HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES-01/05/1988-RegularJanuary 5, 1988
' 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, January 5, 1988, 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
Citizen Participation
Proclamation of Support for the INF Treaty was forwarded to the
appropriate persons.
Agenda Review: City Manager
City Manager Burkett stated staff was withdrawing Item #12, Hearing and
First Reading of Ordinance No. 5, 1988, Repealing and Reenacting Section
24-91 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins, for further staff review and
requested input from the Council on the item.
Councilmember Stoner requested Item #17, Resolution 88-4 Authorizing the
City Manager to Enter into a Professional Services Agreement with Allen,
Gibbs & Houlik to Provide an Independent Review and Analysis of the City's
Current SID Policies, 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 #21 and #27, 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.
-341-
January 5, 1988
5. Second Reading of Ordinance No 192 1987 Amending Chapter 25 of the '
Code of the City of Fort Collins Relating to Sales and Use Taxes
This Ordinance, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on
December 15, contains several amendments to Article III of Chapter 25
of the Code of the City of Fort Collins relating to sales and use
taxes. This Article was revised in its entirety in the fall of 1986.
Since that time, staff has determined that the proposed changes are
either required by recent changes in state law or would be appropriate
for purposes of clarifying the application of the sales and use tax
and insuring the enforceability of the same.
21
7.
M
This Ordinance, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on
December 15, revises the Code provisions pertaining to the
reallocation of assessments in order to permit the City to initiate
its own reallocations, if necessary, whenever district properties are
subdivided. Such reallocation is necessary to assist the County in
properly assessing the subdivided parcels.
This Ordinance, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on
December 15, would permit the expansion, with certain conditions, of
the geographic boundary of an SID after improvements have been made
and assessments levied on properties within the SID.
This Ordinance, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on
December 15, is needed to apply for the transfer of 2,814 acre-foot
units of Colorado -Big Thompson (CBT) Project water held by Fort
Collins under Temporary Use Permits to a permanent Class B Contract.
The Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District (NCWCD) requires that
Temporary Use Permits be converted to a permanent Class B Contract
every few years. The transfer to a permanent allotment contract will
have no effect on the City's ownership of the water or the assessments
paid to the District.
Second Reading of Ordinance No 198 1987 Adopting the 1988 Pay Plan
Each year the City Council adopts the pay plan which sets the salaries
of City employees. This plan -'is designed to meet the Council's goal
of rewarding employee performance and remaining competitive in the '
-342-
January 5, 1988
1
10.
labor market. This Ordinance, which was unanimously adopted on First
Reading on December 15, adopts the 1988 Pay Plan.
This is a request to rezone approximately 31.29 acres located east of
South Shields Street and north of the Larimer No. 2 Canal, from the
T-Transitional Zoning District to the R-P, Planned Residential, Zoning
District. The property is presently undeveloped.
APPLICANTS: Vaught -Frye Architects P.C.
2900 S. College Avenue
Fort Collins, CO 80525
OWNERS: CSU Research Foundation
P.O. Box 483
Fort Collins, CO 80522
A. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 2, 1988, Amending
Chapter 29 of the Code Relating to Vested Property Rights.
Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 3, 1988, Amending
Chapter 29 of the Code Relating to Zoning Regulations.
C. Hearing and First Reading of
Section 2-353(4) of the Code
Planning and Zoning Board.
Ordinance No. 4, 1988, Amending
Relating to the Functions of the
Recent changes to the State legislation have made it necessary that
new vested property rights provisions be adopted by the City. Staff
has also been reviewing the performance of the Land Development
Guidance System (LDGS), Zoning and Subdivision Codes and have
identified a number of improvements which are needed to clarify
existing regulations and add requirements which will make these
ordinances more effective. Most of the changes are minor and/or
"housekeeping" in nature and are intended to implement existing
interpretations and/or correct known problem areas in the Code. The
Planning and Zoning Board has reviewed the changes and has recommended
adoption with some minor modifications. The Board's recommended
changes have been incorporated into the proposed ordinances.
-343-
January 5, 1988
12.
13.
The existing Code requires that new arterial and collector streets be
named from a list of distinguished citizens' names approved by City
Council. The proposed ordinance would allow the option of other
street names to be used but would require all street names, including
the names of local streets, to be approved by the Planning and Zoning
Board. This will allow the process of street naming to proceed in a
more efficient manner.
The improvements in the district were accepted by the Council on
December 1, 1987. Notice of the assessment has been published and
mailed to the affected property owners. This ordinance is the final
step in the closeout of the district.
14. Items Relating to the Establishment of a Self -Insurance Program and
Fund.
A. Resolution 88-1 Establishing a Self -Insurance Program and a
Self -Insurance Fund.
15.
Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 7, 1988, Creating a
Self -Insurance Fund and Transferring Monies for Appropriation.
The City has investigated the available insurance alternatives. After
evaluating these alternatives, the City has chosen to self insure up
to certain limits. The resolution and ordinance permit the City to
self insure and authorize a self insurance fund that will cover claims
up to the governmental immunity limits of $150,000 per person and
$400,000 per occurrence.
This resolution approves an agreement with the Union Pacific Railroad
for the installation of railroad crossing improvements on East Drake
Road. These improvements will include signals with gates and
rubberized crossing material. The total cost of the improvements is
estimated at $130,205 of which the City will pay an estimated $46,101
from the Railroad Crossing Improvement Program. The remainder will be
paid by the Union Pacific and the PUC.
The project appears to be well within budget. The City's share of the
signals was much less than budgeted. The project will be completed in
1988.
-344-
January 5, 1988
16. Resolution 88-3 Authorizing the Execution of a Supplemental Lease
Agreement with the Union Pacific Railroad Company for a Portion of the
Jefferson Street Parking Lot and of the Jefferson Street Linden Street
Mini -Park.
This Resolution authorizes the City Manager to execute a supplemental
lease agreement with the Union Pacific Railroad Company extending the
term of the lease agreement relating to a portion of the Jefferson
Street parking lot and of the Jefferson Street -Linden Street
Mini -Park.
17.
The City Council requested that an independent review of the City's
SID policies be conducted and the results be provided to the Council
in February of 1988. Mr. Mark Dick of Allen, Gibbs & Houlik of
Wichita, Kansas has reviewed the scope of the project and determined
that he can accomplish the work and meet the proposed timetable for a
fee of $20,000 plus out-of-pocket expenses, total not to exceed
$25,000.
on
1 the Status of Women.
An alternate position is currently vacant on the Commission on the
Status of Women due to the resignation of Patricia Connor Young. The
Council liaison has reviewed the applications on file.
19.
In keeping with Counci1's policy, the recommendation for this
appointment was announced at the December 15 meeting. The appointment
was tabled to allow time for public input.
The prospective appointee is:
Beth Ann Smith, Alternate
On October 6, Council adopted a resolution creating the CHOICES 95
Capital Improvements Advisory Committees. Council believes that these
committees will communicate the concerns of the community and advise
the Council on important capital needs for the City.
In keeping with Council's policy, the recommendations for these
appointments were announced at the,December 22 adjourned meeting. The
appointments were tabled for two weeks to allow time for public input.
-345-
January 5, 1988
20. Routine Deeds and Easements '
a. Storm drainage easement from Gerald and Elizabeth Dusbabek.
Consideration. $6,500.
b. Powerline easement from the City of Fort Collins to Platte River
Power Authority at the Transfort Bus Service Facility.
Consideration: $1.
c. Nine Deeds of Easement from CSU Research Foundation and Everitt
Enterprises relating to the Centre for Advanced Technology Special
Improvement District No. 90. Consideration: $1 each.
d. Easement from the City of Fort Collins to Poudre R-1 School
District for access across Westfield Park. Consideration:
Exchange of parking for park users for school access easement.
e. Storm drainage easement from Robert R. and June C. Baker for the
Greenbriar Outfall Storm Sewer. Consideration: $3,126.20.
f. Powerline easement from Fred R. and Dorothy L. McClanahan at 5001
South College Avenue. Consideration: $2,700.
Ordinances on Second Reading were read by title by Wanda Krajicek, City
Clerk.
Item #5. Second Readin of Ordinance No. 192 1987 Am ding Chapter 25 of
the Code of the Cit of Fort Collins Relating to Sales and Use
Taxes.
Item #6. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 193 1987 Amendin Section 22-99
of the Code of the Cit of Fort Collins Relatingto Reallocation of Assessments for S ecial Improvement Districts.
Item #7. Second Readin of Ordinance No. 194 1987 Amending Section 22-38
of the Code Relating to Changes in Local Public Improvement
Districts.
Item #8.
Item #9.
Ordinances on First Reading were read by title by Wanda Krajicek, City
Clerk.
Item #10.
-346-
January 5, 1988
' RE
dE
Item #11. A.
B.
C.
Item #12. He
Re
Item #13.
Item #14. B.
priatiin.
Councilmember Maxey made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kirkpatrick,
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 88-4 Authorizing the City
Manager to Enter into a Professional
Services Agreement with Allen,
Gibbs & Houlik to Provide an
Independent Review and Analysis of
the City's Current SID Policies Denied
Following is staff's memorandum on this item:
"Financial Impact
The fee, not to exceed $25,000, for these professional services will be
paid from the City Manager's contingency fund and will not impact vital
City services.
Executive Summary
The City Council requested that an independent review of the City's SID
policies be conducted and the results be provided to the Council in
February of 1988. Mr. Mark Dick of Allen, Gibbs & Houlik of Wichita,
-347-
January 5, 1988
Kansas has reviewed the scope of the project and determined that he can
accomplish the work and meet the proposed timetable for a fee of $20,000 I
plus out-of-pocket expenses, total not to exceed S25,000.
Background
On December 15, 1987, the City Council drafted a schedule for the review of
the City's SID policies. The Council also requested that the City's
independent auditors, Peat, Marwick, Main & Co., review the current SID
policies, the staff SID Report and the concerns of the development
community and provide the Council with its findings and conclusions. The
Council felt that by using the City's independent auditor the problem of
expending time familiarizing a consultant with the programs and procedures
of the City could be eliminated and the timetable set by the Council could
be met. Peat, Marwick, Main & Co. declined to accept this project because
they also represent members of the local development community which might
give the appearance that the firm is not independent.
Mr. Mark Dick of Allen, Gibbs & Houlik of Wichita, Kansas was then
contacted to perform the SID review and analysis. This firm was previously
affiliated with Main, Hurdman when they held the audit engagement for the
City of Fort Collins. Mr. Dick is familiar with the City and will not
require any time to familiarize himself with our financial procedures. He
is very well qualified to perform the work, having over twenty years
experience in governmental accounting, auditing and financial reporting.
He has taught other financial professionals through the Governmental
Finance Officers Association and has performed many consulting engagements
for governmental agencies. His most current work is a project for the
State of Kansas.
The work will be performed within the timelines established by the Council
for the review of the City's SID policies and procedures. The fee for Mr.
Dick's services is $20,000 plus out-of-pocket expenses for a total not to
exceed $25,000. This fee is reasonable for a project expected to require
two hundred man hours to complete."
Councilmember Kirkpatrick made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Horak,
to adopt Resolution 88-4.
City Manager Burkett and Finance Director Alan Krcmarik responded to
questions from Council about this item.
Larry Scott, 2821 Eagle Drive, stated he thought CSU could provide many
resources for this type of work.
Councilmember Stoner stated he would not support the Resolution because he
thought $20,000 was an unreasonable fee.
Councilmember Mabry stated he supported the concept, but not the package
presented. He expressed interest in an independent review of the staff
report to determine if the facts are accurate and to review the cost '
calculations to determine the fairness of the fee recommendations.
-348-
January 5, 1988
'
Councilmember Horak stated he appreciated
Council's
the staff attempt to address
desire for an
independent review.
He suggested the contract be
renegotiated with Mr.
Dick and stated
Mr. Dick's credentials were
appropriate for the task
at hand, noting the
rates were not overpriced.
Mayor Estrada stated it was not cost effective to pay $20,000 for the work
requested and asked staff to bring back a limited RFP arrangement in order
to receive a lower bid.
The vote on Councilmember Kirkpatrick's motion to adopt Resolution 88-4 was
as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Horak, Kirkpatrick, and Winokur. Nays:
Councilmembers Estrada, Mabry, Maxey, and Stoner.
THE MOTION FAILED.
City Manager Burkett requested additional direction from Council on this
issue.
The consensus of Council was to have staff prepare a limited RFP that meets
the scope of services outlined in an attempt to receive a lower bid as soon
as possible.
Staff Reports
' Finance Director Alan Krcmarik presented a Certificate of Achievement for
Excellence in Financial Reporting for the City's 1986 Comprehensive Annual
Financial Report to Mayor Estrada. He recognized members of the Accounting
staff for their work on the Report.
City Manager Burkett reported on snow removal efforts during the end of
1987 and the cost for that snow removal. He thanked staff for their hard
work and overtime during the holiday season.
Councilmember Reports
Councilmember Horak spoke of the need for citizens to shovel snow from the
sidewalks adjoining their property. He questioned the City's enforcement
of the Code requirement to shovel within 24 hours.
In response to a question by Councilmember Maxey, Utility Services Director
Rich Shannon stated although the Code requires removal within 24 hours, the
City's enforcement action is to give the homeowner 24 hours to correct the
situation after a complaint is received. He added that if the homeowner
does not take appropriate action, the City removes the snow and bills the
homeowner. He stated the current staffing level could not accommodate a
more aggressive enforcement policy.
-349-
January 5, 1988
of the safety concerns when children are '
Councilmember Horak stated he would like to see a more concerted effort to
enforce snow removal. He spoke
forced to walk in the street on the way to school because sidewalks have
not been cleared. and First
Hearing
chapter 29 of the Code Relating
Councilmember Kirkpatrick brought attention to Item #11 ,
Reading of Ordinance No. 2, 1h88, Amending
to Vested Property Rights, which was adopted on the Consent Agenda. She
ke
and Zoning Board to scrutinize
noted this issue was discussed at length at the state lofeFortand
Colpons.o
the amount of work by staff and the Pto the City
this state regulation and make it applicable
City Manager Burkett asked for further discussion of the snow -on -sidewalks
issue. employees such as
Councilmember Horak stated he would like certain City rime
nants. He
police oevedf majors thoroughfaresaands s
and meter to act collector streets should be thetp he
bel
focus.
Councilmember Maxey noted approximately 10 days have passed since the last
storm and many sidewalks are still not cleared. He expressed concern about
the City's liability in not enforcing the Code.
the community more
Councilmember Kirkpatrick stressiveeenforcementreferred tof9thenCode. She expressed
notice before beginning g9 aggressive
concern that many citizens are of education period followed
sidewalks to clear
sidewalks and suggested a 30 day
enforcement.
ot want the City to become excessively
Councilmember Stoner stated he did n
aggressive in its enforcement Policy- employees who are out in the
Councilmember Mabry agreed that Cityical
neighborhoods
ntheyrshould spend extradtimelpatroli g for violators.
he
did
ointed out that if the snow was placed on the sidewalk by City owing
Councilmember Winokur concurred with Councilmembers Stoner and Mabry,plowing
an
p can be called upon to remove the snow.
crews, the City
Items Relating to Referendum Petition
Concerniina Ordinance No. 181 1987
Following is staff's memorandum on this item:
I
-350-
January 5, 1988
"Executive Summary
A. Motion to Accept City Clerk's Certification of the Referendum Petition;
AND
B. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 9, 1988, Repealing Ordinance
No. 181, 1987, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the General Fund
and Authorizing the Transfer of Appropriated Amounts from the General
Fund to the Capital Projects Fund; OR
C. Motion Directing Staff to Prepare an Ordinance to Call a Special City
Election and Placing Referred Ordinance No. 181, 1987 on the Ballot; OR
D. Motion Directing that Referred Ordinance No. 181, 1987 be Placed on the
Ballot at the March 7, 1989 Regular City Election.
The City Clerk has verified that a referendum petition filed on December
15, 1987 contains at least 911 signatures of registered city voters, which
is the requisite number of signatures to require Council to either repeal
Ordinance No. 181, 1987 or place it on the ballot at the next regular City
election (March 7, 1989) or a special city election.
Background
Ordinance No. 181, 1987 was adopted by the City Council on November 17,
' 1987. The Ordinance is suspended upon the certification of the referendum
petition to the City Council.
On November 17, 1987, Ordinance No. 181, 1987 was adopted on second reading
by a 7-0 vote. The purpose of the Ordinance was to appropriate $412,670 of
General Fund Prior Year Reserves to the Capital Project Fund for the
relocation of some staff to 281 North College and the renovation/remodeling
of the Downtown Community Center, City Hall East, City Hall West, and the
old Toliver's building on Block 31. Staff recommended adoption of this
Ordinance for several reasons:
- The relocations/renovations are believed to be consistent with
the Council's goals of:
1. Improving the City's image and service attitude.
2. Maintaining and enhancing the City's fiscal health.
3. Improving the delivery of basic services.
4. Enhancing working relations/agreements with other
governments.
The relocations/renovations would:
I. Improve the working environment for many City employees.
2. Provide sufficient space for the affected departments for
5 years.
' 3. Create a "development center" for the processing of
development requests.
-351-
January 5, 1988
Provide more programming space for the Downtown Community
Center and RSVP.
Provide an area to meet the critical space needs of
Administrative Services and Police.
Provide space for the proper storage of Museum displays.
Save $25,000 per year by reducing current lease payments
for space used by the Building Repairs & Maintenance
division.
Staff believes that the leasing of 281 North College would provide the best
solution to the City's space needs for the short run because:
It is the least -cost option on a square foot basis. The total
annual cost (0&M, lease and capital amortization) over a 5-7 year
period would be $8 to $8.25.
It takes advantage of existing office space at a very competitive
rate. 281 North College would cost about $75,000 per year for
over 25,000 square feet, or $2.99 per square foot.
Council must now decide whether to repeal the ordinance or place it on a
city election ballot. If Council were to decide not to repeal the
Ordinance, the earliest date a special election could be held is May 17,
1988. Under provisions of the City Code and the Colorado Municipal
Election Code, changes in municipal precinct boundaries must be
accomplished no later than 90 days prior to an election. Boundary changes
are necessary for some precincts to make them conform to the new boundaries
of County precincts. An Ordinance making the necessary changes to the City
precinct boundary map could be scheduled for first reading on January 19 at
the same time an Ordinance calling a special election could be considered.
Should Council decide not to repeal Ordinance No. 181, 1987, the following
is a tentative calendar for a May 17 special city election, which is the
earliest date a special city election could be held:
January 19 - Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance Calling a
Special Election for May 17; Hearing and First
Reading of Ordinance Setting Precinct Boundaries.
February 2 - Second Reading of Ordinances Calling Special
Election and Setting Precinct Boundaries.
May 17 - Special City Election.
The approximate cost for conducting a special city election is $25,000.
The City could also request that Larimer County conduct a special city
election in conjunction with the November General Election, at an
approximate prorated cost to the city of $2500. This option would be at
the discretion of the County Clerk. The final option if Council does not
repeal the Ordinance is to place the matter on the March 7, 1989.'regu7ar
city election ballot.
-352-
January 5, 1988
The successful circulation of
the
citizen initiated petition
against
Ordinance No. 181, 1987 is frustrating
for staff. Staff did a great
job of
analyzing the problem, weighing
the alternatives, recommending
a good
solution, and communicating the solution
to the Manager and Council.
It is
disappointing that such a small
number of signatures, around 2%
of the
registered voters, can cause the
repeal/referral of an Ordinance.
It's
difficult to believe that this is
a major issue to the community at
large.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff has met with the individuals who initiated this petition. It appears
that they had different reasons for opposing the ordinance - concern about
building another parking lot, concern that the CHOICES 95 Committee be
included in the decision, and the "debut" of the Larimer County Taxpayers
Reform Group. It appears that these individuals now have a better
understanding of the City's space needs.
Staff recommends that Council repeal the ordinance. Referring it to a
special election would be costly, and the time delay would essentially
"ki11" the deal on 281 North College. Staff will continue to pursue
solutions to the space needs, and will continue to work with concerned
individuals. Staff is optimistic that they can bring back to Council
another proposal to meet the space needs, that will not meet with such
strong objections."
' City Manager Burkett stated staff was recommending Council accept the City
Clerk's Certification and adopt Item B which was an ordinance repealing
Ordinance No. 181, 1987. He stated the expense of an election was not
warranted. He added staff would be discussing other options with the group
responsible for -circulating the petitions.
Councilmember Maxey made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Horak, to
accept the City Clerk's Certification of the Referendum Petition. Yeas:
Councilmembers Estrada, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Mabry, Maxey, Stoner, and
Winokur. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Mabry, to
adopt Ordinance No. 9, 1988 on First Reading, Yeas: Councilmembers
Estrada, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Mabry, Maxey, Stoner, and Winokur. Nays:
None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Resolution 88-5 Making an Appointment
to the Economic Opportunity Advisory
' Committee Tabled to January 19
Following is staff's memorandum on this item:
-353-
January 5, 1988
"A vacancy currently exists on the Economic Opportunities Advisory
Committee due to the resignation of Jo -an Barnett. The Council liaison has
conducted interviews and will announce the recommendation at the January 5
City Council meeting.
In keeping with Council's policy, this recommendation will be tabled until
January 19 to allow time for public input."
Councilmember Winokur made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Horak, to
adopt Resolution 88-5 inserting the name of Doug Dickson.
Councilmember Winokur made a motion,
table Resolution 88-5 to January 19.
Kirkpatrick, Mabry, Maxey, Stoner, and
THE MOTION CARRIED.
seconded by Councilmember Mabry, to
Yeas: Councilmembers Estrada, Horak,
Winokur. Nays: None.
Appeal of a Planning and Zoning Board
Decision of Approval (Case #57-87)
Regarding a 1.78 Acre Planned Unit
Development Known as The North Lemay
Plaza, Planning and Zoning Board
Decision Upheld With Conditions
Following is staff's memorandum on this item:
"Executive Summary
At the November 2, 1987 Planning and Zoning Board hearing (continued from
the regularly scheduled meeting of October 26, 1987), the Board approved a
request for preliminary approval of the North Lemay Plaza. This request
involves 1.78 acres at the southwest corner of Conifer Street and Lemay
Avenue. The proposed uses are a 2,604 square foot convenience store with
three gas pump islands and canopy and a 10,672 square foot retail building.
Background
The applicant has proposed a 1.78 acre convenience commercial center on
property that was zoned R-L-M, Low Density Multiple Family. The PUD
proposal was reviewed under the criteria of the Land Development Guidance
System (LDGS) and found to satisfy the locational and design criteria for
an Auto -Related and Roadside Commercial land use.
Staff found the orientation of the buildings, the architecture, the
landscaping and buffering, the off -site landscaping, and the reduced
signage are sensitive design characteristics which contribute toward
neighborhood compatibility, and promote quality development encouraged by
the LDGS.
H
-354-
l
January 5, 1988
The appellant takes issue with Neighborhood Compatibility component of the
A17 Development Numbered Criteria Chart of the Land Development Guidance
System. It is the appellant's contention that lighting, hours of
operation, and the sale of pornographic material and alcohol would have a
negative impact on the neighborhood.
The appellant further claims that Auto -Related and Roadside Commercial
Point Chart of the LDGS unfairly awards a development proposal with the
credit available under Energy Conservation criterion. The appellant
contends that this credit is undeserved since current private market
construction practices typically accomplish the same result that the LDGS
criterion is attempting to encourage. The appellant alleges the proposal
would not achieve the minimum score of 50% on the point chart, the energy
conservation credit assumes an exaggerated weighing without an equivalent
sacrifice by the developer."
Councilmember Stoner stated he would withdraw from the discussion and vote
on this issue due to a perceived conflict of interest.
City Attorney Huisjen stated this is an on -the -record appeal and that no
new evidence should be presented to the Council. He stated Council would
first need to determine if there are grounds that are sufficient for
' appeal.
Assistant City Attorney Paul Eckman stated the Code provides for the City
Attorney to analyze an appeal when it is received and advise the City Clerk
of any obvious defects in form or substance. He stated in accordance with
the Code, he advised the City Clerk that it did not appear to him that the
appellants had stated legitimate grounds for appeal except for the portion
of the appeal filed by Mr. Kurt Smeester. He stated Mr. Smeester's appeal
presents the argument that the number criteria chart and point chart D
might not have been properly analyzed by the Planning and Zoning Board and
that the development might not be compatible with the neighborhood with
respect to lighting, store hours, sale of pornographic material, and sale
of alcohol. He stated Mr. Smeester's appeal alleged that the Board failed
to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Code. He stated
other portions of the appeal raise issues of traffic and neighborhood
compatibility, but did not allege the Board made a mistake in its actions.
He stated Council has the option to determine those issues do constitute
grounds for appeal. Mr. Eckman stated in his conversations with the
applicant, the issues of the sale of pornographic material and the sale of
liquor in the convenience store could be resolved by compromise. He
responded to questions from Council.
City Attorney Huisjen and Assistant City Attorney Eckman provided further
clarification of the appeal process in response to Council questions.
' Councilmember Kirkpatrick made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Horak,
that there are sufficient written grounds to hear the appeal based on
grounds relating to errors in interpretation of energy conservation
standards (point chart D) raised by appellant Smeester and including the
-355-
January 5, 1988
neighborhood compatibility and environmental standards issues raised by I
appellants Nelson, Moser, Brungardt, Clemet, and Sigward.
Councilmember Mabry stated he would vote against the motion because he
believed it set a precedent for parties to appeal any Planning and Zoning
Board decision because the party disagrees with the decision of the Board.
He stated the Code requires the appellant to make specific allegations
about alleged errors in the Planning and Zoning Board decision.
Councilmember Winokur asked that the appeals procedure be reviewed and
revised for clarity. He stated that Council must operate under the Code as
currently written and therefore he would vote to hear the appeal as stated
by Councilmember Kirkpatrick.
Mayor Estrada stated he agreed with many of the points made by
Councilmember Mabry, and also agreed that the current appeals process is
unclear. He stated under the current process he believed this project was
appealable.
Councilmember Horak stated he did not believe the appeals process needs
major revision. He stated the Code, as written, was workable for the
citizens who will be making appeals to Council. He stated he did not want
the process to become too legalistic.
Mayor Estrada stated although he agreed with many of Councilmember Horak's
comments, he thought the difference between a referral and an appeal should
be made clear.
Councilmember Mabry stated he believed Council was changing the intent of
the Code with this appeal, and questioned why a vote was needed to hear the
appeal because it appears anything constitutes grounds for appeal.
The vote on Councilmember Kirkpatrick's motion to hear the appeal was as
follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Estrada, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Maxey, and
Winokur. Nays: Councilmember Mabry. (Councilmember Stoner withdrawn)
THE MOTION CARRIED.
City Planner Ted Shepard gave a presentation on this project and the
actions taken by the Planning and Zoning Board. He answered questions from
Council.
Mayor Estrada stated the appellants would have 20 minutes to present their
appeal, and the opponents would have 20 minutes to comment or rebut the
grounds of the appeal, followed by 10 minutes for open, public discussion.
He reminded parties involved that new evidence should not be presented to
Council.
Kurt Smeester, 1200 Clark, appellant, stated the appeal of the Planning and
Zoning, Board's decision to approve this project was based on the premise '
that the' criteria of the Land Development Guidance System was improperly
evaluated, specifically relating to neighborhood compatibility. He stated
-356-
January 5, 1988
the appellants do not believe the project is compatible with the
surrounding neighborhood for the following reasons: (1) the potential for
operation of the store on a 24-hour basis; (2) noise, traffic, and
lighting; and (3) sale of pornographic material. Mr. Smeester elaborated
on the noise, traffic, and increased lighting that the project will
generate. He stated he did not believe the sale of pornographic material
and alcohol was socially compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. He
pointed out that, using point chart D, the project was approved by a bare
minimum of 50% of the points needed to pass. Mr. Smeester stated he did
not believe the point earned for energy conservation was earned by the
developer. He mentioned potential problems relating to underground water.
He stated the majority of the neighborhood do not want the project built,
but realize development is inevitable. He added the neighborhood is not
opposed to development, but would like some control in order to ensure that
the character of the neighborhood is maintained and that property values
will not decrease. He suggested if the decision of the Planning and Zoning
Board cannot be reversed, limitation of the store hours and sale of
pornographic materials and alcohol would be acceptable to the neighborhood.
Jessie Brungardt, 1307 Monterey Drive, appellant, expressed concern about
the criminal element that this type of development might attract. He spoke
about the placement of an underground storage tank near a body of water
that has direct drainage into the Poudre River.
Robert Baker, Moondrift Farms, spoke of current traffic problems in the
area and the impact this project will have on that situation.
Bill Giesenhagen, owner/developer of the property, stated the owners of the
convenience store have no immediate plans to operate the store on a 24-hour
basis. He stated the store will not sell pornographic materials. He
stated he believed the lights from traffic on the collector and arterial
streets are more intense than the lighting the project will generate. He
added he thought more noise would be generated from daily traffic than from
the project itself. He noted PDQ has not obtained a liquor license and
when application is made, the Liquor Licensing Authority will determine
whether a license is appropriate for that location. He spoke of the heavy
landscaping planned for the project. Mr. Giesenhagen explained the energy
conservation measures being taken on this project. He stated he did not
believe there was a reason to be concerned about the underground storage
tank. He spoke of the design of the project in an attempt to make it
aesthetically compatible with the neighborhood.
Yank Banowetz, 12 Forest Hills Lane, representing the Lindenwood Homeowners
Association, spoke of the Association's concerns about traffic and
neighborhood compatibility.
Councilmembers asked questions of several staff members and the parties who
spoke to the appeal.
Traffic Engineer Rick Ensdorff described the traffic situation in the area
and spoke of the traffic study process to be completed prior to final
approval of the project.
-357-
January 5, 1988
Councilmember Kirkpatrick made a motion to modify the Planning and Zoning
Board decision to include the condition that the convenience store be
limited in its hours of operation to the hours of 6 a.m. to 11 p.m.
THE MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND.
Councilmember Maxey made a motion to uphold the decision of the Planning
and Zoning Board with the additional conditions that the store hours be
limited to the hours of 6 a.m. to 11 p.m., that no pornographic material be
sold, and the traffic impact of the complex be mitigated in the initial
phase.
THE MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND.
Councilmember Kirkpatrick made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Winokur,
to modify the Planning and Zoning Board decision to include the condition
that the convenience store be limited in its hours of operation to the
hours of 6 a.m. to 11 a.m.
Councilmember Kirkpatrick stated she believed the problems the neighborhood
has with point chart D indicated a problem with the overall LOGS procedure,
especially in the energy conservation criteria. She stated she believed
the project met the criteria, and falls within the overall LOGS philosophy
that different uses can be made compatible with the neighborhoods with the
use of buffering and architectural considerations. She stated she was
willing to slightly modify the Planning and Zoning Board decision to
include the limitation of hours, adding she was not concerned about the
project's compatibility.
The vote on Councilmember Kirkpatrick's motion to modify the decision of
the Planning and Zoning Board was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers
Estrada, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Mabry, Maxey, and Winokur. Nays: None.
(Councilmember Stoner withdrawn)
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Other Business
Councilmember Stoner suggested staff bring back at least two options to
exempt charitable organizations from paying sales tax. He listed two
options: (1) modifying the existing ordinance, and (2) developing criteria
to allow organizations to make application for exemption.
Mayor Estrada added a third option to restrict any exemptions to occasional
or temporary sales. He directed staff to prepare options for Council
consideration.
Councilmember Horak expressed an interest in obtaining information on how
the State of Colorado and other municipalities deal with this issue.
-358=
1
January 5, 1988
' Councilmember Kirkpatrick stated she was primarily interested in the option
that would exempt organizations for occasional sales.
Councilmember Maxey stated he was interested in finding out which
organizations are required to pay state tax.
Adjournment
Councilmember Maxey made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Stoner, to
adjourn the meeting to 6:00 p.m. on January 12, 1988. Yeas: Councilmembers
Estrada, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Mabry, Maxey, Stoner, and Winokur. Nays:
None.
The meeting adjourned at 10:25 p.m.
City Clerk X k')
-359-