Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES-08/18/1987-Regular' August 18, 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, August 18, 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, Kirkpatrick, Mabry, Maxey, Stoner, and Winokur. (Secretary's Note: Councilmember Horak arrived at 6:32 p.m.) Staff Members Present: Burkett, Huisjen, Krajicek Agenda Review: City Manager City Manager Burkett stated Item #5, Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 120, 1987, Rezoning Approximately 123.52 Acres, Known as the Retirement Lifestyles International Rezoning, from the T-Transition Zoning District to the R-L-P, Low Density Planned Residential, Zoning District, had been withdrawn by the applicant and Item #19, Appeal of Zoning Board of Appeals ' Decision (ZBA #1824) regarding the location of a storage building on the parking lot of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter -Day Saints Church located at 600 East Swallow Road, was withdrawn by the appellant. He stated Item #20, Items Relating to the Toliver's Building Renovation, was being withdrawn by staff to pursue other alternatives. Councilmember Kirkpatrick requested Item #6, Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 121, 1987, Designating the Old Power Plant Building and the Power Plant Art Deco Fountain as Historic Landmarks, be removed from the Consent Calendar. Councilmember Maxey requested Item #8, Items Relating to Septage Transfer Agreement with Larimer County, be withdrawn from the Consent Agenda.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 calendar be "pulled" off the Consent Calendar and considered separately. Agenda items pulled from the Consent,Calendar will be considered separately under Agenda Items #11 and #21, Pulied' 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. -101- August 18, 1987 5. 21 7. Consider approval of the minutes of the regular meeting of August 4 This is a request to rezone approximately 123.52 acres located north of East Vine Drive and west of County Road 9E, from the T-Transitional, Zoning District to the R-L-P, Low Density Planned Residential, Zoning District. APPLICANT: Retirement Lifestyles Int. OWNER: Summitview Properties 1536 Cole Blvd. #140 P.O. Box 153 Golden, CO 80401 Fort Collins, CO 80522 On May 27, the Cultural Resources Board (CRB) held a public hearing concerning the proposed local historic landmark designation of the Old Power Plant Building and the Art Deco Fountain at 401 North College. At that hearing, the Board passed a motion to recommend to City Council that the Power Plant (structure only) plus the Fountain (structure only) be designated as historic landmarks, pursuant to Chapter 69 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins. At the City Council worksession on July 14, 1987, the City Council met with the CHOICE Advisory Committee to discuss the future of this citizen committee. As a result of this discussion, it was concluded that the Committee had successfully accomplished its original charge and, therefore, should sunset. This Ordinance will formally delete reference to the CHOICE Committee from the City Code. Items Relating to Septane Transfer Agreement with Larimer County. A. Resolution 87-111 Approving an Intergovernmental Agreement between the City and Larimer County. B. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 123, 1987, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the Amount of $306,250 for Construction of Sanitary Waste Transfer Station. Larimer County plans to phase out the acceptance of liquid wastes at the Larimer County landfill because of potential adverse impacts to ground water underlying the facility. County and City staff'have -102- August 18, 1987 ' developed an approach to handling the domestic septage portion of those liquid wastes in the City's wastewater system. This effort has resulted in a proposed intergovernmental agreement and an ordinance which appropriates funding for the project in the amount of $306,250 contingent upon the City receiving that amount from the County. The Board of County Commissioners approved the agreement at its August 5 meeting. PM On June 30, 1987 the Cable TV Board submitted to City Council a proposal for a separate community access center. The proposal outlines prerequisites for a successful community access program and recommends that a separate 501(c)(3) nonprofit corporation be established to administer community programming. 10. Resolution 87-110 Appointing an Alternate to the Water Board. An alternate position currently exists on the Water Board. The Council liaison has reviewed the applications on file. In keeping with Council's policy, the recommendation for this appointment was announced at the August 4 meeting. The appointment was tabled to allow time for public input. The prospective appointee is listed below: WATER BOARD Chester Watson, alternate Ordinances on First Reading were read by title by Wanda Krajicek, City Clerk. Item #5. Item #6. Item #7. -103- August 18, 1987 Item #8. B. 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. Ordinance No. 121, 1987, Designating the Old Power Plant Building and the Power Plant Art Deco Fountain as Historic Landmarks. Adopted on First Reading Following is staff's memorandum on this item: "Executive Summary On May 27, the Cultural Resources Board (CRB) held a public hearing concerning the proposed iocal historic landmark designation of the Old Power Plant Building and the Art Deco Fountain at 401 North College. At that hearing, the Board passed a motion to recommend to City Council that , the Power Plant (structure only) plus the Fountain (structure only) be designated as historic landmarks, pursuant to Chapter 69 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins. Background A. Statement of Significance The Old Power Plant structure is unique to Fort Collins in that it is the only remaining "Moderne" style industrial building in town and is still one of the most prominent structures in the northern sector of the downtown area. On the grounds near the main structure is the only "Art -Deco" style fountain found in Fort Collins and one of the few items associated with the federal Works Project Administration (W.P.A.) in the city. The Old Power Plant, built in 1935, has a strong association with the Depression Era and is closely tied with the town's recovery from the Depression and with subsequent modernization which took place in the 194O's and 195O's. It is unique to find such a large facility as this outside a major metropolitan area. The construction of the Power Plant is associated with early rejuvenation efforts on the Poudre River and in the Central Business District. -104- August 18, 1987 ' B. Process Pursuant to Chapter 69 of the Code, public notification and Planning Department review of the proposed designation were accomplished prior to the public hearing of the Cultural Resources Board on May 27, at which time the Board formally approved the designation of the Power Plant Building and Art Deco Fountain. C. Applicability This historic landmark designation applies only to the Old Power Plant building and fountain structures. Any alteration to the exterior of these structures will then require the review and approval of the Landmarks Preservation Commission. The historic designation will not apply to the surrounding grounds, utility facilities, or the actual use of the building itself." Councilmember Kirkpatrick made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Stoner, to adopt Ordinance No. 121, 1987 on First Reading. Ruth McKee Hornberger, member of the Cultural Resources Board, protested designation of the Power Plant Building and surrounding land as a historic landmark. She asked Council to delay historic designation of the building. In response to a question from Council, Planning Director Tom Peterson ' stated that historic designation applies to the building and fountain only and does not include the surrounding property. He noted that historic designation only affects alterations to the facade of the structure. Senior Planner Kari VanMeter answered questions from Council about the review of this item by the Cultural Resources Board. Christine Jones, Chair of the Cultural Resources Board, clarified several issues brought up by Mrs. Hornberger. She highlighted information contained in the application packet that supports the Board's recommendation for historic designation. She stated it was important for the City to lead the way in designating this property as a City -owned property. Don Hornberger, 1701 Dale Court, spoke of the sturdiness of the structure and suggested there would be better uses for the building. Bruce Lockhart, 2500 East Harmony Road, opposed historic designation of the structure. Dick Beardmore, 2212 Kiowa Court, member of the Landmark Preservation Commission, provided Council with a perspective on the project, noting he had initiated the process in 1983. ' Historic Preservation Specialist Edwina Echevarria provided Council with a list of other historically designated structures in Fort Collins owned by the City. -105- August 18, 1987 Councilmember Kirkpatrick spoke of the work of the Cultural Resources Board in reviewing applications for historic designation. She stated she felt designation of the Power Plant as a historic building would continue to provide the flexibility needed for other uses of the property. She stated she felt designation of the Power Plant would be worthwhile. Councilmember Horak stated he did not feel adequate background material had been provided showing the Cultural Resources Board discussion on this item. He stated he would like to see the Cultural Resources Board have another discussion, based on Mrs. Hornberger's comments, and come back with a more detailed report. Councilmember Stoner stated he felt many of the comments made were irrelevant to the decision at hand. He stated he felt the Cultural Resources Board had adequately reviewed the item. He stated he felt if the City did not designate one of its own structures which has been determined to be historic, a bad example would be set for the rest of the community. He stated he would support the Ordinance. Mayor Estrada stated he did not feel historic designation would prevent future development of the property. He stated he would support the Ordinance because he felt the City has a building of value that it wishes to maintain, while still having the option to use it any way possible. Councilmember Horak made a motion to table Ordinance No. 121, 1987 for further review by the Cultural Resources Board. THE MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. The vote on Councilmember Kirkpatrick's 1987 on First Reading was as follows; Horak, Kirkpatrick, Mabry, Maxey, Stoner, THE MOTION CARRIED. motion to adopt Ordinance No. 21, Yeas: Councilmembers Estrada, and Winokur. Nays: None. Councilmember Horak stated he would like staff and the Board to provide further information which clarifies their discussions on this item prior to Second Reading. Items Relating to Septage Transfer Agreement with Larimer County Following is staff's memorandum on this item: Financial Impact Under the agreement, the City will construct and operate the Sanitary Waste Transfer Station, and the County will pay the City for all costs of land acquisition, design, construction, and start-up of the facility, estimated -106- August 18, 1987 ' at $306,250, within 30 days of signing the intergovernmental agreement. User fees, administered by the City, will cover the costs of operations. Executive Summary A. Resolution 87-111 Approving an Intergovernmental Agreement between the City and Larimer County. B. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 123, 1987, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the Amount of $306,250 for Construction of Sanitary Waste Transfer Station. Larimer County plans to phase out the acceptance of liquid wastes at the Larimer County landfill because of potential adverse impacts to ground water underlying the facility. County and City staff have developed an approach to handling the domestic septage portion of those liquid wastes in the City's wastewater system. This effort has resulted in a proposed intergovernmental agreement and an ordinance which appropriates funding for the project in the amount of $306,250 contingent upon the City receiving that amount from the County. The Board of County Commissioners approved the agreement at its August 5 meeting. Background Over the last several years, the County has become increasingly concerned ' about ground water pollution problems that can result from liquid wastes deposited at the landfill. During that time, the City and County have discussed possible options for alleviating potential environmental impacts on a number of occasions. With new regulations concerning handling of such wastes, it is necessary to initiate actions to close the landfill to certain types of wastes. The basic plan is for the County to close all holding lagoons at the landfill and to cease accepting liquid wastes. Liquid sanitary wastes from vaults, septic tanks, privies, and portable toilets would be accepted at a new sanitary waste transfer station and then piped to the wastewater treatment facilities for treatment. Non -hazardous liquid wastes from restaurant grease traps, car wash grit traps, etc., would be taken to permitted disposal sites in Denver. Under the agreement, the City would construct, own and operate the liquid waste transfer station, and the County would transfer $306,250 to the City for the estimated engineering, construction, and start-up expenses. The City will issue permits to haulers of septic wastes which specify the fees and quality of wastes that will be accepted. It is expected that operational costs of the transfer station and the costs of treatment of the wastes will be fully funded by the fees. The City will use existing excess capacity at its treatment plants to treat the septic wastes. In the event that the treatment system approaches maximum capacity, the County will receive written notice of intent to terminate service. The County could then purchase capacity in the treatment system or the transfer station ' could be closed. It is not expected that the septic wastes will have a significant impact on capacity since the estimated volume of wastes -107- August 18, 1987 generated is 3.5 million gallons per year, compared to 5146.5 million gallons of wastewater treated by the City in 1986. Additional provisions of the agreement are: 1. The County may subsidize rates for a period of time in order to allow a gradual increase from existing landfill rates to actual cost of treatment. The fee will increase from $0.015 to $0.05 per gallon. 2. City Utility customers may dispose of recreational vehicle wastes at the facility free of charge. The County may dispose of wastes from its sanitary facilities free of charge. 3. The City acquires ownership of 75% of all wood material entering the landfill for use as an amendment for composting sludge. 4. The City and County cooperate to identify businesses that produce non -hazardous wastes that will not be accepted, to notify them of the change, to inform them of alternative disposal sites, and to monitor compliance with new requirements. 5. The City retains full power to budget for operations and establish rates. Staff is in the process of evaluating appropriate sites for the facility. It is anticipated that a contract for a consultant to design and construct the facility and an ordinance setting the rate structure will be brought to Council for consideration in September. If that schedule is maintained, the facility could be completed in January of 1988." Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Mabry, to adopt Resolution 87-111. Wastewater Treatment Manager Tom Gallier responded to questions from Council about certain provisions of the agreement. The vote on Councilmember Horak's motion to adopt Resolution 87-111 was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Estrada, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Mabry, Maxey, Stoner, and Winokur. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Mabry made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Maxey, to adopt Ordinance No. 123, 1987 on First Reading. Councilmember Horak noted this item was prompted by concern over groundwater contamination. Councilmember Kirkpatrick state& this is an important item as a step toward local control of non -hazardous liquid waste. The vote on Councilmember Mabry's motion to adopt Ordinance No. 123, 1987 on First Reading was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Estrada, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Mabry, Maxey, Stoner, and Winokur. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. :m August 18, 1987 Resolution 87-113 Making Appointments to the Natural Resources Advisory Board and the Commission on the Status of Women. Tabled to September 1 Following is staff's memorandum on this item: "A vacancy currently exists on the Natural Resources Advisory Board due to the resignation of Gilbert Fechner. The Council liaison has reviewed the applications on file. A vacancy also exists on the Commission on the Status of Women due to the resignation of Leslie J. Macmillan. The Council liaison has reviewed the applications on file. In keeping with Counci7's policy, these recommendations will be tabled until September 1 to allow time for public input." Councilmember Kirkpatrick made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Stoner, to adopt Resolution 87-113 inserting the name of Sheryl Barr for the Natural Resources Advisory Board and Carol Wallace for the Commission on the Status of Women. ' Councilmember Maxey made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Stoner, to table Resolution 87-113 to September 1. Yeas: Councilmembers Estrada, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Mabry, Maxey, Stoner, and Winokur. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Public Hearing and Tabling of Items Related to the East Vine 8th Annexation and Zoning Following is staff's memorandum on this item: "Executive Summary A. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 125, 1987, Annexing Approximately 4.964 Acres Known as the East Vine 8th Annexation. B. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 126, 1987, Zoning Approximately 4.964, Acres Known as the East Vine 8th Annexation, into the R-L-P, Low Density Planned Residential, Zoning District. This is a request to annex and zone approximately 4.964 acres of property, located north of East Vine, Drive 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 site is presently developed and occupied by a residential structure, Clay Products & Building Supplies, Inc., storage yards, a repair facility/warehouse, and the storage of two -109- August 18, 1987 mobile homes. The requested zoning is the R-L-P, Low Density Planned I Residential, Zoning District. APPLICANT: City of Fort Collins OWNER: Raymond A. Nauta 1200 E. Vine Drive Fort Collins, CO Staff requests that the first item be introduced for public hearing purposes only, and further consideration of the East Vine 8th annexation and zoning ordinances be tabled to the regular City Council meeting of September 1. By holding the public hearing on the annexation, the advertised public hearing will be accomplished, without need for later readvertizing for hearing on September 1. The owner of the property has recently requested a different zoning than that recommended by staff and the Planning and Zoning Board. Staff will review the landowner's request and make a recommendation at the September 1 meeting. Background The area to be annexed is a county enclave. The following annexations to the City of Fort Collins created the enclave: N: Carpenter & McAleer Annexation, December 1982 ' E: Carpenter & McAleer Annexation, December 1982 S: East Vine Drive 6th Annexation, August 1983 W: Carpenter & McAleer Annexation, December 1982 This area has thus, been eligible for involuntary annexation into the city since August 1986. The process to annex this property has been a lengthy one which started on October 1, 1986. On that date, staff sent a letter to the property owner informing him of the pending annexation, potential zoning district designation, and meeting date of review by the Planning and Zoning Board. Staff received no subsequent contact from the property owner and placed the item on the Consent Agenda of the Planning and Zoning Board meeting of November 17, 1986. After the Board had approved the item as part of the Consent Agenda, Mr. Nauta addressed the Board with several questions concerning the annexation. The Board then reconsidered the item and tabled it to allow time for staff to meet with Mr. Nauta and answer his concerns. The next evening, November 18, 1986, three Planning staff members met with Mr. and Mrs. Nauta to -discuss the enclave annexation and R-L-P zoning. Mr. Nauta indicated a desire to divide his property into two parcels, one to retain as his residence and one to sell as commercial property. After discussing the differences between the requirements of dividing a property through the County's Exemption process and the City's subdivision process, staff agreed to delay the annexation process until Mr. Nauta could get his property divided by the County Exemption process, the easier of the two processes. The Nauta Exemption request was scheduled to be heard by the Larimer County I Board of Commissioners on June 8, 1987. Staff scheduled ;the enclave -110- August 18, 1987 ' annexation to be reheard by the Planning and Zoning Board on May 18, 1987. This overlapping timing schedule would allow the County to complete the approval the Exemption request prior to annexation and zoning ordinance readings being conducted by the City Council. At the May 18, 1987, Planning and Zoning Board meeting Mr. Nauta indicated to staff that he still had a concern with the R-L-P zoning for his property. Staff agreed to meet again with the property owner to discuss the zoning. On June 30, 1987, staff sent a letter to Mr. Nauta (copy attached) reminding him of the City Council schedule to annex his property. Staff has had no subsequent contact from Mr. Nauta. Zoning The requested zone for this annexation is the R-L-P, Low Density Planned Residential, Zoning District. The R-L-P district designation is for areas planned as a unit to provide variation in use, density and building placement. At the present time the property is a mixture of residential, commercial and storage uses. The property is surrounded by R-L-P zoned property. The existing uses would become legal non -conforming uses in the R-L-P zone. In order for the existing uses to be a legal uses the property would have to be placed in the C, Commercial, Zoning District or the property processed as part of a planned unit development. The C zoning district ' designation is for areas for commercial, storage, and service uses, many of which would be incompatible with the existing surrounding low-income residential neighborhoods of Andersonville and Alta Vista. The property is situated west of the proposed Lemay Avenue realignment. The City has approved a PUD Master Plan for the property immediately to the north indicating the area would be one of residential use. To the south, the City recently approved the Fort Collins Business Center Annexation and zoned the area west of the Lemay Avenue realignment R-L-P. Placing this property into the R-L-P zone would be consistent with previous City actions in the area in an attempt to help reinforce the existing low-income residential neighborhoods. Findings 1. The annexation of this area as a county enclave is consistent with the policies and agreements between Larimer County and the City of Fort Collins contained in the INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT FOR THE FORT COLLINS URBAN GROWTH AREA. 2. The area meets all criteria included in State law to qualify for a county enclave eligible for involuntary annexation by the City of Fort Collins. I 3. The R-L-P zoning district is in conformance with the City's Comprehensive Plan. -111- August 18, 1987 STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the annexation and requested zoning. PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD RECOMMENDATION The Planning and Zoning Board, on May 18, 1987, approved the annexation and zoning request as part of the Board's Consent Agenda by a vote of 7-0." Councilmember Kirkpatrick made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Stoner, to adopt Ordinance No. 125, 1987 on First Reading. Councilmember Mabry made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Stoner, to table Ordinance No. 125, 1987 to September 1. Yeas: Councilmembers Estrada, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Mabry, Maxey, Stoner, and Winokur. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Stoner made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kirkpatrick, to adopt Ordinance No. 126, 1987 on First Reading. Councilmember Maxey requested additional information relating to current zoning in the area and the potential Lemay Avenue Overpass prior to consideration of this item on September 1. ' Councilmember Maxey made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Mabry, to table Ordinance No. 126, 1987 to September 1. Yeas: Councilmembers Estrada, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Mabry, Maxey, Stoner, and Winokur. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Tabling of Items Relating to the Proposed Expansion of the Foothills Fashion Mall Following is staff's memorandum on this item: "Financial Impact Vacation of the public rights -of -way, portions of East Monroe Drive and Foothills Parkway, will cause no direct or indirect City expense. The developers of the Mall will'bear the entire cost of closing the streets. The indirect benefit to the City will be a reduction in cost to maintain the portions of street. Executive Summary A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 115, 1987, Vacating the Portion of East , Monroe Drive between JFK Parkway and Stanford Road. -112- August 18, 1987 B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 116, 1987, Vacating the Portion of Foothills Parkway between Mathews Street and Stanford Road. C. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 117, 1987, Vacating a Utility Easement on the site of the Foothills Fashion Mall located in the vicinity of the proposed Mervyns Department Store. Everwest, as owner of the Foothills Fashion Mall, and as developer of the proposed Mall expansion, submitted a letter requesting that the City begin the process of vacating the portions of East Monroe Drive, Foothills Parkway, and a utility easement for the proposed expansion of the Mall. These Ordinances were adopted by a vote of 5-0 on First Reading on August 4, with the understanding that if all the signatures of the property owners involved were not obtained by August 18, the ordinances would be tabled until the signatures were finalized. Concerns were raised on First Reading about what would happen if the streets were vacated and the mall expansion project was delayed or not completed. To protect both the interests of the City and the developer, the developer and City will enter into an agreement that specifically defines the phasing of the improvements, including a traffic access and control plan for each phase of the project. Background Everwest requested that the City proceed with the vacation prior to obtaining all of the signatures of the property owners involved. Our normal procedure would be that all property owners involved with the vacation would sign the request prior to the City proceeding. As explained in the P&Z staff memo, Everwest asked the City to proceed with first reading prior to signatures to determine the City Council position on the vacations. City staff supports the concept, and the Planning and Zoning Board has endorsed the concept by giving its final approval to the expansion plans. The vacations of Monroe Drive and Foothills Parkway provide for an improved overall plan for the Mall. The shopping areas in Foothills East, Foothills Fashion Mall and the Marriott are all tied together with improved pedestrian and automobile circulation systems and with improved landscaping. All utilities have been contacted and have no objections as long as easements are retained for their facilities. Those easements have been provided in the new plat. The only objection to the vacations has come from a few residents along Swallow Road and Mathews. The'objections have been to the potential for increasing traffic in front of their homes. The residents believe that ' vacating Foothills Parkway would block the street and cause more mall traffic on Swallow and Mathews. -113- August 18, 1987 To mitigate that possibility, the developer will do several things. The ' most important help is from the driveways in the Mall being designed to follow the same general pattern as the streets being vacated. Therefore, through traffic can still follow the route of the vacated street if they choose to do so rather than using Mathews and Swallow. Secondly, improvements will be made to other entrances that should prevent more traffic from rerouting to use Swallow. These improvements are: 1. to remove the cross pan in Monroe on the east side of College which removes the bump that slows traffic; 2. to add a double left turn lane on westbound Horsetooth to southbound College to improve the flow through the intersection; and 3. to add a right turn lane on westbound Horsetooth to northbound College to also help the flow. To help mitigate the effects of the increasing traffic on Swallow, a left turn phase will be added to the Swallow at College signal and the City will install a new signal at Swallow and Stanford. The final benefit from the vacations is that the added space provides room for the mall expansion and, thereby, room to upgrade the Mall to regional status. This will benefit both the Mall and the City in keeping the I regional mall within the City." Councilmember Mabry stated he would withdraw from discussion and vote on this item due to a perceived conflict of interest. Councilmember Kirkpatrick made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Horak, to adopt Ordinance No. 115, 1987 on Second Reading. Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Stoner, to table Ordinance No. 115, 1987 on Second Reading until all signatures and agreements are finalized. Yeas: Councilmembers Estrada, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Maxey, Stoner, and Winokur. Nays: None. (Councilmember Mabry withdrawn) THE MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Kirkpatrick made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Horak, to adopt Ordinance No. 116, 1987 on Second Reading. Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Maxey, to table Ordinance No. 116, 1987' on Second Reading until all signatures and agreements are finalized. Yeas: Councilmembers Estrada, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Maxey, Stoner, and Winokur. Nays: None. (Councilmember Mabry withdrawn) ' THE MOTION CARRIED. -114- August 18, 1987 Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Stoner, to adopt Ordinance No. 117, 1987 on Second Reading. Councilmember Kirkpatrick made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Stoner, to table Ordinance No. 117, 1987 on Second Reading until all signatures and agreements are finalized. Yeas: Councilmembers Estrada, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Maxey, Stoner, and Winokur. Nays: None. (Councilmember Mabry withdrawn) THE MOTION CARRIED. Citizen Participation a. Proclamation Naming August 18 as Superconductivity Day was accepted by Walajabad Sampath, Professor of Mechanical Engineering at CSU, and Byron Winn, Head of the Mechanical Engineering Department at CSU, and several other individuals involved in the project. b. Presentation of Certificates of Appreciation to members of the CHOICE Advisory Committee. Mayor Estrada presented certificates to Richard Dunn, Kathryn Holbrook, Dan Keating, and Ross Spaulding. Certificates were forwarded to those members who were not present. Ordinance No. 124, 1987 Amending Chapter 3A of the Code Relating to Appeals Procedure. Adopted on First Reading Following is staff's memorandum on this item: "Executive Summary Questions have arisen during recent appeals to City Council with regard to procedure. At issue are the remedies available to Council on appeal when the board or commission may have erred in its procedure. Staff recommends that Council have the discretion to remand the matter on appeal back to the board or commission for rehearing if it finds that relevant evidence had been wrongfully excluded at the initial hearing. Background Chapter 3A of the Code was amended in 1985 so as to provide a more structured procedure for the hearing of appeals from lower boards and commissions of the City. In continuing to refine this appeals procedure, it is suggested by staff that Council should have a more definitive remedy if it finds that the board or commission whose decision is being appealed failed to afford the appellant a fair opportunity to introduce all relevant evidence. -115- August 18, 1987 At present, Chapter 3A of the Code provides that new evidence must be excluded on appeal. It also provides that, while the Council may uphold, overturn or modify the decision of the board or commission, it may not remand the matter for further hearing before the board or commission. As a result, there is no clear remedy available to Council under the provisions of Chapter 3A which would permit it to rectify such a procedural error in the earlier hearing. The proposed amendments to Chapter 3A permit the remand of the matter on appeal under these circumstances, through the addition of certain language to Sections 3A-3, 3A-10 and 3A-11. Staff considered recommending the alternative of allowing the wrongfully excluded evidence to be introduced as new evidence on appeal. That alternative, however, would tend to prolong and compound the hearing before Council. Staff also believes that permitting new evidence on appeal, even under these limited circumstances, would encourage potential appellants to routinely raise this allegation of error, and thus obtain an opportunity to throw open the hearing before Council by the presentation of "new evidence". The suggested revisions would preserve the simplified hearing process before Council. They would also ensure that, before the matter is presented to Council, the board or commission has every opportunity to consider all relevant evidence." City Attorney Huisjen stated the current process under Chapter 3A provides for appeals to come to Council on the record, and there is not an opportunity for Council to refer the matter back to the lower board or commission. He stated concern has been expressed about the process which does not allow the lower board to rehear the matter in cases where an opportunity was lost or missed for evidence to be introduced at the board hearing. He stated the amendment proposed allows Council to refer the matter back to the lower board or commission if it is decided that the board unfairly denied the admission of evidence in some manner. He added the remainder of the process is not being changed. He answered questions from Council about the appeal process. Councilmember Stoner made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Maxey, to adopt Ordinance No. 124, 1987 on First Reading. Councilmember Kirkpatrick stated she felt it important that the City Attorney's staff carefully explain to the board or commission what Council is requesting should they refer a matter back to the board. The vote on Councilmember Stoner's motion to adopt Ordinance No. 124, 1987 on First Reading was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Estrada, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Mabry, Maxey, Stoner, and Winokur. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. -116- August 18, 1987 IStaff Reports City Manager Burkett introduced Kathryn Anthony, a new intern in the City Manager's Office. City Manager Burkett commented on the importance of the septic transfer agreement with the County. Councilmember Reports Councilmember Horak asked when staff would be responding to the petition received from the City Park neighborhood association. City Manager Burkett stated he had not yet spoken with the Police Chief and other staff about the issue. Councilmember Horak suggested all board and commission members be informed of their responsibility during possible conflict of interest situations. Mayor Estrada stated he felt it would be a good idea to do that and indicated he would work with the City Attorney's office on the issue. ' Executive Session Authorized Councilmember Stoner made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kirkpatrick, to adjourn into Executive Session to discuss legal and financial matters pertaining to the Public Service Company franchise. Yeas: Councilmembers Estrada, Kirkpatrick, Mabry, Maxey, and Stoner. Nays: Councilmembers Horak and Winokur. THE MOTION CARRIED. Ad.iournment At the conclusion of the Executive Session, 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 8:40 p.m. ATTEST: City Clem 1 -117-