Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES-09/01/1981-RegularSeptember 1, 1981 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, September 1, 1981, 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: Cassell, Clarke, Elliott, Horak, Knezovich, Reeves .and Wilmarth. Absent: None. Staff Members Present: Arnold, Liley, Lanspery, Krajicek, Lewis, C. Smith, Mabry, R. Wood, Dallow, Powers, Phillips, Lee, Krempel, Griep. ' Councilmember Ordinance No munity Develo Renewal Afire Lines be with Agenda Review: City Manager Elliott asked that Item # 11, Heari 112, 1981, Appropriatin Unanticipa B �ment oc Grant Fund, and Item it 16, R ement wit t e nion Pacific Railroad irawn from the Consent Aqen a. & First Reading of evenue in t e om- ution Approving a r water ancl Newer Councilmember Horak requested that Item # 9, Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 110, 1981 Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the Revenue haring Fund, Item Hearin & first Readin o rdinance No. , 9�ppropriatin Unanticipated evenue in the capitalProjects un , and Item eso ution Approvin ust ompensation or a ommunity Development Block Grant Land Acquisition and Namee John B. Romero ar a wit rawn. CONSENT CALENDAR This Calendar is intended to allow the City Council to,spend its time and energy on the important items on a lengthy agenda. Staff recommends approval of the Consent Calendar. Anyone may request an item on this calendar be "pulled" off the Consent Calendar and considered separately. 4. Consider approval of the minutes of the re ular meeting of August 18 ' and the adjourned meetingo Au ust 2 981 8 . 333 ' September 1, 1981 5. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 102, 1981, VacatingProperty Known as ract Prospect n ustria Par . This Ordinance was adopted unanimously on First -Reading on August 18. 0 0 7 This is a request to vacate Tract A located in .the Prospect Industrial Park subdivision as platted. Tract A is an access and loading ease- ment adjacent to the Colorado and Southern Railroad tracks. A replat of Tract A and two lots of the subdivision was approved at the Plan- ning and Zoning Board hearing of August 24, 1981. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 103 1981 Amendingthe 1979 Uniform Bui ing ode. This Ordinance was adopted unanimously on First Reading on August 18. These proposed amendments were developed to deal with certain require- ments in the new edition of the Code that make the design and con- struction of buildings difficult. Hearin and First Reading of Ordinance No. 107 1981 Adoptingthe i�Bi M ivnai [ieCtrlc ode. Staff met with the Electrical Contractors to review the changes in the latest (1981 Edition) of the National Electrical Code and felt that the Code should be amended to require that, in residential construc- tion, garden level basements be wired whether finished or unfinished. The proposed amendments were reviewed and approved by the Code Change Committee. The Code Change Committee is a citizen's group knowledge- able" about .codes whose members review all code changes for reason - and cost effectiveness. The committee consists of contrac- tors, architects and engineers. Hearin and First Reading of Ordinance No. 108 1981 Relatingto S ar �e ur rty wrurno din on Sick Pay. - This ordinance establishes the City's plan for dealing with sick pay and is prepared to meet the State's requirements to enable its formal approval as required by the Federal government. arin and First Readin for ear eserves in the of Ordinance No. 11 ?venue arena un . 981 Appropriati This ordinance appropriates the $3,000 in the Revenue Sharing Fund ' for Transfer to the Capital Projects Fund to cover the cost of pro- 334 September 1, 1981 'fessional .services to design and prepare .the specifications -for the proposed conversion of ballfield lighting to metal halide systems. 10. Hearing & First Reading of Ordinance No. 111, 1981, Appropriating nan icipa a evenue in e Capital roJec s Funa Ordinance No. 110, 1981 appropriated prior year reserves in the Revenue Sharing Fund for transfer to the Capital Projects Fund for the ballfield lighting conversion design ($3,000). Ordinance No. 100, 1981 authorized the issuance of $3,000,000. in General Obligation Bonds to finance community park projects con- struction through 1982. At this time, we need to appropriate $912,000 of the $3,000,000 in the Capital Projects Fund for current phases of the community park projects. As these phases are completed, we will request appropriations for the next phase of the project. . 11. Hearing & First Reading of Ordinance No. 112, 1981, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the Community Deve opment B oc Grant Fund. This Ordinance appropriates a total of $872,953 in unanticipated revenue in the is a breakdown Community Development Block Grant Fund. The following of the specific revenue items which comprise the total .appropriation: 1981-82 Program Income 802,000 Loan Program Income 44,205 Grant Program Income 1,500 Collateral and Interest Income 25,248 12. Resolution Adopt in the Restatement of the City of Fort Collins Genera Emp oyees Retirement Plan and Authorizin the City to ontri- ute to the IUMA Retirement Plan on Behalf of its Career Employees. The restatement of the General Employees Retirement Plan incorporates the recommendations made by A.S. Hansen Company, the General Employees Retirement Committee, the Pension Task Force and staff. These recom- mendations have been discussed with Council at earlier work sessions. In addition, this Resolution authorizes the City to contribute to the ICMA Retirement Plan a matching amount equal to a career employee's contribution not to exceed 3% of salary. 13. Resolution Acceptin Improvements in Storm Draina e Improvement District and r Bring Notice o the Assessments to be Pub fished. ' In 1980 City Council formed Storm Sewer Improvement District No. 17 to provide for the construction of a storm sewer system near South 335 I September 1, 1981 College Avenue. The sewer system provides an;outlet for storm runoff to Mail Creek for nine (9) properties in an area generally bounded by South College Avenue, Horsetooth Road, the Colorado & Southern Rail- road and Harmony Road and encompasses an area of approximately 69 acres. 14. Resolution Approving Just Compensation for a Community Development Bloc Grant Land Acquisition and Name for o n B. Romero Par . This Resolution is to establish "Just Compensation" for the Anderson- ville vest pocket park site located at 421 Tenth Street. Since Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds are being utilized, federal law requires the City Council to make a finding of "Just Compensation." Staff recommends Council establish "Just Compensation" of $9,000 based upon the appraised value established by an independent appraiser. Because of the request of the selling party and the Parks and Recre- ation Board, staff recommends the park be named the John B. Romero Park. 16. Resolutions Authorizing the City Manager and City Clerk to Execute Agreements with the Colorado Division of Highways for Signalization of the union Pacific and Colorado and 30ULnern KaiirOda urossings at Last Prospect Road. The City of Fort Collins has applied for funds for the upgrading of the highway/railroad grade crossing protection at two railroad cros- sings on East Prospect Road. This crossing protection will be flash- ing cantilevered signals at both the Colorado and Southern and Union Pacific Railroads. The cost estimates for these two crossing upgrades are $96,000 each, for a total of $192,000. The Federal Aid Section 203 program is funded on a 90% Federal, 10% local proportionate rate. 16. Resolution Approving a Renewal Agreement with the Union Pacific Kaiiroad for Water and Sewer Lines. This Resolution approves renewal of an agreement with the Union Pacific Railroad for water and sewer lines at Hickory and Willox west of College Avenue. We entered into this agreement in 1976 for a five year term, and this renewal extends the lease until 1986. 17. Resolution Appointin Bill D. Carnahan as the City's Representative on the Boar o Directors o the Platte ever ower ut ority. This Resolution appoints Bill Carnahan, the City's new Director of Electric Utilities, as the City's representative to the PRPA Board for 336 September 1, 1981 the remainder of the unexpired term of Stan Case. He will serve on the Board along with the Mayor's appointed representative Gary Cas- sell. The effective date of this appointment will be October 1, 1981. 18. Resolution Approving Bylaws of the Downtown Development Authority. On August 24th, the Downtown Development Authority approved its proposed bylaws and recommended Council approval. Council previously reviewed a draft of the proposed DDA bylaws and re- quested two changes. Those changes have been made in the final draft, which is being recommended for approval. This Resolution formalizes the Council adoption of the proposed bylaws. 19. Routine Deeds and Easements. A. Power line easement from Evergreen Park 2, Lyle Carpenter, and ' "Archie Wainwri ht for construction of an overhea transmission Tine ocated feet west of and adjacent to Redwood Street, between Sundance Hills 2nd Filing and East Vine Drive. Consider- ation: $1.00. B. Warranty Deed from Sylvia Jane Davis for a permanent right-of-way easement for sidewal , uti I id es, and street widening in con- nection with the Drake and Shields intersection_ project. The easement is located north of Drake and east of Shields and con- tains two parcels with 2564.21 square feet and 1846.06 square feet. A minor alignment change has allowed problems in acquiring this parcel to be resolved. The total cost for acquiring this easement is.$14,800. Spring Creek Trail Easements located generally north of Stuart Street between Lemay and Stover, being acquired for bicycle trail, pedestrian path and open space in our trails program. With these six pieces of property, the City has acquired 8 of the 14.parcels needed in this section of the Spring Creek Trail. 1) Grant and Dedication of Easement from Geriatrics, Inc. for 2574 square feet. Donation. 2) Grant and Dedication of Easement from KEM Homes, Inc. for 2640 square feet. Donation. \ 337 September 1, 1981 3) Grant and Dedication of Easement from Shadowbrook Ltd, for 18,922 square feet. Donation. 4) Warranty Deed for an easement from Dorothy and Laverne Olson for 3180 square feet. Consideration: , , 5) Warranty Deed Easement from Nellie Talkington for 1764 square feet. Consideration: 1110j/.UU 6) .Warranty Deed Easement from Clide and Viola Thompson for 714 square feet. Consideration: M4.UU. Ordinances on Second Reading were read by title by Wanda Krajicek, City Clerk. Item # 5. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 102, 1981, Vacating Property Known as ract Prospect n ustria ar Item # 6. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 103 1981 Amending the 1979 ' Ordinances Uniform Building Lo-Je. on First Reading were read by title by Wanda Krajicek, City Clerk. Item # 7. Hearing and First Readin of Ordinance No 107 1981 Adopting the Nat Iona F ar 7r rn io Item # 8. Hearing and First Readin of Ordinance No. 108, 1981, Relating to ocia Security Withho ding on Sick Pay. Item # 9. Hearin and First Readin of Ordinance No. 110, 1981 Appro- priating rior ear Reserves in the Revenue Sharing vund—. Item #10. Hearing & First Readin of Ordinance No. 111, 1981, Appro- priatin nanticipated Revenue in the Capital Projects Fund Item #11. Hearin &First Reading of Ordinance No. 112, 1981, Appro- priating -FTOCK nanticipate evenue in t e ommunity DeveTopment GrantFund. Councilmember Reeves made a motion, 'seconded by Councilmember Knezovich, to adopt and approve all items not removed from the Consent Calendar. Yeas: Councilmembers Cassell, Clarke, Elliott, Horak, Knezovich, Reeves and Wilmarth. Nays: None. .338 Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance -September 1, 1981 Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the Revenue Sharing Fund Adopted Following is the City Manager's memorandum on this item: "Parks & Recreation staff recently prepared the Softball Lighting Study for Energy Savings. Based on their analysis, City staff is recommen ing t e redesign of ballfield lighting for conversion to metal halide systems (see attached memo). The payback on the proposed conversion as a result of reduced energy consumption and maintenance costs is five years. The total estimated cost for the project is $75,000. At this time we need to appropriate funds to cover the cost of professional services to design and prepare the specifications for the proposed conversion ($3,000). Once the design specifications are completed, we will request an appropriation for the necessary funds for the actual conversion. Prior year reserves are available in the Revenue Sharing Fund to cover the cost of this conversion as shown on the attached Comparative Budget Sum- mary. The recommendation to use revenue sharing funds for this project is consistent with the City's policy of using Revenue Sharing funds for onetime expenditures. ' This ordinance appropriates the $3,000 in the Revenue Sharing Fund for Transfer to the Capital Projects Fund." Councilmember Horak asked what type of lights were to be installed. Park and Recreation Director, H.R. Phillips, replied the lights would be the metal hallide type which will reduce energy and maintenance costs. Councilmember Cassell made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Horak to adopt Ordinance No. 110, 1981, on First Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers Cassell, Clarke, Elliott, Horak, Knezovich, Reeves and Wilmarth. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the Capital Projects Fund, Adopted Following is the City Manager's memorandum on this item: "Ordinance No. 110, 1981 appropriated prior year reserves in the Revenue Sharing Fund for transfer to the Capital Projects Fund for the ballfield ' lighting conversion design ($3,000). 339 September 1, 1981 Ordinance No. 100, 1981 authorized the issuance of $3,000,000. in General Obligation Bonds to finance community park projects construction through 1982. At this time, we need to appropriate $912,000 of "the $3,000,000 in the Capital Projects Fund for current phases of the community park projects shown below. As these phases are completed, we will request appropriations for the each phase of.the project. Park Phase Amount Community Park Acquisition Land Acquisition 660,000 Edora Park Final Design 25,000 Lee Martinez Park Final Design; Construction 130,000 Rolland Moore Park Final Design 30,000 City Park Renovation Preliminary & Final Design 32,00035,000 Cost to Issue Bonds $912,000 This Ordinance appropriates a total of $915,000 in the Capital Projects ' Fund as follows: Ballfield Lighting Conversion Design $ 3,000 Community Park Projects 912,000 $915,000 " Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Reeves to adopt Ordinance No. 111, 1981, on First Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers Cassell, Clarke, Elliott, Horak, Knezovich, Reeves and Wilmarth. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the Community Development Block Grant Fund, Adopted Following is the City Manager's memorandum on this item: "In accordance with Article V, Section 10 of the City Charter as amended April, 1980, grants are appropriated in conjunction with the grant year and the appropriation exists for the life of the grant. As CDBG funds are 340 September 1, 1981 awarded on an October - September grant year, we need to authorize the appropriation of the 1981-82 program totalling $776,000 as approved by City Council on June 16, 1981 (see attached Resolution). The following is a summary of other income requiring City Council appropriation: The 1981-82 Program year budget for the Community Development Block Grant Program is $802,000. One of the Community Development Block Grant programs provides loans to qualified homeowners for housing rehabilitation purposes. These loans are payable back to the Community Development Block Grant Program at 3% interest. When these principal and interest payments are received, they are placed in a revolving fund account for mon- itoring purposes. °O HUD regulations allow for the "re -distribution" of these funds once received to be used for additional housing rehabilitation loans. The following is program income received from these principal and interest payments: 1980 Program Income $44,205 ® Another Community Development Block Grant Program provides grants to qualified homeowners for housing rehabilitation purposes. If the homeowner does not sell the house and resides in it for a five-year period following rehabilitation, repayment of the grant is not required. If the homeowner sells the house within the five-year period, however, repayment of the grant is required, on a prorated basis. Income received through this program for 1981 is $1,500. 4 During 1980 the Community Development Block Grant Program provided $100,000 as collateral for a local developer to rehabilitate an old church into apartments for sale to low-income families. These funds were placed in a Certificate of Deposit account and interest income earned to date on this account is $3,792. SUMMARY 1981-82 Program Income 776,000 Loan Program Income 44,205 Grant Program Income 1,500 Interest Income 3,792 $825,497 " 341 ISeptember 1, 1981 Councilmember Elliott asked if there were an allowance for bad debts related to this grant program. City Manager Arnold replied that no debts had been written off and that the loans are secured by first or second mortgages against the properties. None have been foreclosed. Councilmember Clarke made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Reeves, to adopt Ordinance No. 112, 1981, on First Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers Cassell, Clarke, Elliott, Horak, Knezovich, Reeves and Wilmarth. Nays: None, THE MOTION CARRIED. Resolution Approving Just Compensation for a Community Development Block Grant Land Acquisition and Name for John B. Romero Park, Adopted Following is the City Manager's memorandum on this item: ' "This Resolution is to establish "Just Compensation" for the Andersonville vest pocket park site located at 421 Tenth Street. Since Community De- velopment Block Grant (CDBG) funds are being utilized, federal law requires the City Council to make a finding of "Just Compensation." Staff recom- mends Council establish "Just Compensation" of $9,000 based upon the appraised value established by an independent appraiser. The site must be secured no later than September 30th to ensure the avail- ability of CDBG funds for the project. This park project is part of the Three Year CDBG program approved by Council in 1979 with a proposed budget of $10,000 for acquisition. An additional $3500 is budgeted for park improvements. The project is designed to provide .a.small mini -park site as a neighborhood recreation area. The CDBG Citizens Steering Committee reviewed and proposed several sites. The following sites were considered: I. Portion of the Old Schoolhouse property on Ninth Street.. 2. Property directly East of Tenth Street. 3. 419 Tenth Street. 4. 601 Tenth Street. 5. 421 Tenth Street. Of these sites, the only willing seller, within budget limitations, was ' Mrs. Inez (John) Romero for the property at 421 Tenth Street. 342 ' September 1, 1981 The Romero family has requested as a part of the purchase that the park be named the John B. Romero Park after Mr. Romero. Mr. Romero wasactive in the community, an advocate of children's welfare, and came from one of the first two families in Andersonville. The Parks and Recreation Advisory Board concurred with this request. The Citizen's Steering Committee did not concur because a street in Andersonville is already named after Mr. Romero and they preferred the name Andersonville Vest Pocket Park to identify it with the area. Because of the request of the selling party and the Parks and Recreation Board, staff recommends the park be named the John B. Romero Park." Councilmember Horak asked for more explanation relative to the naming of 'the park. City Manager Arnold noted that during the process of negotiation on 4 park sites, it was found that the Romero family preferred to have the park named after John B. Romero as part of the purchase price. The Parks and Rec- reation Board reviewed this and agreed while the Community Development Block Grant Steering Committee recommended it be called the Andersonville Park. Since it was recommended by the Parks and Recreation Board and was part of the purchase price, staff recommended the name John B. Romero Park. ' Councilmember Elliott made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Cassell to adopt this Resolution. Yeas: Councilmembers Cassell, Clarke, Elliott, Horak, Knezovich, Reeves and Wilmarth. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Resolution Approving a Renewal Agreement with the Union Pacific Railroad for Water and Sewer Lines, Adopted. This item was inadvertently withdrawn from the Consent agenda. Councilmember Clarke made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Reeves to adopt the Resolution. Yeas: Councilmembers Cassell, Clarke, Elliott, Horak, Knezovich, Reeves and Wilmarth. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Ordinance Adopted on Second Reading Annexing Property Known as Sunburst Knolls Annexation Following is the City Manager's memorandum on this item: 343 ' September 1, 1981 "This Ordinance was .adopted on First Reading on August 18 by a 5-0 vote. This is a request to annex 4.69-acres (Lots 5 and 6 of Block 1, Lynn Acres) located south of Skyway Drive, east of U.S. Highway 287. Present zoning is FA and FA-1 Farming." Councilmember Clarke asked that the record showhewithdrew from the discussion on the next three items, Ordinances 104, 105, and 106, 1981. Councilmember Knezovich made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Reeves, to adopt Ordinance No. 104, 1981, on Second Reading. Yeas: Council - members Cassell, Elliott, Horak, Knezovich, Reeves and Wilmarth. Nays: None. (Clarke withdrawn) THE MOTION CARRIED. Ordinance Adopted on Second Reading Zoning Property Known as Sunburst Knolls Annexation Following is the City Manager's memorandum on this item: ' "This Ordinance was adopted on First Reading on August 18 by a 5-0 vote. This is a request to zone 4.69-acres known as the Sunburst Knolls Annex- ation located south of Skyway Drive, east of U.S. Highway 287 (Lots 5 and 6, Block 1 of Lynn Acres Subdivision). The applicant is requesting R-L-P, Low Density Planned Residential zoning. Present zoning is FA and FA-1 Farming in the County." Councilmember Reeves made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Knezovich, to adopt Ordinance No. 105, 1981, on Second Reading. Yeas: Council - members Cassell, Elliott, Horak, Knezovich, Reeves and Wilmarth. Nays: None. (Clarke withdrawn) THE MOTION CARRIED. Ordinance Adopted on Second Reading Rezoning Property Known as Greenfield Village Following is the City Manager's memorandum on this item: "This Ordinance was adopted on First Reading on August 18 by a 5-0 vote. On September 4, 1979, a 53.7-acre site located on the northeast corner of the intersection of Timberline and Horsetooth Roads was annexed and ' zoned R-P, Planned Residential, subject to certain conditions. 344 ISeptember 1, 1981 'The applicants are now seeking relief from these conditions by rezoning the property to unconditional Planned Residential zoning district (R-P). The site is presently vacant." Councilmember Cassell made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Elliott, to adopt Ordinance No. 106, 1981, on Second Reading. Yeas: Council - members Cassell, Elliott, Horak, Knezovich, Reeves and Wilmarth. Nays: None. (Clarke withdrawn) THE MOTION CARRIED. Status Report on Ice Rink Negotiations Following is the City Manager's memorandum on this item: "In June, City staff met with Mr. Steve Robinson to discuss the concept of a privately constructed ice rink in the Linden Street area. In July, City Council met with the Fort Collins Ice Skating Association to discuss the options of building an indoor ice arena. Council then directed ' City staff to pursue negotiations with Mr. Robinson. Staff met with Mr. Robinson in early August to discuss his proposal in the context of three alternatives. They included: OPTION 1. The City would assist the developer, to the extent possible, in securing tax-exempt financing for the project (probably IRB's). The developer would lease the facility to a private manager/ operator. The City would in turn "buy" time from the operator for various types of skating programs. OPTION 2. The City would assist the developer, to the extent possible, in securing tax-exempt financing for the project (probably IRB's). The developer would lease the facility to the City. The City would be responsible for the operation of the facility. OPTION 3. The City would solicit proposals for the construction of an arena on a City site. Operation of the facility could be on a private or City -run basis. Mr. Robinson also requested information on the operation and maintenance costs of other regional rinks. Staff has collected data on 6 rinks and is awaiting information on 3 others. The information received is somewhat hard to analyze, but it confirms earlier studies which show that a well -run rink could cover its operating and maintenance costs after a three-year ' period. 345 1 September 1, 1981 On August 25th, staff met with Mr. Robinson, Mr. Kurt Reed (his architect on the project) and Mr. John Wigdahl of the Fort Collins Ice Skating Association. The purpose of the meeting was to outline in more detail a framework for the development of a private rink. Mr. Robinson summarized his proposal which consists of alternative two noted above. Mr. Robinson is not interested in operating a rink himself or attempting to lease the facility to a private operator. The latter would be difficult because project financing is not secured. He is prepared to proceed with more in-depth negotiations with the City along the following lines: 1. A long-term lease (or possibly lease/purchase) between the City and developer for use of a proposed $1.7 million ice arena. 2. Some type of City -backed financing - IRB's, TIF, etc, to obtain construction financing in the range of 10-12% for the project. 3. .Estimated monthly annual lease payments of $16,000 - $18,000 for a two-year period. Beyond that period a monthly charge set ac- cording to a guaranteed rate of return on his investment and/or a ' sharing of the facility's profits/losses. A conceptual outline of the Linden Ice Arena proposal is attached from which our discussions have focused. The developer is interested in receiving feedback as to the City's in- terest in preparing an agreement based upon the concepts and guidelines proposed. An agreement along these lines would require an annual outlay of somewhere between 250-350 thousand dollars for the first three years. Beyond that, an outlay in the range of 200-250 thousand dollars would be anticipated, assuming the facility covered its operating and maintenance costs. Council's interests have been expressed clearly as desiring private enter- prise involvement in some kind of a public/private venture. The proposal does not include much private involvement, except for the use of the developer's land; but the City has Edora Park where we have sufficient land. It seems to staff we need to negotiate more private involvement to make this proposal sound." City Manager Arnold called Council's attention to a policy statement prepared by staff. This statement was requested at a weekly Mayor/Assis- tant Mayor meeting. Deputy City Manager, Paul Lanspery, reported on his meeting with the ' developer, Steve Robinson, and his architect, Kurt Reed. He reviewed the 346 September 1, 1981 policy statement and noted that since the City owns land and can debt finance the project, the City could do the project almost as easily as the proposal before them. He added that staff feels Mr. Robinson's proposal does not go far enough in terms of private participation. John Wigdahl, President of the Fort -Collins Ice Skating Association, asked for some show of faith from Council before complete. rejection of the proposal. He noted that he would rather work with Council than submit their petition calling for an election. He asked for further consideration of the project. Kurt Reed, architect representing developer Steve Robinson, presented an outline and illustrations of the ice arena project. proposed for the Linden Street site. Councilmember Clarke made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Cassell, to adopt the policy statement prepared by staff. The statement is as follows: ;1 POLICY STATEMENT POOL AND ICE RINK General Statement The City Council favors the construction of an ice rink in only a cost effective way. The Council feels that the most cost effective way will result in a public/private joint venture. The City Council would like to encourage such a joint venture. Background The 1973 7-Year Capital Improvement Program included a pool and included an ice rink. The pool was scheduled to be an outdoor pool and the ice rink was scheduled to be indoor. The initial budgets at. that time included $750,000 for the ice rink and $500,000 for the pool. Inflation has hit the cost of construction since 1973 significantly, raising the costs of each beyond the amounts collected in the 7-Year Capital Program and making both projects infeasible. The additional operating and maintenance costs of both a pool and an ice rink are very much energy intensive. Costs have accelerated significantly for those also; furthermore, the original 1973 program.made no provision for operat- 347 ISeptember 1, 1981 ing and maintenance costs of any of the capital improvements constructed. So the City Council, in 1979, decided it could neither afford to build nor afford to operate the pool and ice rink. Plans completed that year esti- mated the cost of construction at $5 million. Operating Guidelines The City Council would like to encourage the construction of a pool and ice r..ink under the following conditions: I. That there be a significant amount of private capital in either the construction or the operating ends of funding. A significant amount in this case would need to be either a) a commitment to fund the capital costs, debt financed, and using such public methods as Indus- trial Development Revenue Bonds; or b) a commitment to fund five years of operating costs should the City be able to construct a facility. '2. The City would like the construction to occur at Edora Park where originally planned, but will consider other privately -owned sites. 3. The City would like to build the joint pool and ice rink complex as presently designed, but would be willing to separate the facilities if financing mecha- nisms specified herein can be developed. 4. The City feels that any significant commitment of City's resources for the construction of an ice rink would need to be submitted to the electorate for approval. Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Knezovich, to delete Condition # 4 from the statement. Councilmember Clarke noted he would accept this amendment as a friendly amendment to his motion. Councilmember Cassell concurred. City Manager Arnold suggested a Council committee be formed to meet and `\ work with the ice rink people if the motion passes. The vote on the motion to adopt the policy statement deleting Condition # 4 was as follows: 348 September 1,''1981 Yeas: Councilmembers Cassell, Clarke, Elliott, Horak, Knezovich, Reeves and Wilmarth. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Citizen Participation A. Proclamation Naming September 7 as "Peace Day" was delivered to appropriate persons. B. Proclamation Naming September 8 as "National Cancer Day" was delivered to appropriate persons. C. Proclamation Naming the week of October 3-10 as "Tour de Fort" week was accepted by Cathy Chianese who described the activities taking place during the week. .Appeal of the Planning & Zoning Board decision of July 27 on Landmark P.U.D., Preliminary, Continued to September 15th Following is the City Manager's memorandum on this item: "Applicants are requesting preliminary approval for an 8-acre multi -family residential PUD, consisting of 150 dwelling units. The Landmark PUD, zoned R-P, Planned Residential, is located on the southeast corner of Prospect Road and Shields Street. Surrounding zoning and land use is as follows: North: Prospect Road - R-L, single-family development. South: R-P, Hill Pond PUD. East: R-P, undeveloped. West: R-P, undeveloped - R-P, Northwood Apartments. Land Use Statistics Parcel Size: Gross: 7.904 ac 344,298.24 sf Net: 6.560 ac 285,787.48 sf Dwelling Units: Total Number Type: ' Density: 150 units 20 one -bedroom units 122 two -bedroom units 8 one -bedroom units (handicapped) 18.97 units per acre 349 r— L_ September 1, 1981 Total Bedroom Per Each Dwelling Unit Type: 12-plex - Type A 2 one -bedroom units + 10 two -bedroom units 12-plex - Type B 2 one -bedroom units + 10 two -bedroom units 6-plex - Type C 6 two -bedroom units 6-plex - Type D 2 one -bedroom units + 6 two -bedroom units + 4 one -bedroom units (handicapped) Residential Density: Gross Net: Coverage: Square Footage: 18.977 units per acre 22..86 units per acre Gross: 34.07% Net: 35.53% 117,302.41 sf Driveway & Gross: 33.04% 113,756.14 sf Parking: Net: 35.47% Public Street ROW: 16.99% 58,510.76 sf Open Space or Landscape Area: Gross: 32.89% 113,239.69 sf Net: 29.00% Number of Offstreet Parking Spaces: Required: 258 spaces Supplied: 248 spaces 16 Handicapped Spaces The Landmark PUD is planned as a multi -family rental apartment project and incorporates the following design elements: 1. Buildings are proposed as either 6- or 12-plexes with a mix of one- and two -bedrooms. Elevations submitted indicate that the buildings, a maximum of 2-112 stories in height, contain varying roof lines and outdoor balconies. 2. Vehicular access is provided to the site via a private parking lot system looping off of Hobbit Street, a public street platted in conjunction with the Hill Pond PUD to the south. A critical design constraint on the Landmark site is the existence of a City importation canal on the property. The function of this canal is to take water out of the irrigation ditches west of Shields Street and carry it into Spring Creek. A number of design treatments for this canal through the Landmark site have been suggested: 350 September 1, 1981 I. An 80-foot wide grass swale; 2. A 33-foot wide, 6-foot deep concrete channel; and 3. Undergrounding of the canal. At the time of the Planning and Zoning Board review of the PUD, the developer had proposed undergrounding the canal only in the parking lot areas and treating the remainder of the canal above -ground. Since that meeting, the applicant, for both safety and aesthetic reasons, has agreed to completely underground the canal. It is the intent of the applicant to secure a HUD guaranteed loan for development of the Landmark PUD. This type of funding requires 20% of the project to be reserved for low and moderate income tenants, and 5% be reserved for the physically handicapped. Due to the uncertainty at this time of obtaining HUD assistance and the fact that the project does not meet the criteria for low income and handicapped density bonus points under the Land Development Guidance System, the Landmark PUD was reviewed without regard to its potential low income and handicapped status. Discussion ' The Landmark PUD, Preliminary, was reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Board at their July 27, 1981 regular meeting. The Planning and Zoning Board voted 5-2 to recommend approval of the PUD subject to two items being addressed on the final PUD: 1. A landscape plan to include: (a) adequate landscaping treatment along Shields Street; and (b) provision of vertical landscaping along the north property line abutting the single-family resi- dences. 2. Treatment of the importation canal to City standards. At the Planning and Zoning Board meeting, significant opposition to the project was expressed by the neighborhood (refer to enclosed minutes and letters from the public). Major Issues 1. Evaluation of the Project Under the Land Development Guidance System (LDGS) The Landmark PUD was reviewed against the LDGS and all relevant Point charts are enclosed. 351 September 1, 1981 'A. All Development'Point'Chart A The project received the necessary minimum number of points on Point Chart A for a recommendation of approval. The applicant was able to gain the necessary applicable points due primarily to meeting the criteria for landscaping, energy conservation, clus- tering of buildings, and pedestrian orientation. All Development - Numbered Criteria .All applicable absolute criteria were satisfied by the project with a conditional approval given to Items 13, Water Hazards, and Item 23, Landscaping. Both of these items need to be success- fully resolved at the time of final PUD submittal. C. Density Chart Computation of the Density Chart yielded a maximum allowable density of 177 dwelling units/acre on the Landmark site. As indicated on the enclosed Density Chart, the Landmark PUD scored high on the Density Chart due to locational _factors and _the incor- poration of energy conservation into the project. Again, no density bonus points were included for low income and handicapped units. In the calculation of density points, Rolland Moore Park is considered both a neighborhood and regional park. In addition, it has been the policy to award points for adjacency to park sites for developments that must cross an arterial street due to the fact that no park facilities exist in their square mile area. 2. Traffic City of Fort Collins projected traffic counts for the year 2000 indicate that Shields Street will be carrying approximately 28,000 vehicles per day and Prospect Street, 22,000 vehicles per day. Using the standard traffic generation figure for a multi -family development of 8-10 trips per day, the Landmark PUD is projected to generate 1,200-1,800 vehicle trips per day. It is assumed that fewer vehicle trips per day will be generated from the site given its proximity to Colorado State University and adjacency to transit and bicycle routes. A number of street and traffic signal improvements are presently planned for the Prospect/Shields intersection: 352 ' September 1, 1981 A. Traffic,Signals By the fall of 1981 the Prospect/Shields intersection will be connected to the City's computerized traffic signal system. The system will improve the progression of traffic through the intersection by timing signals according to traffic demand. B. Shields Street Improvements Arterial street improvements to the east side of Shields Street will be accomplished by the Hill Pond and Landmark developments. The Hill Pond portion of Shields Street is scheduled to be improved this year and the Landmark improvements will occur at the time of development. Similar improvements are planned on the west side of the street in conjunction with approved developments. C. Prospect Road Improvements i. Prospect Road, east of Shields Street, will be widened along the Landmark PUD frontage to allow for a second through lane for approximately 220-feet from the intersection. Additional right-of-way is required in order to continue two lanes in each .direction to where the present four-laning of Prospect begins. ii. West of Shields Street, Prospect Road is planned for improve- ment to allow for two through lanes, turn bays, and bicycle lanes on both sides of the street. This widening project is included in the 5-Year Plan for completion in 1984 (Item 14 of the 5-Year Capital Improvement Plan), however the project is unfunded. Present widening of the street is occurring in conjunction with approved developments on the south side of Prospect Road. iii. Additional intersection work, including 'the improvement of all four approaches to the intersection as well as the widening of 400-feet of Shields Street north of Prospect Road is not included for funding in the City's 5-Year Plan (Item 23). The result of the above improvements will be to significantly .improve the flow of traffic through the Prospect/Shields intersection and to increase the capacity of both streets. Staff Recommendati Staff recommends approval of the Landmark PUD, Preliminary, subject ' to the following two items being addressed on the final PUD submittal: 353 d I September 1, 1981 1. A landscape plan to include: (1) adequate landscaping treatment along Shields Street; and (b) provision of vertical landscaping along the north property line abutting the single-family resi- dences. 2. Treatment of the importation canal to City standards. It should be emphasized that the traffic improvements cited in C(ii) and C(iii) are not likely to be constructed in the next 5 year period. To the extent these improvements are necessary to judge the project favorably, this information should be considered. Planning and Zoning Board Recommendation The Planning and Zoning Board recommended approval of the preliminary Landmark PUD submittal with two conditions as outlined above on a vote of 5-2 at their July 27, 1981 regular meeting (Case No. 65-81)." Councilmember Clarke asked the record show he did not participate in the discussion or vote on this item. William J. McCaffrey, WJM Architects and Planners, representing the de- velopers Hersch and Pat McGraw, spoke to the planning that went into the Landmark P.U.D. project. He noted the Land Use Policy Plan and the Land Development Guidance System had been adhered to very closely. He spoke to the energy saving features incorporated into the design of the structures. He reviewed several of the point system criteria that the project had scored "very well" under the Guidance System and spoke of the landscaping .buffers to be used. Planning Director, Curt Smith, explained and gave background information on the Land Development Guidance System and reviewed the Planning and Zoning Board recommendation on the Landmark P.U.D. He noted the project had gained credit for being in proximity to both a neighborhood and com- munity park, an employment center (CSU) and Bennett school. Freeman Smith, 1000 W. Prospect, spoke in opposition to the Landmark P.U.D. as presented. He recommended four improvements to the design of the project: 1. Improved storm drainage by redesigning the importation canal as an open grassed waterway. 2. Modify density from 23 units per acre to 12 units per acre. 3. Redesign of traffic pattern to allow separation of parking lots and circulation streets. 354 September 1, 1981 4. Major additions to tree plantings on the west, "north .and •east edges of the property. Ruth Francis, 1904 Sheely .Drive, addressed the impact of high density on the Bennett school neighborhood and how it relates to the Landmark P.U.D. She gave a slide presentation showing various examples of high density dwelling units in the neighborhood. Lloyd Walker, 1027 W. Lake, presented a critique of the assessment used in the Land Development Guidance System for the project. He pointed out items he felt had not been accurately treated and then presented his interpre- tation of the items. He questioned the points given for the project being within 3500 feet of a neighborhood park without having to cross an arterial street. He questioned the policy of awarding those points and recommended Council reverse the Planning and Zoning Board decision and return the project for improvements that would meet the Land Development Guidance System criteria. Additionally he requested a full neighborhood impact study for the area due to the large concentration of people living there. Councilmember Reeves asked if there were other projects where been granted for parks that are across an arterial. -points have Planning Director Smith replied that two that came to mind were University Square and Sunchase, a revision of Les Chatelets. He added that when a decision of this type is made, the Planning and Zoning Board is in effect varying the criteria for granting the points. Councilmember Knezovich stated he felt that in the areas of absolute and variable criteria, Council should go along with staff. Additionally, the landscaping and parking have been adequately addressed. However, the ap- plicant has not met the standard of neighborhood park proximity -without crossing an arterial and those points should not be awarded. Councilmember Knezovich made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Reeves to approve the Landmark P.U.D., Preliminary on the basis that the developer be allowed 135 units instead of 150 units and that he deal with the concerns expressed relative to surface drainage. Councilmember Cassell stated that he supported the Planning and Zoning decision of approval at 150 units. He noted that he agreed with staff distribution of points and the awarding of points for park proximity. Planning Director Smith pointed out the Spring Creek Trail System provides a tunnel under Shields Street which would provide access to Rolland Moore ' Park without crossing the street. 355 0 September 1, 1981 .Councilmember Knezovich withdrew his motion. Councilmember Reeves made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Horak, to approve the Landmark P.U.D., Preliminary on the basis that the developer be allowed 135 units instead of 150 units and that he deal with the concerns expressed relative to surface drainage. Yeas: Councilmembers Horak, Knezovich and Reeves. Nays: Councilmembers Cassell, Elliott and Wilmarth (Clarke withdrawn). THE MOTION FAILED. .Councilmember Cassell made .a motion, :seconded by Councilmember Elliott, to support the Planning and Zoning decision with a density of 150 units. Yeas: Councilmembers Cassell, Elliott and Wilmarth. Nays: Councilmembers Horak, Knezovich and Reeves (Clarke withdrawn). THE MOTION FAILED. Councilmember Elliott made a motion, seconded by Mayor Wilmarth, to con- tinue this hearing to September 15 in order to put together findings and make a decision. No further public input would be allowed at that time. Yeas: Councilmembers Cassell, Elliott, Horak, Reeves and Wilmarth. Nays: Councilmember Knezovich (Clarke withdrawn). THE MOTION CARRIED. Mayor Wilmarth announced a decision further public input. He suggested resolve the concerns expressed. would be made on September 15 with no discussions take place before then to Public Hearing on Downtown Development Authority Plan of Development Earl Wilkinson, Downtown Development Authority Chairman, noted this was the third and final hearing on the Plan of Development. Director of Planning and Development Chuck Mabr h' hl' ht d contained in the Plan. He called CI J, the poi ouncil's attentiong tog aneamendmentnts to the financing section of the Plan which changes the wording under the sales tax increment portion of the Plan and suggests that that portion needs more work between Council and the Downtown Development Authority and delays that to some future date for consideration by the two entities. Tom Moore, 316 W. Mountain, spoke in favor of the Plan. Bill Wynn, Mitchell and Company, voiced his company's support for the Plan. 356 September 1, 1981 Mayor -Wilmarth noted this Plan will be considered for adoption at the September 8th adjourned meeting. Public Hearing on 1982 Budget (Includes Public Hearing on Revenue Sharinq) City Manager Arnold briefly reviewed the 1982 Budget process. He noted the budget contains a new fee, a real estate transfer tax. He added he felt from the feedback received, the tax would not remain a part of the budget but was still a part of it at this point. The following persons spoke at the hearing: 1. Miles Austin, 507 Owl Court, spoke in opposition to the real estate transfer tax. 2. Jim Law, Executive Director for Administrative Services, Poudre R-1, asked that the school crossing guard program be continued. 3. Dave Luplow, Fort Collins Apartment Association, spoke in oppo- sition to the real estate transfer tax. 4. John.Martin, 1500 Laporte, spoke in opposition to the real estate transfer tax. 5. Robert McGat, 918 Sandy Cove Way, representing the Board of Realtors, spoke in opposition to the real estate transfer tax. 6. Richard Dow, 3603 Jaguar Place, spoke in opposition to property tax increase for Transfort. 7. •Mark Coleman, 2960 Brookwood Drive, expressed concern -about lack of public awareness on taxation. 8. Jim Evenson, 1308 Teakwood, expressed concerns about policies contained in budget. Mayor Wilmarth noted a second public hearing would be held on September 15. Ordinance Adopted on First Reading Authorizing the Issuance of Bond Anticipation Notes I Following is the City Manager's memorandum on this item: 357 ISeptember 1, 1981 "The City has been anticipating a sales tax bond issue this fall for Airport projects costing $2,000,000. The schedule for issuing these bonds has been in limbo because of negotiations with the FBO and other parties, the unstable nature of the bond market, and specific identification of projects and their cost. Immediate financing is needed for refinancing existing debt and for the cost of the water and sewer utility extensions. Because of the high interest cost in the current bond market, the staff is recommending short term financing utilizing Bond Anticipation Notes. Bond Anticipation notes are a form of short term borrowing which is pro- vided for by Charter. The notes would mature 12 months after issuance and would be redeemed by issuing long term Sales Tax Revenue Bonds or by a cash payment. Short term coupon rates in the current market are 2.5 to 3.5 per cent less than long term rates. The Airport Ad Hoc Committee will meet Tuesday morning and review this option. The bond ordinance is being prepared by bond counsel and is not included in the agenda material. Staff will review the ordinance on Tuesday and it will be read at the Council meeting." City Attorney Liley noted several blanks needed to be filled in and that ' the Ordinance would need to be read in full since it had not been on file the required 48 hours. She noted the Ordinance had been taped earlier and would be played during the discussion of the item. The effective interest rate of 11.25% and the net effective interest rate of 12.75% need to be inserted prior to approval. Councilmember Reeves made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Knezovich, to adopt Ordinance No. 113, 1981, on First Reading making the insertions outlined by the City Attorney. Yeas: Councilmembers Cassell, Clarke, Elliott, Horak, Knezovich, Reeves and Wilmarth. Nays: None. THE MOTION"CARRIED. City Attorney's Report City Attorney Liley noted there would be a September 9th hearing in Judge Dressel's Court on the City Hall suit. The hearing is to determine what procedures will be used when the question of attorneys fees and costs is heard. She noted the Colorado Springs suit on the sludge project had been dis- missed against all defendants. She noted that Colorado Springs could appeal the decision or initiate a new suit but that both will take some ' time and put the City in good position to receive funds. 358 September 1, 1981 Other Business Councilmember Clarke made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Horak, to ask for a report on the problems encountered with the Guidance System in the past 6 months, comments from the development community should be in- cluded. Yeas: Councilmembers Cassell, Clarke, Elliott, Horak, Knezovich, Reeves, and Wilmarth. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Clarke asked for a Council vote on whether his continuing to work with Platte River Power Authority to photograph their Board of Direc- tors, etc, was a conflict of interest. Councilmember Cassell made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Knezovich, to go on record that Councilmember Clarke's work with Platte River Power Authority is not a conflict of interest contingent on the adoption of a code of ethics. Yeas: Councilmembers Cassell, Elliott, Horak, Knezovich, Reeves, and Wilmarth. Nays: None. (Clarke withdrawn) THE MOTION CARRIED. - - Councilmember Elliott introduced his houseguest Eric Goyenveld of Paris, France. Adjournment Councilmember Cassell made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Elliott, to adjourn the meeting to 1:00 p.m. on September 8. Yeas: Councilmembers Cassell, Clarke, Elliott, Horak, Knezovich, Reeves, and Wilmarth. Nays: None. The meeting adjourned at 12:25 a.m. ATTEST: Ct,1 City erc I I 359