HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES-06/05/1984-RegularJune 5, 1984
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, June 5, 1984, at 5:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers in the City of
Fort Collins City Hall. Roll call was answered by the following Council -
members: Elliott, Horak, Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner.
Absent: Councilmember Clarke.
Secretary's Note: Councilmember Knezovich arrived at 5:45 p.m.
Staff Members Present: Arnold, Huisjen, Krajicek, Shannon, L. Hopkins, C.
Smith, Hays
Agenda Review: City Manager
City Manager Arnold pointed out Council would be convening a meeting of the
Board of Directors of General Improvement District No. 1 at the close of
the Council meeting.
Councilmember Ohlson asked that Item #14, Hearing and First Reading of
Ordinance No. 67, 1984, Transferring Appropriations Between Projects in the
DDA Fund for Improvement of an Alley, be removed from the Consent Agenda.
Councilmember Rutstein requested Item #19, Resolution Waiving the Off -site
Street Improvement and Public Sewer Requirements for Development within the
U.G.A. (Known as Commercial Design, Inc., Waivers), and Item #20, Resolu-
tion Waiving the Off -site Street Improvement§ Requirement for Development
in the UGA (Known as Meadow Lane Subdivision Waiver), be withdrawn from the
Consent Calendar.
Mayor Horak noted that Councilmember Knezovich had asked him to request the
withdrawal of Item #24, Motion Accepting the City's 1983 Annual Audit, from
the Consent Agenda.
Consent Calendar
This Calendar is intended to allow the City Council to spend its time and
energy on the important items on a lengthy agenda. Staff recommends
approval of the Consent Calendar. Anyone may request an item on this
calendar be "pulled" off the Consent Calendar and considered separately.
-442-
June 5, 1984
Agenda items pulled from the Consent Calendar will be considered separately
under Agenda Item #37, Pulled Consent Items, except items pulled by anyone
in the audience or items that any member of the audience is present to
discuss that were pulled by staff or Council. These items will be dis-
cussed immediately following the Consent Calendar.
4. Consider Approving the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of May 15.
5. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 58, 1984, Annexing Approximately 42.5
acres of Property Located East of South Lemay Avenue and North of
as 3L, Known as tmerson Acres Annexation.
This Ordinance was unanimously adopted on First Reading on May 15.
The applicants, Robert and Karen Dickinson, are seeking to annex
approximately 42.5 acres of property located east of South Lemay
Avenue (County Road 13) and north of County Road 32. A voluntary
annexation is defined as one in which more than fifty percent (50%) of
the landowners owning more than 50% of the land in the area are in
agreement with the annexation. The Emerson Acres Annexation is 100%
voluntary. This annexation achieves its one -sixth (1/6) contiguity
requirement through a common boundary with the Halcyon Annexation.
6. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 59 1984 Zoning Approximately 42.5
Acres of Property Located East of South Lemay Avenue and north of
County Road 32 Known as the Emerson Acres Annexation Zoning to the
R-L-P, Low Density Planned Residential District.
This Ordinance was unanimously adopted on First Reading on May 15.
The applicants, Robert and Karen Dickinson, are seeking to zone
approximately 42.5 acres of property located east of South Lemay
(County Road 13) and north of County Road 32, to the R-L-P, Low
Density Planned Residential zoning district with a condition that all
development on the property be processed as a planned unit develop-
ment.
11
7. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 60, 1984, Annexing Approximately 6.59
Acres of Property Located on the East Side of South College Avenue
South of Harmony _Road and Nort of FossilCreek Meadows Subdivision
Known as the Fossil Creek First Annexation.
This Ordinance was unanimously adopted on First Reading on May 15.
The applicants, James P. Peterson, Clarissa Frances Allison and Floyd
W. Deines, are seeking to annex approximately 6.592 acres of property
located on the east side of South College Avenue, south of Harmony
Road and north of the Fossil Creek Meadows Subdivision. The annexa-
tion is a voluntary annexation which is defined as one in which more
-443-
June 5, 1984
than fifty percent (50%) of the landowners owning more than 50% of the
land in the area are in agreement with the annexation. The Fossil
Creek Meadows First Annexation is 100% voluntary. The annexation
achieves its one -sixth (1/6) contiguity requirement through a common
boundary with the Fairway Estates Business Annexation.
8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 61 1984 Zoning Approximately 6 592
Acres of Property Located on the East Side of College Avenue, South of
Harmony Road and North of Fossil Creek Meadows Subdivision Known as
the Fossil Creek First Annexation, to the B-L, Limited Business Dis-
trict.
This Ordinance was unanimously adopted on First Reading on May 15.
The applicants, James P. Peterson, Clarissa Frances Allison and Floyd
W. Deines, are seeking to zone approximately 6.592 acres located on
the east side of South College Avenue, south of Harmony Road and north
of the Fossil Creek Meadows Subdivision to the B-L, Limited Business
zoning district.
The subject property is located along South College Avenue, a major
arterial street, which is also U.S. Highway 287. Staff has no prob-
lems with the requested B-L zone and feels the zoning would be in con-
formance with the City's Comprehensive Plan.
9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 62 1984 Appropriating$18 500 from
Prior Year Reserves in the Capital Projects Fund for the Mulberry/
Shields Intersection Project.
This Ordinance was unanimously adopted on first Reading on May 15.
The City has an opportunity to work with 7-11, Southland Corporation,
to widen the southwest corner of -the Mulberry and Shields Intersection
which would reduce the future cost of improving the intersection by
$50,000. Southland Corp, has purchased the gas station on the
southwest corner of Mulberry and Shields, next to their 7-11. Store.
They are planning to demolish the gases.station and remodel the 7-11
site to include more parking, gas pumps and landscaping. They have
agreed to dedicate additional R.O.W., and to widen both Mulberry and
Shields adjacent to their property. , However, by the time they con-
struct a transition from the new width to the existing width, their
widening would have little impact on- the improvement of the intersec-
tion. Therefore, the goal of this, project would be to construct
the transitions across the properties adjacent to 7-11.
10. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 63, 1984, Providing for the Imposition
-of an Additional -Twenty-Five Hundredths Percent 25% Retail Sales
and Use Tax to be Effective July 1, 1984
Chapter 104 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins presently estab-
lishes a Sales and Use Tax in the amount of two and twenty-five
-444-
June 5, 1984
hundredths percent (2.25%). By Resolution 84-33, the Council referred
a Sales and Use Tax Ordinance to the qualified electors of the City
for the capital improvements as were defined in that resolution. On
May 1, 1984, the qualified electors of the City of Fort Collins
approved the imposition of an additional twenty-five hundredths
percent (.25%) Sales and Use Tax to begin on July 1, 1984, and con-
tinue through June 30, 1989, for the purpose of raising revenues to
acquire and complete certain capital projects. This tax was to be
effective as to sales and use of all taxable transactions as defined
in Chapter 104, with the exception of food.
This Ordinance was unanimously adopted on First Reading on May 15 and
pertains only to the tax increase for capital improvements as approved
by the voters and to become effective on July 1, 1984. Staff will be
returning to the Council with an additional ordinance for the ice rink
and swimming pool tax at a later time this year, since that tax is not
to become effective until January 1, 1985.
This Ordinance was unanimously adopted on First Reading on May 15. In
1972, the City Council enacted Ordinance No. 96 (codified as Section
112-126) relating to requirements for furnishing utility service
outside the City limits. As a part of this Ordinance, paragraph H
provided that any applicant for out -of -City utility service would
agree not to participate in any manner in the formation of any munici-
pal or quasi -municipal district without the consent of the Council.
Further, paragraph 0 provided that utility service should not be
extended to any property unless such property also received all of its
utility service from the City.
Since these provisions are not enforced%by the City, their existence
in §112-126 creates confusion and ambiguity as to the City's policies
regarding outside utility service. This is especially so in light of
the City's present policy of cooperation with utility districts for
the purpose of providing the best utility service at the most reason-
able terms. By repealing these sections, the Code of Ordinances will
be brought into compliance with the actual practice of the City and
the ambiguity with regard to the City's policy will be eliminated.
12. Second Readinq of Ordinance No. 65, 1984, Relati
on o
"Irs
This Ordinance was unanimously adopted on First Reading on May 15.
The purpose of this Special Improvement District is to construct
street pavement, street lighting, water, sanitary sewer, and storm
-445-
June 5, 1984
drainage facilities in and adjacent to Cunningham Corners P.U.D. and
the proposed Williamsburg P.U.D. in the southwest area of Fort Col-
lins. These improvements will include construction of portions of
Horsetooth Road and Shields Street adjacent to the two developments.
Some internal roads and utility lines will also be constructed as a
part of the district.
13. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 66 1984 Appropri
$2,000,000 in the Capital Projects Fund for Water Treatment Plan
In accordance with Resolution 84-39, adopted by the City Council on
March 20, 1984, the staff is proceeding with the design of the 20 MGD
expansion at Water Treatment Plant No. 2 and related transmission and
distribution facilities. All of the funds, $2,500,000, for the design
work and right-of-way acquisition were appropriated by the Annual
Appropriation Ordinance and included in the 1984 Water Fund Budget.
However, due to a miscommunication between the Budget Office staff
and the Water Utilities staff, only $500,000 of the $2,500,000 was
appropriated in the Capital Projects Fund when the 1984 Budget was
adopted. The purpose of this ordinance is to appropriate the remaining
$2,000,000 in the Capital Projects Fund.
14. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 67 1984 Transferrin
Appropriations Between Projects in the DDA Fund for Improvement of an
AlIey•
The change in use in the Collins House building as the result of its
renovation requires increased access to the alley. Substantial
improvement to the alley from Magnolia was necessary as well as
paving.
Expenses connected with issuing Bond Anticipation Notes in 1983 were
less than expected, providing $8,355 thyat can be used to finance the
reconstruction of the portion of the alley immediately east of the
Collins House project. On May 3, the Downtown Development Authority
Board of Directors adopted a motion to finance the improvement of the
south half of -the alley east of the Collins House on a vote of 4 to 1.
15. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 68, 1984 Appropriating
Unanticipated Revenue in,the Larimer County Library Services Fund.
On February 24, 1984, Council adopted Resolution 84-25 authorizing the
Mayor to enter into an intergovernmental agreement with Larimer County
for the purpose of providing Library Outreach Services ,to the resi-
dents of Larimer County. The agreement has been finalized, and the
money, $8,783, has been received from the County. The money now needs
to be appropriated for expenditure.
-446-
June 5, 1984
In addition to the $8,783 from Larimer County, the City will be
receiving funds from Loveland on a reimbursement basis. Whenever the
Outreach Program provides services to citizens of Loveland, we will
bill Loveland, and be reimbursed for the associated costs. It is
estimated that we will receive $990 from Loveland in this manner.
Rather than return to Council with an appropriation ordinance each
time funds are received, the $990 should also be appropriated at this
time.
16. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 69, 1984, Deleting Junk
Dealers License.
In 1959, an ordinance was adopted which requires any person or persons
operating a junk shop or store as a dealer or carrying on the business
of a junk peddler or collector to obtain a city license at an annual
fee of $50 for a store or $25 for a peddler or collector and file a
bond in the penal sum of $500. The ordinance also requires every
person licensed as a junk dealer, peddler or collector to keep records
to enable him to locate the person from whom he purchased every
article of junk except rags and bottles.
While junk dealers, peddlers and collectors per se have all but
vanished from the city, the relatively new business activity of
recycling resources falls under this section of the Code. Staff feels
that requiring a license, a $500 bond and the associated record
keeping is contrary to the City supported concept of recycling re-
sources, and therefore, recommends adoption of this Ordinance re-
pealing the section of the Code pertaining to Junk Dealers.
17. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 70, 1984, Vacating a
Utility Easement between Lots 18 and 23, Centerpoint Park.
An electronics company is currently planning to construct a building
on Lots 18 and 23 of Centerpoint Park Subdivision. Their building
would span both lots and therefore encroach into a utility easement
that runs along the common lot line. Since no buildings are allowed
to be constructed in an easement, the owner is asking that a portion
of it be vacated.
18. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 71, 1984, Vacating Portions
of a Utility Easement in Tract A of the Wilderland Condominiums, a
Multi -Family P.U.D.
Wilderland Condominiums is now under construction. The developer
wants to build garages for his units that would encroach onto a
utility easement. Since no buildings are allowed to be constructed in
-447-
June 5, 1984
an easement, they are requesting the vacation. There are currently no
utilities in these easements and the owners are leaving an 8 foot
easement adjacent to the street which is adequate for all the utili-
ties.
19. Resolution Waivin the Off -site Street Im rovement and Public Sewer
Requirements for Development within the U.G.A. Known as Commercial
Design, Inc., waivers).
This is a request to waive the off -site street improvements and public
sewer requirements for development within the Urban Growth Area. The
site is located at 309 Summit View Drive and has a residence, barn and
several outbuildings existing on the site. The applicant proposes to
use the existing residence for an office and the outbuildings for
storage space for Commercial Design, Inc.
20. Resolution Waivin the Off -site Street Im rovements Re uirement for
_eve opment in the UGA Known as Meadow Lane Subdivision Waiver .
This is a request to waive the off -site street improvements require-
ment for a 3-lot residential subdivision (known as Meadow Lane Sub-
division) located on the north side of West Mulberry Street, east of
Overland Trail.
21. Resolution Amending Rules and Regulations for the Operation of Muni-
cipal Cemeteries.
The proposed resolution would amend two subsections of Section 4-i of
the Rules and Regulations for the Operation of Municipal Cemeteries:
the section relating to polyesterine plastic or :fiberglass burial
receptacles and the section relating to steel burial receptacles.
1. '
22. Resolution Authorizing the City Manager:to Amend an Existing Agreement
with the State Board of A rtculture to Increase Water and Sewer
Service Fees for Providing Water and S,ewer,Service to CSU.
- In 1974, the City entered into an agreement with the State Board of
Agriculture of the State of Colorado concerning the furnishing of
water and sewer service by the City to Colorado State University.
Since that time, the agreement has been amended numerous times for the
purpose of adjusting.the service fees the City charges CSU for water
and sewer service: -Rate adjustments for CSU correspond, percentage
wise, to the rate adjustments experienced by all the other customers
served by the City Water and Sewer Utilities. Rate adjustments for
. CSU are made effective July 1st of each year to accommodate their
budgeting process.
-448-
June 5, 1984
23. Resolution Approving an Addendum to the Agreement with the State Board
of Agriculture Relating to the Furnishing of Water and Sewer Service
to Colorado State Universitv.
During the past year the City staff has been working with representa-
tives from Colorado State University on various items of mutual
concern and need. These items include the following:
(1) The University's need for improved fire protection on the Foot-
hills Campus.
(2) The City's need for easements for a 54-inch water main which will
cross property owned by CSU.
(3) The City's need for additional property adjacent to Water Treat-
ment Plant No. 2, for future plant expansions, which is owned by
CSU.
After numerous meetings and many hours of discussion, representatives
from CSU and the City staff have developed a proposal to satisfy these
mutual needs and concerns. CSU will give the City the necessary
easements and property the City needs in exchange for the City in-
stalling a new water main across the Foothills Campus. The estimated
cost for the land and CSU's share of the water main are approximately
equal.
24. Motion Accepting the City's 1983 Annual Audit.
On May 25, the City's 1983 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report
containing the auditor's opinion was forwarded to the City Council
under separate cover. Council needs to formally accept the Report.
IA
25. Routine Easements.
a. Easement from the City of Fort Collins to the developer, of Rain -
tree P.U.D. The approval of Raintree P.U.D. carried with it a
requirement for a storm sewer connection across property now
occupied by Moore Park. The City is granting an easement across
Moore Park for the installation of this line. Ownership and
maintenance of the sewer line will become the City's after the
line is installed by the developer and accepted by the City.
b. Deed of Easement from David M. and Irene V. Barkai. This is the
sixth of seven required easements for the Dixon Creek Sanitary
Sewer Extension project. The Barkai 'easement is being acquired
for a consideration of $10. In January, the City entered into an
-449-
■
June 5, 1984
agreement with Jensen Enterprises for the extension of an over-
sized 15" sanitary sewer main on the south side of Drake Road,
approximately from the intersection of Drake with Spring Creek to
the Dixon Creek P.U.D. The City has budgeted its $168,000 share
of the project cost through the Utility Oversizing Fund. A
standard repay agreement will be prepared once the project is
completed.
Ordinances on Second Reading were read by title by Wanda Krajicek, City
. Clerk.
Item #5.
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 58, 1984, Annexing Approximately
4Z.5 acres of Property Located East of South Lema venue and
North of County Road 32, Known as Emerson Acres Annexation.
Item #6.
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 59, 1984, Zoning Approximately
42.5 Acres of Property Located East of South Lema Avenue and
north of County Road 32 Known as the Emerson Acres Annexation
Zoning to the R-L-P, Low Density Planned Residential District.
Item #7.
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 60, 1984, Annexing Approximately
6.592 Acres of Property Located on the East Side of South Coll% e
Avenue, South of Harmony Road and North of Fossil Creek Meadows
Subdivision, Known as the Fossil Creek First Annexation.
Item #8.
Second Reading -of Ordinance No. 61, 1984, Zoning Approximate)
6.592 Acres of Property Located on the East Side of College
Avenue, South of Harmony Road and North of Fossil Creek Meadows
Subdivision, Known as the Fossil Creek First Annexation, to the
B-L, Limited Business District.
Item #9.
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 62;.1984, Appropriating $18 500
from Prior Year Reserves in the%Capital Projects Fund for the
Mulberry/Shields Intersection Project.
Item #10.
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 6311984, Providin for the
Imposition of an Additional Twenty -Five Hundredths Percent .25%
Retail Sales and Use,Tax to be Effective July 1 1984
Item #11.
Second Reading of Ordinance Nb: 64, 1984, Repealing Paragraphs H
and O of Section 112-126 of the Code of the Cit Relating to
Requirements for Furnishing Utility Service Outside the City
Ltmtts.
Item 112.
Second Readin of Ordinance No, 65, 1984, Relatin to the Crea-
tion and Organization of Special Improvement District No. 82.
-450-
June 5, 1984
Ordinances on First Reading were read by title by Wanda Krajicek, City
Clerk.
Item #13. Hearin and First Readin of Ordinance No. 66, 1984, A ro ri-
ating 2,000,000 in the Capital Projects Fund for Water Treatment
Plant No. 2.
Item #14. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 67, 1984, Transferring
Appropriations Between Projects in the DDA Fund for Improvement
of an Alley.
Item #15. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 68, 1984, Appropri-
ating Unanticipated Revenue in the Larimer County Library Ser-
vices Fund.
Item #16. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 69, 1984, Deleting
Junk Dealers License.
Item #17. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 70, 1984, Vacating a
Utility Easement be Lots 18 and 23, Centervoint Park.
Item #18. Hearinq and First Readinq of Ordinance No. 71, 1984, V
ortions of a utility tasement
ondominiums. a Multi -Family P.U.
Councilmember Stoner made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Ohlson, to
adopt and approve all items not removed from the Consent Calendar. Yeas:
Councilmembers Elliott, Horak, Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays:
None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Resolution Waiving the Off -Site
Street Improvement and Public Sewer
Requirements for Development Within
the U.G.A. (Known as Commercial
Design, Inc.,•Waivers), Adopted
Following is the staff's memorandum on this item:
"This is a request to waive the off =site street improvements and public
sewer requirements for development within the Urban Growth Area. The site
is located at 309 Summit View Drive and has a residence, barn and several
outbuildings existing on the site. The applicant proposes, to use the
existing residence for an office and the outbuildings for storage space for
Commercial Design, Inc. The surrounding zoning, and land uses are as
follows:
-451-
June 5, 1984
N: I -Industrial; residence
S: I -Industrial; vacant
E: 0-Open; Elars Bioresearch Farm, Kamon Bearing & Supply
W: I -Industrial; Summit View Industrial Park
A request to rezone this site from 0-Open to I -Industrial was reviewed by
the Board at the February 27, 1984, Board meeting. The Board voted 7-0 to
recommend approval of the rezoning subject to the site being developed as a
PUD. The County Commissioners will make the final decision on the rezoning
within the month. Waivers or compliance with the UGA phasing criteria
would be necessary whether the site were required to develop as a PUD or
under zoning requirements.
Discus -inn
In order for the site to develop in the Urban Growth Area, the following
phasing criteria would need to be met, or waivers to these requirements
would have to be approved:
1. Public water (subject to Appendix A of the Intergovernmental Agreement
for the Fort Collins Urban Growth Area - public water and sewer capa-
city).
2. Public sewer (subject to Appendix A of the Intergovernmental Agreement
for the Fort Collins Urban Growth Area - public water and sewer capa-
city).
3. Minimum water pressure at each building of 30 psi.
4. Public street capacity (including improving all proposed streets to
City design and construction standards and improving off -site streets
to standards indicated on the adjoining City Master .Street Plan from
the proposed development.to the improved arterial street).
5. At least 1/6 of the proposed development's boundary must be contiguous
to existing development or situated between existing development and a
municipality and must be served by either water or sewer utilities from
- said municipality.
6. An agreement between the municipality: and water and sewer district
potentially able to serve the site as to the standards for the instal-
lation of water and sewer facilities.
Public water would be provided by ELCO Water District. The ,site is pre-
sently served by a septic system. Off -site street improvements would
■ require improving Summit View Drive from Highway 14 to the site, a distance
of about .2 miles. The site has contiguity to existing development.
-452-
June 5, 1984
The Larimer County Commissioners may waive phasing criteria for development
in the Urban Growth Area generally provided that:
1. Such requested waiver is approved by the governing body of the adjoin-
ing municipality after said body has substantiated the required find-
ings.
2. The waiver will not result in unplanned expense for provision of public
services, improvements or facilities.
3. The waiver is consistent with the intent and purpose of the County and
adjoining municipality's Comprehensive Plans and Policies.
4. The waiver application contains material indicating approval may be
granted without substantial detriment to the intent and purposes of the
Supplementary Regulations applying to the area.
5. The waiver application contains material indicating there are excep-
tional circumstances applying to the specific piece of property which
do not apply generally to the remaining property in the Urban Growth
Area.
6. The waiver application contains material indicating approval would not
impair the public health and safety by creating undesirable traffic
conditions, undesirable sanitary conditions, or adverse environmental
influences in the area.
The applicant has met 4 of the 6 criteria but is requesting a waiver to the
public sewer and off -site street improvements requirements. The current
septic system is operational and would not be impacted by the proposed use
.according to the County Health Department. The intent of the waiver
process is to give priority to in -fill development, whose impact on exist-
ing services and facilities is relatively minimal.
Minimal changes are proposed for the existing structures to accommodate the
proposed use. The potential impact to the area street network has been
evaluated by the City's Traffic Engineer and has been found to be minimal
(see attached letter).
The site is essentially an in -fill site and the impacts to the street
system are minimal;. therefore, the interest of the waiver process has been
met. ---The- applicant has indicated his willingness to participate in an
improvement district for Summit View Drive if and when a district is
formed. Approval of the waiver is recommended because of'the minimal
impact on the surrounding streets.
-453-
June 5, 1984
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the Commercial Design, Inc. off -site street
requirement subject to payment of the U.G.A. waiver fee and future par-
ticipation by the applicant in an improvement district for improvements to
Summit View Drive.
This commitment will be tied down as a condition on the subdivision plat
which will be recorded against the property. In addition the developer
will be required to pay the UGA waiver fee which will be considered by City
Council on July 3."
Councilmember Stoner made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Elliott, to
adopt Resolution 84-85.
Councilmember Rutstein expressed concern that this item did not meet the
criteria and philosophy discussed earlier.
Director of Planning and Development Curt Smith noted this waiver was for
existing buildings and if additional development was proposed, the waiver
would not apply. He stated that staff examined the criteria for evaluating
the waiver, primarily the impact on the streets, and felt that as proposed
it would not create any impacts and met the general intent of the criteria.
The vote on Councilmember Stoner's motion to adopt Resolution 84-85 was as
follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Elliott, Horak, Ohlson, Rutstein, and
Stoner. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Resolution Waiving the Off -Site
Street Improvements Regy;irement
for Development in the UGA (Known as
Meadow Lane Subdivision Waiver) Adopted
11
Following is the staff's memorandum on this item:
"This is a request to waive the ^off -site street improvements requirement
for a 3-lot residential subdivision (known as Meadow Lane Subdivision)
located on the north side of West Mulberry Street, east of Overland Trail.
The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows:
N: FA-1; Coffee Park Addition
S: R-L; existing residences
E: FA; vacant
W: FA-1; Coffee Park Addition
-454-
June 5, 1984
Discussion
In order for the site to develop in the Urban Growth Area, the following
phasing criteria would need to be met, or waivers to these requirements
would have to be approved:
1. Public water (subject to Appendix A of the Intergovernmental Agreement
for the Fort Collins Urban Growth Area - public water and sewer capa-
city).
2. Public sewer (subject to Appendix A of the Intergovernmental Agreement
for the Fort Collins Urban Growth Area - public water and sewer capa-
city).
3. Minimum water pressure at each building of 30 psi.
4. Public street capacity (including improving all proposed streets to
City design and construction standards and improving off -site streets
to standards indicated on the adjoining City Master Street Plan from
the proposed development to the improved arterial street).
5. At least 1/6 of the proposed development's boundary must be contiguous
to existing development or situated between existing development and a
municipality and must be served by either water or sewer utilities from
said municipality.
6. An agreement between the municipality and water and sewer district
potentially able to serve the site as to the standards for the instal-
lation of water and sewer facilities.
Public water and sewer would be provided by the City .of Fort Collins.
Off -site street improvements would require isap.rovements ;to Mulberry. The
site has obtained a waiver to the requirement for contiguity to existing
development. The site is not eligible for annexation.
The Larimer County Commissioners may waive phasing criteria for develop-
ments in the Urban Growth Area generally provided that:
1. Such requested waiver is approved by the governing body of the adjoin-
ing municipality after said body has substantiated the required findings.
2. The waiver will not result in unplanned expense for'provision of public
services, improvements or facilities.
3. The waiver is consistent with the intent and purpose of the County and
adjoining municipality's Comprehensive Plans of Policies.
-455-
The waiver application contains material
granted without substantial detriment to th
June 5, 1984
e
indicating approval may be
intent and purposes of the
Supplementary Regulations applying to the area.
5. The waiver application contains material indicating there are excep-
tional circumstances applying to the specific piece of property which
do not apply generally to the remaining property in the Urban Growth
Area.
6. The waiver application contains material indicating approval would not
impair the public health and safety by creating undesirable traffic
conditions, undesirable sanitary conditions, or adverse environmental
influences in the area.
The applicant's request is to waive the off -site street improvements
requirement. The intent of the waiver process is to give priority to
in -fill development, whose impact on existing services and facilities is
relatively minimal.
The proposed subdivision would create two additional residential building
sites. The potential impact to the area street network has been evaluated
by the City's Traffic Engineer and has been found to be minimal (see
attached letter). The site is essentially an in -fill site and the impacts
to the street system are minimal; therefore, the intent of the waiver
process has been met. Future participation in an improvement district for
Mulberry Street would be "required if and when a district is formed.
Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the Meadow Lane Subdivision Waiver with the
condition the applicant commit to future participation in an improvement
district for Mulberry. Street_ improvements. ,This commitment will be tied
down as a condition on the subdivision plat:°which will be recorded against
the property. In addition the developer will be required to pay the UGA
waiver fee which will be considered by City Council on July 3.
Planninq and Zoninq Board Recommendation
The Planning and Zoning Board recommended approval of this request by a
vote of 5-2. The dissenting votes were cast by members who were concerned
about the lack of an established unit fee for these off -site improvements.
(A proposed fee was presented to the Planning and Zoning Board at their
regular meeting on May 30, 1984)."
■ Councilmember Stoner made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Ohlson, to
adopt Resolution 84-86.
-456-
June 5, 1984
Councilmember Rutstein asked for a clarification of the access to the
property.
Director of Planning and Development Curt Smith replied that access would
be from the local streets internally rather than Mulberry. He noted this
property had been looked at closely when the waiver criteria was proposed.
The vote on Councilmember Stoner's motion to adopt Resolution 84-86 was as
follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Elliott, Horak, Ohlson, Rutstein, and
Stoner. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Secretary's Note: Councilmember Knezovich arrived at this point.
Resolution Giving Authorization
to Proceed into Final Design and
Construction for the Remodel of
City Hall East Phase I1. Adooted
Following is the staff's memorandum on this item:
"On January 3, 1984, City Council appropriated an additional $707,300 to
complete the remodel of City Hall East. This remodel will provide maximum
use and extension of the life of the facility for -another 20 years.
Included with this agenda item summary is the Preliminary Design Report.
This report outlines the current status of the project including the scope
of work, project approach, project schedule, and overall budget summary."
Councilmember Rutstein made a. motion, seconded by Councilmember Ohlson, to
adopt Resolution 84-89.
City Manager Arnold noted the total costs for this project were estimated
to be $1.37 million and that Council approval was needed to proceed to
final design and construction.
Norman Munn, P.O. Box 1040, agreed that there was a need for this project.
The vote on Councilmember Rutstein's motion to adopt Resolution 84-89 was
_
as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Elliott, Horak, Knezovich, Ohlson,
Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
-457-
June 5, 1984
Resolution Authorizing the City Manager
to Enter into a Professional Services
Agreement with Environmental Research
and Technology, Inc., for Preparation
of an Air Quality Monitoring Program and
an Air Quality Control Program Adopted
Following is the staff's memorandum on this item:
"On January 3, 1984, the City Council passed Resolution 84-6 establishing
air quality goals for the community and directing staff and the Environ-
mental Quality Technical Advisory Committee (EQUATAC) to implement the
goals. Specific direction was given to develop an air quality monitoring
program and establish an air quality control program by December, 1984.
During February and early March of this year, planning staff members worked
with EQUATAC in the development of a Request for Proposals/Qualifications
to assist the City in the development of an Air Quality Monitoring Program
and an Air Quality Control Program. Council has allocated $100,000 in the
1984 City Budget for the development of these programs.
On March 16, 1984, the City's Purchasing Department issued RFP/A P-97.
By the closing date of April 5, 1984, the City had received proposals from
the following consultants: Karl Zeller; Environmental Research and Tech-
nology, Inc.; Rockwell _International; and Don S. Packnett. Members of
EQUATAC and City planning staff reviewed the written proposals and con-
ducted personal interviews on May 4, 1984. It was the consensus of those
involved in the process that Environmental Research and Technology,
Inc., was the firm best suited to address the City's needs. The attached
resolution will initiate a contract with ERT for a sum not to exceed
$61,471. The Scope of Services for this contract is, also attached."
Councilmember Ohlson made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Rutstein, to
adopt Resolution 84-90.
Councilmember Elliott asked whether ERT would be conducting public hearings
or surveys of any type.
Director of Planning and Development Curt Smith noted there was no inten-
tion to hold any additional public hearings since the experience with
Anheuser-Busch produced a large amount of information on the air quality
issue. The emphasis of this program is towards developing a specific
monitoring and control program. He added ERT would be attempting to
develop a consistent inventory emission list to be used for future pro-
e
jects.
-458-
1-1 June 5, 1984
Councilmember Ohlson asked if it was unusual to have only four bidders on a
project.
Mr. Smith replied that the project itself was unusual and that two of the
best air quality research firms in the country, ERT and Rockwell, had bid.
He added the specifics of this proposal would result in a capital improve-
ments plan in effect for air quality monitoring and that another $100,000
was being requested in the 1985 budget for air quality work.
Councilmember Knezovich asked if wood burning stoves had been discussed.
Mr. Smith replied that EQUATAC was aware of Council's concern over wood
burning stoves and decided not to make recommendations on control programs
or technology until they have some concrete data. He added that Chief
Building Official Felix Lee was setting up a separate technical committee
to work with wood burning stove manufacturers and others in that area to
look at the technological advances now on the market and determine what can
be required.
The vote on Councilmember Ohlson's motion to adopt Resolution 84-90 was as
follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Elliott, Horak, Knezovich, Ohlson, Rut-
stein, and Stoner. Nays: None. I
THE MOTION CARRIED.
City Manager's Report
City Manager Arnold reported on his recent trip to Washington, D.C. to
receive several Public Technology, Inc. awards on behalf of the City of
Fort Collins. These four awards are for technology achievement. Fort
Collins won first prize in 3 of 15 categories -.and a special mention in a
fourth category. The_three.fi.rst places wef for the "Hot Shot" Program,
the SAINT Program, and the paperless Police Department. The special
mention was for the hand-held breathalizer program.
Councilmembers' Re
Councilmember Elliott invited Council and public to the dedication of the
fire sprinkler system at the DMA Plaza to be held on June 15.
Councilmember Knezovich"reported on the progress of the sales tax simplifi-
cation discussions held with the legislature's interim joint study commit-
tee on business matters. He' reported on the PRPA Board of Directors
meeting, the operation of the Rawhide power plant, and the process used to ■
select Senator Bill Armstrong to speak at the Rawhide:aedication.
-459-
June 5, 1984
Councilmember Horak gave a progress report on the Poudre River wild and
scenic bill and complimented all those involved with the dedication of
Rolland Moore Park.
Ordinance Transferring Appropriations
Between Projects in the DDA Fund for
Improvement of an Alley, Adopted on First Reading
Following is the staff's memorandum on this item:
"The change in use in the Collins House building as the result of its
renovation requires increased access to the alley. Substantial improvement
to the alley from Magnolia was necessary as well as paving.
Expenses connected with issuing Bond Anticipation Notes in 1983 were less
than expected, providing $8,355 that can be used to finance the recon-
struction of the portion of the alley immediately east of the Collins House
project. On May 3, the Downtown Development Authority Board of Directors
adopted a motion to finance the improvement of the south half of the alley
east of the Collins House on a vote of 4 to 1."
Councilmember Stoner made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Rutstein, to
adopt Ordinance No. 67, 1984 on First Reading.
Councilmember Ohlson asked for justification for this project and about the
timing of this request.
DDA Executive Director Bill Kingsbury noted the 'DDA had always been con-
cerned about the alleys in the downtown. He stated the Board looked at
this request as an opportunity to improve an alley. He added that although
it might appear to be a change, the DDA is looking for the public good and
this project was there. He noted the DDA had been in negotiation with the
developer for some time principally over the sidewalk standards. He'stated
the pedestrian guidelines study would address some, but not all, of the
alleys.
Councilmember Rutstein asked if this project would use up the increment for
this property.
Mr. Kingsbury replied negatively since the increment for the property was
approximately $30,000. He noted the,$7,500 did not directly come from the
increment, but resulted from savings connected with issuing the $3.1
million in Bond Anticipation Notes. The money will be paid back to the
total tax increment fund from the increment generated by the building. He
added the increment was placed in one fund and then the proposals are
judged on their merits meaning one project might receive more money than
the amount of increment generated and another might receive less. The
increment generated does not necessarily go back to that project.
-460-
June 5, 1984
Councilmember Rustein asked if the City was developing a policy for alleys.
City Manager Arnold replied that the City's policy for alleys was to
maintain them as they exist and to initiate improvement districts if the
adjacent property owners request them. A program to pave unpaved alleys as
part of the air quality program to curb fugitive dust has been discussed
and in the downtown a program for improvement of the alleys has been
considered. He noted the GID might be a mechanism for improvement of the
alleys.
John Schofield, 1801 Lakeshore Circle, managing general partner for the
Collins House Partnership, 330 South College, spoke to the current condi-
tion of the alley. He suggested the $3,200 street oversizing fee paid to
the City on this project and in all redevelopment projects could be placed
in an alley redevelopment fund.
Mayor Horak noted he would not be supporting this Resolution and stated he
did not feel the street oversizing comments were relevant. He added he
felt property owners should be responsible for improvements around their
properties and stated he had problems with this request coming at the end
of the project.
The vote on Councilmember Stoner's motion to adopt Ordinance No. 67, 1984
on First Reading was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Elliott, Knezovich,
Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays: Mayor Horak.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Citizen Participation
A. Proclamation Naming June 9 - 10 as Race Unity Weekend,. was accepted by
Nigel Norton, representing tFe__B_a_ha'T is of;,Fort Collins.
B. Proclamation Namin June 10 - 16 as Brick Week, was accepted by Jeanne
Bolton, representing the 1 th District of the Brick Institute of
America and Robinson Brick of Denver.
C. Proclamation Naming July 14 as Human Unity Day, was accepted by Chip
Grant, 2548 West Orchard.
D. Proclamation Naming September 7 - 18 as Peace Days, was sent to the
appropriate persons.
Barbara Hoehn, 1418 West Oak, read a statement asking for information on
how much the trolley project has cost the City to d'afe':and how much it will
cost in the future.
-461-
June 5, 1984
Bruce Lockhart, 2500 East Harmony Road, noted he had been charged $.75 on
his utility bill for the new Transportation Utility Fee and questioned
whether the fee should be billed on the private streets of the mobile home
park he resides in.
City Manager Arnold noted that the accounts on private streets would need
to be purged from the system. He noted staff would take a look at this
problem and report back to Council.
Resolution Adopting Policies
Relating to Special Improvement
Districts, Adopted as Amended
Following is the staff's memorandum on this item:
"For the past year, staff has been reviewing a number of Special Improve-
ment Districts. During the course of the discussions, many issues and
questions arose. In resolving those items, it became apparent that poli-
cies needed to be established to provide consistent guidance to the devel-
opers and the staff who were proposing and reviewing districts before they
went to the City Council for final approval.
The policies proposed in the attached resolution were developed by the
staff based upon the major issues that came up repeatedly in the discus-
sions. These policies were reviewed with representatives from the develop-
ment community, the financial community, real estate appraisers, and
attorneys. Some changes were made at their suggestion. Other items were
retained as staff originally proposed them. In all, we believe that the
policies provide a fair and equitable balance between the interests of the
developers, potential bondholders and lenders, and the present and,future
residents of the community..__
The proposed policies cover financial, legal, planning, and engineering
areas. Some additional areas of concern .were raised at the City Council
worksession regarding the benefits to the community of Special Improvement
=- Districts. In summary, the benefits are as follows:
-- Improvements to arterial and collector streets are constructed in a
coordinated manner. There are fewer gaps in the improvements and the
motoring public has a better street system to travel on.
-- The Street Oversizing payments to developers can be more closely asso-
ciated with the revenue derived from the completed developments.
Districts give the City the opportunity to defer all or part of the
repayment that we are obligated to make to developers who construct
-462-
June 5, 1984
arterial streets. In effect, the oversizing payments become a part of
the assessment. When the actual building permits are taken out, the
normal oversizing fee is waived. This process can have a significant
positive impact on the cash flow of the Street Oversizing Fund.
-- The cost of development is reduced. At present, there is a measurable
difference in the interest rates between an Improvement District and
conventional financing. If districts are generally accepted and used,
we -believe that the cost savings will be passed on to the ultimate buyer
by market pressures.
-- A less tangible, but still significant benefit is a reduction in the
staff time required to administer a Special Improvement District com-
pared to a standard district formed and administered by the City. In
the Special Improvement District process, the developer and his engi-
neers and attorneys do most of the work. City Staff still is involved
in the review, however, this is much less intensive than actual admini-
stration.
The result of the existing and proposed districts will be several miles of
improved arterial and collector streets that will be available to the
public much sooner than if the developments had put in each segment on
their own schedule.
Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution."
Councilmember Stoner made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Rutstein, to
adopt Resolution 84-91.
Frank Humbert, 909 Ponderosa, representing Osprey, Inc.,,expressed concern
about the language of several of the proposed policies.
J.
City Engineer Tom Hays clarified the policies questioned and stated the
options discussed with regard to application fees had been a low percentage
fee that would cover staff's- administrative costs for the district. The
fee could be considered as a benefit to the City for providing the financ-
ing mechanism for the district. He stated no decision or recommendation on
the fee had been made.
Councilmember Knezovich made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Stoner, to
amend Resolution 84-91 by inserting the phrase "for cause" after the word
"deny" in Policy k2.
Councilmember Knezovich stated he hoped this amendment would satisfy the
developers' concerns that Council would deny SID financing for arbitrary
reasons.
-463-
June 5, 1984
Councilmember Ohlson stated he did not see a need for the amendment and
would vote against the amendment.
The vote on Councilmember Knezovich's motion to amend Resolution 84-91 was
as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Elliott, Horak, Knezovich, Rutstein, and
Stoner. Nays: Councilmember Ohlson.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Mayor Horak urged staff to come back with some type of application fee
schedule as soon as possible.
City Manager Arnold noted staff would not know if the fee would be justi-
fied until after the cost of development study is completed and some
experience with the process is gained.
The vote on Councilmember Stoner's motion to adopt Resolution 84-91 as
amended was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Elliott, Horak, Knezovich,
Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Items Relating to the Creation
of Horsetooth Road Special
Improvement District No. 83
Following is the staff's memorandum on this item:
"A. Resolution Accepting the Master Agreement as the Petition, and Re-
questing a report on costs, assessments, and plans.
B. Resolution Accepting the report of the,zosts, assessments and plans,
for the Horsetooth Road Special Improvement District No. 83.
C. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No.-73, 1984, Relating to the
Creation and Organization of Special Improvement District No. 83, and
Approving the Agreement with the Southside Baptist Church.
D. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 74, 1984, Appropriating
Funds to pay the Required City Costs.
E. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 75, 1984, Appropriating
Funds to pay the Optional Landscaping Costs.
F. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 76, 1984, Appropriating
the Anticipated Special Improvement District No. 83 Bond Proceeds.
-464-
G. Deed of Easement from John and Jacqueline Michie.
H. Deed of Easement from Charles L
Warren Denig Trust.
GENERAL SUMMARY OF IMPROVEMENTS
June 5, 1984
Warren Investment Co. and the Ann
The purpose of this Special Improvement District is to construct the street
improvements and storm drainage improvements, for Horsetooth Road from the
BNRR to Shields Street. In 1982, a capital project was budgeted to form an
improvement district for the construction of Horsetooth Road from College
Avenue to Shields Street. The developers along Horsetooth, from the BNRR
to Shields Street, had agreed to be a part of the district, but they backed
out when the development activity slowed down in 1982. Staff went ahead
and formed SID No. 76, in 1982, and constructed the portion of Horsetooth
from College Ave. to the BNRR. Last fall staff began meeting with the
developers, along Horsetooth from the BNRR to Shields, to encourage the
formation of a voluntary improvement district to construct this portion of
Horsetooth. We were successful, and the developers hired Shilo Engineering
and Attorney, George Hass, to assist in them in the formation of the
improvement district. City Staff has worked very close with them to bring
this District to Council.
It is important that this district be created at this time to allow con-
struction during 1984. This portion of Horsetooth Road is in very poor
condition, and is rapidly declining due to the excessively high traffic
volume on a two lane road. If this district is not created at this time,
the City will have to continue their expensive maintenance efforts or
completely rehabilitate the pavement. This district would complete a key
portion of the City's master street plan, and would improve an inadequate
two lane road with high maintenance costs,,,.to a functional four lane
arterial with low maintenance costs, bike lanes; and sidewalks.
The City will front the costs of the District until the Bonds are sold.
The District participants have agreed that the City shall not be liable for
any cost of the District except as specifically provided in the Master
Agreement and in the Resolutions and Ordinance creating and establishing
The District, and that any cost in excess of the City's costs shall be the
sole obligation of the District participants.
SUMMARY OF COSTS
The estimated costs of the improvements to the'District participants and to
the City are shown below. These estimated costs include all costs asso-
ciated with the District and approximately 15% contingency.
-465-
.. � ,..—:.I/.�A�.•Y y4a�.�a.. JL i�..v+'JM:.. ..n+..1.....uYT�.F-1 .� _� +..s.V".dr:LT�4•
June 5, 1984
DISTRICT IMPROVEMENT COSTS
District Costs: $545,220
City Costs:
Street Oversizing $392,700
New Mercer Canal Box Culvert Extension 51,000
Improvements Adjacent to Southside
Baptist Church 16,414
Southside Baptist,Church ROW Acquisition 3,000
Michie ROW Acquisition 2,400
Light & Power (Pole & Vault Relocates) 20,000
Total City Costs Required $485,500
Total Costs: $1,030,700
Landscaping (Optional) 135,000
Total Costs:(With option included) $1,165,700
FUNDING CITY COSTS
The remaining capital funds, $360,000, in the Horsetooth Road - SID No.'76
Project will be transferred to this project, and Street Oversizing Funds
will be used to fund the remaining $125,500, of the $485,500 cost to the
City. As shown above, the total street oversizing"reimbursement that would
normally be required for this project has been estimated at $392,700,
however because of the carr over funds onl $125,500 will be needed from
the Street versizing Fund. e Street versizin Fund has the avai ab e
funds. The Landscaping costs could be funded with Streets Contingency
funds. The fund transfers are as follows:
Transfer Horsetooth Road SID No. 76 Funds $360,000
Appropriate Street Oversizing Funds 125,500
TOTAL CITY FUNDS REQUIRED 8 0
Optional - Transfer Street Contingency Funds
for Landscaping the Streetscape $135,000
TOTAL CITY FUNDS INCLUDING OPTIONAL LANDSCAPING 620,500
NEW MERCER -CANAL BOX CULVERTEXTENSION
The extension of the New Mercer Canal Box Culvert to the north, and the
replacement of the south railing on the New Mercer Canal Box Culvert and
the replacement of the railings on the Larimer No. 2 Canal Bridge with a
-466-
June 5, 1984
more decorative brick railing, has been estimated to cost $51,000. This
cost will be paid for with the capital money transferred from the Horse -
tooth SID No. 76 Project, since the bridge work was to be a part of the
original Horsetooth Road project.
SOUTHSIDE BAPTIST CHURCH PROPERTY IMPROVEMENTS AND R.O.W. ACQUISITION
Staff is recommending that the City pay the $19,414 costs for the improve-
ments adjacent to Southside Baptist Church's. Staff has discussed the
Church's financial situation with their Finance Committee. Although they
would like to be included in the district they are presently unable to
accept a liability of this amount, at this time. The Church is also
granting a Deed of Easement on the north side of Horsetooth for a consider-
ation of $3,000 based on 574 per square foot. (See attached map) They
are willing to use this $3,000 to reduce the costs, and are willing to
enter into an agreement for the future payment of the remaining costs.
Therefore, the City would only have to pay $16,414, and would be paid by
the Church in the event that the property is sold or developed. The
benefits of an arterial street to the Church are minimal with the present
use. They have no plans for expansion, in the immediate future, so they
would not be constructing the street improvements on their own, for quite a
long time. To avoid holding up the construction of Horsetooth Road,
because of Church's inability to be a volunteer in the District, staff is
recommending the costs for improvements adjacent to the Church be paid
by the City, and for staff to work out an agreement with the Church for
possible reimbursement. This expense will be paid with capital money from
the Horsetooth Road SID No. 76 project. The R.O.W. costs were not shown in
the Engineers Report, but are reflected above in the Summary of Costs.
MICHIE R.O.W. ACQUISITION
John and Jacqueline Michie are granting a Dead of Easement for 3,200 square
feet of R.O.W along the south side of Horsetooth, for a consideration of
$2,400, based on 75t per square foot. This expense will be paid with
capital money from the Horsetooth Road SID No. 76 project. The R.O.W.
costs were not shown in the Engineers Report, but are reflected above in
the Summary of Costs.
1. WARREN R.O.W'. ACQUISITION
The Warren Parcel (See_ attached Map) is currently involved in the pre-
liminary P.U.D. planning stage, and an agreement has been negotiated for
dedication of an easement to be made prior to final platting, for the
consideration of $10.
-467-
June 5, 1984
STORM DRAINAGE COSTS
The costs of the off -site storm sewer will be proportioned out to all the
property owners of the District, except for Michie, Warren, and the South -
side Baptist Church property. The remaining owners have agreed to pick up
these costs for the following reasons. The Michie's and the Church, will
not benefit that greatly from the off -site drainage improvements, therefore
they will not share in these costs. The Warren's will not benefit at all
from these improvements, and will have to construct off -site drainage
improvements on their property, when it is developed, to handle the drain-
age from the portion of Horsetooth adjacent to their property. Therefore,
they also will not share in the off -site storm drainage costs.
LIGHT & POWER (Pole & Vault Relocates)
Light and Power estimates that it will cost $20,000 to put their power
lines underground, and to relocate several power vaults. This expense
which is due to the widening of the road will be paid with capital money
from the Horsetooth Road SID No. 76 project. This cost was not shown in
the Engineers Report, but is reflected above in the Summary of Costs.
STREETSCAPE LANDSCAPING
The streetscape along arterials is normally left up to the developers to
landscape and to.maintain. The only streetscape the City normally main-
tains is that adjacent to single family residential where a fence separates
the property from the street. Staff thought that Council might be in-
terested in seeing Horsetooth landscaped as a part of this District, so we
have included it as an option. The landscaping would cost an estimated
$135,000 and would require an appropriation of funds from the Streets
Contingency Funds. Also additional maintenance costs would have to be
budgeted, since the City would have to maintain the streetscape. until
development occurred. u'
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
This district would complete a key portion of the City's master street plan
and would improve an inadequate two lane road with high maintenance costs,
to a functional four lane arterial with low maintenance costs, bike lanes,
and sidewalks.
This project is very much needed this year, and therefore, staff recommends
the approval of the Resolutions and Ordinances creating and funding this
district. Staff recommends against the approval of the Landscaping Option.
The streetscape is not a cost normally paid by the City, it will require an
increase in the maintenance budget, and the streetscape will be landscaped
by developers as development takes place."
-468-
June 5, 1984
City Engineer Tom Hays summarized the district and gave a slide presenta-
tion showing the need for the district. He reviewed the items to be
considered in detail and estimated the total cost for the district to be
$1.1 million. He reviewed the Southside Baptist Church situation noting
the congregation did not have the resources to pay the costs for their
share of the improvements and suggested the staff recommendation was that
the City pay for the Church's share and enter into a repay agreement with
the Church for payment in the future. He stated staff was requesting that
Item E, relating to additional street landscaping, be tabled to July 3 to
allow staff to further review the concept and present a recommendation.
Councilmember Knezovich expressed concern over the City paying the assess-
ment of the Southside Baptist Church.
City Engineer Hays noted other options had been considered but that the
timing of the district was a factor in staff's recommendation to pay the
Church's share.
Councilmember Stoner made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Ohlson, to
adopt Resolution 84-94. Yeas: Councilmembers Elliott, Horak, Knezovich,
Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Ohlson made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Stoner, to
adopt Resolution 84-95. Yeas: Councilmembers Elliott, Horak, Knezovich,
Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Ohlson made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Stoner, to
adopt Ordinance No. 73, 1984 on First Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers
Elliott, Horak, Knezovich, Ohlson, Rutstein,,and Stoner. Nays: . None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Elliott made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Knezovich,
to adopt Ordinance No. 74, 1984 on First Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers
Elliott, Horak, Knezovich, Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember, Stoner made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Ohlson, to
adopt Ordinance No. 75, 1984 on First Reading.
Councilmember Elliott made a motion, seconde& by Councilmember Knezovich,
to table Ordinance No. 75, 1984 until July 3. Yeas: Councilmembers .
Elliott, Horak, Knezovich, Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays: None.
'N' -W
June 5, 1984
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Knezovich made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Rutstein,
to adopt Ordinance No. 76, 1984 on First Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers
Elliott, Horak, Knezovich, Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Knezovich made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Stoner, to
accept the deed of easement from John and Jacqueline Michie and the deed of
easement from Charles L. Warren Investment Company and the Ann Warren Denig
Trust and to authorize payment for both easements. Yeas: Councilmembers
Elliott, Horak, Knezovich, Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Items Pertaining to Industrial
Development Revenue Bonds
Following is the staff's memorandum on this item:
"Contained are two items concerning Industrial Development Revenue Bonds.
They are:
A. Resolution adopting Industrial Development Revenue Bond Policies and
Criteria to be utilized by the City of Fort Collins
B. A $7,000,000 Inducement Resolution to construct the University Square
Project submitted by Mr. Harold H. Miller and Mr. Peter L. Bloch.
The items will be discussed in order.
a:
A. On April 10, 1984, the Council discussed the Resolution concerning
IDRB Policies and Criteria. The major emphasis during the discussion
related to the Criteria Evaluation points and items being evaluated.
Most of the discussion centered around the bonus points portion of the
Evaluation Criteria. Attached is a revised Evaluation Criteria sheet along
with the former Finance Director, Ronald R. Wood's, memorandum dated April
4, 1984.
Two areas have been added to the IDRB Criteria Evaluation sheet; targeted
industries and competitive impact. Additionally, the bonus points section
of the Evaluation Sheet has been revised and more points awarded per
Council's discussion with the total points possible now being 100; however,
if a maximum deduction for competitive impact is given by the Staff, the
net total points have the potential to be only 80.
-470-
June 5, 1984
By using the proposed policies and criteria for Industrial Development
Revenue Bonds, the City Council may use their subjective judgement to
override even a maximum point evaluation by the Staff through utilizing I.
Policy: C. Discriminate Use Provision of the Policies and Criteria as
well as III. Other Considerations - in that a proposed project in the
Council's determination may not be consistent with stated official poli-
cies, goals, and objectives of the City of Fort Collins.
B. The University Square Project's Inducement Resolution request has been
evaluated utilizing the amended IDRB Criteria Evaluation sheet, and it is
included for your consideration.
The project consists of the developing, constructing and equipping of a
suite -oriented overnight lodging facility at South College Avenue. Each of
the 144 units will provide a full kitchen and living room, in addition to
bedroom and bath amenities. The project is located south of Pitkin Avenue
and west of College Avenue, adjacent to the Transfort Bus Transfer Facility.
Copies of the application have been sent to Council under separate cover.
There is a commitment to purchase the bonds and a separate Letter of
Commitment to back the bonds.
The latest information we can obtain on the pending Federal tax legislation
is that the Conference Committee of the House and Senate should convene
June 5th or 6th. The scuttlebutt from the various staffers is that there
will probably be some sort of volume cap and that the effective date may be
changed from January 1, 1984. Enclosed is a copy of House Joint Resolution
No. 1026 passed by the Colorado House of Representatives with the Senate
concurring stating that should a cap go into effect, that the amount be
divided so that each locality be given an equal opportunity to util.ize its
full Federal formula amount of the State .9,eiling during 1984. This is
found on line 11 of Page 2 of the Resolution,'."
Councilmember Rutstein made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Stoner, to
adopt Resolution 84-92.
Finance Director Jim Harmon explained the process for developing the IDRB
criteria evaluation sheet. He noted there were two schools of thought on
the use of IDRB's. One is to entice industry to locate or relocate in Fort
Collins and the other is to assist businesses that are not economically
strong. IDRB's provide the latter with more debt and l.ess equity invested.
Councilmember Elliott asked if the language relating'to the provision of
the applicant's financial. statement should be strengthened from "may" to
"shall" or "must".
-471-
June 5, 1984
Finance Director Harmon replied that some applicants would not want to have
their financial statements be public record; therefore, it was not made an
absolute requirement. He added some of the applicants might be in a
"start-up" situation and would not have financial statements. He added the
point criteria was a guideline similar to the LOGS to give Council an
indication of how this project might perform. Council retains the right to
make a subjective decision based on the uniqueness of the property, com-
munity needs, etc.
Tom Clark, Chamber of Commerce, commented the Chamber was pleased to see
the Council moving towards a policy related to IDRB's and hoped the policy
would eventually be a part of an overall economic development policy for
the community. He noted that with some minor changes in the point system,
the Chamber was supportive of the process.
Tom Metier, attorney and associate of Dave Dwyer, expressed his concern
about the end use of the point criteria, noting he felt they should not be
used as an absolute set of criteria, but rather as criteria to be measured
against.
Councilmember Stoner asked what the difference was between these proposed
policies and the policies currently in force.
Jim Harmon replied the major difference is the other policies detailed how
the form of the application should appear rather than setting out broad
policies.
Councilmember Rutstein suggested the second WHEREAS should read "industrial
and economic development" for better clarification.
Mayor Horak suggested that on page 3, paragraph C, the word "shall" should
be substituted for "should" with regard to the provision of financial
statements to ensure -that Council knows who is applying for IDRB'.s. He
asked if Councilmembers Rutstein and Stoner yY6I d accept=these two sugges-
tions as friendly amendments.
Councilmembers Rutstein and Stoner replied,in the affirmative.
City Attorney Huisjen noted a Section VII would need to be added stating
"Resolution 82-25 adopted February 2, 1982 is hereby repealed."
Councilmembers Rutstein and Stoner noted that amendment could also be
treated as a friendly amendment.
The vote on Councilmember Rutstein's original motion to adopt Resolution
84-92 including the three friendly amendments was as follows: Yeas:
Councilmembers Elliott, Horak, Knezovich, Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner.
Nays: None.
-472-
June 5, 1984
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Stoner made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Elliott, to
adopt Resolution 84-93.
Jim Harmon noted the applicant and his attorney were present and available
for questions. He stated the application had been evaluated against the
criteria and had received 53 of a possible 100 points. He gave a brief
overview of the project.
Tom Metier, attorney representing the applicant, introduced Harold Miller
and Peter Bloch, the partners, and distributed an elevation rendering of
the project. He described the project and noted IDRB financing was neces-
sary to enable the project to go forward. He stated that denying this type
financing would be unfair since other hotel projects have been able to take
advantage of such financing.
Councilmember Stoner asked about the potential for conversion of these
units to standard apartments.
Mr. Metier replied that as they are designed they would seem to be ill -
suited for full apartments as they are quite small for permanent resi-
dences. He added this was not the intention of the developer nor were they
designed with that purpose in mind. He noted the one -bedroom units con-
tained 504 square feet and the two -bedroom contained 740 square feet. He
noted the $7 million would be for actual construction and not for land
costs. Metier stated the financial projections were based on the operation
of these units as a hom-tel rather than condominiums. He added the financ-
ing and the agreement to purchase the bonds were based on those projects
and the cash flow would be substantially different as far as retirement of
debt and would make the project unfeasible.
Director of Planning. and. Development Curl" Smith stated that once the
project was designated as a hom-tel use, conversion to apartments would
require an amendment to the PUD. He suggested a condition could be placed
in the bond ordinance to insure complete payoff in the event of conversion.
Harold Miller stated the bank had already stated the project could not be
converted without payoff and added that the bond documents would reflect
that.
Mr. Metier gave an update on the latest information on the pending Federal
legislation. He stated -it was his understanding that if there is a cap
imposed the effective date will be changed from January 1, 1984 to the time
the legislation is passed or some later date. He noted the Resolution
stated the bonds would not be issued if it •would affect the City's ability
to allocate the cap.
-473-
June 5, 1984
Mr. Metier noted a study by Pernel1, Kerr, and Foster had shown a need for
this type of facility in Fort Collins.
Councilmember Elliott noted he felt this was a very expensive project that
would result in the creation of very few jobs. He added he felt the
salaries paid to the hom-tel staff would not benefit Fort Collins signifi-
cantly.
Mr. Metier stated the trade-offs were the service to the community and the
tax base the project would provide. He added the project would be a
complimentary addition to the area where it would be located.
Councilmember Stoner pointed out other hotel complexes that have been
induced by the City of Fort Collins were part of a hotel/convention center
complex. He added he did not feel this project was unique in nature and
would not favor inducing IDRB bonds.
Councilmember Rutstein agreed with Councilmember Stoner adding she felt it
was a fine project, but not for IDRB's.
Councilmember Elliott stated he was not convinced the project would not be
built without IDRB's. He again expressed concern about the number of jobs
and the salaries paid to those workers. He felt it was a unique project
but did not quality for IDRB financing.
The vote on Councilmember Stoner's motion to adopt Resolution 84-93 was as
follows: Yeas: None. Nays: Councilmembers Elliott, Horak, Knezovich,
Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner.
THE MOTION FAILED.
Appeal of Ken Levine Regarding
the Denial of CDBG Housing
Rehabilitation Loan. Denied
Following is the staff's memorandum on this 'item:
"This will serve as a summary as to what has transpired in regards to the
Ken Levine CDBG housing rehabilitation problem. Attached to this summary
will be a series of memorandums, some of which have been forwarded pre-
viously to the Council, which present additional information.
A summary of the administrative review process of Mr. Levine's application
to the City's CDBG Housing Rehabilitation Program is presented in the
attached memorandum dated April 30, 1984, with a cover memorandum dated May
8, 1984. These memorandums also cover the reasons as to why staff made an
administrative decision to deny rehabilitation assistance to Mr. Levine.
These reasons are:
-474-
June 5, 1984
1. Mr. Levine's request is not consistent with the goal or intent of the
rehabilitation program by applying for funds when he has sufficient
funds to rehabilitate his own home.
2. Staff questions Mr. Levine's priority when he would rather spend assets
to remodel his garage into a single family home when his own home needs
rehabilitation work.
3. By granting funds to Mr. Levine, funds would not be available to a
family with a home in need of rehabilitation work with no other funding
sources.
Mr. Levine's encounter with the Zoning Board of Appeals on May 10, 1984, is
also documented in the attached copy of the minutes of that meeting.
Department of Housing and Urban Development CDBG Program Regulations
establish objectives for housing rehabilitation projects. Basically, CDBG
rehabilitation efforts are intended to address sub -standard housing condi-
tions through code enforcement, demolition, interim rehabilitation assis-
tance, and related activities, principally for persons of low and moderate
income. The definition of low-income for a one -person household in the
Fort Collins area is having an annual income below $5,386. Mr. Levine's
income based on an average of 1981, 1982, and 1983 tax returns qualifies
him as "low-income." The condition of his property also makes him poten-
tially eligible for a grant of as much as $15,000 through the CDBG program.
Of the 153 total number of rehabilitation projects, 83 (72%) were classi-
fied as needing extensive rehabilitation. Extensive rehabilitation in-
cludes, demolition; additions; roof, floor, and foundation repair; interior
and exterior finish; and kitchen and bathroom remodeling. These projects
have ranged in cost from $9,000 to $25,000 with an average of $14,471. The
Council has presently set a $15,000 limit.,,. -for rehabil-itation projects.
The main issue in the Ken Levine housing rehabilitation problem has been
the known assets of Mr. Levine and his choice in the utilization of those
asset funds. Mr. Levine informed Council on May 15, 1984, he has approxi-
mately $25,000 in savings accounts back east. Again, the reasons for staff
denial of housing rehabilitation assistance to Mr. Levine are listed above
and are also covered in the, attached memorandum dated April 30, 1984."
City Manager Arnold briefly summarized the issue and noted staff has been
considering this situation since Mr. Levine's appearance at the May 15
meeting. He stated staff was recommending denial of the CDBG grant for the
good of the housing rehabilitation program and the use of the CDBG monies.
-475-
June 5, 1984
Ken Levine, 522 Edwards, presented his case and stated he had gone through
the process and housing rehab staff had deemed his application as legiti-
mate. He objected to being subjected to two separate sets of rules and
asked Council and staff to stand by their original policy and decision and
award him the grant.
Councilmember Stoner asked if the two CD's amounting to $25,000 had been
revealed in Levine's two loan applications and if the banks would accept
the two CD's as collateral and loan him money.
Mr. Levine replied that the CD's had been revealed and that the banks would
not accept them as loan collateral. He stated he had put $15,000 down on
his home and that the money had come from his mother's life insurance
settlement. He had not yet accumulated enough equity in his home to
quality for an additional loan. He stated his monthly income was approxi-
mately $850 per month and his house payment was approximately $500 per
month.
Councilmember Elliott noted he was having second thoughts on the grant and
that given Levine's income, his age, and other factors, he would not
support the awarding of the grant.
Councilmember Stoner stated he remembered the work session discussion
intent as being to disallow liquid assets and to allow fixed assets as in
the case of an elderly couple with equity in their home.
Mr. Levine objected to the changing of policy on•an individual basis after
the fact. He stated there was a flaw in the system, but that he should be
evaluated on present policy and the criteria should be modified for the
following year's applicants.
Director of Planning and Development Curt Smith stated staff had left the
work session thinking assets- should not be considered', but on further
consideration had decided Council had not intended this. He admitted his
office had contacted Levine and begun the grant process.
Councilmember Stoner made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Elliott, to
uphold the administrative decision of the CDBG staff to deny the CDBG
housing rehabilitation grant to Mr. Ken Levine.
Councilmember Stoner felt there was no reason to condone a flaw or techni-
cality in_the- system.: -He stated it had -not been his intent to disallow
liquid assets in the approval criteria. .
Mr. Levine stated Council was implying that he qualified on financial
aspects but by determining a difference between liquid and fixed assets was
telling him how he could spend his money.
-476-
June 5, 1984
Councilmember Knezovich stated he felt there were ample grounds to deny the
grant and would vote accordingly.
Councilmember Rutstein stated she felt this could have been avoided if
Council had had more of the particulars prior to the work session discus-
sion. She added she felt there were people who truly need funds of this
type and don't have the assets that Mr. Levine has. She felt the $15,000
should go to those people.
Mayor Horak stated the criteria established allows many people to qualify.
The criteria provide guidance to Council and are a necessary condition but
not a sufficient condition. In this instance, the thrust of the program
indicates the staff decision should be supported.
The vote on Councilmember Stoner's motion to uphold the administrative
decision of the CDBG staff to deny the CDBG housing rehabilitation grant
to Ken Levine was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Elliott, Horak,
Knezovich, Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Motion Accepting the City's
1983 Annual Audit, Adopted
Following is the staff's memorandum on this item:
"On May 25, the City's 1983 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report contain-
ing the auditor's opinion was forwarded to the City Council under separate
cover.
The auditors and staff will be meeting with the City.Council Finance
Committee soon to discuss both the Financiyaf. Report and the management
letter from the auditors. To date, we have not received the auditors'
management letter.
The auditor's opinion contained in the "Comprehensive Annual Financial
Report is an unqualified 'opinion. An unqualified opinion is the highest
level of assurance that a CPA is allowed to express on a set of financial
statements. An unqualified opinion is also referred to as a "clean"
opinion."
Councilmember Elliott made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Knezovich,
to accept the 1983 Annual Audit.
Councilmember Knezovich expressed appreciation to the' City staff for their
efforts towards developing this document. He noted the Enterprise Funds
-477-
June 5, 1984
did a good job in cutting back expenditures. He stated the document
indicated to him that the City of Fort Collins was in very good shape and
that the Finance Committee would be discussing the management letter with
the auditors in detail in the near future.
The vote on Councilmember Elliott's motion to accept the 1983 Annual Audit
was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Elliott, Horak,.Knezovich, Ohlson,
Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Other Business
Councilmember Knezovich asked staff to provide further details on the
operations of the Monroe Industrial Bank at the time of the Second Reading
of Ordinance No. 67, 1984, appropriating funds for alley improvement behind
the Collins House project.
Adjournment
Councilmember Stoner made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Elliott, to
adjourn the meeting. Yeas: Councilmembers Clarke, Elliott, Horak, Knez-
ovich, Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays: None.
The meeting adjourned at 12:00 a.m.
Mayor
ATTEST: � 1
City Clerk
-478-