HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES-06/02/1987-RegularJune 2, 1987
1 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, June 2, 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 stated the applicants have requested Council table
Item #5, Second Reading of Ordinance No. 81, 1987, Relating to the Creation
and Organization of Special Improvement District No. 90, until July 7. He
noted a revised Resolution 87-78 Authorizing the Filing and Execution of an
Amended UMTA Section 9 Operating Assistance, Capital and Planning Grant for
Transfort had been provided to Council and that the changes were in format
only to conform with federal requirements. He stated a revised Resolution
' had been prepared for Item #20, Items Relating to the City's Fiscal Year
1987-88 Community Development Block Grant Program, which deletes the
Veterans Memorial.
Councilmember Mabry requested Item #16, Resolution 87-79 Indemnifying City
Officials and Employees Against Certain Damages, be removed from the
Consent Calendar.
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 Items #19 and #29, 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.
Consider aooroval of the minutes of the regular meetings of May 5 and
May 19.
-1-
June 2, 1987
5.
Q
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.
This Ordinance was adopted 6-0 on First Reading on May 19. Since that
time the City funding sources for the Rolland Moore Park portion of
the improvements have been revised.
This Ordinance, which was adopted 6-0 on First Reading on May 19,
appropriates unanticipated revenue generated from vision insurance and
universal life insurance premiums.
Items Relating to the Upgrade of the City's Office Automation System
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 83, 1987, Appropriating Prior Year
Equipment Replacement Reserves for the Procurement of Computer
Hardware and Software to Upgrade the City's Office Automation
System.
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 84, 1987, Authorizing an Agreement
for the Lease/Purchase of Computer Hardware and Software.
In 1984, the City purchased a Hewlett-Packard 3000/48 computer along
with several software products for Phase I of the City's centralized
office automation program. The initial project provided office
automation for 250 users on 60 workstations.
The Phase II plan for expansion, consisting of an upgrade of the
HP3000/48 to an HP3000/58, was implemented in January, 1986. At that
time it was evident that an upgrade would need to be augmented later
to address system response time and to facilitate the addition of
other users wishing to participate in the program. These Ordinances,
which were adopted 6-0 on First Reading on May 19, provide funding for
this augmentation.
-2-
1
June 2, 1987
' 8. Ordinances Aoorooriating Prior Year Reserves in the General Fund for
the Cruising Enforcement Program and the Reolacement of Computer
Terminals in the Public Library.
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 85, 1987, Appropriating Prior Year
Reserves in the General Fund for the Cruising Enforcement Program.
This Ordinance, which was adopted 6-0 on First Reading on May 19,
appropriates $23,100 for the payment of overtime expenses in the
Police Services patrol budget. Additional funding will allow the
assignment of four additional officers, every Friday and Saturday
night through September, in the downtown area to concentrate on
the cruising situation and associated problems. A number of
options were presented to Council at the April 28 worksession. ,
This approach was agreed to be the most reasonable approach to
address the immediate nighttime problems in the downtown district.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 86, 1987, Appropriating Prior Year
Reserves in the General Fund for the Replacement of Computer
Terminals in the Public Library.
This Ordinance, which was adopted 6-0 on First Reading on May 19,
appropriates $36,400 for the replacement of computer terminals in
the Public Library. These terminals, which have a critical impact
on public service levels, are worn out and replacement parts and
keyboards can no longer be found.
9. Items Relating to the Vacation of an Easement in Rangeview P.U.O.
A. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 88, 1987, Vacating an
Easement Platted with the Rangeview P.U.D.
B. Motion Accepting and Dedication of Replacement Easement.
The Developer of Rangeview P.U.D. is requesting the vacation of a
utility easement in order to revise the location and the shape of
proposed buildings. This relocation of the easement requires
relocating the existing utilities in the easement, which shall be the
responsibility of the Developer to complete to the satisfaction of
proper Utility Agencies, and to bear all costs associated with the
relocation.
All Utilities have been contacted and have no problems with the
vacation and dedication.
10.
The Developer of Horsetooth Commons P.U.D.. has received the Planning
' and Zoning Board's approval to develop a parcel of land on the
3-
June 2, 1987
northwest corner of Shields Street and Horsetooth Road. The project '
was approved and replatted at the February 23rd, 1987 Planning and
Zoning Board meeting. Three pieces of street right-of-way which were
dedicated prior to the Horsetooth Commons replat will not be needed.
The developer is requesting the vacation of these three pieces of
right-of-way. All necessary rights -of -way, and easements for this new
development have been dedicated with the replat.
All utilities have been contacted and have no problems with the
vacations.
11. Items Relating to the Hoffman Mill Annexation and Zoning.
12.
A. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 90, 1987, Annexing
Approximately 5.95 Acres, Known as the Hoffman Mill Annexation.
B. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 91, 1987, Zoning
Approximately 5.95 Acres, Known as the Hoffman Mill Annexation,
into the B-P, Planned Business, Zoning District.
This is a request to annex and zone approximately 5.95 acres, located
north of Riverside Avenue and east of Lemay Avenue, 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-P, Planned
Business, Zoning District, with a planned unit development condition.
OWNERS: Albert Craft Wilber Dinkel '
1216 Hoffman Mill Road 1208 Hoffman Mill Road
Fort Collins, CO Fort Collins, CO
Charles Schneider Adam Schneider
1300 E. Laurel Street 1200 Hoffman Mill Road
Fort Collins, CO Fort Collins, CO
James Hildred
1308 E. Laurel Street
Fort Collins, CO
This ordinance will reduce the cash rate charged developers for
satisfaction of raw water requirements from $1000 to $800 per acre
foot. It has been the City's practice for many years to set the cash
rate in -lieu -of water rights at the approximate price of CBT water.
Lowering the rate to be more consistent with current prices will
provide a more equitable option to those developers who do not have
water rights available to satisfy the City's requirements. The Water
Board recommended at their May 15, 1987 Water Board meeting to set the
rate at $800 per acre foot. ,
-4-
June 2, 1987
' 13. Resolution 87-75 Making Appointments to the Cable TV Board
City Council has combined the Cable Advisory Board and the Public
Access Advisory Board to form the new Cable TV Board. The new board
will consist of nine members plus one alternate. Eight of the
existing members remain on the combined board.
In keeping with Council's policy, the recommendations for the
appointments were announced at the May 19 meeting. The appointments
were tabled to June 2 to allow time for public input.
14. Resolution 87-77 Authnri7inn the Filinn and Fvorii4inn of 4he r;+.. ..c
On May 23, 1986, the US Department of Transportation issued
regulations concerning the transportation of the disabled. These
regulations become effective June 23, 1987.
Early in 1987, the City completed the study of handicapped
transportation. This document was used as the primary data source for
the Handicapped Accessibility Plan.
In April 1987, staff prepared the City's Handicapped Accessibility
Plan which was published and distributed to the handicapped community.
The Plan was presented to both the public and the City's Commission on
' Disability in meetings during the month of May.
The City's Handicapped Accessibility Plan meets fully the requirements
set forth by the US Department of Transportation. It is expected that
through implementation of this plan the City of Fort Collins will meet
the requirements for handicapped transportation for bus systems
receiving Federal funds. The plan is projected to be completely
implemented by January 1, 1989.
15.
Transfort wants to amend its grant from Section 9 of the Urban Mass
Transportation Act of 1964, as amended, to the amount of $438,067.
The original grant was previously awarded in the amount of $412,747.
The amendment provides operating assistance for SAINT and the capital
purchase of transit computer software and one micro -computer. There
are no additional or unbudgeted costs to the City.
16. Resolution 87-79 TndBmnifvinn city nffirial< nnii Gmnlnvnec n +
This Resolution
employees from
' Resolution would
would indemnify present and former City officials and
civil liability under certain circumstances. The
also provide for the payment of defense costs and
-5-
June 2, 1987
17.
attorney's fees incurred in the employee's defense of certain civil I
claims, as well as any claims of criminal misconduct which result in
dismissal or acquittal.
A. Resolution 87-80 Reappointing John Tobin as Municipal Judge.
B. Resolution 87-81 Reappointing Donald Weinland as Temporary Judge.
The City Charter provides for the appointment of the Municipal Judge
for a term of two years and a Temporary Judge to serve in the
Municipal Judge's absence. These Resolutions will reappoint John
Tobin as Municipal Judge and Donald Weinland as Temporary Judge.
18. Routine Easements.
a. Temporary Construction Easement from Cooper Motors, Inc. for the
construction of the Fairbrooke Storm Drainage Outfall along Taft
Hill and Longworth Roads. Consideration: $1,899 for 1.85 acre.
b. Right-of-way from Cooper Motors, Inc. for Fairbrooke/Prospect SID
#89, needed to provide a safe intersection geometry for eastbound
traffic. The location of the right-of-way is at the southeast
corner of Taft Hill and Prospect. Consideration: $3,978 for 5,924
sq. ft. '
c. Powerline easement from Clyde Canino III needed to underground
existing overhead electric system lines, located at 613 South
College Avenue. Consideration: $2,000 ($5/sq. ft.).
Ordinances on Second Reading were read by title by Wanda Krajicek, City
Clerk.
Item #5.
Item #6.
Item #7. A.
1.1
0
June 2, 1987
I
Item #8. A.
Ordinances on First Reading were read by title by Wanda Krajicek, City
Clerk.
Item #9. A.
Item #10.
Item #11. A.
I
Item #12.
91
Per Acre Foot.
Councilmember Mabry 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.
Resolution 87-79 Indemnifying City Officials
and Employees Against Certain Damages, Adopted
Following is staff's memorandum on this item:
"Executive Summary
This Resolution would indemnify present and. former. .City officials and
employees from civil liability under certain circumstances. The Resolution
would also provide for the payment of defense costs and attorney's fees
incurred in the employee's defense of certain civil claims, as well as any
' claims of criminal misconduct which result in dismissal or acquittal.
-7-
June 2, 1987
Background I
The liability concerns of City officials and employees have historically
been addressed by the provisions of State law, the principles of common law
(court decisions), and the coverage of our insurance policies. Over recent
years, the City has experienced an increase in lawsuits and a reduction in
insurance coverage. Changes have also occurred in the courts and in the
legislature. As a result of such activity, the protections afforded
municipal officials and employees against individual liability have been
eroded.
The problems pertain to both state tort actions (e.g. negligence claims)
and federal actions (e.g. civil rights allegations).
The City's present liability insurance policy has coverage limits of
$400,000. This figure coincides with the limits established by the State
Legislature in the Governmental Immunity Act, which applies to state tort
claims. (Claimants cannot recover damages in excess of that amount for any
single occurrence in such an action.) In Federal claims, there is no
statutory limit on the amount which may be recovered. Thus, a judgment
could be obtained against an employee beyond the limits of insurance.
Additionally, in federal actions, there are instances when an individual
official or employee may lack immunity and have liability although the City
itself does not. In state actions, the City's obligation to pay defense
costs and judgments under state law does not extend to any situation in '
which a judge or jury finds that an employee has acted in a willful and
wanton fashion.
For these reasons, staff is recommending that Council extend additional
protection against liability to City officials and employees by way of
Resolution. The indemnification would apply to any "officer, employee,
servant or authorized volunteer (of the City), whether or not compensated,
elected or appointed, but... not... an independent contractor or any person
who is sentenced to participate in any type of useful public service." The
idea of such a Resolution has also been recommended by the Colorado
Municipal League.
In substance, the Resolution would obligate the City to indemnify present
and past City officials and employees who are sued for acts or omissions
occurring during the performance of their duties and within the scope of
their employment. Attorney's fees and costs incurred in the defense of
civil actions would also be paid by the City. The major exception to this
indemnification would be for conduct which was deemed by the City to have
been committed in a willful and wanton fashion, as defined in the
Resolution. In the case of allegations of criminal misconduct which arise
from the performance of an employee's 'duties of employment, the City would
reimburse the employee's attorneys' fees if the allegations were found to
be without merit and the case against the employee was dismissed or a trial
resulted in acquittal."
91
June 2, 1987
' Councilmember Kirkpatrick made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Stoner,
to adopt Resolution 87-79.
Councilmember Mabry stated he -would vote against the Resolution because of
its retroactive application.
The vote on Councilmember Kirkpatrick's motion to adopt Resolution 87-79
was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Estrada, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Maxey,
Stoner, and Winokur. Nays: Councilmember Mabry.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Items Relating to the City's
Fiscal Year 1987-88 Community
Development Block Grant Program
Following is staff's memorandum on this item:
"Financial Impact
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.
' Executive Summary
A. Public Hearing and Resolution 87-82 Adopting Fiscal Year 1987-88
Community Development Block Grant Programs and Projects.
B. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 94, 1987, Appropriating
Unanticipated Revenue and Authorizing the Transfer of Appropriations
Between Projects in the Community Development Block Grant Fund.
The resolution will establish the individual programs and projects to be
funded with Community Development Block Grant funds from the United States
Department of Housing and Urban Development for the FY 1987-88 Program year
which begins on October 1, 1987. The total amount of Community Development
Block Grant funds available to the City of Fort Collins is $834,614. The
Community Development Block Grant Citizens Steering Committee has evaluated
all applications and presented a recommendation to the City Council as to
which programs and projects should receive funding for the next program
year.
The ordinance appropriates $685,000 ,from the•City's FY 1986-87 Entitlement
Grant, $99,614 from Reprogrammed CDBG funds, and $50,000 of anticipated
CDBG Program Income.
m
June 2, 1987
Background '
The CDBG Program is an ongoing grant administration program funded by the
Department of Housing and Urban Development. The City of Fort Collins has
received CDBG Program funds since 1975. In 1975 and FY 1976-77 the City
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) elimination or
prevention of slum and blight conditions, or 3) 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 1
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 1987-88 is $685,000. The Entitlement
Grant will be combined with $99,614 of reprogrammed funds from CDBG Program
Income and projects not completed during the FY 1986-87 program year, and
$50,000 of anticipated Program Income from the period May 1, 1987, to
September 30, 1988, (HUD requires the City to estimate the total amount of
anticipated Program Income which will be received during the next 18
months), to make a total of $834,614 available for programs and -projects ,
during the next CDBG Program year.
-10-
June 2, 1987
Selection Process:
The selection process for the City's FY 1987-88 CDBG Program began on
February 12, 1987, 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, 1987, to solicit requests for CDBG funded programs and
projects for FY 1987-88. At the close of the application deadline on March
27, 1987, the City received 33 requests for a total of approximately $2.1
million.
Copies of all applications were distributed to the CDBG Citizens Steering
Committee at their regular monthly meeting on Thursday April 9, 1987.
Copies of all applications were forwarded to the City Council through the
City Manager's office on April 20, 1987. On Wednesday May 13, and Thursday
May 14, 1987, the Steering Committee met to hear verbal presentations from
each applicant and to ask clarification questions. The Committee met on
Wednesday May 20, 1987, for the purpose of preparing a recommendation to
the City Council as to which programs and projects should be funded for the
FY 1987-88 program year. The Committee's recommendations were presented
and discussed with the City Council in a joint work session held on Tuesday
May 26, 1987.
The attached Resolution will formally adopt the City's FY 1987-88 CDBG
Program.
Funding Recommendations:
HUD CDBG regulations limit the amount of available funds which can be
allocated to various generic categories. Funds for Planning and
Administrative purposes are limited to 20Y of the Entitlement Grant, and
funds for Public Services are limited to 15Y of the Entitlement Grant. The
Steering Committee, thus, not only had to decide which applicants presented
programs and projects which best fit into the City's CDBG Program, but also
had to insure funding allocations were kept within HUD regulations.
Listed below is a summary of each applicant's initial request for funding
(some applications were modified at the time of verbal presentations to the
Committee, see below) and the Steering Committee's funding recommendations:
REQUEST FUNDING APPLICANT PROGRAM/PROJECT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
$116,100 116,100 City of Fort Collins
15,389 - CSU Darrel Fontane
20,510 20,510 Neighbor -to -Neighbor
112,000 (1) 60,000 Neighbor -to -Neighbor
112,126 (1) - Neighbor -to -Neighbor
-11-
CDBG Administration
Equitable Water
Pricing Policy
Housing Counseling
Acq. and Redevelopment
Housing Rehab./Arch.
Barrier Removal &
Emergency Repair
June 2, 1987
100,000
50,000
City of Fort Collins
Acquisition of Land
'
for an Emergency
Shelter
79,000,
(2)
79,000
Local Development Co.
Housing & Small
Business Bldg.
Preservation
403,399
185,654
Housing Authority
Acquisition of
Existing Housing
127,025
50,000
William & Gregory Starke
No. Hotel Rehab.
21,500
-
Daniel Ashton
Historic Preservation
and Rehabilitation
178,457
(3)
50,000
DMA Plaza Inc.
Exterior Insulation
25,600
25,600
Volunteer's Clearing Hse.
Four Phase Renovation
50,000
-
City of Fort Collins
Gateway Design Plan
Implementation
30,000
30,000
City of Fort Collins
Downtown Landscaping
89,850
-
City of Fort Collins
Elm Street Improvement
250,000
(4)
-
City of Fort Collins
LaPorte/College Ave.
Intersection
Reconstruction
20,000
15,000
Poudre River Trust
Gustav Swanson Area
20,000
-
City of Fort Collins
Handicapped Ramps
19,860
-
Care -A -Van
Local Grant Match
20,000
20,000
United Day Care
Sliding Scale
24,906
-
Sunshine School
Infant Toddler Care
17,640
17,640
Sunshine School
Sliding Scale
12,404
(5)
10,441
Women's Center
Child Care Referral
34,096
10,000
Disabled Resource -Services
Employment Assist. &
'
Disabled Equipment
18,000
9,000
Project Self -Sufficiency
Program & Child Care
Assistance
23,852
20,000
Larimer County Food Dist.
Center
1,500
-
Interfaith Council
Services for Seniors
7,050
2,000
Concerned Relatives &
Advocacy Outreach
Friends/Nursing Home Res.
12,230
-
Let's Ride
Expansion of Horseback
Riding for Handicapped
5,850
5,850
SAINT
Transition Project
23,179
-
CHOICE
Shared Housing
26,500
7,819
Catholic Comm. Services No.
Hostel/Hope Job Bank
50,000
-
Larimer Co. Voc-Tech
Comp. Competency Prog.
18,000
-
Alter. Youth Center
Salary
50,000
Contingency (Frozen Appropriation)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$2,086,023
$785,000
Total
NOTES:
(1) These Neighbor -to -Neighbor programs were combined into a single
$224,126 request in order to make the proposed administrative costs
fall within program percentage guidelines.
(2) The LDC was allocated $33,000 of FY 1986-87 funds for renovation of the '
LaCourt Hotel. At the presentation, the LDC reduced this request to
-12-
June 2, 1987
' $46,00 and asked that the $33,000 be reprogrammed into the project.
(3) The DMA Plaza, Inc., was allocated $9,114 of FY 1986-87 funds for
energy conservation work. At the presentation the DMA asked that these
funds be allocated to this project.
(4) At the presentation, this proposal was changed to a request of $47,000
to be used to build a new veteran's memorial in Edora Park.
(5) This proposal was reduced by the applicant to a request of $10,441.
With approximately $2.1 million in total requests and only $834,614
available, obviously not all applications could be funded. Also, due to
HUD funding limitations, some applicants received less funds than requested
in order to keep the generic category within program maximums. No
applicant received more funds than requested. Contingency Funds are based
on $50,000 of anticipated Program Income expected to be received by the
City during the next 18 months. These funds were not allocated by the
Committee to any specific project(s) because of possible uncertainty of
their collection.
At the May 26, 1987 Council Work Session, members of the Citizens Steering
Committee had the opportunity to attend the City Council's May 26, 1987
work session to explain their recommendations and will attend the June 2,
1987, regular City Council meeting to answer any questions about the
funding recommendations. At the work session, arguments were made in favor
of funding the construction of a new Veteran's Memorial in Edora Park. The
attached resolution indicates $10,000 funding for the project and reduces
the funding level of the Contingency fund from $50,000 to $40,000.
The following offers explanation of the Steering Committee's decisions.
CDBG Administration: Funds to administer the CDBG Program have been taken
directly from the grant since the program's inception in 1975. These funds
cover administrative and personnel costs and include the following:
Planning Director (.1 FTE), Chief Planner (.4 FTE), Community Development
Specialist (1.0 FTE) and a Secretary II (.85 FTE). The administrative
budget represents 13% of the Entitlement Grant.
Neighbor -to -Neighbor, Housing Counseling: This is a very important support
service to the housing programs undertaken by the applicant and other
agencies dealing with housing problems within the community. This program
is considered within the Planning and Administration category and when
combined with administrative costs computes to 19.9% of the maximum 20%
eligible to be allocated into the category.
Neighbor -to -Neighbor., Acquisition & Redevelopment, Housing Rehabilitation,
Architectural Barrier Removal, Emergency Repair: The Committee allocated
only 60,000 to the applicant because the applicant has failed to complete
projects funded with FY 1985-86 funds and has yet to start on their
proposed In-Fi11 Phase IV Project which was allocated $122,000 for FY
' 1986-87. The Committee feels the $60,000 plus the In-Fi11 Phase IV Project
-13-
June 2, 1987
will provide the applicant sufficient funds to continue with their housing '
programs until the next program year.
City of Fort Collins, Land Acquisition for an Emergency Shelter: The
Committee allocated $42,500, which is to be combined with $7,500 of FY
1986-87 funds allocated to Catholic Community Services Northern for
emergency shelter repairs, to create a pool of $50,000 to seek a site for
the construction of a new emergency shelter. The total project includes
the cooperation from the Larimer County Department of Human Development
which will request $50,000 in State CDBG funds for a site specific land
purchase. If the State CDBG funds become available Larimer County will add
10% from the County's General Fund for the project. City funds will be
used as a "down payment" to hold a piece of property until County funds
become available. It is anticipated that CCSN would construct a new
emergency shelter on the selected site.
Local Development Company, Housing & Small Business Preservation: The
Committee allocated $46,000, which is to be combined with $33,000 of FY
1986-87 funds, to make a total of $79,000 to complete the project as
proposed. The Committee feels the project will help preserve an historic
structure in the downtown and promote small business economic development.
The applicant also has an excellent track record of being able to turn CDBG
funds over a number of times funding numerous projects with essentially the
same money.
Housing Authority, Land Acquisition: The applicant requested $403,399 or
approximately 50Y of the available funds. The Committee allocate $185,654 ,
to the applicant with the possible addition of $100,000 if two applicants
(William Starke and the DMA Plaza, Inc.) fail to comply with funding
stipulations described below. The Housing Authority has an excellent track
record with the utilization of CDBG funds to increase the availability of
affordable rental units to low- and moderate -income persons. The Committee
would like to see the Authority's efforts continued but also feels the
Authority has other funding sources to help with this project.
William Starke, Northern Hotel Rehabilitation: The Committee feels the
situation with the Northern Hotel is one of urgent -need demanding immediate
attention. The building's unsafe condition poses a threat to redevelopment
and economic development efforts within the downtown area. The Committee
recommends $50,000 be allocated to the project but stipulates the funds are
conditioned upon the applicant's ability to raise sufficient funds by March
1, 1988, to complete the proposed rehabilitation project. The funding
allocation to the applicant should also be in the form of a zero interest
deferred loan which must be repaid £o the City upon any transfer of
ownership of the building., If the applicant fails to meet the March 1,
1988 deadline, the Committee' recommends the $50,000 be allocated to the
Housing Authority's Land Acquisition Project described above.
DMA Plaza, Inc., Exterior Insulation: The Committee recommends $40,886 be
combined with the $9,114 of FY 1986-87 funds, which were allocated to the
applicant for energy conservation work, to create a total of $50,000 of
CDBG funds for the proposal with the stipulation that the applicant raise '
-14-
June 2, 1987
' sufficient additional funds by March 1, 1988, to complete the project as
proposed. The Committee feels the project is a high priority since the DMA
Plaza building provides safe, decent, and affordable housing for the
elderly in the downtown area. However, the Committee feels the applicant
has not sufficiently investigated other potential funding sources and
offers the grant as an incentive. If the applicant fails to meet the March
1, 1988, deadline, the Committee recommends the $50,000 be allocated to the
Housing Authority's Land Acquisition Project described above.
Volunteers Clearinghouse, Four Phase Renovation: The Committee feels this
organization has been a backbone within the community for many years and
recommends full funding of the proposed renovation work. The building is
located in the downtown area and should not be allowed to deteriorate.
City of Fort Collins, Downtown Landscaping: The Committee feels this is an
economic development related project which can help encourage additional
private investment in the downtown area. The Committee recommends full
funding of the request and suggests the funds should be used within the
100, 200 and 300 blocks of North College Avenue in an effort to tie the
Power Plant Visual Arts Center into the rest of the downtown.
Poudre River Trust, Gustav Swanson Nature Area: The Committee feels the
redevelopment of this area can increase the appeal and upgrading of the
downtown area and help with economic development efforts. The Committee
recommends $15,000 be allocated to improving handicapped accessibility
within the nature area.
United Day Care, Sliding Scale: The provision of quality affordable day
care services allows the opportunity for more people, particularly
single -parents, to enter the work force. Thus, this proposal is an
important component of economic development in the community. The
Committee recommends full funding of the proposal.
Sunshine School, Sliding Scale: The
this proposal for the same reasons
Sliding Scale proposal above.
Committee supports full funding for
as stated for the United Day Care
SAINT, Transition Project: The Committee feels SAINT has been a very
successful transportation program in the community and recommends CDBG
funds should be used during its transition period.
Woman's Center, Child Care Referral: The Committee recommends full funding
of the applicant's reduced request for funding based on the belief that day
care and related services help assist with the economic development of the
community.
15% Limitation on Social Services: HUD'CDBG Regulations limit the amount
of funds which can be allocated to social services to 15% of the
Entitlement Grant. By design the CDBG program is not a social service
program nor is it a supplement to revenue sharing. However, the
elimination of the Federal Revenue Sharing Program has put greater pressure
on the CDBG Program and local funding sources for the provision of social
-15-
June 2, 1987
services. Many social service agencies receive funds from a variety of '
sources. The Committee feels CDBG funds should be used to assist social
services but major funding will have to come from other sources. The
following applicants were considered worthy of funding but had their
requests reduced in order to stay within the 15% funding limitation:
Disabled Resource Services $34,096 to $10,000; Project Self -Sufficiency
$18,000 to $9,000; Larimer County Food Distribution $23,852 to $20,000;
Concerned Relatives & Friends of Nursing Home Residents, Inc., $7,050 to
$2,000; and Catholic Community Services Northern $26,500 to $7,819."
Councilmember Winokur stated he was withdrawing from the discussion and
vote on this item due to a perceived conflict of interest.
Councilmember Stoner made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Mabry, to
adopt Resolution 87-82.
The following persons spoke on this issue:
1. Nancy Jackson, Director of Disabled Resource Services, spoke
of the impact reduced funding will have on their agency.
2. Sister Mary Alice Murphy, Executive Director of Catholic
Community Services Northern, asked Council to reconsider the
level of funding recommended by the CDBG Steering Committee.
3. Pete McWilliams, representing Concerned Relatives and Friends
of Nursing Home Residents, Inc., thanked the CDBG Steering '
Committee for recommending their group receive funding of
$2,000, even though they requested $7,050.
4. Marj Walsh, Executive Director of Care -A -Van, spoke of their
request for $19,680 which would have provided matching funds
for two lift -equipped vehicles. She noted it was not made
clear to the Steering Committee that Care -A -Van would be
happy to accept any amount of funding.
5. Cindy Bean, representing the Let's Ride program, explained
the benefits of the Let's Ride program, noted the Steering
Committee had not recommended the program receive any portion
of the requested $12,000, and asked Council to consider
providing any possible portion of funding.
6. Diane Prince, staff member of the Hospitality Center Hostel,
spoke of the services provided by the Hospitality Center
Hostel, and related her own personal benefit as a former
client. She appealed to Council to provide funding.
7. Nancy McCambridge, Executive Director of CHOICE, spoke of the
shared housing services provided by CHOICE and explained the
use of past CDBG funding. She requested continued support
from the City of Fort Collins in 1988. '
-16-
June 2, 1987
' 8. Bill Starke, co-owner of the Northern Hotel, stated the
immediate need in rehabilitating the hotel is a live -water
fire extinguishing system. He asked Council to consider
allocating more funding for the project should other CDBG
grantees decline their grants.
Steve Barbier, Executive Director of Neighbor -to -Neighbor,
expressed for past CDBG funding and spoke of
Neighbor -to -Neighbor's 1988 funding needs. He stated it
would be extremely difficult to conduct their programs at a
27% funding level from CDBG. He stated they needed another
$50,000 to operate the programs at a modest level.
10. Bruce Lockhart, 2500 East Harmony Road, noted that $30,000
was being allocated to the City of Fort Collins for downtown
landscaping. He felt the DDA should be responsible for
downtown landscaping and suggested the $30,000 be given to
another project.
Lou Stitzel, member of the CDBG Steering Committee, answered questions from
Council about the Committee's recommendations.
Chief Planner Ken Waido responded to questions relating to the
administration and allocation of CDBG funds.
Councilmember Horak expressed concern that there seems to be a perception
' that CDBG funds should be a continuing source of funding. He stated he did
not feel there was much option to move funds around in the public service
category because most of the requests were not fully funded. He suggested
some of the funding requests, such as the Disabled Resource Services
employment assistance, Project Self -Sufficiency, Catholic Community
Services Northern hostel/hope job bank, and the Larimer County Voc-Tech
comprehensive competency program, might fit under the economic
opportunities fund. He noted there would be approximately $50,000 coming
in during the federal fiscal year, October 1, 1987 through September 30,
1988. He suggested Council asked the CDBG Steering Committee to reconvene
to determine how they would allocate the $7,500 available for public
service. He stated although he could see where the landscaping on North
College could be beneficial, given the needs for housing acquisition and
redevelopment he could not agree with allocating $30,000 for landscaping.
He stated he was not convinced that $50,000 should be allocated to the
Northern Hotel.
Councilmember Stoner agreed with Councilmember Horak that the $30,000
allocated for landscaping should be moved to housing acquisition. He
stated that he felt it was appropriate to assist a private individual in
rehabilitating an existing building to provide housing units.
Councilmember Kirkpatrick commended the Steering Committee for their hard
work. She suggested the downtown landscaping project might appeal to one
of the many service or volunteer organizations in the community and
1
-17-
June 2, 1987
recommended that be explored as a possibility. She favored tabling the
allocation to the Northern Hotel pending further research.
'
Mayor Estrada agreed with Councilmember Horak's suggestion to move the
$30,000 landscaping allocation and the $50,000 Northern Hotel allocation to
Neighbor -to -Neighbor's housing acquisition project. He thanked the
Steering Committee for making some very difficult decisions.
Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kirkpatrick,
to delete the $30,000 for the City of Fort Collins downtown landscaping
project and allocate $30,000 to the Neighbor -to -Neighbor housing
acquisition and redevelopment project, and move the $50,000 allocated to
the Northern Hotel into contingency to allow for further review.
Councilmember Stoner asked staff how moving the $50,000 into contingency
would affect the whole funding process.
Chief Planner Ken Waido stated there are advertisement and application
requirements that have to be submitted to HUD. He stated any time funds
are in limbo, the City has to readvertise and reapply. He stated staff
would prefer Council allocate the funding to those projects they are
willing to support rather than leave the funding in a limbo situation.
Councilmember Maxey stated he would prefer the amendment be split into two
parts.
Councilmembers Horak and Kirkpatrick agreed to change their motion to
include only the move of $30,000 from -downtown landscaping to housing
'
acquisition and redevelopment.
The vote on Councilmember Horak's motion to amend Resolution 87-82 was as
follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Estrada, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Mabry, Maxey,
and Stoner. Nays: None. (Councilmember Winokur withdrawn)
THE MOTION CARRIED.
City Manager Burkett suggested Council approve allocation of $50,000 for
the Northern Hotel project with the condition that staff bring back an
acceptable project. He stated if an acceptable plan is not developed, the
funds would then be available for other projects.
The vote on Councilmember Stoner's motion to adopt Resolution 87-82 as
amended was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Estrada, Horak, Kirkpatrick,
Mabry, Maxey, and Stoner. Nays: None. (Councilmember Winokur withdrawn)
THE MOTION CARRIED:
Councilmember Maxey` made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Stoner, to
adopt Ordinance No. 94, 1987 on First Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers
Estrada, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Mabry, Maxey, and Stoner. Nays: None.
(Councilmember Winokur withdrawn)
,
a"
June 2, 1987
1
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Stoner, to
direct the CDBG Steering Committee to review the proposals in the public
service category and recommend projects to receive funding from the
additional $7,500 public service funds. Yeas: Councilmembers Estrada,
Horak, Kirkpatrick, Mabry, Maxey, and Stoner. Nays: None. (Councilmember
Winokur withdrawn)
THE MOTION CARRIED.
A.
F,
Citizen Participation
by John Henry, who is riding his bicycle to
money for the Brian Ball Scholarship Fund.
was accepted
ity to raise
Proclamation Naming June 14 as Flag Day was forwarded to the
appropriate persons.
Lynn Bishop, Poudre Valley Art League, asked the City to help find space
for the League.
Ruth Hornberger, President of the Poudre Valley Art League, spoke of the
League's fruitless efforts to obtain space at the Old Power Plant.
Clint Shepherd, school crossing guard, commented on traffic problems at the
corner of Prospect and Stover in the Barton School area and the need for
more enforcement in the school zone.
Ordinance No. 95, 1987, Authorizing the
Issuance of City of Fort Collins
Downtown Development Authority Tax
Increment Revenue Refunding and improvement
Bonds. Adopted on First Reading
Following is staff's memorandum on this item:
"Financial Impact
The DDA Tax Increment Bonds Series 1985A are proposed for refunding to take
advantage of the current market rates and to effect a minimum savings of
$250,000. This savings would reduce the debt service on the bonds which
are backed by the Sales and Use Tax Fund. The refunding issue would also
include an additional $3.3 million which the DDA would have to provide
low-cost funding for the Robinson-Piersal and Opera House Projects and
other projects approved by the Council•at a later date.
-19-
June 2, 1987
Executive Summary ,
This ordinance would implement the refunding of DDA Tax Increment Bonds
originally issued in 1984, and refunded in 1985. It also includes
additional bonds in the amount of $3.3 million to be used by the DDA to
promote future projects. Bonds will be issued when market conditions are
such that a savings of $250,000 will be effected.
Background
The primary reason for considering the refunding of the 1985 DDA Bonds is
to take advantage of lower interest rates, thereby lowering debt service
payments. The City is presently budgeting $300,000 in Sales and Use Tax to
cover any shortfall of DDA funds necessary to cover debt service on present
bonds. By doing the refundings, the use of City Sales & Use Tax would be
reduced and delayed.
A second reason to refund the 1985 Bonds would be to try to eliminate some
of the more restrictive covenants in the requirements imposed by Municipal
Bond Investors Assurance Corporation ("MBIA"), the insurers of the bonds.
Those covenants included a requirement that the debt service coverage be at
least 150 percent of the annual average debt service for two years before
additional parity bonds could be issued and before the City's sales tax
pledge would be released. Based on current growth assumptions, the City's
Sales Tax Pledge would never be discharged.
Also, the present DDA bonds contain provisions which do not exactly conform '
to requirements imposed in the City's Sales and Use Tax bond ordinance for
parity bonds. Bond Counsel has advised that a refunding would allow
correction of this situation.
The bond ordinance presented for consideration by the Council includes a
new issue of $3.3 million. The primary reason for issuing new bonds along
with the refunding is to strengthen the financial position of the DDA. If
new money is available to the DDA to promote new projects, those projects,
once in place, would capture more in tax increment than create additional
debt service and thus improve the DDA's present cash flow situation. This
would help to reduce the use of the Sales and Use Tax Fund to reduce the
debt service on the bonds.
If no suitable additional projects are approved by the Council, there would
be an extraordinary call on the bonds and no additional debt would be
incurred. Costs of the extraordinary call would be minimal; the
underwriter has estimated costs of less than $5,000.
A second reason for issuing bonds for new projects: at this time is that the
DDA is scheduled to sunset in the year 2006. .Repayment periods of less
than 15 years on bond issued for the'DDA would tend to raise debt service
schedules higher than desirable. The DDA would be better served to issue
any new debt before 1991. Despite the recent rise in interest rates, they
still are low compared to the last 7 years. By issuing additional bonds
now, the City may "lock -in" more favorable rates. '
-20-
June 2, 1987
There are four options available for refunding and issuance of new bonds:
1. Refund the outstanding 1985 Bonds and issue no new money.
2. Refund the 1985 Bonds and issue additional bonds in the amount of $1.5
million for the Robinson-Piersal and Opera House projects.
3. Refund the 1985 Bonds and issue additional bonds in the amount of $3.3
million which would include the Robinson-Piersal and Opera House
projects, and provide additional money to be used to induce future
projects.
4. Take no action on refunding and issue no new money at this time.
Proceeds for new projects could wait for a later refunding or be issued
as non -parity (higher interest rates) debt.
The DDA Board on May 21, 1987, voted to recommend that the City Council:
a. Execute the refunding of existing debt but only at such time that
savings equal or exceed $250,000.
b. That upon favorable refunding terms, an additional $3.3 million in
bonds be issued to provide funds for projects for which the
Authority is contractually obligated and for anticipated future
projects.
' Ordinance No. 95, 1987 would implement Option #3 and the recommendation of
the DDA Board. This ordinance can be amended so that Options #1 or #2 are
implemented, as is determined by the Council. The bond underwriters and
bond counsel have recommended that an Ordinance be considered at this time
so that the City and the DDA are in a position to issue the bonds as soon
as market conditions are right. Current market changes make it impossible
to predict how soon this would happen, but it is advised that the bond
ordinance be approved as soon as possible."
Councilmember Mabry stated he would withdraw from consideration and vote on
this item due to an appearance of a conflict of interest.
Councilmember Maxey made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Stoner, to
adopt Ordinance No. 95, 1987 on First Reading.
Finance Director Alan Krcmarik gave a brief background of this item and
responded to questions from Council.
Linda Clark, Boettcher and Company, explained the breakdown of funds.
Councilmember Kirkpatrick suggested adding a sentence to Option #3 which
would give some direction for the use of bonds for future projects as
follows: "Any future projects would have to provide tax increment revenues
' of 130% of the additional debt service the projects generated." She stated
-21-
June 2, 1987
she would like to have a provision which protects the City's sales and use
tax fund from having to pay for the debt service for the DDA.
Councilmember Kirkpatrick made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Horak,
to amend Option q3 as described.
Loring Harkness, bond counsel, stated the best way to implement the
amendment would be to include it with the other necessary changes required
prior to second reading. He stated those changes will include revising the
current text of the ordinance in order to comply with MBIA requirements and
inserting the interest rates.
Councilmember Kirkpatrick stated she was agreeable to Mr. Harkness'
suggestion.
City Manager Burkett clarified that Councilmember Kirkpatrick's motion is
interpreted as direction to staff to make changes to the ordinance prior to
second reading.
(Secretary's Note: Councilmember Kirkpatrick withdrew her motion at this
time. The motion under discussion is the original motion to adopt
Ordinance No. 95, 1987 on First Reading.)
Councilmember Winokur expressed concern with the refunding of bonds.
Councilmember Maxey stated refunding of bonds only occurs if there is a
potential savings of at least $250,000.
Councilmember Horak shared some of the concerns expressed by Councilmember
Winokur. He stated if the cost of refunding is less than the benefit, it
makes sense to proceed.
Mayor Estrada stated he thought this time was very propitious because the
City can save over $250,000 by refinancing.
The vote on Councilmember Maxey's motion to adopt Ordinance No. 95, 1987 on
First Reading was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Estrada, Horak,
Kirkpatrick, Maxey, and Stoner. Nays: Councilmember Winokur.
(Councilmember Mabry withdrawn)
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Kirkpatrick made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Horak,
to give staff direction to pursue Option UA (as proposed by Councilmember
Kirkpatrick).
Councilmember Kirkpatrick stated Option UA does have a down side in that
public projects are the likely' projects that will not receive funding. She
stated if those projects are worthy projects they will stand in line with
other worthwhile projects that the City is considering.
22-
1
June 2, 1987
Councilmember Winokur stated he would support the motion, but cautioned
that projects in one part of town can have an effect on other parts of
town.
Councilmember Horak stated he expected staff and bond counsel to provide
information about the effect that this amendment would have.
The vote on Councilmember Kirkpatrick's motion was as follows: Yeas:
Councilmembers Estrada, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Maxey, Stoner, and Winokur.
Nays: None. (Councilmember Mabry withdrawn)
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Staff Reports
City Manager Burkett introduced Julia Dyson, a new intern in the City
Manager's Office.
Appeal of Planning and Zoning Board
Decision (P&Z #2-87A) Regarding a
Preliminary PUD for a 1.57 Acre Tract
within the Pulse Planned Unit Development,
Planning and Zoning Board Decision Upheld
' Following is staff's memorandum on this item:
"Executive Summary
At the March 23, 1987 Planning and Zoning Board hearing, the entire 21.17
acres of The Pulse PUD was considered for preliminary approval. 19.6 acres
were approved, and 1.57 acres were deleted for further consideration of
neighborhood objections. At the April 20, 1987 Planning and Zoning Board
hearing, the 1.57 acre parcel was denied as a preliminary PUD. The
applicant is appealing this denial of the 1.57 acre parcel.
Background
March 23, 1987 Planning and Zoning Board Hearin
The Pulse Preliminary PUD was heard on the March Planning and Zoning Board
agenda. The Preliminary PUD proposal consisted of a total of 21.17 acres.
Designed as a mixed use project, the Pulse PUD contained 9.40 acres of
commercial uses and 11.80 acres of residential.
It was the decision of the Planning and Zoning Board to approve 19.6 acres
of the Pulse Preliminary PUD with various conditions to be addressed at the
final submittal. It was also the decision of the Planning and Zoning Board
to delete 1.57 acres of the project from consideration. This 1.57 acre
' parcel contained the following land uses:
-23-
June 2, 1987
1. 2,600 square foot convenience store. '
a. flat roof architecture.
b. open on a 24 hour basis.
c. 20 foot setback from Stuart Street.
2. Two gas pump islands containing eight pumps.
3. 48' X 35' gas pump canopy, totalling 1,680 square feet at a height
of 13' 6".
4. 5 bay car wash totalling 2,300 square feet.
It was the intention of the Planning and Zoning Board to keep the majority
of the Pulse PUD moving forward through the approval process but to also
encourage the applicant to respond to the neighborhood objections regarding
the deleted 1.57 acres.
As stated in the decision letter:
"The convenience store, gas pumps, and canopy, and car wash were
deleted from consideration of the Preliminary PUD. These uses
were not specifically and categorically denied. Due to their
objectionable characteristics, however, these uses should be
seriously re-evaluated."
"By deleting these uses from the Preliminary PUD, the Planning '
and Zoning Board is advising the applicant that future submittals
should consider other uses, or enhance the mitigation measures,
or minimize the neighborhood concerns."
April 20, 1987 Planning and Zoning Board Hearing
Since the 1.57 acre parcel was deleted from consideration in March, the
Planning and Zoning Board heard the request on a Preliminary PUD basis.
The revised plan included the following land uses:
1. 2,600 square foot convenience store.
a. sloped roof architecture.
b. operation hours to be restricted 7:00 AM to 10:00 PM.
C. 29 foot setback from Stuart Street.
2. One gas pump island containing four pumps.
3. 38' X 8' gas pump canopy, tota7ling'304 square feet at a height of
10 feet.
4. 5 bay car wash totalling 2,300 square feet.
-24-
June 2, 1987
' The revised Preliminary PUD on the 1.57 acre parcel was evaluated and
reviewed by staff based on the concerns of the Planning and Zoning Board
expressed at the March hearing. It was staff's conclusion and subsequent
recommendation that the revisions did not meet the advisement and
guidelines given by the Planning and Zoning Board in their March decision.
Staff recommend denial of the Preliminary PUD approval of the 1.57 acre
parcel of the Pulse PUD based on the failure to address absolute criterion
#2 "Neighborhood Character" and absolute criterion #3 "Land Use Conflicts"
of the Land Development Guidance System. The Planning and Zoning Board
voted to deny these uses as submitted at the April hearing.
The appellant is seeking to have this vote of denial on the 1.57 acre
parcel overturned. It is the appellant's contention that the April plan
represents sufficient re-evaluation and meets the Planning and Zoning
Board's conditions set forth at the March hearing.
The appellant further claims that the Board acted in an arbitrary manner
without the support of the evidence of record during the April
deliberations. This claim is based on assumption that members of the Board
did not believe the reduction in traffic levels based on the reduction in
gas pumps and restricted store hours.
The appellant claims the architectural design, orientation of buildings,
and visual integrity promote neighborhood compatibility and thus satisfies
criterion #2 of the Land Development Guidance System. Also, criterion #3
' requiring mitigation of land use conflicts is met by buffering and
landscaping. By discounting these considerations, the appellant claims the
Board acted arbitrarily without the support of competent evidence in the
record.
The appellant claims that the proposed uses meet policies #3 and #21 of the
Land Use Policies Plan, adopted by the City in 1979. These policies state
that:
#3 "The City shall promote the location of residential
development which is close to employment, recreation, and
shopping facilities."
#21 "All levels of commercial development, including convenience,
neighborhood, community and regional shopping which have
significant negative transportation impacts on South College
Avenue will discourage from gaining their primary access from
College Avenue."
By discounting these policies, the appellant claims the Board's action was
arbitrary and without the support of evidence in the record.
The appellant claims that three members who participated in the April
Planning and Zoning Board hearing were absent from the March hearing. The
March hearing included the entire 21.17 acres. Therefore, these three
-25-
June 2, 1987
members lacked sufficient understanding and the appellant claims their I
findings were arbitrary.
The appellant claims that the deletion of the 1.57 acre parcel from the
March Planning and Zoning Board consideration was confusing, causing an
unfair burden.
Finally, the appellant claims the proposed land uses are economically
viable for which there is a strong market demand. These uses would not be
built on a speculative basis. The appellant states it is unfair to deny
land uses which have a strong economic basis.
The Planning and Zoning Board is on record as stating that the proposed
land uses on the 1.57 acre parcel do not meet the concerns of the Board as
expressed in the March decision. The intensity of use is not deemed
compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.
Attached are copies of the staff reports and verbatim minutes of both the
March and April Planning and Zoning Board hearings. Also attached are the
appellant's statement of appeal and a response from the Prospect -Shields
Neighborhood Association.
Staff stands on the record of the Preliminary PUD request for the Pulse
PUD."
Mayor Estrada stated the appeal was based on four specific allegations: (1)
the Planning and Zoning Board action of April 20 was arbitrary and without '
the support of evidence in the record, (2) three members who participated
in the April Planning and Zoning Board hearing were absent from the March
meeting, therefore causing them to lack sufficient understanding making
their findings arbitrary, (3) the deletion of the 1.57 acre parcel from the
March Planning and Zoning Board consideration was confusing, causing an
unfair burden, and (4) the proposed land uses are economically viable for
which there is a strong market demand.
City Attorney Huisjen stated the Council needs to make a determination
whether the grounds are sufficient for the appeal. He stated the grounds
stated do fall within the grounds which are permitted for appeal. He
stated they fall into three categories: (1) there was an abuse of
discretion in that the decision was arbitrary and without the support of
competent evidence in the record, (2) 'there was a failure to properly
interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Code and Charter of the City
of Fort Collins, and (3) there was a failure to conduct a fair hearing and
that the Board ignored .its own' previously established rules of procedure.
He stated it was his conclusion that the request for appeal is properly
grounded pursuant to Chapter 3A of the Code.
Councilmember Maxey made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Mabry, that
the written grounds of the 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.
-26-
June 2, 1987
I
THE MOTION CARRIED.
City Planner Ted Shepard gave a brief history of the project and summarized
the proceedings at the March and April Planning and Zoning Board hearings.
He answered questions from Council.
Mayor Estrada stated there would be a 5 minute recess to allow the
appellants and the opponents to select individuals to represent their
particular perspectives. He stated the appellants would have 20 minutes to
present their case, and then the opponents will have 20 minutes to comment
on or rebut the grounds of the appeal. He stated there would then be an
open 10 minute period for public discussion and comments, followed by
Council questions and comments. He noted comments by the appellants and
opponents should consist of a summarization of the issue, a review of
information, and pertinent commentary. He stated no new evidence should be
presented at this time. He also stated that during the recess no
questions, perspectives or lobbying should be shared with Councilmembers.
After the recess, City Attorney Huisjen stated the appeal is now before the
Council as though they are the Planning and Zoning Board. He stated
Council should consider the project in terms of the Land Development
Guidance System. He stated the issues are neighborhood compatibility,
traffic, and land use. He noted the issues are not whether there were
sufficient grounds for appeal, whether the applicant was denied a fair
hearing at the lower board, or whether the evidence was improperly
' considered. He stated Council should consider the evidence that was
presented to the Planning and Zoning Board in view of the LOGS. He stated
Council should decide whether to sustain, overturn, or modify the decision
of the Planning and Zoning Board.
Lucia Liley, attorney representing the appellant, US Properties, stated
they are requesting the Council overturn the decision of the Planning and
Zoning Board. She introduced David Huber, principle of US Properties.
David Huber, owner of Fort Collins Pulse and partner in the development of
the Pulse PUD, thanked Council for the time spent in reviewing the
materials relating to the Pulse PUD and thanked the neighborhood for their
input. He described the entire PUD and spoke of attempts to buffer the
tract from the surrounding neighborhood. He spoke of the changes made to
the 1.57 acres planned for a convenience store and car wash after meetings
with the neighborhood. He stated that at the March 23 Planning and Zoning
Board meeting a master plan was presented, and approved 5-0 by the Board,
which included the convenience store and car wash. He stated the
preliminary plan was approved with the convenience store and car wash
erased and brought back at a later date. He spoke of his frustration in
trying to meet the expectations of the staff and the Planning and Zoning
Board.
Ms. Liley stated there were three relevant points the Council should look
' at: III the fact that the City staff, in• overruling their earlier
recommendation of approval, confused their proper role and left the
-27-
June 2, 1987
Planning and Zoning Board, in April, without an independent, objective '
opinion about the plan, (2) that the Planning and Zoning Board had a change
in composition between the first and second hearings causing confusion over
what had occurred in March and what was up for consideration in April, and
(3) that this lead to a decision on the part of the Board based upon
improper items. She noted the March staff report contains a staff
recommendation that the full 21 acre mixed -use project be approved with
three conditions. She further noted that staff recommended approval after
they found that all locational criteria for the commercial uses had been
met, all of the points required for the residential density chart had been
met, and the land use conflicts had been mitigated. Ms. Liley stated that
a new staff report had been prepared for the April Planning and Zoning
Board hearing which recommended denial of the project despite mitigation
measures that had been taken because "there are still significant
objectionable characteristics". She questioned to whom those
characteristics were objectionable, noting they weren't objectionable to
staff, even before the mitigation measures were taken. She stated the only
reasonable inference to be made was that it was objectionable to the
neighborhood, and if it was objectionable to the neighborhood it could not
be compatible and therefore it could not be approved. She pointed out that
missing were the objective criteria of the LDGS, and the objective staff
evaluation from March. Ms. Liley stated there was a lot of confusion about
the conditions that were attached to the plan. She pointed out that an
independent staff evaluation was not prepared for the April hearing. She
noted there were three new board members present at the April hearing who
may not have been familiar with the evidence presented at the March
meeting. She indicated there was confusion by the Board about what was ,
happening procedurally. She alleged that the grounds given by the Board
for denial of the 1.57 acre parcel were impermissible. Ms. Liley stated
there was ample evidence that all of the design criteria and related
criteria of the Land Development Guidance System have been met and in most
cases exceeded. She addressed the issue of neighborhood compatibility.
She spoke of the provisions of the LDGS. She urged Council to consider
overturning the decision of the Planning and Zoning Board.
Harold Worth, 1501 South Shields, vice-president of the Prospect/Shields
Neighborhood Association, spoke of a letter dated May 12 which contained a
detailed analysis of the Association's views and requested that letter be
made part of the record of this hearing. He stated the neighborhood is
unequivocably opposed to including a convenience store, gas station, and
car wash in the Pulse development. He stated the change in design and
operation that the developer proposed at the April hearing failed to
address the neighborhood's objections regarding the total incompatibility
of these facilities with the character of the neighborhood. He stated the
neighborhood believes these features are unneeded in the neighborhood and
are inconsistent with the quality aspirations the developer has for the
project as a whole. Mr. Worth spoke of meetings between the neighborhood
and the developer. He addressed parts of the LDGS that support the
neighborhood's opposition to the project. He stated additional services of
the type .proposed are not need or wanted at the Pulse location. He noted
such facilities are already available at several points within a 3/4 mile
radius of'the proposed site. He spoke of the neighborhood's concerns about ,
a".
June 2, 1987
the traffic impact the project will cause. Mr. Worth urged Council to
support the decision of the Planning and Zoning Board to deny the proposed
uses.
The following persons spoke during the public discussion period:
1. Lloyd Walker, member of the Prospect/Shields Neighborhood
Association, summarized some of the concerns of the
neighborhood.
2. Eileen Contrino, neighborhood resident, expressed support for
the project.
3. Barbara Allison, 1212 Lynnwood Drive, questioned the results
of City traffic studies. She stated she was opposed to the
project.
4. Emily Smith, secretary of the Prospect/Shields Neighborhood
Association, stated a survey conducted of the Neighborhood
Association showed 107 opposed to the convenience store and
27 in favor; 22 favored the gas pumps and 127 had strong
objections; and 24 favored the car wash and 120 had strong
objections.
Traffic Engineer Rick Ensdorff responded to questions from Council about
traffic in the area of this development.
' Planning Director Tom Peterson answered questions relating to the March and
April staff reports and Planning and Zoning Board hearings, and the Land
Development Guidance System.
Mr. Worth responded to Council questions about the neighborhood's desires
for development in the area.
Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kirkpatrick,
to uphold the decision of the Planning and Zoning Board to deny the Pulse
PUD.
Councilmember Stoner stated he would not support the motion. He expressed
concern about the change in the staff recommendation after the March P&Z
meeting.
Councilmember Horak expressed concern about the proceedings at the March
and April P&Z hearings. He commended Mr.-Huber's work with the
neighborhood, but added it is not a sufficient condition for project
approval. He stated he felt the project is not sufficiently buffered or
mitigated.
Councilmember Kirkpatrick stated she would vote to uphold the P&Z denial
because she did not feel the developer has sufficiently met the conditions
specified. She stated she di& not feel a car wash fit into the scope of a
' neighborhood convenience center. She stated she would like the developer
-29-
June 2, 1987
to look at the specific uses in the 1.57 acre tract prior to the next I
Planning and Zoning Board hearing.
Councilmember Maxey agreed that the car wash did not necessarily fit into
the neighborhood. He stated he felt the development was very well
buffered. He stated he hoped more mitigation might result in approval at
the next Planning and Zoning Board meeting.
Councilmember Winokur concurred with the comments of Councilmembers Horak
and Kirkpatrick. He stated he did not feel that because things were
handled clumsily at the Planning and Zoning Board hearing they were handled
incorrectly. He expressed concerns about the traffic impact. He commended
both parties for working cooperatively on the issue. He stated he would
vote to uphold the decision of the Planning and Zoning Board. He stated he
would like to see more buffering, more mitigation efforts, and more efforts
to de -intensify the use of the area.
Councilmember Mabry stated he did not feel there was a need to be concerned
with the change in the staff report and the change in the composition of
the Board between hearings. He expressed concern about the evolution of
the project through the Planning and Zoning Board. He stated he felt the
Board made a mistake in trying to deal with the development in two parcels.
He felt both the developer and the neighborhood did everything possible to
try to reach agreement. He stated he felt upholding the action of the
Planning and Zoning Board would be to say there is no way to make a use
compatible with the neighborhood and would do significant damage to the
Land Development Guidance System. ,
Mayor Estrada applauded the developer for his efforts in working with the
neighborhood. He stated he hoped the developer would continue to work with
the neighborhood to reach agreement. He stated he would vote to uphold the
Planning and Zoning Board decision.
Councilmember Stoner pointed out that Council has the option to modify the
decision of the Planning and Zoning Board. He suggested substituting the
car wash for a less intensive use.
Councilmember Estrada stated that if Council votes to uphold the P&Z
decision, a plan along the lines of Councilmember Stoner's suggestion could
be brought back to the Planning and Zoning Board. He stated he preferred
not to deal with a modification which should be heard by the Board.
Councilmember Kirkpatrick stated she did not feel the Planning and Zoning
Board should interpret the Council's decision to uphold to mean all of the
uses proposed on the site are denied. She stating she was voting to uphold
the decision because the Board did not feel the developer had sufficiently
met conditions that were specified at the first hearing.
The vote on Councilmember Horak's motion to uphold the decision of the
Planning and Zoning Board to deny the Pulse PUD was as follows: Yeas:
Councilmembers Estrada; Horak, Kirkpatrick, Maxey, and Winokur. Nays:
Councilmembers Mabry and Stoner. '
IsR
June 2, 1987
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Resolution 87-84 Authorizing the City Manager
to Enter into an Agreement with Colorado
State University for the Construction
of Recreational Improvements Adopted
Following is staff's memorandum on this item:
"Financial Impact
$100,000 will be allocated from the $210,000 appropriated for Economic
Opportunities and $20,000 will be allocated from the $118,000 appropriated
in the Maintenance and Mitigation Account (Lodging Tax Revenues).
Executive Summary
On May 19, 1987, the City Council approved the amended minutes of the
Economic Development Sub -Committee meeting held May 5, 1987. Based on the
Sub -Committee's recommendation, Council directed staff to pursue several
activities related to the Economic Development Program.
It was recommended that staff pursue cooperative funding with Colorado
State University of improvements to the South College Track Facility.
Allocation of $120,000 was recommended.
The economic benefits to the community include:
- Increased sales tax revenues generated by attendance at new
athletic events and increased visitor activities.
- Additional recreational opportunities for the public.
- An improved facility to serve as an attraction to new students
considering enrollment at Colorado State University.
On May 28, staff met with representatives of Colorado State University to
discuss the plans, scope and phasing of the project. The contract would
clearly describe the City's participation. Staff is requesting Council's
authorization of the resolution."
Mayor Estrada stated that the Ethics Committee has recommended he withdraw
from consideration of this item because he is a CSU administrator and
therefore has a perceived conflict of interest. He stated he would not
participate in the discussion and vote on this item and turned the meeting
over to Councilmember Stoner.
Councilmember Kirkpatrick stated; she also had a perceived conflict of
interest because her husband is an engineering professor at CSU and
' therefore would withdraw from discussion and vote on this item.
-31-
June 2, 1987
Economic Development Administrator Linda Hopkins gave a brief presentation
on this item and answered questions from Council.
Councilmember Maxey made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Winokur, to
adopt Resolution 87-84.
The following persons spoke on this item:
1. Bruce Lockhart, 2500 East Harmony Road, expressed opposition
to the project.
2. John Martin, Fort Collins High School teacher/coach, spoke of
sports events that have been in held in Fort Collins in the
past but are no longer hosted here due to deteriorating
facilities. He suggested several events that could be hosted
in Fort Collins if the track is constructed.
3. Rick Chavez, CSU faculty member, spoke of his work with the
handicapped. He stated the clients he works with will
benefit from the facility.
4. Robert Bisetti, owner of Bisetti's Restaurant, spoke of the
benefits to local restaurants if large numbers of people come
to Fort Collins for sporting events.
5. Joan Perry, 2009 Stover, expressed concern about the process
used in allocating funds to this project. She asked Council
to reverse their decision to support this project.
6. Sherry Linnell, Director of Adult Fitness Program, urged
Council to vote in favor of the project.
7. Earlie Thomas, a local parent, spoke of the need for an
improved track for training purposes and to host local
competitions.
8. Cliff Romero, 2312 Rollingwood, spoke of the benefits for
local children involved in track, and encouraged Council to
support the project.
9. Bob Collin, Fort Collins resident, expressed support for the
facility.
Councilmember Maxey expressed concern about the parking around the facility
and urged careful planning to accommodate parking without _impacting the
neighborhood.
Councilmember Horak expressed dissatisfaction with the procedure used to
allocate funds for•this project. He stated he supported the concept of a
community track, ti`ut! did not feel adequate analysis and planning had been
-32-
June 2, 1987
completed. He stated he did not feel this project was necessarily the best
use for economic development funds.
Councilmember Mabry stated he supported the project. He stated he felt the
process used was faulty. He stated he felt parkland funds should be used
for projects like this.
Councilmember Winokur disagreed with the use of parkland funds for this
project. He pointed out that one of the recommendations of the Economic
Development Task Force was to spend up to $150,000 for Colorado State
University. He stated he felt this project will help bolster the positive
image of CSU.
The vote on Councilmember Maxey's motion to adopt Resolution 87-84 was as
follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Maxey, Stoner, and Winokur. Nays:
Councilmembers Horak and Mabry. (Councilmembers Estrada and Kirkpatrick
withdrawn)
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Ordinance No. 93, 1987, Dissolving the
Building Board of Appeals and the
Building Contractors Licensing Board
and Creating a Building Review Board,
Adopted as Amended on First Reading
' Following is staff's memorandum on this item:
"This Ordinance is the result of the April 21, 1987 Council meeting and a
subsequent meeting with staff and members of both the Building Contractors
Licensing Board and Building Board of Appeals.
The combined board concept was discussed at the joint BCLB and BBA meeting
on April 30, 1987 and was endorsed by both bodies with a recommendation
that the new board be named the "Building Review Board" and be composed of
seven regular members and two alternate members in order to utilize all of
the current combined membership of both boards. Some BCLB members also
expressed the need for a larger board to achieve increased board attendance
at hearings. However, at its May 28 meeting the BCLB voted 3-0 to support
the Ordinance as drafted by staff. The general concensus of the members of
both boards was that the new board should be made up entirely of people
involved in the construction industry.
Staff concurs with the concept and name but feels a larger board will be
unwieldy, serving no real purpose and requiring much more staff support.
Also, staff believes that the new board does not necessarily need to be
comprised entirely of technically trained people and better decisions will
result from a diversified membership.
This Ordinance creates a board of five regular members and two alternate
' members, at least three of whom have technical qualifications."
-33-
June 2, 1987
Councilmember Maxey made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Stoner, to
'
adopt Ordinance No. 93, 1987 on First Reading with the Building Review
Board consisting of 7 members and 2 alternates, with at least 6 members
being qualified by experience or training in technical matters relating to
building construction.
Councilmember Maxey stated he felt combining the two boards results in more
technical work than either board dealt with independently. He stated he
felt it important to have a larger representation of input than a smaller
board could offer.
Councilmember Mabry stated did not feel it was necessary to have 6 members
qualified by experience or training.
Councilmembers Maxey and Stoner agreed to change their motion to require 5
members to be qualified by experience or training.
Councilmember Kirkpatrick stated she could not support the need for
additional technical members on the board.
Councilmember Horak agreed with Councilmember Kirkpatrick, noting he felt
this would exclude people from applying because they might feel they don't
have a chance to be appointed.
Councilmember Winokur stated he felt decisions about expertise could be
made in the selection process. He stated he preferred to be less
restrictive, but would like Councilmembers conducting interviews to ask
'
appropriate questions to gauge an individual's qualifications.
Mayor Estrada stated he was not convinced there needed to be more than 3
members qualified by experience or training.
The vote on Councilmember Maxey's motion to adopt Ordinance No. 93, 1987 on
First Reading as amended was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Mabry,
Maxey, and Winokur. Nays: Councilmembers Estrada, Horak, Kirkpatrick, and
Stoner.
THE MOTION FAILS.
Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kirkpatrick,
to adopt Ordinance No. 93, 1987 as presented on First Reading.
Councilmember Stoner made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Mabry, to
amend Ordinance No. 93, 1987 to increase the number of regular members to 7
with 2 alternates, with 3 members possessing technical expertise. Yeas:
Councilmembers Estrada, Horak, Mabry, Maxey, Stoner, and Winokur. Nays:
Councilmember Kirkpatrick..
THE MOTION CARRIED.
-34-
June 2, 1987
The vote on Councilmember Horak's motion to adopt Ordinance No. 93, 1987 as
amended on First Reading was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Estrada,
Horak, Kirkpatrick, Mabry, Maxey, Stoner, and Winokur. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Resolution 87-83 Making Appointments
to Various Boards and Commissions,
Tabled Until July 7
Following is staff's memorandum on this item:
"Executive Summary
Council has received copies of the applications for membership on the
various City Boards and Commissions, and interviews with the applicants
have been conducted by Council committees. Council will make
recommendations on the various boards at the June Z meeting.
In keeping with Council's policy, this Resolution will be tagled'until July
7 to allow for public input.
Background
Appointments need to be made for the following Boards and Commissions.'
Airport Authority
CHOICE Advisory Committee
Commission on Disability
Commission on the Status of Women
Cultural Resources Board
Downtown Development Authority
Golf Board
Housing Authority
Human Relations Commission
Landmark Preservation Commission
Library Board
Liquor/Massage Licensing Authority
Natural Resources Advisory Board
Parking Commission
Personnel Board
Planning & Zoning Board
Quality of Life Commission
Retirement Committee
Senior Advisory Board
Storm Drainage Board
Water Board
Zoning Board of Appeals"
Mayor Estrada read the names of the persons recommended for appointment.
Councilmember Stoner made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Horak, to
adopt Resolution 87-83 with the names as read by Mayor Estrada inserted.
Councilmember Horak made a motion;- seconded by Councilmember Winokur, to
table Resolution 87-83 until July 7 to allow for public input. Yeas:
Councilmembers Estrada, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Mabry, Maxey, Stoner, and
Winokur. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
-35-
June 2, 1987
Other Business
Councilmember Stoner requested a standard written format for all appeals.
Other Councilmembers also expressed a desire for improvements to the
appeals process.
Adjournment
Councilmember Stoner made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Mabry, to
adjourn the meeting. Yeas: Councilmembers Estrada, Horak, Kirkpatrick,
Mabry, Maxey, Stoner, and Winokur. Nays: None.
The meeting adjourned at 1:05 a.m.
^TT��
City Clerk
IU-2