluntary annexation.
APPLICANT: Dueck Colorado Properties, Ltd. OWNER: Same
15701 W. 1st Ave, Suite 200
Aurora, CO 80011
-445-
May 5, 1987
6. Items Related to the Pine Ridge Annexation and Zoning
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 57, 1987, Annexing Approximately
5.85 Acres, Known as the Pine Ridge Annexation.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 58, 1987, Zoning Approximately
5.85 Acres, Known as the Pine Ridge Annexation, Into the R-L-P,
Low Density Planned Residential, Zoning District.
These Ordinances, which were adopted unanimously on First Reading on
April 21, are a request to annex and zone approximately 5.85 acres
located south of Harmony Road and east of Lemay Avenue, the site is
the location of a single-family house, which is presently an enclave
of county area completely surrounded by incorporated area of the City
of Fort Collins. The requested zoning is the R-L-P, Low Density
Planned Residential, Zoning District.
APPLICANT: City of Fort Collins OWNER: William & Florence Bialek
5404 South County Road 13
Fort Collins, CO 80525
7. Items Relating to the Service Center 3rd Annexation and Zoning.
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 59, 1987, Annexing Approximately
.7983 Acres, Known as the Service Center 3rd Annexation.
' B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 60, 1987, Zoning Approximately
.7983 Acres, Known as the Service Center 3rd Annexation, into the
RC, River Corridor, Zoning District.
These Ordinances, which were unanimously adopted on First Reading on
April 21, are a request to annex and zone approximately .7983 acres
located north of Vine Drive and west of North Woods Street. The
requested zoning is RC, River Corridor, Zoning District. The property
is owned by the City of Fort Collins and is the first of two
annexations designed to bring the City's Service Center into the city
limits.
APPLICANT: City of Fort Collins OWNER: Same
0
This Ordinance, which
was unanimously adopted on First Reading on
April 21, is a request
to rezone approximately 3.76 acres
located east
of Lemay Avenue, south
of Harmony Road, and north of Rule
Drive. The
rezoning request is
to eliminate a zoning condition
which limits
development of the
property to professional office
uses while
maintaining a planned
unit development condition. The
property is,
-446-
May 5, 1987
a
10.
11.
12.
and will remain, in the B-P, Planned Business, Zoning District. The '
property is presently used as a single family residence.
APPLICANTS: Richard L. and Linda D. Rule OWNERS: Same
4824 S. Lemay Ave.
Fort Collins, CO 80525
This Ordinance, which was unanimously adopted as amended on First
Reading on April 21, amends the Code of the City of Fort Collins
pertaining to the penalty for violations of the Code. The amendment
provides that except as to traffic infractions, the maximum punishment
shall be $900 (increased from $300) and/or by imprisonment not
exceeding 180 days (formerly 90 days). As to traffic offenses, the
maximum fine would be increased to $900 from the previous $300
limitation. Six point offenses would also be subject to the provision
concerning imprisonment.
This Ordinance, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on
April 21, amends section 78-1 of the City Code to clarify that it is
not only unlawful for any person to make any unreasonable noise but '
also to knowingly permit such noise on any premises owned or possessed
by him or under his control. This amendment will take care of an
enforcement problem which currently exists particularly with regard to
loud party complaints handled by the Police Department.
Due to a late addition of projects in the 1987 Urban Mass
Transportation Administration grant, additional revenues have become
available to the City. These funds were not appropriated for the 1987
budget year. This Ordinance, which was unanimously adopted on First
Reading on April 21, appropriates $6,400 to the Transportation Fund
and $12,000 to the Technical Studies-UMTA fund for the items found
below.
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 68, 1987, 'Appropriating Funds to
Replace Prospect Road Bridge over the Larimer County Canal No. 2.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 69, 1987 Appropriating Funds to
Replace LaPorte Avenue Bridge over the Larimer County Canal No. 2. '
-447-
May 5, 1987
The City needs to appropriate $100,326 to match $401,304 granted from
the Colorado Department of Highways Special Bridge Fund for the
replacement of the Prospect Road Bridge over the Larimer County Canal
No. 2. Funds are available in the existing Prospect -Shields to Taft
capital improvement project and from savings from other capital
projects. The City also needs to appropriate $42,636 to match
$170,546 granted from the Colorado Department of Highways Special
Bridge Fund for replacing the LaPorte Avenue Bridge over the Larimer
County Canal No. 2. Funds are available from savings from the Harmony
Road RR Crossing project. The grant funds also must be appropriated.
These Ordinances, which were unanimously adopted on First Reading on
April 21, appropriate these funds.
13.
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 70, 1987, Appropriating $35,000
from Golf Fund Surcharge Reserves.
B. Resolution 87-64 Authorizing a Professional Services Agreement
with Aller-Lingle Architects for the City Park Nine Golf Course
Clubhouse Renovation and Maintenance/Golf Car Storage Building
Projects.
This Ordinance, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on
April 21, appropriates $35,000 from Golf Fund Surcharge reserves to
pay for all final architectural/engineering services associated with
the renovation of the existing clubhouse and construction of a new
maintenance and golf car storage building.
This resolution authorizes the City Manager to enter into a
professional services agreement with Aller-Lingle Architects of Fort
Collins for the final and construction phase architectural and
engineering services for the City Park Nine Golf Course Clubhouse
Renovation and Maintenance/Golf Car Storage Building projects.
Aller-Lingle Architects was chosen as the most qualified firm by a
selection committee who reviewed 19 proposals for these projects. The
total cost for these services are not to exceed $31,000.
14.
The Police Department has been awarded a grant from the Colorado
Division of Highway Safety totalling $5,000. These monies are
provided from the U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, and Federal Highway Administration.
These funds will be used to support the already existing "Model City
Safety Belt Project" Task Force. The grant will provide funding for
task force approved projects, including printing, secretarial help',
' supplies and postage, etc. This Ordinance, which was unanimously
adopted on First Reading on April 21, appropriates these funds.
-448-
May 5, 1987
15.
16.
17.
In
On April 21, Council adopted Resolution 87-50, authorizing the Mayor
to enter into an agreement for the City to continue to provide Larimer
County residents with general library services and library outreach
services to serve the handicapped, elderly and other isolated persons.
In exchange for providing these services during 1987, the County will
pay to the City $106,448. This Ordinance, which was unanimously
adopted on First Reading on April 21, appropriates the Outreach funds.
General Service funds were projected and appropriated with the 1987
Budget.
The Owner of Lots 6 and 7 is requesting the vacation of an existing 20
foot utility easement. The Owner would like to build one structure on
these two lots. This easement must be vacated before this action can
commence. All Utilities have been contacted and have no problems with
the vacation. This Ordinance, which was unanimously adopted on First
Reading on April 21, makes that vacation.
This Ordinance, which was unanimously
April 21,
adopted on First Reading on
'
vacates the center portion of
the alleyway in Block 274 of
the Westside
Addition, as requested by the Transportation Department.
A tree,
18 inches in diameter, growing
in the alleyway impedes
vehicular
traffic to the extent private
property is being continually
damaged.
The vacation of this portion
of the alley will not block
access to
any lot in the block.
The full width of the alley to be vacated shall be reserved by the
City for utility easement purposes.
All utilities and neighboring residents have been contacted and only
minor objections were received from periphery property owners.
On April 21, Council unanimously adopted Version "B" of this Ordinance
on First Reading:
This Ordinance retains the Building Contractors Licensing Board
(BCLB), includes general housekeeping items, and focuses primarily on
other issues, including expanding the "general contractor" categories '
-449-
May 5, 1987
' to meet the increasing demand in the development industry for firms
which do smaller scale commercial projects.
1
19.
20.
21.
22.
A storm drainage project and street overlay project are both planned
on Princeton Road during the summer. By installing a water line at
the same time, the City can realize savings in engineering,
construction, and street replacement costs. The Ordinance would
appropriate the funds necessary to construct the water line at the
same time that the storm drain is installed, with street overlay to
follow.
This Ordinance, amending Sections 112-32 an 112-96 of the Code, would
allow certain exceptions to the present requirement of each building
or structure having a separate water and sewer service line. The
Ordinance sets out specific predetermined criteria for the exceptions.
The Cable Advisory Board and Public Access Advisory Board were created
by City Council in 1984. The Cable Advisory Board was charged with
Providing citizen input to Columbine CableVision and the City's cable
television program. The Public Access Board was charged with
promoting public access programming in Fort Collins. Both boards were
created after completion of the five year review of Columbine
CableVision's performance.
The two boards have been meeting jointly since December, 1986. The
Cable Advisory Board proposed meeting with the Public Access Board to
work on issues of common interest. Members voted to merge their
duties and function as a single board. The shared expertise will help
the Cable TV Board expedite a public access recommendation and provide
Columbine CableVision and the City with citizen input.
A. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 79, 1987, Adopting the
General Form for Petitions for Nomination for City Council Office.
B. Hearing
and
First
Reading
of Ordinance
No. 80,
1987,
Adopting the
General
I
Form
for
Petitions
for Measures
Sought
to be
Initiated or
K•Ki10
May 5, 1987
23.
Referred to the Vote of the Electors of the City and for Petitions I
for Recall.
These ordinances implement the provisions of several Charter
amendments approved by the voters on March 3 which specify that the
Council approve the general form of petitions for nomination for
Council office, initiative, referendum, and recall. The general forms
for these types of petitions have been prepared by the City Clerk's
Department, based on Charter, statutory and Constitutional
requirements.
Because of the expense of printing warnings in red and special
typesetting requirements, the staff is recommending that the City
provide blank petition forms for the use of individuals seeking
nomination for Council office, or who have filed with the City Clerk,
a notice of intent to file a petition for initiative, referendum, or
recall. A sufficient number of blank forms would be provided to
petitioners to obtain the required number of signatures.
The adoption of this Resolution would amend the Boards and Commissions
Manual of the City of Fort Collins, Policy Statement on Ethics,
Paragraph 6, so that a member of a Board or Commission would no longer
be restricted from representing any person or interest for '
compensation before the City Council or any Board or Commission of the
City, so long as such representation does not pertain to the function
or activity of the Board or Commission on which such member serves.
24. Resolution 87-60 Making an Appointment to the Parking Commission
25.
A vacancy currently exists on the Parking Commission due to the
resignation of Rodger Burton. The vacancy was advertised and the
Council liaison has reviewed the applications submitted.
In keeping with Council's policy, the recommendation for this
appointment was announced at the April 21 meeting. The appointment
was tabled to allow time for public input.
The prospective appointee is Delores Turman.
The City Council and the citizens of Fort Collins have expressed
interest in developing an efficient and safe transportation system in
the City of Fort Collins. The transportation planning program will
assist the City to provide a transportation system to meet the demands
of the City of Fort Collins, now and into the future.
-451-
May 5, 1987
' This Ordinance, which was tabled from April 21 by a vote of 6-1,
appropriates $69,200 from prior year reserves in the General Fund for
the development of a Transportation Plan. Staff is recommending
retabling of this Ordinance to May 19 to allow review by the Finance
Committee.
26. Routine Easements.
a. Storm drainage easement from Robert L. and Judy C. Lee and James
W. and Patricia M. Day for installation of a storm sewer outfall
line for the north Greenbriar detention facility.
b. Powerline easement from Ernestina L. Tijerina located at 1017 Main
Street to relocate existing overhead electric service to
accommodate construction of a new house at that address.
Ordinances on Second Reading were read by title by Wanda Krajicek, City
Clerk.
Item #4. A.
a
IItem #5. A.
I'm
Item #6. A.
tm
Item #7. A.
7
IItem #8.
-452-
May 5, 1987
Annexati
Unit Dev
Item #9. Second f
of the C
Item #10. Second f
of the C
Item #11.
Item #12. A. Seco
to R
No.
B.
Item #13. A. Seco
35
Item #14.
Item #15. Second
Unanticii
Item #16. Second R
Easement
Item #17. Second R
an Exist
Item #18.
Item #19
Item #20.
-453-
May 5, 1987
Item #21.
Item #22. A.
f:M
Councilmember Winokur made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Stoner, to
adopt and approve all items not removed from the Consent Calendar. Yeas:
Councilmembers Estrada, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Mabry, Maxey, Stoner, and
Winokur. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Items Relating to the City Park Nine
Golf Course Clubhouse Renovation and
Maintenance/Golf Car Storage Building Protects
Following is staff's memorandum on this item:
"Financial Impact
Total costs for the final and construction phase architectural and
engineering services for the City Park Nine Golf Course Clubhouse
Renovation and Maintenance/Golf Car Storage Building projects are not to
exceed $31,000. Ordinance No. 70, 1987 appropriates $35,000 from Golf Fund
Surcharge Reserves for this purpose. The balance of the money appropriated
will be applied to the construction phase of the project or used for
contingency if the need should arise during this final design phase.
Executive Summary
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 70, 1987, Appropriating $35,000 from
Golf Fund Surcharge Reserves.
B. Resolution 87-64 Authorizing a Professional Services Agreement with
A]ler-Lingle Architects for they City Park Nine Golf Course Clubhouse
Renovation and Maintenance/Golf Car Storage Building Projects.
This Ordinance, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on April 21,
appropriates $35,000 from Golf Fund Surcharge reserves to pay for all final
architectural/engineering services associated with the renovation of the
' existing clubhouse and construction of a new maintenance and golf car
storage building.
-454-
May 5, 1987
This resolution authorizes the City Manager to enter into a professional '
services agreement with Alter -Lingle Architects of Fort Collins for the
final and construction phase architectural and engineering services for the
City Park Nine Golf Course Clubhouse Renovation and Maintenance/Golf Car
Storage Building projects. A11er-Ling7e Architects was chosen as the most
qualified firm by a selection committee who reviewed 19 proposals for these
projects. The total cost for these services are not to exceed $31,000.
Background
The existing City Park Nine Golf Course Clubhouse Building and attached
maintenance/storage area were constructed circa 1940. In July 1985, the
City Building Inspection office notified the Parks and Recreation
Department about the deteriorating and minimally safe structural conditions
of the buildings especially the maintenance and storage area. After
thoroughly reviewing the various options, the Golf Board and staff are
recommending the renovation of the existing 3,200 square foot clubhouse
building at a projected cost of $165,000, and the construction of a new
maintenance and golf car storage building adjacent to the clubhouse at an
estimated cost of $125,000. Total costs including the final and
construction phase architectural and engineering services for these
projects is estimated at approximately $290,000.
In January 1986, Glaser Associates of Fort Collins was hired to evaluate
the projects and provide conceptual and preliminary architectural/ '
engineering services. At that time, Glaser Associates was the
City -contracted architect/engineer for small city projects. Glaser was
paid $5,582 for their original services and they did a very satisfactory
job. However, staff felt that it was more appropriate and in the best
interests of the City to initiate a new request for proposals (RFP) to hire
an architect/engineer for the final and construction phase of the projects.
We received proposals from 19 firms for the projects with costs averaging
roughly $35,000. A proposal review committee composed of Jack Gianola from
Facilities, Opal Dick from Purchasing, Jeff Boulter as a golfer/citizen
representative, and Project Manager Leslie Beckmann reviewed the 19
proposals and chose three firms to be interviewed on April 23. The
committee interviewed A11er-Ling7e, Architecture Plus, and ZVFK all of Fort
Collins, and unanimously chose A))er-Lingle as the most qualified firm for
these projects.
Alter -Lingle will be paid a base rate of $25,580 plus reimbursables of
$2,950. In addition, we will also hire Engineering Professionals of Fort
Collins to perform a topographical survey at a cost of $750, Empire Labs of
Fort Collins to do a soils investigation at a cost of $750, and a firm to
be determined to perform construction staking at a cost of $600, for a
total cost of $30,630. These "sub -contractors" were all a part of the
A11er-Lingle proposal.
It will take Alter -Lingle about two months to complete all construction bid
documents. It will take an additional "six to eight weeks to go through the '
bidding process. Once firm construction bids are received, staff will
-455-
May 5, 1987
return to Council to ask for appropriations of additional Golf Fund monies
to pay for the construction. Actual construction should begin around Labor
Day and is estimated at five and one-half months, to be completed prior to
the start of the 1988 golf season."
Councilmember Kirkpatrick made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Stoner,
to adopt Ordinance No. 70, 1987 on Second Reading.
Bruce Lockhart, 2500 East Harmony Road, questioned the costs for renovation
of the City Park Nine Golf Course Clubhouse and construction of a new
maintenance and golf cart storage building.
Councilmember Horak noted that the Golf Board and the Parks and Recreation
staff had carefully reviewed the item and recommend approval.
The vote on Councilmember Kirkpatrick's motion to adopt Ordinance No. 70,
1987 on Second Reading was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Estrada,
Horak, Kirkpatrick, Mabry, Maxey, Stoner, and Winokur. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Kirkpatrick made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Stoner,
to adopt Resolution 87-64. Yeas: Councilmembers Estrada, Horak,
Kirkpatrick, Mabry, Maxey, Stoner, and Winokur. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Ordinance No. 74, 1987, Vacating a
Portion of an Existing Alley in Block 274,
Westside Addition, Second Reading Tabled to May 19
Following is staff's memorandum on this item:
"This Ordinance, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on April
21, vacates the center portion of the alleyway in Block 274 of the Westside
Addition, as requested by the Transportation Department. A tree, 18 inches
in diameter, growing in the alleyway impedes vehicular traffic to the
extent private property is being continually damaged. The vacation of this
portion of the alley will not block access to any lot in the block.
The full width of the alley to be vacated shall be reserved by the City for
utility easement purposes.
All utilities and neighboring residents have been contacted and only minor
objections were received from periphery property owners."
Councilmember Kirkpatrick made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Winokur,
to adopt Ordinance No. 74, 1987 on Second Reading.
-456-
May 5, 1987
Councilmember
alley rather
Maxey expressed concern with vacating this
than changing the the
portion of the
'
course of alley. He
also expressed
concern that
this portion of
the alley might become a
depository for
garbage.
Councilmember
Maxey made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Stoner, to
table Ordinance No. 74, 1987
on Second Reading until
May 19. Yeas:
Councilmembers
Estrada, Horak,
Kirkpatrick, Mabry, Maxey,
Stoner, and
Winokur. Nays:
None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Ordinance No. 77, 1987, Amending Chapter 112
of the Code to Permit the Granting of
Exceptions to the Requirement that Each
Building Have Separate, Individual Water and
Following is staff's memorandum on this item:
Executive Summary
This Ordinance, amending Sections 112-32 an 112-96 of the Code, would allow
certain exceptions to the present requirement of each building or structure
having a separate water and sewer service line. The Ordinance sets out '
specific predetermined criteria for the exceptions.
Background
Sections 112-32 and 112-96 of the Code require the installation of separate
service lines for each building. In other words, serving more than one
building with one service line is not allowed... each building must have its
own individual service. In the past, the Utility experienced problems with
multiple buildings being served with only one service line. The problem
occurred when a single property containing multiple buildings served by one
service line, was divided into two or three parcels and sold to different
owners. This resulted in confusion and arguments regarding which property
owner was responsible for maintenance of. the one service line. It also
created problems for the Utility in the case where one of the owners failed
to pay their utility bills and service had to be discontinued. Having only
one service line meant that all the owners would be shut off which was not
acceptable.
The "separate -service -line" provision in the Code has eliminated these
problems. However, there are always some exceptions to any rule and the
Code does not contain any provisions which would allow an exception to the
present "separate-service=line" rule. Staff has encountered a few cases
where an exception seemed'practical such as the case of a homeowner who
wants to extend water and sewer service`,'to a detached garage/shop. There '
are also other examples involving commercial property.
-457-
May 5, 1987
The proposed solution to this problem is to modify the Code to permit
certain exceptions that meet predetermined criteria. Staff has reviewed
various issues and cases related to the "separate -service -line" problem and
has developed criteria for allowing more than one building to be served by
one service line. The following is the proposed criteria:
I. The combined water use of the buildings could not exceed the
capacity of the service line and meter.
2. If the service is for residential use, only one of the buildings
could be residential and that building could contain no more
than one dwelling unit.
3. Buildings served by one service would have to be under one
ownership. If the property is subdivided and buildings could be
sold separately, a service would have to be installed to each
building.
4. A signed and notarized document listing the requirements of
serving a single property with one service line to multiple
buildings would have to be recorded in the office of the Larimer
County Clerk and Recorder. (The reason for this criteria is to
assure that future property owners are aware of these
conditions.)
5. plans to serve the buildings with one service must be reviewed
and approved by the Utility.
The staff believes that adoption of the criteria listed above would provide
the flexibility to resolve the majority of the exceptions that may be
encountered in the future."
Councilmember Stoner made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Maxey, to
adopt Ordinance No. 77, 1987 on First Reading.
Terry Foppe, 622 Whedbee, pointed out that paragraph B(2) would prohibit
utility service into a detached garage if the residential dwelling contains
a basement apartment. She suggested the clause be deleted from the
Ordinance since the Director may authorize the service of more than one
building by a single service line if the combined water use does not exceed
the capacity of the service line and meter.
Director of Water Utilities Mike Smith stated he felt Ms. Foppe's point was
well taken.
Councilmember Stoner amended his motion to delete the phrase "which
dwelling shall contain no more than one (1) dwelling unit" from Section
112-32(B)(2) and Section 112-96(B)(2).
Councilmember Maxey agreed, as the second to the original motion, to accept
' the amendment.
-458-
May 5, 1987
Councilmember Horak thanked Ms. Foppe for her diligence in reviewing the I
agenda and offering good suggestions.
The vote on Councilmember Stoner's motion to adopt Ordinance No. 77, 1987
as amended on First Reading was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Estrada,
Horak, Kirkpatrick, Mabry, Maxey, Stoner, and Winokur. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Items Relating to the Adoption of the
General Form of Petitions for Nominations
for Council Office, and Petitions for
Initiative. Referendum. and Recall
Following is staff's memorandum on this item:
"Financial Impact
Printing of blank petition forms in the appropriate typeface, with red
warnings, is estimated to cost approximately $300 for printing, typesetting
and layout of 1000 of each form. Funds are available in the City Clerk's
budget.
Executive Summary
A. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 79, 1987, Adopting the
General Form for Petitions for Nomination
'
for City Council Office.
B. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 80, 1987, Adopting the
General Form for Petitions for Measures Sought to be Initiated or
Referred to the Vote of the Electors of the City and for Petitions for
Recall.
These ordinances implement the provisions of several Charter amendments
approved by the voters on March 3 which specify that the Council approve
the general form of petitions for nomination for Council office,
initiative, referendum, and recall. The general forms for these types of
petitions have been prepared by the City Clerk's Department, based on
Charter, statutory and Constitutional requirements.
Because of the expense of printing warnings in red and special typesetting
requirements, the staff is recommending that the City provide blank
petition forms for the use• of individuals seeking nomination for Council
office, or who have filed with the City Clerk, a notice of intent to file a
petition for initiative, referendum, or recall. A sufficient number of
blank forms would be provided to petitioners to obtain the required number
of signatures."
Councilmember Kirkpatrick made a motion,°seconded by Councilmember Winokur,
to adopt Ordinance No. 79, 1987 on First' Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers
'
459-
May 5, 1987
Estrada, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Mabry, Maxey, Stoner, and Winokur. Nays:
None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Winokur made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Mabry, to
adopt Ordinance No. 80, 1987 on First Reading.
City Clerk Krajicek noted these forms are mandated by the Charter revisions
approved at the March 3 election. She stated staff is recommending the
City bear the cost of printing the forms for an estimated $300 for a
two-year supply.
Terry Foppe, 622 Whedbee, questioned the term "petition representatives" on
the petition form. She suggested the term "petition initiators" might be
clearer.
City Clerk Krajicek stated the term "petition representatives" is straight
out of the Colorado Revised Statutes.
The vote on Councilmember Winokur's motion to adopt Ordinance No. 80, 1987
was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Estrada, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Mabry,
Maxey, Stoner, and Winokur. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Resolution 87-66 Amending the Policy
Statement on Ethics for Members
of Boards and Commissions Adopted
Following is staff's memorandum on this item:
"Executive Summary
The adoption of this Resolution would amend the Boards and Commissions
Manual of the City of Fort Collins, Policy Statement on Ethics, Paragraph
6, so that a member of a Board or Commission would no longer be restricted
from representing any person or interest for compensation before the City
Council or any Board or Commission of the City, so long as such
representation does not pertain to the function or activity of the Board or
Commission on which such member serves.
Background
The present Policy Statement on Ethics provides: "A member of a Board or
Commission should refrain from representing any person or interest for
compensation before the City Council or any Board or Commission of the
City." This restriction may unnecessarily limit certain members of Boards
and Commissions who, in their professional capacities, regularly represent
' clients on matters before the City, when those matters are not related at
all to the activities of the particular Board or Commission on which such
-460-
May 5, 1987
member serves. For instance, land planners, architects, engineers and
attorneys regularly represent interests for
,
persons and compensation before
the City Council or other Boards and Commissions. They may be a valuable
resource for service on City Boards and Commissions; however, under the
present rule, they are unable to serve and still represent persons on any
matters unrelated to their Board or Commission activities.
The adoption of the Resolution would provide for modification of the
present policy and would allow representation of others by members of
Boards and Commissions so long as it did not pertain to the function or
activity of the Board or Commission on which the member serves."
Councilmember Mabry made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Maxey, to
adopt Resolution 87-66.
Councilmember Kirkpatrick asked if other members of Council felt the
present ethics statement was a problem.
Councilmember Stoner stated he felt the present wording would prevent any
professionals who may have an opportunity to represent themselves in their
business from serving on a board or commission.
Councilmember Maxey stated he felt the new language helps clarify the
situation and provides a better opportunity to enforce the policy.
Councilmember Mabry pointed out the proposed change still precludes any
member of a board or commission from appearing for themselves or on behalf
'
of someone else in front of their own board or commission.
Mayor Estrada concurred with the comments of the other Councilmembers and
stated he felt the new language guards against any potential conflict of
interest by board or commission members without being overly prohibitive.
Councilmember Kirkpatrick stated she could not support the Resolution. She
stated she felt although the boards and commissions can be identified for
specific areas of interest, the bottom line is the interest of the City.
She stated she felt individuals who come before another board or commission
where the City is the opposing force might not be able to think in terms of
the best interest of the City. She stated she felt the old policy was
clear and would like to see the old policy more consistently enforced. She
noted she realized that some individuals, at certain times in their
careers, would not be able to serve on a board or commission. She stated
that is a choice that many individuals have to make.
Councilmember Horak agreed the more restrictive language poses some problem
for
people who have applied for or are on a board or commission, but noted
he did
not think it was a severe problem. He stated this might be just one
of many reasons an individual chooses not to serve on, a board or
commission. He did not feel the current policy excludes many people from
serving on boards and commissions.
1
-461-
May 5, 1987
' The vote on Councilmember Mabry's motion to adopt Resolution 87-66 was as
follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Estrada, Mabry, Maxey, Stoner, and Winokur.
Nays: Councilmembers Horak and Kirkpatrick.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Ordinance No. 37, 1987, Fixing the
Salary of the Municipal Judge,
Adopted on Second Reading
Following is staff's memorandum on this item:
"This Ordinance, which was adopted by a 6-1 vote on First Reading on April
21, establishes the 1987 salary for the Municipal Judge at $50,000."
Councilmember Mabry made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Stoner, to
adopt Ordinance No. 37, 1987 on Second Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers
Estrada, Kirkpatrick, Mabry, Maxey, Stoner, and Winokur. Nays:
Councilmember Horak.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
' Councilmembers' Reports
Councilmember Stoner reported on a meeting with the County Commissioners
and the Airport Manager in which the County Commissioners agreed to share
in funding a study for air transport service to the Fort Collins -Loveland
Airport.
Mayor Estrada spoke of a Cinco de Mayo celebration he attended at Fort
Collins High School.
Items Relating to the Creation of
the Centre For Advanced Technology
Special Improvement District #90,
Tabled Until May 19
Following is staff's memorandum on this item:
"Financial Impact
Significant street improvements will be made to Shields Street as well as
to the interior of the Centre for Advanced Technology and Windtraii
P.U.D.s. The Street Oversizing Fund will reimburse the developer for
oversizing on Shields Street and the interior collector streets. The Parks
and Recreation Department will participate in the cost of widening Shields
' Street adjacent to Rolland Moore Park. The Water and Sewer Department will
reimburse the developer for oversizing some water and sewer mains and the
-462-
May 5, 1987
Storm Drainage Department will participate in certain basin improvements. '
The developer has not agreed to take any credits or use any other method to
reduce the impact on the Street Oversizing Fund. The Shields Street
portion of the project was budgeted in the Street Oversizing Fund for 1987
and will not create an additional impact. However, the interior collector
streets will have an additional significant impact on the Street Oversizing
Fund.
Executive Summary
A. Resolution 87-68 Accepting the Petitions of the Property Owners to
Establish the Centre for Advanced Technology Special Improvement
District No. 90.
B. Resolution 87-69 Accepting the Costs, Method of Assessment, and Plans
for the Centre for Advanced Technology Special Improvement District No.
90.
C. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 81, 1987, Relating to the
Creation and Organization of Special Improvement District No. 90.
The Center for Advanced Technology Special Improvement District No. 90 is
located on Shields Street from Landmark Apartments at Prospect Road to
Raintree Shopping Center at Drake Road. The district is proposing to
complete the widening of Shields Street to full arterial standards between
Prospect Road and Drake Road and to improve the internal collector streets '
of the Center for Advanced Technology (C.A.T.). The district is composed
of four properties, Everitt Enterprises, CSURF, Windtrail PUD, and Sam
Aranci. A portion of the proposed improvements to Shields Street is the
frontage of Rolland Moore Park, which will participate in the costs.
Spring Creek Professional Park P.U.D. is now under construction and will
widen Shields Street along its frontage, just north of Rolland Moore Park.
The widening of Shields Street will provide a much needed capacity to this
important arterial corridor.
Background
Shields Street improvements consist of realignment and regrading of the
entire street section to full arterial standards from the northernmost
improvements installed with the Raintree Shopping Center to the
southernmost improvements installed with the Landmark Apartments. The
district improvements include removal and.replacement of a box culvert on
the Larimer No. 2 Ditch, widening of the existing box culvert at the New
Mercer Ditch, 220 linear feet.of storm drain, and curb, gutter, sidewalk
and pavement of a total length of 1960 feet of improved arterial street.
Internal collector street improvements consist of the extension of
Worthington and Meadowlark Avenues to connect with the proposed Center
Avenue. These improvements include curb, gutter, sidewalk and pavement,
two concrete box culverts, 2780 feet of storm drain, 6180 feet of water
main, and 7296 feet of sewer main, for a total of 6065 feet of improved '
-463-
May 5, 1987
collector streets. Stuart Street will be extended from Shields Street,
east for approximately 1,400 feet.
Shields Street Alignment
At their April 14, 1987 worksession, Council approved the design alignment
for Shields Street (Labeled Option 1, see attachment). This alignment will
necessitate the removal of several large cottonwood trees along the
arterial corridor. Staff and the developer have agreed that the aesthetic
and community value of the mature cottonwoods should be compensated. A
reforestation plan has been developed which will replant the streetscape
with a significant number of medium caliper (3" to 4") trees along Shields
Street. Staff feels that this is a reasonable approach to mitigating the
loss of existing trees, especially in this corridor.
Funding:
This Special Improvement District includes two kinds of costs: Street
oversizing costs and direct costs.
The direct costs are for the Shields Street improvements adjacent to
Rolland Moore Park. The street oversizing costs are for oversizing of
improvements for Shields Street and the collector street within the
Windtrail and Centre for Advanced Technology P.U.D.s.
' Summary of City Costs•
Direct Cost
I. Rolland Moore Park $94,000
Street Oversizing Costs
1. Shields Street $442,000
2. Interior Streets 288,000
3. ROW Acquisition 9,000
4. Water, Sewer, and Storm Drainage 221.600
Total Oversizing Costs $960,600
Total City Cost $1,054,600
The developer has agreed to a assume the costs of the improvements for two
non -participating properties, the Carpenter property and the Raintree
development in the amount of $25,000.
A major street oversizing expense that Was not, anticipated was that
oversizing portion of the interior collector streets. The street
oversizing obligation for these collector streets using the present
residential standard is $288,000. The developer will not take credits for
' street oversizing.
-464-
May 5, 1987
This leaves the City's cash obligation and funding sources as follows:
'
Street Oversizing Fund $739,000
Rolland Moore Park:
Balance of Rolland Moore Park Monies $41,800
Other Park Construction Balances 8,000
Parkland Fund 34,200
Capital Projects 10,000
Total Rolland Moore Park 94,000
Water, Sewer, and Storm Drainage oversizing 221,600
Total City Funding $1,054,600
Recommendation:
The improvements to Shields Street are necessary to provide for the
existing and future traffic volumes on this important link from the
residential areas to CSU and downtown. The improvements to the Centre for
Advanced Technology will provide the infrastructure framework necessary to
service the new research and industrial uses planned for this development.
Since the developer has not agreed to take credits or other measures to
mitigate the impact of this project on the Street Oversizing Fund, the
City's cash outlay to develop the Everitt site at this time is a
'
significant burden on the fund and will require an additional appropriation
against the Fund's line of credit. The issue of the cost to the City at
this time with no clear industry or users of this site vs. the probable
stimulation of economic development should be weighed at this time. Staff
feels the proposed district meets all other City criteria for establishment
of a Special Improvement District and recommends adoption of these items."
Councilmember Horak suggested Council discuss this item at the next
worksession rather than have the Finance Committee review it.
City Manager Burkett pointed out that the next worksession is planned for
Council goal setting and there would not be time to discuss this item. He
stated the next available worksession would be May 26. He noted it was
possible to have a special worksession on another day of the week.
Mayor Estrada stated it would be his preference to have Councilmembers
submit their questions to staff and the Finance Committee and have the
Finance Committee review the item.
Councilmember Kirkpatrick stated she would like to participate in the
discussion of this item which would not :be an option if the Finance
Committee reviews it. She stated she would prefer the issue be discussed
in public.
1
-465-
May 5, 1987
J
Councilmember Mabry stated he would also like to hear the questions and
discussion that takes place on this item.
Councilmember Horak suggested a special worksession for 1-112 to 2 hours
around the lunch hour. He suggested Thursday, May 14.
Councilmember Mabry stated he was unavailable on that date and requested
that a summary of the meeting be prepared.
Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Stoner, to
table the Items Relating to the Creation of the Centre for Advanced
Technology Special Improvement District N90 until May 19 with a special
worksession to take place on Thursday, May 14. Yeas: Councilmembers
Estrada, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Mabry, Maxey, Stoner, and Winokur. Nays:
None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
(Secretary's Note: Mayor Estrada announced Councilmember Horak would be
absent from the meeting for approximately one hour.)
A.
C.
D.
Citizen Participation
Mayor Estrada spoke of the events during the College Days weekend and
the performance of the Fort Collins Police Department during that time.
Lieutenants Jerry Haals and Dean McWilliams accepted the Certificate of
Appreciation on behalf of the Police Department.
Mayor Estrada presented Suzy Danford with a plaque commemorating her
induction into the Colorado Special Olympics Hall of Fame.
4Stan Fixter, representing the Interfaith Prayer Council. accepted by
rend
,v-,o a� na�ionai M1SLpr1C ~reservation Week
was accepted by Wayne Sundberg, Chairman of the Landmark Preservation
Commission, and Christine Jones, Chair of the Cultural Resources Board.
M, I-T-2
May 5, 1987
E. Proclamation Naming May 17-23 as National Insurance Women's Week was
accepted by Lynn McConkey and Patricia Swindt of the Insurance Women of
Larimer County.
F. Proclamation Naming May 17-23 as Take Pride in America Awareness Week
was accepted by Tom Edwards, Acting Forest Supervisor/Arapahoe Forest,
and Jim Hubbard, Colorado State Forest Service.
G. Proclamation Naming May 18-25 as All American Buckle -Up Week was
accepted by Lieutenant Jay Davis of the Fort Collins Police Department.
H. Proclamation Naming the Month of May as Asthma and Allergy Awareness
Month was accepted by Fort Collins/Loveland poster child Andy Miller.
I. Proclamation Naming the Month of May as Better Hearing and Speech Month
was accepted by Mike Rodel, Jean Morris, Charlie Poole, and Richard
Nolte.
J. Proclamation Naming the Month of May as Month for Subcontractors was
accepted by Jim Metz, American Subcontractors Association.
K. Proclamation Naming the Month of May as Multiple Sclerosis Awareness
Month was forwarded to the appropriate persons.
L. Proclamation Naming the Month of May as Senior Citizen Month was
accepted by Eva Hackleman, Chair of the Senior Center Board, and Nancy
Luttropp, Recreation Supervisor.
Terry Foppe, 622 Whedbee, objected to amendments to the Code being placed
on the Consent Agenda.
Bruce Lockhart, 2500 East Harmony Road, commented on the renovation of the
Toliver's building as discussed at the April 28 worksession. He stated he
thought the cost of purchasing and renovating the Toliver's building was
higher than the cost of leasing office space.
Bill Hickman, 1607 Edora Court, spoke of damage done to his car during the
College Days weekend. He questioned whether CSU could be required to post
a damage bond if future College Days are sanctioned.
Tom Waldow, 325 Pearl, questioned the use of City equipment by employees
for private gain. He spoke of an incident he witnessed on a Friday morning
involving a City truck and the use of a sod cutter at an employee's home.
-467-
May 5, 1987
Resolution 87-67 Amending the Interim
Operating Services Agreement with the
Fort Collins Municipal Railway Society,
Adopted as Amended
Following is staff's memorandum on this item:
"Executive Summary
Over the past few months staff has been meeting with representatives of the
Fort Collins Municipal Railway Society to address changes to the Operating
Agreement for the trolley. The Interim Operating Agreement expired on
December 31, 1986 and was extended through December 31, 1987 at the March
17th regular City Council meeting.
The Railway Society has proposed some changes to the operation of the
trolley that would be reflected in an amended agreement. Staff has been
discussing the proposals with the Society and with various City departments
that would be affected by the changes. In addition, a neighborhood meeting
was held on March llth to gather input from the residents of West Mountain
Avenue and other interested parties, and staff has received a number of
letters from the community in favor of and against the proposed changes.
The Parking Commission provided input on parking related policies.
Background
' The changes requested by the Railway Society are as follows:
1. Allow one-way trips on the trolley, with the ability to pick up and
discharge passengers at Loomis Street, Shields Street, McKinley Street
and at the end of the line.
2. Allow charters of the trolley during the week with advance notification
given to the City. Charters would be scheduled between the hours of
10:00 am and 6:00 pm, Monday through Friday. Each charter could
operate a maximum of two hours.
3. Allow the use of the City Parks Department's vacuum leaf sweeper to
clear leaves from the track in the fall at the expense of the Railway
Society.
4. Allow the operating hours of the trolley to be extended to 7:00 pm
rather than 6:00 pm during the months of June, July and August. Also
allow the trolley to operate from 10:00 am until 7:00 pm on the Fourth
of July.
5. Allow City to administratively approve minor changes in the operation
of the trolley for special occasions which would occur outside their
normal operating days of Saturday and Sunday.
' Staff is recommending approval of all of the requests except for the
extension of the operating hours. The request for charters during the week
am
May 5, 1987
is recommended for approval but staff would like weekday charters limited
to Wednesday from 10:00 am to 5:00 pm, with each charter being no longer
than two hours in length. Likewise, the request for the use of the City's
vacuum leaf sweeper would be granted based on the availability of the
equipment and staff, and the Railway Society would be required to reimburse
the City for all City costs incurred.
Attached is the staff report on each of the proposed changes."
Councilmember Stoner made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Maxey, to
adopt Resolution 87-67 (Option A).
City Engineer Gary Diede reviewed the proposal and staff recommendations
and responded to questions from Council.
Wayne Sundberg, 2901 Greentree Circle, explained the Society did not expect
a great demand for charters beyond the April and May needs of the school
district. He stated the Society did not have the volunteers necessary to
run daily charters. He expressed concern that the restricted use does not
allow the flexibility to provide charters for visiting dignitaries and will
not accommodate the needs of the school district. He requested Council
expand the time available for charters.
Doris Fritzler, 401 Riddle Drive, representing the Questors clubs of Fort
Collins, objected the limitation of charters to Wednesday only.
Judy Dunn, 2055 Tunis Circle, spoke of a trip her 4th grade students took
on the trolley last spring. She objected to limited charter schedules.
She read a letter written by a former student regarding his experience with
the trolley.
Howard DeLozier, 1132 Country Club Road, representing the Poudre Valley
Chapter of the Antique Automobile Club of America, stated he felt
conventions and groups would not be able to conform their schedules to the
Wednesday charter schedule.
Carol Tunner, 2 Wimbledon Court, speaking on behalf of JoAnn Barnett,
Executive Director of the Downtown Business Association, stated the
Downtown Business Association unanimously supports the requests of the
Railway Society.
Roger Smith, Railway Society Board of Directors, read a statement about the
Society's efforts to address the concerns of the City and the neighborhood,
and the Society's hopes for future operation of the trolley.
William Archibald, President of the Railway Society, read a statement from
Ed Hansson, Vice -President of the Railway Society.
Jim Reidhead, 235 Linden, stated the trolley restoration project was one of
the best in the nation, and urged Council to continue to support the
trolley.
L
-469-
May 5, 1987
I
Justus Wilkinson, 912 West Mountain, supported daily operation of the
trolley.
Councilmember Mabry stated he was sympathetic to potential safety problems
relating to potential conflicts that could arise during the afternoon rush
hour at 5:00 and a number of people congregating in the median to ride the
trolley. He stated he was also sympathetic to wanting to give, in a
practical and reasonable way, good exposure to the trolley.
Councilmember Maxey stated he felt the restrictions suggested are not
conducive to working with conventions and groups coming into the community.
He stated he did not feel it was practical to condense charters into one
day during the work week.
Councilmember Kirkpatrick stated she felt the Wednesday restriction for
charters was arbitrary. She stated she would like greater flexibility for
charters.
Councilmember Winokur stated he could see some benefit in taking one step
at a time in allowing charters on Wednesday only.
Mayor Estrada stated he felt limiting charters to Wednesday may not allow
ample time to accommodate interested groups. He favored extending the
charter time to another day, but would not support extending it throughout
the entire week. He expressed concern about the intermediate stops along
' the median.
Councilmember Mabry made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Stoner, that
Resolution 87-67 (Option A), Exhibit "A", Item 1, paragraph B be amended to
read "...City Observed Holidays from 10:00 am to noon and on Tuesdays,
Wednesdays and Thursdays from 10:00 am through 4:00 pm, March through
October." and to strike the sentence "No charter shall be more than two (2)
hours in length."; Item 4 adding a paragraph to Section 10a be amended to
read "...Such request for contract services shall customarily be made two
(2) working days prior to the date on which the services are desired." and
.The Society agrees to pay the City a predetermined hourly rate covering
all direct costs incurred by the City in providing the service requested.";
and Item 2, paragraph 12 be amended to read "...and near the east
terminus...".
Mayor Estrada stated he would support the motion if "Wednesdays" is removed
from Item 1, paragraph B. He stated he felt two charter days were ample.
Councilmember Kirkpatrick stated she would be more likely to support the
amendment if it was more flexible by simply stating two days per week
rather than specifying which days.
Councilmember Maxey stated he would prefer the trolley not be allowed to
stop at Shields Street.
' Esther Wilkinson, 912 West Mountain, spoke of trolley operations from the
late 1930's and noted she was not aware of any accident due to the trolley
-470-
May 5, 1987
stopping to allow people to board. She urged Council to make the trolley I
useful to as many people as possible.
The vote on Councilmember Mabry's motion to amend Resolution 87-67 (Option
A) was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Horak, Mabry, Maxey, Stoner, and
Winokur. Nays: Councilmembers Estrada and Kirkpatrick.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Stoner, to
amend _Exhibit A, Item 3, paragraph A, to add as the second to the last
sentence "Within 30 days of the adoption of this Resolution, guidelines for
special operations of the trolley outside of the hours of operation shall
be developed by the City representative."
Councilmember Horak stated he felt there needs to be some guidelines
established which will include provisions for notification of special
operations.
The vote on Councilmember Horak's motion to amend Resolution 87-67 (Option
A) was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Estrada, Horak, Kirkpatrick,
Mabry, Maxey, Stoner, and Winokur. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Horak stated he felt the Resolution as presented with the
amendments is reasonable and he would support the Resolution.
Mayor Estrada stated he felt the trolley is an asset to the community and
expressed his hope that the trolley will remain in the City for a long
time.
The vote on Councilmember Stoner's motion to adopt Resolution 87-67 (Option
A) as amended was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Estrada, Horak,
Kirkpatrick, Mabry, Maxey, Stoner, and Winokur. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Appeal of Zoning Board of Appeals Decision
(ZBA #1806) Regarding the location and Design
of the Proposed St. John's Evangelical Lutheran
Church Parking Lot, ZBA Decision Upheld
Following is staff's memorandum on this item:
"Executive Summary
On Thursday, April 9, 1987, the Zoning Board of Appeals was asked by the
Garfield Street Neighborhood Committee to review.'staff's determination of
the acceptability of the location and design=.of the parking lot being '
proposed by the St. John's Evangelical Lutheran Church, 305 E. Elizabeth.
-471-
May 5, 1987
' After due consideration the Board, by a vote of 3-2, agreed with staff's
determination that the parking lot complied with all applicable
requirements, subject to the plan being revised to include retention of the
large blue spruce and mature elm tree along Garfield. The Garfield Street
Neighborhood Committee is appealing the ZBA decision to City Council.
Background
The present St. John's Evangelical Lutheran Church was built at 305 E.
Elizabeth in 1963. The zoning code which was in effect in 1963 did not
require any off-street parking. Therefore, when the church applied for a
building permit to build its present building, it was granted the permit
and a certificate of occupancy with no requirement to provide off-street
parking spaces. Although approximately 25 spaces were constructed on the
south side of the building, a large number of church attendees park on the
streets around the building, mainly Elizabeth, Mathews, and Peterson
streets. The church has contacted the Zoning office about once a year for
the last 3 or 4 years to discuss various plans to provide more off-street
parking, usually on property located across the alley which runs along the
south side of the church. These plans normally involved an additional 5 to
10 spaces. Staff determination has always been that a parking lot is an
accessory use to the church, and the definitional requirements for
accessory uses (Section 118-81 (A)) do not limit accessory parking lots to
locations adjacent to the property on which the church is located.
Therefore, there is nothing in the Code which would prohibit additional,
non -required parking across the alley. Additionally, since the church and
its parking lot are allowed as a use by right in the RM zone there is no
public hearing required for this kind of proposal.
Staff learned in early January that the church had acquired three lots
across the alley for parking purposes. After having been contacted by some
Garfield Street residents about concerns with this proposal, staff
suggested to the church that it might be a good idea to meet with the
neighbors to work out the concerns which, at that time, dealt with adequate
landscaping, low lighting, and the presence of a curb cut on Garfield.
While the church and the neighbors were meeting, City staff representatives
from Zoning, Traffic Engineering, and City Forestry also had several
meetings with the church, the neighbors, and the church's landscape
architect. It was staff's understanding that compromise designs had been
reached with regard to the landscaping and the lighting, but that the
church was not agreeable to eliminating the curb cut on Garfield. Finally,
the two sides reached a point where dialogue ceased. The church hired a
private traffic consultant to do a study, and subsequently submitted formal
parking lot plans to the City on March 28, 1987. When the neighbors
reviewed the submittal and found that the curb cut was still being
proposed, they filed an appeal to the Zoning Board of Appeals. (Under
Section 118-20 (A) of the Code, the ZBA is authorized to hear and decide
appeals from any decision made by administrative officials who are
responsible for enforcing the regulations of the Zoning Code).
-472-
May 5, 1987
The appeal, as written, challenged the location of the lot and the
acceptability of its design. These issues were analyzed by the ZBA as
follows:
Is the proposed location of the parking lot - across the alley from the
church - a permitted location under Section 118-81 (D)(1)(c)[11 of the
Code. The neighborhood interpretation of this section is that proposed
parking spaces must be provided on the same lot as the church, not on
property separated by an alley. Staff interpretation of the Code is
that this referenced section is not applicable in this situation since
the section pertains only to required off-street parking spaces and
deals with making sure that the required amount is being provided. This
proposed parking lot is not required. The City has never told the church
that it must provide more parking, nor is there any language in the Code
which would allow the City to do so. Under the Code which was in effect
in 1963, the church's requirement for parking is zero, and any parking
provided beyond that is in excess of that requirement, and therefore is
not required parking. This would be similar to a church, or any other
use which might have been built 2 years ago. Let's say it was required
to have 100 spaces, and that was what was provided. Now, 2 years later,
the church decides they need 50 additional spaces. These 50 spaces are
not required spaces, but are in excess of the requirement, and this code
section would not apply.
Therefore, the first question on appeal is whether Council agrees that
the aforementioned section of the Code applies only to required parking
and does not apply to this situation.
The second issue on appeal is whether Council agrees that this proposed
parking lot meets the applicable Code requirements for location, design,
access, and landscaping.
With regard to location, staff, feels that the only applicable section
as to location for this situation is 118-81 (D)(1)(c)[21, which says
that a parking lot in a residential zone is permitted if it is there to
serve a use which is permitted in that residential district. This
parking lot meets that requirement, and since accessory uses do not
always have to be located on the same lot with the principal building
(118-81 (A)(3)), staff feels that this is a location allowed by Code.
Staff is also of the opinion that the proposed parking lot presents no
safety hazards or otherwise jeopardizes public health, safety, and
welfare. Also, according to the City Traffic Engineer Rick Ensdorff, the
location of this parking lot makes� sense from a traffic operations
standpoint, and presents no significant traffic impacts. A partial list
of other accessory parking lots across alleys or streets which have been
approved in the past include the American Baptist Church, Sorenson PUD,
555 S. Howes office building, College Inn office building, Park Lane
Towers, Budget Rent -a -Car, Village Shops, University Motor Inn,
Helmshire House, and Everitt Office PUD. It should .also be pointed out
that even if Council should determine that these are required spaces,
there is nothing in Section 118-81 (D)(1)(c)[11, which necessarily
-473-
May 5, 1987
t precludes this parking lot from being located across the alley. In fact
this section is saying that it is permitted to locate required spaces in
locations other than on the same lot as the building.
As to the curb cut, the City Traffic Engineer is responsible for
administering the access and circulation requirements of the parking
ordinance and it is his opinion that the lot would probably be able to
function without the Garfield curb cut. However, it is also his opinion
that the existence of the curb cut would not have a significant enough
impact on Garfield Street to warrant denial of the curb cut. Therefore,
the proposed curb cut was allowed to remain on the plan. It is also the
Traffic Engineer's opinion that the circulation of the lot meets all
City requirements and is acceptable.
With respect to landscaping, it is the opinion of the City Forester, Tim
Buchanan, that the proposed parking lot landscaping is adequate, and in
fact exceeds code requirements in many aspects. However, he feels that
the large blue spruce tree and mature elm tree, both located along the
Garfield frontage, can be retained in the plan and would help to provide
additional visual screening from the street. It is his opinion that the
spruce tree can probably be preserved with the elimination of only 2
parking spaces.
After hearing considerable discussion from both sides on the issue, the ZBA
voted 3-2 that the proposed parking spaces were not required spaces and
therefore, Section 118-81 (D)(1)(c)[1] was not applicable and the proposed
location of the parking lot was acceptable under the other code provisions
dealing with location. They also voted 3-2 that the lot met all design
requirements dealing with access, circulation, and landscaping, and that
the Garfield curb cut is permitted under these design requirements. The
Board did condition their vote on the preservation of a large blue spruce
and mature elm tree located along the Garfield frontage.
Council is being furnished with a copy of the minutes of the ZBA meeting on
this matter and all other materials presented to the ZBA at the April 9th
meeting. The Neighborhood Committee is alleging on appeal that the ZBA
erred for several reasons. Council should review ZBA's two decisions and
decide, based upon the record, whether to uphold, overturn, or modify the
ZBA decision."
Mayor Estrada summarized the allegations made by the appellant. They are:
(1) that the Zoning Board of Appeals failed to interpret the Code properly;
(2) that the Zoning Board of Appeals refused to consider overriding public
policy issues; and (3) that the design of the proposed parking lot is
inadequate to preserve the integrity of the neighborhood.
City Attorney Huisjen stated Chapter 3A relating to appeals provides for a
summary hearing before the Council and, does not allow the taking of new
evidence or the making of statements by many people. He emphasized that
the submission of new evidence is prohibited which means that the evidence
' presented to Council consists only of that evidence presented at the
hearing before the Zoning Board of Appeals. He noted the appeal consists
-474-
May 5, 1987
of two parts: the Council must make a determination whether there are
grounds for appeal, and then the hearing itself. He stated Council has
three options: affirm, deny, or modify the decision of the Zoning Board of
Appeals. He stated he felt the three grounds for appeal set out by Mr.
Donald Mykles were proper grounds for appeal.
Councilmember Winokur made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Stoner, to
hear the appeal based upon the fact that the written grounds of appeal
conform to the requirements of the City Code and are sufficient to be
appealed. Yeas: Councilmembers Estrada, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Mabry, Maxey,
Stoner, and Winokur. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Zoning Administrator Peter Barnes reviewed the history of this item and
showed slides of the location.
Mayor Estrada stated Council would take a 10-minute recess to allow the
appellants and the opponents to select individuals to represent their own
perspectives. He stated the appellants would have approximately 20 minutes
to present their case and the opponents to the appeal would have
approximately 20 minutes to comment or rebut the grounds of the appeal. He
stated there would be an open 10-minute period for public discussion and
comments followed by Council questions and comments. He stated that
comments of both the appellants and the opponents should take the form of
summarization of the issue, review of information, and pertinent
commentary. He emphasized that no new evidence should be presented. He
stated no members of either side of the issue should share their concerns
or perspectives with Council during the recess period.
James Durr, attorney representing the Garfield Street Neighborhood
Committee, outlined the neighborhood's opposition to the parking lot. He
stated it was the position of the Garfield Street Neighborhood Committee
that approval of the parking lot plan is inappropriate and violates the
spirit, if not the letter, of the City Code as well as being in direct
opposition to the Eastside Neighborhood Plan. He cited sections of the
Code which the Committee feels support their position. He spoke of the
negative impacts of construction of the parking lot. Mr. Durr stated
approval of the parking lot would be in direct opposition to the policies
of the Eastside Neighborhood Plan adopted by the City in March 1986. He
stated the Zoning Board of Appeals did not consider public policy as
mandated by the City Code. He addressed the Committee's opposition to a
curb cut on Garfield Street. He stated the ZBA was influenced by the
Church's long-range plans, which constitutes an abuse of the ZBA's
discretion in their decision. He asked the Council to overturn the
decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Lucia Liley, attorney representing St. John's Evangelical Church, stated
the evidence that has been submitted demonstrates that a parking lot is
clearly, by precedent, by Code, and by court cases, an:'accessory use to a
church in this location. She stated is also demonstrates that the curb cut
to the parking lot improves the circulation and access and minimizes
1
-475-
May 5, 1987
' potential safety problems that could arise if the only access allowed is
the access off the narrow alley. She noted the landscaping plan meets and
exceeds Code requirements. Ms. Liley addressed the public policy issue.
She stated the ZBA did not ignore public policy issues, but rather focused
on them where appropriate, namely in those areas where they have discretion
(the design issues). She spoke of the problems which have occurred from
church members parking on the streets in the neighborhood. Ms. Liley noted
that the church is a use -by -right in the RM zone and that the City Code and
the courts recognize that parking lots are necessary and normal accessory
uses to churches. She stated the church has met the requirements of the
general accessory use provisions of the Code. She spoke of the need for
the Garfield Street curb cut. She asked Council to consider the
significant public benefit to the neighborhood at large, the legal and
equitable issues which arise when the church has relied on reasonable
interpretations of the Code, statements of City staff that the accessory
use meets the Code requirements, and past precedents of the City in
approving this type of use. She asked Council to reaffirm the decision of
the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Ellen Audley, 318 Edwards, objected to the Garfield Street curb cut. She
stated she would prefer to have the on -street parking continue rather than
have a parking lot constructed.
Ron Nichols, 3001 Rustic Court, Pastor of St. John's Lutheran Church, spoke
of the notes parishioners have received while parked on the street.
' Blair Godbout, 329 East Elizabeth, stated he was not aware of any notes
being left on cars by the neighborhood.
Don Mykles, 321 Garfield, stated the parking lot would not prevent people
from parking on the street. He spoke of other alternatives to increase
on -street parking in the area.
In response to an objection from Lucia Liley, City Attorney Huisjen ruled
that the evidence presented by Mr. Mykles relating to alternatives to
increase on -street parking constitutes new evidence and should not be
considered by the Council.
Vicki Mykles, 321 Garfield, stated the neighborhood is interested in
reaching a compromise with the church, but has not had any communication
from the church since mid -February.
Barbara Liebler, 817 Peterson, stated the alley does provide adequate
access to the parking lot and objected to the Garfield Street curb cut.
Ron Nichols spoke of conversations with the neighborhood.
City Planner Joe Frank outlined the provisions of the Eastside Neighborhood
Plan and answered questions from Council.
476-
May 5, 1987
In response to a question from Councilmember Winokur, City Attorney Huisjen ,
stated the Zoning Board of Appeals considers public policy only where they
have discretion, which in this case is only in regard to the design of the
parking lot. He noted there is not discretion to take away permitted uses.
Traffic Engineer Rick Ensdorff responded to questions from Council about
use of the alley.
Councilmember Stoner made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Mabry, to
uphold the decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Councilmember Kirkpatrick stated she felt the Zoning Board of Appeals was
very accurate in their interpretation of the Code by determining that
parking is an accessory use by right to the church. She stated she did not
feel there were any legitimate reasons to deny the curb cut on Garfield
Street. She concurred with the changes in the landscaping plan. She
stated she would vote to uphold the decision of the ZBA, but urged the
church to consider the impact of their long-range plans.
Councilmember Stoner stated since the parking lot is a use by right, there
was very little option to overturn the decision of the ZBA.
Councilmember Winokur concurred with the comments of Councilmembers
Kirkpatrick and Stoner. He stated it was unfortunate that the Council
could fix decisions but could not repair relationships between people. He
expressed concern about the grudges and bad feelings that may continue for '
a long time.
Councilmember Horak agreed that Council's latitude is clearly limited in
this issue. He expressed concern about the current appeals process
outlined in the Code. He stated he felt if he voted for anything but to
uphold the decision of the ZBA, St. John's would appeal the decision to
court and would clearly win.
Councilmember Maxey stated he felt curb cuts were essential to discharge
vehicles properly. He noted the parking lot is used more than Sundays for
other church activities. He stated he was torn by the unwelcome feelings
for this particular project.
Councilmember Mabry stated he would support the motion. He agreed with the
Zoning Board of Appeals' ruling that the parking lot is clearly an
accessory use to the church. He stated this issue brings up the question
of whether churches are an appropriate use in residential areas. He stated
that if they are, they need to be allowed to have, within reason,
appropriate amenities to properly service themselves.
Mayor Estrada stated St. John's has done everything necessary to meet the
City's criteria for construction of the parking lot. He expressed his hope
that the neighborhood will work out some of the problems that might be
attendant to the lot.
-477-
May 5, 1987
The vote on Councilmember Stoner's motion to uphold the decision of the
Zoning Board of Appeals was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Estrada,
Horak, Kirkpatrick, Mabry, Maxey, Stoner, and Winokur. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Ad.iournment
Councilmember Stoner made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Winokur, to
adjourn the meeting. Yeas: Councilmembers Estrada, Horak, Kirkpatrick,
Mabry, Maxey, Stoner, and Winokur. Nays: None.
The meeting adjourned at 11:40 p.m.
May
ATTEST:^
lily Clerk
-478-