HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES-11/15/1983-RegularNovember 15, 1983
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
Council -Manager Form of Government
Regular Meeting - 5:30 p.m.
A regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins was held on
Tuesday, November 15, 1983, at 5:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers in the
City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll call was answered by the following
Councilmembers: Clarke, Elliott, Horak, Knezovich, Ohlson, Rutstein, and
Stoner.
Staff Members Present: Arnold, Huisjen, Lewis, M. Davis, Meitl, C. Smith,
Krempel, Wood, Harmon, Phillips, Eckman.
Agenda Review: City Manager
City Manager Arnold called attention to three significant agenda items:
the Poudre River Trust Resolution, the Allen -Lind -Moore (Anheuser-Busch
property) Annexation Resolution, and the Old Town Associates Industrial
Development Revenue Bond Ordinances.
Mayor Knezovich noted that the applicant had requested that Item #9,
Hearing and First Reading. of Ordinance No. 153, 1983, Providing for the
Issuance of ITT-ustrialDevelopment Revenue Bonds B s or t o a er
Instrument Company B C Building Partnership Project in the Principal
Amount of $910,000, be withdrawn from the consent calendar to allow the
Ordinance to bE amended.
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 #28, 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 dis-
cussed immediately following the Consent Calendar.
4. Consider
' an�tFie rr
rovi
the Minutes of the
ino of Novem5e_rT_-
-115-
ourned meeting of October 25
November 15, 1983
5. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 149, 1983, Appropriating Unanticipated
Revenue in t e CDBG Fund.
The construction bid received to perform rehabilitation work on Daniel
Duron's house came in at $18,005. Because the maximum allowable grant
for housing rehabilitation projects is $15,000, Mr. Duron has agreed
to put up the difference between the bid and the maximum allowable
grant. Mr. Duron has paid this amount directly to the City and the
City will issue one contract for the construction work to be performed.
The amount of money received from Mr. Ouron is unanticipated revenue
and therefore must be appropriated by Council. This ordinance was
unanimously adopted on First Reading on November 1 and appropriates
the $3,005 in the Community Development Block Grant fund for housing
rehabilitation on the Duron's house.
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 150, 1983, Appropriating Unanticipated
Revenue in the CDBG Fund.
The construction bid received to perform rehabilitation work on Larry
Van Dusen's house came in at $18,990. Because the maximum allowable
grant for housing rehabilitation projects is $15,000, Mr. Van Dusen
has agreed to put up the difference between the bid and the maximum
allowable grant. Mr. Van Dusen has paid this amount directly to the
City and the City will issue one contract for the construction work to
be performed.
The amount of money received from Mr. Van Dusen is unanticipated
revenue and therefore must be appropriated by Council. This ordinance
was unanimously adopted on First Reading on November 1 and appropri—
ates the $3,990 in the Community Development Block Grant fund for
housing rehabilitation on the Van Dusen's house.
Second Readinq of Ordinance No. 151. 1983. Vacatinq a Portion of a
Utility and Access Easement and a Portion of an Access Easement in the
Keplat Of Lots Z, .1, 4 and vart Of Lot 7. and KlU urive, of the KlU
Plaza South Subdivision.
This ordinance was unanimously adopted
1. The site plan and plat of RCD PUD,
Planning and Zoning Board, August 22,
pancies between the plat and the site
veloper cannot get a building permit.
and November 1st approval of the new
discrepancies allowing the developer
-116-
on First Reading on November
Phase Two was approved by the
1983. There were two discre-
pl an and as a result the de -
The vacation of the easements
dedication will resolve the
to proceed with his project.
Ll
November 15, 1983
8. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 152, 1983, Vacating All
Easements and Rights of Way in Cunningham Corner PUD with the Excep-
tions o Tracts A an , the ort eet o 1noM111 Drive and the
Rights of Way of Shields Street and Horsetooth Road.
Cunningham Corner PUD was approved by Council on June 5, 1979. Since
that time, the property has changed hands a number of times. The
present owners have new expectations for the property and have re -
platted a portion of the area. The previous street layout is no longer
valid, thus the request for the vacation.
Upon review, staff found a number of areas where the rights of way and
easements should remain in place. The applicant has agreed to these
and the final request does contain the exceptions.
9. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 153, 1983, Providing for
the Issuance o n ustr a Development Revenue Bonds B s or the
Baler Instrument Company BIC Bui ]ding Partnership Project to the
Principal Amount of_
$
910,
' On September 20, 1983, the Council passed Resolution 83-153, inducing
the BIC Building Partnership to acquire land and construct a 17,500
square foot, two -level building to be utilized as a combination of
office, light assembly manufacturing, and warehouse space.
This Ordinance will issue the IDRB's in accordance with the Inducement
Resolution.
10. Resolution Waiving the Off -Site Street Improvements Requirement for
Development within the UGA known as The Cove PUD Off -site Street
Improvement Waiver).
This is a request for a waiver to the off -site street improvements
requirement for development within the UGA. The site is located north
of Country Club Road, on Long Pond and is known as The Cove PUD.
11. Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute an Intergovern-
menta Agreement or t e Purpose of Establishing a ti ity oti i-
cation Association.
The Fort Collins - Loveland One -Call System is a utility notification
system designed to enable any persons working around underground or
overhead utilities to contact utility companies of their proposed
work. This in turn allows the participating utility companies to
locate and mark their facilities before excavation begins, or to let
' contractors know what precautions to take if working around overhead
-117-
12
13.
14
November 15, 1983
utility lines. The entities involved in this system are the City of
Fort Collins, the City of Loveland, Mountain Bell, Public Service
Company of Colorado, Columbine Cablevision, and Platte River Power
Authority.
This resolution authorizes the City Manager to execute an inter-
governmental agreement forming the Fort Collins - Loveland Utility
Notification Association.
Resolution Authorizing the Transfer of Real Estate and Maintenance
esponsi i i des etween t e ity an ansen W ee er.
The City owns, fee simple, Tract B of Brown Farm 3rd Filing. It is
currently used as a detention pond by Drake Crossing Shopping Center
and is maintained by the City. Drake Crossing Four Theater wants to
redesign the pond allowing them to design a functional parking lot
using their property and the City's.
The Storm Drainage Utility would like to transfer the City's property
as well as the responsibilities for maintenance of the pond and
related appurtenances to the Developer, Jansen/Wheeler, a joint '
venture. The City would keep the rights to a utility and storm
drainage easement on the property and continue to maintain an existing
24" storm drain under the proposed pond and parking lot.
Resolution Recommending Approval of the Poudre River Trust.
Several months ago, E.E. Mitchell & Co. proposed to create the Poudre
River Trust as an entity to consider development issues of the Poudre
River in the near -downtown area of Fort Collins. A presentation of
the Poudre River Trust concept was presented to Council at a work -
session. Thereafter, meetings were held with Jim Reidhead and Art
March concerning some proposed changes in the Trust. Those changes
have been worked out and are incorporated in the new trust agreement.
The purpose of this resolution is to indicate the City's approval of
the Poudre River Trust concept. Also, approval of this resolution
would indicate the City's interest in exploring, together with the
Poudre River Trust, the further development of the Poudre River and
the Fort Collins area.
Routine Deeds and Easements.
The following are routine deeds and easements which have been reviewed
by the affected departments and legal staff: I
-118-
November 15, 1983
a. Deed of Easement from Nor -Colo Distributing Company, which is the
third of nine agreements for the acquisition OT additional right-
of-way for the Timberline/Prospect intersection project. Funds
for right-of-way acquisition have been approved in the 1983
budget. The consideration paid for this right-of-way is $418
based on a M.A.I. appraisal of $1 per square foot. The right-of-
way is located in the southeast quadrant of the Timberline and
Prospect intersection.
b. Powerline Easement from The Archdiocese of Denver located at 101
North Howes (St. Joseph's coo needed to un erground existing
overhead powerlines in the Howes -Mountain Area. The easement is
10' wide and 190' long. Consideration: $1.
c. Easement from the City of Fort Collins to Mountain Bell for the
placement of underground telephone cable to service Wastewater
Treatment Plant #2, which is being granted for a consideration of
$1. This easement is 10' wide and 2,215' long.
Ordinances on Second Reading were read by title by Molly Davis, Deputy City
Clerk.
Item #5. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 149, 1983, Appropriating Unanti-
cipate Revenue in the B un .
Item #6. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 150, 1983, Appropriating Unanti-
cipated Revenue in t e B und.
Item #7. Second Readi
a Utility an
in the Rep at
the RCD P a
of Ordinance No. 151
cess Easement and a
sion.
1983, Vacating a Portion of
rtion of
an Access Easement
of Lot and RCD Drive, of
Ordinances on First Reading were read by title by Molly Davis, Deputy City
Clerk.
Item #8. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 111, 1983, Vacating
A Easements an Rights o Way in Cunningham Corner wit t e
Exceptions of Tracts A and B, the North 30 Feet of Windmill Drive
and the Riqhts of Way of Shields Street and Horsetooth Roar1_
Item #9. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 153, 1983, Providi
for the Issuance of Industrial Development Revenue Bonds DRB
or the Baker Instrument Company Bui ing Partners
Project 1n t e 'PrincipalAmount o
-119-
November 15, 1983
Councilmember Ohlson made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Elliott, to
adopt and approve all items not removed from the Consent Calendar. Yeas:
Councilmembers Clarke, Elliott, Horak, Knezovich, Ohlson, Rutstein, and
Stoner. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Ordinance Providing for the Issuance
of Industrial Development Revenue Bonds
(IDRB's) for the Baker Instrument Company
(BIC) Building Partnership Project in the
Principal Amount of $910,000, Adopted
on First Reading as Amended
Following is the staff's memorandum on this item:
"On September 20, 1983, the Council passed Resolution 83-153, inducing the
BIC Building Partnership to acquire land and construct a 17,500 square
foot, two -level building to be utilized as a combination of office, light
assembly manufacturing, and warehouse space. '
This Ordinance will issue the IORB's in accordance with the Inducement
Resolution:
First Interstate Bank of Fort Collins, N.A. will purchase the
entire issue.
The terms will be 30 years.
0 The interest rate will be 75% of the bank's prime for the first
five years with a floor at 7 1/2% and a ceiling of 12%.
After the first five years, the floor and ceiling shall be re-
moved."
Councilmember Stoner made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Clarke, to
adopt Ordinance No. 153, 1983.
Dave Dwyer, bond counsel for the applicant, read the following proposed
amendments to Ordinance No. 153, 1983:
change "1984" to "1983" in the title of the Ordinance;
Section 1.1, subparagraph 3, change "1984" to "1983";
1 Section 1.1, subparagraph 7, change "January 1, 1984" to "December '
1, 1983";
-120-
1
November 15, 1983
1
Section 1.1, subparagraph 13, change "January 10, 1984" to "Decem-
ber 30, 1983";
1
Section 1.1, subparagraph 17, change "January 10, 1984" to "Decem-
ber 30, 1983";
1
Section 2.1 in the form of the bond, change heading to read "SERIES
1983, December 1, 1983";
1
in line 8 change "February 1, 1984" to "January 1, 1984";
1
in line 10 change "January 1, 2014" to "December 1, 2013";
4
in line 17 change "December 31" to "November 30";
I
in subparagraph (a), column 1, replace all listings for "February"
with "January", and replace all listings for "January" with "Decem-
ber";
change "December 2013" to "November 2013";
4
change "January 2014" to "December 2013";
1
in subparagraph (c) change "January 1, 1984" to "December 1, 1983";
I
in subparagraph (d) change lines 4 and 5 to read"...on December 1,
1988, December 1, 1993, December 1, 1998, December 1, 2003, and
December 1, 2008, at a purchase price of...";
I
in subparagraph (f) change "January 1, 1985" to "December 1, 1984";
1
in subparagraph (h) change "January 1, 2014" to "December 1, 2013";
1
in Section 4 of the form of bond change "January 1, 1984" to
'
"December 1, 1983";
1
change the last sentence in the form of bond from "January 1, 1984"
to read "December 1, 1983"; and
1
in Sections 2.10 (a) and (c), change "Series 1984" to "Series
1983".
Councilmember Clarke made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Rutstein, to
adopt the amendments as indicated. Yeas: Councilmembers Clarke, Elliott,
Horak, Knezovich, Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
The vote on the motion to adopt Ordinance No. 153, 1983, as amended, was as
follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Clarke, Elliott, Horak, Knezovich, Ohlson,
Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Ordinance Authorizing the Issuance of
Fairbrooke Special Improvement District
No. 79 Bonds in the Principal Amount of
$1,290,000, Adopted on Second Reading as Amended
I
Following is the staff's memorandum on this item:
-121-
November 15, 1983
"On October 4, 1983, this Ordinance was passed on First Reading with esti-
mated interest rates instead of actual interest rates.
The Second Reading was tabled two times to allow for the preparation of a
Preliminary Official Statement to City standards.
Subsequent to the first reading of the ordinance certain amendments per-
taining to (1) the bond offering, (2) reallocation of assessments, and (3)
improvements to be included in the project have been proposed. All of
these amendments are considered desirable by the staff. The amendments to
the ordinance consist of the following:
The principal amount of the bonds will be $1,290,000.
The interest rates are anticipated to be between 10% and 11.25%.
The interest provision will be presented for insertion into the
amendment at the Council meeting.
0 The acceptance of an Amended Petition and Waiver of the sole
property owner in the District providing:
- That the improvements of the District will include the option
for upgrading the landscaping within a regional storm drainage
detention pond of the City. If the upgrades are not undertaken
through the District, that amount of bonds ($80,000) will be
called in and retired.
- That the dates on which installments of assessments and princi-
pal and interest on the bonds will be payable are changed to
agree with the new date of the bonds, December 1, 1983.
- That the assessments may be reallocated with consent of the City
and the payment of assessments upon sale or transfer of property
within the District will be required unless prior to sale or
transfer the new owner acknowledges, in writing, that the
assessments shall continue.
The proposed amendments consist of amending the second, sixth and ninth
preambles to the ordinance and Sections 2, 6 and 14 of the ordinance, and
of the addition of new tenth and eleventh preambles and Sections 1.5 and
3.5 to the ordinance, all as set forth in the Exhibit of Amendments at-
tached hereto."
Councilmember Stoner made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Elliott, to
adopt Ordinance No. 131, 1983 on Second Reading.
-122-
' November 15, 1983
Paul Eckman, Assistant City Attorney, stated that Council had received an
"Exhibit of Amendments" in the Council agenda packet. He read proposed
changes to the "Exhibit of Amendments" as follows:
1. Sixth Preamble - change the figure "$1,290,000" to read
$1,280,000".
2. Ninth Preamble - change the figure "$1,290,000" to read
$1,280,000".
3. Section 1.5 - add in line 2 after the words "Exhibit A" the
following:' "and made a part hereof by this reference...", in
line 7, change the word "shall" to "may", and at the end of
the Section, added the sentence: "The legal descriptions of
the tracts or parcels in the district are as set forth in the
amended petition and waiver, and shall supercede the legal
descriptions of such tracts or parcels as set forth in the
Ordinance creating the District."
4. Section 6 - change the figure "$1,290,000" to read "$1,280,
000" and the figure "258" to "256" in two places, and change
the figures in the chart to read as follows:
"Bond Numbers Interest Rates
' (All Inclusive) (Per Annum)
1-34 10.00%
35-71 10.25%
72-108 10.50%
109-145 - 10.75%
146-182 10.90%
183-219 11.00%
220-256 11.00%
5. Section 14 - change the figure "$420,000" to read "$408,000"
6. Amended Petition and Waiver - in lines 3 and 19 change the
word "park" to read "detention facility"; in line 2 of the
paragraph preceding the section titled ASSESSMENTS, add the
following the words "district shall" .the following: or
with respect to item (6) below, may..."
7. Amend the legal description, to make the necessary correc-
tions.
Councilmember Clarke made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Ohlson, to
amend Ordinance No. 131, 1983 to make the amendments as set in the agenda
material with the changes read by Mr. Eckman. Yeas: Councilmembers
' Clarke, Elliott, Horak, Knezovich, Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays:
None.
-123-
November 15, 1983 1
THE MOTION CARRIED.
The vote on the motion to adopt Ordinance No. 131, 1983 as amended was as
follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Clarke, Elliott, Horak, Knezovich, Ohlson,
Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Resolution Adopted Authorizing Contributions
to Larimer County for Funding Various
Non -Profit Aqencies for Social Services
Following is the staff's memorandum on this item:
"In 1981 the City of Fort Collins turned over the responsibility for admin-
istering the Human Resource agencies to the Larimer County Department of
Human Development. In the past, individual contracts between the various
agencies and the City of Fort Collins were initiated and the City had the
responsibility for paying each individual agency while actual monitoring of
the agency's performance was done by the County's Department of Human
Development. '
The process was modified in 1983, rather than maintaining individual
contracts with each of the Human Resource agencies, the City entered into a
single contract with Larimer County to distribute, administer, and monitor
the Human Resource agencies. At the beginning -of each year, a lump sum
payment is made to Larimer County instead of numerous monthly payments to
each agency.
The review of the human service agencies proposals and allocation recom-
mendations are made by members of the Human Resource Committee, a sub-
committee of the Larimer County Community Action Board, whose members are
appointed by the City Councils of Loveland and Fort Collins, and the County
Commissioners.
This committee followed the following process:
May, 1983 - Advertisements requesting proposals from agencies.
Training was provided to applicants on the forms, require-
ments, and budget review.
June, 1983 - Applications due June 27.
July, 1983 - Sub -committee formed; panels to review and hear proposals.
July 5 - July 26, proposals distributed for hearing I
reading.
-124-
November 15, 1983
Aug. 3-5, - Committee meetings on allocations decisions
1983
August 17, - Final allocation recommendations made to the executive
1983 committee of CAB.
Nov. 15, - City of Fort Collins City Council Resolution.
1983
$125,418 is recommended to be allocated to agencies and $18,343 as Fort
Collins' contribution toward administrative services.
Attached are the 1983 approved allocations, the requested 1984 allocations
by service categories, and the recommended allocations.
In 1983, Fort Collins contributed $12,793 for administrative expenses.
These costs have increased in 1983, and now include an audit program. The
City of Fort Collins is requested to allocate $18,407 for the administra-
tive budget.
The total payment from the City of Fort Collins would be $143,825 which is
36% of the ($400,000) revenue sharing funds allocated for community ser-
vices."
City Manager Arnold noted that the allocation is up partly because of
administrative charges and audits.
Councilmember Ohlson made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Rutstein, to
adopt Resolution 83-197.
Councilmember Ohlson asked about the programs for Colorado Rural Legal
Services and the Larimer County Bar Association.
Lyn Boyer, Larimer County Human Resources, stated that the Larimer County
Bar Association will provide back-up to Colorado Rural Legal Services.
Councilmember Rutstein asked about the funding for the Thompson Day Care
Center.
Lyn Boyer replied that demographic figures show that six Fort Collins
residents use the Loveland day care facility, while one Loveland resident
uses the Sunshine School and none use the United Day Care Center in Fort
Collins.
Mayor Knezovich commented on the cost sharing arrangements with the City of
' Loveland, noting the proportionately larger share paid by Fort Collins.
-125-
November 15, 1983 '
Lyn Boyer stated that Loveland's share has increased by 25% over last
year.
City Manager Arnold pointed out that the share for Fort Collins has de-
creased for Hospice and Volunteer Clearing House, and that there are
constant changes in allocations because of changes in perspective.
Councilmember Rutstein asked how many applications for funds were received.
Lyn Boyer replied that 22 agencies are funded out of 33 applications.
Councilmember Ohlson supported looking at increasing the City's contribu-
tion in the future.
The vote on the motion to adopt Resolution 83-197 was as follows: Yeas:
Councilmembers Clarke, Elliott, Horak, Knezovich, Ohlson, Rutstein, and
Stoner. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Resolution Adopted Finding the Allen -Lind -Moore '
Annexation Petition to be in Substantial
Compliance With C.R.S., Sect. 31-12-107,
Following is the staff's memorandum on this item:
"The Allen -Lind -Moore annexation petition has been submitted for considera-
tion by the City of Fort Collins. This petition considers the annexation
of property which is under option to purchase by Anheuser-Busch. According
to State statutes, land may be considered for zoning while annexation is
underway after a petition for annexation has been found in substantial
compliance and contains the following:
1. An allegation that it is desirable and necessary that such area be
annexed to the municipality;
2. An allegation that the area proposed for annexation is eligible to
be annexed;
3. An allegation that the signers of the petition comprise more than
50% of the landowners in the area, owning more than 50% of the
area proposed to be annexed excluding streets, alleys and land
owned by the annexing municipality;
4. A request that the annexing municipality approve the annexation of I
the area proposed to be annexed;
-126-
November 15, 1983
5. The signatures of such landowners;
6. The mailing address of each such signer;
7. The legal description of the land owned by such signer;
8. The date of signing of each signature; and
9. The affidavit of each circulator of such petition that each
signature therein is the signature of the person whose name
it purports to be.
The purpose of this resolution is to make a finding that the petition is in
substantial compliance. It is not the purpose of this resolution to, in
fact, make findings of fact and conclusions regarding the various elements
of the petition, but, only to review the form and elements of the petition.
Upon approval of this resolution, the matter would then be referred
to Planning & Zoning for their consideration and recommendation of the
property for annexation. Approval of this resolution would also insure
that the zoning of this property is considered at the same time as annexa-
tion. This petition for annexation has been executed by more than 50% but
less than 100% of the property owners.
In the past, when the City has received petitions for annexation, those
petitions have been referred, as a matter of course, to the Planning &
Zoning Board for their review and recommendation. After the Planning &
Zoning Board's review, the annexation and zoning petitions are considered
by City Council and, at that time, the City Council, while considering the
annexation ordinance, made the findings of fact that are contained in the
resolution which is before you here. In this case, considering the impor-
tance of the annexation of this property, it was decided to separate the
preliminary findings of fact concerning the elements of the petition so
that early on in the annexation process, this annexation is presented
first to Council and then is referred to the Planning & Zoning Board for
consideration."
City Attorney Huisjen stated this Resolution does not deal with the sub-
stance of the annexation.
Councilmember Stoner made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Elliott, to
adopt Resolution 83-198.
Councilmember Elliott asked if the petition is in fact in substantial
compliance with the State Statutes.
City Attorney Huisjen stated the petition does appear to be in substantial
compliance with the State Statutes.
-127-
November 15, 1983
Norman Munn, P.O. Box 1040, Fort Collins, presented a letter relating to
his rights to oil and gas reserves and mineral rights in and under property
to be annexed. He also commented on Urban Growth Area development guide-
lines.
Councilmember Stoner stated that often when property is annexed the mineral
rights question may become a civil matter having nothing to do with the
annexation issue.
Mayor Knezovich stated that arguments pertaining to the annexation issue
should be presented at the numerous upcoming hearings relating to the
proposed annexation.
Councilmember Horak asked what effect the adoption of this Resolution would
have in regard to the issue set out in Mr. Munn's letter.
City Attorney Huisjen stated that the annexation hearings are the proper
time to present this type of testimony.
The vote on the motion to adopt Resolution 83-198 was as follows: Yeas:
Councilmembers Clarke, Elliott, Horak, Knezovich, Ohlson, Rutstein, and
Stoner. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Resolution Adopted Authorizing the City
Manager to Enter Into an Agreement with
Gefroh Associates, Inc., for Planning
Services Associated with the Development
of The Farm at Lee Martinez Park
Following is the staff's memorandum on this item:
"Council tabled Resolution 83-162 at its meeting of October 4, 1983, and
referred the matter to the Parks and Recreation .Board. Council asked the
Board to reconsider The Farm Project, and to determine if it is still as
viable in 1984 as it appeared in 1974, when City Council first approved the
original Master Plan for the Park. Council also suggested that an addi-
tional Public Meeting on the appropriateness of The Farm may be in order,
so the public could provide input and comment on this matter.
The Parks and Recreation Board held a Public Meeting on Tuesday, October
25, 1983, at 6:30 P.M., at the Parks and Recreation Administrative Build-
ing. Public Notices and advertisements for the meeting were in the Colo-
radoan on October 19th, 21st, and 23rd, and the Triangle Review on October
UIN
November 15, 1983
19th. A feature story on The Farm issue appeared in the Coloradoan on
October 6th, and various public service announcements were made on local
radio and cable television stations. As a result, 23 citizens attended
this public meeting. No one spoke in opposition to The Farm.
Parks and Recreation Board Recommendation
After public comment/input, and much discussion on this matter, the Parks
and Recreation Board, at their meeting of October 25, 1983, voted 6:1 (two
members absent) to reaffirm the Lee Martinez Park Master Plan and The Farm
concept, and recommend to City Council to adopt the Resolution tabled at
the Council meeting of October 4th to authorize the Agreement with Gefroh
Associates, Inc., for planning services associated with the development of
The Farm at Lee Martinez Park. The only "No" vote from Board member Dave
Adamson, was based upon his concern about the continuing cost of operation
and maintenance. Other Board members expressed concern with the operation
and maintenance, but not to the point that they felt the project should be
defeated. Council members have previously received copies of the minutes
from the October 25th Parks and Recreation Board meeting, which details all
of the public, staff, and Board member comments and concerns.
Project Background
The City purchased Lee Martinez Park, located at 600 N. Sherwood Street, in
1973 with Parkland Funds. In 1974, two public planning meetings were held
to determine the neighborhood's and general public's desires in developing
this Park. The results of these sessions were reviewed and accepted by the
Parks and Recreation Board and the City Council, and a Master Plan for
the park was approved by Council on November 21, 1974. Part of those plans
included improvements to the existing farm. (Attached is a copy of the
existing Master Plan)
Major improvements have taken place at Martinez Park over the years,
including tennis courts, ballfields, basketball courts, picnic shelter,
restrooms and concession, parking lots, part of the Poudre Trail system,
additional landscaping, and another restroom at the ballfields. All this
was done in accordance with the accepted Master Plan. The remaining
element to be developed is the existing farm area.
In September, 1978 the City entered into a contract agreement with Gefroh
Associates, Inc. to perform preliminary planning investigations to remodel
and improve the farm at Martinez Park for the sum of $6,800. This study
was completed in May, 1979 and provided us with a Conceptual Plan for the
renovation of the barn and other livestock buildings, a parking area and
landscaping site plan, with a fencing and utility extension proposal.
-129-
November 15, 1983 '
In August, 1980, the Parks and Recreation Board reaffirmed the Master Plan
for Lee Martinez Park; and in April, 1981, voters in the City overwhelming-
ly passed a $5.065 million Community Parks Bond Issue, which included
$460,000 for Lee Martinez Park, and identified $325,000 in the election
campaign literature for renovation and development of The Farm. As an
integral element of the Bond Issue ballot language, it was clearly noted
that "...the proceeds of the Bonds will not be used for payment of the
annual costs of operation and maintenance, which costs will result in
increased taxes...". The Lee Martinez Park Farm is the last remaining
major element to be completed from the Community Park Bonds. The $325,000
is available to pursue the final development plan/Agreement, and to con-
tinue with the construction.
Present Proposal
Within the guidelines of the adopted Capital Project Management Control
System, consultants retained for conceptual or preliminary design may be
retained for subsequent design phases of the project if performance is
acceptable. Gefroh Associates, Inc. was selected for preliminary design
prior to implementation of the CPMCS; however, the work performed was
satisfactory, and awarding the final development plan/contract to Gefroh
will allow the project to proceed smoothly and is consistent with current
policy. '
Gefroh Associates, Inc. has submitted, at staff request, a proposal to
prepare final construction plans, specifications, and bidding documents for
the development of the Martinez Park Farm. Gefroh Associates submitted an
initial fee proposal in the amount of $66,000. Subsequent negotiations
have reduced this fee to $49,800, which is the current proposal, and does
include construction inspection services.
The initial budget for the Martinez Park Farm was established at $325,000.
Given the diverse nature of the design effort required; streets, parking
lots, rehabilitation of existing structures, new structures, animal shel-
ters and landscaping, the proposed design fee appears to.be a realistic
percentage (15.3%) of total project cost.
Farm Operations Plan
During the two public meetings held in 1974, there were Council members
present, as well as citizens from the entire City. The consensus of the
two public meetings was that the Park should have a number of physical
activity areas, such as tennis courts, ball diamonds, basketball courts,
playground, trail, and that the farm should be renovated into a domestic
farm setting which would provide an educational opportunity for the urban
family, and especially children. Maintaining a rural setting for urban
residents, living history and a learning experience are our goals in
developing this farm. I
-130-
1
November 15, 1983
The intent of the farm project has many elements to it. Providing a
working farm with the sights, sounds and smells for a realistic farm
experience for urban residents is the initial thrust. This would be
further enhanced by bringing out the historical significance. Eventually,
programs like horseshoeing, blacksmithing, candle making and butter churn-
ing would be presented. We already have a collection of antique farm
implements that will be displayed throughout the area. In no way is this
intended to be merely a petting zoo. The history of this farm dates back
to 1873 and it will be integrated with the display of the implements. The
Farm is also intended to serve as a learning laboratory for young people,
giving them a chance to care for, feed and raise farm animals on a 'hands-
on' basis. Programs through FFA, 4-H, and Voc Tech could be accommodated
here.
The domestic animals would be secured on a loan/lease type of arrangement,
and the City would not necessarily be involved with a purchase program. It
is our intent to secure 15 or 20 animals and fowls of different species and
breeds. We also plan on working through a Committee to try to secure
donations for some of the grain and hay and to assist in the exchange of
the farm animals.
The maintenance of The Farm will be under the supervision of the Parks
Division and a Farm Manager with experience in animal husbandry or related
experience will be employed. The Farm Manager would live in the two
bedroom residence that is on the property, and would provide the overall
supervision and management of The Farm. It is the Parks and Recreation
Department's recommendation that The Farm be programmed to run approxi-
mately eight (8) months of the year, and that an Advisory Farm Committee be
formed to assist in the overall program.
The 1984 operation and maintenance cost for the Lee Martinez Park Farm is
$43,111, which includes the purchase of $26,500 in Capital equipment, and
three months of funding The Farm Manager position. These operation and
maintenance costs have been budgeted, and funding is incorporated in the
1984 Parks Division budget. The 1985 operation and maintenance cost for
The Farm, which becomes the annual cost, is $63,462. This amount will then
probably increase by normal inflation factors over the years.
Summary
Council is requested to authorize the City Manager to enter into an agree-
ment with Gefroh Associates, Inc., to prepare complete construction plans,
specifications, and bidding documents for the Lee Martinez Park Farm. The
project will include access roads and walks, parking areas, rehabilitation
of the existing barn and silo, animal corrals and shelters, farm utility
' buildings, display areas and landscaping. Some of the recent citizen
-131-
November 15, 1983 ,
recommendations, such as a solar community greenhouse, garden sites,
revenue producing activities, etc., will be incorporated, if possible.
Approval of the Agreement at this time will allow design to be completed in
early 1984, and construction to begin in the spring (around April or May).
Most of the construction should be completed during 1984, with some carry-
over of landscaping into 1985. The Farm should open to the public in the
Spring of 1985.
Staff recommends that Council adopt this revised Resolution, which reflects
the fact that a public meeting was held by the Parks and Recreation Board
on October 25th to receive public input on the appropriateness of The Farm,
that the public is in favor of The Farm, and that the Board voted to recom-
mend that Council adopt the Resolution at issue."
Councilmember Rutstein made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Elliott, to
adopt Resolution 83-162.
Councilmember Stoner expressed concern about operations and maintenance
costs, and he asked about the master plan for the park.
City Manager Arnold stated that Council has delegated the approval of park
master plans to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board. '
Councilmember Stoner supported delaying the farm project since this kind of
educational opportunity is still available in or near Fort Collins.
Mayor Knezovich pointed out that bond proceeds must be spent within three
years of the date of issuance under arbitrage rules.
Councilmember Horak stated that expenditures could be reduced in the future
if public participation does not warrant continued costs.
Mayor Knezovich supported re-examining priorities and looking at other
alternatives. He suggested using the funds available to retire the bonds
early.
Councilmember Horak stated this type of educational opportunity is no
longer available to everyone, and although the farm is a non -routine
recreational service, he supported the project.
Councilmember Clarke stated the farm would require intensive operation and
maintenance expenditures on a continuing basis, and he spoke in opposition
to adoption of the Resolution.
City Manager Arnold expressed the philosophic question about whether the
bond election gave "direction" or "authorization" to proceed with the
various park projects. I
-132-
November 15, 1983
The vote on the motion to adopt Resolution 83-162 was as follows: Yeas:
Councilmembers Elliott, Horak, Ohlson, and Rutstein. Nays: Councilmembers
Clarke, Knezovich, and Stoner.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Citizen Participation
A. Proclamation Naming November 15 as American Association of Retired
Persons ay.
Wilson Wilmarth, representing the American Association of Retired
Persons, received the Proclamation from Mayor Knezovich.
B. Proclamation Naminq November 20-27 as Bible Week.
Mayor Knezovich requested that the Proclamation be forwarded to the
proper place.
' C. Proclamation Naming November 28 - December 4 as Crisis and Information
e p ine Week.
Thea Carruth received the Proclamation from Mayor Knezovich.
D. Proclamation Naming Week Beginning November 27 as National Home Health
Cara Waa4_
Mayor Knezovich requested that the Proclamation be forwarded to the
proper place.
Mayor Knezovich welcomed Boy Scout Troop #,283 to the Council meeting.
Bruce Lockhart, 615 Mathews, stated that the City's goals and objectives
should be set in public session. He spoke about revenue adjustments to
fund capital projects currently under discussion by the Recap Committee.
City Manager Arnold stated that goals and objectives would be a topic of
discussion at the November 22 work session.
Dale Maxey, 1512 Shadow Mountain Court, commented on the continuing use of
public streets and sidewalks for garbage dumpsters and other obstructions,
which could create safety hazards.
-133-
'Rehearing on Proposed University November 15, 1983
Place PUD Preliminary (Holiday Inn)
Following is the staff's memorandum on this item:
"Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends denial of the preliminary plan of the University Place PUD
based on the proposed building height. Staff feels the applicant has failed
to provide adequate justification that the proposed high-rise structure
will be consistent with the City's conscious direction to the development
of the Fort Collins urban form through the placement of high-rise buildings
nor have they sufficiently proven the scale of the building will be
consistent with the adjacent activity center and neighborhood. Rather, the
evidence indicated the project will be incompatible with the general scale
of development in the area and the City as a whole. Therefore, staff
recommends the applicant has failed to satisfy criterion #32 (Building
Height) of the "All Development" activity category of the LDGS. See "Build-
ing Height" section of this report for background information.
Planninq and Zoninq Board Recommendation:
At the September 26, 1983, meeting, the Planning and Zoning Board approved
the preliminary PUD plan of University Place by a vote of 4-1. Sharon Brown '
voted no. The approval was on "the condition that the traffic impact of the
proposal on the Prospect/College intersection be mitigated through the
installation of improvements per staff's recommendation. The members of the
Board voting to approve the project felt the proposal is within or adjacent
to an existing and developing activity center and therefore the site is an
appropriate location for a high rise structure. Furthermore, the use is
appropriate with CSU and CSURF plans for the area. The project is infill
which is encouraged by the City policies. Attached are more detailed
minutes of reasons the Board had in approving the request. -
Following the Planning and Zoning Board hearing, the staff met with the
applicant to discuss participation in the above referenced improvements at
the Prospect/College intersection. The staff and the applicant have agreed
that the applicant should be responsible for the cost of the right -turn
lane and the City should bear the cost of the curb radii improvements. See
"Traffic" section of this memo for more detailed information.
General Description
The applicant is seeking preliminary PUD approval for a 6.9 acre site
consisting of a 256 room motel and a 1000 seat conference center. The site
is located on the southeast corner of the intersection of Center Avenue and
Prospect Road. The site is zoned B-P Conditional, Planned Business, and is
currently improved with one building (to be removed). The surrounding
zoning and land uses are as follows: I
-134-
1
November 15, 1983
N: R-H and B-L; Colorado State University parking lot and various
retail shops
S: T; Colorado State University service uses (physical plant storage,
animal pens, etc.)
E: B-L and Not Zoned Property; Colorado Division of Wildlife, Game
and Fish Building
W: Not Zoned; Colorado State University married student housing
Land Use Data
Gross Area: 7.03 acre = 306,227 square feet
Net Area: 6.67 acre = 290,511 square feet
Building Total Square Feet
First level 56,000 square feet
Second through ninth 131,200 square feet
Parking Provided
Short term spaces = 116 (9x17w/2' overhang or 9x19)
Long term spaces = 294 (8.5x16w/2' overhang or 8.5x18)
Handicap spaces = 7 (12x19)
Total 417
Motorcycle spaces = 5
Coverage Breakdown
Building footprint
56,000
square
feet
= 18.6%
Private Drives & Parking
159,000
square
feet
= 51.9%
Public R-O-W
16,000
square
feet
= 5.2%
Open Space
75,227
square
feet =
24.3%
Total
306,227
square
feet =
100.0%
Discussion
1. Relationship to Adopted Official Plans. Prospect Road is an arterial
street and Center Avenue is a collector street as designated on the
Master Street Plan.
2. Utilities. All utilities are available at the site to service the
proposed use.
3. Background. In February, 1978, CSURF requested zoning of the 7.0 acre
parcel to B-P, Planned Business. Both the planning staff and the
Planning and Zoning Board recommended the request be denied. The City
Council rejected that recommendation and approved the zoning request
subject to the condition that the property be utilized "as a site for a
' hotel/motel complex including all the normal and customary accessory
-135-
r
November 15, 1983
uses. . ." In September, 1980, the City Council approved the final PUD
of the University Hilton -which consisted of a 150 unit motel, 80-100
seat restaurant, 120 seat coffee shop, and meeting rooms "capable of
catering banquets, weddings, small groups for local businesses, and
industry, or University -related functions such as reunions and pre -game
parties" on 3.84 acres. The 97,680 square foot building was a maximum
of 54 feet in height (six stories).
Comments
1. Building Height
The applicant is seeking approval to exceed the maximum building height
limit of forty feet as established in the Zoning Regulations. The City
Council has adopted certain criteria as a framework for the review of
building heights in excess of forty feet in a PUD proposal. Depending
on the proposal being reviewed, the criteria may have different impor-
tance. In other words, some of the criteria may be weighed heavier
over the other criteria. The criteria utilized to review this specific
proposal are: (A) Community Scale; (B) Views; (C) Light and Shadow;
(D) Privacy; and (E) Neighborhood Scale. The applicant is seeking '
approval of a nine story structure with a maximum height of 104 feet 2
inches to the top of the penthouse (94 feet to the top of the parapet,
92.5 feet to 100 feet to the top of the elevator towers, and 90 feet to
the top of the ninth floor). Staff has reviewed the proposed structure
against the review criteria and offers the following comments:
A. Community Scale. The City's adopted criteria states that buildings
over forty eet in height should be located in or adjacent to the
Central Business District or in an existing or developing Activity.
Center. An Activity Center is defined as a neighborhood or com-
munity/regional shopping center or an employment center which
has over 300 employees. The urban form that the City envisions to
achieve is a low-rise community with the exception of high-rises in
the Central Business District and mid- to high-rise development
within planned Activity Centers. Moreover, the fundamental princi-
ple is to locate taller buildings at important Activity Centers,
therefore, expressing their functional importance and making them
more visually prominent in the Community.
The applicant has stated in the Planning Objectives that the
proposed 104 foot facility "meets the Community Scale" criteria
because it is located adjacent to Colorado State University.
Further, that the project is "central to the University", Main
Campus, Veterinary School/Dairy Farm, and the 153 acre proposed
"High Tech Research Park" being contemplated for Hahn Farm. ,
-136-
November 15, 1983
Staff's review of the proposed high-rise structure relative to the
Community Scale criterion involved addressing two basic issues.
These issues were: (1) The location of the high-rise building in
terms of being located within or adjacent to an Activity Center
and, therefore, reinforcing the City's conscious direction of urban
form; and (2) The location of the proposed high-rise building in
terms of expressing the importance of the Activity Center.
Location and Community Scale. Much of the applicant's discus-
sion concerning Community Scale focuses on the University and
CSURF-owned properties. These properties have been categorized
by Colorado State University in the "Plan for Physical Develop-
ment" as two distinct areas - Main Campus -Central and Main
Campus -South.
The location of the proposed high-rise structure in relation to
the Main Campus -Central is marginal at best. The physical
development of the University is focused on this Central Campus
area; bordered by Lake Street, Shields Street, Laurel Street,
and College Avenue. The Central area is the academic center for
Colorado State University - the area within which a student can
walk during a ten-minute class change period. The Morgan
Library serves as a core for this academic center. The Central
area of the Main Campus is where the University has given
careful consideration to building density and centralization of
most Campus affairs. The proposed high-rise structure building
is at best "close" to qualifying or being acceptable as being
located adjacent to the Main Campus -Central Activity Center.
The site is located approximately 600 feet away from the
Central Area and is buffered by an arterial street, parking
lots, and low/medium density residential housing. In terms of
the City achieving its goal of "fitting" new high-rise develop-
ment into the planned urban form of the Community, staff feels
"marginal" or "close" is unacceptable.
The Main Campus -South is that area generally bordered by
Prospect Road, Drake Road, Shields Street, and the Burlington
Northern Railroad tracks. Parcels of land within that area are
owned by both Colorado State University and CSURF. The Main
Campus -South is now used for married student housing, small
animal quarters, physical plant storage, pasture, and Colorado
State University Veterinary School/Dairy Farm. Additional
non-public uses in the area include low and medium residential
uses and "strip" neighborhood commercial. The Colorado State
University - owned and leased property will continue into the
distant future to be used for University programs that require
-137-
November 15, 1983 '
pasture, pens, and special facilities for animals. The 153 acre
Hahn Farm is owned by CSURF who is planning to sell or lease
the property to a developer for a "high tech park". At this
time no known developers or users of the site have been
identified. Rezoning and, most likely, planned unit development
approval from the City will be required prior to development of
the property. The land immediately south of the proposed
high-rise structure is in the Spring Creek floodway and is not
considered suitable for future building sites. Colorado State
University does have a short term option to buy a small
parcel directly south of the Pat Griffin Company offices
on Prospect Road for future construction of a University
building; however, no specific plans or funding have been
approved by Colorado State University for final purchase of the
property or for construction of the building. The existing
character of the Main Campus -South is low intensity agricul-
tural/agricultural research, low density/medium density resi-
dential and unplanned/strip commercial. Future development or
redevelopment of unused property by Colorado State University
and CSURF is uncertain.
Staff feels the Main Campus -South does not exhibit the level of
building density, land use, and coordinated planning that the
City envisioned as qualifying as an Activity Center appropriate
for taller buildings and, therefore, is not a justifiable
reason for locating the proposed high-rise structure.
Location and Activity Center. The Central Business District and
other Activity Centers should be made more prominent in the
Community through careful design means. In general, this may
mean that the Central Business District and other Activity
Centers may be expected to have buildings in excess of forty
feet in height and of a greater intensity than those in the
surrounding area. The "fitting in" of taller buldings into the
Central Business District and Activity Centers is, in a general
sense, both a matter of the building's location and scale. If
properly placed, tall buildings can enhance the Central Busi-
ness District or Center. The scale of a taller building
(shape and bulk) can also reinforce the Center as a place of
activity. The proposed high-rise structure is both physically
and pyschologically "apart" from the Activity Center it is
purported to serve - Colorado State University. The high-rise
is separated from the Main Campus -Central by an arterial
street, residential housing, and a physical distance of more
than 600 feet. The proposed building appears to be quite bulky
in appearance which tends to do very little to reinforce its
visual unity with the Central Campus. '
-138-
November 15, 1983
Overall, staff feels the applicant has failed to demonstrate
the proposed high-rise is compatible with the City's Community
Scale criteria.
B. Views. The proposed high-rise structure should not substanti-
ally alter the opportunity and quality of desirable views
within the Community. In the staff's assessment of the impact
on views, the quality of views along the Prospect Road "view
corridor" was identified as being most impacted by the propo-
sal. Presently travellers westbound along this route enjoy a
panoramic view of the foothills. This view would be reduced by
the proposed building being first noticeable at the Prospect/
College Avenue intersection and increasing as one approaches
the subject property. This problem is accentuated by the
building's bulk as well as its height. The applicant has
attempted to mitigate this problem by setting back the building
to the extent possible. Staff feels the desirable views along
the "corridor" will remain. The applicant has demonstrated
sufficient mitigation measures to preserve those views.
C. Light and Shadow. The building has been located to minimize the
casting of shadows on the subject parcel. The building height
should not preclude the use of solar energy technologies nor
lead to the accumulation of snow and ice during the winter on
adjacent properties and public streets.
D. Privacy. The proposed high-rise structure has been located
approximately 300 feet from the nearest residential unit. The
design of the proposed structure allows for outward views from
each of the rooms. The married student housing project is
designed in a linear fashion with the entrances to the dwelling
units being taken from the center courts. The site and building
design do not currently allow for "private outdoor space". The
applicant has attempted to mitigate the impact on privacy
through building setbacks and landscaping. Staff feels the
high-rise structure should not negatively impact the level of
privacy the residents currently enjoy.
E. Neighborhood Scale. A building greater than forty feet in
height should be compatible with the scale of the surrounding
neighborhood. This does not mean the building height should
necessarily repeat or imitate surrounding building heights or
building masses. If this were true only the Central Business
District would qualify as a location for high-rise structures.
Rather, the height of buildings should relate to the height and
' existing or emerging character and scale of the neighborhood.
-139-
November 15, 1983
The change in scale may be the most dramatic impact of build-
ings over forty feet in height.
The applicant feels the proposed structure is compatible in
scale and character with the surrounding neighborhood for the
following reasons: 1) That the existing neighborhood scale
will change in the "next few years. . .one more in keeping
with the Colorado State University Educational/Institutional
pattern, mid -rise faculty and research buildings, interlaced
with mid- to high-rise student apartment buildings" and the
proposal will be "respecting what is likely to emerge in this
changing neighborhood", and 2) "The big setbacks of the
building".
The neighborhood area most directly impacted by the scale of
the project is bounded by the Burlington Northern Railroad
tracks, Shields Street, and generally by Lake Street and
Sheeley Drive. The two areas of concern identified by staff
relative to the height of the building and the scale of the
neighborhood are: 1) The relative location of the high-rise
building and its visual integration to the adjacent Activity '
Center; and 2) The relationship of the proposed bulk of the
building relative to its surroundings.
Location and Neighborhood Scale. High-rise development can
have either positive or negative effects on the urban form
of the Community and the nearby environment. A tall build-
ing that is well designed in itself will help reinforce an
Activity Center if it is well placed, but the same building
at the wrong location can be utterly disruptive. Tall
buildings can orient the traveller to an Activity Center,
define the Activity Center, and reinforce the existing or
emerging pattern of building height and scale of the
Activity Center. Staff feels the proposed high-rise
structure is at best "close" to qualifying or being accept-
able as being located "adjacent" to the Main Campus -Central
Activity Center (for more information see Community Scale
discussion) but is clearly not a part of the Center in
terms of form and design. The design and layout of build-
ings, open space, and building height in the Main Campus -
Central has been given careful consideration by the Univer-
sity in their "Plan for Physical Development". The Main
Campus -Central is where building density has been empha-
sized. The Library/Student Center/Clark Building cluster
serves as a visual and functional core of the academic ,
University with the other structures surrounding this core
-140-
r]
November 15, 1983
being designed not as separate and distinct entities but as
related and integrated structures to this core and with
other building clusters. With the exception of the high-
rise residential towers, most University buildings are
horizontal masses (2-3 stories, 25-40 feet) complimenting
the vertical drop of the foothills to the west and rein-
forcing the intensively developed core.
The proposed high-rise building will compete for visual
attention with the University rather than reinforce this
important Activity Center as encouraged by the City's
building height review objectives. The physical separation
of the proposed structure from the Main Campus -Central and
the building's visual dominance due to its height and mass
will erode the University's goal of maintaining the basic
horizontal forms of the Main Campus -Central structures.
Building Mass and Neighborhood Scale. The remaining aspect
of building sca a considered by staff is that of building
bulk or the apparent massiveness of the proposed nine story
high-rise structure relative to its surroundings. The
preceding section on "location" dealt in part with this
item relative to the Colorado State University Main (ampus-
Central Activity Center. It is equally important tF-iat the
remaining area of the neighborhood be carefully analyzed.
The bulk of a building depends primarily on two factors:
1) The amount of wall surface visible and the degree to
which the structure extends above its surroundings.
Secondarily, the visual appearance (materials and color)
can impact the apparent bulk of a high-rise building.
The proposed structure will be cubical in form with the
north and south facing walls of the high-rise having a
horizontal dimension of 180 feet and a vertical dimension
of 90 feet; the east and west walls of the structure having
a horizontal dimension of 135 feet and a vertical dimension
of 84 feet. Bronze tinted windows will dominate the ex-
terior skin of the structure. The building has been situ-
ated in the southeastern portion of the property while
setting back the tower by 220 feet, 260 feet, 120 feet, and
165 feet from the west, north, east, and south property
lines, respectively.
With the exception of a few buildings north of Lake
Steet the established pattern of building height and
scale in the neighborhood is low, small-scale buildings
-141-
November 15, 1983 '
(18-40 feet in height with most building walls ranging
from 25-80 feet in length). Land uses are predominately
low to medium density residential, and neighborhood
commercial and institutional. For staff's planning studies
there is no other "emerging character" that can be verified
with any solid assurance. Colorado State University has a
current option on a parcel of land south of the Pat Griffin
Company offices on Prospect Road for a new academic build-
ing but the University does not have any definite construc-
tion plans, funding, or administrative approval for its
erection. Staff is not aware of any other plans for devel-
opment or major redevelopment of privately held or Univer-
sity-owned/leased property or buildings in the subject
neighborhood.
The proposed high-rise structure far exceeds the prevailing
height and prevailing horizontal dimensions of existing
buildings in the neighborhood and will overwhelm surround-
ing buildings and open spaces (Spring Creek Trail). The
applicant has not demonstrated through the building eleva-
tions or other documentation a successful attempt to
mitigate this negative impact.
Staff feels the applicant has not proven the proposed '
structure will be compatible with the surrounding neighbor-
hood in terms of reinforcing the "marginally" adjacent
Activity Center and bulding bulk.
In summary, staff feels the applicant has failed to provide adequate
justification that the proposed high-rise structure will be consistent with
the City's conscious direction to the development of the urban form of the
City through the placement of high-rise buildings nor have they sufficient-
ly proven the scale of the building will be consistent with the adjacent
Activity Center and neighborhood. Rather, the evidence indicates the
project will be incompatible with the general scale of development in the
area and the City as a whole; therefore, staff recommends applicant has
failed to satisfy Criterion No. 32 (Building Height) of the "All Develop-
ment" Activity Category of the LDGS.
Traffic
The three major traffic impact and vehicular circulation issues are:
A) Prospect/College Intersection Improvements; B) Dedication of Center
Avenue as a Public Street; and C) Prospect Road Curb Cut at Bay Road.
A. Prospect/College Intersection Improvements. The Transportation
Services Unit as analyzed the tra is impact study submitted for '
the Holiday Inn project. This study was done at the request of the
-142-
November 15, 1983
Traffic Engineer to identify the possible impact associated with
the development of a 256 room hotel facility, as well as a confer-
ence center capable of handling up to 1,000 participants.
The consultant who worked on the impact study had input from the
Traffic Engineer's office. The Traffic Engineering Division took
on -street counts in the area to provide up-to-date information; and
the consultant also did field study surveys adjacent to the site at
key intersections. The results of this study shown in the consul-
tant's summary indicate that the intersection of College Avenue and
Prospect Road has the most potential for impact. The study also
indicates that the intersection is operating in a somewhat con-
gested situation during peak hours.
Using traffic engineering quantitative measures, the consultant
estimates the intersection of College Avenue and Prospect Road
currently operates in a level of service D. What that means to a
motorist trying to use this intersection is there is a possibility
in the peak hour of delays associated with traffic moving through
this intersection. Those delays can result in waiting through at
least one cycle of the traffic signal.
'
The consultant indicates the additional traffic generated by a full
development at the Holiday Inn site would add traffic to this
intersection that would cause the intersection to operate in a
level of service E during the peak hour. The Traffic Engineering
Division has been_ working in other areas to improve the flow
of traffic at this intersection, and will continue to do whatever
is
possible through the use of the computer system to provide as
efficient
operating mode as possible.
There are limits and it is felt the improvements proposed by the
consultant at the intersection should be implemented. Those im-
provements include north and southbound dual left -turn capability
as well as an eastbound right -turn bay. It is the opinion of the
Transportation Services Unit, the north and southbound double
left -turn facilities should be inserted into the City's Capital
Improvement Program and planned for within the next five years.
The eastbound right -turn bay facility is needed at the current time
and should be a part of the off -site improvements constructed with
the completion of the hotel. To help facilitate the flow of
traffic through the intersection, the radii of the curb returns
should be enlarged to existing City standards. The minimum standard
is 25 feet, and the existing radii are 15 feet. These changes
would significantly improve the flow of traffic through this
' intersection.
-143-
1
November 15, 1983
The hotel/conference center focuses a very high percentage of its
traffic on the College/Prospect intersection. The scale of the
proposal and its resultant increase in expected traffic volumes is
above and beyond those anticipated in the City's Five Year Capital
Improvement Program. Since the development is occurring ahead of
the City's projected improvements for the intersection, it must be
viewed as the catalyst that triggers the need for the eastbound
right -turn lane and curb radii improvements.
Following the hearing of the Planning and Zoning Board, City staff
met several times to discuss the City's and applicant's participa-
tion in these improvements. Staff recommends the City participate
in improving the traffic movement at this intersection by making
adjustments in the signals to improve the flow of traffic; pursuing
the insertion of the double left -turns facilities into the Capital
Improvement Program; paying the cost of the curb radii improvements
on the northwest, northeast and southeast corners, engineering
services, plus any R-O-W and damage costs incurred with these
improvements; and will act as project manager and construct the
required corner improvements prior to completion of the hotel. The
applicant's responsibility at the corner includes paying for the '
full cost of the right -turn lane including engineering services,
engineering improvements, R-O-W and damage costs. The applicant's
and City's participation in these improvements shall be detailed in
the Development Agreement for this project. The agreement shall
stipulate a maximum figure for the applicant's cost for the right -
turn lane with the City reimbursing the applicant if the final cost
is less than the maximum figure. Any costs over that maximum figure
will be borne by the City.
Dedication of Center Avenue as a Public Street. In the review of
the proposed Holiday Inn Hotel Conference Center, City staff
evaluated the future street needs required by the impact of the
project and other development in the area. The Master Street Plan
adopted by City Council idgntified Center Avenue as a collector
street extending south and connecting with Shields Street. Another
collector street, Meadowlark Avenue, will extend north from Drake
Road and intersect the Center Avenue alignment as shown in the
map.
The City design standards for a collector street call for a 68 foot
right-of-way and a 50 foot flow line to flow line travelled way.
These streets should be dedicated to the City of Fort Collins.
The collector streets of Center Avenue and Meadowlark Avenue would
provide additional and alternative access routes for CSU. The '
-144-
November 15, 1983
projected daily volume for these streets when developed is 4-6,000
vehicles a day. This volume of traffic compares to Swallow Road
between College Avenue and Lemay Avenue which carries approximately
5,500 vehicles a day. This collector system will provide a safe and
efficient road access system for CSU and help reduce future prob-
lems such as the ones experienced contiguous to the main campus.
The road system would also enhance the bikeway traffic which is an
important alternate mode of transportation for the City. An option
to the streets being dedicated to the City would be to design the
streets to City standards and let the University have total
responsibility for enforcement and maintenance. The negative
impacts to this option are:
a. Designation and design speed for collector streets. Collector
streets are designed for a 40 mph speed and posted 30 mph. CSU
speed limit is 20 mph and would impose an enforcement problem.
b. Other enforcement, regulatory, and no parking type signs would
have to be enforced by CSU in addition to the speed limit.
c. Continued maintenance including street repair, cleaning,
signing, and pavement markings, would be the responsibility of
CSU.
d. Public/private access standards need to be maintained where
public facilities service large commercial developments such as
the proposed hotel/ conference center.
In conclusion, staff recommends the collector street system in this
area be designed and built to City standards and dedicated to the
City. As a condition for the approval of the hotel/conference
center, staff is requiring that Center Avenue, as it abuts the
entire west property line of the hotel/conference center site,
be dedicated to the City as public right-of-way of 68 feet. Approx-
imately 59 feet will be on CSU land and approximately 9 feet on
CSURF (Holiday Inn) land. The applicant is in general agreement
with this condition and both the City and the applicant has ap-
proached both CSU and CSURF for its dedication. Prior to approval
of the final PUD for University Place, the City must receive the
necessary ROW dedication documents for the 560 feet of Center
Avenue along the west edge of the site or a letter of commitment or
other legal agreement from CSU stating that they agree to dedicate
the ROW by,some future specified date which is also agreeable
to the City of Fort Collins. The City staff will continue to work
with CSU and CSURF concerning the future dedication of the rest of
' Center Avenue and Meadowlark Avenue.
-145-
November 15, 1983 '
C. Prospect Street Curb Cut at Bay Road. The traffic consultants
estimate approximately % of the trips to and from the site will
be from Prospect Road, east of the site. The major entrance to the
project will be from Center Avenue, approximately 180 feet south of
Prospect Road. Secondary curb cuts will be from Center Avenue and a
shared curb cut at Bay Road (shared with the Colorado Division of
Wildlife and CSU). Staff's initial concern was with the potential
for travellers westbound on Prospect Road to enter the site from
Bay Road because it is the first and nearest entrance to the hotel
site from that direction. Staff feels very strongly that Center
Avenue should serve as the major access point to the project. In
discussions with the applicant, several alternatives to the Bay
Road situation were discussed and analyzed including restricting
turning movements to right turn only; eliminating the access
point from the hotel to Bay Road; redesigning the parking lot to
make the Bay Road access point less attractive; and utilizing
signage to direct traffic. The agreed upon solution was to erect a
sign at the curb cut at Bay Road which would read "Private Drive,
Division of Wildlife and CSU Visitors Only". A letter is attached
from the Division of Wildlife wherein they agree "in principle" to
this sign. Staff feels this solution accommodates the traffic needs
of the hotel use, the ingress and egress needs of the Colorado
Division of Wildlife and CSU as well as respecting the City's goal
of emphasizing Center Avenue. Prior to final PUD approval of the '
project, the applicant will be required to provide an agreement
from the Colorado Division of Wildlife for their approval to erect
and maintain this sign.
Overall, the applicant has succeeded in satisfying staff concerns
regarding the Bay Road entrance, the dedication of Center Avenue as
a public right-of-way and has agreed to participate with the City
in the improvement of the Prospect/College intersection to the
extent herein outlined,• therefore mitigating the traffic impacts of
the proposal.
3. Land Use
The applicant is proposing a 256 room hotel arranged around a central
atrium, nine stories high. The ballroom can seat 1,000 guests, and
also can be divided into four meeting rooms. In addition, there are
five smaller meeting rooms seating upward from 12 people. There is a
coffee shop and party deck situated on the main level. There will be a
restaurant, a recorded music lounge with bar and a small dance floor.
There will be an indoor/outdoor pool, gift shops, barber and beauty
shops. The proposed motel/conference center was reviewed against the
criteria of the "Business Services Uses" land use category of the Land
Development Guidance System and achieves 38 out of a possible 54 points
for a total of 70%. A minimum of 50% is necessary for approval. The
points awarded were based upon the following analysis: ,
-146-
November 15, 1983
Criterion A - "Transit Route" - The site is contiguous to the
Transfort Route at the corner of Center Avenue and Prospect Road
and therefore meets this criterion. Full points were awarded.
Criterion B - "South College Corridor" - The site is located
outside the "South College Avenue Corridor" as defined in the
Zoning Ordinance. Full points were awarded.
Criterion C - "Part of Center" - The project is not part of a
neighborhood or community/regional shopping center, an office or
industrial park, located in the CBD or employ more than 100 full
time employees during a single 8-hour shift. Therefore, no points
were awarded.
Criterion D - "Two Acres or More" - The project contains 7 acres
and therefore full credit was awarded.
Criterion E - "Mixed Use" - The hotel and conference use, in
addition to combinations of other uses including restaurant,
personal service shops and light retail, satisfies the criteria of
being a mixed -use project. Full points were awarded.
Criterion F - "Joint Parking" — Staff feels the applicant has not
adequately addressed future vehicular and pedestrian connections to
adjacent existing or future parking areas to the south and east. No
points were awarded.
Criterion G - "Energy Conservation" - The applicant has adequately
demonstrated his intentions to incorporate energy saving systems
into the project beyond that normally required by City Code.
Partial credit was given.
Criterion H - "Contiguity" - The project has more than 1/6 conti-
guity to existing urban development as evidenced on three sides of
the project, and therefore full credit was given.
Criterion I - "Historic Preservation" - Not applicable.
Staff feels the proposed hotel/conference center use at this location
is consistent with the City policy as demonstrated by achieving 70% of
the applicable points on Point Chart E - "Business Services Uses" of
the Land Development Guidance System.
4. Tree Preservation
There are a number of significant trees indicated on the site plan. The
' most significant tree is the cottonwood located near the eastern
-147-
1
November 15, 1983
property line. There are also a number of Siberian elms located adja-
cent to the existing irrigation ditch. The Siberian elms are not in
good shape and will be lost when the ditch is relocated. The cottonwood
will also be removed as part of the site plan. Criterion #13 of the
"All Development" land use category of the LOGS requires that "the
project preserve significant existing vegetation to the extent practi-
cal". According to our City Arborist, the cottonwood is in good shape
and is worth saving. However, to save the tree, special attention would
be required by the developers. Staff feels the tree, if properly
treated, could enhance the overall visual appearance of the hotel/con-
ference facility. However, since the tree is setback approximately 230
feet from Prospect Road in combination with the new vegetation being
planned along that public street, removal of the cottonwood would
not negatively impact the visual appearance of the street. The appli-
cant has ,indicated the tree cannot be "practically" saved and therefore
staff recommends the applicant has adequately satisfied the "signifi-
cant vegetation" criterion.
Neighborhood Meeting
On Wednesday, August 10, 1983, in the Council Chambers, new City Hall, '
the staff of the Department of Planning and Development conducted a
neighborhood meeting on the proposed hotel/conference center. Letters
were sent to all property owners within 500 feet of the project and a
notice was published in the Coloradoan newspaper. City staff present
at the meeting included Joe Frank, Senior City Planner, and Mauri
Rupel, Development Center Director. Jim Gefroh, representing the
applicant, was present at the meeting, as was Jim Heaberlin, Tony
Hughes, the applicant's traffic engineer, and other consultants. There
were approximately 15 other interested persons attending the meeting,
including representatives from Pat Griffin Company; Planning and
Zoning Board; Downtown Development Authority; Chamber of Commerce;
Colorado Division of Wildlife; CSU and CSURF; and a local motel owner.
Most of the meeting was devoted to presentations, questions and an-
swers. Three issues were identified concerning the project. They
were:
A concern was expressed about the signage on top of the building.
One attendee questioned whether the pedestrian promenade from the
entrance to the facility to Prospect Road could create vehicular
problems along Prospect Road due to persons stopping and letting
people off at the promenade.
The question arose as to the status and use of the Bay Road en-
trance. '
-148-
November 15, 1983
In reviewing these issues against the plans as submitted, staff feels
the applicant has adequately resolved these issues. Staff arrived at
this finding based on the following:
a. The applicant has revised the building signage to conform with the
City's Sign Code. On the north elevation the lettering is placed
against the eastern -most return flanking the stair -tower and
on the east elevation it is placed on the building parapet. The
applicant has indicated the lettering will be white with a light
tan background. At night, these letters become illuminated in a
pale green hue. In addition, there will be Holiday Inn ground
signs on Prospect Road and Center Avenue in accordance with City
Sign Code.
b. The pedestrian promenade is designed to allow for the safe and
convenient flow of pedestrians from the hotel/conference facility
to the Prospect public sidewalk. There is no connection between
Prospect Road and the sidewalk except at the intersection of Center
Avenue and Prospect Road. Unloading/loading of vehicles should
take place at the designated area at the front of the building.
' Staff does not anticipate the unloading/loading will occur on
Prospect Road.
c. Bay Road will continue to be used by the Division of Wildlife and
CSU for major access. A sign will be placed at that entrance
indicating its use for those purposes. Staff anticipates some
traffic leaving the site may also use Bay Road which is an accept-
able situation. Full turning movements are planned at this curb
cut."
Mayor Knezovich stated that Councilmembers Elliott and Horak had requested
a rehearing before the Council on this matter.
Curt Smith, Director of Planning and Development, stated that the Planning
staff had recommended denial based on the following building height cri-
teria of the Land Development Guidance•System: (1) that buildings over 40
feet in height should be located in or near activity centers, and (2) that
the building height should be in scale with the immediate neighborhood.
The Planning and Zoning Board determined that the development would be in
scale with the emerging neighborhood and therefore would meet the building
height criteria of the LDGS. Staff recommended sharing the cost of street
improvements between the developer and the City, with the developer to pay
the costs of a right turn lane from eastbound Prospect onto southbound
College Avenue, and the City to improve the other three radii of the inter-
section.
-149-
November 15, 1983 '
David Wood, attorney representing the applicant John Hammons, spoke con-
cerning the following issues:
1. the type of hotel facility proposed;
2. the relationship of the proposed facility to the site;
3. the appropriateness of the facility to the area;
4. traffic impact; and
5. the need for this type of facility in Fort Collins at this time.
Mr. Wood stated the proposal is to build a high quality Holiday Inn with
conference facilities at a cost of about $10 million on a site containing
more than 7 acres. He pointed out that this would be an infill development
close to the CSU campus activity center. Street improvements associated
with the project would alleviate existing traffic problems on Prospect and
College ahead of the City's current capital projects schedule.
Jim Gefroh, project planner, gave an overview of the proposed site plan and
landscaping, and addressed the building height issue. He stated this
development would be a catalyst in this emerging neighborhood and would fit
in with the character of the neighborhood.
Don Parsons, project engineer, discussed traffic issues, water and sewer
design, and drainage. He stated that right-of-way would be acquired from I
CSU to widen Center Avenue, and improvements would be made to the Prospect -
College intersection.
Bob Burnham, Director of Facilities Planning at CSU, stated that CSU
supports the building of a new conference center, and this facility would
be compatible with CSU's master plan design philosophies. He would also
recommend the dedication of right-of-way for Center Avenue from Prospect to
the Arthur Ditch.
David Wood stated that the 1967 Economic Base Study demonstrated a need for
a hotel/conference center in Fort Collins, and that this is an appropriate
site for such a hotel.
Art March, attorney representing citizens in opposition to the development,
spoke concerning building height and scale and traffic impact. He stated
such a development would be more appropriate in the downtown. He presented
a scale model of the neighborhood and the development.
Fran Johnson, 600 Birky Place, presented a petition signed by 79 persons
from the Sheely neighborhood in opposition to the development.
Les Olson, 1914 Sheely Drive, spoke in opposition to the development.
Ray Dixon, 2304 Brookwood, spoke in support of locating this type of
facility in the downtown area. I
-150-
November 15, 1983
Councilmember Clarke asked about the percentage of westbound Prospect
traffic that would be turning left into this development and about the
impact on run-off in the Spring Creek drainageway. He also asked about
past CSU developments and future development plans in the area.
Bob Burnham summarized CSU's property holdings and spoke about previous
developments.
Councilmember Rutstein asked about the emerging CSU activity center and
about plans to extend Center Avenue to Drake or to turn west to intersect
Shields.
Bob Burnham stated CSU has plans in the 1980's for a business building to
be located south of Prospect. The extension of Center Avenue would depend
on development of CSURF property.
Councilmember Rutstein asked if this building was designed for this par-
ticular site and what changes were made in the plans to adapt them for the
Fort Collins site.
Jim Gefroh replied that the building was designed for the site but has
similarities to buildings located at other sites.
Jim Heaberlin, representing the applicant, stated the design uses a basic
plan customized for the Fort Collins site.
Councilmember Stoner asked about the proposed landscaping and about the use
of a sandstone color for the building.
Mr. Heaberlin replied that the plan is to use an earthtone or tan color.
Curt Smith stated the proposal is for extensive landscaping beyond what is
provided in normal commercial projects.
Councilmember Elliott asked about traffic egress into the site.
Curt Smith spoke about the proposed street improvements.
Rick Ensdorff, Traffic Manager, spoke about street striping, proposed turn
bays, and upgrading of the pedestrian walkways at Prospect and Center.
Don Parsons stated that about 80 cars would be turning left off westbound
Prospect during the peak afternoon hour.
Councilmember Clarke asked about space to be allotted for conference
' facilities.
-151-
November 15, 1983
Jim Gefroh described the proposed space for conference facilities.
Councilmember Rutstein asked about CSURF's plans for development.
Kathleen Byington, Vice -President of CSURF, stated plans have begun for a
high-tech research and development park in the area. CSURF intends to
cooperate with CSU and the City to extend Center Avenue as the CSURF
project proceeds.
Councilmember Horak asked about the proposed height of the planned CSURF
building.
Ms. Byington stated that plans are not that far along.
Councilmember Stoner asked how much the proposed street improvements would
improve the current traffic situation.
Rick Ensdorff stated the traffic situation would improve with the improve-
ments to the intersection.
Jerry Dusbabek, 930 Driftwood, spoke about traffic impact and the elimina-
tion of the open area, and opposed the location of a hotel at this site.
Larry Wall, 1713 Richards Lake Road, representing the Chamber of Commerce,
encouraged approval of this facility at this site.
C. J. Streit, 3430 Surrey Lane, favored the proposed hotel at this site
over a downtown site.
Phil Riddell, 1908 Sheely Drive, supported the project and stated it would
be an amenity for Fort Collins.
William Morgan, representing Pat Griffith, supported approval of the
development at this location.
J. Roderick Smith, 1154 Cobblestone Court, supported the project.
John Nelson, 3201 Wedgewood Court, supported the project because of the
conference facilities.
Frank Johnson, 700 Birky Place, opposed the project because of traffic
impact and building scale.
Jack Kuhn, 3200 Lochwood Drive, supported the facility.
Councilmember Stoner asked about the Planning staff's report on traffic
impact.
-152-
November 15, 1983
Curt Smith stated that street improvements would mitigate the traffic
impact addressed in staff's report.
Councilmember Elliott stated that the project would be in scale with the
area and the activity center.
Councilmember Ohlson stated the project is not compatible with the neigh-
borhood, and he would support the Planning staff's recommendation for
denial.
Councilmember Clarke stated this is an infill development which is en-
couraged by City policy, and the developer is mitigating the building
height concerns with setbacks and landscaping.
Councilmember Rutstein commented that the hotel would not be in the Univer-
sity activity center, is not designed for the Fort Collins site, would have
impact on traffic, and is incompatible with the scale of the neighborhood.
Councilmember Horak commented on the problems of neighborhood compatibility
and building height.
Councilmember Stoner stated he would support the project subject to the
conditions set out in the staff's comments. He also stated that he views
this as an activity center.
Councilmember Clarke made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Elliott, to
uphold the decision of the Planning and Zoning Board approving the pre-
liminary PUD plan for University Place, subject to the following condi-
tions:
1. the developer be charged a development fee equal to the cost of
the right turn lane on Prospect and College, with the City to pay
the cost of the other three radii;
2. that agreement be reached with Colorado State University relating
to dedication of Center Street as recommended by staff; and
3. that agreement be reached with the adjacent property owners on Bay
Road to accommodate the needs of the City, as recommended by
staff.
Yeas: Councilmembers Clarke, Elliott, Knezovich and Stoner. Nays:
Councilmembers Horak, Ohlson and Rutstein.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
-153-
Items Relating to Old Town IDRB's November 15, 1983 '
Following is the staff's memorandum on this item:
"A. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 154, 1983, Providing for
the Issuance of Industrial Development Revenue Bonds (IDRB's) for Old
Town Partners I in a maximum aggregate principal amount not to exceed
$10,000,000.
B. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 155, 1983, Providing for
the Issuance of Industrial Development Revenue Bonds (IDRB's) for Old
Town Partners II in a maximum aggregate principal amount not to exceed
$10,000,000.
Project Background
On April 5, 1983, Council adopted Resolutions 83-69 and 83-70, the purpose
of which was to induce Old Town Associates to use Industrial Development
Revenue Bonds (IDRB) for the purpose of renovation and restoration of
certain buildings in Old Town Fort Collins. Subsequent to that approval,
Old Town Associates, through its general partners, Madsen Consolidated
Corporation and E.E. Mitchell and Co., has been working on behalf of Old
Town Partners I and II. Old Town Partners I and II have prepared building
plans and specifications, marketing plans, secured necessary approvals from '
the Downtown Development Authority and the Landmarks Preservation Commis-
sion and arranged for the sale of both the IDRB's and equity partnership
interests for financing the Old Town Partners I and II projects.
Although the project is ready to begin construction within the next 60
days, current legislation threatens its viability. Any one of four separate
provisions of a proposed tax bill currently before the House of Representa-
tives and backed by Chairman Rostenkowski of the House Ways and Means
Committee would strip the project of its IDRB financing. The likely result
would be the loss of the redevelopment of Old Town.
Industrial Development Revenue Bond Package Terms
The proposed issue for Old Town Partners I is $6,454,000, and for Old Town
Partners II the amount is $6,326,300. To each amount will be added one
year's principal and interest reserve, which will be determined before the
final reading of the ordinances regarding the bonds. The bonds will be
issued for a term of 30 years. The entire principal will be guaranteed
by the financial guarantee bond written by Continental Casualty Company
of Chicago. The guarantee will be for a period of ten years at which time
the bonds will either be retired, or a substitute guarantee of the same
credit rating will be issued. The bonds will be marketed through a
combination of two banks, Bankers Trust Company and United Bank of Denver.
United Bank of Fort Collins has been proposed to act as the trustee for the
issue. '
-154-
November 15, 1983
Council Action
The ordinances related to the Old Town Associates IDRB's are being brought
to Council for first reading on November 15, 1983, followed by a second
reading and an emergency ordinance on November 23, 1983. The question of
the appropriateness of using an emergency ordinance for adopting the IDRB's
has been discussed by bond counsel and the City Attorney. They are in
concurrence that this approach can be used. However, Council must determine
that an emergency exists for this process to work. In the opinion of the
City Attorney, Council may determine that an emergency exists in the
situtation and that determination will withstand legal challenges that
might arise.
To assist Council in making a determination as to whether to proceed under
this approach, some pros and cons are outlined below:
Pros
1. There is a strong community interest and benefit to the welfare of
Fort Collins from having the Old Town project proceed. An emer-
gency exists to assure that the projects will be financed.
2. The Old Town redevelopment projects may be eliminated if we do
not follow this process. Pending IDRB legislation which is sche-
duled to be effective January 1, 1984, as currently contemplated
would destroy the tax exempt status of the proposed IDRB's. This
would be likely to terminate the projects.
3. Use of the emergency ordinance approach contemplated will not set
any troubling precedent. The Old Town projects and the circum-
stances giving rise to the emergency are extremely unusual.
Cons
1. Other people interested in IDRB's might possibly see this as
setting a precedent and request similar action be taken to speed
the process for future issues.
2. The approach requires Council to hold a special meeting where the
only action taken will be hearing of the emergency ordinances on
the Old Town Associates IDRB's.
Amendments
I
On Tuesday, amendments to the Bond Ordinances will be presented including:
-155-
November 15, 1983 '
1. Size of the bond issues;
2. Terms of the bonds;
3. Annual debt service;
4. Trustee; and
5. Schedule A relating to amortization of the bonds.
Additionally, revised financing agreements and trusts of indenture will be
presented on Monday along with other information.
Conclusion
Staff believes the proposed approach is justified and appropriate given the
circumstances surrounding the Old Town projects. The Old Town projects will
be very beneficial to the community and could be eliminated if the pending
legislation passes. Therefore, we recommend Council proceed with first
reading of the ordinances on November 15, 1983, and second reading of the
emergency ordinances on November 23, 1983."
Councilmember Ohlson stated he would withdraw from discussion and voting on I
this matter because of a possible conflict of interest.
City Attorney Huisjen read proposed amendments to Ordinance No. 154, 1983
and Ordinance No. 155, 1983.
Chuck Mabry, Vice -President of Mitchell and Company, stated plans for the
public and private portions of the project have been completed, and ar-
rangements have been concluded with the Downtown Development Authority.
Approval of the plans has been received from the Landmark Preservation
Commission. Leasing activities have been commenced.
Mike Morey, Madsen Consolidated Corporation, described the project concept
and financing arrangements.
Councilmember Clarke made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Rutstein to
adopt Ordinance No. 154, 1983.
Councilmember Clarke made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Rutstein to
amend Ordinance No. 154, 1983, with the amendments as read by City Attorney
Hui sjen.
Barbara Schofield, Chairman of the Downtown Development Authority, stated
the DDA supports the Old Town Associates project and that the Authority
would adopt a Resolution giving formal support prior to Second Reading of
the Ordinance. '
-156-
November 15, 1983
City Manager Arnold stated the applications have had extensive staff review
and the project is an important one with little City liability.
Gene Mitchell stated the City is not at risk in this public/private part-
nership and there will be considerable public benefit.
Mayor Knezovich stated that significant City participation is involved and
he would request assurances of economic success.
Councilmember Stoner asked about the effect on the City's bond rating if
this issue defaults.
Avy Stein, bond counsel, stated there would be no impact.
Councilmember Rutstein supported issuing IDRB's for this type of redevelop-
ment project.
The vote on the motion to approve the amendments to Ordinance No. 154, 1983
was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Clarke, Elliott, Horak, Knezovich,
Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays: None. (Councilmember Ohlson withdrawn)
' THE MOTION CARRIED.
The vote on the motion to adopt Ordinance No. 154, 1983 as amended was as
follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Clarke, Elliott, Horak, Knezovich, Rut-
stein, and Stoner. Nays: --None. (Councilmember Ohlson withdrawn)
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Clarke made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Rutstein, to
adopt Ordinance No. 155, 1983.
Councilmember Clarke made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Rutstein, to
adopt amendments to ordinance No. 155, 1983, as read by City Attorney
Huisjen. Yeas: Councilmembers Clarke, Elliott, Horak, Knezovich, Rut-
stein, and Stoner. Nays: None. (Councilmember Ohlson withdrawn)
THE MOTION CARRIED.
The vote on the motion to adopt Ordinance No. 155, 1983, as amended, was as
follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Clarke, Elliott, Horak, Knezovich, Rut-
stein, and Stoner. Nays: None. (Councilmember Ohlson withdrawn)
THE MOTION CARRIED.
I
Councilmember Ohlson returned to the meeting at this point.
-157-
November 15, 1983
Resolutions Adopted Authorizing the Acquisition
by Eminent Domain Proceedings Certain Land in
the City for a Public Parking Facility
Following is the staff's memorandum on this item:
"A. Resolution Authorizing the Acquisition by Eminent Domain Proceedings
of Lots 7 and 8 in Block 131.
B. Resolution Authorizing the Acquisition by Eminent Domain Proceedings
of Lots 9, 10, 11, and 12 in Block 131.
C. Resolution Authorizing the Acquisition by Eminent Domain Proceedings
of Lots 13 and 14 in Block 131.
D. Resolution Authorizing the Acquisition by Eminent Domain Proceedings
of Lots 15 and 16 in Block 131.
The Fort Collins Downtown Development Authority (DDA) has previously
requested and received approval by the City Council of its Plan of Develop-
ment for a parking facility to be located at the corner of Mountain Avenue
and Remington Street. Subsequent to the approval of the Plan of Develop- ,
ment, the DDA has proceeded in negotiating with various property owners for
the acquisition of four (4) properties so that the parking facility could
be constructed. Presently, the negotiations are ongoing. However, given
the time schedule for the construction of the parking facility, it is
necessary that the City exercise its powers in eminent domain so that the
acquisition of the property can be assured.
Eminent domain proceedings are authorized by statute for the construction
of public improvements including parking facilities. The purpose of
eminent domain proceedings is two -fold:
1. To allow public entities to acquire property, and
2. To provide adequate and just compensation to the landowners whose
property is condemned.
Generally, in eminent domain proceedings, possession of the property is
acquired and the compensation is determined by commissioners or a jury.
Both the public entity and the landowner is entitled to present evidence
before the tribunal determining the amount of compensation to be awarded to
assure adequate due process for all parties.
Prior to the condemnation action, the parties can continue to negotiate for
the acquisition of the property. In the event that such negotiations are
successful, no condemnation action would be filed. The individuals whose
-158-
November 15, 1983
property is subject to the condemnation resolutions have been notified that
Council is to consider the resolutions at its regular meeting of November
15, 1983.
The Old Town Square project is presently progressing on its revised sched-
ule so that construction will begin no later than February 15, 1984 (it is
hoped that construction will begin prior to that time). The contracts
which require the construction of the parking facility contain provisions
therein which will protect the City and the DDA in the event that money is
expended for public improvements and the private improvements in the Old
Town area are not constructed. Therefore, pursuit of the acquisition of
the property for the parking facility is timely."
Greg Denton, DDA attorney, stated that adoption of the resolutions would
allow acquisition of the property within the project timetable.
Councilmember Clarke made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Ohlson, to
adopt Resolution 83-199.
Councilmember Clarke supported proceeding with this acquisition of this
property now that the Old Town project is underway.
Earl Wilkinson, DDA member, urged moving ahead with the project.
The vote on the motion to adopt Resolution 83-199 was as follows: Yeas:
Councilmembers Clarke, Elliott, Horak, Knezovich, Ohlson, Rutstein, and
Stoner. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Clarke made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Rutstein, to.
adopt Resolution 83-200. Yeas: Councilmembers Clarke, Elliott, Horak,
Knezovich, Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Clarke made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Rutstein, to
adopt Resolution 83-201. Yeas: Councilmembers Clarke, Elliott, Horak,
Knezovich, Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Clarke made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Rutstein, to
adopt Resolution 83-202. Yeas: Councilmembers Clarke, Elliott, Horak,
Knezovich, Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
-159-
November 15, 1983
Ordinance Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue
in the D.D.A. Fund for the Purchase of Land
on Which to Construct a Parking Garage,
Adopted on First Reading
Following is the staff's memorandum on this item:
"On May 3, 1983, Council approved Ordinance 53, 1983 authorizing the issu-
ance of Tax Increment Bond Anticipation Notes on behalf of the Downtown
Development Authority. The ordinance permits the use of revenue from these
notes to fund the acquisition of property and land assembly.
In the Implementation Agreement with Old Town Associates, a contract
providing for the redevelopment of a section of Old Town, the DDA has
agreed to construct a parking garage near or adjacent to the project.
The Council adopted Resolution 83-100 on June 7, 1983 approving the loca-
tion of a parking facility at the southeast corner of Mountain and Reming-
ton. This parking facility conforms to the adopted Comprehensive Plan and
is consistent with the DDA's Plan of Development.
On July 5, 1983, Council appropriated a portion of the Bond Anticipation
Note proceeds (Ordinance 90, 1983) to finance the design of the parking
structure. This is continuing on schedule. Negotiations to purchase
property have been undertaken. An option to purchase, valid through the
end of 1983, has been accepted by one of the property owners and negotia-
tions continue with the others. The timing of this action is directly tied
to both the deadline in the option and to a provision of the Implementation
Agreement (Section VI 2) with Old Town Associates which states that
the parking facility will be completed by the end of 1984.
The budget for Phase II of the development of the parking structure is as
follows:
Land Purchase $743,000
Administrative, Fees, Contingency 57,000
Total $800,000 "
Councilmember Clarke made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Rutstein, to
adopt Ordinance No. 156, 1983.
Bruce Lockhart, 615 Mathews, opposed the land purchase because of the
erosion of the tax base and asked about the project.
The vote on the motion to adopt the Ordinance was as follows: Yeas:
Councilmembers Clarke, Elliott, Horak, Knezovich, Ohlson, Rutstein, and
Stoner. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
-160-
November 15, 1983
Councilmembers' Reports
Councilmember Elliott presented Councilmembers with information on the
Great American Smokeout Campaign of the American Cancer Society.
Other Business
Councilmember Stoner made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Ohlson, to
call by majority vote a Special Meeting of the City Council at 4:00 p.m. on
Wednesday, November 23, 1983, to consider the Second Readings of Ordinance
No. 154, 1983, and Ordinance No. 155, 1983, relating to Old Town Partners
IDRB's. Yeas: Councilmembers Clarke, Elliott, Horak, Knezovich, Ohlson,
Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 1:15 a.m.
ATTEST:
&y. a
Deputy CW Clerk
-161-