Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES-12/21/1982-RegularDecember 21, 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, December 21, 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 Council members: Cassell, Clarke, Elliott, Horak, Knezovich, and Reeves. Absent: Councilmember Wilmarth. Staff Members Present: Meitl, M. Davis, Huisjen, Rupel, Hays, Wood, Dallow, Krempel, Waido, M. Smith. Agenda Review: City Manager Deputy City Manager Meitl stated that new Resolutions have been substituted for the Resolutions in the agenda on Item #15, Resolutions Making Findings Concerning Appeals of the Planning and Zoning Board on the Ho iday Inn P.U.D. Master Plan and Phase One Preliminary Plan. The new Resolutions reflect Counce s vote on the appeals at t e ecember 7th meeting. Since this was a minor change in the Resolutions, he requested that the item be left on the Consent Calendar, and the changes would be handled administra- tively. Councilmember Clarke requested that Item #11, Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 163, 1982, Transferring $375,000 from Water Capital Contin- gency to the Foothills System Improvements Project, be withdrawn from the nsent Laienoar. Councilmember Elliott requested that Item #14, Resolution Approving in Concept a Stormwater Management Strategy Known as Ditch Consolidation, be withdrawn from the Consent Calendar.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 -595- December 21, 1982 under Agenda Item #27, 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 4, and regular meeting of December 7, 11 ourned meeting of December 5. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 155, 1982, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the General Fund. This ordinance was unanimously adopted on First Reading on December 7 and implements the 1982 transfer of $577,076 in General Fund Capital Reserves to the Capital Projects Fund. The amount available in the General Fund capital reserves was calculated based upon: 0 Carryover from 1981 0 Allocation of 1/40 sales tax in 1982 0 Appropriations made in 1982 The $577,076 is a portion of the 1982 carryover capital reserves that ' was anticipated to be used to finance the 1983 capital program and approved in the 1983-87 Capital Improvement Program. The approval of this ordinance moves the 1982 capital reserve from the General Fund to the Capital Projects Fund in accordance with the adopted 1983 Budget. How the capital reserves will be used in 1983 given the referral of the 3/40 sales tax will be discussed in conjunction with the total capital program at a future worksession. This ordinance only provides for the accounting change of where 1982 capital reserves will be located beginning in 1983. 6. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 156, 1982, Transferring an additional $7,550 from Minor Streets Capital to the Lemay and Horsetooth Median Staff incorporated the medians on Lemay from Riverside to North of Mulberry and the medians on Horsetooth from Stanford to J.F.K. Parkway into one project. The Conceptual Design estimate for this project was $35,000. On October 5, Council passed and adopted Ordinance No. 108, 1982 transferring $35,000 from Minor Streets Capital to the Lemay and Horsetooth Median Project. During Preliminary and Final Design there were several changes in the scope of work, which increased the cost of the improvements. These changes were to increase the amount of landscaping and improve the aesthetics of the medians. ' -596- I December 21, 1982 This Ordinance was unanimously adopted on First Reading on December 7 and authorizes the transfer of $7,550 from Streets Minor Capital to the Lemay and Horsetooth Median Project to cover those increased costs. 7. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 158, 1982, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the Tel ep one Fun . Expenses in the Telephone Fund will exceed current appropriations by $25,000 for 1982. The increased expense is due to system line expan- sion and higher than projected long distance telephone usage. In 1983, the Finance Department will be investigating the feasibility of a telephone usage and management system as a means of reducing costs. This ordinance was unanimously adopted on First Reading on December 7 and appropriates $25,000 from prior year reserves to pay the addi- tional expense. 8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 159, 1982, Appropriating Reserves in the Water Fund. Resolution #82-156 authorized the purchase of water storage rights ' from Baller Livestock Company for a total cost of $829,400. The Water Fund has $119,400 currently appropriated for the purchase of water rights. The remaining $710,000 is available in water rights reserves to be appropriated for this purpose. This ordinance was unanimously adopted on First Reading on December 7 and appropriates $710,000 in Water Fund reserves for purchase of water storage rights. 9. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 161, 1982, Annexing Pro- perty Known As Mobile Premix Prospect Road Annexation. This is a request to annex 154-acres, located north of the Prospect - Timberline intersection, zoned FA-1, Farming, and I -Industrial. 10. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 162,1982, Zoning Property Known As The Mobile Premix Prospect Roa Annexation. This is a request to zone 154-acres I-G, General Industrial, located north of the Prospect -Timberline intersection. 11, Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 163, 1982, Transferring $375, 000 From Water Capital Contingency to the Foothi s System Improvements Project. ' The Foothills Water System improvements are required to provide -597- December 21, 1982 quality service to the higher elevation west side of the City. The benefits are both improved quality of service and obtaining more reliable fire protection. The second phase of this project is to be constructed in 1983 and includes a 4 million gallon water tank and approximately 3 miles of water transmission line. Recent soil inves- tigations, of the only suitable tank sites, indicate that a special foundation for the water tank will be required. The resulting tank cost estimate increased from the budgeted amount of $1,125,000 to the current estimate of $1,500,000, an increase of $375,000. Staff recom- mends proceeding with design at the preferred site. The Ordinance authorizes the transfer of $375,000 from Water Capital Contingency to the Foothills System Improvements Project. 12. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 164, 1982, Amending Section 9 -1 B of the Code of the City of Fort Collins regarding t o calculation of Storm Drainaqe Basin Fees. The purpose of this ordinance is to make the present method of cred- iting on -site detention in basin fee calculations more accurate. The ordinance provides an adjustment formula to be applied to unusually large or small parcels - sizes outside the range of the present method. 13. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 165, 1982, Revising The Procedure For Appealing Decisions Of Various Boards, Commissions and Authorities to the Counci . Since the adoption of a uniform appeals procedure, the Council has considered several appeals from the Planning and Zoning Board. The preparation of transcripts for these appeals has made some problems with the procedure apparent. The amendment to the appeals process can be applied to the appeal from any board, commission or authority. 14. Resolution Approving in Concept a Stormwater Management Strategy Known as Ditch Consolidation. Staff presented background material to the City Council at a work - session on December 14, 1982, concerning a proposed stormwater manage- ment strategy known as Ditch Consolidation. This strategy involves entering into a cooperative agreement with the New Mercer Ditch Company and the Larimer County Canal No. 2 Irrigation Company whereby the City would make use of existing canals of the companies for the collection and disposal of stormwater runoff in return for certain guarantees to the ditch companies for delivery of their irrigation waters. sm December 21, 1982 This resolution endorses the concept of ditch consolidation while requesting the Storm Drainage Board and the Water Board to continue their investigations and make a final recommendation on this matter sometime in the future. 15. Resolutions Making Planning and Zonin Phase One Preliminar Findings Concerning Appeals of the Decision of the g Board on the Holiday Inn P.U.D. Master Plan and ME A. Resolution Making Findings Concerning the Holiday Inn P.U.D. Master Plan. On December 7th, Council heard an appeal concerning the decision of the Planning and Zoning Board to approve the Holiday Inn P.U.D. Master Plan. Following the hearing on the appeal, Council voted 6-1 to uphold the decision of the Planning and Zoning Board approving the Master Plan for the development. The Resolution formalizes Council's findings on this matter. B. Resolution Making Findings Concerning the Holiday Inn P.U.D. Phase One Preliminary Plan. On December 7th, Council heard an appeal concerning the decision of the Planning and Zoning Board to approve the Holiday Inn P.U.D. Phase One Preliminary Plan. Following the hearing on the appeal, Council voted 5-2 to uphold the decision of the Planning and Zoning Board approving the Phase One Preliminary Plan for the development. The Resolution formalizes Council's findings concerning this appeal. 16. Routine Easements Granted by Bartran Homes. Inc. It was not known at the time Village West was originally platted in 1973 that the parcel to the east would be purchased for a City park. Before the park purchase, a forty -foot wide easement between the two parcels was dedicated for utility and storm drainage purposes. This new easement from Bartran Homes grants the City the additional right to use the easement for public access to Rolland Moore Park. The easement granted is located east of Scarborough Drive and is being granted to the City for a consideration of $1. Ordinances on Second Reading were read by title by Molly Davis, Deputy City Clerk. Item #5. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 155, 1982, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the General Fund. -599- 1 December 21, 1982 Item #6. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 156, 1982, Transferring an additional $7,550 from Minor Streets Capital to the Lemay and Horsetooth Median Project. Item #7. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 158, 1982, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the Telephone Fund. Item #8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 159, 1982, Appropriating Reserves in the Water Fund. Ordinances on First Reading were read by title by Molly Davis, Deputy City Clerk. Item #9. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 161, 1982, Annexi Property Known As Mobile Premix Prospect Road Annexation. Item #10. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 162,1982, Zoning Property Known As The Mobile Premix Prospect Road Annexation. Item #11. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 163, 1982, Trans- ferring $375, 000 From Water Capital Contingency to the Foothills I System mprovements Project. Item #12. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 164, 1982 Section 93-15— Bi of the Code of the City of Fort C garding the calculation of Storm Drainage Basin Fees. Item #13. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 165, 1982 The Procedure For Appealing Decisions Of Various Board sions and Authorities to the Council. Amending lens re- Revising Commis- Councilmember Clarke made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Reeves, to adopt and approve all items not removed from the Consent Calendar. Yeas: Councilmembers Cassell, Clarke, Elliott, Horak, Knezovich, and Reeves. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Ordinance Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the Self Insurance Fund, Adopted as Amended on Second Reading Following is the staff's memorandum on this item: "Ordinance No. 157, 1982 was unanimously approved on first reading December .11 n December 21, 1982 7th and appropriated $45,194 in unanticipated revenue to cover life in- surance premiums not previously budgeted in the Self Insurance Fund. Based upon previous medical claims and life insurance premium cost estimates to be charged against this Fund, the $45,194 was sufficient to cover projected costs. However, additional amounts to be spent in the Self Insurance Fund are greater than anticipated. Medical claims have since been identified and the appropriation approved on December 7th needs to be amended as follows: Life Insurance premium costs of $45,194 (as approved on Decem- ber 7th) represent the City's contribution during 1982. Addi- tionally, the employees contribution of $45,194 for 1982 will be expensed against the Self Insurance Fund. Total 1982 life insurance premiums, therefore, are $90,388 requiring a total appropriation of: $90,388 Administrative costs are projected to be $6,622 more than previously estimated. The administrative cost is the contract with the claims administrator and the contract amount fluctu- ates monthly based upon the number of City employees receiving employee insurance benefits in any given month. With the adjustment of the City's employee benefit policy coverage for part-time employees, the Self Insurance Fund has received increased contributions from other City departments in order to pay the increased administrative costs, requiring an additional appropriation of: $ 6,622 Based upon medical claims made in recent months (claims made during October were double the previous average monthly claims amount), an additional appropriation will be required. Prior year reserves are available in the Self Insurance Fund to cover these additional claims. In order to cover the greater than anticipated claims to date, to provide for claims through year-end, and to provide a contingency for any additional claims greater than the average anticipated monthly amount, an additional appropriation is required totalling: TOTAL APPROPRIATION AMOUNT $257,010 As outlined on the attached revised financial statement, the Self Insurance Fund is soundly financed and currentlyhas sufficient revenues and reserves to cover projected expenses. Rates charged to departments are based upon ' the worst possible case and Self Insurance Fund's annual estimated administrative costs. appropriation is based on "best Because the estimates" and -601- December 21, 1982 actual costs are determined after the fact, the Fund is managed and moni- tored to assure sufficient available reserves to cover unanticipated expenses as outlined above. The attached ordinance appropriates $257,010 in unanticipated revenue and prior year reserves in the Self Insurance Fund as outlined below: ORDINANCE AS APPROVED AMENDED FUNDING DESCRIPTION DECEMBER 7th ORDINANCE SOURCE Life Insurance Premium $45,194 $ 90,388 Unanticipated Revenue Administrative Costs -- 6,622 It Medical Claims -- 160,000 Prior Year Reserves TOTAL $45,194 $257,010 If this Ordinance is not approved, the Self Insurance Fund will exceed appropriations in 1982 even though reserves were established for this purpose and adequate resources are available to be appropriated. The 1983 Budget incorporates the City's contribution for life insurance in the Self Insurance Fund. Additional appropriations for the total life insurance premium cost (City and employee contributions) and medical claims greater than anticipated will be submitted for your approval as required in 1983." Councilmember Reeves made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Elliott, to adopt Ordinance No. 157, 1982 on Second Reading. Councilmember Reeves made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Knezovich, to appropriate a total of $257,010. Councilmember Knezovich asked for an update on the self insurance program. Deputy Finance Director Pete Dallow stated the program is soundly financed, and the City has met or exceeded its objectives in savings. Claims ex- ceeded the City's best estimates, but adequate reserves are being main- tained. Councilmember Knezovich asked about the re -insurance feature to cover catastrophic illnesses. Deputy Finance Director Dallow stated we do have a stop loss insurance policy. -602- 1 ' December 21, 1982 Councilmember Knezovich commended staff for their work in developing this program. Councilmember Clarke commented on rising medical costs and asked if there will be an increase in 1983 costs per employee. Deputy Finance Director Dallow stated that the adopted 1983 budget is lower than current claims experience would demand, which will require an amend- ment to the budget. The per employee rate will not be adjusted. Councilmember Clarke asked if the charges to departments for self-insurance might be increased to make sure we keep up with rising medical costs. Deputy Finance Director Dallow replied staff would be looking at that option in reviewing the amendment to the 1983 budget. Councilmember Reeves asked about end of year payments of claims and about claims trends for the other cities contributing to this self-insurance program. ' Deputy Finance Director Dallow replied there are some 1982 claims reserved for payment in 1983, but most claims are paid in a short time. The vote on the motion to amend Ordinance No. 157, 1982 on Second Reading was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Cassell, Clarke, Elliott, Horak, Knezovich, and Reeves. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. The vote on the motion to adopt Ordinance No. 157, 1982 as amended was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Cassell, Clarke, Elliott, Horak, Knezovich, and Reeves. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Ordinance Appropriating Additional Revenues for Special Improvement District No. 77 - Boardwalk and Landings Drive, Adopted on Second Reading Following is the staff's memorandum on this item: "In September, Council established Special Improvement District No. 77 to construct the street and utilities on Boardwalk Drive and Landings Drive in the South College Properties area. -603- December 21, 1982 ' To date, $783,000 in anticipated bond proceeds has been appropriated for S.I.D. #77. This ordinance which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on December 7 would appropriate $73,000 in remaining revenue for the project." Mayor Cassell and Councilmember Reeves withdrew from discussion and voting on this item. Assistant Mayor Knezovich chaired this portion of the meeting. Councilmember Elliott made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Clarke, to adopt Ordinance No. 160, 1982 on Second Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers Clarke, Elliott, Horak, and Knezovich. Nays: None. (Councilmembers Cassell and Reeves withdrawn) THE MOTION CARRIED. Mayor Cassell and Councilmember Reeves returned to the meeting at this time. Resolution Adopted Authorizing the Purchase of Equipment for the Expansion of WTP #2 Following is the staff's memorandum on this item: ' "In 1979 a 10 MGD expansion of Water Treatment Plant #2 was undertaken. Part of this expansion called for three filter basins to be completed and for three filter basins to be left uncompleted. Funds were budgeted in 1982 to begin the completion of the second three filter basins. To com- plete these filters requires the installation of some filtration equipment. It is the Water Utilities desire to duplicate the three filters completed in the 1979 expansion by installing the same equipment in the three un- finished filters. The equipment and suppliers are as follows: 1. Kennedy Adap-torq butterfly valves $ 34,797 with controls supplied by ITT Grinnell, Denver, CO 2. Neptune microfloc filter media 69,205 supplied by Water Control Corp, Denver, CO 3. Leopold surface wash equipment and 48,986 filter bottoms supplied by Water- works Sales CO, Denver, CO 4. Rodney -Hunt Slide Gates supplied 16,275 by Rodney -Hunt Co., Orange, MA ' TOTAL $169,263 -604- December 21, 1982 The duplication of equipment has the following advantages: 1. The three additional filters would function like the three ori- ginal filters. This would allow the six filters to function as one unit. 2. Modifications to the existing structure would not be required. The three filters to be completed were constructed to conform to the equipment used in the 1979 expansion. 3. There would be no need for additional operator training as the operators are already familiar with the present equipment. 4. 0 & M manuals would not have to be revised to reflect the instal- lation of different equipment. 5. Repair part stocks could be kept to a minimum by utilizing the same equipment manufacturers. Parts and equipment would be compatible and interchangeable. Staff recommends approval of this resolution and feels the costs are reasonable and in line with comparable equipment. Funds are budgeted and ' available." Councilmember Reeves made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Elliott, to adopt the Resolution. Councilmember Clarke asked for a comparison of the purchase prices with prices paid for the same equipment in 1979. Mike Smith, Director of Water Utilities, stated this is a price increase of about 10% over 1979 prices, and these are fair prices. The vote on the motion to adopt the Resolution was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Cassell, Clarke, Elliott, Horak, Knezovich, and Reeves. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. City Attorney's Report City Attorney Huisjen stated he had no report. City Manager's Report ' Deputy City Manager Meitl stated he had no report. -605- 1 December 21, 1982 Councilmembers' Reports 1. Councilmember Clarke reported on discussions at the NLC business committee meeting concerning teflon coated bullets and protective vests. 2. Councilmember Clarke suggested forming a Fort Collins Task Force on. drunk driving. 3. Councilmember Clarke reported that new Transfort buses will be de- livered to service the new routing system by January 20th. 4. Councilmember Horak reported on the MPO's Urban Area Policy Committee recommendations to COG for appointments to the Highway Commission: (1) Dick Albrecht; (2) Steve Erickson; (3) Jerry Roselle; and (4) Marj Walsh. 5. Councilmember Horak reported that the MPO boundaries for planning in the Fort Collins area are now basically the same as the Urban Growth area; with the exception of the Laporte area, the Dixon Reservoir area, and the proposed Anheuser-Busch site. ' 6. Councilmember Knezovich supported banning teflon bullets and the con- cept of hand gun control. 7. Councilmember Reeves reported on .the airport committee meeting. Proposed airport design guidelines will be presented to Council in early 1983. The City Attorney has also prepared a report on an Airport Authority, with suggestion to limit.the powers of such an Authority. The Airport Authority issue may be scheduled for a work session in January. Ordinance Transferring $375,000 from Water Capital Contingency to the Foothills System Improvements Project, Adopted on First Reading Following is the staff's memorandum on this item: "The Foothills Water System improvements are required to provide quality service to the higher elevation west side of the City. The benefits are both improved quality of service and obtaining more reliable fire protec- tion. The second phase of this project is to be constructed in 1983 and includes a 4 million gallon water tank and approximately 3 miles of water. ' transmission line. Recent soil investigations, of the only suitable tank m I December 21, 1982 sites, indicate that a special foundation for the water tank will be required. The resulting tank cost estimate increased from the budgeted amount of $1,125,000 to the current estimate of $1,500,000, an increase of $375,000. Staff recommends proceeding with design at the preferred site. Funds are available in the Water Capital Contingency for transfer to the Foothills System Improvements Project due to delayed projects and/or projects which were under budget. (Prior to 1982, all appropriations for Water capital projects were put into the Water Capital contingency until the project was ready to proceed.) The attached Ordinance authorizes the transfer of $375,000 from Water Capital Contingency to the Foothills System Improvements Project." Councilmember Clarke expressed concerns about building a water tank on bentonite shale, and asked if there were other viable site options. Mike Smith, Director of Water Utilities, replied there are no other site options. Councilmember Clarke asked if the City could obtain guarantees from the engineers on this project to take responsibility if problems would occur. ' Mike Smith replied that the consultants are aware of the bentonite problem and are preparing a conservative design for the project. Councilmember Clarke also suggested obtaining a second opinion on the site. Mike Smith stated a second opinion could be obtained. He commented on the differences between bentonite shale and clay, and stated other structures are located on this same formation. Shale is more stable that clay. Curt Miller, project engineer, explained the differences between bentonite shale and bentonite clay, and stated no piers would be set in the shale for this project. A second study would cost around $15,000. Councilmember Knezovich suggested that a second opinion or engineering guarantees should be obtained before this Ordinance is adopted on Second Reading. Councilmember Clarke made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Knezovich, to adopt Ordinance No. 163, 1982 on First Reading, and to instruct staff to bring back more information prior to Second Reading on January 4. Yeas: Councilmembers Cassell, Clarke, Elliott, Horak, Knezovich, and Reeves. Nays: None. I THE MOTION CARRIED. -607- December 21, 1982 Mayor Cassell directed that this Ordinance not be placed on the Consent Calendar on January 4th for Second Reading. Resolution Adopted Approving in Concept a Stormwater Management Strategy Known as Ditch Consolidation Following is the staff's memorandum on this item: "Staff presented background material to the City Council at a worksession on December 14, 1982, concerning a proposed stormwater management strategy known as Ditch Consolidation. This strategy involves entering into a cooperative agreement with the New Mercer Ditch Company and the Larimer County Canal No. 2 Irrigation Company whereby the City would make use of existing canals of the companies for the collection and disposal of stormwater runoff in return for certain guarantees to the ditch companies for delivery of.their irrigation waters. This concept is included in an agreement which has been drafted by a steering committee composed of the presidents of the ditch companies, ' representatives from the City Storm Drainage Board and the Water Board, and members of the City Staff. The ditch companies have requested that the City Council review the proposed agreement and express their interest in the concept prior to the ditch company annual meetings in January. The Storm Drainage Board and the Water Board have expressed some reser- vations on the ultimate benefits and costs to the City and the Storm Drainage Board has not recommended approval of the agreement at this time. Further information and clarification on some points will be prepared by the staff. Staff recommends approval of the attached resolution which endorses the concept of ditch consolidation while requesting the Storm Drainage Board and the Water Board to continue their investigations and make a final recommendation on this matter sometime in the future." Councilmember Elliott expressed concern about the timing on this, and asked if the ditch companies will act on this soon. Tom Hays, City Engineer, stated the ditch companies will be meeting in January. Until all questions are answered, the City will be cautious in proceeding with the actual agreement. .Councilmember Elliott made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Horak, to I adopt the Resolution. .1: December 21, 1982 Councilmember Reeves asked about negative comments about this program in the Storm Drainage Board minutes. Tom Hays, City Engineer, stated that staff will be presenting a more complete package of information to the Storm Drainage Board. Mayor Cassell clarified that this Resolution is endorsing a concept, and the Storm Drainage Board and Water Board will be proceeding with their investigation of the issue. The vote on the motion to adopt the Resolution was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Cassell, Clarke, Elliott, Horak, Knezovich, and Reeves. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Citizen Participation Gloria Bockman, Laporte, addressed the Council concerning library fees for ' outside City users. Mayor Cassell stated that staff has been directed to bring back alterna- tives for Council consideration, and a work session will be scheduled for January 11, 1983. The fee will still take effect on January 1. Ms. Bockman asked Council to consider suspending the fee until another solution could be found after discussion with the County Commissioners. Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Reeves, to suspend collection of the fee until February 1. Councilmember Elliott supported proceeding with collection of the fee and suggested refunding the fee if other funds can be found to generate the necessary revenue. Councilmember Horak stated that a one -month delay would not have a serious impact, and supported discussion of the issue before the fee is actually collected. Councilmember Clarke commented that another solution may not be found even if there is a delay. Councilmember Reeves stated that additional revenue needs to be found in ' some way. December 21, 1982 ' Mayor Cassell supported collecting the fee as scheduled since the County has indicated it has no source of funding with the defeat of the proposed 10 sales tax. Carolyn Haase, 2307 Sheffield Drive, read a letter that was sent to the County Commissioners on December 3rd regarding a study committee to examine possible long-range solutions to the County funding problem. Ms. Bockman stated a long range solution needs to be found to meet higher costs. She commented that a 30 day suspension of collection of the fee would at least ensure that all solutions have been examined. Councilmember Reeves stated one possible solution would be to cut back library services, but this would not be a good solution. The vote on the motion to suspend collection of the fee for one month was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Horak and Reeves. Nays: Councilmembers Cassell, Clarke, Elliott, and Knezovich. THE MOTION FAILED. Mayor Cassell stated this would be scheduled for a work session on January I 11th. Expansion Of A Building Containing A Non -Conforming Use Located At 811 East Elizabeth Street (Case No. 70-82), Denied Following is the staff's memorandum on this item: "I. Background The applicant and owner, Dr. Harry Unfug, is seeking approval from the City of an enlargement of a building containing a non -conforming use. The building is located at 811 East Elizabeth Street, and is currently occupied by the Prosthetic Dental Clinic. Dr. Unfug intends to move his internal medicine practice from its current downtown location to 811 East Elizabeth Street and bring an associate into his practice. In order to accommodate his needs, Dr. Unfug is seeking to double the present 1,204 sf building by adding an additional 1,182 sf on its southeast side. The building at 811 East Elizabeth Street was built in 1950 as a medical office while the property was outside of the municipal limits of Fort Collins. The property was annexed to the City in October 1967 as a part of a larger area and was zoned R-L, Low Density Residential. Because ' -610- J December 21, 1982 the medical office use is not a permitted use in the R-L zoning district but was existing prior to the 1967 zoning by the City, the Zoning Ordinance defines the medical office use at 811 East Elizabeth Street as a "non- conforming use." A non -conforming use may continue to be occupied unless active and con- tinuous operations are not carried on during a continuous period of one year, whereafter only a conforming use would be allowed. Interior remodeling or exterior changes could occur without further Planning and Zoning Board and City Council review. Also, occupants of the building could change as long as the uses were medical/dental clinics/offices or were a conforming use in the zone. The enlargement of a building containing a non -conforming use requires the approval of the City Council after recommendation by the Planning and Zoning Board. According to the Zoning Ordinance, in considering a proposed enlargement the Board shall make a finding as to whether or not the enlargement will adversely affect the surrounding property Tie Ordinance provides the following criteria to assist the Board in making their decision: 1. The nature of the proposed expansion. 2. The size of the proposed expansion. 3. The difference in the degree of use of the non -conforming use as result of the proposed expansion. 4. The reasons for the proposed expansion. 5. The overall impact of the proposed expansion on the surrounding property. The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: North: R-L; single-family. South: R-L; single-family. East: R-L; single-family. West: R-L; single-family. II. Site Data Building Footprint Asphalt Parking Walks & Green Area Totals 2,386 sf 8% 7,877 sf 26% 20,387 sf 66% 30,650 sf 100% -611- 0.7036 ac December 21, 1982 Maximum Buiding Height: 20-ft Parking Data: Regular Spaces: 18 (2-19) Handicapped Spaces 1 (1) Total 19 III. Nature and Extent of Proposed Enlargement The existing 1,204 sf single -story brick building is currently occupied by the Prosthetic Dental Clinic that handles patients in the office with denture needs and also houses a laboratory which provides dentures for the Clinic as well as other dentists in the community. The Clinic cur- rently employs one fulltime dentist plus additional employees in the laboratory. The site is also improved with an existing asphalt parking lot that could accommodate between 18-22 vehicles. The rear 205-ft. of the lot is currently in natural grasses. The proposed expansion involves nearly doubling the present 1,204 sf building by adding an additional 1,182 sf on its southeast side. Dr. Unfug intends to move his current practice of internal medicine from its downtown location to 811 East Elizabeth Street and will bring an associate into his practice. Dr. Unfug's practice is expected to require two doctors, four fulltime and two part-time employees. The proposed addition will be single -story, hip -roofed and carry through the scale and detailing of a single-family residence. For instance, the new addition will be stucco with earth -tone colors and have a shake -shingle roof. The roof and exterior treatment of the existing structure will be upgraded to match the new addition. Rigid insulation will be added to the exterior walls of the existing structure to increase its energy efficiency. All windows to be installed and all existing windows will be upgraded with wood thermal pane construction. Skylights may be added to bring natural light into the interior of the building thereby reducing energy require- ments of the mechanical lighting system. The addition is shifted approxi- mately 15-ft to the south of the front of the existing building to create a 40-ft yard to further enhance the building's residential character. The existing ground -mounted signs will be removed and replaced with low profile wall -mounted signs similar to what might be expected on a residential structure. The parking is shifted from along the Elizabeth Street frontage to the rear of the new building. A minimum 18-ft setback from the east and west property lines is provided in addition to extensive landscape screening and installation of a double -side wood fence. The single-family lots along the rear of the lot will be separated by a 95-ft buffer area which includes a new row of pinion pine along the parking lot for screening purposes. -612- 1 1 December 21, 1982 The applicant, as part of the application, has agreed to leave the south 95-ft of the property as open space until such time as a new site plan is submitted for Planning and Zoning Board review and approval in accor- dance with the Planned Unit Development Regulations. The area will be kept in natural grasses and maintained and cut. Part of the area may be used as a vegetable garden during the summer. IV. Expected Impact and Assessment Summary In reviewing the application for an expansion of the non -conforming use located at 811 East Elizabeth Street, the staff considered the following factors for assessing the effects of the proposal. In considering these factors, the staff assumed that the current level of activity on the site produced some impacts and that what was important to consider for this application was the impact that the enlargement would have over the existing situation. For the purposes of this report, this difference is termed "net effect." The impact factors considered are as follows: The net effect that the enlargement will have over the existing situation in terms of: ' a. Neighborhood character; b. Streetscape and City urban design criteria; c. Pedestrian safety; d. Street capacity; e. Privacy; f. Parking availability; g. Air quality; h. Noise; i Light and shadow; j. Utility capacity; k. Fire protection and crime control; and 1. Exterior lighting. a. Neighborhood Character. At the neighborhood meeting concerning the 811 East Elizabeth proposal, the question arose as to what impact would approval of the enlargement request have upon future requests for rezonings or Planned Unit Developments. And, if approved, would it be "fair" for the City to deny a rezoning or PUD on an adjacent "similar" property? The question of whether to allow commercial uses in existing residen- tial neighborhoods is a hotly debated issue and involves competing arguments from varying segments of the community: from those citizens who argue that the market can and will make the best decision as to the ' "highest and best land use," to those who argue in favor of eliminating commercial uses in existing neighborhoods and advocate strong action by -613- December 21, 1982 ' the City. The City's Goals and Objectives clearly supports neighbor- hood preservation. For example, the document states that the "charac- ter of new and existing residential neighborhoods be protected against intrusive and disruptive development" and that the City should "protect older residential neighborhood areas from encroachment by industrial and commercial uses which may impair the viability of the residential neighborhood." A past rezoning request that was denied in the imme- diate vicinity of the proposal attests to the City's commitment to these objectives (1976:1008 East Elizabeth Street rezoning from R-L to R-H). A request for rezoning to a non-residential zone would have to demonstrate the need for additional commercially -zoned property in the area and community. With existing undeveloped office space available in the "Hospital Zone" (i.e., Lemay/Prospect Office PUD and Park Central PUD), the criteria of need would be difficult to prove in this block. The request for enlargement of a building containing a non -conforming use is a different question than a rezoning or PUD. The issue to be resolved is not whether the use is appropriate, because it is already existing. Rather, the issue to be dealt with is whether the expansion of the building would have "negative effects" on the sur- rounding neighborhood. After careful evaluation of the plan and considering the expected impacts of the proposal, and after the applicant has made a number of significant changes to the building and site development plan, the staff feels that the enlargement would not have "negative effects" on the neighborhood. Rather, the revised plan would eliminate or reduce the "negative effects" of the existing use. The condition of an existing non -conforming commercial use in the neighborhood is not present on any other residentially zoned lot on East Elizabeth Street. The staff feels that the conditions present at this location are unique for the neighborhood and would not alone be justification for approval of another non-residential use in the area. b. Streetscape and City Urban Design Criteria. The current building is a one-story brick commercial building constructed in 1950. The character of the building is clearly commercial which is further exaggerated by the large unbroken expanse of parking pavement which covers part of the front yard and the entire eastern side yard. The commercial character of the site is contradictory to the existing abutting quality homes. The staff feels that the applicant has clearly recognized the residential setting in which the non -conforming use lies and has provided for this factor in the fol- lowing manner: 614- ' December 21, 1982 1: The applicant is setting back the new addition by 15-ft to help "break-up" the mass of the building and to complement the front yard setbacks of other structures on the block; 2. The 40-ft setback of the addition as well as the 25-ft setback of the existing building will be well landscaped; 3. The existing parking along Elizabeth Street has been removed and shifted to the rear of the new addition well out of visual sight of travelers on Elizabeth Street. 4. The existing ground -mounted sign will be removed in favor of a resi- dential -type wall -mounted identification. 5. The 95-ft rear yard of the site will be maintained as open space. 6. The parking lot will be set back a minimum of 18-ft from the adjacent lots and will be screened by a 6-ft wood fence and well landscaped. 7. The existing building will be remodelled and the enlargement will be constructed as a single -story, hip -roofed, warm -toned stucco finish and carry through the scale and detailing of a single-family residence. Overall, the staff feels that the proposed enlargement will improve the visual appearance of the building and site and be more compatible with its residential setting than the existing situation. c. Pedestrian Safety. One area of impact that should be given attention when considering commercial uses in a residential neighborhood is that the non-residential development may interfere with sidewalks and bikeways that could alter the traffic hazard to pedestrians and bicycle riders. In this project, the pedestrian situation is further complicated by the existence of a mid -block elementary student crossing directly west of the project. The staff has carefully evaluated the proposal and feels that the enlarge- ment would not present additional problems to the flow of pedestrians and bicyclists along Elizabeth Street for the following reasons: 1. The existing curb cut to the project will be reduced from 30-ft to 20-ft which should improve channelization of traffic ingressing and egressing from the site; 2. The peak traffic period for the office use should not interfere with the peak student and pedestrian periods; 3. The pedestrian signals at the mid -block crossing and the restricted ' speed zone should notify both pedestrians and drivers of the need to be especially careful in this area; -615- December 21, 1982 ' 4. The applicant has agreed to post onsite signs warning drivers of school children; and 5. Low-lying landscaping has been provided at the entrance to maximize both pedestrian and driver sight distance. d. Street Capacity. Elizabeth Street as it abuts the subject property currently handles approximately 6,000 vehicle trips per day. The addi- tional trips generated by doubling the size of the facility is approxi- mately 50 additional vehicle trips per day, or 100 trips per day total. The additional impact upon Elizabeth Street would amount to an increase of 0.8% (50 divided by 6,000). The additional traffic being added to the existing and future traffic flows along Elizabeth Street is an acceptable situation. The design changes to the parking lot should make the flow of traffic into and out of the site safer and more convenient. e. Privacy. The current building does not appear to intrude upon adjacent resi ems in terms of "visual" or "auditory" privacy. The location of the existing parking directly adjacent to the property to the east presents a privacy problem. The new development is proposing to relocate the parking to the rear of the building which would negatively impact upon the privacy ' level of 809 East Elizabeth Street. However, staff feels that the privacy level of both these homes should be improved by the installation of the 6-ft double -sided fence, minimum 18-ft setback, and added shrubbery and trees. Also, the privacy impact of the parking along Elizabeth Street on homes across from that street should be improved by moving the parking to the rear of the building. f. Parking Availability. The existing building provides between 18-22 parking spaces on site or approximately one space for every 54-66 sf of floor area. The revised plan indicates 19 spaces being provided or one space for every 126 sf of floor area. The City's recommended guidelines for parking indicates for a medical office that between one space per every 161 sf and one space for every 285 sf of floor area be provided. Both the existing and the proposed facility provides sufficient parking and should not negatively affect the availability of Elizabeth Street parking. g. Air Quality. The most significant air quality impacts associated with commercial development are from site preparation and construction and by the generation of onsite and offsite vehicle trips. The air quality impacts of construction in this case should be negligible because of the relatively small size of the improvements. The City's Construction Inspectors keep a close watch on all new construction to assure that uncovered ground areas are not left untreated for extended periods of time. Assuming that doubling the floor area will mean a net effect of ' doubling the number of vehicle trips, the estimate of atmospheric pollu- -616- 1 December 21, 1982 tants could also be expected to double. However, the impact of this additional traffic on air quality should be acceptable because of the low density character of the surrounding neighborhood, the relatively light traffic being generated (100 trips per day), the even distribution of traffic over the day (estimated at 12 trips per hour), the setback of parking from adjacent residences, and the density of the existing and proposed vegetation. h. Noise. The most significant noise impact associated with the enlarge- ment will be due to vehicular traffic. Again, assuming that traffic will double because of the doubling of floor area, the noise generated by the proposal should also be expected to double. The impact. due to the new addition, however, should improve over the existing situation for several reasons. The setback of the existing parking from the home to the east is approximately 5-feet with only a single row of vegetation providing a noise barrier. The revised plan has provided a minimum 18-ft separation and shows a 6-ft double -sided wood fence plus extensive landscaping which should reflect most of the noise back to the site. Also, the circulation pattern on the site is improved which should allow the flow to be more "continuous" and speed the ingress and egress of vehicles from and into the site. ' i. Light and Shadow. The proposed enlargement has considered the casting of shadows from the site. The proposed enlargement will not affect the existing level of shadows cast from the site. The applicants have selectively chosen plant materials which will not cast shadows onto ad- jacent homes and vegetable garden areas. The existing or current building does not reflect light onto adjacent residential areas. j. Utity Capacity. All services are available at the site. The propose lien argement should not present any service capacity problems. k. Fire Protection and Crime Control. The proposed enlargement will not present additional problems for fire and police protection. The proposed enlargement includes plans for additional security lighting and security measures for the building which are not now provided. 1. Exterior Lighting. The applicant has provided for exterior lighting for security purposes. The lighting will be mounted on the building and will be selected so as to not glare into adjacent residences. V. Staff Recommendation Staff has carefully reviewed and analyzed the proposed enlargement of a building containing a non -conforming use at 811 East Elizabeth Street ' and concludes that the proposal will not adversely affect the surrounding -617- December 21, 1982 ' neighborhood. Furthermore, the existence of a commercial non -conforming use at this location is a unique situation on East Elizabeth Street. And, because of the uniqueness of the situation, the approval of the enlargement would not be a basis or reason for recommending approval to the Planning and Zoning Board or City Council of further encroachment of non-residential uses in the residential neighborhood. Past land use decisions by the City and written policy statements in the adopted Goals and Objectives clearly support the continued preservation of the East E izabet residential neighborhoods. Further residential conversions in the neighborhood will be analyzed on their own merits and conformance with City adopted objectives, policies and criteria. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the enlargement of a building containing a non- conforming use located at 811 East Elizabeth Street. Planning and Zoning Board Recommendation At their November 22, 1982 meeting, the Planning and Zoning Board recom- mended to City Council on a 5-0 vote (Dow withdrew) to deny the enlargement of a building containing a non -conforming use at 811 East Elizabeth Street. The reasons given for this recommendation were: a. Neighborhood opposition to the enlargement of the use; ' b. City's commitment to maintain and preserve the neighborhood for residential purposes as exemplified in statements and written presen- tation given at the 1976 rezoning denial (1008 East Elizabeth Street); and That the approval of the enlargement would be the single most influen- tial factor in the neighborhood in granting further commercial intru- sions in the neighborhood." Mayor Cassell stated that this is not an appeal of a Planning and Zoning Board decision, but is a new hearing on a matter that would normally come to Council for consideration. Mauri Rupel, Development Center Director, gave a staff presentation on the request for expansion of a building containing a non -conforming use. The Planning and Zoning Board voted 5-0 to deny the request for expansion. However, the Planning staff recommended approval based on a determination that the expansion would not have a negative effect on the neighborhood. Attorney Bill Brenner, representing the applicant, gave a slide presenta- tion showing the proposed building expansion and the neighborhood. He stated that the proposal would ensure buffering so that the building would blend into the neighborhood better than it does now. The existing building t KUM December 21, 1982 is a medical facility, which is a legal non -conforming use. He stated that the proposal would allow the expanded building to fit visually into the neighborhood, would address traffic and pedestrian safety problems, and would have a positive effect on the neighborhood. He summarized the neighborhood support for the proposed expansion and stated that the project would not result in increased pressure for commercial development in the neighborhood. He commented that the expansion would be a quality building and the landscaping would bring it into harmony with the neighborhood. Councilmember Elliott made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Horak, to deny the expansion of the building. Councilmember Reeves asked if the building has ever had other uses. Mr. Brenner replied that the building has always been a medical facility. Dr. Harry Unfug, 927 Pioneer Avenue, stated the expansion will improve the neighborhood and not impact property values or cause a domino commercial effect in the neighborhood. Councilmember Knezovich asked if there are many home occupations within the neighborhood. Dr. Unfug stated there are some home occupations in that area. Sanford Kern, 804 East Elizabeth, spoke about traffic concerns and stated that Dr. Unfug's practice could move into the current building without an expansion. He opposed any further commercial pressures in this neighbor- hood. Mayo Sommermeyer, 810 East Elizabeth, presented a map showing property owners opposing the expansion. He stated this expansion would have an adverse economic and ecological impact on the neighborhood, and he opposed any commercial growth beyond what already exists in the neighborhood. Reed Mitchell, 809 East Elizabeth, stated that this development was orig- inally presented as a Planned Unit Development, but was changed to expan- sion of a non -conforming use because of neighborhood opposition. Barbara Sommermeyer, 810 East Elizabeth, stated the main question is whether such an expansion would be good for the community. She opposed the expansion, stating there is no shortage of medical space in the City. Kirk Winkelmeyer, 1005 Morgan, opposed the expansion because it would lead to further commercial pressures. -619- December 21, 1982 ' Barbara Malsch Chase, owner of property at 908 Garfield, opposed the expansion because of its possible impact on traffic and noise for Garfield Street residents, and impact on property values. Sam Cala, 814 East Elizabeth, opposed the expansion of use because of traffic problems, school pedestrian safety problems, and commercial pres- sures on the neighborhood. Charles Unfug, attorney, stated that neighborhood opposition is primarily directed at the existing use and is based on a fear of commercial develop- ment in the neighborhood. He commented that this would not be an adverse use for the neighborhood. Dr. Harry Unfug stated that his taking on an associate would simply guaran- tee this type of use rather than some other use for a long time to come. Dr. Robert Conlon, 1032 Luke, opposed further commercial development in this area. Councilmember Clarke stated this is a good design given the constraints of the property, but that improvements could be made to the property without expansion of the building. Expansion of the use would make this a more intense use, and he opposed the expansion because of its overall impact. ' Councilmember Horak supported Councilmember Clarke's position because the development would not fit the neighborhood socially, even though it does fit the area physically and economically. The vote on the motion to deny the expansion of the non -conforming use was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Cassell, Clarke, Elliott, Horak, Knezo- vich, and Reeves. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. City Attorney Huisjen stated that a Resolution making findings on the matter and denying the expansion of non -conforming use would appear on the January 4th agenda. Ordinance Zoning Property Known As Carpenter/ McAleer Annexation, Adopted on First Reading Following is the staff's memorandum on this item: "This is a request to zone 101.6-acres, located at the northeast corner of Lemay Avenue and Vine Drive. Present zoning is FA-1, Farming. The appli- cant is requesting R-L-P, Low Density Planned Residential zoning. The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: I -620- December 21, 1982 North: FA-1, Farming; vacant. South: R-L, I -Industrial; Anderson Place Subdivision (existing residences). East: R-L, Residential; vacant. West: R-L; R-L-P; Alta Vista Subdivision (existing residences). nicrnccinn Policy 80 of the Land Use Policies Plan states that higher density residen- tial uses should locate: a. Near the core area, regional/community shopping centers, CSU main campus, or the hospital; b. Within close proximity to community or neighborhood park facilities; c. Where water and sewer facilities can be adequately provided; d. Within easy access to major employment centers; ' e. With access to public transportation; and f. In areas with provisions for alternative modes of transpor- tation. The site is within one mile of downtown, Buckingham Park, and the Fort Collins Business Center/Community Airpark employment center. Utilities are existing in the area. Transfort service is available at the corner of Lemay and Vine Drive. The applicant had initially requested M-M, Medium Density Mobile Home zoning. The Planning and Zoning Board voted 5-2 to recommend denial of the M-M zoning. Consistent with the Planning and Zoning Board's recommendation for R-L-P zoning, the applicant has changed the requested zoning to R-L-P. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the Carpenter/McAleer R-L-P zoning request. Planning and Zoning Board Recommendation The Planning and Zoning Board recommended approval of the Carpenter/McAleer R-L-P zoning request on a 6-1 vote (Case No. 66-82A)." ' Ken Waido, Chief Planner gave a brief staff presentation on this matter. -621- December 21, 1982 ' Mayor Cassell stated the annexation does need to be zoned something at this time. Councilmember Elliott asked about the proximity of the airport runway. Ken Waido pointed out the location of the runway on a map of the area. Councilmember Knezovich made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Reeves, to adopt Ordinance No. 151, 1982 on First Reading, zoning the Carpenter/ McAleer Annexation R-L-P. George Thornton, 4 Steeple Chase Drive, stated that he was asked to speak on this issue by the Andersonville, Lindenmeier Estates, Lindenwood, Ever- green Park, Nedrah, Country Club, Puebla Vista, and Alta Vista neighbor- hoods. He stated that any residential use is inappropriate in this area to be zoned because of airport hazards and uncertainty about future use of the area. He stated any development would be premature because of questions about the Lemay by-pass, the alignment of the proposed expressway, and the possibility of a railroad switchyard being located in the area. He stated there is no current need for mobile home spaces, and there have been problems with this developer's projects. ' Delores Williams, 1520 Hillside Drive, commented on traffic problems that would be generated by development, and stated the property should not have been annexed. Councilmember Clarke commented that the City was obligated to annex the property because of the Urban Growth Area agreement with the County. Councilmember Horak stated that any development would have to be approved based on factors in effect at the time of development. Leonard Banowetz, 12 Forest Hills Lane, addressed development problems and concerns with increased density in the area. He proposed a T-Transitional zoning or zoning the lowest density possible, or the possibility of de - annexing the property. Councilmember Knezovich asked about the reasons this hearing had been requested to be postponed to this date. Mr. Banowetz stated that there was a hearing on the expressway alignment in the interim. Loren Maxey, 1101 Clark, expressed concerns about the proximity of the airport and supported T-Transitional zoning. -622- ' 1 December 21, 1982 Ken Waido, Chief Planner, stated that T-Transitional zoning is usually designated at the developer's request, and rezoning to another zone from T-Transitional would have to be done within 60 days of a request from the developer. Councilmember Elliott expressed concerns about the rights of property owners, and stated that development concerns would be addressed later. Councilmember Horak stated that this is a zoning issue rather than a traffic issue. Councilmember Reeves stated that T-Transitional zoning would be only a short-term solution because the developer has already requested another zoning. City Attorney Huisjen stated that T-Transitional zoning would have to be with the owner's cooperation. Ken Waido stated that any zoning could be conditioned on development as a Planned Unit Development and that any type of development might have risks. Councilmember Clarke stated that the development would be designed better in the City than in the County. The vote on the motion to adopt Ordinance No. 151, 1982 on First Reading was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Cassell, Clarke, Elliott, Horak, Knezovich, and Reeves. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Other Business Mayor Cassell stated that the Colorado Municipal League is seeking appli- cants for nomination to National League of Cities committees, and Council - members should contact him if they are interested. Mayor Cassell announced that the Council will be interviewing the top 6 applicants for the Council vacancy, as determined by a point scoring system. Interviews will be conducted on Thursday, December 30, 1982 beginning at 4:00 p.m. The names of the 6 applicants to be interviewed will be available after 10:00 a.m. on December 22 in the City Clerk's Office. The 6 to be interviewed and the 15 unsuccessful applicants will be notified prior to that time. Councilmember Reeves stated that her resignation would be forthcoming. -623- December 21, 1982 1 Adjournment Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Knezovich, to adjourn the meeting. Yeas: Councilmembers Cassell, Clarke, Elliott, Horak, Knezovich, and Reeves. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. The meeting adjourned at 10:25 p.m. City. Clerk Mayor -624-