HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES-08/19/1986-Regular1
J
August 19, 1986
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
Council -Manager Form of Government
Regular Meeting - 6:30 p.m.
A regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins was held on
Tuesday, August 19, 1986, at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers in the City
of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll call was answered by the following
Councilmembers: Estrada, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Liebler, Ohlson, Rutstein,
and Stoner.
Staff Members Present: Burkett, Huisjen, Krajicek
Agenda Review: City Manager
City Manager Burkett indicated that the order of the agenda would be
changed by exchanging Items 28 and 30.
City Attorney Huisjen stated that on Item #6 the name should be changed
from R.P. Plaza, a Colorado Joint Venture, to R.P. Plaza, Ltd., a Colorado
Limited Partnership.
Barbara Allison, 1212 Lynnwood Drive, requested Item #6, Second Reading of
Ordinance No. 113, 1986, Reimbursing R.P. Plaza, Ltd., a Colorado Limited
Partnership, the Cost of Making Public Improvements Associated with the
Robinson Piersal Plaza Project at Such Time as the Tax Increment Generated
is Certified by the Larimer County Assessor in an Amount not to Exceed
$850,000, be removed from the Consent Calendar.
Bruce Lockhart, 2500 East Harmony Road, asked that Item #15, Resolution
86-135 Authorizing the City Manager to Enter into a Professional Services
Agreement with EDAW Inc. for the Preparation of a Parks and Recreation
Master Plan; and Item #16, Resolution 86-136 Authorizing the City Manager
to Enter Into an Agreement to Renew the Lease of the Old Power Plant to the
Poudre River Trust, be withdrawn from the Consent Agenda.
This Calendar is intended
energy on the important
approval of the Consent
calendar be "pulled" off
Agenda items pulled from t
under Agenda Items #17 an
by anyone in the audieni
Consent Calendar
to allow the City Council to spend its time and
items on a lengthy• agenda. Staff recommends
Calendar. Anyone may request an item on this
the Consent Calendar and considered separately.
ie Consent Calendar will be considered separately
1 #31, Pulled Consent Items, except items pulled
e or items that any member of the audience is
-19-
August 19, 1986
present to discuss that were pulled be staff or Council
be discussed immediately following the Consent Calendar.
5.
7.
These items will
Consider aooroval of the minutes of the regular meetings of July 15
and August 5.
This ordinance, which was adopted unanimously on First Reading on
August 5, is the cumulative effort of the City Clerk's Office, City
Attorney's Office, Police Department and Liquor Licensing Authority.
The ordinance reduces points of conflict between the City Code and the
Colorado Beer and Liquor Codes and eliminates inconsistencies between
these codes.
There are no changes proposed to the annual license fees or occupation
taxes associated with the issuance of beer and liquor licenses in the
City.
This ordinance was adopted as amended unanimously on First Reading on
August 5. On February 20, the DDA Board of Directors voted 6-1 to
participate in the funding of certain public improvements associated
with the development of Robinson Piersal Plaza, scheduled to be built
on the northeast. corner of Mulberry Street and College Avenue. The
DDA Board of Directors reaffirmed their commitment to Robinson Piersal
Plaza project to participate in certain public improvements associated
with the project not exceed the total amount of $850,000 by a
unanimous vote on July 10.
A. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 114, 1986, Annexing
Approximately 60.06 Acres Known as the Fort Collins Business
Center Annexation.
B. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 115, 1986' Zoning
Approximately 47.52 acres of Fort Collins Business Center
Annexation into the I-L, Limited Industrial, Zoning District and
Approximately 12.54 Acres into the R-L-P, Low Density Planned
Residential, Zoning District.
The applicant, John Gregory, on behalf of the,' -property, owner, the Fort
Collins Business Center, c/o Keil Investment Brokerage, P.O. Box 9656,
-20-
1
Ci
iM
a
10.
August 19, 1986
Fort Collins, CO, is requesting annexation of approximately 60.06
acres located east of Tenth Street and North Lemay Avenue, south of
East Vine Drive, and north of East Lincoln. This is a 100% voluntary
annexation. The property is presently vacant.
The requested zoning is for 47.52 acres of I-L, Limited Industrial,
located east of the Lemay Avenue realignment, and 12.54 acres of
R-L-P, Low Density Planned Residential, located west of the Lemay
Avenue realignment next to Andersonville.
Ordinance No. 42, 1986 was passed on Second Reading on April 15, 1986.
The Ordinance authorized the issuance of Special Assessment Bonds for
the Harmony Trunk Sewer Special Improvement District No. 60.
Contained in Section 6 of the Ordinance is a provision for the payment
of interest on the bonds on the first days of May and October of each
year of the life of the bonds. The October date was included in error
and needs to be changed to November so that we have equal semi-annual
payments of interest. This Ordinance will correct that error.
Last year Council approved Resolution 85-113 accepting a grant for
$79,200 from the State Highway Department Special Brid a Fund and
9
passed Ordinance No. 94, 1985 appropriating the City's matching funds
in the amount of $19,800. We are now ready to proceed with the design
and construction of the replacement bridge at Oak Street and Larimer
County Canal No. 2, near the ball fields at City Park, and need to
appropriate the grant funds.
Upland Industrial Development Company, the developer of Upland's
Prospect Business Park, is required to pay a portion of the costs to
widen Prospect Road, adjacent to their property, to arterial
standards. This is in accordance with the Development Agreement dated
August 23, 1984.
This Ordinance' will appropriate $16,304 received from Upland in the
Timberline and Prospect Intersection Reconstruction Project. These
' funds will be used to pay for the widening of Prospect Road adjacent
to Upland's Prospect Business Park that is being completed as part of
the Timberline and Prospect Intersection Project.
-21-
August 19, 1986
11.
12.
13.
14.
Last year the City initiated a
construct and maintain the
owners were able to participat
paying one half the cost of the
received $9,618.30 from property
Improvement Program. This ordinanc
1986 Sidewalk Improvement Program.
n
annual
sidewalk
e in the
e
sidewalk improvement program to
system. Individual property
program on a voluntary basis,
necessary improvements. The City
owners during the 1985 Sidewalk
appropriates this revenue for the
The owners of Seven Springs Ranch P.U.D. are requesting the vacation
of all the rights -of -way and easements except for the right-of-way for
Taft Hill Road and easement for a sewer line. They are having problems
marketing the project with the existing design and have no intention
of developing it as platted.
All utilities have been contacted and have no problems with the
vacation.
Acceptance of Deed from Colrad Development Corporation for Tracts
"A", "B", and "C" in the Silverplume Estates Subdivision.
Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 121, 1986, Vacating a
Portion of the Right -of -Way in Tract "B" of Silverplume Estates.
C. Acceptance of purchase of easement from Pitner Construction, Inc.
for Trend -Cedar Village Outfall. Consideration - $10.
The Fort Collins Downtown Development Authority has constructed a
multi -level Parking Garage and adjacent two-story office building on
the corner of East Mountain Avenue and Remington Street. The parking
facility, which is an integral part of the public parking system in
the central business district, houses office space for the Poudre Fire
Authority, ODA, and the Parking Enforcement Office. This Resolution
enables the City to lease 391 square feet of office space for the
Parking Services Office.
1
-22-
August 19, 1986
' 15. Resolution 86-135 Authorizing the City Manager to Enter into a
Professional Services Agreement with EDAW Inc for the Preparation of
a Parks and Recreation Master Plan.
Council has approved an appropriation of $75,000 in Parkland Fund for
the preparation of a Parks and Recreation Master Plan. Staff has
selected EDAW Inc. to provide the services necessary to complete the
project. The Professional Services Agreement with EDAW is in excess
of $20,000 and therefore requires Council approval.
16. Resolution 86-
The current lease between the City and the Poudre River Trust for use
of the old Power Plant expires August 20, 1986. The intent of the
lease was to allow the Trust the use of the building to promote and
enhance the goals of the Trust. The Trust has chosen to sublease the
facility to the Power Plant Visual Arts Center (PPVAC).
Staff believes the current use of the building meets and exceeds the
expectation of the current lease and, therefore, recommends that the
lease be extended. The proposed extension is for a two-year period
with all other terms remaining the same. The lease rate to the Trust
is $1.00 per year.
It is expected that the Trust (and the PPVAC) will request a
modification of this extension within a few months. The PPVAC is
about to undertake a major fund-raising. The details of any long-term
lease have not yet been worked out. However, at this point in time,
the staff would envision any such lease to be contingent on the Trust
and PPVAC meeting certain stated milestones in the fund-raising and
renovation efforts.
Ordinances on Second Reading were read by title by Wanda Krajicek, City
Clerk.
Item #5.
Item #6.
-23-
August 19, 1986
Ordinances on First Reading were read by title by Wanda Krajicek, City I
Clerk.
Item V . A. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No 114 1986
Annexing Approximately 60.06 Acres Known as the Fort Collins
Business Center Annexation.
B. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No 115 1986 Zoning
Approximately 47.52 acres of Fort Collins Business Center
Annexation into the I-L. Limited Industrial Zoning District
and Approximately 12.54 Acres into the R-L-P Low Densitv
Planned Residential, Zoning District
Item #8. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No 116 1986 Amending
Ordinance No. 42, 1986 to Correct Dates of Interest Payment on
the Harmony Trunk Sewer Soecial Improvement District No 60
Special Assessment Bonds.
Item #9. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No 117 1986
Appropriating Grant Funds to Design and Construct a Replacement
Bridge at Oak Street and Larimer County Canal No 2
Item #10. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No 118 1986
Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the Timberline and
Prospect Intersection Reconstruction Project to Pay for '
Improvements to Prospect Road Adjacent to Upland's Prospect
Business Park P.U.D.
Item #11. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No 119 1986
Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the Capital Projects Fund
for the 1986 Sidewalk Improvement Program
Item #12. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No 120 1986 Vacating
all Right -of -Way and Easement of Seven Springs Ranch P.U.D.
Except for the Right -of -Way for Taft Hill Road
Item #13. B. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No 121 1986
Vacating a Portion of the Right -of -Way in Tract "B" of
Silverplume Estates.
Councilmember Estrada made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Liebler, to
adopt and approve all items not removed from the Consent Calendar. Yeas:
Councilmembers Estrada, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Liebler, Ohlson, Rutstein, and
Stoner. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
-24-
August 19, 1986
' Ordinance No. 113, 1986, Reimbursing R.P.
Plaza, Ltd, a Colorado Limited Partnership,
the Cost of Making Public Improvements
Associated with the Robinson Piersal Plaza
Project at Such Time as the Tax Increment
Generated is Certified by the Larimer
County Assessor in an Amount not to
Exceed $850,000, Adopted on Second Reading
Following is staff's memorandum on this item:
"This ordinance was adopted as amended unanimously on First Reading on
August S. On February 20, the DDA Board of Directors voted 6-1 to
participate in the funding of certain public improvements associated with
the development of Robinson Piersal Plaza, scheduled to be built on the
northeast corner of Mulberry Street and College Avenue. The DDA Board of
Directors reaffirmed their commitment to Robinson Piersal Plaza project to
participate in certain public improvements associated with the project not
exceed the total amount of $850,000 by a unanimous vote on July 10."
Councilmember Stoner made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Estrada, to
adopt Ordinance No. 113, 1986 on Second Reading.
Barbara Allison, 1212 Lynnwood Drive, expressed concern that Mr. Wheeler
might withdraw from the project and leave the DDA with the liability.
City Attorney Huisjen indicated that the contract provides for the project
to be constructed and the improvements completed before any payment is
made.
The vote on Councilmember Stoner's motion to adopt Ordinance No. 113, 1986
on Second Reading was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Estrada, Horak,
Kirkpatrick, Liebler, Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Resolution 86-135 Authorizing the City Manager
to Enter into a Professional Services Agreement
with EDAW Inc, for the Preparation of a
Parks and Recreation Master Plan Adopted
Following is staff's memorandum on this item:
"Executive Summary
Council has approved an appropriation of $75,000 in Parkland Fund for the
preparation of a Parks and Recreation Master Plan. Staff has. selected EDAW
Inc. to provide the services necessary to complete the project. The
' Professional Services Agreement with EDAW is in excess of $20,000 and
therefore requires Council approval.
1r*11
August 19, 1986
Background
The 1974 Open Space Plan has served the City well in providing a guide for
the growth of Parks, Trails, and Open Space. Fort Collins has seen the
accomplishment of most of the recommendations outlined in the plan
including the development of the Poudre, Spring Creek, and Foothills
Trails, acquisition of Open Space along the Poudre River and in the
Foothills, and development of neighborhood parks in every square mile of
new growth. To continue to provide the type of high quality recreational
opportunities that make Fort Collins a choice place to live, the City needs
to update and expand the 1974 Open Space Plan.
$75,000 has been budgeted and is available in the Parkland Fund for
development and printing of a Master Plan document. In May, a request for
proposals was issued with a scope of work outlining services expected of a
professional consultant in the preparation of the plan. The consultant
must analyze existing facilities and programs and determine future needs
based on citizen demand, local demographics, and forecasted trends.
Policies and standards will be evaluated and updated. An implementation
plan will be developed that includes priorities for action as well as
financial analysis for budgeting and funding.
1
Following the City's Capital Project Management Control System, 10
proposals were reviewed and rated for adequacy, qualifications, fee, '
interest, and availability. EDAW Inc. was the highest rated firm. Their
proposal indicated a clear understanding of the project and offered some
unique ideas for the preparation and implementation of the plan. Their
approach includes the following:
o Needs Assessment
o Parks and Recreation Inventory
o Review of Goals and Objectives
o Evaluation of Standards
o Evaluation of Operations and Maintenance
o Site Selection Criteria and Locational Analysis
o Implementation and Financial Analysis
Citizen input is considered to be a very important aspect of the master
planning process. Public input will be generated in several different
ways. The Parks and Recreation Board will serve as a citizen review
committee. Their input will be requested in each step of the process.
Their regularly scheduled board meetings will provide a forum for broader
citizen input. The meetings will be well advertised with invitations to
representatives from special interest groups, the development and business
community, Poudre R-1, CSU, and others. In addition, a random sample
survey will be conducted by Browne, Bortz, and Coddington, an economic
research firm, who will serve on EDAW's Master Plan Team. The survey will
help to determine citizen demand for programs and facilities. In addition,
special interest user groups, such as Youth Baseball, will be asked to '
complete a questionnaire that will assess their needs and expectations.
-26-
August 19, 1986
Staff will also ask for Council
involvement through the
Council liaison to
the Parks and Recreation Board
and with a Worksession
scheduled mid -way
into the project. Final Council
approval of the plan and adoption as part
of the City's Master Plan is the ultimate goal of the
process,. Both an
inclusive report with all data,
analysis, and mapping,
and an Executive
Summary for general public use will
be provided.
EDAW Inc. is well qualified for the project. They have significant
experience in parks and recreation master planning. Their local office
recently completed the Greeley Parks Master Plan. In addition, they have
prepared the Colorado State Trails Plan, an Open Space Plan for the City of
Morrison, and numerous recreation and parks master plans.
In addition to Browne, Bortz, and Coddington, Dr. John Crompton, a
nationally recognized expert in recreation management and marketing, will
participate with EDAW Inc. in the development of the plan.
The project is scheduled to take approximately six months. Subsequent to
Council approval, the Master Plan document and Executive Summary will be
printed for staff and public use.
Under the Professional Services Agreement, EDAW will be paidd-a
not -to -exceed fee of $68,000. Printing will be handled under a separately
bid contract. Council approval of a Professional Services Agreement of
this magnitude is required."
Councilmember Rutstein made a motion, seconded by Councilmember
Kirkpatrick, to adopt Resolution 86-135.
Bruce Lockhart, 2500 East Harmony Road, asked how EDAW was selected for the
contract and what instructions were given to EDAW by the Parks and
Recreation Department about the contents of the study. He questioned
whether EDAW has a conflict of interest because they currently are under
contract for the Troutman Park design. He suggested the City look for a
firm who won't be bidding on park design projects.
Park Planning Technician Leslie Beckmann explained the criteria used for
selecting a firm and the scope of work for the preparation of the plan.
Director of Purchasing and Risk Management Jim O'Neill stated that any new
park designs would be handled by a request for proposals, thereby giving
several firms an opportunity to receive projects.
Councilmember Horak stated although he understood Mr. Lockhart's concern,
he did not feel there was a problem with this request for proposals. He
stated he thought the process was reasonable.
The vote on Councilmember Rutstein's motion to adopt Resolution 86-135 was
as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Estrada, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Liebler,
' Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
-27-
August 19, 1986
Resolution 86-136 Authorizing the
City Manager to Enter Into an Agreement
to Renew the Lease of the Old Power
Plant to the Poudre River Trust, Adopted
Following is staff's memorandum on this item:
"The current lease between the City and the Poudre River Trust for use of
the old Power Plant expires August 20, 1986. The intent of the lease was
to allow the Trust the use of the building to promote and enhance the goals
of the Trust. The Trust has chosen to sublease the facility to the Power
Plant Visual Arts Center (PPVAC).
Staff believes the current use of the building meets and exceeds the
expectation of the current lease and, therefore, recommends that the lease
be extended. The proposed extension is for a two-year period with all
other terms remaining the same. The lease rate to the Trust is $1.00 per
year.
It is expected that the Trust (and the PPVAC) will request a modification
of this extension within a few months. The PPVAC is about to undertake a
major fund-raising. The details of any long-term lease have not yet been
worked out. However, at this point in time, the staff would envision any '
such lease to be contingent on the Trust and PPVAC meeting certain stated
milestones in the fund-raising and renovation efforts."
Councilmember Stoner made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Liebler, to
adopt Resolution 86-136.
Bruce Lockhart, 2500 East Harmony Road, questioned the lease amount of $1.
He objected to the facility being owned by the utility fund and used for
general fund purposes. He suggested the general fund buy the facility from
the utility fund or Poudre River Trust buy the facility. He also
questioned the use of the facility for political activities.
Director of Utility Services Rich Shannon provided a historical background
on the Utility's attempt to sell or lease the facility several years ago.
He indicated that the building still contains equipment used as part of the
electrical system. He stated that a large rent would be unrealistic for a
fledgling organization.
The vote on Councilmember Stoner's motion to adopt Resolution 86-136 was as
follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Estrada, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Liebler,
Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
M
August 19, 1986
' Ordinance No. 112, 1986, Appropriating
Funds to Replace Summitview Bridge,
Adopted on Second Reading
Following is staff's memorandum on this item:
"This ordinance was adopted on First Reading on August 5 by a 5-2 vote.
The City needs to appropriate $132,234 to match the $528,000 granted from
the State Highway Department Special Bridge Fund for replacing the
Summitview bridge over the Larimer-Weld Canal. Funds for the City's share
are available from completed capital projects. This ordinance appropriates
both the $132,234 contributed by the City, and the $528,000 grant from the
State."
Councilmember Rutstein made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Stoner, to
adopt Ordinance No. 112, 1986 on Second Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers
Estrada, Kirkpatrick, Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays: Councilmembers
Horak and Liebler.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Resolution 86-137 Authorizing the
City Manager to Research and Negotiate
a Contract for Convention and
Visitors' Bureau Service, Adopted
Following is staff's memorandum on this item:
"Executive Summary
Tourism, coupled with convention activities, generates significant economic
benefits in many communities and can be considered one of Colorado's base
industries. Competition among tourist and convention destinations is
intense. Convention and Visitors' Bureaus are organized to promote the
best attributes of an area, capitalize on local assets, facilities, and
activities to expand this key revenue source. City staff should research
and negotiate a contract for the promotional and organizational services
required to effectively support tourism and convention activities in the
city. Specific agreements will be negotiated by the City Manager and the
City Attorney on behalf of the City. The general parameters of the
contract and scope of services are outlined below. Funding of the contract
will be obtained from the Lodging Tax. It is anticipated that the contract
will be for 3 years, but reviewed, renewed, and funded annually. The
Economic Development Task Force discussed the general form and benefits of
a local Bureau and recommended that the City Council establish a Convention
and Visitors' Bureau as promptly as possible.
-29-
August 19, 1986
Background
'
Colorado is a natural magnet to tourism and many convention activities, and
there is intense competition to attract more conventioneers and tourists to
the area and to each community. Tourism is considered a clean industry and
a base industry which brings "new" dollars into the community. Competition
stems from the desire for those economic benefits and revenues generated by
conventions and visitors. Sales and lodging tax revenues increase with
increased hotel, motel, and facility bookings, extended stays, and the
restaurant and retail service to conventioneers and visitors. Statistics
demonstrate that the revenues can substantially add to the local economy,
while tourists and conventions have very minimal impact on municipal
services or infrastructure. The competitive arena is broad. Fort Collins
not only competes with cities in the Front Range, but also competes with
many other University communities with comparable professional
affiliations. Clearly the University is a key asset and attraction. The
major hotels and CSU's Office of Conference Services already actively
market their facilities. However, a Bureau can add strength by working
together and coordinating joint efforts. To attain and then maintain Fort
Collins' market share of these revenue generating activities will require
concentrated and targeted promotional activities. In many communities
these activities are coordinated by a Convention and Visitors' Bureau. A
bureau can effectively take the lead in bringing together interested
parties, market local activities and attractions, publish promotional
materials, and make the crucial industry contacts necessary to expand upon
these opportunities in Fort Collins.
'
BENEFITS/COSTS:
The successful efforts of a Bureau can bring modest benefits of increased
employment opportunities, many of them entry level positions in the hotels,
restaurants, and services. However, the major economic benefit is the
addition of new money into the local economy from outside sources and the
additional tax revenues generated.
Promotional and marketing efforts should emphasize existing facilities and
attractions - Fort Collins Museum, Lincoln Center, EPIC, the trolley, Old
Town, Power Plant Visual Arts Center, parks, golf courses, Transfort,
Hughes Stadium, as well as private facilities. Bookings at the Lincoln
Center and rental of meeting and display space at the Center and at EPIC
may increase as a result of additional special marketing efforts. Cultural
programs and events will also benefit from bookings affiliated with
conventions.
The Task Force on Economic Development reviewed the concept of a
cooperatively funded Convention and Visitors' Bureau and concluded that the
promotional activities in Fort Collins would offer synergistic
opportunities to expand the use of public facilities, support local
businesses, and the local economy. ,
It is difficult to assess the indirect costs to 'the City of increased
tourist and convention activity. Generally, the ishort term visits and
-30-
August 19, 1986
conventions do not
require
extended infrastructure or costly additional
municipal services.
There is the obvious opportunity cost associated with
the actual contract
expense.
It is speculation to estimate the return on
the public dollars
invested
in Bureau activities. The competitive nature
of the industry and
the number
of Bureaus indicates that communities rely
on the professional
skills of
Bureaus to promote their areas effectively.
FUNDING:
The Lodging Tax authorized by the City Council, collected since March 1984,
has been suggested as the proper source of funds for such a contract. The
supporting documents at the time the tax was passed noted that the proceeds
generated by the Lodging Tax will be dedicated to enhancing tourism in the
City of Fort Collins. Ordinance No. 20, 1984 specifically notes, "The
Lodging Tax shall be used by the City for the purpose of acquiring
facilities and promoting tourism, conventions, and other activities which
utilize public accommodations within the city and for the purpose of
studying and reducing the impact of such activities upon the facilities and
infrastructure of the City."
Public revenues -collected via the Lodging Tax should be combined with
private sector support, Bureau memberships, and in -kind contributions 'to
finance the Bureau's operation. The Economic Development Task Force
suggested that the City earmark funds of $100,000 to $150,000 annually to
provide financial support to a Bureau. With successful Bureau activities,
the Lodging Tax revenues should increase. The City's dollar contribution
to the Bureau may increase over time, but be a decreasing percentage of the
taxes collected.
It should be noted that this is a very standard manner across the country
to fund convention and visitors' bureau activities. City staff has done
some preliminary research on funding of other Bureaus. The information
varies significantly. As an example, the Colorado Springs Bureau has a
budget of $716,000; 82% of which is funded by lodging tax receipts. In
Colorado Springs, the remaining lodging taxes not dedicated to the Bureau
are used to fund, operate, maintain, and improve City owned facilities
which also attract and serve the tourists and conventioneers. In Greeley,
$103,000 of general fund revenues is dedicated to the Bureau's budget of
$128,000. Greeley does not have a lodging tax. The International
Association of Convention and Visitors Bureaus is forwarding information
about the funding of their over 200 members and the City is also using the
computer links with NLC and PTI to�obtain additional information.
The International Association provides team 'consulting services to cities
considering establishing a Bureau. The services are estimated to cost
$10,000. The City staff will research these services further.
SCOPE OF SERVICES:
The final and complete scope of services will be described in the contract,
however it is anticipated that the general services might include:
-31-
August 19, 1986
- Those activities which will stimulate the local economy by '
increasing visitations and extending the duration of visits
and conventions in Fort Collins.
Act to market the area, community, local special events, and
cultural programs.
Solicit conference bookings, assist with conference and
convention scheduling and special arrangements.
Develop, publish, and provide local informational and
marketing materials, which may include special events
calendars, maps, and brochures.
Maintain membership in professional organizations which
strengthen the marketing and promotional efforts of the
Bureau.
Respond to visitors' and conventioneers' inquiries.
A work plan and performance indicators would be specified in the contract.
An annual report should be completed by the Bureau to be submitted to its
members and the City which should describe the Bureau's activities,
financial information, and performance measures.
The Bureau would develop and maintain an operation budget tied specifically '
to the performance and achievement of the annual work plan. It is
anticipated that the first and second years are organizational with
significant preparational costs and initial investments in the promotional
materials.
The Bureau would be a private, non-profit, Colorado corporation, having an
independent Board of Directors with broad community representation, and may
include a City Council representative.
CONCLUSION:
The benefits of an active and successful Visitor and Convention Bureau can
be substantial to a community. Fort Collins with many natural assets,
interesting educational programs, and facilities should attract many more
visitors and conventions to the community. The Lodging Tax provides an
appropriate and sound way to finance the additional promotional and
marketing activities to, expand these income generating opportunities. The
City Manager and staff should research and negotiate a contract for the
requisite services."
Councilmember Rutstein made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Estrada, to
adopt Resolution 86-137.
City Manager Burkett pointed out that a Visitors' and Convention Bureau was I
one of the recommendations contained in the Economic Development Task Force
report presented to Council last week.
19YI
August 19, 1986
Assistant to the City Manager for Economic Opportunity Linda Hopkins
detailed the specifics of this proposal and answered questions from
Council.
Councilmember Rutstein stated she would like to see the contract provide
for the Bureau to represent the many varied interests in the community,
i.e. restaurants, smaller motels, bed and breakfasts, cultural services,
and parks and recreation. She felt it important to promote other
activities in the area so that people might choose to stay longer in the
area. She added that part of the funding should come from the private
sector. She stated she felt the contract should provide for measurement of
the increase in tourism directly related to the Bureau.
Councilmember Kirkpatrick stated she thought the Bureau was a positive step
to show the Council's commitment to the recommendations of the Economic
Development Task Force.
Councilmember Horak indicated that he felt the goal made a lot of sense
(increased tourism means more business for the community, it's a clean
industry); however, a Bureau is only one of the ways to approach the .issue.
He stated his recollection of the idea of the lodging tax was to diversify
the revenues to the City and he did not see how revenues would be
diversified if they were solely allocated to one particular purpose. He
pointed out another option was to improve City services that benefit
tourists and conventioneers, such as expanding bus services after 6:00 p.m.
and providing more information about parks and trails. He felt the private
sector should do what it does best -- bring in the conventioneers, and the
City should do what it does best.-- provide City services to the people who
come here. He stated that the City should look at a range of alternatives
before proceeding with a Bureau.
Councilmember Estrada stated he felt the overall concept of a Convention
Bureau made a lot of sense. He pointed out other cities in Colorado where
convention and tourism bureaus have definitely made a difference. He
agreed with the guidelines Councilmember Rutstein suggested. He advocated
the independent board concept involving hotel/motel owners, the Chamber of
Commerce, private citizens, etc. He stated he felt it was a sound concept
and whole-heartedly endorsed it.
Councilmember Stoner pointed out that during the discussions of the lodging
tax small business owners were told that the funds collected would be put
into a convention bureau. He also felt it important to support the
recommendations of the Economic Development Task Force.
Councilmember Horak stated the materials stated the lodging tax was to
mitigate the impacts of tourism in the community.
Councilmember Liebler stated she felt the costs of a Bureau should be split
' proportionately according to the direct benefits received by the City and
private industry.
-33-
August 19, 1986
Councilmember Kirkpatrick pointed out that it was important to attract
tourists to the area before expanding City services.
Mayor Ohlson stated he felt the concept of a Convention Bureau made
excellent sense at this time. He indicated more information was necessary
before a final decision is made. He stated he anticipated the City's
involvement would decrease as the Bureau became more established. He
agreed that some of the money realized needs to be put back into public
facilities.
The vote on Councilmember Rutstein's motion to adopt Resolution 86-137 was
as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Estrada, Kirkpatrick, Liebler, Ohlson,
Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays: Councilmember Horak.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Citizen Participation
A. Proclamation Naming August 20 as Trolley Day was accepted by Carol
Tunner, fund raising chairman and member of the Board of Directors of
the Fort Collins Municipal Railway, who invited Council and the public
to attend the Golden Spike ceremony.
Margaret Rodgers, Fort Collins Museum docent for 8 1/2 years, questioned
the layoffs at the Museum, stating the budget cuts at the Museum will
affect the service level.
Resolution 86-139 Setting Forth the
Intention of The City of Fort Collins
to Issue Industrial Development Revenue
Bonds for the Vipont Laboratories, Inc.
Project in the Approximate Principal
Amount of $3,500,000 Adopted
Following is staff's memorandum on this item:
"Executive Summary
The Resolution would allow the City to apply for a Private Activity Bond
allocation from the State of Colorado on behalf of the Applicant, Vipont
Ventures. If allocation is received the applicant will move forward with
the issuance of Industrial Development Revenue Bonds in the approximate
principal amount of $3,500,000.
The project is located in the Prospect Park East P.U.D., Lots 5,6, and 7.
The proceeds of the bonds will be used to acquire and construct a 50,000
square foot office, distribution and light manufacturing building. The
facility will be constructed for lease to and occupancy by Vipont
Laboratories, Inc., a local business.
-34-
1
August 19, 1986
Background
Pursuant to Senate Bill No. 108 and Senate Bill No. 160, the City of Fort
Collins is eligible to apply for unlimited allocations for Private Activity
Bonds from the Statewide balance. At the present time there are no funds
available in the Statewide balance. However, projects may be induced and
forwarded to the State where they will be considered on a
first -come -first -served basis as funds become available. There are two
ways in which funds may become available. First, as the time runs out on
previously approved projects their allocations revert to the Statewide
balance. The other possibility is the passage of Federal tax legislation
which would change the allocation cap. The applicant is aware of the
unavailability of funds at this time.
The application for the inducement of City of Fort Collins, Colorado
Industrial Development Revenue Bonds (Series 1986) for Vipont Ventures, a
Colorado General Partnership, in the approximate principal amount of
$3,500,000 is being sent under separate cover for your review. The project
consists of the acquisition and construction of a 50,000 square foot
office, distribution and light manufacturing building to be located on Lots
5, 6, and 7 of the Prospect Park East P.U.D. in Southeast Fort Collins.
The facility will be constructed for lease to and occupancy by Vipont
Laboratories, Inc. Vipont Laboratories manufactures and markets a plaque
fighting toothpaste and mouthwash, and a periodontal irrigation system all
products for the treatment of oral health.
The project is located in an approved P.U.D. Enclosed is a copy of the
comments which the Community Development Department has with regard to the
project.
Staff has reviewed the application using criteria established by Resolution
84-92, adopting Industrial Development Revenue Bond Policies and Criteria.
The IDRB Criteria Evaluation Sheet is enclosed."
Councilmember Estrada made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Rutstein, to
adopt Resolution 86-139.
Financial Policy Analyst Pam Currey noted that bond counsel and Vipont
officials were present to answer questions.
Tom Metier, bond counsel for Fischer, Brown, Huddleson, and Gunn, described
the project and introduced the officials from Vipont Laboratories. He
explained the allocation system and the reasons they believe funds will be
available and allocated for this project., Mr. Metier answered questions
from Council about the specifics of this proposal.
Larry Frederick, President of Vipont Laboratories, described plans for
hiring local people and their plans for consolidating their various
operations into one location.
-35-
August 19, 1986
Councilmember Stoner stated he thought this was an ideal company for IDRB '
financing.
Councilmember Kirkpatrick pointed out that a significant percentage of the
workforce at Vipont is projected to be women and stated she was pleased to
see this opportunity provided.
Councilmember Estrada agreed that this was a good usage of IDRB's.
Councilmember Horak supported the IDRB's, stating he felt this is another
example of Council's commitment to economic development.
Mayor Ohlson stated although he is not a big supporter of IDRB's, he
definitely feels this proposal is appropriate.
The vote on Councilmember Estrada's motion to adopt Resolution 86-139 was
as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Estrada, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Liebler,
Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Items Relating to Amendments to the
Land Development Guidance System, Zoning '
Ordinances and Subdivision Regulations
Following is staff's memorandum on this item:
"Executive Summary
A. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 106, 1986, Amending Section
118-20(A) of Code Regarding Zoning Board of Appeals.
B. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 107, 1986, Repealing and
Reenacting Section 2-13 of the Code Regarding Planning and Zoning Board
Authority.
C. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 108, 1986, Amending Certain
Provisions of Chapter 99 of the Code Regarding Subdivision of Land.
D. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 109, 1986, Amending Certain
Subsections of Section 118-83, The Land Development Guidance System of
the Code.
Background
These ordinances were tabled to this date from July 15.
These ordinances are being offered to Council as part of an ongoing '
evaluation of the City's development process which began with the -adoption
of the Land Development Guidance System. The purpose of the 'proposed
-36-
August 19, 1986
changes is to
provide solutions
to problems identified in the existing
codes. Staff
has received input
from developers, design professionals and
citizens in the development of the
amendments. The Planning & Zoning Board
has reviewed
the proposals and
recommended approval of the attached
ordinances.
The City Council has previously received a report which provides a
description of the proposed changes and options that were considered by the
Planning and Zoning Board. Minutes of the Board's hearings on these
amendments and letters received from the general public were also
included."
City Planner Joe Frank explained the ordinances and the changes that are
being made to current provisions and gave a history of the process used to
arrive at these changes.
Lloyd Walker, 1027 West Lake, President of the Prospect -Shields
Neighborhood Association, supported the changes and suggested additional
changes such as better notification procedures.
Councilmember Liebler made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kirkpatrick,
to adopt Ordinance No. 106, 1986 on First Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers
Estrada, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Liebler, Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays:
None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Liebler made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Rutstein, to
adopt Ordinance No. 107, 1986 on First Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers
Estrada, Horak, Kirkpatrick,- Liebler, Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays:
None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Liebler made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Rutstein, to
adopt Ordinance No. 108, 1986 on First Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers
Estrada, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Liebler, Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays:
None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Horak commended Mr. Walker and the Prospect -Shields
Neighborhood Association for their. continuing work with staff and
developers to make the Land Development; Guidance System a better tool for
development in Fort Collins.
Councilmember Kirkpatrick stated that Ordinance No. 109, 1986 .is an
important one because it clarifies the review process for development.
' Councilmember Liebler commended staff for their efforts in working with the
community on the Land Development Guidance System.
-37-
August 19, 1986
Councilmember Liebler made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Rutstein, to
adopt Ordinance No. 109, 1986 on First Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers
Estrada, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Liebler, Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays:
None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Items Relating to the Foothills Area
Urban Growth Area Boundary Amendment
Following is staff's memorandum on this item:
"Executive Summary
A. Resolution 86-140 Amending the Western Boundary of the Fort Collins
Urban Growth Area to Include Approximately 1,360 Acres of Privately
Owned Land.
B. Resolution 86-141 Authorizing a Series of Amendments to the Fort
Collins UGA Agreement Recognizing the 'Foothills Area' as a Special
Area Within the UGA and Establishing Development Guidelines for the
Area.
C. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 123, 1986, Amending Chapter
118 of City Code (the Zoning Ordinance), Creating a New R-F, Foothills
Residential, Zoning District, With a Standard Maximum Density of 1 Unit
Per 2.29 Acres but Including a Cluster Development Option Which Could
Allow an Increase in Density to 1 Unit Per Acre.
D. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 124, 1986, Amending Chapter
118 of City Code, Making Amendments to the Present R-E, Estate
Residential, Zoning District, Increasing the Minimum Lot Size from
9,000 Square Feet to 30,000 Square Feet (Approximately 3/4 Acre Minimum
Lot Size), Increasing the Minimum Lot Width from 75 Feet to 135 Feet,
Increasing the Minimum Side Yard from 10 Feet to 20 Feet, and
Eliminating the Planned Unit Development Option Within the Zone.
E. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 125, 1986, Amending Chapter
99 of City Code (the Subdivision Ordinance), Establishing a "Rural"
Street Design Standard for the R-F and R-E Zoning Districts for Use on
Cul-de-sacs and Limited Loop Streets.
F. Resolution 85-210 Amending the Boundary of the Fort Collins Urban
Growth Area to Include the Stuart Urban Growth Area Boundary Amendment
of Approximately 80 Acres Located South of Horsetooth Road and West of
Taft Hill Road.
Amendment of the Urban Growth Area boundary in the'foothills area has been
under consideration since 1981. Policies reflecting an intent to limit
land use in the area to low density residential, envi'rohmental concerns,
no
August 19, 1986
' and efficient delivery of utility services are proposed to provide
reasonable control of development in this area.
Five items relating to an Urban Growth Area boundary amendmentin the
foothills area are presented for Council consideration. The items include:
the specific boundary amendment, amendments to the UGA Agreement, a new
City zoning district for the foothills area, revision of the existing R-E
zoning district, and rural street standards.
The sixth item, the Stuart UGA boundary amendment request, is encompassed
in the larger boundary amendment request. Therefore, staff is recommending
that Item F be withdrawn.
Background
Governmental land use policy to guide the development of the 'foothills
area' west of the City of Fort Collins has been an issue since the early
1970's. Of critical importance to governmental development regulations for
the area is the balancing of the proper utilization of the land, the
economical provision of public facilities and services, and the protection
of the natural environmental systems of the area. The proposed items
attempt to fulfill each of these goals by defining the appropriate level of
residential density for the area, coordinating public service design
standards with the level of development density, and providing development
guidelines to assure environmental harmony.
In August of 1980, the City of Fort Collins and Larimer County entered into
the INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT FOR THE FORT COLLINS URBAN GROWTH AREA for
the purpose of guiding and managing urban development in the Fort Collins
metropolitan area. The UGA Agreement also contained changes to the Larimer
County MASTER LAND USE PLAN for areas outside of the UGA boundary. Some of
these changes indicated that the 'foothills area' west of Fort Collins
should be placed into the "Rural" classification, allowing residential
development at a minimum lot size of 35 acres.
In 1981, a boundary change to the Fort Collins UGA was requested (Case
#48-81 UGA Amendment - Overland Trail) for all privately owned properties,
approximately 1,360 acres, located west of the Fort Collins UGA boundary
and north of County Road 36 (extended). At that time, the City's planning
staff recommended denial of the request based primarily on the capacity to
accommodate development within the existing UGA boundary and the fact that
utility services had not been extended into'lthe area.' The Planning and
Zoning Board denied the request by a vote of 5-2 stating it was necessary
to re-evaluate the UGA in relation to the foothills in more detail before
deciding the issue.
In 1982, the Larimer County planning staff prepared a "Foothills Study"
which re-evaluated the area west of Fort Collins and eventually led to the
changing of the area's designation from the "Rural" to the "Rural Non -Farm"
' classification in the Larimer County MASTER LAND USE PLAN. The change in
designation allowed an increase in residential density from 1 unit per 35
-39-
August 19, 1986
acres to 1 unit per 5 acres (1 unit per 2.29 acres in a County planned unit I
development).
In April 1984, the Planning and Zoning Board reviewed the Overland Acres
PUD Subdivision proposal (Case #22-84), a request for 130 single family
lots on 240 acres, located west of Overland Trail and north of Prospect
Road (extended). The project's density (1 unit per 1.84 acres) exceeded
the level allowed in the Rural Non -Farm designated area (1 unit per 2.29
acres). The planning staff recommended denial of the proposal and the
Board voted 7-0 to recommend denial to the County Planning Commission. The
proposal was revised, resubmitted and heard by the Board in September 1984.
The revised request included the same number of units (130). However, the
developer was willing to cluster the units on a portion of the property and
donate 140 acres of open space, located above the 5200 foot contour level,
to the City or County. Staff recommended approval of the revised request
and the Board voted 5-2 to recommend approval to the County.
When the revised proposal reached the County, the County Commissioners
questioned the appropriateness of the subdivision outside of the UGA
boundary. The clustering design of the subdivision gave it a net
residential density of 1.3 units per acre (130 units on 100 acres). The
City and County planning staffs held several meetings with the
Commissioners on the proposal and the UGA in general (two of the
Commissioners were recently elected and were not that familiar with UGA ,
provisions and regulations).
The Commissioners were concerned with the County's ability to provide
services to the subdivision with a density approaching urban level
development and believed the development should occur within the city
limits.
Because of the decision -making quandary the Overland Acres Subdivision
caused the City and County, the City and County planning staffs were again
asked to re-evaluate the foothills area. (Subsequently, the county granted
Master Plan approval and preliminary approval of Phase I.)
During the spring of 1985, the City and County staffs completed a joint
report which recommended the western Fort' Collins UGA boundary be changed
to include all of the privately owned property adjacent to the present
boundary north of County Road 36 extended. Staff justified the
recommendation as follows: 1) the amendment would be consistent with the
Larimer County and City of Fort Collins Comprehensive Plans; 2) because of
recent improvements to the City's water system, the City would be the
agency providing utility services to the area and should have final
authority concerning land use issues; 3) the boundary change would provide
for better utilization of the land and public utilities west of Overland
Trail; and 4) the boundary change would not compromise the open space goals
of the community and the foothills would remain in their _natural state as ,
an aesthetic backdrop to the City of Fort Collins.
40-
August 19, 1986
On July 24, 1985, the Planning and Zoning Board voted 4-1 to recommend
approval of the UGA boundary change (inclusive of the Stuart boundary
amendment request) to the City Council. On November 5, 1985, the City
Council denied the boundary change on a vote of 5-2. The Council felt the
LAND DEVELOPMENT GUIDANCE SYSTEM did not provide for absolute limits to
residential density to ensure that development of the area would be
compatible with the environmental surroundings. Since that time, City and
County staff have been working on methods to allow the inclusion of the
properties into the UGA and still limit the amount of residential
development which can occur in the area.
On May 19, 1986, the Planning and Zoning Board again recommended approval
(7-0) of the UGA boundary amendment, along with suggested modifications to
the UGA Agreement and the RE zone and a new RF zone. On June 23, 1986, the
Planning and Zoning Board recommended approval (7-0) of the proposed rural
street standards for application in the foothills area.
The changes described below would allow the 'Foothills Area' to .-be
designated as a special "rural character" area within the Fort Collins UGA.
All policies, agreements, and requirements of the UGA, including the
annexation Phasing Criteria which require properties adjacent to the city
limits to annex into the city, would be in effect for the 'Foothills Area'
except: density would be limited to 1 unit per 5 acres (1 unit per 2.29
acres in a County planned unit development) for proposals outside of the
city limits; and urban street design standards could be reduced to a rural
street standard for large lot residential development proposals if safety,
economical maintenance, and storm water drainage provisions are not
compromised.
The residential density limitation for the specified 'Foothills Area' would
be consistent with the density presently allowed in the Rural Non -Farm
classification for development proposals outside of the city limits. For
properties which annex into the city the new R-F zone would be applied. The
R-F zone restricts development to 1 unit per 2.29 acres, but allows a
Cluster Development option which could increase density up to 1 unit per
acre. The Cluster Development option is designed to encourage annexation.
Only after annexation and zoning of property into the R-F zone could a
Cluster Development Plan be proposed in an attempt to increase residential
density to 1 unit per acre (increased density being the only incentive for
annexation). This approach would put decision making authority for 1 unit
per acre development solely at the discretion of the City.
The specific components of the UGA boundary amendment are as follows:
A. THE UGA BOUNDARY CHANGE
The area to be added to the Fort Collins Urban Growth Area is shown on the
attached map. This is the same 1,360 acres of private property that were
' proposed in 1981 as part of the Overland Trail UGA Amendment and
resubmitted by staff in 1985.
-41-
August 19, 1986
B. REVISIONS TO THE UGA AGREEMENT
The purpose of the revisions to the UGA Agreement is to allow the inclusion
of the private properties of the Fort Collins 'Foothills Area' into the
Fort Collins Urban Growth Area, but limit development under County
jurisdiction in the foothills area to low density residential uses. Once
properties annex into the city, the R-F, Foothills Residential Zoning
District, would be applied to maintain the area as a low density
single-family residential area.
The revisions further establish guidelines for new development in order to
protect and enhance the scenic and environmental setting of the foothills.
For example, one addition to the agreement is that new structures be
located below 5,200 feet elevation. The intent is to preserve the
unobstructed view of the foothills which is considered an important
aesthetic and urban design feature of the community. Above the 5,200 foot
elevation contour is an environmentally sensitive area in terms of geology
and wildlife and is defined by the County as a geologic hazard area where
rockfalls might occur. City water service is also unavailable above 5,200
feet because of inadequate water pressure.
Recommended additions and revisions to the UGA Agreement are shown below in
ALL CAPITAL letters.
1
Page 3:
'
1. The
City
and County would agree upon an urban growth area
surrounding
the
City
of Fort Collins AND WOULD AGREE THAT THIS AREA IS
APPROPRIATE
FOR
THE
LOCATION AND DEVELOPMENT OF URBAN LAND USES
AND URBAN
RESIDENTIAL DENSITIES, EXCEPT FOR THE SPECIFIED 'FOOTHILLS AREA' WHICH,
DUE
TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL UNIQUENESS OF THE AREA, SHOULD BE
LIMITED TO
LARGE LOT
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT.
That the County would approve only urban level developments within the
Urban Growth Area, EXCEPT FOR THE SPECIFIED 'FOOTHILLS AREA', and that
said development would conform to City design standards.
Page 4:
Development Within the Urban Growth Area. The County agrees.... In
addition, for those parcels not eligible for annexation to the City,
the County agrees to follow the phasing criteria included in the
Supplemental Regulations and to limit development to urban densities,
EXCEPT FOR THE SPECIFIED 'FOOTHILLS AREA,' WHICH WILL BE LIMITED TO
LARGE LOT SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, consistent with design
standards included in the Supplemental Regulations.
42-
August 19, 1986
I
Page 10:
II.B.1. Residential.
a. Single Family: Refers to single family detached dwelling
units. SUCH USE IS APPROPRIATE IN AREAS GENERALLY HAVING A
DENSITY in excess of two (2) dwelling units per acre, EXCEPT
WITHIN THE SPECIFIED 'FOOTHILLS AREA' WHEREIN DENSITY SHALL BE
LIMITED TO ONE (1) UNIT PER FIVE (5) ACRES OR; IN A COUNTY
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, ONE (1) UNIT PER 2.29 ACRES.
Page 12:
II.C.1.e. Residential developments should provide for a mix of housing
types and densities, EXCEPT IN THE SPECIFIED 'FOOTHILLS AREA'
WHICH IS LIMITED TO DETACHED SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS AT A
DENSITY OF ONE (1) UNIT PER FIVE (5) ACRES OR; IN A COUNTY
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, ONE (1) UNIT PER 2.29 ACRES.
A new section will be added to EXHIBIT A after Section I (page 15) FORT
COLLINS URBAN GROWTH AREA as follows:
II. FORT COLLINS FOOTHILLS AREA
THIS SECTION PRESENTS THE POLICIES FOR THE AREAS INCLUDED WITHIN THE
BOUNDARIES OF THE FORT COLLINS URBAN GROWTH AREA IDENTIFIED AS THE
'FOOTHILLS AREA' ON MAP ONE.
A. FOOTHILLS AREA
THE PURPOSE OF THE FOOTHILLS AREA IS TO: (1) PROTECT PUBLIC
HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE BY DISCOURAGING DEVELOPMENT IN AREAS OF
GEOLOGIC HAZARDS; (2) PRESERVE THE NATURAL PHYSIOGRAPHIC FOOTHILLS
AS AN AESTHETIC BACKDROP TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS; AND (3)
PROVIDE THE OPPORTUNITY FOR LARGE LOT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT.
B. GROWTH MANAGEMENT
1. ALL DEVELOPMENT IN THE FOOTHILLS AREA (AS SHOWN ON MAP ONE)
SHOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH THE FOLLOWING DEVELOPMENT
GUIDELINES:
a. PUBLIC WATER AND SEWER WILL BE REQUIRED.
b. STRUCTURES SHOULD BE LOCATED BELOW THE 5,200 FOOT
ELEVATION CONTOUR.
c. UNDERGROUND UTILITIES WILL BE REQUIRED.
Id. DEVELOPMENT SHOULD BE DESIGNED TO CONFORM TO THE TERRAIN.
STRUCTURE SITES SHOULD BE IDENTIFIED BY BUILDING
ENVELOPES, AND LOCATED SO THAT GRADING AND FILLING ARE
-43-
August 19, 1986
KEPT TO A MINIMUM. NATURAL FEATURES SUCH AS DRAINAGE
SWALES, ROCK OUTCROPPINGS AND SLOPES SHOULD BE RETAINED.
DESIGN SHOULD DEMONSTRATE A CONCERN FOR THE VIEW OF THE
FOOTHILLS AS WELL AS FROM THE FOOTHILLS.
f. DESIGN SHOULD TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE UNIQUE MICRO -CLIMATE
OF THE FOOTHILLS. BUILDING ENVELOPES SHOULD BE SELECTED,
LANDSCAPE PLANS DESIGNED, AND INDIVIDUAL STRUCTURES BUILT
FOR PROTECTION FROM HIGH WINDS AND TO FUNCTION WITH
MAXIMUM CONSERVATION OF ENERGY.
DEVELOPMENT DESIGN SHOULD CONSIDER WILDLIFE HABITAT.
LEAVING OPEN SPACE IN A SINGLE BLOCK IS ENCOURAGED.
DEVELOPMENT DESIGN SHOULD ADDRESS COMPATIBILITY WITH
EXISTING AND PLANNED USES ON ADJACENT PUBLIC AND PRIVATE
LAND. THIS MIGHT INCLUDE BUFFERING INCOMPATIBLE USES OR
PROVIDING ACCESS THROUGH THE DEVELOPMENT TO PUBLIC
RECREATION AREAS.
LAND USE TYPES
THE FOLLOWING USES WOULD BE ALLOWED WITHIN THE FOOTHILLS AREA:
LOW DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL. REFERS TO DETACHED
SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING UNITS.
OPEN SPACE. AREAS DESIGNED TO PROTECT AND ENHANCE THE NATURAL
PHYSIOGRAPHIC FOOTHILLS AND MAINTAIN THEM AS AN AESTHETIC
BACKDROP TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS. SUCH AREAS COULD
INCLUDE PRIVATE OPEN SPACE SUCH AS PASTURES AND OTHER
AGRICULTURAL USES, EXCLUSIVE OF IMPROVEMENTS ABOVE 5,200 FEET
OTHER THAN LIVESTOCK FENCING. PUBLIC AREAS COULD ALSO SERVE
THIS FUNCTION THROUGH USES SUCH AS PARKS AND TRAILS. SEE ALSO
EXHIBIT A, I. FORT COLLINS URBAN GROWTH AREA, B. LAND USE
TYPES, 5. RECREATION, OF THIS AGREEMENT.
DENSITY/INTENSITY/LOCATIONAL
1. RESIDENTIAL
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WILL ONLY BE ALLOWED AT A DENSITY
OF ONE UNIT PER FIVE ACRES. CLUSTERING OF DWELLING UNITS
WILL BE ALLOWED PROVIDED THE GROSS DENSITY DOES NOT EXCEED
ONE UNIT PER 2.29 ACRES AND THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN IS
APPROVED AS PART OF A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT. LARIMER
COUNTY WILL AMEND ITS ZONING ORDINANCE SO THAT THESE
PROVISIONS APPLY TO THE FOOTHILLS AREA.
-44-
11
August 19, 1986
ENVIRONMENTAL
1. SEE EXHIBIT A, SECTION I. FORT COLLINS URBAN GROWTH AREA, D.
ENVIRONMENTAL (PAGE 14), OF THIS AGREEMENT.
Section II of Exhibit A entitled "Land Use Policies for the Area Beyond the
Urban Growth Area" will become Section III of Exhibit A.
Page 16:
Delete II.B.5.
Page 23:
IV.B. To define areas of Larimer County, EXCEPT FOR THE SPECIFIED
'FOOTHILLS AREA,' where urban densities and uses are appropriate
when consistent with the phasing criteria and design standards of
the Larimer County Urban Growth Area Regulation.
Page 24:
IV.E. To encourage the annexation of land that is to be developed with
urban uses or at urban densities, EXCEPT FOR THE SPECIFIED
'FOOTHILLS AREA' WHICH IS LIMITED TO LARGE LOT SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, in order that the provision of urban
services by Larimer County is minimized.
Map One (page 8) and Map Two (page 19) will be revised to reflect this
boundary amendment and the recent South Harmony boundary amendment.
C. R-F, FOOTHILLS RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT
The purpose of the R-F, Foothills Residential Zoning District, is to allow
the development of private properties along the western edge of the City of
Fort Collins to occur within the city limits, but restrict residential
densities to those deemed appropriate given the fringe locational nature of
the properties and the area's environmental concerns.
In order for the R-F zone to apply, properties would have to be annexed
into the city. In order for properties to annex into the city, changes
would have to be made to the UGA, boundary to include private properties
located in the western portion of the community. According to the present
UGA Agreement between the City and Larimer County, the City will not annex
property outside of the UGA boundary even if a specific property is
eligible for annexation according to State annexation laws.
Properties within the UGA which are adjacent to the city limits must annex
into the city if a development proposal (i.e., rezoning, subdivision, or
planned unit development) is submitted to the County on that property. The
UGA Agreement prohibits the County from approving development proposals on
properties which are eligible for voluntary annexation into the city.
-45-
0
August 19, 1986
In order to encourage voluntary annexation of properties, the R-F zone '
allows residential development at a density greater than what would
normally be allowed under the County's MASTER LAND USE PLAN designation for
the foothills area. In order to achieve this higher.density, a Cluster
Development Plan must be approved by the City. The Cluster Development
Plan allows the trade-off of relatively higher density for the preservation
of open space and the addressing of other public environmental concerns of
the foothills area. While the Cluster Development Plan would allow for
relatively higher residential densities no multi -family uses would be
allowed. Residential development would be limited to detached
single-family dwellings.
The specific provisions of the R-F zone are presented below. The zone does
NOT allow a planned unit development approach, via the LAND DEVELOPMENT
GUIDANCE SYSTEM, to development. Thus, the only uses allowed on properties
zoned R-F would be those listed under Section A. Uses permitted. The
development of any other use would require a rezoning of property to
another City zoning district.
R-F Foothills Residential District
This district designation is for low density residential areas, located
near the foothills.
A. Uses permitted. '
(1) One -family dwellings.
(2) Public and private schools for elementary and high school
education.
(3) Public and non-profit quasi -public recreational uses as a
principal use.
(4) Churches.
(5) Essential public utility and public service installations and
facilities for the protection and welfare of the surrounding
area, provided business offices and repair and storage
facilities are not included.
(6) Group homes, subject to approval by special review.
(7) Accessory buildings and uses, except home occupations.
B. Minimum area of lot. Minimum lot area shall not be less than 2.29
acres._
C. Minimum width of lot. Minimum lot width shall be two hundred (200) I
feet.
-46-
August 19, 1986
' D. Minimum front yard
(60) feet.
Minimum depth of the front yard shall be sixty
E. Minimum rear yard. Minimum depth of the rear yard shall be fifty
(50) feet.
F. Minimum side yard. Minimum side yard width shall be fifty (50)
feet.
G. Maximum topographic limitation of development. No portion of any
building built on a lot zoned R-F shall extend above 5200 feet mean
sea level.
H. Farm animals. Notwithstanding any provision of the city's Animal
Control Ordinance, it shall be permissible for farm animals to be
kept on any R-F zoned property as an accessory use. Farm animals
shall include, but not be limited to, the following: chickens,
pigs, sheep, goats, horses and cattle.
I. Cluster Development Plan. Areas which are located on a cluster
development plan, subject to approval by special review of the
Planning and Zoning Board may vary the requirements of this
section, providing the following basic regulations are enforced:
(1) Only the uses listed in Section A. Uses permitted, are
allowed.
(2) The overall gross density of residential units on the cluster
development plan is not greater than one (1) unit per acre.
(3) Building envelopes are identified on the cluster development
plan; the minimum area of lot, minimum width of lot, minimum
front yard, minimum rear yard, and minimum side yard, conform
to the requirements established in the R-E Estate Residential
District; and the subdivision plat meets all the requirements
of Chapter 99, Subdivision of Land, of the Code of the City of
Fort Collins.
(4) The layout of lots on the cluster development plan are
designed to conform to terrain and located so that grading and
filling are kept to a minimum. Natural features such as
drainage swales, rock outcroppings and slopes are retained.
(5)
All elements of building structures
will be located below
the
5,200 foot elevation contour.
(6)
The cluster development plan
is designed to minimize
the
aesthetic impact upon the view
of the foothills as well as
the
view from the foothills.
'
(7)
The cluster development plan
takes into account the unique
micro -climate of the foothills
so that building envelopes
are
-47-
August 19, 1986
selected and individual structures will be built for '
protection from high winds and to function with maximum
conservation of energy.
(8) The cluster development plan shows consideration for wildlife
habitats by leaving open large single blocks of land.
(9) The cluster development plan addresses compatibility with
existing and planned uses on adjacent public and private
property. Buffering of incompatible uses will be required
through landscaping and/or site design and public access
through the cluster development plan must be provided to
public recreational areas.
(10) If farm animals are intended to be allowed within the area,
the cluster development plan must indicate the portions of the
area reserved for the keeping of farm animals and the
mitigation efforts used to buffer these areas from surrounding
uses.
D. CHANGES TO THE EXISTING R-E, ESTATE RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT
The R-E, Estate Residential, Zoning District, is a designation for low
density residential areas usually located in outlying areas. The minimum
lot size is presently 9,000 square feet. Staff recommends the minimum lot I
size be increased from 9,000 to 30,000 square feet (about 3/4 acre minimum
lot size).
There are several reasons for the recommended increase in minimum lot size.
Staff anticipates the R-E zone to be applied, as it has been in recent
times, to existing large lot county subdivisions when they annex into the
city. Staff feels it is important that a "rural" life style be provided
for within the city limits rather than having increased pressure for such
development beyond the UGA boundary. This rural life style includes the
keeping of farm animals, particularly horses, on residential properties.
While most of the existing county large lot subdivisions have minimum lot
sizes in excess of 2 acres, staff feels a 3/4 acre minimum lot size would
not infringe upon the rural life style of the development. The City's
Animal Control Ordinance and County regulations require 1/2 acre (21,780
square feet) of "pasture" per horse. A minimum 30,000 square foot lot
would provide enough lot area for a "yard" of 8,000 to 9,000 square feet
for a single family home plus the minimum 1/2 acre of "pasture" for a
horse.
In addition to increasing the minimum lot size, staff is also recommending
increasing the minimum lot width from 75 feet to 135 feet and increasing
the minimum side yard from 10 feet to 20 feet.
The final major amendment to the existing R-E zone recommended -by staff is '
the elimination of the planned unit development option from the zone. The
only uses allowed in the R-E zone would be those uses which are listed
within the zone as 'Uses Permitted'. This would assure that the properties
M1f 11
August 19, 1986
zoned R-E would remain large lot single family residential areas which
would maintain a rural atmosphere and life style. Any other use for
properties zoned R-E would first have to receive approval of a rezoning to
another zoning district before submitting a development plan.
E. RURAL STREET STANDARDS
One of the more important perceptional components of a "rural" setting is
the design of the street system. Normally, rural streets do not have
curbs, gutters, and sidewalks. The full requirement of "urban" street
design standards for low density residential developments for the
'Foothills Area' needs to make sense from an economic perspective. City
staff held 'several discussions on establishing a "rural" street design
standard which centered on the issues of public safety, economical
maintenance, and storm water drainage. There were also discussions as to
where the "rural" standard would be in effect or could be used.
Staff investigated several design options which eliminated curbs, gutters,
and sidewalks. Storm water drainage became a major concern and the use of
borrow ditches and valley pans were reviewed. The use of borrow ditches
for drainage creates several problems. Foremost is general maintenance.
The City presently has no equipment to maintain borrow ditch drainage
systems and given the expected limited use of the "rural" street design,
standard capital investments in such maintenance equipment cannot be
justified. A flatter slope, i.e., from 1:1 to 4:1, to allow maintenance by
mowers creates a need for excessive amounts of right-of-way. For example,
the present "urban" local street design calls for 36 feet of pavement
within 54 feet of right-of-way. To build a "rural" local street of 36 .feet
with 4:1 slope borrow ditches for drainage would require 74 feet of way (a
37% increase). Flat sloped streets are almost impossible to build in
moderately rolling terrain, such as may be found in several areas near the
foothills, and still solve storm drainage problems with borrow ditches. In
some alternatives investigated by staff, the cost figures for a "rural"
street, including maintenance costs over a 20 year period, were actually
more expensive than an "urban" street.
The "rural" street standard staff is recommending is for 28 feet of
pavement on a 46 foot r-o-w with roll-over curb to carry storm drainage
(see attached drawing). Staff believes this street design should be
limited to the R-F and R-E zones and be further limited to cul-de-sacs and
loop streets which serve less than 20 units.. Any street in a subdivision
located in an R-F or R-E zone which functions as a collector street or a
local street which has the opportunity to connect through the development
into another development must be built to'current city "urban" design
standards.
F. STUART UGA BOUNDARY AMENDMENT REOUEST
The Stuart boundary amendment request is included within the larger
' boundary amendment but the applicant had asked for separate consideration.
The Stuart request has been tabled numerous times, pending development of
the policies contained in the above items. Separate action on Resolution
-49-
August 19, 1986
85-210 is required, regardless of action on Item A; because it was formally '
tabled to this Council meeting of August 19, 1986.
RECOMMENDATION
The following findings are offered in support of the staff recommendation
for approval of all components included in this item:
1. The UGA boundary amendment for the 'Foothills Area' is supported by the
Larimer County and City of Fort Collins Comprehensive Plans, especially
the provisions which encourage a variety of life styles and residential
densities and housing opportunities inn the community.
2. The service area agreement between Fort Collins and the Loveland -Fort
Collins Water District and the South Fort Collins Sanitation District
designates Fort Collins as the agency to provide services in areas
north of Harmony. Fort Collins, therefore, should have the final
authority concerning land use decisions in the foothills area.
3. Development will be limited to detached single family residential uses
at a density which will be compatible with the natural environment of
the area.
4. Development of the foothills area within the City will allow a better
utilization of public utilities and will reduce the service '
responsibility of the County government.
5. Development should not occur above the 5,200 foot elevation contour
because of the environmental sensitivity and geologic hazard above that
level and because of the inability of the City to provide water
service.
6. The UGA boundary change will not compromise the open space goals of the
community and the foothills will remain in their natural state as an
aesthetic backdrop to the City of Fort Collins.
Based on the above findings, staff is specifically recommending the
following Council actions:
1. Approval of a UGA boundary amendment to include within the UGA
approximately 1,360 acres of privately owned property located west of
and adjacent to the present UGA boundary.
2. Authorization of a series of amendments to the UGA Agreement which
recognize the 'Foothills" Area' as a special area within the Fort
Collins UGA and establish development guidelines for the area.
3. Approval of a new R-F, Foothills Residential, Zoning District which
would be applied to properties within the 'Foothills Area' at the time
of annexation limiting development to one unit per 2.29 acres, but ,
allowing a cluster development option which could increase 'density to
one unit per acre.
-50-
August 19, 1986
4. Approval of amendments to the existing R-E, Estate Residential, Zoning
District which increase the minimum lot size from 9,000 square feet to
30,000 square feet and eliminate the planned unit development option
within the zone.
5. Approval of a "rural" street design standard for use in the R-F and R-E
zones limited to cul-de-sacs and limited loop streets.
6. If Item A, the UGA boundary amendment for 1,360 acres is approved, the
Stuart Boundary Amendment Request has been approved. Therefore,
Resolution 85-210 should be formally withdrawn. If the comprehensive
boundary amendment is denied by Council, staff recommends denial of the
Stuart request in order to pursue consistent and cohesive policies for
the entire foothills area.
Planning and Zoning Board Recommendation:
The Planning and Zoning Board reviewed the components of the Foothills
Urban Growth Area Boundary Amendment request at their regular monthly
meetings of July 24, 1985, and May 19, and June 23, of 1986. The Board has
voted to recommend approval of all components to the City Council. Copies
of the Board's minutes are attached."
Chief Planner Ken Waido gave a presentation of the actions being requested
and answered questions from Council.
Councilmember Rutstein made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Estrada, to
adopt Resolution 86-140.
Jim Martell, attorney representing two of the property owners in the area
(Ruth Burns and Mr. Kim Stuart), indicated their support for part A, but
expressed concerns about the other components of this item.
The vote on Councilmember Rutstein's motion to adopt Resolution 86-140 was
as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Estrada, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Liebler,
Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays: .None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Liebler made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kirkpatrick,
to adopt Resolution 86-141.
Wayne Munn, 2513 Leghorn Drive, explained the topography of the five
parcels to be included in the UGA.
Councilmember Rutstein urged Councilmembers to support this item, noting
Council's earlier wish to maintain the rural character of the area.
' The vote on Councilmember Liebler's motion to adopt Resolution 86-141 was
as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Estrada, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Liebler,
Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays: None.
-51-
August 19, 1986
THE MOTION CARRIED.
L
Councilmember Estrada made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Rutstein, to
adopt Ordinance No. 123, 1986 on First Reading.
Chief Planner Ken Waido explained the application of R-F and R-E zoning.
Councilmember Stoner suggested paragraph I(5) be reworded to read "All
elements of building structures will be encouraged to locate below the
5,200 foot elevation contour with variances available if hardships can be
identified and approved." He stated he felt this is necessary to make
development reasonable on all properties.
Councilmember Rutstein stated she did not feel it was the City's
responsibility to guarantee that people can develop their property. She
indicated Council's policy is to preserve the view, from the City, of the
foothills. She supported the Ordinance and agreed that Mr. Stoner's
suggestion should be looked at.
Councilmember Liebler stated she would rather see a different elevation
level specified rather than give the Planning and Zoning Board total
flexibility over the whole area.
Mayor Ohlson directed staff to look at Council's concerns between First and
Second Reading.
Councilmember Horak indicated he would like to have the Planning and Zoning
Board's reaction to Mr. Stoner's suggested change.
The vote on Councilmember Estrada's motion to adopt Ordinance No. 123, 1986
on First Reading was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Estrada, Horak,
Kirkpatrick, Liebler, Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Rutstein made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Liebler, to.
adopt Ordinance No. 124, 1986 on First Reading.
Chief Planner Ken Waido answered questions from Council about this item.
Jim Martell addressed the situation at the Stuart property and urged more
flexibility on lot size requirements.
Councilmember Stoner stated he would like to see the Land Development
Guidance System take control of the situation. He indicated he would like
to see the Ordinance tabled for further review.
Councilmember Rutstein stated she would not be in favor of tabling the
Ordinance because the purpose of the Ordinance is to keep the rural
character of the area.
-52-
August 19, 1986
Councilmember Stoner stated he was a firm believer in density shifts in
allowing the topography of the ground to dictate the best use of the
property.
Councilmember Kirkpatrick stated she felt the Guidance System approach with
some specific indication that would preserve the rural nature would be
desirable, rather than to be so restrictive as to be less creative for the
developers.
Councilmember Estrada made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Stoner, to
table Ordinance No. 124, 1986 to October 7 to allow for further review and
study by the Planning and Zoning Board.
Councilmember Stoner questioned how tabling of this item would affect the
previous items that were adopted.
Councilmember Horak suggested the second reading of the prior items could
also be delayed.
The vote on Councilmember Estrada's motion to table was as follows: Yeas:
Councilmembers Estrada, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner.
Nays: Councilmember Liebler.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Chief Planner Ken Waido asked that Item E also be tabled in lieu of the
tabling of the previous item.
Councilmember Stoner made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Estrada, to
adopt Ordinance No. 125, 1986 on First Reading.
Councilmember Stoner made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Horak, to
table Ordinance No. 125, 1986 to October 7. Yeas: Councilmembers Estrada,
Horak, Kirkpatrick, Liebler, Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
(Secretary's Note: Item F was withdrawn from the agenda as requested in
the staff's memorandum on this item.)
Resolution 86-138 Authorizing the
City Manager to Execute a Change,Order
in the Amount of $28,604 for the
Purchase and the Installation of
the Spectator Seating for the
Indoor Pool/Ice Arena Project Adopted
Following is staff's memorandum on this item:
-53-
August 19, 1986
"Executive Summary I
Staff is requesting approval to fund $28,604 from the current project
contingency for the Indoor Pool/Ice Arena Capital Project for the purchase
and installation of the spectator seating. These seats will be installed
prior to substantial completion of the project. The seats need to be
installed to provide for proper spectator viewing.
Background
When City Council authorized us to proceed with the total construction of
the Indoor Pool/Ice Arena Project on October 15, 1985, several items were
placed on hold for review in September 1986. We are requesting that one of
the items, the spectator seating, be added to the project now so that they
can be installed by the time of substantial completion of the project. It
requires at least twelve weeks for manufacturing of the seats, delivery,
and installation. The seating was competitively bid in October 1985 and
rebid in July. The cost involved is $28,604. These funds are available in
the current project contingency. An overall project budget summary is
attached.
The seats need to be installed to provide for proper spectator viewing.
Without the seats, a spectator will be losing view of the performance
surface of approximately five to eight feet. The installation of the seats
will raise this view of the surface allowing the spectator full view of the '
performance surface.
The construction of the project has proceeded very well. As of August 1,
1986, the project is two months ahead of schedule. The current CPM
schedule indicates that the substantial completion date (the date the
facility is ready for occupancy) is December 2, 1986 with the project being
totally completed by January 14, 1987. The Grand Opening of the facility
is tentatively scheduled for February 1, 1987."
Director of General Services Tom Frazier gave a history of the seating,
explained the timing issue for authorizing this change order, and
emphasized the importance of the seating-. He responded to questions from
Council.
Bruce Lockhart, 2500 East Harmony Road, commented on the equipment yet to
be purchased and the contingency fund balance.
Barbara Allison, 1212 Lynnwood Drive, objected to the construction of the
seats. She questioned what had been spent to date on the pool.
Tom Frazier replied that 73% of the budget for the project has been
expended.
Ms. Allison asked if any scheduling commitments have been obtained from I
hockey teams, etc.
-54-
August 19, 1986
IMayor Ohlson replied that staff has been working very hard to make the pool
a success and that is why the chief staff person at the pool was hired
early in the construction phases.
Councilmember Rutstein made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Liebler, to
adopt Resolution 86-138. Yeas: Councilmembers Estrada, Horak,
Kirkpatrick, Liebler, Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Resolution 86-121 Appointing a
Representative to the Larimer County
Community Action Board (not adopted),
City Manager Authorized to Appoint Representative
Following is staff's memorandum on this item:
"The Larimer County Community Action Board is an advisory body to the
Larimer County Department of Human Development. The City has been
represented on the Community Action Board since 1979. Due to the
resignation of Carol Osborne, a replacement needs to be appointed to
represent the City on the Board.
This item was tabled to this date from August 5. Attached is
correspondence from Lorrie Wolfe, Acting Executive Director of the
,• Department of Human Development, which provides additional information on
the Board."
City Clerk Krajicek summarized the background of the item and outlined
several options for filling the vacancy.
Councilmember Stoner stated that since the information received shows that
the position has typically been filled by a staff person, he felt the City
Manager should appoint a staff person.
Councilmember Rutstein stated she would like to see the position filled by
a Councilmember or staff member, noting that the Board contains positions
filled by private citizens.
Mayor Ohlson stated he would like to have a Resolution providing that a
Councilmember fill the position, but in the event a Councilmember is not
interested, the City Manager appoint a staff person.
Councilmember Rutstein made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Stoner, to
authorize the City Manager to appoint a City. staff member who is interested
and qualified. Yeas: Councilmembers Estrada, Horak, Liebler, Ohlson,
Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays: Councilmember Kirkpatrick.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
1
-55-
August 19, 1986
Resolution 86-142 Making An Appointment
to the Downtown Development Authority,
Tabled to September 2
Following is staff's memorandum on this item:
"A vacancy currently exists on the Downtown Development Authority due to
the resignation of Danial Larsen. The individual Council liaison conducted
interviews with the applicants. The following is being recommended as the
prospective appointee:
Downtown Development Authority - Lucia Liley
In keeping with Council's policy, this Resolution will be tabled until
September 2 for public input."
Councilmember Estrada spoke about the process used to arrive at the .:
recommendation of Lucia Liley to fill the vacancy on the DDA.
Councilmember Estrada made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kirkpatrick,
to appoint Lucia Liley to the Downtown Development Authority.
Mayor Ohlson questioned whether the law firm Mrs. Liley works with will
discontinue representing clients who might come before the DDA.
'
Lucia Liley, 1113 Williams, explained her personal position and the law
firm's position with regard to conflict of interest situations.
Councilmember Horak applauded the actions of Mrs. Liley and her firm in
their efforts to eliminate any conflict of interest.
Councilmember Liebler stated although she initially had some concerns about
the appearance of a conflict of interest, Mrs. Liley's assertions that her
firm will not continue to represent clients that have business before the
DDA have satisfied her that the appearance on conflict of interest will not
be an issue.
Councilmember Estrada made a motion,seconded by Councilmember Liebler, to
adopt Resolution 86-142 inserting the name of Lucia Liley.
Councilmember Stoner stated he hoped this evening's discussion does not
become a precedent -setting event. He stated Mrs. Liley and her firm are
making an extreme sacrifice and he does not think a potential conflict of
interest on any board should mandate a similar sacrifice.
Mayor Ohlson indicated he had intended to vote against this nomination, but
the strong action taken by Mrs. Liley and her firm have removed any ,
concerns he had.
-56-
August 19, 1986
11
I�
The vote on Councilmember's Estrada
follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Estrada,
Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
to adopt Resolution 86-142 was as
Horak, Kirkpatrick, Liebler, Ohlson,
Councilmember Stoner made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Horak, to
reconsider Resolution 86-142. Yeas: Councilmembers Estrada, Horak,
Kirkpatrick, Liebler, Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Stoner made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Rutstein, to
table Resolution 86-142 to September 2. Yeas: Councilmembers Estrada,
Horak, Kirkpatrick, Liebler, Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Ordinance No. 122, 1986, Repealing and
Re-enacting Chapter 104 of the Code of
the City of Fort Collins Relating to
Sales and Use Taxes. Adopted on First Reading
Following is staff's memorandum on this item:
"Executive Summary
Chapter 104 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins deals with the taxation
of retail sales and use. A major revision of the Chapter has been
completed. The revision was initiated due to the passage of House Bill
1007 by the State Legislature in 1985 concerning sales tax simplification
and the need for improving the Code with regard to collection and
enforcement. In revising Chapter 104, staff incorporated not only the
requirements from H.B. 1007 but also various provisions from other city
codes and new provisions which are aimed at improving the Code. The
revisions have been reviewed and approved by the Finance Committee of the
City Council. No new taxes have been included in this revision.
Background
Fort Collins sales and use tax receipts constituted over 56% of the City's
general fund budgeted revenues in 1986. In addition, 16% of the sales and
use tax budgeted revenue, after fixed costs are deducted, were budgeted to
fund the City's General City Capital projects. Sales and use tax receipts
are a major source of revenue for the City and the proposed ordinance
revision provides staff with the tools to more uniformly enforce the
collection and remittance of the City's sales and use taxes.
This Ordinance will be a particular help to the City's new Audit Program.
The Audit Program was initiated in 1985, and became functionally
-57-
August 19, 1986
operational in May of 1986. Since that time the Auditors have collected
$99,141 and assessed an additional $61,661 in sales and use taxes which the
City would not otherwise have received. We feel that this is only a
portion of what could be accomplished with this program if this ordinance
were in effect.
A review of the Sales & Use Tax Ordinance was commenced in response to the
passage of House Bill 1007 by the State Legislature, this legislation is
commonly referred to as the Sales Tax Simplification Bill. Various
requirements of the Sales Tax Simplification Bill have been incorporated in
this revision, providing for compliance by the City with this new law.
After an initial review of the City's Ordinance, however, it was determined
that a complete overhaul was needed and should be accomplished at the same
time that it was being brought into compliance with the State. Thus, the
revisions in this Ordinance accomplish the following:
- incorporates requirements of the Sales Tax Simplification Bill;
- improves the layout of the Ordinance;
- clarifies the application of the sales & use tax;
The revision does not contain any new taxes. This revised Ordinance is
primarily the result of the hard work of Assistant City Attorney Kathy
Allin and Sales Tax Auditors Doug Smith and Cathy Arnold, under the
supervision of Revenue Officer Gwyn Strand. Together this group has an
extensive knowledge of the shortcomings of the existing ordinance, and this
knowledge has resulted in the drafting of an extremely effective Sales and
Use Tax Ordinance.
Assistant City Attorney Kathy Allin has prepared an executive summary of
the specific changes made to the Ordinance for the Finance Committee. That
summary is attached. The Finance Committee has reviewed and approved the
proposed revisions."
Acting Finance Director Alan Krcmarik introduced the staff members who
worked on the drafting of the ordinance and explained their involvement in
the process. He briefly explained the background of the item and answered
questions from Council.
Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Stoner, to
adopt Ordinance No. 122, 1986 on First Reading.
Bruce Lockhart, 2500 East Harmony, suggested repealing the Ordinance
without reenacting it.
Councilmember Rutstein complimented staff for the work done on drafting the
Ordinance and the auditing program which has collected approximately
$99,000 dollars, with an additional $61,000 anticipated, that would not
have otherwise been received if the audit had not been performed.
Mayor Ohlson thanked the entire Finance staff for the quality work produced
in the past months.
August 19, 1986
The vote on Councilmember Horak's motion to adopt Ordinance No. 122, 1986
on First Reading was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Estrada, Horak,
Kirkpatrick, Liebler, Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
City Manager's Report
City Manager Burkett reported on the participation of City employees in the
First Interstate Bank Paint-a-Thon.
He also reported that the bond refunding process has been completed and
brought Council's attention to the Budget schedule provided in Council's
packet.
Councilmembers' Reports
Councilmember Liebler announced that the Housing Authority has found a
solution to the Bennett Hotel residents displacement problem. She added
that the Housing Authority has set up a committee to formulate
recommendations to Council on a policy for displacement housing.
Councilmember Estrada reminded everyone that there would be a Town Hall
meeting Thursday evening at Rocky Mountain High School.
Councilmember Horak urged Councilmembers to attend a special meeting of the
major cities of the Council of Governments in Loveland Wednesday evening.
Adjournment
Councilmember Stoner made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Rutstein, to
adjourn the meeting. Yeas: Councilmembers Estrada, Horak, Kirkpatrick,
Liebler, Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays: None.
The meeting adjourned at 11:10 p.m.
ATTEST -
City Clerk 11�$
Mayor
-59-