Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES-03/16/1982-RegularMarch 16, 1982 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, March 16, 1982, at 5:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers in the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll call was answered by the following Councilmembers: Clarke, Elliott, Horak, Knezovich, Reeves and Wilmarth. Absent: Councilmember Cassell. Staff Members Present: Arnold, Krajicek, Huisjen, Lewis, Krempel, Hays. Agenda _Review: City Manager City Manager Arnold asked that Item # 12, Hearing and First Reading of ' Ordinance No. 35, 1982, Amending Certain Sections of Cha ter 118 of the Code o the City o Fort Collins, being a part o the Z6n ng Ordinance_, be withdrawn from the Consent Calendar to make an amendment. He noted that Item # 18, Resolution Authorizing an Agreement with Triad Development Corp�oration, Inc. Regarding the Fort Co ins - Love and Airpark, had been witFi rawn rom the Agenda at t e request oT TrI �pment Corporation. Councilmember Horak requested Item # 10, Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 33, 1982 Appropriating Bond Proceeds in the Capita Projects Fund, be removed from the Consent Agenda. Councilmember Clarke asked that Item # 11, Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 34, 1982, Amending a Certain Section of Cha ter 99 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins, be withdrawn from the Consent. Consent Calendar This Calendar is intended to allow the City Council to spend its time and energy on the important items on a lengthy agenda. Staff recommends approval of the Consent Calendar. Anyone may request an item on this calendar be "pulled" off the Consent Calendar and considered separately. ' 4. Consider approval of the minutes of the regular meetingof February 16, 1982. -114- 5. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 21, 1982 Sections Relative to Boards and Commissions I 7. March 16, 1982 Amending Certain Code eal Procedures. Ordinance No. 21, 1982 was unanimously adopted on First Reading on February 16 and repeals all of the provisions in the Code dealing with appeals to City Council from the Boards and Commissions to which the recently adopted appeal procedure ordinance would apply. The purpose of the ordinance repealing those sections is to avoid inconsistent provisions within the Code once the appeal procedure ordinance is adopted. and Reading of Ordinance No. 23, 1982, Rezoning Property Known as setooth Tim er ine IndustriaT Park. This Ordinance was unanimously adopted on First Reading on February 16 and is a staff -initiated rezoning request to: 1. Eliminate the conditions placed on the R-H zoning designation of the most easterly 20.7 acres as detailed in the agreement between the owner and the City of Fort Collins dated September 4, 1979, which restricts the use of the property to non-residential uses and requires development of the property under a unified master plan. 2. Require as a condition of the R-H zoning designation that the development of the entire 32.2388-acre parcel be according to the criteria and requirements of Section 118-83, Land Development Guidance System for Planned Unit Developments, of the City Code. The property is located on the southwest corner of Horsetooth and Timberline Roads. The 3.24-acre site is presently vacant. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 25, 1982, Relating to Juvenile Offen- ders. The Ordinance was unanimously adopted on First Reading on February 16 and amends the Code to permit juvenile offenders to be summoned into Municipal Court for violations of City ordinances such as disturbing the peace, interference, loitering in schools, and littering. The Police Department has requested this amendment to give them another alternative in dealing with juvenile offenders, particularly repeat offenders. 1 -115- March 16, 1982 8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 26, 1982, Appropriating Monies in the General and Capital Projects Funds. This Ordinance, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on February 16, would appropriate $50,066 to implement the needed repairs at the pool. At the February 9, 1982, work session, City Council directed staff to correct the immediate health and safety problems at the Indoor Pool. The total project cost of $50,066 includes completion of electrical, mechanical/plumbing, and architectural work. 9. hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 32, 1982 Appropriatin Unanticipated Revenue in the Larimer County CDBG Fun . The construction bid received to perform rehabilitation work on Floyd E. Loader's house came in at $26,983.79. Because the maximum allow- able grant from the County for housing rehabilitation projects is $25,000, Mr. Loader agreed to pay for the balance of the construction work totalling $1,984. In order to consolidate project resources and construction contracts, Mr. Loader has paid this money directly to the City and the City will issue one contract for the construction work to be performed. This ordinance appropriates the $1,984 in the Larimer County Community Development Block Grant Fund for housing rehabilitation on the Load- er's house. 10, Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 33 1982 Appropriating Bond Proceeds in the Capital Projects Fund. Ordinance No. 100, 1981, authorized the issuance of $3,000,000 and Ordinance No. 13, 1982, authorized the issuance of $2,065,000 in General Obligation Bonds to finance community park projects construc- tion. To date, we have appropriated $1,295,000 of the total $5,065,000 and now need to appropriate $3,092,000 in Rolland Moore Park for the development/construction of the parking area, maintenance building, tennis complex, playground, utilities, site grading, ballfields, final grading, and irrigation. We also need to appropriate $5,000 to cover additional bond issuance costs. The original estimated cost to issue the bonds was $60,000; to date we have appropriated $35,000 of that amount and we need $40,000 ' in appropriation. -116- March 16, 1982 11. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 34, 1982, Amending a Certain Section of Chapter 99 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins. The present Subdivision Ordinance requires streets of subdivisions to conform to the "Plan for Progress of the City of Fort Collins." The "Plan for Progress" was officially adopted in 1967 as the Comprehen- sive Plan for the City. Since that time the City has adopted updated elements of the Comprehensive Plan making any references to the "Plan for Progress" obsolete. This Ordinance makes the recommended "house- cleaning" change to the Subdivision Ordinance. 12. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 35, 1982, Amending Certain Sections of Chapter 118 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins, being a part of the Zoninq Ordinance. This is a staff initiated request to amend certain portions of the Zoning Codes. While most of these changes are basically housecleaning _ items, several are amendments which would update the ordinance rela- tive to current City policies and plans. 13. Resolution Author Particular IndividL izing the Purchase of Ball Field Li al Usage or Professional Advice. s Based on Currently pending is a purchase of energy efficient ball field lights for City Park and Edora Park. After extensive investigation of ball field lighting systems the Parks and Recreation Dept. has determined that the Musco Sportscluster is the best system available. This Resolution would authorize the purchase at a cost of $63,440. 14. Resolution Relative to the Voting Structure of the M.P.O.'s Urban Areas Po icy Committee for Long -Range Planning. This Resolution would approve the proposed change to the voting structure of the Urban Area Policies Committee of the M.P.O. to reflect the respective populations of Fort Collins, Loveland, and the unincorporated areas of Larimer County and would authorize 5 votes to the City of Fort Collins; 3 votes to the City of Loveland; and 2 votes to Larimer County. J Additionally it would authorize the City's appointed representative to the Committee to cast all 5 votes on behalf of the City of Fort ' Collins. -117- March 16, 1982 Ordinances on Second Reading were read by title by Wanda Krajicek, City Clerk. Item # 5. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 21, 1982, Amending Certain Code Sections Re ative to Boards and Commissions Appeal Procedures. Item # 6. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 23, 1982, Rezoning Property Known as Horse tooth T i mberl ine Industria Park. Item # 7. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 25, 1982, Relating to Juvenile Offenders. Item # 8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 26, 1982 Appropriating Monies in the General and Capital Projects Funds. Ordinances on First Reading were read by title by Wanda Krajicek, City Clerk. Item # 9. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 32, 1982 A pro ria- ting Unanticipated Revenue in the Larimer County CDBG Fund. Item # 10. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 33 1982 Appropria- ting Bond Proceeds in the Capital Projects Fund. Item # 11. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 34, 1982, Amending a Certain Section of Chapter 99 of the Code of the City o Fort Collins. Item # 12. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 35, 1982, Amending Certain Sections of Cha ter 118 of the Code of the City of Fort o Collins,inseia part o t e Zo m ng Ordinance. Councilmember Knezovich made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Elliott, to adopt and approve all items not removed from the Consent Calendar. Yeas: Councilmembers Clarke, Elliott, Horak, Knezovich, Peeves and Wil- marth. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Ordinance Appropriating Bond Proceeds in the Capital Projects Fund, Adopted on First Reading ' Following is the City Manager's memorandum on this item: -118- 1 March 16, 1982 "Ordinance No. 100, 1981, authorized the issuance of $3,000,000 and Ordi- nance No. 13, 1982, authorized the issuance of $2,065,000 in General Obligation Bonds to finance community park projects construction. To date, we have appropriated $1,295,000 of the total $5,065,000 as fol- lows: TOTAL BOND ISSUE $5,065,000 Appropriations to date: Community Park Acquisition $660,000 Edora Park 335,000 Lee Martinez Park 130,000 Rolland Moore Park 103,000 City Park Renovation 32,000 Cost to Issue Bonds 35,000 Total Appropriations to Date (1,295,000) Available Balance $3, 0-0,0U0 At this time, we need to appropriate $3,092,000 in Rolland Moore Park for the development/construction of the parking area, maintenance building, tennis complex, playground, utilities, site grading, ballfields, final grading, and irrigation. We also need to appropriate $5,000 to cover additional bond issuance costs. The original estimated cost to issue the bonds was $60,000; to date we have appropriated $35,000 of that amount. The bidding schedule for the construction of the project calls for an invitation to be bid to be published the first week of March with a bid opening in mid -April. Funds need to be available at the time of bidding to ensure early construction start and timely project completion. If funds are not appropriated at this time, the bidding process will be delayed causing possible delay of construction completion by late summer of 1983. An additional $46,450 was appropriated for the Fossil Creek Park (Hunting- ton Hills site) acquisition but is not included in the appropriations listed as it is to be financed with interest earnings (rather than bond proceeds). " Councilmember Horak noted his concerns dealt with street unfunded lia- bility. He asked if the $165,000 to upgrade the roads had been included in the bond issue as we require other developers in the City to do to make sure the roads are upgraded and improved at the same time the development occurs. -119- "larch 16, 1982 City Manager Arnold replied that amount was not included in the original $5,065,000 submitted to the voters. Since then the amount of money for off -site costs has been included in the project and will be included in the budget for Rolland Moore Park as part of the Capital Projects Control System. Councilmember Horak asked if the Capital Projects Control System was in effect at the time the voters approved the bond issue. City Manager Arnold replied that the System was in effect but the street costs were not included. Councilmember Clarke made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Reeves, to adopt Ordinance No. 33, 1982 on First Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers Clarke, Elliott, Horak, Knezovich, Reeves and Wilmarth. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. ' Ordinance Amending a Certain Section of Chapter 99 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins, Adopted on First Reading Following is the City Manager's memorandum on this item: "The present Subdivision Ordinance requires streets of subdivisions to conform to the "Plan for Progress of the City of Fort Collins." The "Plan for Progress" was officially adopted in 1967 as the Comprehensive Plan for the City. Since that time the City has adopted updated elements of the Comprehensive Plan making any references to the "Plan for Progress" ob- solete. Staff recommends the attached "housecleaning" change to the Subdivision Ordinance." Councilmember Clarke asked who on the Planning and Zoning Board opposed this amendment and on what grounds. Acting Planning Director Ken Waido replied that Boardmember Tim Dow had cast the negative vote because the motion to approve had included all the changes to the subdivision and zoning ordinances and Mr. Dow had problems with another of the changes not this one dealing with the Master Street Plan. Councilmember Clarke made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Elliott, to adopt Ordinance No. 34, 1982 on First Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers Clarke, Elliott, Horak, Knezovich, Reeves and Wilmarth. Nays: None. ' THE MOTION CARRIED. -120- March 16, 1982 Ordinance Amending Certain Sections of Chapter 118 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins, being a part of the Zoning Ordinance, Adopted as Amended on First Reading Following is the City Manager's memorandum on this item: "This is a staff initiated request to amend certain portions of the Zoning Codes as detailed in the following sections. While most of these changes are basically housecleaning items, several are amendments which would update the ordinance relative to current City policies and plans. Section 1 The current definition of floor area includes all basement finished areas as part of the total floor area of the building. Most zoning districts have a lot area to floor area ratio, intended to limit the amount of building coverage on the lot. The R-L zone, for instance, requres that the lot area be at least three times the floor area of the building. Since finished basements are currently included, some houses have not been able to comply with the ordinance for lots on which the owner desires to build ' the house. This means that a larger, more expensive lot must be purchased, or a variance obtained. Staff feels that since basements are not a visible part of the building and do not affect ground coverage, they should not be included in the definition of floor area. Section 2 The BG (general business) zone does not specifically list single-family dwellings as a permitted use. It does, however, allow for multiple -family, dwellings. Because the introductory clause to this section does not limit permitted uses to those listed, Staff has interpreted this section to allow single-family dwellings. This proposed change would list single-family dwellings as a permitted use, no longer leaving it open for interpretation. Sections 3 & 4 The C (commercial) zone presently does not allow residential uses. The Old Town area is currently in the C district, and as such, should not be allowed to have any new dwelling units added to it. This is not in keeping with the City's policy of encouraging people to live in Old Town, and therefore, the ordinance should be changed to agree with our policies. Sometime in the future, we will be creating a new zoning district speci- fically for the Old Town area, enumerating the uses for that district. In , the meantime, this ordinance change should be considered as a short-term fix. -121- March 16, 1982 Section 5 In June of 1981, City Council approved the Noise Control Ordinance. By doing so, the noise restriction standards found in the IL (limited industrial) zoning district became obsolete. This proposed ordinance change would simply delete the noise restriction standards for the IL zone, something which was overlooked at the time of the adoption of the Noise Control Ordinance. Section 6 The present Zoning Ordinance is unclear, because of varying interpreta- tions, on whether offstreet parking lots must be paved. This amendment would require parking lots to be hard surfaced with either asphalt or concrete. Other surfacing material which would achieve the performance of asphalt or concrete could be used with the approval of the City Engineer. Section 7 ' The off-street parking code requires that certain parking lots contain interior landscaped islands and perimeter landscape treatments which block a certain amount of the cross-section view of the parking area from the street. These requirements are necessary for any new buildings which have parking lots as well as any time the use of a property changes. It is not unusual then for parking lots to be required to contain extensive land- scaping. In the RH and BL zoning districts and PUD's, the code allows that a Certificate of Occupancy can be granted for a property requiring land- scaping if either the landscaping is installed or a bond or equivalent is deposited with the City. However, the remaining districts allow no such choice; the landscaping must be installed before a C.O. can be issued. Since many buildings and parking lots are completed in the cold weather months where installing landscaping is impractical, the developer can only get a temporary C.O., usually allowing him 30 days to install the land- scaping. Also, in order not to injure the landscaping during construction of the building, it is usually completed after the building is finished. This proposed change would allow developers to have the choice of posting a bond or installing landscaping prior to the issuance of a C.O. in all zoning districts, as well as in PUD's. Section 8 Currently, this code section of the Land Development Guidance System re- quires that, before a building permit can be issued, the landscaping ' required must be installed or a bond, letter of credit, or equivalent must be deposited with the City which guarantees the installation of the land- -122- March 16, 1982 , scaping. Rarely, if ever, has a developer or builder installed the land- scaping prior to the construction of the building. If he were to do so, most of the landscaping would probably be ruined in the construction process and would need to be replaced. Requiring the bond at this early stage of development means that the developers must pay an additional 2% interest on their construction loans for the entire time the project is under development. This can be a substantial sum of money. This code change would allow the developer to save some money by not requiring the bond to be deposited until the project or building is completed and ready for a C.O.. This will be beneficial to the developer, but will still ensure that the required landscaping will be installed. Section 9 This request to amend a portion of the Zoninq Code as detailed in the following section has arisen as a result of discussions between the Zoning Board of Appeals, the Campus West Merchants Association, and the Downtown Merchants Association. These discussions related to the current Sign Code provision regulating the use of banners and pennants. Currently, banners and pennants are allowed to be displayed for special events only, so long as they are not up for more than ten days. The present Code provision does I not define 'special event', nor does it state how many special events a business can have each year. City Staff has found only one practical way to interpret the current Code so as not to place a City official in a position of being unfair or inconsistent - that interpretation being that a 'special event' refers only to a grand opening or a going -out -of -business sale. This means that a business can display banners or pennants only twice in its lifetime. The merchants' associations involved feel that Staff's interpretation does not allow them adequate use of an advertising device which they feel is very beneficial and one which they would like to be able to employ several times per year. They have asked the Zoning Board of Appeals for their interpretation of this Code. ZBA has recommended that Staff draft an ordinance amendment which would incorporate the ZBA's suggestion that banners or pennants be allowed for a time of twenty (20) days per year, and that businesses have the freedom to decide when and how they want to use the twenty (20) days. They also recommended that a strict enforcement clause be included." City Manager Arnold noted there was some concern in the development com- munity about Section 6 of this ordinance dealing with off-street parking lots. He recommended Section 6 be deleted for further study and the subsequent sections of the ordinance be renumbered accordingly. Councilmember Reeves made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Elliott, to amend Ordinance No. 35, 1982, as described by City Manager Arnold. I Yeas: Councilmembers Clarke, Elliott, Horak, Knezovich, Reeves and Wil- marth. flays: None. -123- THE MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Reeves made a motion, seconded to adopt Ordinance No. 35, 1982 as amended on cilmembers Clarke, Elliott, Horak, Knezovich, None. THE MOTION CARRIED. March 16, 1982 by Councilmember Elliott, First Reading. Yeas: Coun- Reeves and Wilmarth. Nays: Ordinance Creating Street Improvement District #76 on Horsetooth Road from College Avenue West to the New Mercer Canal, Adopted on First Reading Following is the City Manager's memorandum on this item: "On February 2nd, Council accepted the Director of Public Works report of the project costs and the recommended distribution of those costs. At the same time Council set March 16 as the date for the public hearing for comments regarding the assessment of costs; all owners of record were sent letters informing them of the hearing and the hearing was advertised in the local newspaper. The properties are being assessed for that portion of the improvements equal to a local street and the City is paying for the remaining street construction costs. The assessment rate of $55.89 per front foot also includes costs for engineering and handling. The total property owner share of the construction cost is $57,432. The City's portion of the costs are $1,042,126. The total estimated project cost is $1,099,558. PROPERTY OWNER CONCERNS Following is a list of concerns expressed by the.owners during previous discussions and staff responses. Comment #1 The assessment rate is very high. Response #1 The assessment rate is estimated, based on current construction costs on recent projects. We try to be as accurate as possible. If construction costs are less than estimated the savings are passed on to the owners. The assessment rate is based on the costs of constructing a local street. The City Code states that Council can adjust assessment rates. -124- March 16, 1982 Comment #2 Why does there have to be a raised median restricting left turn access? Response #2 In high traffic volume commercial areas such as this, the medians are needed to prevent unlimited left turn movements that create safety hazards by blocking traffic behind the turning vehicle. Under the existing condi- tions traffic does back up into the intersection of Horsetooth and College waiting for cars entering Albertson's. It is a City policy to require raised medians in this type of commercial areas elsewhere in the City. Failure to do so at this location would be inconsistent with existing policies. Comment #3 There is a general concern about access to the property owner's property both during and after construction. Response # 3 The project manager will coordinate between the owners and the contractor to establish an acceptable access plan during the construction phase. Actual driveway locations and sizes are negotiated before construction begins. Careful consideration is given to the owner's needs and traffic safety." Mayor Wilmarth asked the record show he did not participate in the discus- sion or vote on this item because he is one of the property owners in the proposed district. Councilmember Elliott chaired this portion of the meeting. City Manager Arnold noted 5 letters of protest had been received on this proposed district. He pointed out the $57,000 special assessment covers only the cost of a local street not the widening to arterial standard. City Engineer Tom Hays summarized the extent of the project, its design, and noted the problems associated with the district. George Haas, attorney representing G & D Investments, owner of the property that is occupied by Laforte Yamaha, asked if there was a median planned for the east side of College on Horsetooth. City Engineer Hays replied there was one planned for the east side but not at the present time. When future improvements are made on the east side of College, the median would be installed. -125- March 16, 1982 Mr. Haas stated that the owners do not see any special benefit to the property as a result of these improvements. He added the main objection his clients have to the improvements is the existance of the median pro- hibiting eastbound traffic from entering Laforte Yamaha. He asked that the issue be referred back to the City Engineer for left turn access to the north side of Horsetooth. Richard Lee, president and general manager of Laforte Yamaha, spoke to the adverse effects the improvements would have on his business. He noted he felt it would affect the business profitability and would severely limit the parking area and merchandising space. Public Works Director Roger Krempel pointed out that the traffic movements resulting from this design .could be safe. Robert Lee, 2917 Meadowlark Avenue, vice president and operations manager for Laforte Yamaha, commented on the historical need to widen Horsetooth Road and again noted his corporation's opposition to the project. ' City Engineer Hays noted staff feels there is no practical way to create another left turn bay to serve Laforte Yamaha due to the space required to provide any type of a left turn stacking bay. He added staff would work with the property owner in terms of the width of the street. Councilmember Knezovich made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Reeves, to`adopt Ordinance No. 36, 1982 on First Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers Clarke, Elliott, Horak, Knezovich and Reeves. Nays: None (Wilmarth withdrawn). THE MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Knezovich asked thattheEngineering staff investigate some of the bikeway and sidewalk problems and work with the property owners on determination of fair market values prior to this item coming back on Second Reading. Councilmember Horak expressed surprise that the total assessments were only 5% of the $1 million project. He asked staff to investigate and make sure the proper amount is being assessed. Ordinance Rezoning Property Known as Park Central, Adopted on Second Reading Following is the City Manager's memorandum on this item: -126- March 16, 1982 "This Ordinance was adopted on First Reading on February 16 by a 5-0 vote (Knezovich withdrawn) and is a staff-initated rezoning request to rezone the 15.8-acre parcel of land, located on the southeast corner of Prospect Road and Lenay Avenue. The requested change is twofold: 1. To eliminate the conditions placed on the R-H, High Density Residential zone (6.72 acres), and on the B-P, Planned P.usiness zone (5.12 acres) pursuant to Ordinance No. 55, 1980 which: a. Required Master Plan approval; b. Restricted the use of the R-H zone to general office uses; and c. Limited the size of the neighborhood service center on the property to 80,000-120,000 sf. 2. To require as a condition of the R-H, B-P and R-P, Planned Residential zone, that the development of the entire 15.8-acre site be in accordance with the criteria and requirements of Section 118-83, Land Development Guidance System for Planned Unit ' Developments." Councilmember Knezovich asked the record show he did not participate or vote on this item. Councilmember Reeves made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Clarke, to adopt Ordinance No. 24, 1982 on Second Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers Clarke, Elliott, Horak, Reeves and Wilmarth. Nays: None (Knezovich withdrawn). THE MOTION CARRIED. Ordinance Establishing a Public Hearing Process for Multi -Family Residential Conversions in the R-M and R-H Zoning Districts, Adopted on Second Reading Following is the City Manager's memorandum on this item: "This Ordinance was unanimously adopted on First Reading on February 16 and changes the requirements for multi -family residential requests in the R-H and R-M zones. The Ordinance specifically applies to multi -family uses, defined as three units and above, whether created from existing structures or on a vacant lot. The procedure and criteria for review of these re- quests by City staff and the Planning and Zoning Board will be the same as I that now in place for the R-H conversion process. -127- March 16, 1982 At that time, Council had some concerns reaardinq the administrative guide- lines of criteria, requirements and procedures to process multi -family dwelling requests in the R-M and R-H zoning districts. The staff has reviewed the Council's concerns and has revised the administrative guide- lines. A copy of the proposed administrative guidelines for R-M and R-H conversions is attached." City Manager Arnold noted staff had tried to respond in the administrative guidelines based on Council's comments at the time of First Reading. Councilmember Reeves made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Elliott, to adopt Ordinance No. 27, 1982 on Second Reading. Tim Miller, local real estate agent and partner for a local development company, expressed concerns regarding the impact of the ordinance. He requested Council consider tabling the issue for 90 days to allow the property owners in R-M and R-H zones to voice their concerns. He sug- gested an independent committee of local developers, architects and City staff provide their input to Council regarding the cost impact of the ordinance within the 90 days. Councilmember Clarke pointed out the ordinance had been considered on First Reading on February 16th and that Planning and Zoning had been reviewing the issue since last July. He questioned the need for additional time for further citizen, input. Dick Beardmore, A-E Design Associates, discussed the criteria and sug- gested that two procedures might be followed depending on whether the project was routine or controversial. He recommended the vote be tabled to allow members of the design and development community to work with the criteria. Councilmember Knezovich made a motion, seconded by Mayor Wilmarth, to table Ordinance No. 27, 1982 on Second Reading until April 20. Yeas: Councilmembers Knezovich and Wilmarth. Nays: Councilmembers Clarke, El- liott, Horak and Reeves. THE MOTION FAILED. The vote on Councilmember Reeves' original motion to adopt Ordinance No. 27, 1982, on Second Reading was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Clarke, Elliott, Horak, Reeves and Wilmarth. Nays: Councilmember Knezovich. I THE MOTION CARRIED. -128- March 16, 1982 Councilmember Horak suggested staff work with the people who are concerned with the criteria and perhaps to come back with revised guidelines that might address the architectural and development communities' concerns. Ordinance, Non -Owner Occupied Housing, Health and Safety Code, Adopted on Second Reading Following is the City Manager's memorandum on this item: "This Ordinance was adopted on First Reading on February 16 by a 4-2 vote. This latest code proposal is based, on the draft presented by Council- man John Clarke at the January 26, 1982 work session. Staff subse- quently net with Councilman Clarke in order to evaluate his proposal with the staff version. The proposed ordinance reflects the product of that meeting. Focusing entirely on safety and health issues, the document does not specify minimum room dimensions, window dimensions for light and ventilation, court and yard sizes, and stairway dimen- sions within individual dwelling units. Also, weather protection require- ments have been redefined in general performance terms. Administrative and enforcement provisions remain essentially unchanged, with only minor editorial revisions for clarification used elsewhere." Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Clarke, to adopt Ordinance No. 28, 1982 on Second Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers Clarke, Horak, Knezovich and Reeves. Hays: Mayor Wilmarth (Councilmember Elliott out of room). THE MOTION CARRIED. City Manager's Report City Manager Arnold noted the City had received a letter from the Governor and the Tree City U. S. A. people inviting the City to send a represen- tative to the Governor's Office on April 7 to receive his congratulations on being honored for the 3rd year. Councilmember Horak will represent the City of Fort Collins. City Manager Arnold recognized the efforts of the Poudre Fire Authority with regard to the recent 3-alarm fires. He noted Assistant Chief Neil Carpenter and the men of "C" shift who were first at the scene of the Big Sur Waterbed fire deserved special credit. C 1 -129- I March 16, 1982 Councilmembers' Reports Councilmember Horak reported the Metropolitan Planning Organization would have the signing of the documents at the Governor's Office on April 13. He added that SB144 relating to the Parkway had passed out of the trans- portation and appropriation committee by a 4-2 vote. Councilmember Knezovich brought up a letter written to the City Attorney concerning D.U.I. enforcement problems. He added he felt the policies needed more than just a response to the letter and suggested the Human Relations Commission investigate the issue to detemine if there is a problem in this area. He noted he was seriously concerned that elements of the community feel the Police Department is abusing members of the public with regard to the D.U.I. issue. He suggested a public hearing might clear up any misunderstandings. Councilmember Knezovich made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Horak, 'to turn the letter over to the Human Relations Commission to investigate and bring their findings back to the City Council. Councilmember Reeves suggested the issue be scheduled for a work session before going to the Human Relations Commission. The vote on Councilmember Knezovich's motion to refer the matter to the Human Relations Commission was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Knezovich, Wilmarth and Horak. Nays: Councilmembers Reeves, Clarke and Elliott. THE MOTION FAILED. Councilmember Knezovich stated that he had been under the impression that telecasting of Council meetings was to be free from charge by Columbine. He questioned whether this was a valid use of City funds and noted his op- position to the continued telecasts. Councilmember Clarke reported on meetings relating to the ice rink con- struction proposals. He noted the problems associated with the issuance of IDRB's for recreation purposes. He asked staff to get more information on the IDRB question as well as ice rink operation and management costs. Executive Session Authorized Councilmember Horak stated he felt there were too many matters to be discussed to adjourn in general to discuss legal matters. He noted he -130- 1 March 16, 1982 would rather not discuss at least one of the items in private so that the general points could be discussed in open session. Councilmember Elliott made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Reeves, to adjourn into Executive Session for the purpose of discussing legal matters. Yeas: Councilmembers Clarke, Elliott, Knezovich, Reeves and Wilmarth. Nays: Councilmember Horak. THE MOTION CARRIED. Other Business Councilmember Horak suggested staff come back with recommendations for cuts in departments where services are not being provided because of lesser activity due to economic conditions. City Manager Arnold replied that issue could be scheduled for the April 13 work session. Councilmember Knezovich pointed out Council would be discussing the 1982 Budget Contingency Plan as well as policies for the 1983 Budget at the 'larch 27 Budget Session. Adjournment Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Knezovich, to adjourn. Yeas: Councilmembers Clarke, Elliott, Horak, Knezovich, Reeves and Wilmarth. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. The meeting adjourned at 10:35 p.m. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk -131-