HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES-11/05/1985-RegularNovember 5, 1985
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, November 5, 1985, 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: Clarke, Estrada, Horak, Knezovich, Ohlson, Rutstein, and
Stoner.
Staff Members Present: Shannon, Huisjen, Krajicek, Lewis, Hopkins, Harmon
Agenda Review: City Manager
Interim City Manager Shannon pointed out there was a revised version of the
Resolution dealiny with the appointment of the City Auditor.
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 Item #37, 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 be staff or Council. These items will be
discussed immediately following the Consent Calendar.
4. �roval of the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of October 1 and the
Adjourned Meeting of October IU, 1985.
5. Tabling of Items Relating to the Annexation and Zoning of Property
Known as Stute Annexation #3.
A. Tabling of the Second Reading of Ordinance No. 92, 1985, Annexing
Property Known as the Stute Annexation #3.
B. Tabling of the Second Reading of Ordinance No. 93, 1985, Zoning
Property Known as the Stute Annexation #3.
These ordinances were unanimously adopted on First Reading on August
20. The applicants have requested these ordinances be tabled on
Second Reading until December 3. Adoption of the Consent Agenda will
l accomplish this tabling.
-32-
November 5, 1985
6. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 127, 1985 Vacating the East 40 Feet
of the Frontage Road as Platted.
This ordinance was unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 15.
This item is being considered in regard to lots 29 through 40 of the
Replat of a Part of Fairway Estates where Fred Schmid Appliances is
planning to build a new store.
7. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 128 1985 Appropriating $10 498 from
Transfort Prior Year Reserves in the Transportation Services Fund for
Transfer to the Capital Projects Fund and Appropriating $10,498 of
Unanticipated Revenue for Expenditure in the Capital Projects Fund.
This ordinance was unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 15.
After the sale of three Mercedes buses in 1983 for $10,498, the funds
were incorrectly deposited in the Transfort Miscellaneous Revenue
account. In order to correct this mistake and meet the conditions of
the UMTA grant, this amount needs to be appropriated from Transfort
Capital Reserves, transferred to the Capital Projects Fund, and
appropriated for expenditure.
8. Hearing and Second Reading of Ordinance No. 130, 1985, Relating to the
Issuance of Industrial Development Revenue Bonds Series 1985 in the
Principal Amount of $1,350,000 for the Purpose of Loaning Funds to J&E
Enterprises to Finance the Alpine Manufacturing Inc. Project.
The Ordinance was unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 15
and provides for the issuance of $1,350,000 in Industrial Development
Revenue Bonds, 1985, for J & E Enterprises for the purpose of
financing improvements related to acquiring, developing, constructing
and equipping an office and manufacturing building (the Alpine
Manufacturing, Inc. Project).
The Public Hearing on this matter is scheduled at this time and is
required by the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982.
9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 133, 1985, Authorizing the Issuance of
$9,000,000 Sales and Use Tax Revenue Bond Anticipation Notes for the
Pool/Rink Project and Appropriating the Proceeds.
This Ordinance was unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 15
and provides the financing for the Pool/Rink Project approved by
voters May 1, 1984. The Sales and Use Tax Revenues Bond Anticipation
Notes (BAN) sale was negotiated with United Bank of Fort Collins and
their correspondent, Morgan Guarantee Trust Company of New York at 68%
of Morgan's Prime Interest Rate to be adjusted as the Prime Interest
Rate changes. Currently prime is at 9.5% resulting in an interest
rate on the BAN of 6.46%. The BAN is due in five years.
1
-33-
...
November 5, 1985
10. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 134 1985
$54,000 of Unanticipated Revenue in the Cultural Servic
un
riati
Because of booking additional sponsored productions, the Performing
and Visual Arts Division of the Cultural Services & Facilities Fund
will need an additional appropriation of $54,000 in 1985.
The additional $54,000 will be offset with $54,000 in revenues
generated from the additional programs in 1985, and will not affect
the subsidy needed by the Department from the General Fund.
11. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 135 1985 Vacating all
Easements on the Replat of Lots 1 and 2 Timberline Apartments PUD
This is a blanket vacation of easements in the Timberline Apartments
PUD. This parcel was recently approved as Timberline Village PUD, a
single family residential area. All necessary easements have been
established in their revised alignments. The utilities have no
problem with the vacation.
12. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 136, 1985, Relating to the
Issuance of Industrial Develo meet Revenue Bonds, Series 1985, in the
Principal Amount of 600,000 for Mountain Avenue Plaza Associates
The Ordinance provides for the issuance of 1601,010 in Industrial
Development Revenue Bonds, 1985, for Mountain Avenue Plaza Associates
for the purpose of the acquisition, re -development and renovation of
two buildings on West Mountain Avenue. The developing partnership
intends to return the store fronts of the buildings to their original
appearance and create a covered pedestrian accessway from Mountain
Avenue to the parking lot on the north.
13. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 137, 1985, Relating to the
Issuance of Industrial Development Revenue Bonds Series 1985 in the
Principal Amount of $920,000 for Tulakes Associates.
The Ordinance provides for the issuance of $920,000 in Industrial
Development Revenue Bonds, 1985, for Tulakes Associates for the
purpose of financing improvements relating to the construction of a
10,500 square foot building addition devoted to offices, research and
manufacturing facilities for the production of ion beam power supplies
and related components.
14. Resolution Waiving the Off -Site Street Improvements Requirement for
Development in the UGA Known as Wise Acre PUD Waiver
This is a request to waive the off -site street improvement
requirements for Wise Acre PUD, given minimal impact on the street
system as a result of the a two -lot, single family subdivision.
-34-
November 5, 1985
15. Resolution Authorizing the City Manag
Services Agreement for $24,597 with Gr
Drainage Study and Design Services in
McClellands/Mail Creek Drainaae Basins.
to Enter a Professional
iorne 8 O Mara, Inc. for
e Foothills/Fox Meadows/
This contract will focus on two primary tasks: First to update,
revise, and extend the McClellands/Mail Creek Basin Master Plan and
second, to extend and complete work already begun on the design of a
drainage system for the Foothills and Fox Meadows Basins that will
utilize the Fossil Creek Reservoir Inlet Ditch. The product of the
first task will be the printing of a new basin master plan report; the
product of the second will be preliminary design plans and cost
estimates for the construction of the Foothills/Fox Meadows outfall
drainage system. The contract will be completed in March of 1986.
16. Resolution Approving an
Licensing Construction.
Under a Railroad Track.
reement with Union Pacific Railroad Company
aintenance, and Operation of a Waterline
This Resolution would authorize the Mayor to sign an agreement with
Union Pacific Railroad licensing the City to bore under the railroad
track to install a portion of the water line which will serve the
Anheuser-Busch brewery. The agreement allows the City access to the
property for the purposes of constructing, maintaining, and operating
the water line.
17. Resolution Endorsing the Colorado Water Conservation Board's (CWCB
Acquisition of Water Rights in the Cache La Poudre River for th
Purpose of Preservinq the Environment.
This Resolution expresses the City's support and agreement for the
Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) proposal to acquire instream
flow water rights in 16 segments of the Upper Poudre River and its
tributaries.
The major recommendations for acquisition are on the main stem of the
river in the following amounts:
1) 20 cfs from Joe Wright Creek to Sheep Creek (5.5 miles)
2) 38 cfs from Sheep Creek to S. Fork of Poudre (21.6 miles)
3) 55 cfs from S. Fork to Poudre Park (12 miles)
The CWCB proposal will be considered by the Board at their November
7-8, 1985 meeting.
18. Resolution Adopti
General EmDlovees
the Restatement of
rement Plan.
City of Fort Collins
This Resolution adopts the restatement of the City's General Employee
Retirement Plan. The restatement incorporates changes made to the
plan by City Council through 1984 and amendments required by the
Internal Revenue Service to maintain a qualified plan. The
-35-
November 5, 1985
restatement is being recommended by A.S. Hansen Company, the City's
actuarial consultant. The General Employees Pension Board approved
these changes and the complete restatement on October 23, 1985.
19. Resolution Adopting Findings of the Appeal of the Fire Board of
Appeals Decision Relating to A Permit Request for Indoor Fireworks
Displays.
On October 15, 1985, the Council heard an appeal of the August 6, 1985
Fire Board of Appeals decision to reverse the decision of the Poudre
Fire Authority and require the issuing of a permit for indoor
fireworks displays pursuant to regulations to be adopted by the Poudre
Fire Authority. The Council voted 4-2 to reverse the decision of the
Fire Board of Appeals, thereby upholding the decision of the Poudre
Fire Authority to deny the permit request.
20. Routine Deeds and Easements.
a. Easements for Goat Hill Waterline
1. Fisher
2. DeGroot
3. Scott
4. Crutchfield & First Interstate Bank
5. Kennedy
6. Livingston
b. Warranty Deed for Detention Pond in Kensington South Subdivision
First Filing.
c. Deed from Larimer County for drainage easement for improvements to
County Maintenance Facility on East Vine Drive.
d. Deed of Easement from Deines Homes, Inc. for Northwest Waterline
System.
Ordinances on Second Reading were read by title by Wanda Krajicek, City
Clerk.
Item #5. A. Tabling of the Second Reading of Ordinance No. 92, 1985
Annexing Property Known as the Stute Annexation #3
B. Tabling of the Second Reading of Ordinance No. 93, 1985
Zoning Property Known as the Stute Annexation #3
Item #6. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 127, 1985, Vacating the East 40
Feet of the Frontage Road as Platted.
Item #7. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 128 1985 Appropriating $10,498
from Transfort Prior Year Reserves in the Transportation Services
Fund for Transfer to the Capital Projects Fund and Appropriating
$10,498 of Unanticipated Revenue for Expenditure in the Capital
Projects Fund.
-36-
November 5. 1985
Item #8. Hearing and Second Reading of Ordinance No. 130 1985 Relating
to the Issuance of Industrial Development Revenue Bonds, Series
1985, in the Principal Amount of $1,350,000 for the Purpose of
Loaning Funds to J&E Enterprises to Finance the Alpine
Manufacturing. Inc. Proiect.
Item #9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 133, 1985, Authorizing the
Issuance of $9,000,000 Sales and Use Tax Revenue Bond
Anticipation Notes for the Pool/Rink Project and Appropriating
the Proceeds.
Ordinances on First Reading were read by title by Wanda Krajicek, City
Clerk.
Item #10. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 134, 1985
Appropriating $54,000 of Unanticipated Revenue in the Cultura
Services Fund.
Item #11. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 135, 1985, Vacatin
all Easements on the Replat of Lots 1 and 2 Timberline Apartment
Item #12. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 136 1985 Relating to
the Issuance of Industrial Devepment Revenue Bonds, Series
1985, in the Principal Amolo
unt of 600,000 for Mountain Avenue
Plaza Associates.
Item #13. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 137 1985 Relating to
the Issuance of Industrial Development Revenue Bonds, Series
1985, in the Principal Amount of S920,000 for Tulakes Associates.
Councilmember Knezovich made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Estrada,
to adopt and approve all items not removed from the Consent Calendar.
Yeas: Councilmembers Clarke, Estrada, Horak, Knezovich, Ohlson, Rutstein,
and Stoner. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Items Pertaining to the Revision
of Chapter 3A of the City Code
Following is the staff's memorandum on this item:
"Executive Summary
A. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 131, 1985, Repealing &
Re-enacting Chapter 3A of the Code of the City of Fort Collins
Regarding Appeals Procedure.
-37-
November 5, 1985
B. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 132, 1985, Making Changes to
the Code of the City of Fort Collins to Bring Various Chapters of the
Code in Conformity with Chapter 3A.
The procedure for appeals to City Council from the decisions of certain
boards and commissions of the City is contained in Chapter 3A of the City
Code. In order to remove some existing ambiguities and inconsistencies and
to expound upon the desired procedure for appeal, a revision of Chapter 3A
is being proposed. In addition, Council is being asked to consider
complementary changes in other chapters of the Code that relate to the
affected boards and commissions, so that all references within the Code to
a right of appeal will incorporate the procedure described in Chapter 3A.
Background
These ordinances were tabled to this date on October 15.
The proposed revision to Chapter 3A of the City Code is designed to clarify
and to some extent, change the procedure for taking appeals to City
Council. In addition to removing some existing ambiguities and
inconsistencies, the intent of the revisions is to leave as much discretion
and authority as possible with the respective boards and commissions and to
discourage any potential abuse of the appeals process by prospective
appellants, while still affording Council the right of review and final
decision.
The following comments pertain not only to the proposed revisions to
Chapter 3A of the Code but also to suggested revisions of certain other
sections of the Code pertaining to the affected boards and commissions.
Modifications have been made and, in some instances, language added so as
to provide internal consistency within the Code, that is, all references to
a right of appeal will specifically incorporate the provisions of Chapter
3A. One affected board or commission for which no revision has been
suggested is the Landmark Preservation Commission. It should be noted that
additional language in Chapter 69 pertaining to this Commission will be
submitted to the Council for later consideration. This delay is due to the
fact that other unrelated changes to this same Chapter are presently under
consideration by staff, and it is the consensus of staff that all changes
to the Chapter should be submitted for Council's consideration at the same
time.
The following comments are organized according to the respective sections
of the Code. Changes which appear self evident are not addressed in this
summary. Instead, those changes are highlighted which may be less evident
from Council's review of the proposed Ordinance itself.
I"
November 5, 1985
Chapter 3A
APPEALS PROCEDURE
§3A-1. Certain appeals to be taken to City Council.
The boards and commissions from which an appeal may be taken to City
Council are those which function in a quasi-judicial capacity. The Parks
and Recreation Board, which is included in the existing ordinance, has been
deleted, since its function is advisory in nature. The Fire Board of
Appeals has been added to the list. The advisability of including the
Building Board of Appeals and Fire Board of Appeals has been the subject of
some debate among staff, since the subject matter with which they deal is
highly technical. Nonetheless, our conclusion is that they should be
included in order to afford an administrative review of their decisions as
an alternative to court action.
§3A-2. Definitions.
1. The definition of "party -in -interest" does not include members of
staff. It should be noted, however, that in the companion revisions of
the individual sections of the Code referring to the Building Board of
Appeals and Fire Board of Appeals, the chief building official and fire
chief have been given standing to appeal matters that affect public
safety. Their inclusion as parties who may appeal the decisions of
those particular boards is based upon the premise that, in matters that
may adversely affect public safety, the heads of these departments
should have some administrative recourse and, once again, should not be
in the awkward position of having to bring suit against the board.
2. A definition of "new evidence" has been added which distinguishes
changes in the proposal itself from bona fide new considerations
regarding the acceptability of the proposal. The type of new evidence
which may constitute grounds for appeal is further clarified in the
following section.
§3A-3. Appeal of final decision permitted.
This section recites the grounds upon which an appeal may be taken and
divides those grounds into two categories: various types of error and "new
evidence," as defined above. Such evidence must not have been available
at the time of the initial hearing and must be relevant to the reasons for
the decision of the board or commission.
§3A-10. Procedure at the hearing.
Council's deliberation is divided into two parts: a consideration of the
purported grounds for appeal and, if the grounds are sufficient, a decision
on the merits. If any portion of the grounds is new evidence, the matter
will automatically be referred back to the board or commission.
-39-
November 5, 1985
§3A-11. Alternative actions available to Council.
If no new evidence is offered by the appellant, the alternatives available
to Council would still include upholding, overturning or modifying the
decision of the board or commission. If no new evidence exists, however,
the alternative of returning the matter to the board or commission would be
eliminated. The reason for this recommendation is that there seems to be
no point in returning the matter to the board or commission if nothing has
changed since their review of the matter. Instead, it seems appropriate at
that point for Council to exercise its own discretion and substitute its
judgment regarding the merits of the application or proposal.
"Companion" Code Sections
Chapter 2, Article IV, §2-13 (Planning and Zoning Board)
The existing language merely refers to Council's power to overrule
decisions of the board. The revised language refers to the right of
Council to review such decisions. This change would authorize the other
alternative actions available to Council. Additionally, reference is made
to the appeals procedure described in Chapter 3A.
Chapter 38, §38-2, Sec. 204(h) (Building Board of Appeals)
This section is added so that reference to the right -of -appeal to Council
is included within the Code provisions pertaining to the Uniform Building
Code as well as in Chapter 3A itself. As indicated above, the chief
building official is included as a party who has standing to appeal a
decision which, in his judgment, adversely affects public safety.
Chapter 64, §64-26 (Building Board of Appeals)
This section refers to the procedure for appealing an action of the
building official to the Building Board of Appeals in the first instance.
The purpose of this revision is to correct an error in the existing
reference to the particular Code section which describes this appeal
process.
Chapter 50, §50-4 (Fire Board of Appeals)
The existing Code provision provides a period of 15 days within which an
appeal from the Fire Board may be taken, which period of time is
inconsistent with Chapter 3A. This longer period of time has been deleted
from the existing ordinance through the revision and, once again, the fire
chief has been given standing to appeal certain decisions.
-40-
November 5, 1985
Chapter 73, §73-119 (Building Contractor Licensing Board)
No reference to a right of appeal from the Building Contractor Licensing ,
Board presently exists within this chapter. A new paragraph is added to
conform to the provisions of Chapter 3A.
Chapter 93, §93-5 (Storm Drainage Board)
Reference in this section to the right of appeal from the Storm Drainage
Board to City Council was repealed in 1982, although this board was still
included in Chapter 3A as a board from which an appeal may be taken. A
paragraph affording the right of appeal is inserted again in order to be
internally consistent within the Code. Also, the kinds of decisions which
may be appealed from this board are limited to those which are authorized
under two particular paragraphs of the code, since it is only at these
times when the board is acting in a quasi-judicial, rather than an
advisory, capacity.
Chapter 118, Article 2 §118-21 (Zoning Board of Appeals)
This paragraph adds the right of appeal to Council to this section."
Assistant City Attorney Steve Roy gave a brief explanation and summary of
how the ordinances would apply in the case of a planning item that comes on
appeal to Council. He noted these ordinances replace Chapter 3A of the
Code and bring other Code sections into conformance with 3A. He
highlighted the most significant of the changes and noted the new
provisions spelled out in more detail the appeals process and gave more
definition to the grounds upon which an appeal can be lodged.
Councilmember Clarke made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Knezovich, to
adopt Ordinance No. 131, 1985 on First Reading.
Councilmember Knezovich asked for a definition of detailed minutes
mentioned in the ordinance.
Assistant City Attorney Steve Roy replied the intent was to have the person
taking minutes at the board or commission meeting expound upon those
minutes that may ordinarily be made. He added the minutes could be subject
to appeal as to their accuracy, but was an attempt to avoid the necessity
of verbatim transcript which might be lengthy and costly.
Senior Planner Joe Frank noted the.minutes fall between very brief minutes
and a verbatim transcript. He stated the minutes would not be embellished
upon by the secretary but comments would be summarized instead of being
repeated verbatim.
Mayor Rutstein stated it would be helpful to have the minutes indicate the
logic for the votes of the board and commission members.
-41-
November 5, 1985
Councilmember Horak suggested the tapes of potentially controversial items
be maintained for a certain period of time to allow Council review if
necessary.
Councilmembers Stoner and Horak suggested the new process be sent to
appellants of recent history (two years) and to developers, architects,
etc., between first and second readings to get their input.
Steve Roy added under the new process staff would no longer be a party in
interest with the only exceptions being the Chief Building Official and the
Poudre Fire Authority Chief in matters pertaining to the public safety.
Councilmember Clarke felt the new procedure would be easier to use and
would eliminate misunderstandings on the part of persons seeking to appeal.
The vote on Councilmember Clarke's motion to adopt Ordinance No. 131, 1985
on First Reading was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Clarke, Estrada,
Horak, Knezovich, Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Estrada, to
adopt Ordinance No. 132, 1985 on First Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers
Clarke, Estrada, Horak, Knezovich, Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays:
None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Resolution Making Appointments to
Various Boards and Commissions,
Tabled to November 19
Following is the staff's memorandum on this item:
"Executive Summary
Vacancies currently exist on the Personnel Board, Senior Citizens Board,
and the Water Board due to the resignations of Sue Tims, Barbara Kienholz,
and Morton Bittinger. The individual Council liaisons have reviewed the
applications on file and have conducted interviews where necessary.
Recommendations for these appointments will be forwarded under separate
cover.
Background
It has been suggested that the policy for Boards and Commissions
appointments be modified. Accordingly, staff is presenting the following
\ two options that would allow Council to:
-42-
November 5, 1985
1. Announce the names of the prospective appointees, make a motion to
adopt the Resolution inserting those names, and then table the
Resolution to November 19 to allow an additional two weeks for
public input, or;
2. Adopt the Resolution making the formal appointments at this
meeting as has been done in the past."
Mayor Rutstein suggested combining Resolution 85-205 and 85-206.
(Secretary's Note: Following is the staff's memorandum which accompanied
Resolution 85-206.)
"Executive Summary
A vacancy currently exists on the CHOICE Advisory Committee due to the
resignation of David CarviII. The Council liaison has reviewed the active
applications on file. A recommendation for the appointment will be
forwarded under separate cover.
The CHOICE Advisory Committee will have their organizational meeting on
November 7, 1985, and would request that the appointment be made on
November 5 in order to have a full board at their next meeting.
Council may still want to delay the appointment an additional two weeks as
described in the previous item."
Councilmember Ohlson made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Stoner, to
adopt Resolution 85-205 inserting the names as follows:
CHOICE - Kathryn Holbrook
Personnel Board - Sandi Evanson
Senior Citizen Board - Patricia Raco
Water Board - John Scott, Ray Herrmann (alt.)
Councilmember Ohlson made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Stoner, to
table Resolution 85-205 until November 19 to allow two weeks for public
comment. Yeas: Councilmembers Clarke, Estrada, Horak, Knezovich, Ohlson,
Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to
Enter into a Professional Services Agreement
for Auditing Services for 1985, with Annually
Renewable Terms for 1986 and 1987. Adopted
Following is the staff's memorandum on this item:
-43-
November 5, 1985
"Executive Summary
This Resolution selects an accounting firm to provide auditing services for
the City for the fiscal year 1985, with annually renewable terms for fiscal
years 1986 and 1987. The Finance Committee has reviewed proposals and
interviewed the top ranked firms. The name of the selected firm and cost
will be added to the Resolution at the November 5 meeting.
Background
Proposals were solicited from all area accounting firms to perform annual
auditing services for the City and Poudre Fire Authority for the fiscal
years 1985, 1986 and 1987. Twelve firms submitted proposals.
These proposals were reviewed and evaluated by staff and the Finance
Committee. The final top ranked firms were interviewed by the Finance
Committee. The selected firm's name will be inserted at the council
meeting."
Councilmember Knezovich made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Stoner, to
adopt Resolution 85-207 inserting the name of KMG Main Hurdman where
appropriate and the figures $35,000 for 1985, $36,500 for 1986, and $38,500
for 1987.
Councilmember Knezovich reported on the selection process and introduced
two members of the firm that were present.
The vote on Councilmember Knezovich's motion to adopt Resolution 85-207 was
as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Clarke, Estrada, Horak, Knezovich,
Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Resolution Accepting the Position
Specification for the City
Manager's Position, Adopted
Following is the staff's memorandum on this item:
"This Resolution accepts the position profile developed by the executive
search consulting firm of Jensen-Oldani and Associates.
The consultant has interviewed a number of individuals in the City,
including members of the Council, key staff members and the Citizen's
Advisory Committee. With the information gathered through these
interviews, a recruiting specification has been developed which describes
the important qualifications of a successful candidate and some of the
major issues currently faced in the community. This report has been
submitted to both the Council and the Citizen's Committee for approval.
The consultant will be available to discuss the details of the report with
both groups before the resolution is presented to Council. The resolution
-44-
November 5, 1985
accepts the profile as the officially approved recruitment document to be
used by the consultant.
A draft of the profile has been forwarded under separate cover."
Councilmember Stoner made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Clarke, to
adopt Resolution 85-208.
Councilmember Clarke expressed concern about the on -going A-B relations and
noted he felt they should be mentioned in the document.
Councilmember Ohison asked why economic development appeared on the list of
major issues when it was not listed as one of Council's goals.
Jerry Oldani, consulting firm of Jensen-Oldani and Associates, responded
that economic development was one of the most repeated items in interviews
with Councilmembers, staff, and the Citizen's Advisory Board.
Councilmember Ohlson asked if there was enough emphasis on growth
management as it pertains to economic development in the future of such a
high growth area.
Mr. Oldani replied that the Citizen's Advisory Committee felt a long range
plan had not been defined and they were uncomfortable picking out specific
items for fear of not covering everything. The statement was meant to be
fairly simplistic but a heavy impact statement.
Councilmember Horak asked what other documents the applicants would receive
and noted he would prefer a salary range up to the low 70's.
Mr. Oldani replied the specification document would be reinforcing
material. Other materials would include marketing materials, advisory
letters announcing the position with a one -page summary of position
requirements. He added detailed documents such as Budgets, Annual Reports,
etc., would be sent to semi-finalists the firm desires to interview.
Councilmember Clarke noted he would like to see the salary range more
specific.
Mr. Oldani suggested the range be established at $62,000 to $72,000 and
noted March 1 was the practical starting date given the recruitment
timetable.
Councilmember Knezovich asked if there was a need to spell out relocation
costs.
Mr. Oldani replied that in the compensation area it might be mentioned that
additional benefits are subject to negotiation.
Councilmember Estrada suggested the history of the position be expanded and .
that a statement be added under personal characteristics to suggest the new
-45-
ft
November 5, 1985
ti
manager have a supportive, team player approach with employees and civic
groups.
Mayor Rutstein noted comments about a truck bypass should be changed to
reflect that the bypass is a general bypass, not only a truck route. She
suggested utility management be added under experience requirements.
Councilmember Clarke suggested the growth management policy be amplified.
The vote on Councilmember Stoner's motion to adopt Resolution 85-208 was as
follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Clarke, Estrada, Horak, Knezovich, Ohlson,
Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
itizen Participation
A. Proclamation Naming the Month of November as Head Injury Awareness
Month was accepted by Ann Comstock, and Richard Nolte, Secretary of the
Head Injury Support Group.
B. Proclamation Naming November 19 and 20 as Lights on For Peace Nights
was accepted by John Deland of the Nuclear Peace Campaign.
C. Proclamation Naminy November 18-25 as S.A.D.D. Awareness Week was
accepted by Sharon McQuiddy and Kim Lutz of the S.A.D.O. Chapter of
Fort Collins High School.
Councilmembers' Reports
Councilmember Horak reported on the hearings in Washington and noted help
to pass the Poudre River bill was still needed via letters to Chairman of
the Sub -Committee Bruce Vento.
Councilmember Knezovich reported Fort Collins had been selected as the site
of the 1990 Colorado Municipal League convention and reported on the CML
Executive Board meeting.
Appeal of the Zoning Board of Appeals
Decision to Uphold the Administrative
Decision that Larimer County Alcohol Services
Does Not Meet Conditions Set Forth on the
Approved Plan for 1415 5 1417 South College
Commercial PUD, Decision Upheld
Following is the staff's memorandum on this item:
-46-
November 5, 1985
"Executive Summary
On Thursday, October 10, 1985, the Zoning Board of Appeals upheld the
administrative decision of the Community Development Department (4-0) that
the proposed use of the property at 1415 S. College by Larimer County
Alcohol Services does not comply with the conditions of the approved PUD
for 1415 & 1417 South College Avenue. (According to the City Code, ZBA is
the reviewing body for appeals taken from the decisions of administrative
officials charged with enforcement of the zoning code.) Several property
owners spoke in opposition to the LCAS proposal. Art March has appealed the
ZBA decision to City Council on behalf of Larimer County Alcohol Services.
The basis for the appeal is outlined in the attached memo from Art March.
Background
Larimer County Alcohol Services is the prospective purchaser of a former
residence at 1415 South College which LCAS intends to use as a counselling
center for drug and alcohol rehabilitation. The 1415 & 1417 South College
Commercial PUD, approved on August 14, 1978, allows professional office use
in each of the two existing residences. A one-way shared entrance from
College Avenue was approved on the PUD to access the shared parking area
adjacent to the alley. Notes on the Plan read, "Type of business
restricted to Professional offices as defined by the City of Fort Collins
Zoning Code, excluded uses being medical, dental and real estate (office or
clinic). Residential use is allowed", and "Vehicular trips per day to
either building not to exceed an average of 20 including employees".
The proposed use has been rejected by staff because it will not, in staff's
opinion, be able to conform to the trip generation requirements of the PUD
and because the use does not meet the overall intent of the restrictions
placed on the property by the Planning and Zoning Board.
Traffic information submitted by the applicant was reviewed by Community
Development Staff and the City Traffic Engineer. The attached minutes from
the ZBA hearing highlight discussion on the figures. The City Traffic
Engineer pointed out that there were some miscalculations in the applicants
information and Rick Ensdorff expected in excess of 24 trips per day
(weekly average) to the site. It should be clarified that Mr. Ensdorff was
not actually speaking in terms of trips per day, rather it was the number
of client visits. Therefore it is important to note that each of the
client visits has the potential to generate two vehicular trips, one coming
and one going. If each client drove, vehicular trips would far exceed the
20 trip maximum.
Staff is also concerned that LCAS may have some difficulty meeting their
parking needs on -site. The approved PUD shows 14 parking spaces for both
buildings. Subsequently, an administrative change was approved to leave an
existing garage on the site. This left a total of 11 spaces. Based on
City parking guidelines (1 space/300 square feet for office use) the 1417
structure (3141 square feet) would require 15 spaces by itself. The total
building area for 1415 is not shown on the PUD but the PUD restricts
commercial use to 1400 square feet, resulting in the need for 5 more
i
-47-
November 5, 1985
parking spaces. This analysis, based on today's standards, is further
indication that the proposed use is too intense for the site.
Staff believes that Larimer County Alcohol Services does fit into the
Zoning Code's definition of "professional office" and that the use is not a
medical office. However, Planning Staff believes that the nature of the
use, where group meetings are held frequently, creates a higher intensity
of use than was anticipated when the PUD was approved. Staff provided ZBA
with a memo (attached) which outlines the interpretation of the conditions.
The intent of the memo was not to impose further restrictions, in addition
to those that appear on the PUD, instead it was meant to clarify the Staff
interpretation of these existing conditions. It is important to note that
the basis for these notes on the approved PUD was City Council's desire in
1978 to regulate the intensity of commercial use in an attractive, older
neighborhood and to preserve the special character of that neighborhood.
A brief history is helpful in determining what the intent of the PUD
conditions were:
1/4/77: Based on a letter (attached) from John Clarke expressing
neighborhood concern about commercial use conversions, City Council
unanimously established a moratorium on any variances until "an affirmative
plan for transition" created. The attached Policy Guidelines were
developed in response.
8/14/78: Final approval of the 1415 & 1417 South College Commercial PUD
was granted by Planning and Zoning Board. Limitations on development in
this area were discussed and Staff reaffirmed the intent of the Policy
Guidelines.
9/19/78: City Council approval of the PUD occurred. Discussion focused on
adverse traffic impacts.
The Policy Guidelines state, "The area including 1417 and the lot north of
it, generally consists of houses which should be preserved, provided that
appropriate commercial uses can be located within them. The suitability of
such uses should be a function of vehicular traffic generation to a large
degree and of the compatibility between the various uses to a lesser
degree. Commercial uses on these six lots should be limited to non -retail,
and only low trip generating uses not to exceed 20 daily trips including
those of employees." The approved PUD has a "Statement of Planning
Objectives" which states that it is the the PUD's intent to comply with
this Policy Guidelines. Staff believes that the intent of the PUD Plan
notes was to ensure compliance by future uses with this policy guideline.
Planning Staff is presently working on design guidelines for the 1400 block
of College since it is still recognized as an area with unique
characteristics. The guidelines will assist Staff and the Planning and
Zoning Board in review of development proposals and will clarify the intent
of the Policy Guidelines for developers, property owners and the public."
November 5, 1985
Councilmember Stoner asked the record to show he did not participate in the
discussion or vote on this item.
Councilmember Clarke noted that after checking with the City Attorney, he
would participate in the vote and discussion on the item. He noted he no
longer had a direct financial interest in the block, having sold that
interest over six years ago.
Senior Planner Joe Frank made staff comments on the issue and described the
circumstances of the appeal.
Traffic Engineer Rick Ensdorff spoke to the traffic generation data.
Art March, attorney representing the appellant Larimer County Alcohol
Services, reviewed the application and the activities proposed for the
site. He noted the PUD restrictions and discussed the reasons for the
staff denial of the proposed use. He discussed the vehicular restrictions
as they applied to this use and noted it was not possible for staff to
amend the PUD restrictions and add additional restrictions. He noted the
ZBA application was for an interpretation of the requirements of the PUD
and stated.the proposed use of the property meets the requirements of the
PUD and has the right to occupy the premises without any variance or grace
on behalf of the City. He noted the ZBA action agreed with the Planning
staff and they they made no findings and gave no reasons how the proposed
use did not comply with the requirements of the PUD. He spoke of the
number of client contacts per day at the current LCAS location and based on
calculation stated the trips per day would not exceed the 20 per day
limitation. He noted it was his position that it was not proper for staff
to prejudge the use of the property and added his clients were aware of the
restriction and were certain they would not exceed them. He stated this
proposed use would have a low impact on the neighborhood and surrounding
businesses because of the hours it would he used. He added the PUD parking
requirements would be met.
In conclusion, Mr. March pointed out the use met the PUD requirement, there
was no basis for finding otherwise, and there was no basis for adding
additional restrictions. He concluded the action by the ZBA was arbitrary,
emphasized by the fact they, gave no basis for their decision. He noted the
applicant recognized neighborhood concerns and have expressed a desire to
work with the neighbors in any way they can. He asked Council to overturn
the ZBA decision.
Craig Stirn, of Sorenson and Konkel who are adjacent property owners,
stated the main issue was traffic generation and noted his firm's
opposition to this use.
Joe VanSant, 119 West Lake, noted he was speaking for himself and Anita
Clark and that they were the only owner/residents of the block. He noted
their opposition to this use because of the additional traffic impact .
especially in the evening hours and the weekends.
-49-
November 5, 1985
Ken Medearis, owner of the property next to this site, opposed the use
because of the additional traffic volume it would generate.
Councilmember Knezovich made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Estrada,
to uphold the ZBA decision based on the traffic generation.
Councilmember Clarke noted LCAS provided an invaluable service to the
community and were true professionals. He did not feel this was a medical
use but felt the proposed use would substantially impact the neighborhood
because of the traffic and parking issues. He urged the ZBA decision be
upheld.
Councilmember Estrada gave credit to the agency but expressed concerns over
the potential traffic impact on the neighborhood. He noted he would vote
to uphold the ZBA decision.
Councilmember Knezovich felt the trips generated by this use would exceed
the 20 trip restriction and that this fact was a strong reason for
supporting the ZBA decision.
Councilmember Clarke urged staff to assist LCAS if the vote was to sustain
the ZBA decision.
Mayor Rutstein agreed that the trips per day would exceed 20, parking would
be a problem, and stated the use was too intensive for that site.
The vote on Councilmember Knezovich's notion to uphold the ZBA decision was
as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Clarke, Estrada, Horak, Knezovich,
Ohlson, and Rutstein. Nays: None. (Councilmember Stoner withdrawn)
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Resolution Amending the Fort Collins
Urban Growth Area Boundary to Include
1,360 Acres of Privately Owned Land
Located West of Overland Trail, Denied
Following is the staff's memorandum on this item:
"Executive Summary
This proposed boundary change would add approximately 1,360 acres, all of
the privately owned land located west of Overland Trail, to the Fort
Collins Urban Growth Area. By including the area within the UGA,
properties would essentially have to annex into the City of Fort Collins
prior to develupment. Development proposals would then be reviewed against
the criteria of the LAND DEVELOPMENT GUIDANCE SYSTEM assuring a
comprehensive review of all pertinent development factors, including
environmental concerns, implementation of open space goals, provision of
public services, and City design standards. Because of the area's unique
physical characteristics and environmental concerns, the Resolution
-50-
November 5, 1985
approving the boundary change provides that, to the extent necessary and
legally permissible, gross residential densities be limited to no more than
1.5 units per acre.
Background
In 1981, a boundary change to the Fort Collins Urban Growth Area was
requested (Case 48-81 UGA Amendment - Overland Trail) for all privately
owned properties, approximately 1,360 acres, located west of Overland
Trail. At that time, the City's planning staff recommended denial of the
request basing the recommendation primarily on the capacity to accommodate
development within the existing UGA boundary and the fact utility services
had not been extended into the area. The Planning and Zoning Board denied
the request on a vote of 5-2 stating it was necessary to re-evaluate the
UGA in relation to the foothills in more detail before deciding the issue.
In 1982, the Larimer County Planning staff prepared the "Foothills Study"
which re-evaluated the area west of Fort Collins and eventually led to the
changing most of the area's designation from Rural to Rural Non -Farm in the
Larimer County LAND USE PLAN.
In April 1984, the Planning and Zoning Board reviewed the Overland Acres
Subdivision proposal (Case 22-84), a request for 130 single-family lots on
240 acres, located west of Overland Trail and north of Prospect Road
(extended). The project's density exceeded the level allowed in the Rural
Non -Farm designated area. The planning staff recommended denial of the
proposal and the Board voted 7-0 to recommend denial to the County Planning
Commission. The proposal was resubmitted and heard by the Board in
September 1984. The revised request was for the same number of units,
however, the developer was wi lling to donate 140 acres of open space
located above the 5200 foot level to the City or County. Staff recommended
approval of the revised request and the Board voted 5-2 to recommend
approval to the County.
When the revised proposal reached the County, the County Commissioners
questioned the appropriateness of the subdivision outside of the UGA
boundary. The City and County planning staffs held several meetings with
the Commissioners on the proposal and the UGA in general (two of the
Commissioners were recently elected and were not that familiar with the
UGA). The Commissioners were concerned with the County's ability to
provide services to the area.
Because of the decision -making quandary the Overland Acres Subdivision
caused the City and County, the City and County planning staffs were again
asked to re-evaluate the foothills area. Attached is a combined staff
report on the re-evaluation.
INFORMATIONAL MEETINGS
On Monday evening July 8, 1985, the County and City planning staffs held a
public meeting to present background information about the pending UGA
boundary amendment. The County mailed over 200 notices to property owners
-51-
November 5, 1985
I
and the meeting was advertised in the local newspapers. About 50 people
attended the meeting. After a background informational presentation, the
planning staffs fielded comments and questions from the audience. The
following issues were discussed: Overland Trail as a six -lane arterial;
traffic increases and potential increases in air quality problems; utility
service availability and limitations; urban versus rural development and
urban versus rural levels of public services; open space preservation and
acquisition; views of the foothills; preservation of existing lifestyles;
annexation requirements and phasing criteria of the UGA; the 'need' for
additional developable land within the UGA; increased taxes; and physical
development limitations due to natural hazards.
On Wednesday evening October 30, 1985, the County and City planning staffs
held a second public meeting to discuss the limitation of gross residential
densities of development in the area to 1.5 units per acre or less. The
County mailed over 600 notices to owners of property within the proposed
boundary change and to adjacent property owners within 500 feet.
Approximately 50 people attended the meeting, and again expressed the
concerns listed in the above paragraph. Participants were divided in their
opinions of the boundary amendment. Those in favor were against the 1 112
units per acre restriction. Those opposed to the boundary amendment did
not agree with the proposed restriction.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The attached staff report presents in deta it the reasons why staff is
recommending approval of the proposed boundary change. Listed below is a
summary of the major reasons:
1. The UGA boundary amendment for the foothills area is supported by the
Larimer County and City of F-ort Collins Comprehensive Plans.
2. The City will be the agency providing utility service to the area and
should have final decision authority concerning land use decisions.
3. The UGA boundary change will provide for better utilization of the land
and public utilities west of Overland Trail.
4. The boundary change will not compromise the open space goals of the
community and the foothills will remain in their natural state as an
aesthetic backdrop to the City of Fort Collins.
PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD RECOMMENDATION
The Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board reviewed the Foothills Area
Urban Growth Area Boundary Amendment (Case No. 56-85) on July 24, 1985.
The Board voted 4-1 to recommend approval of the boundary change to the
City Council. A copy of the Board's minutes is attached. Also attached are
copies of letters in support and letters in opposition to the boundary
change received by the Board."
-52-
November 5, 1985
Jim Martel, attorney representing Ruth Burns and Kimbel Stuart, spoke in
favor of the UGA amendment and urged adoption of the Resolution. He gave a
history of the intergovernmental agreement relating to the UGA and felt it
was important that this UGA amendment be approved to allow the City input
and control over urban level development. He stated there had been
significant changes since 1980 that justified the amendment and suggested
it was important to the planning of the foothills area that the amendment
be approved. He urged approval without any limitations on the density.
Ken Bonetti, 722 West Mountain, opposed the amendment stating he felt it
would accelerate development along the foothills. He asked for a
moratorium on amendments to the UGA.
Bob Gann, owner on Michaud Lane, opposed the UGA amendment.
Bob Burnham, Facilities Planner at CSU, asked that the density in Parcels
1, 2, and 3 not be increased.
Buck Holmes, owner in Parcel 2, urged expansion of the UGA boundary.
Albert Barnes, owner in Parcel 5, expressed concern over the traffic impact
of development and suggested growth be limited toward the west.
Councilmember Clarke made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Stoner, to
adopt Resolution 85-209.
Councilmember Knezovich urged defeat of the Resolution and estimated the
amendment, if passed, would bring a 343% increase in density in the area.
He suggested Larimer County be allowed to govern the area.
Councilmember Stoner supported the amendment noting the staff had enough
confidence that the LOGS can accommodate density shifts and keep the area
in a somewhat natural state. He felt the City should control development
adjacent to its City limits.
Councilmember Clarke agreed with Councilmember Stoner's comments and felt
the issue was important in terms of making the intergovernmental agreement
with Larimer County continue to be adhered to on both sides. He urged
support of the Resolution.
Mayor Rutstein felt Parcels 1, 2, and 3 needed more work and noted she was
not comfortable with the proposal and could not support it.
The vote on Councilmember Clarke's motion to adopt Resolution 85-209 was as
follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Clarke and Stoner. Nays: Councilmembers
Estrada, Horak, Knezovich, Ohlson,"and Rutstein.
THE MOTION FAILED.
-53-
November 5, 1985
Resolution Approving the Stuart Urban
Growth Area Boundary Amendment to
Include 80 Acres Located South of
Horsetooth Road and One -Half Mile
East of Taft Hill Road, Tabled to November 19
Following is the staff's memorandum on this item:
"Executive Summa
The applicant, Kimbel J. Stuart, is requesting an amendment to the Fort
Collins Urban Growth Area boundary to include approximately 80 acres
located south of Horsetooth Road and one-half mile west of Taft Hill Road.
This area is part of the larger Foothills Area UGA boundary amendment
request and is subject to the conditions of approval of the larger request.
Background
This parcel of land is included in the overall Foothills Urban Growth Area
Boundary Amendment request but the applicant, Kimbel J. Stuart, wished to
have the opportunity to proceed independently, should the larger request,
containing some 1,360 acres, be held up for some reason.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff is recommending approval of the overall Foothills Urban Growth Area
boundary change, of which this property is a part (see MAP I Area 5, of the
staff report on the Foothills Area change). The reasons for staff support
of this boundary change are the same as those outlined in detail in the
combined staff report on the Foothills Area change, with the following
addition. This area was identified in the Larimer County Planning
Department's 'Foothills Study' as having urban growth area potential once
utilities were extended into the area.
PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD RECOMMENDATION:
The Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board reviewed the Stuart Urban Growth
Area Boundary Change request on July 24, 1985, and voted 4-1.to recommend
approval of the request to the City Council. A copy of the Board's minutes
is attached."
Councilmember Stoner made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Estrada, to
adopt Resolution 85-210.
Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Ohlson, to
table Resolution 85-210 to allow additional time to study this specific
proposal versus the overall amendment previously discussed. Yeas:
Councilmembers Estrada, Horak, Knezovich, Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner.
Nays: None. (Councilmember Clarke out of the room)
THE MOTION CARRIED.
-54-
November 5, 1985
Ordinance Rezoning Property Known as
the Center for Advanced Technology,
Adopted on First Readinq
Following is the staff's memorandum on this item:
"Executive Summary
This Ordinance rezones individual parcels, as requested by the applicant;
each rezoning would be conditioned upon planned unit development.
This is a request to rezone a total of approximately 147.48 acres.
Approximately 38.94 acres will be rezoned from the T-Transition Zoning
District and the R-L, Low Density Residential, Zoning District to B-P,
Planned Business District. Approximately 108.54 acres will be rezoned from
the T-Transition Zoning District to the I-P, Industrial Park District
(three separate areas, one of 87.18 acres, one of 19.41 acres and one of
1.96 acres). All properties are located in the Northeast 1/4 Section and
Southeast 1/4 Section of the square mile bounded by Prospect Road, College
Avenue, Drake Road and Shields Street in an area to be developed into the
Center for Advanced Technology. An additional 90.51 acres (in parcel sizes
of 31.55 acres and 58.96 acres) will remain in the T-Transition Zone. The
total project covers approximately 237.99 acres. The applicant is the
Colorado State University Research Foundation, c/o ZVFK Architects/
Planners, 11 Old Town Square, Fort Collins, CO.
Background
The applicant, Colorado State University Research Foundation, on behalf of
property owners including CSURF, Colorado State University, and Sylvia Jane
Davis, is requesting several zoning changes from the T-Transition Zoning
District to designate appropriate zoning which will allow proposed uses as
per the submitted Center for Advanced Technology, P.U.D., Master Plan. The
specific zone changes are as follows, and are shown on the attached map:
Parcel A: 39.941 acres, B-P, Planned Business
Parcel B: 87.178 acres, I-P, Industrial Park
Parcel 0: 19.414 acres, I-P, Industrial Park
Parcel F: 1.955 acres, I-P, Industrial Park
In addition, two parcels are requested to remain in the T-Transition
District as follows, and are also shown on the attached map:
Parcel C: 31.546 acres, T-Transition
Parcel E: 58.960 acres, T-Transition
The T-Transition Zoning District was developed to be applied to properties
which had to be zoned according to City Charter but which were in a
transitional stage with regard to ultimate development. In most cases the
'T' Zone was applied to annexed property on the periphery of the city.
-55-
November 5, 1985
When the question as to the legal status of CSURF was raised in the
rezoning of property on Prospect Road to B-P, Planned Business, which is
now the site of the new Holiday Inn Hotel, all property owned by CSURF was
also placed into the 'T' Zone.
No development is allowed in the 'T' Zone. The only uses allowed are the
uses in existence at the time the 'T' Zone was placed on the property. The
owner of any property in a 'T' Zone may petition the City for rezoning of
the property into another zoning district under the Zoning Ordinance. The
City must change the zoning of the property within sixty (60) days from the
date the matter is considered by the Planning and Zoning Board.
The applicant intends to establish a large employment center west of
College Avenue. Staff believes this proposal is highly supported by the
City's Comprehensive Plan with goals and policies to encourage infill
development, facilitate the maximum utilization land, mix various types of
land uses, scatter the distribution of employment centers, and encourage
maximum utilization of existing services and facilities. If developed, this
employment center would help balance the growth of the community which,
until this application, has seen every new major employment center locate
east of College Avenue.
The staff recommended to the Planning and Zoning Board an alternate
approach to the rezoning request. Staff does not feel it is necessary to
rezone specific parcels within the total request into specific zoning
districts in order to implement the applicant's goals. Staff suggests that
the entire property be placed in a single zone, the I-P, Industrial Park,
which is clearly the major intent of the applicant for ultimate development
of the property. The differing land uses are approved as part of the
overall master plan for the development. Master Plans in the City's system
are the guiding document to ultimate development of a property.
There are several precedent setting examples to support the staff's
suggestion. These are as follows:
Anheuser-Busch: The A-B property was annexed under the intention of
establishing a major employment center in northeastern Fort Collins.
Because of this intent, the entire 1,119 acres of the A-B property was
zoned I-G, General Industrial. The A-B Master Plan, however, is a mixed
use development plan anticipating 516 acres of industrial uses, 65 acres of
auto -related highway commercial, 75 acres of business services/office uses,
a 23 acre neighborhood service center, 60 acres of multi -family residential
development, 128 acres of single-family residential development, and a 24
acre neighborhood park.
Del Webb: The Del Webb property contains 557 acres all zoned R-L-P, Low
Density Planned Residential. The Del Webb Master Plan presently
anticipates 67 acres of multi -family residential development, 19 acres of
single-family attached residential development, 29 acres of single family
detached manufactured housing, 214 acres of single-family residential
development, 16 acres of convenience retail/office uses, 15 acres of
-56-
November 5, 1985
neighborhood retail uses, 108 acres of office/research uses and a 9 acre
recreation/health center.
Other examples exist with the Provincetowne Master Plan, the Corral Master
Plan, and the Pinewood Master Plan.
Staff feels the placement of a single zoning with a mixed use master plan
actually gives the applicant greater flexibility in developing the property
while still protecting public interests. A master plan can be modified in
the future to adjust to changing conditions. The approval of a master plan
is given by the Planning and Zoning Board. Rezoning actions require a two
step process of action in the form of a recommendation by the Board to a
final decision by the City Council. Changes to a master plan thus can be
made in about one-half the time a rezoning change would consume.
Staff can support the rezoning of the individual parcels of the property in
different zoning districts, as long as each rezoning has the condition that
development of the property must be approved through the planned unit
development process.
The Planning and Zoning Board reviewed Case #53-85, the request to rezone
property from the T-Transition to the B-P and I-P zones for the Center for
Advanced Technology, at their regular monthly meeting on September 23,
1985. The Board voted 5-1 to approve the rezonings as submitted by the
applicant. A copy of the Board's minutes is attached."
Councilmember Estrada asked the record to show he did not participate in
the vote or discussion on this item.
Gary Haxton, Everitt Companies, explained the plan for the properties as a
mixed use retail and research and development park.
Bob Hutchinson, Chairman and President of CSURF, explained the purpose of
the project was to attract outside high tech industries to locate research
and development units at the Center. He cited the benefits to the
community and urged approval of the rezoning.
Carr Bieker, ZVFK Architects/Planners, reviewed the project, showed slides
of three other similar research projects in other states and explained the
phasing of the 10 acres leased to Everitt Companies.
Councilmember Ohlson made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Clarke, to
adopt Ordinance No. 138, 1985 on First Reading.
Norman Munn, Laporte, felt this was an ideal opportunity for a choice
infill growth project.
The vote on Councilmember Ohlson's motion to adopt Ordinance No. 138, 1985
on First Reading was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Clarke, Horak,
Knezovich, Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays: None. (Councilmember
Estrada withdrawn)
-57-
November 5, 1985
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Items Relating to the Creation and
Financing of Greenbriar Special
Improvement District No. 87
Following is the staff's memorandum on this item:
"Executive Summary
A. Resolution Accepting the Petition, Declaring a Need for the
Improvements and Directing the Director of Public Works, or Designated
Representatives, to Prepare Plans, Estimated Costs, and a Map of the
Proposed District.
B. Resolution Accepting the Report of the Costs, Assessment and Plans for
Greenbriar Special Improvement District #87.
C. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 139, 1985, Relating to the
Creation of Special Improvement District No. 87.
D. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 140, 1985, Authorizing the
Issuance of a Special Assessment Bond in the Principal Amount of
$1,640,000.
E. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 141, 1985, Appropriating
Funds to Pay the Required City Costs.
Background
This proposed S.I.D. is located west of Lemay, north of Conifer and east of
Redwood in the northeast quadrant of the City on land owned by First
Interstate Bank of Fort Collins, N.A. It includes some improvements in
place and improvements necessary to complete the development of the site to
make it marketable.
BACKGROUND:
The Greenbriar Special Improvement District is being formed to construct
the streets, water mains, sanitary sewer main, storm sewer mains and
appurtenances, landscaping, fencing, street lighting, street striping and
electrical distribution for the replat of Greenbriar Subdivision which was
approved by the Planning and Zoning Board on July 24, 1985. The owner of
the assessable property is the First Interstate Bank of Fort Collins, N.A.
Included within the boundary of the proposed S.I.U. is a City park which is
not included in the S.I.D. The total costs for construction and
engineering are estimated at $1,673,828 of which $482,607 represents
improvements in place.
Im
November 5, 1985
SUMMARY OF COSTS:
The estimated costs to the City and to the District are shown below. These
costs include the costs of planning, engineering, construction, the cost of
acquiring the completed improvements and include 10� contingency:
District Assessable Costs $1,419,525*
City Costs:
Street Oversizing (cash) $147 402
Park Street Frontage Improvements 106,901
Total City Cost 254,303
Total District Cost $1,673,828.
*Includes $38,250 in street oversizing credits
The City's S.I.D. Manual states, "The first hearing of the Bond Ordinance
shall occur no sooner than the second hearing of the Creation Ordinance nor
later than one -hundred eighty (180) days following the first hearing of the
Creation Ordinance." This procedure was established to protect the City in
the Bond market. This procedure insures that if the City Council did not
approve the creation of a S.I.D. we would not have to cancel a Bond sale
after pricing had taken place. In the case of the Greenbriar S.I.D., the
property owner is also the purchaser of the Bond. With Bond Counsel's
concurrence we agreed to sell the Bond to the property owner and to bring
the Creation Ordinance and the Bond Ordinance to the City Council at the
same meeting.
FUNDING CITY COSTS
Funds for the $106,901 estimated costs for constructing improvements
fronting on the park site are included in the Parkland Fund for street
reimbursement. These funds were appropriated in June 1985.
Since this project was not anticipated in the street oversizing budget for
1985 or 1986, the appropriation must be done now. The monies will be
provided by the approved line of credit.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
This District would complete a vital link in the City's Master Street Plan.
It further completes the construction of utilities which have been
installed but unused for several years. Staff recommends approval of all
items."
Councilmember Clarke made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Stoner, to
adopt Resolution 85-211.
Lucia Liley, attorney representing the developer, gave a brief overview of
the district and requested approval of the actions listed.
-59-
November 5, 1985
i
The vote on Councilmember Clarke's motion to adopt Resolution 85-211 was as
follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Clarke, Estrada, Horak, Knezovich, Ohlson,
Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Clarke, to
adopt Resolution 85-212. Yeas: Councilmembers Clarke, Estrada, Horak,
Knezovich, Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Stoner, to
adopt Ordinance No. 139, 1985 on First Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers
Clarke, Estrada, Horak, Knezovich, Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays:
None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Ohlson, to
adopt Ordinance No. 140, 1985 on First Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers
Clarke, Estrada, Horak, Knezovich, Ohl son, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays:
None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Estrada, to
adopt Ordinance No. 141, 1985 on First Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers
Clarke, Estrada, Horak, Knezovich, Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays:
None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Ordinance Authorizing the Issuance of
Downtown Development Authority Tax
Increment Refunding Bonds at a Principal
Amount Approximately Equal to
$8,415,000, Adopted as Amended on First Reading
Following is the staff's memorandum on this item:
"Executive Summary
The new bonds of $8,415,000 will retire in their entirety the 1984 DDA
bonds of $8,200,000. The refunding is being undertaken to reduce the
interest cost of the DDA debt and to clarify some of the covenants
concerning pledged revenue.
-60-
November 5, 1985
Background
The DDA board passed a resolution recommending the refunding of the 1984
bonds.
Part of the 1985 tax reform proposals currently being considered by the
House Ways and Means Committee is a ban on all advanced refundings of
municipal debt. The effective date of the proposed legislation is
currently January 1, 1986. Even though we cannot determine if legislation
will actually be introduced or if the provisions pertaining to advanced
refundings will be included in such legislation we recommend proceeding
with this refunding. Since the 1984 DDA bonds sold at a fairly high net
effective interest rate even with the MBIA insurance it was felt that money
could be saved in total debt service by refunding those 1984 bonds. The
bond market as of the preparation of the agenda is looking very good in
terms of realizing savings through the refunding. If, however, the rates
come in in such a way as not to save the DDA money Staff will recommend not
proceeding with the Ordinance."
City Attorney Huisjen noted that bond counsel Dave Dwyer had read the
amendments to the ordinance into the record to comply with Code and Charter
requirements.
Dave Dwyer, bond counsel, summarized those amendments.
Councilmember Clarke made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Horak, to
adopt Ordinance No. 142, 1985 as amended on First Reading.
Dunn Krahl, Boettcher and Company, addressed the savings realized by this
refunding issue and noted the DDA would save approximately 1.4% or
$234,000.
Councilmember Knezovich asked for more detail on the amendments prior to
Second Reading.
The vote on Clarke's motion to adopt Ordinance No. 142, 1985 as amended on
First Reading was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Clarke, Estrada, Horak,
Knezovich, Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Ordinance Auth'oriziny the Issuance of
Sewer Revenue'Refunding and Improvement
Bonds in an Approximate Principal Amount of
$30,730,000, Adopted as Amended on First Reading
Following is the staff memorandum on this item:
-61-
November 5, 1985
"Executive Summary
This bond ordinance refunds all of the Sewer Revenue Bonds of the City and
accounts for approximately $15,250,000 of the new bonds. Additionally
$15,480,000 of the new bonds are to provide funding for the improvements to
Wastewater Treatment Plant II in accordance with the Second Modification
Agreement to the Master Agreement between the City and Anheuser-Busch.
Background
The refunding of the existing bonds is being undertaken primarily to change
covenants related to pledged revenue and the additional bonds test.
The use of proceeds for the new money portion of these bonds breaks out as
follows:
Construction Cost - $12,500,000
Balance - Debt Service Reserve of approximately $1.6 million and
capitalized interest for one year as well as issuance expense.
The construction cost estimate was arrived at jointly among the City's
Sewer personnel, the City's consulting engineers, and Anheuser-Busch
representative. The amount is felt to be conservative and that we will
hopefully have some bond proceeds remaining after the construction.
As we discussed in the Agenda Item Summary relating to the Downtown
Development Authority, the pending tax reform legislation in the U.S.
Congress prompted part of the consideration concerning the refunding. The
other part of the consideration in undertaking the refunding of all the
outstanding sewer revenue bonds was to allow covenant changes within the
bond ordinances. Once bonds are outstanding you cannot change the
covenants related to the bonds without, in most cases, the consent of the
bond holders. The older sewer revenue bonds are coupon bonds rather than
the newer registered bonds. With coupon bonds we pay the interest on a
semi annual basis based upon the presentation of a coupon and we do not
necessarily know who currently owns the bonds. The newer registered bonds
require the City to keep track of all the owners of the bonds and pay
interest semi annually by writing a check directly to those owners. Without
knowing who the owners of the bonds are it becomes very difficult to change
covenants relating to outstanding bonds.
The covenant changes that we are making through this refunding bond issue
are the following:
1. A change in the ability to issue additional parity bonds
relating to how coverages are computed and this computation
varies by the type of projects to be funded by new bonds.
2. The pledging as a "Pledge Revenue" of the supplemental user
fee from Anheuser-Busch as a defined revenue source for debt
service.
-62-
ovember 5, 1985
These are significant covenant changes and should be beneficial to the City
of Fort Collins if, and when, we need to issue additional sewer revenue
bonds."
City Attorney Huisjen noted the amendments to this ordinance had also been
read into the record.
Councilmember Clarke made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Estrada, to
adopt Ordinance No. 143, 1985 as amended on First Reading.
Assistant City Attorney Paul Eckman summarized the amendments and noted a
more detailed explanation would be provided prior to Second Reading.
The vote on Councilmember Clarke's motion to adopt Ordinance No. 143, 1985
as amended on First Reading was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Clarke,
Estrada, Horak, Knezovich, Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Adjournment
Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Ohlson, to
adjourn the meeting to 6:30 p.m. on November 12. Yeas: Councilmembers ,
Clarke, Estrada, Horak, Knezovich, Ohl son, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays:
None.
The meeting adjourned at 12:15 a.m.
ATTEST:
14
0.4,L)Pk % - ".
City Clerk
-63-