HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES-01/16/1996-Regular' January 16, 1996
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
�I
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, January 16, 1996,
at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll Call was answered
by the following Councilmembers: Councilmembers Apt, Azari, Janett, Kneeland, McCluskey,
Smith and Wanner. Councilmembers Absent: None.
Staff Members Present: Fischbach, Krajicek, Roy.
Citizen Participation
Al Bacilli, 520 Galaxy Court, spoke of the need for a police station annex on the south side of Fort
Collins. He opposed PRPA paying dues to the Chamber of Commerce, expressed concerns
regarding affordable housing needs and spoke of the City's hiring practices.
Kelly Ohlson, 2040 Bennington Circle, spoke of an unsolicited scientific poll which 56% of the
people polled expressed concerns regarding growth. He spoke of concerns regarding the proposed
manufacturing use tax and stated the Cost of Services Study needs to be implemented before
considering a straight utility fee.
Citizen Participation Follow-up
Councilmember McCloskey responded to Mr. Bacilli's concerns regarding the branch Police Station
in Old Town, noting the majority of complaints received by the Police Department come from that
area.
Councilmember Janett reported that federal funds have been received for community policing. She
responded to Mr. Ohlson's concerns and stated growth and controlling growth is one of Council's
main concerns. She stated a Transportation Plan would soon be presented to Council.
Councilmember Apt responded to Mr. Bacilli and spoke of the funds that have been, and will
continue to be, allocated for affordable housing. He concurred with comments made by Mr. Ohlson,
stating he was not pleased with the pace of the cost of services project. He opposed looking at the
proposed manufacturing use tax issue, before reviewing the Cost of Services Study.
13
January 16, 1996
Agenda Review I
City Manager John Fischbach stated there were no changes to the agenda as published, but noted
City Attorney Steve Roy would be outlining proposed changes to Item #15, First Reading of
Ordinance No. 2, 1996 Amending Certain Criteria Contained in Section 29-526 of the City Code,
Which Criteria Pertain to the Review of Proposed Residential Uses under the Land Development
Guidance System.
***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 to be "pulled" off the Consent Calendar and considered separately.
Agenda items pulled from the Consent Calendar by the Public will be considered separately under
Agenda Item #12, Public -Pulled Consent Items. _.., _ -- _. —'—: :—
7. Postponement
of Items
Related
to the Amended Zoning and Rezoning of Two Parcels of
Land in the
Harmony
Corridor
Known as the Harmony Office Park Partnership and the
Keenan/Glass
Property
Until February
20. 1996.
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 146, 1995, Amending the Zoning District Map
of the City of Fort Collins by the Addition of a P.U.D. Condition and Excluding the
Property from the Residential Neighborhood Sign District for That Certain Property
Known as Harmony Office Park Partnership Rezoning
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 147, 1995, Amending the Zoning District Map
of the City of Fort Collins by Changing the Zoning Classification for That Certain
Property Known as Keenan Rezoning
These Ordinances were unanimously adopted on First Reading on November 21, 1995. The
applicants have requested that Second Reading consideration be postponed to February 20,
1996.
8. First Reading of Ordinance No 1 1996 Authorizing the Sale to the Resource Assistance
Center For Nonprofits Inc of Real Property Known as the Eastside Venture Property
The City owns the Property and two other parcels of property located along J.F.K. Parkway
which were acquired by the City as the result of nonpayment of SID assessments. Proposals
were solicited for the sale of these properties. Two responses were received on the Property.
14
January 16, 1996
The TRAC proposal would use the Property for eleven permanently affordable three- and
four -bedroom quality townhomes to relocate eleven families form the Pioneer Mobile Home
Park.
The Trevena's propose to relocate their skating rink to this Property.
A City committee reviewed and ranked the proposals according to the rating criteria of the
request for proposal. The TRAC proposal was the highest ranked. Staff is therefore
recommending the sale of the Property to TRAC.
9. Resolution 96-4 Amending the Administrative Regulations of the Development Impact Fee
Rebate Program for Affordable Housing by Expanding the Range of Rebates for
Homeownership Projects.
The amendment to the Administrative Guidelines for the City's Development Impact Fee
Rebate Program will increase the allowable rebates to $4,200 per unit for homeownership
projects which provide housing for families who earn 30% of the Area Median Income
(AMI). The financial impact of the amendment will be minimal since there would not likely
be many homeownership opportunities developed for families at the 30% AMI level.
10. Resolution 96-5 Approving Expenditures from the Art in Public Places Reserve Account in
the Cultural Services and Facilities Fund for the Design Services of an Artist on the English
Ranch Park Project.
Section 23-303 of the Code, which was added to the Code in 1995, established the Art in
Public Places Reserve Account, and designated it for use in acquisition or leasing of works
or art, maintenance, repair of display of works of art, and administrative expenses related to
the Art in Public Places Program, in accordance with the Art in Public Places Guidelines
adopted by the Council in Ordinance No. 20, 1995.
In connection with the ongoing design of English Ranch Park, City staff have proposed to
use $3,520 to hire an artist to serve on the design team. The artist would assist the design
team in incorporating artistic elements and works of art into the design and materials for the
park such as landscaping, play ground equipment, walkways, picnic facilities, etc. At its
December 14, 1995 meeting, the Art in Public Places Board approved this means for
incorporating works of art in the English Ranch Park project, and determined that it meets
the Art in Public Places Guidelines.
The design phase of the project will be completed in early summer. Construction of the Park
will begin sometime in mid summer with completion scheduled for early 1997.
15
January 16, 1996
11. Routine Deeds and Easements. I
A. Power line Easement from Judith Megan Jones, 722 West Mountain Avenue, needed
to underground existing overhead electric services. Monetary consideration: $10.
Items on Second Reading were read by title by City Clerk Wanda Krajicek.
Postponement of Items Related to the Amended Zoning and Rezoning of Two Parcels of
Land in the Harmony Corridor Known as the Harmony Office Park Partnership and the
Keenan/Glass Property Until February 20 1996
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 146, 1995, Amending the Zoning District Map
of the City of Fort Collins by the Addition of a P.U.D. Condition and Excluding the
Property from the Residential Neighborhood Sign District for That Certain Property
Known as Harmony Office Park Partnership Rezoning
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 147, 1995, Amending the Zoning District Map
of the City of Fort Collins by Changing the Zoning Classification for That Certain
Property Known as Keenan Rezoning
Items on First Reading were read by title by City Clerk Wanda Krajicek.
8. First Reading of Ordinance No 1 1996 Authorizing the Sale to the Resource Assistance
Center For Nonprofits Inc of Real Property Known as the Eastside Venture Property
15. First Reading of Ordinance No 2 1996 Amending Certain Criteria Contained in Section 29-
526 of the City Code Which Criteria Pertain to the Review of Proposed Residential Uses
under the Land Development Guidance System
17. First Reading of Ordinance No 3 1996 Amending Chapter 5 of the City Code to Allow
Council to Consider Approval of Rebate Requests from Projects Located Outside the City
Limits.
Councilmember McCloskey made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Wanner, to adopt and
approve all items not removed from the Consent Agenda. Yeas: Councilmembers Apt, Azari, Janett,
Kneeland, McCluskey, Smith and Wanner. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
16
January 16, 1996
ICOUNCILMEMBER REPORTS
Councilmember Apt reported that the Growth Management Committee met and discussed the
phasing criteria, which is on the agenda. He noted new street standards have also been discussed at
length, stating the Committee is looking at reducing street widths.
Mayor Azari thanked staff for its assistance during her recent State of the City Address.
Ordinance No. 2, 1996
of the Council of the City of Fort Collins
Amending Certain Criteria Contained in
Section 29-526 of the City Code, Which Criteria Pertain to the
Review of Proposed Residential Uses Under the Land Development
Guidance System Adopted Option 3 as Amended on First Reading.
The following is staff's memorandum on this item.
"Executive Summary
The Council Growth Management Committee has directed staff to develop possible changes to the
' phasing criteria previously approved by the Council. The purpose of the changes would be to
establish interim phasing criteria to ensure that development approved during the remainder of the
City Plan process will be more consistent with recently adopted policies plans and expected City
Plan policy outcomes than would likely be realized through the previously approved phasing
criteria. These additional interim changes are intended to allow appropriate development to
continue while discouraging those aspects of current development patterns that appear inconsistent
with both existing Comprehensive Plan elements and emerging City Plan policy directions. The new
phasing policy option build on the interim phasing policy revisions recently adopted by Council in
December of 1995.
1
The Council Growth Management Committee has expressed concerns that existing residential
development regulations and standards do not adequately implement goals contained in recently
adopted elements of the Comprehensive Plan. Furthermore, several clear policy directions have
emerged from the City Plan process that indicate that the physical form of new development desired
by the majority of Fort Collins residents differs in substantial ways from the physical form of
development that can now be approved under the City's existing review criteria. Council Growth
Management Committee members have expressed a concern that a significant amount of new
development may be approved according to these outdated criteria before new standards that better
reflect the community's values can be put into place through the City Plan process by the end of
1996
17
January 16, 1996
In addition to these proposed new criteria, staff is also developing new street standards and interim '
standards and guidelines for urban design to be considered separately at a later date.
BACKGROUND:
In December of 1995, Council extended the City's existing interim residential phasing criteria in
order to allow City Plan to complete work on more permanent policies. These phasing criteria had
originally been adopted by Council in July of 1994, in order to discourage leap frog development
on the city's fringe in favor of in -fill development. There were two primary policy objectives behind
the original phasing criteria. The first was to encourage compact, contiguous development to
promote more efficient delivery of city utilities and services. Generally, in fill and contiguous
development is less costly to serve than leap frog development. The second objective of the phasing
criteria was to support air quality goals by reducing the rate of growth in Vehicle Miles Traveled
(VMT). Development that is located in close proximaty to shopping centers, parks and employment
centers results in shorter and. more efficient vehicle trips than development further, away from
community services and facilities.
In addition to extending these original phasing criteria, Council made several revisions in December
to address two significant problems with the criteria that had been identified by staff. The first
problem related to clarifying how LDGS points are to be awarded for donations of off site open
space. Lack of clarity had contributed to misunderstandings and problems in application of the
criteria. The second problem related to ensuring that a minimum amount of existing LDGS
locational "base" criteria be met by new residential development. Two recent development projects
had proposed to obtain nearly all required points from "bonus" criteria, an outcome not
contemplated when the original policies were adopted and one that is clearly inconsistent with their
intent of improving the location of new development relative to community services and facilities.
ISSUES NOT ADDRESSED BY RECENT PHASING POLICY REVISIONS:
1. Allowing "base" points for planned, but unbuilt facilities will likely permit additional fringe
development to occur during the remainder of the City Plan process without adequate assurances
that key planned facilities will ever actually be built.
The existing phasing criteria allow some "base"locational points to be earned by projects proposed
near locations where community facilities or certain land uses are planned but have not yet been
constructed. The rationale for this policy is that residential construction must realistically precede
development of shopping centers and other commercial development, and existing city policies
require that a substantial portion of park development fees be collected in a given section before
parks are developed.
W
January 16, 1996
The policy of requiring a minimum number of LDGS "base" points for being near key land uses
promotes appropriate mixed use planning. Allowing at least some amount of points for planned but
unconstructed facilities accommodates the economic realities of land development. Although the
policy objective of supporting air quality goals through VMT growth reduction will not be met in
the short run period immediately after houses are built but before the other planned facilities
developed, in theory these goals will be met once the planned facilities are constructed according
to adopted Overall Development Plans (ODP).
However, there are currently no guarantees that facilities planned in ODPs will actually be
developed. Overall development plans in Fort Collins are often changed to eliminate commercial
or multi family components in favor of other uses such as single family housing after initial
residential phases have been built. Thus, there is no assurance that the points awarded for planned
facilities or neighboring land uses will prove to have been warranted.
The problem with this policy at this time is that it could allow some additional projects to be
approved in sensitive fringe areas before City Plan is complete, and before a better informed
decision can be made as to how to balance the points to be awarded for planned facilities versus
those that have actually been constructed. Few key communityfacilities have yet been built in most
sensitive fringe areas, so LDGS "base" points in these areas are most easily earned by being near
planned facilities.
' Pending the completion of City Plan, this concern can be best addressed by revising the definitions
of key LDGS " base points " to eliminate credit for planned but unconstructed facilities on an interim
basis.
2. Increased importance should be placed on LDGS "base" locational criteria to emphasize air
quality and transportation values in relation to other community values.
The LDGS residential Density point chart has always recognized that while locational criteria are
a high priority, there are other community values (such as the provision of affordable housing or
energy conservation) that should also be recognized in the evaluation of a development project. This
is accomplished through the point chart by giving credit for "bonus" criteria related to these other
community values. In December of 1995, Council adopted changes to the LDGS that established
a balance between location and other community values by requiring that in addition to the total of
60 points required for approval of a development, a minimum of 30 points must be earned from
locational criteria. However, if there is a concern that locational criteria are relatively more
important than the other community values represented in the point chart, the minimum number of
base points required could be increased to reflect that higher priority.
NEW INTERIM PHASING POLICY OPTIONS:
' Three new interim phasing policy options that respond to these issues are outlined below:
19
January 16, 1996
1. New Option I: Give "base" points for existing facilities only, and retain the existing '
requirement of a minimum of 30 "base"points.
This option would be somewhat more restrictive than the recently adopted interim phasing criteria
2. New Option 2: Give "base"points for existing facilities only, and increase the minimum
required "base" points to 40.
This option would place increased priority on locational criteria relative to the other community
values expressed by the bonus criteria. As a result, it would be more restrictive that New Option 1.
3. New Option 3: Give "base"points for existing facilities only, increase the required number
of "base" points to 40, and up to 15 "base" points for the provision of affordable housing.
This option would be similar to new Option 2, except that it would recognize the provision of
affordable housing as being a community value of higher priority than the those represented by the
other "bonus" points, and would have the practical effect of allowing some projects that would not
be able to proceed under New Option 2 to go forward if an appropriate amount of affordable
housing were provided.
EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES:
The attached staff report provides a more detailed evaluation of the practical effects of each of these '
new interim phasing policy options.
In that report, 15 developable parcels were and evaluated against both the recently adopted existing
interim phasing policy and each of the new policy options outlined above. Maps are included in that
report that illustrate which of these test parcels would pass and which would fail the minimum base
point requirements of each of the policy options.
RECOMMENDATION.
Council should review the maps contained in the attached staff report which illustrate alternative
potential development patterns that could be allowed under each of the interim phasing policy
options outlined below. Council should adopt the policy option associated with the potential
development pattern that is most appropriate to allow to continue until more permanent phasing
policies and development standards can be developed through City Plan by the end of 1996.
The existing, recently adopted interim phasing policy would delay those projects that receive very
few base points under existing LDGS point chart definitions. Extreme leap frog development would
be delayed.
January 16, 1996
New Option 1 would change existing LDGS point chart definitions to require that points only be
earned from existing facilities. Less 'fringe" urban development would be allowed under this
option.
New Option 2 would include the changes made by New Option 1, and would also increase the
importance of locational consideration relative to other community values by increasing the
minimum required base points from 30 to 40. Still less 'fringe" urban development would be
allowed.
New Option 3 would make the same changes as New Option 2, but would recognize affordable
housing as a high community value by allowing up to 15 additional base points be earned by
providing affordable housing. This would allow a similar 'fringe " urban development pattern as
New Option 1, except that some projects would be required to contain significant amounts of
affordable housing."
City Attorney Steve Roy stated after a motion is made the changes would be read into the record. -
Policy Analyst for Community Planning and Environmental Services Tom Vosburg gave a brief staff
report and spoke of the phasing criteria issues. He spoke of the intent of the interim phasing criteria,
and stated the criteria were designed to improve the location of projects adjacent to City services,
' reduce vehicle miles traveled and support air quality concerns. He briefly outlined the options
available.
Councilmember Apt stated the Growth Management Committee supported Option 3 and spoke of
the variety of reasons for revisiting the issue. He stated the Committee believed adopting interim
criteria would discourage fringe development. He spoke in support of infill development with a
mixture of affordable housing.
Vosburg reported that no focus groups or public involvement opportunities have occurred.
Councilmember Janett spoke of the prior input received by people in the development industry as
well as environmental organizations.
City Manager John Fischbach clarified this issue will be discussed at the Planning and Zoning Board
meeting on January 22, 1996, and the Board will then advise Council of its recommendation.
Councilmember Apt spoke of the need for quality development within the Urban Growth Area and
of the costs involved to extend services. He stated a well planned higher density development in the
Urban Growth area is needed.
Vosburg spoke of how bonus points for affordable housing would be given and stated no analysis
' has been done regarding the impact the proposal would have on the price of housing in the area. He
21
January 16, 1996
reported the interim phasing criteria would expire December 31, 1996 and spoke of the definition '
of a "Neighborhood Shopping Center", noting the definition has been included in the LDGS.
Councilmember Wanner made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Apt, to adopt Ordinance No.
2, 1996, Option 3, adding language to provide vesting of preliminary plans approved during the
interim period for 1 year and changing the sunset provision to read "upon adoption of City Plan as
an ordinance".
After input from the City Attorney, Councilmember Wanner offered a friendly amendment to the
previous motion, changing the interim period from 1 year to 18 months.
Councilmember Apt accepted the motion as a friendly amendment to the previous motion.
City Attorney Steve Roy read changes made to Option 3, into the record.
Craig Howe, representing the Fort Collins Board of Realtors Political Action Committee, opposed
the motion stating the Committee believed if the ordinance were to pass, property values would
greatly increase and force people who work and want to buy property in Fort Collins to move to
surrounding communities. He stated adoption of the Ordinance would violate the economic real
estate rights of property owners who own property in the Urban Growth Area and/or on the fringe
of Fort Collins. He urged Council to look at cause and effect in the "big picture".
Rick Zier, attorney representing the Boxelder Sanitation District Board, urged Council to consult '
with the Boxelder Sanitation District in its planning efforts.
William Harper, 2201 Karakul Drive, spoke of the impact the proposal would have on affordable
housing and urged Council to consider a different alternative.
Aletha Langum-Godwin, a Fort Collins resident and developer, urged Council to consider affordable
housing issues when making its decision.
Kathleen Kilkelly, representing the Northeast Neighborhood Coalition, spoke in support of Council's
intent to prevent leap frog development and supported the motion. She stated this was a positive step
in preserving the quality of life.
Eldon Ward, Cityscape Design, spoke of process concerns and of the lack of community outreach.
He stated if the Ordinance were adopted, it would hurt the ability to increase density everywhere.
He urged Council to take a different approach to the issue.
Bridget Schmid, a Fort Collins resident, stated many people working in Fort Collins live in
surrounding communities and suggested giving credit to all infill projects that fall short of interim
basis points.
22 '
1
January 16, 1996
Scott Mason, President of Citizen Planners, urged adoption of the motion. He stated the Land Use
Policy Plan, which was written in 1979, discourages urban sprawl and leap frog development. He
supported Option 3 because of credit given for existing facilities and base points for affordable
housing.
Ken Scavo, a Fort Collins resident and small developer, opposed the motion and spoke of acquisition
costs for infill properties and the impact on affordable housing.
John Guiliano, 354 High Point Drive, stated his company specialized in building affordable housing
and spoke of his reasons for not building in Fort Collins.
Margaret Phillips, representing the Dillwood Heights Homeowner's Association, supported the
motion and asked if developers and realtors had any positive suggestions to prevent leap frog
development.
Vosburg responded to Council questions and stated that in some cases, higher density infill would
be more difficult. He spoke of how density point chart is structured and stated existing LDGS
language is vague regarding the definition of "employment centers." He spoke of rewriting'the
definition of "employment center" as it pertains to a focal point, and clarified approximately 1,400
residential units have been approved over the past year since phasing has been in effect.
Councilmember Janett spoke of the need to encourage infill development, commenting that part of
the reasoning behind the phasing criteria was to reserve land for future growth.
Councilmember Apt spoke in support of the Ordinance, but requested further information on Criteria
"D" before Second Reading as well as information on developed versus planned parks.
Councilmember Kneeland spoke of her reasons for not supporting the motion, stating she believed
it jeopardized City Plan efforts.
Councilmember McCloskey stated although he agreed with several of the goals he did not support
the motion. He expressed concerns regarding the process and stated City Plan should be completed
before Council moves ahead with this Plan.
Councilmember Smith spoke in support of the motion and concurred with comments from previous
Councilmembers regarding the time frame in which the item was presented. He stated there were
3 weeks before Second Reading and invited those who expressed their concerns to contact him to
discuss figures and facts before Second Reading.
Councilmember Wanner spoke in support of the motion.
23
January 16, 1996
Councilmember Janett asked that staff look at the multi -family points issue before Second Reading. '
Mayor Azari requested staff respond to the input received.
The vote on Councilmember Wanner's motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Apt, Azari,
Janett, Smith and Wanner. Nays: Councilmembers Kneeland and McCluskey.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Resolution 96-6
Allocating $235,000 of Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) Funds, Postponed to 2/6
The following is staff's memorandum on this item.
"Executive Summary
On June 6, 1995, the City Council passed Resolution 95-76 which allocated funds from the City's
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), from the Department of Housing and Urban
Development, to various applicants for the FY 1995-96 Program year. One of the projects approved
for funding was a "Set -Aside for Mobile Home Park Development Assistance" in the amount of
$235,000. At the start of the FY 1995-96 CDBG Program year, on October 1, 1995, the City
advertised for proposals for expenditure of the available funds. Several applications were received
and reviewed by the CDBG Commission. The Commission's recommendation is reflected in
Resolution 95-6. Copies of all applications were submitted earlier to the Council under separate
cover.
BACKGROUND:
On June 6, 1995, the City Council passed Resolution 95-76 which allocated funds from the City's
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) from the Department of Housing and Urban
Development to various applicants for the FY 1995-96 Program year. One of the projects approved
for funding was a "Set -Aside for Mobile Home Park Development Assistance" in the amount of
$235,000.
At the start of the FY 1995-96 CDBG Program year, on October 1, 1995, the City advertised for
proposals for expenditure of the available funds. A request for applications was necessary because
a specific application for mobile home development assistance project/program was not approved
as part of Resolution 95-76. The City initially received the following three proposals:
$235,000 Fort Collins Housing Authority
Homeownership Opportunities - 600 Block Tenth Street, Fort Collins, CO '
24
January 16, 1996
Project proposes to develop 33 modular homes for sale in the $75,000 price range
on property owned by the Authority, located in the 600 block of Tenth Street, which
is south of east Vine Drive, east of Andersonville, and north of the San Cristo
Subdivision. Sales would be restricted to Pioneer families for 30-60 day window of
opportunity. CDBG funds would be used for infrastructure improvements. The
minimum qualifying income would be $22,000.
$ 62,250 The Resource Assistance Centerfor Nonprofits, Inc.
Parkway Townhouses - 14 townhouses
Project proposes to build 14 townhomes plus a community building to relocate 14
families from Pioneer Mobile Home Park. CDBG funds would be used to acquire
SID Parcel #7725-77-001-002, located on the northwest corner of JFK Parkway and
Troutman Parkway and SID Parcel #97360-00-051 a.k.a. Eastside Venture Property,
located on the west side of JFK Parkway, south of Troutman Parkway.
$165,000 Neighbor to Neighbor, Inc.
Relocation Assistance and Counseling
Project includes housing counseling, bi-lingual translation and relocation payments.
JD&M Management Company, owner of the Pioneer Mobile Home Park, has
provided $750 per family to assist with relocation expenses. CDBG funds would
match JD&M's funds to provide each family with $1,500 for relocation expenses
(damage deposits, utility transfer costs, first month's rent, trailer moving and/or
storage, moving truck rental, and other needs).
The above applications were reviewed by the CDBG Commission on November 9, 1995. During the
meeting, a potential applicant (Don Parsons) addressed the Commission regarding a proposed
mobile home park development project. Mr. Parsons indicated he had intended to work with the
Housing Authority on a joint proposal. However, through some miscommunication, the joint
application was not prepared in time to be submitted by the application deadline. The Commission
chose not to make a recommendation forfunding based on the applications received but decided to
reopen the process for additional or revised applications (see attached November 9 meeting
minutes).
The City readvertised on November 14, 1995. At the close of the second process the following three
applications were received:
25
January 16, 1996
$235,000 Fort Collins Housing Authority '
Homeownership Opportunities - 600 Block Tenth Street
Project proposes to develop 33 modular homes for sale in the $71,500 price range
on property owned by the Fort Collins Housing Authority, located in the 600 block
of Tenth Street, which is south of East Vine Drive, east of Andersonville, and north
of Sun Cristo subdivision. Sales to be restricted to Pioneer families for 30-60 day
window of opportunity. CDBG funds would be used for infrastructure improvement.
The minimum qualifying annual income is $22,000.
$ 35,000 The Resource Assistance Center for Nonprofits, Inc.
Parkway Townhouses - 11 townhouses
Project proposes to build 11 townhomes plus a community building to relocate 11
families from Pioneer Mobile Home Park. CDBG funds would be used to acquire
SID Parcel #97360-00-051 a.k.a. Eastside Venture Property, located on the west side
of JFK Parkway, south of Troutman Parkway.
$200,000 Neighbor to Neighbor, Inc.
Rehabilitation and relocation of Pioneer Mobile Homes and Relocation Assistance
Project includes $15,000 of CDBG funds for housing counseling, bi-lingual '
translation and relocation payments. JD&M Management Company, owner of the
Pioneer Mobile Home Park, has provided $750 per family to assist with relocation
expenses. Another $100,000 of CDBG funds would match JD&M's funds to provide
each family with $1,500 for relocation expenses (damage deposits, utility transfer
costs, first month's rent, trailer moving and/or storage, moving truck rental, and
other needs). $85,000 of CDBG funds would be used to match Aid Association for
Lutherans $50,000 for rehabilitation of mobile homes. Expenditures would include
rewiring, adding insulation, adding exterior siding, adding a sloped roof, new paint,
or other means to meet the goals of this project in accordance with rules and codes
of the City of Fort Collins and of the new park. The total amount of $135,000 would
be equivalent to approximately $3,375 per unit.
The above applications were reviewed by the CDBG Commission on December 14, 1995. One of
the initial applicants resubmitted the same proposal, while the other two initial applicants used the
additional time to submit slightly different amended proposals. The Commission forwards the
following recommendation to the City Council for allocation of available funds (see attached
December 14 meeting minutes):
26 1
J
January 16, 1996
$150,000 Fort Collins Housing Authority
Homeownership Opportunities - 600 Block Tenth Street
Justification:
The Commission believes this project provides homeownership opportunities. This
project would also benefit more residents than the other proposals.
$ 85,000 Neighbor to Neighbor, Inc.
Rehabilitation of Pioneer Mobile Homes (only)
Justification:
The Commission believes this project provides rehabilitation opportunities which are
necessaryfor Pioneer mobile homes to be relocated to an appropriate site in Fort
Collins. This project would also benefit more residents than the other proposals. "
Chief Planner Ken Waido gave a brief staff presentation on this item and stated that several mobile
homes will not be able to be moved.
Dan MacArthur, Chair of the Community Development Block Grant Commission, responded to
Council questions and spoke of the Commission's recommendations.
Rochelle Stephens, Executive Director of the Fort Collins Housing Authority, clarified the Housing
Authority owns a 5 acre parcel at the site and 20 parcels would be for sale. She spoke of possible
funding options available to assist potential low income buyers.
Bill Bertsche, member of the Community Development Block Grant Commission, responded to
Council questions and spoke of the research the Committee did on how to relocate the maximum
residents with available funds.
Councilmember Kneeland made a motion, seconded by Councilmember McCluskey, to adopt
Resolution 96-6.
Rusty Collins, Executive Director of Neighbor to Neighbor, spoke of the process involved with
bringing the mobile homes up to Code after they are relocated to Dry Creek Mobile Home Park. He
stated the funding was only for mobile home rehabilitation, and reported eviction notices would be
sent out on March 1, 1996, with an eviction date of September 1, 1996.
Councilmember Wanner emphasized he would like to hear all other possibilities before voting on
the item.
27
January 16, 1996
Waido stated the majority of mobile homes would not be acceptable at the new park because of their '
age and appearance.
Jeff Wright, Pastor of Heart of the Rockies Christian Church and representing a group of Pastors in
the South East area, urged Council to reconsider TRAC and Neighbor to Neighbor housing requests.
Beth Music, Housing Counselor for Neighbor to Neighbor, stated she has counseled between 70 and
80 households and stated that only 1 or 2 families would be able to afford mortgages in the $70,000
range. She stated the joint development with the TRAC and Don Parsons (Neighbor to Neighbor)
development would better help with homeownership opportunities. She stated the Housing
Authority's proposal would only serve a few families and requested funding assistance for Neighbor
to Neighbor for its counseling service.
Bill Bertsche, CDBG member spoke of the Commission's concerns regarding the TRAC proposal
and that the proposal would not be completed in time to serve the families of Pioneer Mobile Home
Park.
Lou Stitzel, 521 E. Laurel, spoke of the TRAC home plan. She stated that CARE housing has set
aside several units that would be available in August.
Sister Mary Alice Murphy, spoke of the need for a cooperative effort between all agencies.
Rochelle Stephens, Executive Director Fort Collins Housing Authority, showed Council a '
preliminary blueprint of the Housing Authority's proposed development.
Rusty Collins, Executive Director of Neighbor to Neighbor, spoke of the urgency to take action in
the relocation efforts. He reported the Community Development Block Grant Commission reduced
Neighbor to Neighbor's counseling budget by $9,000 and spoke of the additional costs incurred by
Neighbor to Neighbor for its counseling services due to the mobile home relocation.
Councilmember Janett stated adoption of the motion would only stand to benefit a small amount of
families and would not support the motion. She requested the Resolution be postponed giving more
time to receive additional information.
Councilmember Kneeland withdrew her previous motion.
Councilmember Janett made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Wanner, to postpone
consideration of Resolution 96-6 to February 6, 1996. Yeas: Councilmembers Apt, Azari, Janett,
Kneeland, McCluskey, Smith and Wanner. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
W.
January 16, 1996
Resolution 96-4
Amending the Administrative Regulations
of the Development Impact Fee Rebate Program
for Affordable Housing by Expanding the Range
of Rebates for Homeownership Projects Postponed to 2/6
The following is staff's memorandum on this item.
"Executive Summary
The amendment to the Administrative Guidelines for the City's Development Impact Fee Rebate
Program will increase the allowable rebates to $4,200 per unit for homeownership projects which
provide housing for families who earn 30% of the Area Median Income (AMI). The financial impact
of the amendment will be minimal since there would not likely be many homeownership
opportunities developed for families at the 30% AMI level.
BACKGROUND:
On October 4, 1994, the City Council passed, Ordinance No. 145, 1994, amending Chapter 5 of the
City Code to add an article permitting the rebate of City development impact fees for the purpose
of promoting affordable housing. Adopted as part of Ordinance 194, 1994, was Section 5-356
authorizing the City Manager to develop Administrative Regulations for the rebate program. Also
on October 4, the Council passed Resolution 94-167 adopting the Administrative Regulations for
the rebate program.
The program's regulations established two rebate schedules, one for rental projects and one for
homeownership projects. The schedules established a graduated scale of rebates allowing for
higher rebates for projects which provided housing for families with lower levels of income. The
rebate schedule for rental projects (see attached page 2 of the regulations) starts with a $600 per
unit rebate for units for families at 60% of the Area Median Income (AMI), increasing to $4,200 per
unit for units for families at 30% of AMI. The rebate schedule for homeownership projects (see
attached page 4 of the regulations) starts with a $600 per unit rebate for units for families at 80%
of the AMI, increasing to $3,000 per unit for units for families at 40% of AMI. The difference in the
amount of rebates allowed between the two schedules was done intentionally to encourage the
construction of additional affordable rental units which were deemed in greater need than
homeownership opportunities.
Ms. Lou Stitzel, Director of the Resource Assistance Center for Non -profits (TRAC), requested that
the City reevaluate the level of rebates allowed for homeownership projects. The issue was
discussed at the November 2, 1995, Affordable Housing Board meeting. The Board voted
unanimously to recommend to the Council that the rebate chart for homeownership projects be
' modified to include another increment at the 30% of AMI level with a rebate amount of $4,200 per
29
January 16, 1996
unit (see attached November 2, 1995, Board minutes). This Resolution would add another column
(the column in bold type) to the existing homeownership rebate chart for the 30% AMI level as
shown below:
PERCENTAGE OF AREA MEDIAN INCOME
Household
Size 30% 40% ..... 80%
I Person
$ 9,270
$12,400 .....
$24,750
2 People
10,620
14,150 .....
28,300
3 People
11,940
15,950 .....
31,800
4 People
13,260
17,700 .....
35,350
5 People
14,310
19,850 .....
38,200
6People
15,390
20,550 .....
41,000
7People
16,440
21,950 .....
43,850
8 People
17,490
23,350 .....
46,650
Maximum
Rebate/Unit $4,200 $3,000 ..... $600
Rebates are made from the Affordable Housing Fund. The financial impact of the amendment will
be minimal since there would not likely be many homeownership opportunities developed for
families at the 30% AMI level. "
Chief Planner Ken Waido gave a brief presentation of this item and explained the options available.
He clarified that the rebate program does not specifically set out how much or what percentage of
fees would be rebated.
After Council discussion City Manager John Fischbach requested that the item be postponed until
February 6, 1996.
Councilmember McCluskey made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Apt, to postpone the item
to February 6, 1996. Yeas: Councilmembers Apt, Azari, Janett, Kneeland, McCluskey, Smith and
Wanner. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember McCluskey asked if someone would be interested in replacing him on the
Legislative Review Committee due to his difficulties in being able to attend meetings. He stated
if meeting times could be changed to later in the day he would be able to attend.
30
C
1
January 16, 1996
Councilmember Apt stated changing the meeting time would be discussed at the upcoming
Legislative Review Committee meeting.
Councilmembers Apt and Kneeland requested information regarding the Drake Road design and
expressed concerns that it did not appear to be "pedestrian friendly".
City Manager John Fischbach reported he would arrange for a briefing with Councilmembers Apt
and Kneeland to show them what the street will look like.
Councilmember Janett made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Smith, to adjourn to 6:30 p.m.
on Tuesday, January 23, 1996. Yeas: Councilmembers Apt, Azari, Janett, Kneeland, McCluskey,
Smith and Wanner. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
M[1111;3`►l►I_I_11 "
The meeting adjourned at 11:00 p.m.
ATTEST:
11�k:yl�g �-- -
City Clerk
31
Mayor