The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES-08/21/1984-Regular1 August 21, 1984 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO Council -Manager Form of Government Regular Meeting - 5:30 p.m. A regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins was held on Tuesday, August 21, 1984, at.5:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers in the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll call was answered by the following Coun- cilmembers: Elliott, Horak, Knezovich, Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner. Secretary's Note: Councilmember Clarke arrived at 7:30 p.m. Staff Members Present: Shannon, Huisjen, Krajicek, Lewis, L. Hopkins, C. Smith, Hays, B. Lee Agenda Review: City Manager Councilmember Knezovich requested Item #16, Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 112, 1984, Authorizing the Transfer of Appropriated Amounts Between Capital Projects for the Remodel of the Main Entrance of the Lincoln Center, be withdrawn from the Consent Calendar. Consent Calendar This Calendar is intended to allow the City Council to spend its time and energy on the important items on a lengthy agenda. Staff recommends approval of the Consent Calendar. Anyone may request an item on this calendar be "pulled" off the Consent Calendar and considered separately. Agenda items pulled from the Consent Calendar will be considered separately under Agenda Item #37, Pulled Consent Items, except items pulled by anyone in the audience or items that any member of the audience is present to discuss that were pulled by staff or Council. These items will be dis- cussed immediately following the Consent Calendar. 4. Consider Approving the Minutes of the Regular Meetings of July 17 5. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 96 Easement in the Replat of Lots 156, of Tract B, Parkwood East Second Fili nq. 1984, Vacating a Portion of an ,7 and 158 of Parkwood East and This ordinance was unanimously adopted on First Reading on August 7. A revision of building envelopes as approved in the second replat August 21, 1984 of Lots 156, 157, and 158 of Parkwood East and Tract "B" of Parkwood East Second Filing, requires a relocation of this easement. No utilities exist in this easement and provision is made in the Second Replat for the utilities. 6. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 97, 1984, Vacating Easements Located on Hill Pond Master an. Council passed, on Second Reading, Ordinance 46, 1983, which was intended to vacate these same easements through Hill Pond. Unfor- tunately, either through a typographical error or misreading, one of these easements was listed as being in Book 1627, Page 967 when it should have read - Book 1627, Page 962. This ordinance which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on August 7 will vacate the area originally intended to be vacated by Ordinance No. 46, 1983. 7. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 98, 1984, Vacating Easements and Rights of Way on the Amended Plat of Rockwillow, a Multi -Family ' P.U.D. This ordinance was unanimously adopted on First Reading on August 7. The Planning and Zoning Board approved on May 30, 1984, a plat of Stuart Street Medical Park, a Planned Unit Development, which re- places, in its entirety, the Amended Plat of Rockwillow, a Multi - Family P.U.D. No utilities were placed in the easements provided by the former plat. 8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 103, 1984, Vacating a 42 Foot Wide Right of Way in Southridge Greens Phase One. Subsequent filings in Southridge Greens have required a realignment of Greenridge Lane (later changed to Southridge Greens Boulevard) to meet City minimum design standards. Therefore, a wider right-of-way than originally planned is required. This ordinance was unanimously adopted on First Reading on August 7 and vacates the original 42 foot right-of-way, and a new 54 foot right-of-way is being dedicated to replace the area vacated by this ordinance. 9. Ordinances Relating to FY 1984-85 Communit Programs and Projects Funded by Program In 1983-84 CDBG Proqram Year. August 21, 1984 Development Block Grant me from the 1982-83 and A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 104, 1984, Appropriating Unan- ticipated Revenue in the Community Development Block Grant Fund. B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 105, 1984, Appropriating Unan- ticipated Revenue in the Community Development Block Grant Fund. These ordinances were unanimously adopted on First Reading on August 7. The Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program is an ongoing grant program funded by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and administered by the City of Fort Collins. Fort Collins is an Entitlement recipient in HUD's CDBG Program and will receive $798,000 for the 1984-85 CDBG Program Year. On August 7 the City Council adopted a resolution which detailed the program and projects that will be funded during the coming Federal Year. Council amended the Resolution to include funds for an additional three projects, using $62,000 from the CDBG contingency line item. 10. Hearing and First Reading on Ordinance No. 106, 1984, Annexing Ap- proximately 5.15 Acres Known as the Tempel Annexation. The applicant, Keith Tempel, is seeking to annex approximately 5.15 acres of property located east of South Taft Hill Road and south of Kinnison Drive. The annexation is a voluntary annexation and achieves its 1/6 contiguity requirement through common boundaries with the Trend Homes Second Annexation. 11. Hearing and First Readinq of Ordinance No. 107, 1984, Zoning Approxi- mateAcres, Known as the TempelAnnexation, to the R-P, Planned Residential Zoninq District. The applicant, Keith Tempel, is seeking to zone approximately 5.15 acres of property located east of South Taft Hill Road and south of Kinnison Drive to the R-P, Planned Residential zoning district. 12. Hearing and First _pproxtmate y Annexation. Reading No. 108, 1984Annexing wndeustis er- eveuecres noas the The applicants, S & F Agency, Co., are seeking to annex approximately 2.25 acres of property located at the northeast corner of Lemay Avenue -100- August 21, 1984 and Mulberry Street. The annexation is a voluntary annexation and achieves its one -sixth contiguity requirement through a common boun- dary with the Riverside-Lemay Annexation. 13. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 109, 1984, Zoning Approxi- mately 2.25 Acres Known as the First Fisher-Lemay Avenue Annexation to the B-P. Planned Business Zoning District. The applicants, S & F Agency, Co., are seeking to zone approximately 2.25 acres of property located at the northeast corner of Lemay Avenue and Mulberry Street, known as the First Fisher-Lemay Avenue Annexa- tion, to the B-P, Planned Business, zoning district. 14. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 110, 1984, Annexing Ap- proximately 14.68 Acres Known as the Second Fisher-Lemay Avenue Annexation. The applicants, S & F Agency, Co., are seeking to annex approximately 14.68 acres of property located east of Lemay Avenue and north of Mulberry Street. The annexation is a voluntary annexation and will ' achieve its one -sixth contiguity requirement when the City Council approves the First Fisher-Lemay Avenue Annexation. The Second Reading of the ordinances annexing and zoning Second Fisher-Lemay Avenue will be considered on September 18 rather than September 4. 15. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 111, 1984, Zoning Approx- imately 14.68 Acres Known as the Second Fisher-Lemay Avenue nnexation to the B-P, Planned Business, Zoning District. The applicants, S & F Agency, Co., are seeking to zone approximately 14.68 acres of property located east of Lemay Avenue and north of Mulberry Street, known as the Second Fisher-Lemay Avenue Annexation, to the B-P, Planned Business, zoning district. 16. Hearinand First Reading of.Ordinance No. 112, 1984, Authorizing the Transfeg r of Appropriated Amounts Between Capital Projects for the Remodel of the Main Entrance of the Lincoln Center. During the first winter after the completion of the Lincoln Center, it was discovered that snow and ice would fall from the roof to the sidewalks at the entrances of the Lincoln Center, creating a very hazardous situation for the patrons entering this facility. This problem has been reviewed over the past several years and different solutions have been implemented trying to resolve this problem. However, due to the shortage of funding, a permanent solution has not I been implemented. -101- August 21, 1984 City Council appropriated $25,000 for this project in the 1984 Budget. During preliminary design and with the help of Glaser and Associates, the architectural firm hired to perform the design services, we developed three options, including cost estimates, to correct this snow and ice problem at each entrance. We then reviewed these options with the Lincoln Center Design Committee and City staff. The final option, which we are recommending, is a combination of all three options. Basically, a small canopy will be attached to the existing exterior wall at each entrance, directing the snow and ice around the sidewalk areas. Every effort was made to match the existing exterior architectural decor of the Lincoln Center. The total cost of the revised project will be $53,500, rather than $25,000 as appropriated in the 1984 Budget. The additional $28,500 will be used to correct the main entrance only. 17. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 113, 1984, Amendin Section 104-11 C of the Code of the City of Fort Collins Relating to Trans- actions and Items Subject to the City Sales lax. ' The proposed Ordinance amends Section 104-11 of the Code relating to transactions and items subject to the City sales tax. Subsection C presently refers to telephone and telegraph service receipts. Staff's position has been that this subsection made service receipts for communication services subject to the City sales tax. The amendment is intended to clarify the Code section and specify_ exactly which communication services are covered by the City sales tax. The amended subsection includes telephone and telegraph service receipts as well as service receipts from the transmission or retrans- mission of intrastate electronic messages by means of microwave or cable transmission or by any other means originating within the City, including pay, cable or subscription television. 18. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 114, 1984, Amending Section 73-32 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins Relating to Door -to -Door The Police Department has received complaints from City residents relating to insurance salesmen who are attempting to sell insurance policies through door-to-door solicitation. The City's current ordinance relating to door-to-door solicitation, Section 73-32 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins (often called the "Green River" Ordinance, referring to the ordinance of the Town of Green River, ' Wyoming prohibiting door-to-door solicitation which was upheld by the -102- August 21, 1984 courts), generally prohibits door-to-door solicitation involving goods, wares and merchandise and services but does not specifically mention the sale of insurance policies. Although there are no Colo- rado court cases on the subject, due to cases in other jurisdic- tions which question whether persons selling insurance policies door-to-door are covered by "Green River" ordinances, staff recommends that the Code section be amended to specifically prohibit door-to-door solicitation of insurance policies within the City of Fort Collins. This amendment is consistent with the City's current policy on the issue, clarifies the Code section for insurance companies considering door-to-door solicitation as a sales method in Fort Collins and protects the citizens of Fort Collins from a type of commercial solicitation which, judging from the complaints received, is not desired. 19. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 115, 1984, Authorizing the City Manager to Enter into an Agreement with Fairways Marketing Corporation for Fairway Markers/Signs at City Park Nine Golf Course. 20. On January 3, 1984, Council adopted Ordinance No. 170, 1983, autho- rizing the City Manager to enter into an agreement with Fairways Marketing Corporation (FMC) of Denver for the placement of their fairway marker signs at Collindale Golf Course. The marker/adver- tising signs were installed this spring at Collindale, and we have been very pleased thus far with them. Recently, FMC again approached us about the possibility of installing similar fairway marker signs at City Park Nine Golf Course. Our experience with FMC at Collindale has been positive, and we feel that signs at City Park Nine will enhance the depiction of our fairways and golf course layout, as well as provide us with some new revenues. Therefore, we are requesting that Council authorize us to enter into another agreement with FMC to provide signage at City Park Nine similar to that now at Collindale. The Golf Board, at their meeting of August 15, 1984, voted unanimously to recommend approval of this agreement. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 116, 1984, Vacating Elec- trical Easements Described in Larimer County Records Book 1507 Page 321 and Book 1518 Paae 22. Riverside Shopping Center was approved by the Planning and Zoning Board on June 25, 1984. The approved plat replaces a previously dedicated electrical easement which, due to reconfiguration, will no longer be needed. -103- 1 August 21, 1984 All utilities have been contacted and have indicated no problems with the vacation. Ordinances on Second Reading were read by title by Wanda Krajicek, City Clerk. Item #5. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 96, 1984, Vacating a Portion of an Easement in the Replat of Lots 156; 157 and 158 of Parkwood East and o Fact . ar wood East Second Filina. Item #6. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 97, 1984, Vacating Easements Located on Hill Pond Master Plan. Item V . Second Reading of Ordinance No Rights of Way on the mended P.U.D. . 98, 1984, Vacating Easements and Plat of Rockwillow, a Multi -Family Item #8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 103, 1984, Vacating a 42 Foot Wide Right of Way in Southridge Greens Phase One. Item #9. A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 104, 1984, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the Community Development Block Grant Fund. B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 105, 1984, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the Community Development Block Grant Fund. Ordinances on First Reading were read by title by Wanda Krajicek, City Clerk. Item #10. Hearing and First Reading on Ordinance No. 106, 1984, Annexing Approximately 5.15 Acres Known as the Tempel Annexation. Item #11. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 107, 1984 ni Zong pproximately 5.15 Acres, Known as the Tempel Annexation to the R- , Tanned Residential Zoning District. Item #12. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 108, 1984, Annexing pp�ately 2.25 Acres Known as the First Fisher-Lemay Avenue Annexation. Item #13. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 109, 1984, Zoning A roximately 2.25 Acres Known as the First Fisher-Lemay Avenue ' nnexation to t e - anned usiness oning District. -104- August 21, 1984 Item #14. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 110, 1984, Annexing Ap roximately 14.68 cres Known as the Second Fisher-Lemay Avenue Annexation. Item #15. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 111, 1984, Zoning Approximately 14.68 Acres Known as the SecondFisher-Lemay Avenue Annexation to the B-P, Planned Business, Zoning District. Item #16. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 112, 1984, Authorizing the Transfer of Appropriated Amounts Between Capital Projects for the Remodel of the Main Entrance of the Lincoln Center. Item #17. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 113, 1984, Amending Section 104-11 C of the Code of the City of Fort Collins Relating to iransactions and Items Subject to the City Sales Tax. Item #18. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 114, 1984, Amendin Section 73-32 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins Relating to Door -to -Door Sales. Item #19. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 115, 1984, Authorizing ' the City Manager to Enter into an Agreement with Fairways Market- ing orporation for airway larkers igns at City Park Nine Golf Course. Item #20. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 116, 1984, Vacating Electrical Easements Described in Larimer County Records Book 1507 Paae 321 and Book 1518 Paae 22. Councilmember Knezovich made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Elliott, to adopt and approve all items not removed from the Consent Calendar. Yeas: Councilmembers Elliott, Horak, Knezovich, Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Ordinance Vacating a Portion of Tract E of the Vineyards at Stonehenge, P.U.D., Filing One Adopted on Second Reading Following is the staff's memorandum on this item: "This Ordinance was adopted on First Reading on August 7 by a 5-0 vote ' (Stoner withdrawn). Tract E of Filing One was originally intended as the -105- ' August 21, 1984 location of a tennis court. The tennis court was relocated eastward in the approved plat of The Vineyards at Stonehenge, Filing II, serving as a buffer between Filing II and the original single family homes in Stone- henge." Councilmember Stoner asked the record to show he did not participate in the discussion or vote on the next three items. Councilmember Rutstein made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Knezovich, to adopt Ordinance No. 99, 1984 on Second Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers Elliott, Horak, Knezovich, Ohlson, and Rutstein. Nays: None. (Council - member Stoner withdrawn) THE MOTION CARRIED. Ordinance Vacating the 5th Filing of Stonehenge P.U.D., Adopted on Second Reading Following is the staff' s.memorandum on this item: "This Ordinance was adopted on First Reading on August 7 by a 5-0 vote (Stoner withdrawn). The Vineyards at Stonehenge, Filing II, recently approved by the Planning and Zoning Board, replats the area of Stonehenge, Fifth Filing, P.U.D. Therefore, vacation of the Fifth Filing is needed to vacate public right-of-way and easements which will no longer be used in the recorded locations, but will be relocated to serve lots created by the plat for The Vineyards at Stonehenge Filing II." Councilmember Ohlson made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Rutstein, to adopt Ordinance No. 100, 1984 on Second Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers Elliott, Horak, Knezovich, Ohlson, and Rutstein. Nays: None. (Council - member Stoner withdrawn) THE MOTION CARRIED. Ordinance Vacating a Portion of Stonehenge P.U.D., Sixth Filing, Adopted on Second Reading Following is the staff's memorandum on this item: "This Ordinance was adopted on First Reading on August 7 by a 5-0 vote (Stoner withdrawn). The Vineyards at Stonehenge, Filing II, recently ' approved by the Planning and Zoning Board, replats the portion of Stone- henge Sixth Filing, as described in this vacation." -106- August 21, 1984 ' Councilmember Rutstein made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Ohlson, to adopt Ordinance No. 101, 1984 on Second Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers Elliott, Horak, Knezovich, Ohlson, and Rutstein. Nays: None. (Council - member Stoner withdrawn) THE MOTION CARRIED. Ordinance Transferring Funds from the Rolland Moore Park Development Project to the Lee Martinez Park Improvements Project for Farm Development, Adopted on Second Reading Following is the staff's memorandum on this item: "This ordinance was adopted on First Reading on August 7 by a 4-2 vote. In April 1981, Fort Collins' voters approved a $5,065,000 Community Parks Bond Issue, intended for the completion, acquisition, and improvement of community parks. The projects presented to the citizens, along with their initial budget allocations, were as follows: City Park Renovation (8 acres) $ 375,000 ' Edora Park Expansion (10 acres) 335,000 Land Acquisition for a future community park 660,000 Lee Martinez Farm Development 330,000 $460,000 Lee Martinez Park Improvements (10 acres) 130,000 Rolland Moore Park Development (68 acres) 3,195,000 Cost to Issue Bonds 40,000 $5,065,000 The initial budget allocations were based upon our original conceptual planning estimates, and the necessity for establishing budgets for account- ing purposes. It was our intent to eventually transfer any excess funds from one project to another, as the projects themselves became more pre- cisely defined. As of August 1, 1984, all of the above named community park projects are complete, except for the Lee Martinez Farm, and the close-out of Rolland Moore Park. Staff is requesting that Council authorize the transfer of $300,000 avail- able in the Rolland Moore Park Development Project budget to the Lee Martinez Park Improvement Project budget for construction of the farm. Approval of this transfer will allow for construction of the farm to begin this fall (probably September) with an anticipated completion scheduled for late spring of 1985, pending weather -related delays. Landscaping work will continue through 1985. The farm should be open to the public in ' June 1985." -107- August 21, 1984 Councilmember Rutstein made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Elliott, to adopt Ordinance No. 102, 1984 on Second Reading. Councilmember Knezovich stated that if this ordinance was adopted an additional $300,000 would be appropriated for Lee Martinez farm project from the Rolland Moore project. He felt $600,000 was out of line for a petting farm and stated Rolland Moore park had several shortcomings that should be corrected. He felt the $300,000 should be spent at Rolland Moore Park for landscaping and sidewalks. Assistant to the Director of Parks & Recreation Jerry Brown noted Lee Martinez Park was part of the bond issue and if this ordinance was adopted, the money would be moving from one bond project to another. He added there was $67,000 in contingency funds to address Councilmember Knezovich's concerns. Councilmember Ohlson questioned the way traffic egresses onto Shields and asked about plans for a traffic signal there. Director of Transportation Services Bob Lee reported there were no plans for a traffic signal at this time, but that his staff was discussing solutions with Parks & Recreation, was monitoring the situation, and would be taking the appropriate action. Mayor Horak noted he was in favor of the project since it offered a differ- ent type of recreational activity in a different area of the city. The vote on Councilmember Rutstein's motion to adopt Ordinance No. 102, 1984 on Second Reading was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Elliott, Horak, Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays: Councilmember Knezovich. THE MOTION CARRIED. Resolution Authorizing the Mayor to Enter into an Addendum to the Intergovernmental Agreement Establishing the Poudre Fire Authority, Adopted Following is the staff's memorandum on this item: "On December 22, 1981, the City and the Poudre Valley Fire Protection District entered into an Intergovernmental Agreement creating the Poudre Fire Authority for the purpose of providing fire and rescue services ' within the respective territorial limits of the parties to that Agreement. Due to the experience gained during the operation of the Poudre Fire m August 21, 1984 Authority since that time, it has become evident that certain provisions of the Intergovernmental Agreement should be amended for purposes of clarifi- cation and to change certain provisions which have not proved to be prac- ticable. The Addendum amending the Intergovernmental Agreement has been drafted so that it refers to changes made to certain paragraphs as shown in Exhibit "A". Exhibit "A" is the original Intergovernmental Agreement with the changes noted by using capital letters for the additional provisions and putting dashes through provisions which have been deleted. In that way, it is easy to discern exactly what changes are being made to a particular paragraph. Specifically, the changes that have been made and the reasons therefor are as follows: 1. Paragraph 1.6, relating to voting, quorum and required votes, is amended to correct an error in the description of what constitutes a quorum of the Authority Board. The section, as amended, states that a quorum consists of three members, provided that the City and the District are represented, and ' that no official action on any matter may be taken by the Board unless a quorum is present. The amended provision is consistent with the language of the Bylaws on the same subject. 2. Sub -paragraph 2.2 (E), relating to the powers of the Adminis- trative Chief, is amended to increase the amount of funds which the Administrative Chief has the power to expend for the immediate preservation of the public health, safety and welfare from Ten Thousand Dollars (S10,000) to one percent (1%) of the annual budget of the Authority for the year in which the funds are expended. The $10,000 figure was felt to be inadequate given the potential expense involved in dealing with an emergency. 3. Sub -paragraph 4.3 (A), relating to personnel, is amended to make it clear that all employees transferred from the City and the District to the Authority are employees of the Authority subject to the terms and conditions of employment in effect at the time, as stated in Authority personnel rules. 4. Paragraph 5.1, relating to the annual budget, is amended to clarify the procedure that the Authority follows in adopting ' its budget, state the mechanism for funding contributions to -109- ' August 21, 1984 be made by the City and the District, define "supplemental appropriations" for the purposes of the Agreement, and clarify the Board's power as to funds in the fund balance of the Authority. Paragraph 5.1, as amended, makes it clear that the budgetary process for the Authority begins with the Board adopting a preliminary budget which is amended from time to time based on the revisions in revenue projections made by the City and the District. The budget becomes the Authority budget after approval of the appropriations by the City and the District and final approval by the Board. As to funding mechanisms for maintenance and operation costs, the amended section refers to the concept of the revenue allocation formula which the City will set annually and clarifies that the dollar amount of the City's contribution, determined through the use of the revenue allocation formula, will be based on the City's revenue projections made during the City's budgetary process. "Supplemental appropriations" are defined as any appropriation made above and beyond the annual appropriation made during the budgetary process. A new subparagraph (D) states that the Board has the power to ' reappropriate funds in the fund balance for whatever purpose the Board deems appropriate or necessary, without approval of the City or District. 5. Paragraph 5.2 is amended to delete the requirement that the annual audit be completed prior to April 1 of each year. The April 1 deadline has not proved to be a realistic one. 6. Paragraph 5.3 is amended to state that the Authority will make available to the City and the District a final detailed statement of costs and expenses for the fiscal year as soon as possible after the close of each fiscal year rather than requiring the Authority to submit such a statement within three (3) months after the close of each fiscal year. Again, the deadline had not proved to be a practical one. 7. Paragraph 8.1, stating that the Agreement continues until terminated by either party as provided in the Agreement, is deleted due to the fact that paragraph 1.1 discusses the term of the Agreement and states that the Agreement is in effect until December 31, 1987 unless sooner terminated as provided in the Agreement. 8. An introductory sentence is added to paragraph 8.2, relating to the disposition of assets on termination, making it clear ' that sub -paragraphs (A) through (E) describe how the assets -110- August 21, 1984 of the Authority will be disposed of upon termination of the Agreement pursuant to paragraph 1.1. 9. The address of the 'District in paragraph 9.1 was changed to reflect the current address of 505 Peterson Street, Fort Collins, Colorado 80524. The Poudre Fire Authority Board approved the above described changes to the Intergovernmental Agreement at the Board meeting held on July 16, 1984. The Poudre Valley Fire Protection District will vote on the same at its Board meeting on August 20, 1984." Councilmember Elliott made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Ohlson, to adopt Resolution 84-122. Councilmember Elliott, Chairman of the Poudre Fire Authority noted this addendum made housekeeping changes and cleared up funding question marks. He added the addendum puts the Poudre Fire Authority in better perspective and cleans up the agreement. The vote on Councilmember Elliott's motion to adopt Resolution 84-122 was , as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Elliott, Horak, Knezovich, Ohl son, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Items Relating to the Creation of Horsetooth Road Special Improvement District No. 83 Following is the staff's memorandum on this item: "A. Resolution Amending Resolution 84-94 Pertaining to Horsetooth S.I.D. No. 83. B. Resolution Amending Resolution 84-95 Pertaining to Horsetooth S.I.D. No. 83. C. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 73, 1984 (as amended), Relating to the Creation and Organization of Special Improvement District No. 83, and Approving the Agreement with the Southside Baptist Church. D. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 74, 1984 (as amended), Appropriating Funds to pay the Required City Costs. ' -111- 1 August 21, 1984 E. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 75, 1984 (as amended), Creating a "Landscape Package" on the Horsetooth Road S.I.D. #83. F. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 76, 1984 (as amended), Appropriating the Anticipated Special Improvement District No. 83 Bond Proceeds. G. Deed of Easement from Southside Baptist Church. GENERAL SUMMARY OF IMPROVEMENTS The purpose of this Special Improvement District is to construct the street, street landscaping and storm drainage improvements, for Horsetooth Road from the BNRR to Shields Street. In 1982, a capital project was budgeted to form an improvement district for the construction of Horsetooth Road from College Avenue to Shields Street. The developers along Horse - tooth, from the BNRR to Shields Street, had agreed to be a part of the district, but they backed out when the development activity slowed down in 1982. Staff went ahead and formed SID No. 76 in 1982, and constructed the portion of Horsetooth from College Avenue to the BNRR. Last fall staff began meeting with the developers, along Horsetooth from the BNRR to ' Shields, to encourage the formation of a voluntary improvement district to construct this portion of Horsetooth. We were successful, and the developers hired Shilo Engineering and attorney, George Hass, to assist them in the formation of the improvement district. City staff has worked very closely with them to bring this District to Council. It is important that this district be created at this time to allow con- struction during 1984. This portion of Horsetooth Road is in very poor condition, and is rapidly declining due to the excessively high traffic volume on a two lane road. If this district is not created at this time, the City will have to continue their expensive maintenance efforts or completely rehabilitate the pavement. This district would complete a key portion of the City's master street plan, and would improve an inadequate two lane road with high maintenance costs, to a functional four lane arterial with low maintenance costs, bike lanes, and sidewalks. The City will front the costs of the District until the bonds are sold. The District participants have agreed that the City shall not be liable for any cost of the District except as specifically provided in the Master Agreement and in the Resolutions and Ordinance creating and establishing the District, and that any cost in excess of the City's costs shall be the sole obligation of the District participants. Since the first reading of the ordinances concerning this District, Council has passed, on First Reading, Ordinance No. 75. 1984, which created a ' "Landscape Package" to be included in Horsetooth SID #83. Ordinances #73, -112- August 21, 1984 ' 74 and 76, 1984, and Resolution 84-94 and 84-95 are amended in this packet to include the costs of the landscaping as well as defining, in more detail, the inclusions of the district and resetting the hearing date to August 21, 1984. The packet was prepared for discussion at the August 7, 1984 Council Hearing. However, an error in signatures was discovered and the petitioner was unable to acquire a correct signature in time for the hearing so Council was forced to table this item until the August 21, 1984 hearing. SUMMARY OF COSTS The revised estimated costs of the improvements to the District partici- pants and to the City are shown below. These estimated costs include all costs associated with the District and approximately 10% contingency. DISTRICT IMPROVEMENT COSTS (Revised 7/30/84) District Costs: Street and Drainage Improvements $ 545,220 Landscaping Between Curb and Sidewalk 36,632 , Total District Costs: $ 581,852 City Costs: Street Oversizing $ 392,700 New Mercer Canal Box Culvert Extension 51,000 Southside Baptist Church Costs* 16,400 Southside Baptist Church ROW Acquisition* 3,000 Michie ROW Acquisition 2,400 Light & Power (Pole & Vault Relocates) 20,000 Landscaped Medians 116,000 Total City Costs $601,500 Total SID Construction Costs $1,183,352 *The Church has approved an agreement to reimburse the City in the future for its share of the costs had it been included in the district. This district was initiated by the staff because of the urgent need to improve Horsetooth Road. Leaving the improvements along the church frontage out of the project would greatly impair the benefits of the project. Staff believes this trade-off with the church agreeing to pay for the improve- ments at some future time is to the greatest advantage of the city as a I whole. -113- ' August 21, 1984 The Deed of Easement from the Southside Baptist Church is being acquired for $3,000 (based on 574 per square foot). The parcel is on the north side of Horsetooth. This is the final right-of-way agreement needed for the improvement district. FUNDING CITY COSTS The remaining capital funds in the Horsetooth Road - SID No. 76 Project ($337,800) will be transferred to this project, and Street Oversizing Funds will be used to fund the remaining $263,700 of the $601,500 cost to the City. As shown above, the total street oversizing reimbursement that would normally be required for this project has been estimated at $392,700. However, because of the carry over funds from SID No. 76, only $263,700 will be needed from the Street Oversizing Fund. The Street Oversizing Fund has the available funds. Landscaped medians are not a normal Street Oversizing cost. However, as shown above, the Street Oversizing Fund is in effect receiving a reduction of its obligation of $129,000 due to the transfer of surplus capital funds from S.I.D. No. 76. So actually the landscaped medians will be funded with ' capital funds, and Street Oversizing will have to pay less of its obliga- tion. The fund transfers are as follows: Transfer Horsetooth Road SID No. 76 Funds $337,800 Appropriate Street Oversizing Funds (from 147,700 previous Council action on June 5th) Appropriate Street Oversizing Funds (for 116,000 landscaping medians) TOTAL CITY FUNDS $601,500 STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS This district would complete a key portion of the City's master street plan and would improve an inadequate two lane road with high maintenance costs, to a functional four lane arterial with low maintenance costs, bike lanes, and sidewalks. This project is very much needed this year, and therefore, staff recommends the approval of the Ordinances creating and funding this district." Assistant City Attorney Paul Eckman summarized the changes in the ordi- nances from First Reading to Second Reading and highlighted the dollar amounts to be changed. -114- August 21; 1984 Assistant City Engineer Mike Herzig explained the landscaping project and the maintenance and irrigation techniques to be used. Councilmember Knezovich expressed concern about guarantees from the land- scape architects that the landscaping will withstand weather conditions in Fort Collins. Mike Herzig noted the plants were guaranteed for one year and were resis- tant to salt and sand. He added the design had been reviewed by Tim Buchanan, City Arborist. Councilmember Knezovich commended staff for finding a creative solution to a problem on the west side of the community with regard to street improve- ments. Councilmember Knezovich made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Ohlson, to adopt Resolution 84-117. Yeas: Councilmembers Elliott, Horak, Knezo- vich, Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Ohlson made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Knezovich, to adopt Resolution 84-118. Yeas: Councilmembers Elliott, Horak, Knezo- vich, Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Elliott made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Ohlson, to adopt Ordinance No. 73, 1984 as amended on Second Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers Elliott, Horak, Knezovich, Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Stoner made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Rutstein, to adopt Ordinance No. 74, 1984 as amended on Second Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers Elliott, Horak, Knezovich, Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Knezovich made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Ohlson, to adopt Ordinance No. 75, 1984 on Second Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers Elliott, Horak, Knezovich, Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. -115- 1 August 21, 1984 Councilmember Rutstein made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Stoner, to adopt Ordinance No. 76, 1984 on Second Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers Elliott, Horak, Knezovich, Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Elliott made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Rutstein, to accept the deed of easement from Southside Baptist Church. Yeas: Councilmembers Elliott, Horak, Knezovich, Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. City Manager's Report Deputy City Manager Shannon announced that Mike Gitter and Mike Schultz had recently won a first place award for a bike film they had produced. Councilmembers' Reports Councilmember Knezovich reported the PRPA draft budget would be presented at the next PRPA meeting. He reported on the CML sales tax simplification committee progress and noted the draft streamlines audit and collection procedures. Mayor Horak stated he recently read that former PRPA General Manager Al Hamilton had joined R.W. Beck and Associates. He asked Councilmember Knezovich what the PRPA policy was regarding former employees. Councilmember Knezovich replied it was difficult to control former em- ployees. He noted PRPA had no current contracts with R.W. Beck and Asso- ciates, but noted he would ask that the file be flagged for future consul- tant work. Councilmember Elliott reported on the recent Poudre Fire Authority meeting and urged Council to read the PFA handout regarding productivity and specialty stations. Councilmember Rutstein reported on the Human Relations Commission meeting and noted they had discussed the task force on women and will be recruiting members. She noted they needed clarification on the role of the task force. Mayor Horak commented on the emissions sticker report noting parking enforcement had issued 3,791 citations since February. -116- 1 August 21, 1984 Ordinance Authorizing the Transfer of Appropriated Amounts Between Capital Projects for the Remodel of the Main Entrance of the Lincoln Center. Tabled to September 4 Following is the staff's memorandum on this item: "During the first winter after the completion of the Lincoln Center, it was discovered that snow and ice would fall from the roof to the sidewalks at the entrances of the Lincoln Center, creating a very hazardous situation for the patrons entering this facility. This problem has been reviewed over the past several years and different solutions have been implemented trying to resolve this problem. However, due to the shortage of funding, a permanent solution has not been implemented. City Council appropriated $25,000 for this project in the 1984 Budget. During preliminary design and with the help of Glaser and Associates, the architectural firm hired to perform the design services, we developed three options, including cost estimates, to correct this snow and ice problem at each entrance. We then reviewed these options with the Lincoln Center ' Design Committee and City staff. The final option, which we are recom- mending, is a combination of all three options. Basically, a small canopy will be attached to the existing exterior wall at each entrance, directing the snow and ice around the sidewalk areas. Every effort was made to match the existing exterior architectural decor of the Lincoln Center. The total cost of the revised project will be $53,500, rather than $25,000 as appropriated in the 1984 Budget. The additional $28,500 will be used to correct the main entrance only. A source for the additional $28,500 required has been identified in the Museum/Community Center Roof Repair project. Funds of $51,000 were appropriated for repair of the Museum roof in the 1984 Budget. It has since been determined that the Museum roof needs to be totally replaced. Funding for the replacement is in the 1985 Budget. As a result, adequate funds are available in the 1984 Museum/Community Center Roof Repair project for transfer to the Lincoln Center Entrance project." Councilmember Stoner made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Elliott, to adopt Ordinance No. 112, 1984 on First Reading. Councilmember Knezovich expressed concerns about the financing and ques- tioned the methods presented by staff. Mayor Horak noted he had the same concerns about the logic used. I -117- August 21, 1984 General Services Director Tom Frazier noted the Lincoln Center had a higher danger level than the museum and added the musuem roof repair is a mainte- nance item. He added the $51,000 appropriated in the 1984 budget had been for two items -- the museum and the downtown community center. Norman Munn, P.O. Box 1040, questioned the original entrance design of the Lincoln Center and also the design of the New City Hall. Deputy City Manager Shannon pointed out this appropriation would provide funding for correction of the main entrance only and that staff would be coming back later on the other two entrances. He felt the staff memo might have given Council the impression that all three entrances would be funded for repair with this action. Councilmember Knezovich made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Ohlson, to table Ordinance No. 112, 1984 on First Reading to September 4. Yeas: Councilmembers Elliott, Horak, Knezovich, Ohl son, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Secretary's Note: Councilmember Clarke arrived at this point. Citizen Participation A. Proclamation Naming Week of Au ust 20 - 26 as Child Safety Week was accepted by Pete erkinn a ety and Rea th Manager at Hew ett-Packard, representing John Van Gorder. B. Councilmember Ohlson made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Rutstein, to adopt Resolution 84-123 Recognizing Contributions of Recent Retirees from the Boards and Commissions. Yeas: Councilmembers Clarke, Elliott, Horak, Knezovich, Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Roger Prenzlow, 1337 West Vine Drive, Treasurer of Peace with Christ Lutheran Church, appeared to ask for relief on sewer charges at the church. He asked for a rate structure change that would be equitable to all users. Mayor Horak noted Council would take Mr. Prenzlow's comments under consi- deration and asked the City Manager to report back with options that might resolve Mr. Prenzlow's concerns. -118- 'Appeal of the Planning and Zoning Board August 21, 1984 Decisions on Golden Meadows Master Plan and Courtney Park Preliminary PUD, Planninq & Zoninq Board Decisions, Modified Following is the staff's memorandum on this item: "The Council has previously received under separate cover all the back- ground information contained in the record of the Planning and Zoning Board's meetings for the Golden Meadows Master Plan and the Courtney Park Preliminary PUD. Residents of the Golden Meadows neighborhood have ap- pealed the decisions of the Planning and Zoning Board on both of these items. Sitting as the appellate body, the City Council reviews the deci- sion of the Planning and Zoning Board based on the record of information submitted to the Planning and Zoning Board, and on any new evidence pro- vided by either the staff, the applicant, or the neighborhood. In considering appeals from the Planning and Zoning Board the City Council has the options to sustain, modify, or overturn the actions of the Planning and Zoning Board or to send the item back to the Planning and Zoning Board for further consideration. Council should consider, the Golden Meadows Master Plan and the Courtney Park PUD as two separate items. Council's action on these items would be done tonight by motion with a formal Reso- lution presenting the findings of the City Council concerning these appeals to be passed at the next Council meeting." , Director of Planning & Development Curt Smith gave a brief overview of the situation and detailed the densities requested for both items being ap- pealed. He noted Council had previously received a full record of the proceedings. He showed a density chart and stated gross densities should be used for consistent comparison. Lucia Liley, March, March, Myatt, Korb, Carroll, and Brandes, attorney representing the property owners, asked that the decision of the Planning & Zoning Board on Golden Meadows be upheld based on the distinction between the Master Plan and the site plan. She outlined the difference between the two concepts and addressed the specifics mentioned in the appeal letter. Ed Zdnek, ZVFK, gave a history of the project from 1977 to current. He noted the development was a test case for the Land Development Guidance System implementation. He stated the plan had been revised and approved three times but is substantially the same. Gordon Hadlow, 4106 Addlborough Court, spoke about the excellent process used by the City to involve the neighborhood. He asked Council to modify the Planning & Zoning Board decision by reducing the number of units in area 1 to 196, leaving area 2 as proposed at 119-120 units, and reducing area 3 to 108 units. This would allow a total of 424 units compared to the 546 proposed. ' -119- I August 21, 1984 Kristin Jensen, 1119 Monticello, addressed the underlying zoning and density concerns of the neighborhood. She reviewed the LOGS provisions with regard to this development. Larry Marsh, 1313 Tarryton, noted the basis for the concern and appeal was that the indicated densities were not necessarily the actual densities. Based on neighborhood incompatibility and a lack of continuity, he asked for a reduction from 12 to 8 du/acre in Phase 3 and noted the lower density was appropriate because of the size and shape of the tract. M.N. Karim, 1423 New Bedford Drive, addressed the traffic concerns on South Lemay and pointed out there had been a misrepresentation of what these units would be when he purchased his home. He noted he had been told they would be single family patio homes. He questioned the population projec- tions for homes and school attendance and asked if a traffic study had been done with regard to South Lemay. Curt Smith replied that there was an existing or approved plan for up- grading South Lemay and the existing street network that would satisfy the requirements for this development. The developer is working on a traffic study that will be reviewed by planning staff and traffic engineering staff when completed. He noted the population projection figures were based on averages for multi -family units not single-family which would be larger. School attendance projections were obtained from school district figures. Councilmember Rutstein made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Ohlson, to approve the Golden Meadows Master Plan with the following conditions: 1. the density on Phase #1, designated at 20 du/ac be reduced to 14 du/ac; and 2. the density on Phase #3 be reduced to 8 du/ac. The reduction in density is based on the finding that the density proposed on this parcel is not in compliance with the Goals and Objectives or the Land Use Policies for the City. Specifically, the 20 du/ac would be one of the highest density areas in the City and is not adequately separated from adjoining single family low density residential uses by transitional land uses such as duplexes or townhomes. This lack of transition conflicts with Policy #20 of the Land Use Policies Plan. In addition, since this area would be one of the highest density areas in the City, it should conform to all the City policy plans for high density development. John Loomis, 1206 Ashlawn Court, supported Councilmember Rutstein's motion and pointed out there was no direct access to Harmony Road from the apart- ment complexes or the shopping center. He noted the impact this would have on Wheaton and Lemay. -120- August 21, 1984 ' Vickie O'Keefe, 1604 Shenandoah, asked for a comparison of the acreage between Scotch Pines and Golden Meadows. Ed Zdnek, ZVFK, noted Scotch Pines varied from 8-1/2 to 19 du/ac and Governor's Park had an effective density excluding their commercial area of 18 du/ac. He noted the densities were similar to those being proposed in Golden Meadows. He added Scotch Pines had 50.9 acres with 322 units. Ron Miller, 4312 New Bedford, recommended approval of the motion and pointed out the speeds allowed on Harmony Road would cause significant traffic hazards. Council member Elliott noted he supported the original proposal and not the densities proposed in Councilmember Rutstein's motion. Councilmember Stoner spoke against the motion noting he favored higher densities at that location. Councilmember Stoner made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Clarke, to amend Councilmember Rutstein's motion to state that the density on Parcel 791 be reduced from 20 to 16 du/ac and that the density on Parcel #3 be kept at the Planning & Zoning Board recommendation of 12 du/ac. Yeas: Councilmembers Clarke, Elliott, Knezovich, and Stoner. Nays: . Councilmembers Horak, Ohlson, and Rutstein. THE MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Rutstein made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Ohlson, to offer a compromise of 15 du/ac for Parcel #1 and 10 du/ac for Parcel #3. Yeas: Councilmembers Horak, Ohlson, and Rutstein. Nays: Councilmembers Clarke, Elliott, Knezovich, and Stoner. THE MOTION FAILED. The vote on Councilmember Rutstein's motion as amended by Councilmember Stoner (16 du/ac on Parcel #1 and 12 du/ac on Parcel #3) was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Elliott, Horak, Knezovich, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays: Councilmember Ohlson. THE MOTION CARRIED. Courtney Park PUD Frank Vaught, ZVFK, representing JLB Construction, the applicant, addressed the effect the previous motion would have on Courtney Park. He gave an evolution of the site plan and stated he felt the process had improved the plan and that neighborhood input has had a positive impact on the plan. He ' -121- August 21, 1984 estimated 60% of the site would be landscaped or green area and noted the project exceeded Scotch Pines, Governor's Park, and Mission Hills in that respect. He stated higher density was appropriate at the intersection of major streets in that it allows traffic to move to collectors and arterials without driving through neighborhoods and gives the ability to provide larger buffered landscaped areas to the noise traffic creates. Lower densities do not provide that opportunity. He concluded by stating the developers felt both the site plan and the Master Plan represented good sound design and incorporate features that are compatible to those living in the units and those adjacent to the project. The plan complies with the goals and objectives of the City to plan mixed use neighborhoods that are compatible with each other. Kristen Jensen expressed concern over the density of Courtney Park PUD and requested there be 196 units on the site plan or a gross density of 12.4 du/ac. She noted this would allow the reduction in height or elimina- tion of some buildings. Ralph Waldo, 1336 Tarryton Drive, spoke of the advisability of allowing continued development in the area. He asked if the completion of South ' Lemay improvements would be moved ahead with a bond issue. Larry Marsh, 1313 Tarryton Drive, stated Courtney Park has as many or more du/ac as other developments with more acreage. He gave comparisons in building sizes between other developments and again requested there be 196 units on the site plan which "is equal to 12.4 du/ac. Gordon Hadlow, 4106 Attleboro Court, summarized the neighborhoods position and asked for the completion of South Lemay Avenue. He noted the compati- bility would be increased if the density was decreased and asked for some sort of tie between this project and the completion of Lemay Avenue. Councilmember Clarke made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Knezovich, to approve the Courtney Park PUD with the following conditions: 1. the five northernmost buildings be reduced in height to 1-1/2 stories; and 2. the total number of units on the site plan be reduced from 264 to 248 (which results in a density of 15.7 du/ac). The first condition is based on the finding that the project as proposed is not in compliance with Criteria H2 of the LDGS in that the existing height of the buildings is not compatible with the scale, bulk, and building height of the immediate neighborhood. The second condition is based on the ' finding that the project as proposed is not in compliance with the Golden -122- I August 21, 1984 Meadows Master Plan which designated this site for a density no greater than 16 du/ac. In addition the second condition is based on the finding that the project as proposed with 264 units will create a significant change in the character of the existing neighborhood by unacceptably impacting the existing neighborhood resident's access and privacy and creating unacceptable noise impacts. This finding makes the project as proposed not in compliance with Criteria #3 of the LDGS. Councilmember Clarke noted this change would reduce eight units in one building and eight units in another which should improve the traffic impact on Wheaton. He pointed out that this was the preliminary consideration of this PUD and that it still had to come back to Planning & Zoning for final approval and would be subject to appeal to Council at that time. He noted his motion was a compromise between the wishes of the neighborhood and the wishes of the developer. Bill Lacock, 1106 Monticello Court, noted Courtney Park would not be the only development in the area. He asked what would happen if the shopping mall was not constructed and the site becomes RMP with 16 du/ac. John Loomis, 1206 Ashlawn Court, questioned the assumption that high ' density was the only appropriate use at the corner of Harmony and Lemay and pointed out that Harmony Cove single-family homes were located 100' from Harmony Road. Vicki O'Keefe, 1604 Shenandoah, stated she preferred more green space and noted she felt the compromise was on the part of the residents. Greg PenfoId, 4530 Bluefin Court, Whaler's Cove, asked for a voice in the way their neighborhood is being developed. He felt there was a big com- promise on the neighborhood's part and very little on the part of the developer. He noted the compromise was not acceptable to the neighborhood. M.N. Karim, 4213 New Bedford Drive, agreed that the density should be reduced to allow more green space. He asked if the project would be denied if the traffic study proves to be negative. Paul Johnson, 1113 Monticello, questioned whether the entire project was within 4000' of a regional shopping center. Director of Planning and Development Curt Smith explained the method used for measurement and noted the property currently used for a mobile home park was planned and approved for a regional shopping center. Councilmember Ohlson noted that for the future the density chart needed to , be clarified and made consistent. He noted the accuracy of the facts of -123- August 21, 1984 future projects need to be confirmed so that the contentions seen on this project don't occur again. He suggested there be some cooperation on a policy to inform home buyers of what is proposed or possible on sites near their prospective homes. He noted that although he would continue to support mixed uses, he also would continue to c.shsiAo- the wishes and rights of people. Councilmember Rutstein commented on the all development criteria that was used to judge the site plan. She stated she felt this development was not compatible or sufficiently sensitive to the immediate environment of the single family homes nearby, especially with regard to the scale and bulk of the buildings. She noted she could not vote for the project since it is already known that the traffic impact on Lemay would be so adverse. She felt the street capacity on the all development criteria had not been met and that air quality was a real concern. She stated she could not vote for the PUD when the all development criteria requirements had not been satis- fied. Councilmember Knezovich stated that a developer had to have economic viability and if that is present you hopefully also have a quality develop- ment . Councilmember Stoner noted he was hopeful that by the time the developer comes back for final approval, Council will have made a decision on the bonding of South Lemay Avenue and the two projects can be coordinated. Mayor Horak cited a history of the problems on South Lemay and agreed that prospective homeowners should be provided information on plans for nearby development before they purchase. The vote on Councilmember Clarke's motion to approve the Courtney Park PUD was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Clarke, Elliott, Knezovich, and Stoner. Nays: Councilmembers Horak, Ohlson, and Rutstein. THE MOTION CARRIED. Appeal of Zoning Board of Appeals Decision (ZBA #1541), ZBA Decision Upheld Following is the staff's memorandum on this item: "On June 14, 1984, the Zoning Board of Appeals considered a variance request for a sign located at 2821 Remington Street. This request, heard ' as Appeal #1541, was denied by a vote of five to zero. Petitioner Fred Gardner is appealing this decision. -124- August 21, 1984 ' The property at 2821 Remington is an office building located in the HB (highway business zone), which allows certain signs as a permitted acces- sory use. On January 18, 1984 Mr. Gardner, a licensed sign contractor and owner of Gardner Signs, was issued a permit to install a tenant directory freestanding sign on the property. Subsequent to its installation, the zoning office inspected the sign and found that the sign was not installed in compliance with the terms of the sign permit application or the code provisions regulating this type of sign. The zoning office then contacted Mr. Gardner and informed him that there was a violation which needed to be corrected. On May 1, 1984, after a considerable time had passed and no action had occurred to correct the problem, the City issued a written violation notice to Mr. Gardner requiring that if corrective measures were not taken within ten days, a court summons would be issued. On May 15, 1984, Mr. Gardner submitted an application for a zoning variance in hopes of obtaining approval from the ZBA to leave the sign as originally in- stalled. The need for the variance request arises from the fact that the sign is located within 50 feet of a driveway and is taller than 42 inches above the adjacent street elevation while only being setback 3 feet from the right- of-way line. The code requires that a sign within 50 feet of a driveway I which is taller than 42 inches must be set back at least 15 feet from the right-of-way line. Mr. Gardner indicated that he interpreted the code to mean that the 42 inch height requirement was measured from the grade level directly under the sign, not the adjacent street level, and thus they designed the sign to be 42 inches above grade. This would normally be acceptable because the grade level directly under the sign is almost always the same as the adjacent street level due to the absence of hills in Fort Collins. However, the sign at this location was installed on top of a 2-112 foot high berm, or grade change, making the sign 6 feet above the adjacent street eleva- tion. The code would allow a 6 foot high sign as long as it is set back 15 feet, or located more than 50 feet from the driveway. There are basically two reasons why the sign code requires the height of a Sign to be measured from the adjacent street elevation rather than the grade level under the sign: 1. prevents property owners from intentionally building tall berms on which to put a sign for the purpose of elevating their signs higher than the code allows. 2. prevents signs from impeding traffic visibility relative to ingress and egress when located within 50 feet of a driveway or intersection. -125- ' August 21, 1984 On June 14, 1984, the Zoning Board of Appeals considered the variance request for 2821 Remington. Staff pointed out to the Board that the hardship is self-imposed since the petitioner erected the sign in violation of the code, and that there is plenty of lot frontage available which means that the sign could be placed further north so that it would be more than 50 feet from the drive way. Another possibility would be to leave the sign where it is and make it higher so that there is free air space under the sign to provide visibility. The Board felt the code was very specific saying "above the adjacent street elevation" and that it couldn't be interpreted otherwise. The Board then denied the variance request by a vote of five to zero. On August 7, 1984, City Council considered Mr. Gardner's appeal, at which time the main hardship he pleaded was that the location of the utilities on the property prevented him from installing the sign in the location re- qui.red by code. After discussion on the matter, City Council tabled the appeal by a vote of five to one and instructed Mr. Gardner that when he obtained the necessary evidence to substantiate his utility location hard- ship, they would then reconsider the appeal. Utility locations were performed on August 9, 1984 and Council was informed of the results. Subsequent to these findings, Mr. Gardner has submitted additional material and is now asking City Council to reconsider his appeal. ' City Council will be reviewing the decision made by the Zoning Board of Appeals a based upon the minutes of the board and any new evidence sub- mitted and will be deciding whether to sustain, reverse, or modify the decision, or send the matter back for further hearing and review by the Zoning Board of Appeals." Fred Gardner, the appellant, briefed Council on the situation and described the relevant factors leading to the appeal. He cited the unusual topo- graphic conditions at the site and the exceptional narrowness relative to the sign placement. He felt the Code addressed these conditions when considering a hardship. He stated financial hardship was not the reason for the appeal. He felt the sign was not a safety hazard at its present location and noted he could conform to Code by raising the sign 2-1/2 to 3 feet, but he felt the sign would no longer be attractive at that height. He spoke of nine signatures from surrounding businesses that stated they felt the sign was attractive, non -obtrusive, and not a safety hazard to vehicular traffic. He requested the variance be granted. Councilmember Rutstein asked if Mr. Gardner was aware of the problems when he obtained the permit to install the sign. Mr. Gardner replied that he had misinterpreted the Code at that time but that it was his firm's intent to conform to Code. The misinterpretation came when using the terms ground level and street level. He stated it was after the sign was installed that he became aware of the need for the ' variance. -126- 1 August 21, 1984 Councilmember Ohlson stated he was under the impression the appeal had been tabled to substantiate a utility location hardship. Mr. Gardner replied that the sign placement area was loaded with under- ground utilities. He noted telephone lines parallel the current sign location area and stated if the sign were moved 50 feet from the curb cut it would be over an underground water line and would be pushed into the existing landscaped area. He noted his firm always tries to minimize the number of utilities they might come in contact with. Zoning Administrator Pete Barnes outlined the options available to Mr. Gardner to bring the sign into conformance. Councilmember Stoner asked if there was presently any visibility problem as far as the ingress or egress from the parking lot. Pete Barnes replied that there was not since the sign was parallel to the street. He added that the existing landscaping is seen before you see the sign. He stated that when you enter the parking lot from the street, the sign might hide cars exiting the lot. Councilmember Ohlson made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Rutstein, 1 to uphold the ZBA decision to deny the sign variance at 2821 Remington. Councilmember Ohlson noted usually one would seek a variance before installing a sign, not the reverse. He noted the sign was not installed in compliance with the terms of the sign permit application or the Code provisions regulating this type of sign. He felt the hardship was self- imposed. Councilmember Knezovich noted the sign was readable and that the land- scaping was more of a traffic hazard than the sign. He urged Council to overturn the ZBA decision. Councilmember Stoner noted there was nothing wrong with the sign but that the process Mr. Gardner used was at fault. He noted he would vote against the motion. The vote on Councilmember Ohlson's motion to uphold the decision of the ZBA to deny the sign variance at 2821 Remington was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Clarke, Elliott, Horak, Ohlson, and Rutstein. Nays: Councilmembers Knezovich and Stoner. THE MOTION CARRIED. -127- August 21, 1984 Ordinance Transferring Funds into a Project to be called the Mountain Avenue/Walnut Street Improvements Project, Tabled to September 18 Following is the staff's memorandum on this item: "Issue for Decision Staff has prepared new additional information and options for Council to consider relating to the proposed projects. Background Three separate street projects are scheduled for construction in the downtown area in conjunction with the Old Town Project and the Parking Garage. These projects are shown on the attached sketch and listed below. 1) Construction of new medians along Mountain Avenue from Mathews west to the existing median; 2) Reconfiguration of the intersections at each end of Walnut Street; and ' 3) Reconstruction of the sidewalk surrounding the senior center. Staff plans to combine these projects into one project to simplify their administration, management and construction. Some funds are already appropriated in a project and others still require that funds be appro- priated. The funds proposed for transfer and appropriation are summarized as follows: $75,344 Transferred from D.D.A. Old Town Project for the Walnut Street intersections. $70,000 Transferred from Street Oversizing Fund for median construction. $60,000 Appropriated from Capital Projects Fund Prior Year Reserves for landscaping throughout the project and additional sidewalk work at the Downtown Community Center. $ 9,000 Transferred from General Fund for repairs to foun- dation wall of Community Center. $214,344 These projects need to begin as soon as possible in order to be completed at the same time as the Old Town Project and the Parking Garage. The attached letters from Old Town Associates and the Downtown Development Authority indicate their concern for the timely construction of this project. Approval of Ordinance No. 117, 1984, would provide the necessary I funds. -128- August 21, 1984 Need for Medians Staff believes the medians are needed now for the following reasons: 1) With the construction of the parking garage and the Old Town Project this area will have a very high level of pedestrian activity. The con- struction of the medians (and curb bulges) will improve pedestrian safety by both directing pedestrian movement and providing physical protection in the center of this wide street. 2) There will be a high volume of left turns along East Mountain when the parking garage and pedestrian mall are completed. The construction of medians on East Mountain is necessary to provide safe control of these traffic movements. Trolley Considerations At the July 17th Council meeting, the issue of concern was the medians proposed for Mountain Avenue. East Mountain is under consideration as a possible route for the trolley, and the proposed medians would cover several stretches of the existing track. Staff has identified the following problems which would result if the trolley were on East Mountain Avenue: ' 1) The location of the existing trolley tracks presents a serious safety problem for left turning vehicles on East Mountain. This track location creates three areas of direct head-on conflict between the trolley and vehicles waiting to turn left onto College, into the garage, or onto Mathews. The street width, existing median between College and Linden, and new curb bulges constructed at the garage and adjacent to the Old Town Project severely limit the flexibility of traffic lane location. These factors suggest that if East Mountain were to be used as a trolley route, the route that would provide the greatest safety would not be down the center of the street in the medians where the tracks are now located. 2) The physical clearances needed by the trolley would significantly decrease the landscaping improvements to the proposed medians. Widths are insufficient to accommodate both landscaping and useable tracks in some areas. In addition, the poles carrying the overhead electric lines needed for the trolley would create problems with traffic lanes. 3) If the trolley were to use this route it is very likely that much of the track would need to be removed for the installation of new ties. In conjunction with the limited flexibility of median locations due to street widths, this would require the removal of large sections of the medians. It is not possible to design around this problem without major changes in the basic parameters governing the use of East Mountain Avenue, (e.g., the ' number of traffic lanes). -129- I August 21, 1984 Although these problems are significant, they are not insurmountable if the final decision is to put the trolley on East Mountain. These three factors should be weighed in that decision. Recommendation Staff recommends that the appropriation ordinance for the construction of the improvements outlined above be approved. These improvements form an essential traffic and pedestrian control plan that is necessary and inte- gral to the safe and successful operation of the major projects now under construction downtown. However, if this is not desired by Council, Staff then recommends approval of the amended appropriation ordinance to construct a temporary median with asphalt curb and landscape rock. This median is necessary for the opera- tion of the garage, in directing traffic and pedestrians and providing a mid street refuge for pedestrians in crossing Mountain Avenue. The transfer of funds is estimated to be enough to cover all improvements." City Engineer Tom Hays noted there was no intention to provide obstacles to the future installation of the trolley on Mountain Avenue. The safety of pedestrians crossing Mountain Avenue -is the real issue to be addressed. He suggested that at a minimum, temporary medians should be provided while a decision is being made on the trolley. He noted the other issues were not related to the Mountain Avenue medians but were related to improvements to Walnut and the improvements to the Senior Citizen Center. He briefly outlined Council's options. Councilmember Rutstein made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Clarke, to adopt Ordinance No. 117, 1984 on First Reading. Earl Wilkinson, DDA Chairperson, spoke in favor of the ordinance, noting the importance of the median to the turning movement into the parking garage and to provide maximum protection for the pedestrian crossing from the garage to the Old Town project. He noted the median, the garage, and the Old Town project were an integral design and the entire project was not designed to accept a trolley through it. He noted the trolley would eliminate 40 parking spaces, estimated to cost $5,000 a space and stated this was a concern to the DDA. Gail McMahon, 1319 West Mountain, trolley task force member, noted the progress of the task force and suggested this project (trolley) should be finished before another project (Mountain Avenue medians) is begun. She expressed disappointment that any median construction on East Mountain was not mentioned to the task force and suggested this action be delayed until the task force comes up with suitable alternate routes. She stated she had ' been notified yesterday (August 20) of Council's consideration of the item. -130- August 21, 1984 ' Deputy City Manager Rich Shannon stated the City Engineer was advising staff that these improvements do not preclude Mountain Avenue as a trolley option but if the trolley were to be located on Mountain, it probably would not be placed in the median. It would be safer on the side. Councilmember Clarke stated that on July 17 Council defeated this item so as not to jeopardize the trolley negotiations. He expressed dismay that the task force had not been notified in the interim 30 days. Jim Reidhead, E.E. Mitchell & Co., Old Town Project Assistant Manager, urged Council to authorize the construction of medians so they might be completed at the same time the Old Town project and the parking garage are completed. Norman Munn, P.O. Box 1040, Fort Collins, suggested the medians be elimi- nated from Walnut to College on Mountain Avenue. Councilmember Elliott noted he supported the DDA in their efforts to construct a parking garage but noted the trolley situation had existed since he began on Council. He felt nothing should be done to impair the trolley route negotiations. He indicated he might support a temporary median solution. ' Councilmember Stoner noted staff had indicated if an East Mountain route was selected the route would not be down the median but would be to the side of Mountain Avenue. Councilmember Clarke expresses frustration that the task force had not been notified since July 17 and suggested the project be delayed another 30 days. Councilmember Clarke made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Horak, to table Ordinance No. 117, 1984 on First Reading until September 18. Yeas: Councilmembers Clarke, Elliott, Horak, and Ohlson. Nays: Council - members Knezovich, Rutstein, and Stoner. THE MOTION CARRIED. Ordinance Relating to the Submission of a Referred Measure to the Voters, Adopted on First Reading Following is the staff's memorandum on this item: "City Council adopted Ordinance 23, 1984 in April to amend Chapter 91 of ' the Code regarding smoking in public places. The City Clerk received a -131- August 21, 1984 referendum petition on April 30 and certified that it contained a suffi- cient number of qualified signatures for the ordinance to be either re- pealed by the City Council or placed on an election ballot. On May 15, Council directed the staff to begin measures to place the issue before the voters at a special municipal election to be held in conjunction with the County's General Election on November 6. The City Clerk's office obtained permission from the County Clerk and Recorder to place the issue on that ballot. The attached ordinance calls a Special Municipal Election to be held on November 6, 1984 in conjunction with the County's General Election, and sets out the ballot language for the smoking ordinance referendum." Councilmember Rutstein made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Ohlson, to adopt Ordinance No. 118, 1984 on First Reading substituting the follow- ing amended ballot language on Page 5, Section 7. REFERRED ORDINANCE ORDINANCE 23, 1984, OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS ADOPTED APRIL 3, 1984, AMENDING CHAPTER 91 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, WHICH REQUIRES THE ESTABLISHMENT AND DESIGNATION OF NON-SMOKING AREAS IN MOST ENCLOSED INDOOR PLACES OPEN TO AND FREQUENTED BY THE PUBLIC OR SERVING AS A PLACE OF WORK. Councilmember Rutstein suggested this language was more in keeping with the way Council views this ordinance. She felt this was a positive way of telling the public what they're voting on. Ron Meyer, 2912 Einborough Drive, objected to the ballot language substi- tution at the last minute. He noted he had worked with staff on the original recommended language and that he felt it better represented the legislative intent of the ordinance, although it was not as strong as he would have liked. Barbara Allison, 1212 Lynnwood Drive, opposed the substituted ballot language and recommended Council adopt the original language drafted. Peter Trozan, 706 Countryside Drive, representing GASP, supported the ordinance and the substitute ballot language. He noted the language should give a fair summary of what the ordinance is all about and should be chosen ' carefully so there is the least amount of possibility of misconstruing the meaning. -132- August 21, 1984 ' Terry Foppe, 622 Whedbee, agreed the ordinance was strong and fair. She suggested the strong wording of the ordinance should be used in the ballot language and recommended the original language be used. Mayor Horak suggested the areas where smoking is permitted be listed in the ballot language. The vote on Councilmember Rutstein's motion to adopt Ordinance No. 118, 1984 on First Reading with the substitute ballot language was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Elliott, Knezovich, Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays: Mayor Horak. THE MOTION CARRIED. Ordinance Amending Chapter 9 of the City Code Relating to Districts for Election of Council Members. Adopted on First Readin Following is the staff's memorandum on this item: "The City Charter requires that Council set new District boundaries by ordinance at least 6 months before each District election. The next ' General City Election will be held on March 5, 1985, and new boundaries must therefore be set no later than September 6. To meet this deadline, the Ordinance setting 1985 Districts is scheduled for first reading at this meeting and for second reading on September 4. Council discussed the proposed District map at the August 14 Work Session. Staff has prepared three alternatives of the new map which are enclosed for Council review. To summarize the legal requirements for establishing District boundaries: • Each District must contain approximately the same number of regis- tered voters. • Each District should represent a "continuous reasonably compact unit". • District boundaries may not divide any precinct." Councilmember Clarke made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Knezovich, to adopt Ordinance No. 119, 1984 on First Reading selecting Alternate Map "A" as the district boundaries. Yeas: Councilmembers Clarke, Elliott, Knezovich, and Stoner. Nays: Councilmembers Horak, Ohlson, and Rutstein. THE MOTION CARRIED. -133- August 21, 1984 Adjournment Councilmember Knezovich made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Ohlson, to adjourn the meeting to 6:00 p.m. on August 28. Yeas: Councilmembers Clarke, Elliott, Horak, Knezovich, Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays: None. The meeting adjourned at 2:05 a.m. Mayor -134-