HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES-04/05/1988-RegularApril 5, 1988
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, April 5, 1988, 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, Kirkpatrick, Mabry, Maxey, Stoner, and Winokur.
(Secretary's Note: Councilmember Horak arrived at approximately 6:47 p.m
Staff Members Present
3
was accepted by
accepted by Lee
District.
Burkett, Huisjen, M. Davis
Citizen Participation
i April 2-9 as National Community Development Week
of Planner Ken Waido.
1 April 3-9 as Excellence in Teaching Week was
sen, Superintendent of Schools for Poudre R-1 School
C. Proclamation Naming April 4-8 as Post Anesthesia Nurses Week was
accepted by Jan Lynch, representing the nurses of the Post Anesthesia
Care Unit at Poudre Valley Hospital.
D. Proclamation Naming April 10-16 as the Week of the Young Child was
accepted by Susan Krcmarik, on behalf of the local Week of the Young
Child Committee and the Colorado Association for the Education of Young
Children.
E. Proclamation Naming April 15 as Arbor Day was accepted by Robert Maxey,
President of the local Garden Club and Director of the National Men's
Garden Club.
F. Presentation of Tree Citv_U.S.A. Award.
Jim Hubbard, Colorado State Forester, recognized the City of Fort
Collins for its urban forestry program. He presented Council with its
tenth Tree City U.S.A. Award.
G. Proclamation Naming April 17-23 as Volunteer Week was accepted by Bob
Davidson, President of the local chapter of Directors of Volunteers and
Agencies.
No
April 5, 19182
H.
McManis, representing t
er �Ieanup Day was accepted by Mame
ublic Interest Research Group.
EPIC Manager Jeff King introduced John Shaw, owner of Shaw Lighting and
Sign Company, who restored a historic neon clock for use at the EPIC.
Mayor Stoner presented a plaque to Mr. Shaw expressing the City's
appreciation for his donation.
Agenda Review: City Manager
City Manager Burkett pulled Item #15, Hearing and First Reading of
Ordinance No. 26, 1988, Amending Sections 26-278, 26-279, and 26-280 of the
Code to Allow Certain Nonresidential Wastewater Customers to be Charged
According to Winter Quarter Water Use, and Item #20a, Deed of Dedication
from Poudre R-1 School District, from the Consent Calendar for individual
consideration due to a perceived conflict of interest, on the part of a
Councilmember. He also withdrew Item #16, Hearing and First Reading of
Ordinance No. 49, 1988, Amending Ordinance No. 6, 1988, Assessing the Cost
of Improvements in the Provincetown/Portner Estates South Special
Improvement District #81, from the agenda.
Councilmember Estrada requested Item #18, Resolution 88-47 Authorizing the
Sole -Source Purchase for the Repair of Existing Sewer Lines by the
Insituform Sleeving Method Versus the Conventional Method of Excavation and
Replacement, be withdrawn from the Consent Agenda.
Consent Calendar
This Calendar is intended to allow the City Council to spend its time and
energy on the important items on a lengthy agenda. Staff recommends
approval of the Consent Calendar. Anyone may request an item on this
calendar be "pulled" off the Consent Calendar and considered separately.
Agenda items pulled from the Consent Calendar will be considered separately
under Agenda Items #22, Pulled Consent Items.
Consider approval of the minutes of the regular meeting of March 15
Items Relating to Link-N-Greens Second Annexation and Zoning
Hearing to Make Determinations and Findings Concerning the
Link-N-Greens Second Annexation.
Resolution 88-43 Setting Forth Findings of Fact and Determinations
Regarding Link-N-Greens Second Annexation.
-29-
April 5, 1988
C. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 20, 1988, t Annexing A 16.84 Acres Known as Link-N-Greens Second Annexation, Approximately
D. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 21, 1988, Zoning Approximately
16.84 Acres Known as Link-N-Greens Second Annexation, into the RC,
River Corridor, Zoning District.
7.
a
This Resolution sets forth findings and determinations that the area
is eligible for annexation pursuant to Colorado state law. Ordinance
No. 20, 1988 and Ordinance No. 21, 1988, which were unanimously
adopted on First Reading on February 16, annex and zone approximately
16.84 acres located south of Lincoln Avenue, west of Lemay Avenue and
north of the Poudre River. The requested zoning is the RC, River
Corridor, Zoning District. The property is presently developed as
part of the Link-N-Greens golf course.
APPLICANTS: James P. & Ruth Alice Hoffman OWNERS: Same
2406 Rosewood Lane
Fort Collins, CO 80525
This Ordinance, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on
March 15, amends Sections 22-20 and 22-21 to authorize the impoundment
and immobilization of any vehicle, whether the vehicle is
self-propelled or motorized.
This Ordinance, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on
March 15, amends Section 22-95(c) of the City Code to allow the
Financial Officer to waive or adjust the amount of penalties due for
unpaid special improvement district assessment installments when
notice of the amount and due date of the installment has not been sent
to the property owner.
The Ordinance is amended on Second Reading to better protect the
interests of the City by further defining those instances when the
Financial Officer may be requested to waive or adjust the penalties
due.
This Ordinance, which was unanimously adopted ,on First Reading on
March 15, appropriates $5,315.'
-30-
April 5, 1988
10.
11.
On January 27, 1988, the Board of Larimer County Commissioners voted '
to appropriate an additional $15,000 to the six public libraries in
Larimer County for purchase of children's books. Fort Collins Public
Library will receive $5,315 of the total amount.
The funds may be used for lease or purchase of any type of children's
reading or talking books. Funds may not be used for administration.
Funds must be spent in 1988 and must be tracked separately from 1988
county basic and outreach service grant. This is a one-time grant and
will not necessarily be incorporated into future base budgets of
county libraries.
Council met in Executive Session on March 8 to perform the annual
evaluation of the Municipal Judge. This Ordinance, which was
unanimously adopted on First Reading on March 15, establishes the 1988
salary for the Municipal Judge at $52,000.
This Ordinance, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on
March 15, provides for the issuance of $4,455,000 of storm drainage '
revenue bonds. The net proceeds of the sale of the bonds are to be
expended upon the acquisition and construction of improvements for the
Storm Drainage System. The debt service on the bonds will be paid
from the revenues generated by the storm drainage monthly capital fees
and developer basin fees. Using debt service financing for capital
projects, the cost of improvements are spread over time which will
levelize fees. Increases in the overall storm drainage fees will not
exceed fifteen percent per year in any of the drainage basins for the
next seven years.
This Ordinance is amended on Second Reading to include the final
interest rates and debt service on the bonds. The actual net
effective interest rate is 7.6984% per annum.
12. Items Relating to the Union Pacific South First Annexation and Zoning.
A. Resolution 88-44 Finding Substantial Compliance and Initiating
Annexation Proceedings.
First Reading of Ordinance No. 43, 1988, Annexing Approximately
15.6957 Acres, Known as the Union Pacific South First Annexation.
First Reading of Ordinance No. 44, 1988, Zoning Approximately
15.6957 Acres, Known as the Union Pacific South First Annexation, I
into the T Transition District.
-31-
April 5, 1988
t APPLICANT: Union Pacific Railroad OWNER: Same
1416 Dodge Street
Omaha, NE
This is a request to annex and zone approximately 15.6957 acres
located east of Riverside Drive and north of Prospect Road. The
requested zoning is the T Transition District. The property is
presently developed as railroad right-of-way.
13. Items Relating to Union Pacific South Second Annexation and Zoning.
A. Resolution 88-45 Finding Substantial Compliance and Initiating
Annexation Proceedings.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 45, 1988, Annexing Approximately
14.888 Acres, Known as the Union Pacific South Second Annexation.
C. First Reading of Ordinance No. 46, 1988, Zoning Approximately
14.888 Acres, Known as the Union Pacific South Second Annexation,
into the T Transition District.
APPLICANT: Union Pacific Railroad OWNER: Same
1416 Dodge Street
Omaha, NE
' This is a request to annex and zone approximately 14.8 acres located
west of Timberline Road and north of Drake Road. The requested zoning
is the T Transition District. The property is presently developed as
railroad right-of-way.
14. Items Relating to Union Pacific South Fourth Annexation and Zoning
A. Resolution 88-46 Finding Substantial Compliance and Initiating
Annexation Proceedings.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 47, 1988, Annexing Approximately
76.0532 Acres, Known as the Union Pacific South Fourth Annexation.
C. First Reading of Ordinance No. 48, 1988, Zoning Approximately
76.0532 Acres, Known as the Union Pacific South Fourth Annexation,
into the T Transition District.
APPLICANT: Union Pacific Railroad OWNER: Same
1416 Dodge Street
Omaha, NE
This is a request to annex and zone approximately 76.0532 acres
located south of Harmony..Road and east of Lemay Avenue. The requested
zoning is the T Transition District. The property is presently
developed as a railroad right-of-way.
32-
April 5, 1988
15.
16.
17.
WE
On February 16, this Ordinance was tabled by a vote of 7-0 for a
period not to exceed 60 days.
Wastewater service charges for most nonresidential customers are based
on monthly water use. Some customers who have high water use in the
summer due to lawn watering have correspondingly high wastewater
service charges. This Ordinance provides an option for more equitable
service charges by basing the charges on winter quarter water use.
Ordinance No. 6, 1988 was adopted by the Council on January 19, 1988.
It is necessary to amend the date of assessment billing and the total
amount of the cost of the improvements as stated in the original
ordinance.
Police Services has been awarded a grant from the Colorado Division of
Criminal Justice under the "Communities for a Drug Free Colorado"
program, totalling $65,479. These funds will be used to provide
additional manpower, sophisticated undercover operations training for
four officers, surveillance van, and high-tech electronic equipment to
be used by the narcotics/intelligence group. Further, it is the
intent of this agency to reorganize our Investigations Division to
allow a team of five investigators to focus strictly on narcotics,
intelligence and white collar crimes.
This Ordinance appropriates $65,479 in grant funds for expenditure in
the Fort Collins Police Services Narcotics Investigations program.
Council approval is required for sole -source purchases exceeding
$20,000. Staff is requesting a sole -source purchase from Insituform
to reline approximately 1,000 lineal feet of 8" sanitary sewer line,
300 lineal feet of 10" sanitary sewer, restoration of 32 service
connections and reduction of 50 protruding taps at .a total cost of
$123,000 during 1988. The lining process utilized by Insituform
continues to be a more economical and faster method of sanitary sewer '
-33-
April 5, 1988
' line rehabilitation than the conventional excavation/replacement
methods. This sole -source is requested after previous attempts to bid
this process resulted in one bid from Insituforms Plains, Inc. and
continuing research reveals other sources do not exist.
19. Resolution 88-41 Making Appointments to the CHOICES 95 Subcommittees
A vacancy currently exists on the Parks and Open Space Subcommittee
due to the resignation of Ann Cathcart. A vacancy also exists on the
Public Facilities Subcommittee due to the resignation of Deane Drury.
The Council liaisons have reviewed the applications on file.
In keeping with Council's policy, the recommendations for these
appointments were announced at the March 15 City Council meeting and
were tabled to allow time for public input. The prospective
appointees are as follows:
PARKS AND OPEN SPACE SUBCOMMITTEE
John Barnett
PUBLIC FACILITIES SUBCOMMITTE
John Dilley
20. Routine Deeds and Easements.
a. Deed of Dedication from Poudre R-1 School District in connection
with the 1988 Elementary School/1990 Junior High School. The
dedication is for a utility easement adjacent to and along the
westerly side of the Seneca Street right-of-way. (Map #1)
Consideration: None.
Street right-of-way dedication from Everitt Enterprises Limited
Partnership No. 1 in connection with Oakridge SID #91. The
dedication is for street right-of-way, utilities, and other public
uses along McMurray Ave. and Innovation Drive. (Map #2)
Consideration: None.
Powerline easement from George L. Rowley and Carol L. Rowley, 1025
Cragmore Drive, needed to install underground streetlight
services. (Map #3) Consideration: $1.
Powerline easement from Leonard J. Bengford and JoAnn Bengford,
1024 Glenmoor Dr., needed to install underground streetlight
services. (Map #4) Consideration: $1.
Powerline easement from Verlin D. Pennock and Carolyn M. Pennock,
1016 Castlerock Drive, needed to install underground streetlight
services. (Map #5) Consideration: $1.
34-
April 5. 1982
f. Powerline easement
to
from Kent L. Goodman,
1100 Richmond Drive,
'
needed install
underground electric
services. (Map #6)
Consideration: $10.
g. Powerline easement
from Delmar A. Brooks and
Joyce A. Brooks, 1045
Briarwood, needed
to install underground
streetlight services.
(Map #7) Consideration:
$1.
h. Easement from Fred R. McClanahan and Dorothy L. McClanahan, 5001
S. College Avenue, needed to underground electric service to
recently annexed areas. A previous easement was granted and
approved by Council at this same address. This additional 90' x 6'
easement is now required due to field changes. (Map #8)
Consideration: $540 ($1/sq.ft.)
i. Easement from Ronald E. Stinnett and Mary Stinnett, Donald L. and
Shirley Stinnett, and Robert L. and Beverly Stinnett, 113 E. Vine,
needed to underground existing overhead electric system. (Map #9)
Consideration: $1800 ($1.50/sq.ft.)
j. (1) Acceptance of Easement from Henry A. Hersh and Imogene Hersh,
124 E. Vine Drive, needed to underground existing overhead
electric system. (Map #10) Size: 240 square feet.
Consideration: $1.
(2) Grant of easement south of 105 E. Vine Drive by the City to '
Henry A. Hersh and Imogene Hersh for vehicular access to
adjacent property to the west. (Map #10) Size: 480 square
feet. Consideration: $1.
Ordinances on Second Reading were read by title by Molly Davis, Deputy City
Clerk.
Item #6. C.
11
Item #7.
Item #8.
-35-
April 5. 1988
I
Item #9.
Item #10.
Item #11.
Ordinances on First Reading were read by title by Molly Davis, Deputy City
Clerk.
Item #12. B. First Reading of Ordinance No- 41 1QAA n„no inn
C.
Item #13. B.
Item #14. B.
C.
Item #15.
Item #16.
nnexation, into the T Transition District.
Annexation, into the T Transition District.
W-2
April 5, i982
Item #17.
Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No 50 1988 Aooro I
2riating Unanticipated Revenue of S65 47a from the Colorado
Division of Criminal Justice for the Fort Collins Polic Services
Narcotics Investigations Program
Councilmember Kirkpatrick made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Estrada,
to adopt and approve all items not removed from the Consent Calendar.
Yeas: Councilmembers Estrada, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Mabry, Maxey, Stoner,
and Winokur. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Ordinance No. 26, 1988, Amending
Sections 26-278, 26-279, and 26-280
of the Code to Allow Certain
Nonresidential Wastewater Customers
to be Charged According to Winter
Quarter Water Use. Adopted on First Reading
Following is staff's memorandum on this item:
"Financial Impact
Operating revenue for the Sewer Fund will decrease slightly. The amount
will depend on how many customers desire to take advantage of the proposed
optional method of calculating wastewater service charges. It is expected '
that, during the next year, the decrease will be less than .2% of total
operating revenue and therefore will not have a significant impact on the
wastewater utility.
Executive Summary
On February 16, this Ordinance was tabled by a vote of 7-0 for a period not
to exceed 60 days.
Wastewater service charges for most nonresidential customers are based on
monthly water use. Some customers who have high water use in the summer
due to lawn watering have correspondingly high wastewater service charges.
This Ordinance provides an option for more equitable service charges by
basing the charges on winter quarter water use.
Background
During recent years, the Utility has received occasional inquiries and
complaints from nonresidential customers regarding the method of computing
wastewater bills. Most wastewater service charges for nonresidential
customers are based on monthly'water use. Customers who do not have a
separate water service line for irrigation purposes usually experience
higher wastewater bills during the summer months as a result of lawn
irrigation. About two years ago, an ordinance was adopted which allowed
churches and other nonresidential customers who .discharge wastewater of a '
-37-
April 5, 1920,
t
type similar to residential customers to be assessed
winter quarter water use (average monthly water use
charges
during
based on
December,
January, and
February). The proposed Ordinance would
allow
additional
nonresidential
customers, such as schools, the option of
having
wastewater
charges based
on winter quarter water use.
Wastewater service charges are computed differently for the various
customer classifications. Single-family residential units and duplexes are
charged a flat rate. Monthly charges for multifamily units are based on
winter quarter water use. Multifamily indoor water use does not vary much
during the year. Since there is very little lawn irrigation during the
winter months and most of the water used indoors returns to the sewer
system, the winter quarter water use is a good indication of the amount of
wastewater discharged to the sewer system.
Some nonresidential customers, whose wastewater charges are based on
monthly water use, have installed separate water service lines for
irrigation use to avoid excessive wastewater charges during the summer.
Most nonresidential customers, however, do not have a separate water
service line for lawn irrigation. Installing an additional water service
line for an existing customer is much more expensive than installing an
additional line during the initial development of the property. This is
the reason for pursuing an administrative solution rather than requiring an
additional irrigation line.
The wastewater discharge for many nonresidential customers is fairly
uniform throughout the year. The proposed Ordinance will allow those
customers the option of having charges based on either winter water use or
monthly water use."
Councilmember Horak withdrew from the discussion and vote on this item and
the following item due to a perceived conflict of interest.
Councilmember Maxey made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kirkpatrick,
to adopt Ordinance No. 26, 1988 on First Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers
Estrada, Kirkpatrick, Maxey, Stoner, and Winokur. Nays: Councilmember
Mabry. (Councilmember Horak withdrawn)
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Deed of Dedication from Poudre R-1 School
District in connection with the 1988
Elementary School/1990 Junior High School Accepted
Following is staff's memorandum on this item:
"The dedication is for a utility easement adjacent to and along the
westerly side of the Seneca Street right-of-way. (Map #1) Consideration:
None."
-38-
April 5, 1988
ra
(Secretary's Note: Prior to the previous agenda item, Councilmember Horak '
withdrew from the vote and consideration of this item due to a perceived
conflict of interest.)
Councilmember Mabry made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kirkpatrick,
to accept the deed of dedication. Yeas: Councilmembers Estrada,
Kirkpatrick, Mabry, Maxey, Stoner, and Winokur. Nays: None.
(Councilmember Horak withdrawn)
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Resolution 88-47 Authorizing the
Sole -Source Purchase for the Repair of
Existing Sewer Lines by the Insituform
Sleeving Method Versus the Conventional
Method of Excavation and Replacement Adopted
Following is staff's memorandum on this item:
"Financial Impact
Funds \are budgeted and approved in the 1988 Water Utility budget for this
expenditure. A cost savings of approximately $27,000 is anticipated by
using this type of repair to sewer lines as opposed to the traditional
excavation/replacement method. '
Executive Summary
Council approval is required for sole -source purchases exceeding $20,000.
Staff is requesting a sole -source purchase from Insituform to reline
approximately 1,000 lineal feet of 8" sanitary sewer line, 300 lineal feet
of 10" sanitary sewer, restoration of 32 service connections and reduction
of 50 protruding taps at a total cost of $123,000 during 1988. The lining
process utilized by Insituform continues to be a more economical and faster
method of sanitary sewer line rehabilitation than the conventional
excavation/replacement methods. This sole -source is requested after
previous attempts to bid this process resulted in one bid from Insituforms
Plains, Inc. and continuing research reveals other sources do not exist.
Background
Section 8-122 of the Code provides that a justification previously approved
can be used as the basis for a negotiated purchase of additional quantities
of the same item at any time within the period of two (2) years from the
date of approval by the City Manager or City Council. The Water Utility
Department has indicated additional work will be necessary and budgeted in
the 1989 work schedule, therefore, if research still proves Insituform to
be the most advantageous replacement method, we will use approval of this
sole -source to negotiate additional purchases. I
-39-
April S, 19E8
' The Water Utility Department has researched various methods of repair to
existing sewer lines in the older parts of Fort Collins and continues to
recommend the lining method patented by Insituform.
Insituform's method is able to completely reline the sewer lines without
excavation, allowing the continuity of traffic and businesses in the area.
Due to the process, completion time is shorter.
Staff has successfully utilized Insituform the past three years; relining
over 2,000 lineal feet of sanitary sewer lines in the older sections of
Fort Collins. The City and County of Denver has successfully used
Insituform in excess of 59,000 lineal feet and is continuing its program
again this year with an additional 15,000 lineal feet.
Experience has shown cost savings between the conventional
excavation/replacement method and the patented lining process supplied by
Insituform ranges between 5Y, and 40%; this year's project will save the
City approximately 20% or S27,000.
Insituform is the only manufacturer and supplier of inplace sewer relining
material not requiring excavation. This year's project consists of 1,000
lineal feet of 8" sanitary sewer line, 300 lineal feet of 10" sanitary
sewer line and the replacement of 32 service taps and 50 protruding taps at
various locations within the City. The total cost will be $123,000. Staff
is recommending the approval of the sole -source due to the proprietary
nature of Insituform's process and the City's success with its method."
Councilmember Estrada made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Mabry, to
adopt Resolution 88-47.
Councilmember Estrada commented on the sleeving technique and indicated he
was impressed with the cost savings and effectiveness of this method.
The vote on Councilmember Estrada's motion to adopt Resolution 88-47 was a<
follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Estrada, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Mabry, Maxey,
Stoner, and Winokur. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Reports
Councilmember Kirkpatrick reported on the 2nd anniversary meeting of the
Fort Collins Coalition for Literacy. She stated she received, on behalf of
the City, a certificate of appreciation for the activities of the City.with
respect to the Literacy Coalition. She noted Councilmember Estrada
received a separate award for his individual efforts for literacy.
Councilmember Winokur reported on a National Symposium on Systems Analysis
and Forest Resource Management and Planning he attended in Monterey,
California.
-40-
April 5, 1982
Resolution 88-47 Supporting the
Implementation of a County -wide Hazardous
Waste Management Plan Adopted as Amended
Following is staff's memorandum on this item:
"The Larimer County Hazardous Waste Study will be presented to the Board of
County Commissioners on April 11, 1988. The Resolution supports
implementation of the three -party, county -wide hazardous waste management
plan proposed in that study.
City staff was actively involved in initiating and carrying out the
hazardous waste study. Staff is motivated by the belief that businesses
and households need assistance to safely and lawfully dispose of hazardous
wastes. First, many small businesses have recently come under hazardous
waste regulations and need to understand the new responsibilities. Second,
the Economic Opportunities Plan for the City of Fort Collins (July 21,
1986) identified hazardous waste management as an economic development
issue and recommended that economic development funds be used for the study
of a hazardous material "transfer station." Third, City wastewater
treatment operations may be disrupted by hazardous waste improperly
disposed of in the sanitary sewer. Fourth, the household hazardous waste
collection day co -sponsored by the City in 1985, although successful as a
public education tool, was ineffective as a long-term solution for
household hazardous wastes.
Therefore, the City joined with Larimer County and Loveland in a one-year,
S80,000 project to review the technology and management options and to
propose a management plan. All recognized that hazardous waste management
is a regional concern best addressed at the county level. Larimer County
agreed to lead the project, with funding provided in proportion to
population: Fort Collins 46%, Larimer County 34%, Loveland 20%. Fort
Collins' contribution was $36,800, three -fourths from the Economic
Development Fund, one-fourth from Water and Wastewater Utility.
The Larimer County Hazardous Waste Committee, including three City staff
representatives, acted as steering committee for the study, and the
recommendations are those of the committee. The committee proposes a
comprehensive waste management program consisting of three parts:
A public education program to increase hazardous waste awareness and
provide methods to minimize the amount of hazardous waste generated;
2. A permanent collection facility at the landfill to receive and dispose
of household hazardous waste; and
An inspection/technical-assistance
assist with waste minimization and
state and federal regulations.
-41-
program for small businesses, to
disposal, and to help comply with
r_
1
April 5, 192S
It is further proposed that Larimer County implement these programs.
Funding would come from user fees and landfill tipping fees. Tipping fees
would increase $0.21 per cubic yard, or less than $1 per year for a family
of four that uses a trash collection service.
The following materials are attached:
Questions and answers about the study
Summary of public meetings held in Fort Collins and Loveland
Executive summary of the Larimer County Hazardous Waste Study"
Air Quality and Hazardous Materials/Waste Coordinator Brian Woodruff
summarized the Hazardous Waste Management Plan. He suggested an amendment
to the BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED clause of Resolution 88-47 to read "... to
small businesses when education is emphasized and enforcement is taken when
there are significant cases..." He introduced Scott Doyle of Platte River
Power Authority, who was a member of the committee involved in developing
the plan.
Scott Doyle, Platte River Power Authority, explained the provisions and
intent of the inspection and technical assistance program.
Dave Stewart, Chamber of Commerce representative on the Larimer County
Hazardous Waste Committee, stated the Chamber's Local Affairs Committee
favors the plan as proposed.
' Mr. Woodruff concluded his presentation by drawing attention to a letter
drafted for the Mayor's signature to the County Commissioners which states
some of the concerns expressed by Council at the March 29 work session.
Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Estrada, to
adopt Resolution 88-47 with the amendments described by Brian Woodruff.
Councilmember Mabry stated this Resolution is much better than the one
submitted at the Council work session. He noted the Resolution does not
distinguish between small and large businesses. He proposed an additional
amendment to the BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED to read "...for continuing input
from larger regulated businesses, small businesses, elected officials, and
the public regarding the manner of implementation."
Councilmembers Horak and Estrada accepted the amendment as friendly to
their original motion.
Councilmember Kirkpatrick noted that an important part of the Resolution is
the provision of continued input on the program.
Councilmember Maxey complimented the committee and staff for the work done
on the plan. He offered some explanation for the amendments to the
Resolution, noting there are many small businesses in the area that
generate hazardous waste but do not fall under the regulatory jurisdiction
of the EPA.
-42-
April 5, 1988
Councilmember Horak stated this was a good example of cooperation between '
Larimer County, Loveland, and Fort Collins in dealing with a serious issue.
He stated the program was well -thought-out and the report was well-done.
Mayor Stoner also commented on the quality of the project and the
cooperation of the entities involved.
The vote on Councilmember Horak's motion to adopt Resolution 88-47 as
amended was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Estrada, Horak, Kirkpatrick,
Mabry, Maxey, Stoner, and Winokur. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Appeal of the Final Decision of the
Planning and Zoning Board on February
22, 1988, Approving the Amended Final
Plan of the Robinson-Piersal Plaza
P.U.D.. Planning and Zoning Board Decision Upheld
Following is staff's memorandum on this item:
"Executive Summary
On February 22, 1988, the Planning and Zoning Board approved the amended
final plan of the Robinson-Piersal PUD, finding it to be in substantial '
conformance with the amended preliminary plan and complying with all other
criteria of the Land Development Guidance System. On March 7, 1988, an
appeal of that final decision was made by Collins House Partnership,
Barbara Schofield, President.
Background
Summary Chronology
November 18, 1985: Approval of the final plan of the Robinson-Piersal
Plaza PUD by the Planning and Zoning Board.
December 1, 1987: Neighborhood meeting held on the proposed amendment.
January 25, 1988: Planning and Zoning Board considered the combined
amended preliminary and final plans, and continued the
matter to a special meeting.
February 1, 1988: Planning and Zoning Board approved the amended
preliminary plan only.
February 16, 1988
City Council reviewed
encroachment permit.
changes to the permit.
43-
the Robinson-Piersal revocable
Council determined to make no
April 5, 1982
' February 22, 1988: Planning and Zoning Board approved the amended final
plan.
March 7, 1988: Appeal of final decision of Planning and Zoning Board
is filed.
The Appeal
The appellant has filed the appeal on the grounds that the Planning and
Zoning Board:
(a) failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the
Code and Charter, and
(b) failed to conduct a fair hearing in that:
(1) The Board substantially ignored its previously established
rules and procedures; and
(2) The Board considered evidence relevant to its findings which
was substantially false or grossly misleading.
These grounds of appeal are valid as set forth in Section 2-48 of the Code.
Additionally, the appellant has indicated a basis of appeal labeled "Other
Considerations" in the Notice of Appeal. The Code does not provide for
appeals based on "other considerations", and as such, these points should
' not be considered in the appeal. Specific points of discussion are
outlined in the Notice of Appeal, and staff has responded point -by -point in
the attached memorandum to Council.
Planning and Zoning Board Final Decision
On February 22, 1988, the Planning and Zoning Board voted 4-2 to approve
the amended final plan, finding it to be in substantial compliance with the
approved amended preliminary plan and in compliance with all other criteria
of the Land Development Guidance System (LDGS). According to the
specifications of the LDGS, final plans must be in substantial compliance
with the approved preliminary plan. Final plans are found to be in
substantial compliance with approved preliminary plans, provided the final
plan does not:
(1) Change the general use of character of the development, as
shown in the approved preliminary plan;
(2) Increase the number of residential dwelling units by 1% over
those shown in the approved preliminary plan, and;
(3) Contain changes which would normally cause the development
to be disqualified under the applicable criteria of the
LDGS.
-44-
April 5, 1988
When the Planning and Zoning Board approved the Robinson-Piersal Plaza ,
amended preliminary plan, conditions were included requiring that design
modifications to the loading area on Magnolia Street be made to provide
additional landscaped open area, that windows be utilized to the greatest
extent possible on the east elevation of the building, and that awnings or
canopies be installed over these windows to add dimension to the elevation.
The applicant complied with the conditions, and when the amended final plan
was submitted for consideration these were the only changes to the approved
amended preliminary plan. The Board approved the amended final plan on
that basis.
Scope of Council Consideration of Appealed Amended Plan
The issues that the Council must resolve in this appeal are two -fold:
Did the Planning and Zoning Board fail to properly apply relevant
provisions of the Land Development Guidance System?
Did the Board fail to conduct a fair hearing in that they exceeded
their authority, ignored previously established rules and procedures,
and/or considered evidence relevant to its findings which was
substantially false or grossly misleading?
The appellants have provided a list of specific allegations that they
believe support this appeal. In making a determination on these issues,
the City Council must first look to the applicable regulations and criteria '
of the Land Development Guidance System that have been allegedly ignored.
In effect, the City Council is acting as the Planning and Zoning Board in
terms of making a decision of whether the project meets those specific
criteria or not. Secondly,the Council must review and decide whether the
Board conducted an improper hearing as alleged by the appellants.
In reviewing the reasons for the appeal, the following criteria of the LDGS
are relevant to this discussion>
A71 Development: Numbered Criteria•
2. Is the development compatible with and sensitive to the immediate
environment of the site and neighborhood relative to architectural
design; scale, bulk and building height; identity and historical
character; disposition and orientation of buildings on the lot; and
visual integrity?
Is the project designed so that the additional traffic generated does
not have significant adverse impact on surrounding development?
6. Will the projects' completion not generate a traffic volume which
exceeds the future capacity of the external street system as defined by
the City?
-45-
April 5, 1983
8. Does the project comply with all design standards, requirements and
specifications for the following services or have variances been
granted?
* streets/pedestrian
* walks/bikeways
27.
Are the elements of the site plan, e.g. buildings, circulation, open
space and landscaping, etc., designed and arranged to produce an
efficient, functionally organized, and cohesive planned unit
development?
33.
Does the street and parking system provide for the smooth, safe and
convenient movement of vehicles both on and off the site?
35.
Does the development satisfy the parking capacity requirements of the
City and provide adequate space suited to the loading and unloading of
persons, materials and goods?
38.
Is the pedestrian circulation system designed to assure that
pedestrians can move safely and easily both on the site and between
properties and activities within the neighborhood and site?
40.
Does the landscape plan provide for treatment of vehicular use, open
space and pedestrian areas which contribute to their usage and visual
appearance?
'
41.
Does the landscape plan provide for treatment adjacent to the
building(s) which increases the overall visual quality of the building
design?
42.
Does the landscape plan screen utility boxes, parking areas; loading
areas, trash containers, outside storage areas, blank walls or fences
and other areas of low visual interest from roadways, pedestrian areas
and public views?
Activity: Business Service Uses (E) - Lettered Criteria
2.
Does the Project earn at least 50% of the maximum points as calculated
on "Point Chart E' for the following criteria:
c. Is the project contiguous to and functionally a part of a
neighborhood or community/regional shopping center, an office or
industrial park, located in the Central Business District or in the
case of a single user, employ or will employ a total of more than
100 full-time employees during a single 8-hour shift?
e. Does the project contain two or more significant uses (such as
retail, office, residential, hotel/motel, and recreation)?
1
-46-
April 5, i988
The above questions, illustrate two types of review criteria in the LOGS.
The "numbered" criteria are absolute requirements that each development
must satisfy before approval can be granted. The lettered criteria are
variable - the developer has the flexibility to choose among these criteria
in the development plan for a particular site. A development must achieve
at least 50% of these variable criteria."
Mayor Stoner stated the appellant and respondent would be limited to 20
minutes for their presentations. He stated public comment would also be
limited to 20 minutes.
City Attorney Huisjen gave an overview of the appeal process. He stated
the hearing should be conducted on the grounds stated in the appeal, and
that no new evidence should be submitted at this hearing. He noted if
Council moves to hear the appeal, at the conclusion of the appeal the
Council may modify, overturn, or sustain the decision of the Planning and
Zoning Board. He stated the grounds stated for the appeal allege there was
a failure to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Code
and Charter, and that there was a failure to conduct a fair hearing, and
recommended Council hear the appeal based on those grounds. He added that
the other considerations noted in the appeal are not matters for appeal and
should not be considered. He stated Council should make a determination
whether there are grounds for appeal.
Councilmember Winokur made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Horak, to
hear the appeal on the basis that the grounds presented substantially
conform to the requirements of the Code. Yeas: Councilmembers Estrada,
Horak, Kirkpatrick, Mabry, Maxey, Stoner, and Winokur. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
City Planner Kari VanMeter gave a description of the project and provided a
chronology of the events leading up to the Planning and Zoning Board
approval of the final amended plan. She stated staff believes the Board
was correct in its action in that it properly applied the relevant
provisions of the Land Development Guidance System and that the Board
conducted a fair and proper hearing. She stated staff recommends Council
uphold the decision of the Planning and Zoning Board approving the
Robinson-Piersal PUD Final Amended Plan. She responded to questions from
Council.
Barbara Schofield, 1801
South College and 330
Robinson-Piersal project
Lakeshore Circle, part
South College, asked
as currently proposed.
owner of property at 323
Council to turn down the
John Schofield, 1801 Lakeshore Circle, stated he did not believe the
loading area of the project was compatible with the surrounding
neighborhood. He spoke of the impact additional traffic will have on
surrounding development and traffic flow. He stated he did not believe the
project provides adequate parking and loading/unloading areas. He compared
the landscaping and screening for the project to other similar projects.
47-
1
11
April S, 1983
' He questioned when an amendment becomes a new PUD, and stated he believed
the amendments to this project constitute a new PUD. He noted the Planning
and Zoning Board disregarded the current City policy regarding the granting
of encroachment easements, and stated he did not believe the project
qualifies for encroachment easements of the type granted. Mr. Schofield
stated the Board considered the alternative of use -by -right development of
the property, and submitted consideration of alternatives is not a proper
basis for land use decisions. He added that economic considerations were
presented to the Board, and should not have been taken into consideration
by the Board. He reminded Council that the voters considered and approved
a substantially different project than the current proposal.
Ms. Schofield requested Council overturn the decision of the Planning and
Zoning Board. She pointed out the developer would still have the option of
submitting a new PUD or building under use by right. She also asked
Council to terminate the revocable permit issued for this project.
Mr. and Mrs. Schofield and Ms. VanMeter responded to Council questions.
Bill Van Horn, part-owner of the project, spoke of the design changes that
they believe have improved the project. He stated the PUD process was
recommended to them. He stated they have attempted to minimize the impacts
and have followed the guidelines. He stated the range for truck movement
is adequate.
Ed Zdenek, ZVFK Architects, reviewed the site plan and spoke of the
' landscaping and parking structure. He explained the efforts to screen the
project from Magnolia Street.
Bob Lee, transportation planner and consultant, addressed the traffic
issues associated with the project. He stated the project does not
preclude the possibility of a one-way couplet on Magnolia Street. He
explained the design of the parking access, and added that the adverse
traffic impact on the neighborhood will be minimal.
Mr. Zdenek elaborated on the project landscaping and buffering.
Mr. Van Horn stated there was no opposition expressed in neighborhood
meetings or from the public during Council hearings on the project. He
noted staff, the Planning and Zoning Board, and the DDA support the
project. He and Mr. Lee responded to questions from Council.
Eldon Ward, member of the Downtown Development Authority, restated the
DDA's support of the project. He spoke of the tax increment that will be
generated from the project which will be used to accomplish other downtown
goals. He stated the DDA believes it is important to keep the grocery
store in the downtown area.
Eric Spanier, 1322 Miramont, owner of the downtown Perkins Restaurant,
supported downtown development, but expressed concern about parking needs
in the downtown area. He questioned whether adequate parking would be
' available in and around this development.
M0
April 5, 1788
Arvin Lovaas, 304 East Myrtle, resident of the neighborhood, stated that
the weight given to the housing portion of the project encouraged the City
to grant the easement.
Ms. Schofield stated she had received a letter from a woman who asked that
it be read at the meeting.
City Attorney Huisjen stated the letter would not be allowed because it
constitutes new evidence. He stated the public is invited to be heard at
the hearing so long as there is the opportunity for cross-examination.
Mayor Stoner indicated that he would respond to the letter in writing
subsequent to the hearing.
Traffic Engineer Rick Ensdorff and Planning Director Tom Peterson responded
to questions from Council regarding traffic and provisions of the LDGS
regarding amended versus new PUDs.
Councilmember Mabry made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Maxey, to
uphold the decision of the Planning and Zoning Board.
Councilmember Mabry stated although this use is allowed, he did not view it
as a desirable use. He stated he believed all downtown sites require some
compromise and tradeoff on how development on each site is configured,
noting this site is no exception. He stated compromises and tradeoffs have
been made, and he was willing to accept those in order to make the site
functions as well as possible. He pointed out some downtown projects have
received financial assistance, and this project is receiving no financial
assistance. He stated he believes the downtown needs development and he
will support this project. He expressed hope that the increment that will
be generated by the development will be used to provide additional support
:or more development of the downtown area.
Councilmember Maxey spoke of the' RDA's discussion of this project. He
stated there has been a great deal of mitigation on this property and he
believed the access to the development has been greatly enhanced. He
stated he would vote to uphold the decision:of the Planning and Zoning
Board.
Councilmember Winokur pointed out that the encroachment issue has been
previously decided by Council and was not an issue for consideration at
this appeal. He stated although the City is not offering financial support
in the form of bonds, the encroachment does constitute a public
contribution. He stated the Planning and Zoning Board minutes lack
substantive technical comments with regard to the Land Development Guidance
System. He stated he was dismayed by the inordinate amount of discussion
and consideration regarding the alternative of use by right. He added that
that element of coercion colored the process and interfered with the
technical, balanced .approach to using the Land Development Guidance System.
He expressed concern that the Board considered economic factors in making
its decision. He stated he supports the downtown area, but does not
-49-
April 5, 1988
support giving additional subjective credit for development in the downtown
casts some doubt on the integrity of the Land Development Guidance System
and planned unit development review process. He indicated he would vote to
overturn the decision of the Planning'and Zoning Board.
Councilmember Kirkpatrick stated even though the project is technically
considered as an amendment, she viewed it as a new project. She noted that
although the PUD process gives the developer more opportunity to offer
trade-offs and provides for public input, the use -by -right options also
allows for public comment. She stated she did not believe use -by -right was
a threat. She pointed out the question is whether the Planning and Zoning
Board was correct in approving the PUD. She stated she believes the design
of the project is compatible with the downtown, and is convinced that the
traffic design is adequate. She stated she would vote to uphold the
decision of the Planning and Zoning Board.
Councilmember Estrada stated he wants the project to succeed, but stated
the question of equity must be considered. He noted the citizens voted for
a different project. He stated the project can still be continued
regardless of the decision on this appeal, indicating there were other
development options available. He stated he found it difficult to uphold
the decision of the Planning and Zoning Board, and indicated that
discussion of economic considerations should not take priority over the
Land Development Guidance System.
Councilmember Horak stated he was impressed by the detail of the appeal by
' Mr. and Mrs. Schofield. He commended staff for their work on the issue and
the quality of the information provided to all involved. He stated
although he differs from the Planning and Zoning Board's conclusion on this
project, he did not believe the Board erred in its consideration of the
project. He stated he did not view the project favorably any longer. He
stated consideration of the project should not included the number of
people who previously approved the project, or be based on economic or
financial considerations. He stated he did not believe the project meets
several criteria, and he would not support the motion to uphold the
decision of the Planning and Zoning Board.
Mayor Stoner thanked the appeal participants for the professionalism during
the hearing, and commended staff for the information provided. He stated
he believed the integrity of the Land Development Guidance System is at
stake in this situation. He spoke of the developer's efforts to mitigate
the problems identified during the PUD process. He stated he would support
the motion.
The vote on Councilmember Mabry's motion to uphold the decision of the
Planning and Zoning Board was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers
Kirkpatrick, Mabry, Maxey, and Stoner. Nays: Councilmembers Estrada,
Horak, and Winokur.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
April 5, 1988
City Attorney Huisjen stated that a
next Council meeting making finding
s
Ordinance No. 42, 1988, Amending
Article VI of Chapter 25 of the
Code Relating to "Gas Company
Occupation Tax". Adopted on First Reading
Following is staff's memorandum on this item:
"Financial Impact
Adoption of this Ordinance will change the current monthly occupation tax
rate of $69,790, which has been in effect since October 11, 1987 to an
annualized occupation tax rate of $445,000, to be paid in monthly
installments. Adoption of this Ordinance will provide compensation to the
City for Public Service Company's actual and potential use of City
resources, until such time as a new franchise ordinance is adopted by
Council.
Executive Summary
In September, 1987, City Council adopted an occupation tax ordinance. This
ordinance granted to Public Service Company (PSC) the right to continue to
operate within the City streets and rights -of -way, to serve natural gas
customers in the city. It was also intended to protect the City revenue
during the interim period without a franchise, as negotiations continued.
The City's intent was to collect the occupation tax at a rate comparable to
that collected in franchise fees by other Colorado cities, which is 3% in
all recently negotiated PSC franchises.
The rate established at that time was calculated based on the estimated
retail sales and transportation volume during the winter months. It was
not intended to cover the summer months. Since no agreement has been
reached, the fee should now be adjusted to reflect volumes during the
summer months. Staff recommends setting an annual rate, to be collected in
monthly installments, rather than requiring semi-annual adjustments based
on seasonal fluctuations in volume. -
Background
Since Fall, 1986, City staff has endeavored to negotiate a mutually
satisfactory franchise agreement with Public Service Company of Colorado
(PSC). No agreement has yet been reached, nor do the parties anticipate
reaching an agreement in the immediately foreseeable future. In September,
1987, an occupation tax ordinance was adopted by Council. This ordinance
allowed PSC to continue to operate in the City streets and rights -of -way,
and provided compensation to the City during the interim time period, as
-51-
April 5, 1988
' staff continued to pursue a franchise agreement. This additional six
months has not produced an agreement, and it is possible that a franchise
agreement may not be reached in the near future.
Since the occupation tax will not be replaced with a franchise agreement
prior to the spring and summer months, the rate of the tax should be
modified to reflect lower sales volume during warmer months. Rather than
setting a tax rate that would fluctuate semi-annually, staff recommends
establishing an annual rate, which would be payable in monthly
installments. To enable PSC to assess the impact of the tax and calculate
any necessary surcharge on an annual basis, the monthly payments need not
be even, but can reflect the monthly fluctuations in gas usage. The
Ordinance specifies a minimum level of payments during summer and winter
months. The tax accrues annually on May 1 of each year, and is paid in
installments over the following 12 months. The Ordinance also calls for
semi-annual financial reporting."
Councilmember Estrada withdrew from discussion and vote on this item due to
a perceived conflict of interest.
Assistant to the City Manager Jody Kole gave a background on this issue and
explained the proposed Ordinance. She responded to questions from Council.
Councilmember Winokur made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Mabry, to
adopt Ordinance No. 42, 1988 on First Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers
Horak, Kirkpatrick, Mabry, Maxey, Stoner, and Winokur. Nays: None.
' (Councilmember Estrada withdrawn)
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Resolution 88-49 Dissolving the Boards
and Commissions Review Subcommittee Adopted
Following is staff's memorandum on this item:
"On September 1, 1987, Council appointed a Boards and Commissions Review
Subcommittee to review and evaluate the City's 28 boards and commissions.
The purpose of the review and evaluation was to improve communication and
enhance the effectiveness of each board or commission.
The Subcommittee has completed its review and evaluation and presented its
report to Council on March 4, 1988. A public hearing has been scheduled
for May 3 to hear comments from members of boards and commissions and other
citizens on the recommendations contained in the Subcommittee's report.
This Resolution dissolves the Boards and Commissions Review Subcommittee
and provides that further actions relating to the recommendations of the
Subcommittee will be considered by the Council as a whole."
Councilmember Mabry made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Winokur, to
' adopt Resolution 88-49.
-52-
April 3, i923
Councilmember Horak questioned how this item was placed on the agenda. '
Mayor Stoner replied the Leadership Team scheduled the item.
The consensus of Council was to discuss the scheduling of agenda items at
the Council retreat.
Councilmember Mabry stated the Subcommittee worked on this matter for six
months and recently forwarded its recommendations to Council. He stated
the Subcommittee has completed its work and that further consideration and
action should be taken by the Council as a whole.
Councilmember Estrada agreed with Councilmember Mabry and added that
keeping a Subcommittee active after its initial charge is complete
sometimes creates a tendency to stall decisions.
Councilmember Kirkpatrick stated she would not support the Resolution,
noting that public comment was scheduled for May. She stated although the
work of the Subcommittee is complete, she believed the option should be
left to refer public comments back to the Subcommittee for further review.
She stated she would like to continue the Subcommittee with the
understanding that the Subcommittee would act only on matters referred by
the Council.
Councilmember Winokur stated he believed further consideration of the
Subcommittee recommendations and discussion with the boards and commissions I
should be done by the Council as a whole.
Councilmember Estrada stated he would have liked the Council liaisons to
take a more active role in broaching some of the more sensitive issues that
come from the review with the boards and commissions.
Councilmember Horak expressed concern over the process for releasing the
Subcommittee's report to the boards and commissions and the media. He
stated he sees no reason to disband the Subcommittee until final actions is
taken on the recommendations.
Mayor Stoner stated he would not support the Resolution. He expressed
concern that disbanding the Subcommittee might indicated to the boards and
commissions that the decisions have already been made, and will not be open
for further discussion.
Councilmember Winokur stated he was also concerned about the message that
may be sent, but he did not want the Subcommittee to become a convenient
bastion to shove of items that may be difficult. He agreed with
Councilmember Estrada that personal contact on the part of Council liaisons
may have been a better approach to releasing the recommendations. He
stated it was important to have the whole Council give its attention to the
recommendations.
-53-
April 5, 1988
Councilmember Estrada pointed out that adoption of the Resolution does not
imply total acceptance of all of the recommendations.
The vote on Councilmember Mabry's motion to adopt Resolution 88-49 was as
follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Estrada, Mabry,* Maxey, and Winokur. Nays:
Councilmembers Horak, Kirkpatrick, and Stoner.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Other Business
City Attorney Huisjen stated staff had drafted a Resolution making findings
regarding the Robinson-Piersal appeal for Council consideration at this
meeting if desired. He noted that there was a possibility the entire
Council would not be present at the April 19th meeting, and suggested the
Resolution could also be brought to an adjourned meeting on April 12.
Addournment
Councilmember Mabry made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Estrada, to
adjourn the meeting to 6:15 p.m. on April 12. Yeas: Councilmembers
Estrada, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Mabry, Maxey, Stoner, and Winokur. Nays:
None.
' The meeting adjourned at 10:45 p.m.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
54-