HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES-11/17/1981-RegularNovember 17, 1981
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
Council -Manager Form of Government
Regular Meeting - 5:30 p.m.
Presentation of colors - Cub Scout Pack # 97.
-- A regular meeting of the Council 'of- the City of Fort Collins .was held
on Tuesday, November 17, 1981, 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: Cassell, Clarke, Elliott, Horak, Knezovich, Reeves and
Wilmarth.
Staff Members Present: Arnold, Liley, Lanspery, Davis, Lewis, Harmon, C.
Smith, Hays, Krempel, Brown, Feldman, R. Smith,
Denton, R. Lee, Carnahan.
Agenda Review: City Manager
' City Manager Arnold requested that agenda item #10, Resolution Approvinc
Intergovernmental Agreement between the City of Fort Collins and Poudre
Valley Fire Protection District to Create an In
Governmental
98 1
1981. t.y to be known as Poudre Fire Authority-, be tabled to December 15,
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 meeting of November
3, 1981.
5. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 167 1981 Vacating The Fifty (50)
Foot Frontage Road on the East Side of Lot 5 Cre er Plaza Subdivision
and Acceptance of Replacement Easement for Access and Utilities.
This Ordinance was adopted on November 3rd on First Reading on a 6-0
vote.
484
November 17, 1981 '
The applicant is requesting the vacation of the frontage road on the
east side of Lot 5, Creger Plaza Subdivision. The City has discon-
tinued the development of the frontage road system on College Avenue
north of La Belle's/Target on the west side of College. (The decision
on the east side of College has not yet been made). At the time of
the vacation request,.. the. applicant dedicated utility easements to -
cover the existing utilities and an easement for access. The staff
has reviewed the vacation request and the proposed dedications and is
recommending.approval.-
6. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 168. 1981. Vacatino Streets and
This Ordinance was adopted on November 3rd on First Reading on a 6-0
vote.
The applicant is requesting vacation of all streets and easements
as dedicated on the plat of the North Lemay Subdivision, Second Filing
as previously recorded with the County Clerk. The subdivision has
been recently replatted and has been considered and approved by the
Planning and Zoning Board on April 30, 1981. Staff has reviewed this '
request and recommends approval (Case No. 19-81A).
7. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 171 1981 Appropriating
Unanticipated Revenue in the General Fund.
This Ordinance appropriates the $600 in grant monies from the Insti-
tute of Museum Services to be used for participation of the Fort
Collins Museum in the Museum Assessment Program.
8. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 172 1981 Appropriati
Unanticipated Revenue in the Capital Pro.iects Fund.
Ordinance No. 87, 1981, authorized the issuance of $5,700,000 in Sales
and Use Tax Revenue Bonds for street improvements. Included in this
amount were sufficient funds to cover costs of issuing the bonds. The
actual cost to issue the bonds (e.g., printing, legal costs, postage,
etc.) is $58,984. This Ordinance appropriates $58,984 to cover this
cost.
9. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 173 1981 Appropriati
Unanticipated Revenue in the Larimer County Community Developme
Block Grant Fund.
On September 30, 1980, the City of Fort Collins signed an agreement '
with Larimer County wherein the City agreed to administer the Larimer
LA
INovember 17, 1981
County Community Development Block Grant program. At that time, the
City appropriated $202,950 for housing rehabilitation and administra-
tive costs. The County has now received an additional $115,050 under
the CDBG Program, which will also be used for rehabilitation of homes
in the Larimer County target area and administrative costs.
Ordinances on Second Reading were read by title by Molly Davis, Deputy City
Clerk.
Item #5. Second Readinq of Ordinance No. 167, 1981, Vacating The Fifty
50 Foot Frontage Road on the East Side of Lot 5 Cre er Plaza
Subdivision and Acceptance of Replacement Easement for Access and
Item
#6
Second
Reading of
Ordinance No. 168 1981 Vacating Streets and
Easements
Dedicated on North Lemay Subdivision Second Filing.
Ordinances
on First Reading
were read by title by Molly Davis, Deputy
City
Clerk.
'
Item
V .
Hearing
priating
and First Reading of Ordinance No 171 1981 Appro-
Unanticipa teaRevenue in the General Fund.
Item
#8.
Hearing
and First
Readin of Ordinance No. 172, 1981, Appro-
priating
Unanticipated
Revenue in the Capital Projects Fund.
Item
#9.
Hearing
and First
Reading of Ordinance No. 173 1981 Appro-
priating
Unanticipated
Revenue in the Larimer County Community
Development Block Grant Fund.
Councilmember Knezovich made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Elliott,
to adopt and approve all items listed on the Consent Calendar. Yeas:
Councilmembers Cassell, Clarke, Elliott, Horak, Knezovich, Reeves and
Wilmarth. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Resolution Approving Intergovernmental Agreement between
the City of Fort Collins and Poudre Valley Fire Protection
District to create an Independent Governmental Entity to
be known as "Poudre Fire Authority", Tabled to December 15
City Manager Arnold requested that this item be tabled to December 15.
1 486
November 17, 1981 '
Councilmember Reeves made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Cassell,
to table Resolution 81-158, until December 15, 1981. Yeas: Councilmembers
Cassell, Clarke, Elliott, Horak, Knezovich, Reeves and Wilmarth. Nays:
None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Resolutfon Adopted Approvin an'Agreement with the Humane Society
Following is the City Manager's memorandum on this item:
"For some time, the Police Department has been exploring the possibility of
contracting out animal control enforcement responsibilities to the Humane
Society of Larimer County.
Serious discussions with the Society began in 1980. However, the Society
was reluctant, at that time, to proceed until they had acquired some more
experience in enforcement through a new agreement with the County. Nego-
tiations continued into 1981, and the attached agreement is the result
of these efforts. This contract, which provides for City animal control by '
the Society, also has the City's annual shelter care contract incor-
porated into it.
The Police Department had budgeted $105,639 for animal control in 1982. Of
this total, $30,900 was included for shelter care. The proposed contract
is for $94,100 including the shelter care allocation. The projected
savings of $11,539 is primarily found in salary and vehicle categories.
Since the Society is a non-profit organization, it was possible to include
an interesting provision in the contract: any year end surplus can be
applied to the following year contract amount. Some surplus is anticipa-
ted because both vacancy savings and first year costs are generally esti-
mated on the high side. As in the budget request, the contract provides
for 2-1/2 employees.to provide enforcement services in the City from 6:00
a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, and 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
Saturday and Sunday. This is the same level of service that has been
provided to the community in the past. The 2 112 employees will be leaving
City employment but will have the option of continued employment with the
Humane Society at the Humane Society's salary schedule.
Professional and aggressive animal control is necessary in the community,
and an acceptable level of service has been provided. However, animal
control development has frequently not received the attention it merits
because of more compelling areas of attention within the Police'•Department. '
487
November 17, 1981
This contract will allow City animal control to be administered by an
agency whose sole reason for existing is to promote the welfare of animals
and responsible pet ownership. The Society is prepared and equipped
to intensify our previous efforts in education in the above areas. At-
tempts at reaching their desirable goals should be made on a coordinated
County wide basis. Significant advances are envisioned."
City Manager Arnold stated that the City has been working on this agreement
for a long time and recommended approval for the following reasons: 1) it
will free the Police Department time for other matters; 2) it will allow
the animal enforcement function to be handled by the Humane Society; 3) it
will save the City money; and 4) it is a step toward coordinating County
programs.
Councilmember Clarke asked whether the City would be buying any new equip-
ment to lend to the Humane Society.
City Manager Arnold replied that only available equipment will be lent.
Councilmember Knezovich expressed concerns about City employees' rights if
' transferring to employment with the Humane Society.
Division Chief Feldman stated that the 2-1/2 employees affected have been
aware of the the change for some time. These employees have the option of
being employed with the Humane Society at a lower salary than the City's.
There is no option to transfer to other jobs in the Police Department or in
the City without competing for those jobs. The Society's benefit package
is comparable to the City's but not as extensive.
Councilmember Horak asked whether the Society would maintain the same level
of service as provided by the City and where would employees be located.
Division Chief Feldman replied that services will be comparable. Society
employees are mobile but have space available for office work in the Police
Department.
Councilmember Elliott asked whether response time -would remain the same.
Division Chief Feldman stated that little change is anticipated.
Councilmember Knezovich asked whether the City would monitor the Society's
services and citations issued.
Division Chief Feldman replied there are provisions for quarterly moni-
toring of the program.
ME
November 17, 1981 '
Councilmember Reeves asked if the agreement would be negotiated annually.
Division Chief Feldman replied that is the intent.
Councilmember Knezovich requested that the. City work -with the affected.,
employees to make the transition easier and to protect their rights.
City Manager Arnold .stated the City would. attempt, to work with the em
ployees.as:requested'-by Counci-lmember Knezovich.-
Councilmember Clarke made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Reeves,
to adopt the Resolution. Yeas: Councilmembers Cassell, Clarke, Elliott,
Horak, Knezovich, Reeves and Wilmarth. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Resolution Adopted Authorizing the City Manager and
City Clerk to Execute an Agreement with Poudre-
Thompson Transportation Corps Inc. d/b/a Care -A -Van '
Following is the City Manager's memorandum on this item:
"The City of Fort Collins has been negotiating with Care -A -Van for the past
year to assist the City in several areas of the Transfort operation. The
contract for these services is attached. The general scope of services to
be provided by Care -A -Van are: (1) supervision of administrative and
budget services; (2) supervision of the Transfort Supervisor; (3) provide
grants search and development; (4) provide public representation for
Transfort and Care -A -Van; and (5) coordinate with all other transportation
providers in Larimer County.
The length of the contract is from December 1, 1981, through December 31,
1982. Care -A -Van will be paid $1,700.00 a month to provide the services,
with a maximum total of $22,100.00. The Director of Transportation Ser-
vices is the City representative and is authorized to handle all aspects of
this contract. The contract is an initial step in developing a more
comprehensive working agreement with Care -A -Van. During the first year,
all joint operational aspects of these units will be thoroughly reviewed by
the City and Care -A -Van. The Section 3 grant was a joint effort and will
provide a joint location when finished.
Many .of the grants which the City seeks and obtains are done jointly with
and apply to Care -A -Van. This contract should eliminate parallel work by
both entities for this service. The management through this contract will ,
EM
' November 17, 1981
provide more continuity and increased efficiency and productivity of
operation through a higher level of coordination. Transfort has reduced
its full-time permanent personnel from 5 to 4, with lower wages for some
employees due to reclassifications. This savings alone should provide most
of the funds to cover the contract expenses.
Staff recommends approval of this contract as a first step in developing a
complete comprehensive contractual service."
City Manager Arnold stated this is an intergovernmental program for a trial
Period that should prove to be mutually advantageous and cost effective:
Councilmember Elliott asked that the contact persons named in the contract
should be referred to by title.
City Attorney Liley stated that change could be handled administratively.
Councilmember Clarke made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Reeves,
to adopt the Resolution. Yeas: Councilmembers Cassell, Clarke, Elliott,
Horak, Knezovich, Reeves and Wilmarth. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
' Resolution Adopted Revising 1982 Annual Pass Fee
Rates for Municipal Golf Courses
Following is the City Manager's memorandum on this item:
"City Council, at its meeting of November 3, 1981, passed and adopted
Resolution 81-155, establishing and revising fees to be charged at Munici-
pal Golf Courses for 1982. The rate structure of Annual Passes (formerly
known as Memberships) became a point for discussion because several members
of Council stated that they had received phone calls questioning the
elimination of the "Husband/Wife" category for 1982. Golf Board members,
Tom Skillman and Jim Mitchell, spoke to Council at the meeting regarding
this issue, with Mr. Skillman stating that even though the Golf Board voted
unanimously 6:0 to recommend elimination of the Husband/Wife category, that
he had been absent from the meeting, and he believed that the Board acted
without a complete understanding of the ramifications involved.
Discussion ensued,
and Council
decided to pass
the
Resolution as submitted
(vote was 6:0 with
Councilman
Clarke absent),
but
suggested that
the Golf
Board may want to hold`a
special
meeting prior
to
the next Council
meeting
to potentially reconsider
the
Husband/Wife issue.
Council did not
suggest
that the Board had
to change
their original
recommendation,
but
only to
1
maybe reconsider in
light of recent discussion.
November 17, 1981
The Golf Advisory Board then held a special meeting on November 9, 1981,
wherein they reconsidered Annual Passes. All seven regular Board members,
as well as the Alternate, attended the meeting. Staff provided the Board
with an opinion from the City Attorney regarding the concern of dis-
crimination relative to the Husband/Wife category of passes. Generally
speaking, the. .Attorney stated. that such passes- are permissible, if the
husband/wife classification is reasonable as based on rational criteria and
bears a relationship to a proper governmental purpose, and that all persons
within the class are: treated equally. Historical, and. traditional reason--
ing is acceptable-.
The Board then discussed, reviewed and debated the entire issue of Annual
Passes. Staff provided the Board with six potential options to choose
from, and after further discussion, the Board voted 6:1 to revise the
entire "Family" rate structure to include the Husband/Wife within it, and
to set up a variable rate structure for multiple family members. All
of the other rate categories of Annual Passes remain the same as were
adopted with Resolution 81-155.
Comparing 1981 Annual Pass rates with the previously approved 1982 rates,
and with the newly revised recommended Family rate structure, is as fol-
lows:
Recommended
Approved
Approved
Revised
Single Course Annual Pass
1981
1982
1982
Husband/Wife
$240
Eliminated
Eliminated
Single Adult
$170
$200
$200
Student (under age 24)
$140
$150
$150
Junior (under age 18)
$ 85
$100
$100
Senior Citizen (age 62 & over)
Husband/Wife
$160
Eliminated
Eliminated
Single Adult
$100
$100
$100
Family (spouse & all children
age 18 and under)
$300
$330
N/A
Primary member of family
N/A
N/A
$200
Secondary member/spouse
N/A
N/A
$100
1st child -age 18 & under
N/A
N/A
$ 50
2nd child -age 18 & under
N/A
N/A
$ 50
3rd child or more - age 18
& under
N/A
N/A
$ 50
Family Maximum Charge
$450
r
491
November 17, 1981
Both Course Combination Annual Pass
Husband/Wife
$280
Eliminated
Eliminated
Single Adult
$200
$250
$250
Student (under age 24)
$160
$190
$190
::-Junior (under, age-18) -
$105
$125-
$125
Senior Citizen (age 62 & over)
Husband/Wife
$190
Eliminated
Eliminated
SingdelAdult <-.: -
=:z'$135_-_$}25_._..:_._._;$125:._._
Family (spouse & all children
age 18 and under)
$340
$380
N/A
Primary member of family
N/A
N/A
$250
Secondary member/spouse
N/A
N/A
$125
1st child -age 18 & under
N/A
N/A
$ 65
2nd child -age 18 & under
N/A
N/A
$ 65
3rd child or more- age 18
& under
N/A
N/A
$ 65
Family Maximum Charge $570
Summary
' It appears then that this newly revised Family rate structure retains the
Husband/Wife classification, as well as recognizes that families with
multiple children who play golf, will in fact pay for their golf; and they
will all receive an equitable discount from the basic rate structure. No
member of the Board nor staff disagreed with the intent of this revised
recommendation, though one Board member feels that there should be no
discounts for anyone, and that all golfers should pay the same. Board
members also voted unanimously to continue studying Annual Passes during
the coming year, and their relationship to our goals and needs. Further
analysis of Annual Passes will be ongoing in 1982."
Councilmember Clarke expressed concern about the proposed rates for fam-
ilies compared to other categories. He stated that the City should charge
the one -child rate for families and not charge for each additional child.
Tom Skillman, Chairman of the Golf Board, stated the Board will be looking
at the entire rate structure next year, including senior citizen rates.
Jerry Brown, Administrative Assistant to the Parks and Recreation Director,
stated that family rates have not been increased in the past to the extent
that other rates have been increased. The City of Loveland has a rate
structure that charges for each child up to the fifth.
WOO
November 17, 1981 '
Councilmember Clarke stated the City should support family activities, and
he would vote against the fees as proposed because of the family rates.
Councilmember Elliott made a motion, seconded by. Councilmember Knezovich,
to -adopt Resolution°81-161. Yeas: Councilmembers Cassell, Elliott, Horak,
Knezovich, Reeves and Wilmarth. Nays: Councilmember Clarke.
THE.MOTION CARRIED.
Resolution Adopted Making Findings Relating to an Appeal
from Decision of Liquor Licensing Authority Concerning
Country Store 830 South College Avenue
Following is the City Manager's memorandum on this item:
"The Liquor Licensing Authority conducted a show/cause hearing for
Country
Store, 830 South College Avenue, on October 7th, for a liquor law
viola-
tion. After hearing testimony from both the licensee and the
Police
Department, the Authority ordered a three-day suspension of the
Country
Store's 3.2% fermented malt beverage license.
On October 16th, the City Clerk received an appeal from the decision
of the
,
Liquor Licensing Authority to the City Council, and Council conducted
a
hearing on the record on November 3rd. At that time, Council directed
that a Resolution be prepared and brought back at this meeting to
set out
the Council's findings based on this hearing: 1) That a violation
of the
liquor laws did occur; and 2) that a letter of reprimand is to be
issued
to the Country Store."
Mayor Wilmarth withdrew from discussion and voting on this item because
of a possible conflict of interest. Councilmember Clarke withdrew because
he was not present at the hearing on the appeal.
Assistant Mayor Cassell chaired this portion of the meeting.
Councilmember Reeves made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Elliott,
to adopt the Resolution. Yeas: Councilmembers Cassell, Elliott, Horak,
Knezovich and Reeves. Nays: None. (Mayor Wilmarth and Councilmember Clarke
withdrawn.)
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Following this item, Mayor Wilmarth and Councilmember Clarke returned
to meeting.
493
November 17, 1981
' Resolution Adopted Making Appointments to City Retirement Committee
Following is the City Manager's memorandum on this item:
"Applications for membership on the City Retirement Committee will be sent
to Council under separate cover. Council will need to select two persons
to fill the existing vacancies on the Committee, with one term to expire on
July 1, 1982 and one term to expire on July 1, 1984. Both vacancies will
be filled from applications received from City employees. The Retirement
Committee consists of four members, with the Director of Finance serving as
an_ex-officio non -voting member, and administers the City Retirementn Pla."
City Attorney Liley reported that one City employee who applied lives in
Loveland, but that person could be considered since the Retirement Plan
requires only that Retirement Committee members be either tax paying
electors of the City or City employees covered by the Plan.
Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Clarke,
to adopt the Resolution appointing Debra McClurkin for the term to expire
in 1982 and Linda Pretz for the term to expire in 1984. Yeas: Council -
members Cassell, Clarke, Elliott, Horak, Knezovich, Reeves and Wilmarth.
Nays: None.
I
THE MOTION CARRIED.
City Attorney's Report
1) City Attorney Liley reported on a case before the Colorado Supreme
Court involving lease -purchases and the City of Lakewood. The Court has
ruled that the city can lease -purchase both land and equipment without any
restrictions. This paves the way for the City of Fort Collins to use this
as a financing option.
2) City Attorney Liley reported on the final major litigation report that
Council has requested. This is to be prepared for the November 24th
meeting.
3) City Attorney Liley stated that the uniform appeal procedure is being
circulated to the departments and is undergoing revision. The procedure
will make appeals to Council on the record hearings.
City Manager's Report
City Manager Arnold introduced Tom Hays, who has been selected as the new
City Engineer.
494
November 17, 1981
Councilmembers' Reports
Councilmember Horak reported that he and Councilmember Clarke have inter-
viewed applicants for the Downtown Development Authority vacancy and
requested that Council. make. the appointment -at the.. next..addourned. meeting._..
Councilmember Horak also reported on the Metropolitan Planning Organization
Transportation Committee and the State Highway DepartmenL'.s_desire.to.have
a; -vote on the organization. A letter has been sent to the. Governor re --
questing that the Highway Department not have a vote.
Councilmember Horak reported on the Poudre Study Committee and selection of
Tudor Engineering to do the feasibility study for the Conservation Board.
Councilmember Clarke reported on a meeting to be held on November 19 with
Poudre R-1.
Councilmember Clarke also asked for direction on whether he should continue
to monitor the situation with Care -A -Van now that a contract has been
approved. Council direction was for him to continue in this effort.
Councilmember Reeves reported on the Airport Ad -Hoc Committee meeting of
November 17 and stated the next meeting would be December 7th. Revised
minimum standards were presented to the Committee and recommendations will
be made to the two Councils for the December 15th meeting. The new Fixed
Base Operator has begun operations at the airport. The Committee has also
discussed the Skywest Parachute Club, and a letter is to be sent by staff
giving a 30-day notice that the club is in violation of the lease and has
no permit to operate from the T-Hangars. Any new agreement will deal with
new safety stipulations. The committee has also discussed subdividing
adjacent development property.
Councilmember Reeves also reported on the Colorado Municipal League Policy
Committee's efforts on issues to appear on the Governor's Call: 1) the
lottery; 2) circuit rider program; 3) support Colorado Counties, Inc. (CCI)
on mineral lease funds distribution; 4) severance tax; 5) beer and liquor
code changes; 6) police and fire pension laws.
Councilmember Knezovich reported on the meeting of the Finance Committee of
the Colorado Municipal League and activities on items to appear on the
Governor's Call, including the lottery and the severance tax.
Councilmember Knezovich reported on the Downtown Development Authority's
recommendations for persons to be appointed to the Board: Dan Larson, Chuck
Mabry, or Dick McCormick.
495
' November 17, 1981
Councilmember Knezovich reported that the Northern Colorado Water Conser-
vancy District may file suit to oppose tax increment financing by the
Downtown Development Authority.
Mayor Wilmarth reported on the Council retreat and briefly commented on the
Capital Improvement Projects Model and Work Session procedures discussed at
the retreat.
Citizen Participation
A. Presentation of Plaque Recognizing Fort Collins Friends of the Library
for Their Fund -Raising Efforts in the Installation of the Library's
Theft Detection System, "Friendly Fred".
Mayor Wilmarth presented a plaque with the following inscription to
John Power and Sarah Bennett, who received the plaque on behalf of
The Friends of the Library:
"In recognition of your Service to the Community in raising Funds for
the Library's 'Friendly Fred.'"
' B. Presentation of Plaque to City Attorney Lucia Liley for Her Years
of Service to the City of Fort Collins.
Mayor Wilmarth presented a plaque with the following inscription to
Lucia Liley:
"To Lucia A. Liley, City Attorney, July, 1976 - December, 1981. Pre-
sented in recognition of and respect for your valuable contributions
and devotion to the City of Fort Collins and its citizens."
C. Presentation of Plaque to Deputy City Manager Paul Lanspery for
His Years of Service to the City of Fort Collins.
Mayor Wilmarth presented a plaque with the following inscription to
Paul Lanspery:
"To Paul Lanspery, Deputy City Manager, June, 1976 - December, 1981.
Presented in recognition of and respect for your valuable contributions
and devotion to the City of Fort Collins and its citizens."
1 496
November 17, 1981 '
Ordinance No. 169, 1981, Relating to Alcoholic
Beverages, Denied on Second Reading and
Emergency Ordinance No. 176, 1981, Adopted
Following is the City Manager's memorandum on this item:
"This Ordinance was adopted on First Reading on November 3rd on a 4-1
vote..
The Ordinance'` sets the occupation tax'for Hotel -Restaurant, Tavern and
Retail Liquor Stores at $1,500 annually, and all other classes of licenses
(Beer & Wine, Club, 3.2%) are set at $750 annually. The occupation tax
would then collect approximately $126,750 in General Fund revenue rather
than the $108,750 listed in the 1982 adopted budget. The occupation tax on
all businesses selling malt, vinous and spiritous liquors has not been
increased since its imposition in April, 1969. Additionally, the occupa-
tion tax on the business of selling 3.2% fermented malt beverages has not
been increased since 1971."
Mayor Wilmarth withdrew from discussion and voting on this matter because
of a possible conflict of interest. This portion of the meeting was
chaired by Assistant Mayor Cassell. '
John Musa, 3013 Eastborough Drive, operator and co-owner of Campus West
Liquors, spoke about the proposed increase in the retail liquor store
occupation tax to $1500. He stated that the proposal is a 300% increase
and would be a hardship for retail liquor stores. The tax is inequitable
when compared to proposed increases for other classes of licenses. He
stated that customers will tend to buy from retail liquor stores outside
the City because the outlets ,in the City will have to increase prices. The
City will therefore lose sales tax revenues. He proposed that the occupa-
tion tax for retail liquor stores be set a $750 per year, to more closely
align with the tax established for other classes of licenses. This amount
will still generate more revenue for the City than projected in the origi-
nal 1982 budget.
John Dowd, 2019 Constitution Avenue, owner of the Wine Cellar Restaurant,
proposed an alternative of setting all the occupation taxes at 85% of the
proposed taxes. He stated that this would meet the revenue requirements of
the City as set out in the original 1982 budget projections.
Councilmember Elliott asked if the Ordinance could be amended on second
reading.
City Attorney Liley recommended that it would be more appropriate to deny
Ordinance No. 169, 1981, and adopt a new Ordinance.
497
November 17, 1981
Councilmember Elliott stated that the increase for retail liquor stores is
excessive, and he would like to discuss a more equitable fee structure.
Councilmember Knezovich asked if the new Ordinance could be considered as
an Emergency Ordinance.
City Attorney Liley stated that it could be an Emergency Ordinance to get
the fees adopted before the end of the year,,_
Councilmember Reeves stated that the occupation taxes have not been
increased since 1969 and 1971 so it is valid to look at increases. The
original budget projections have been revised in other ways. Lower fees
could be considered, but this consideration should not be based on the
original 1982 revenue projections.
Councilmember Clarke stated he sees an inequity in the Ordinance for the
retail liquor stores since the increase would be a burden based on their
ability to pay.
Councilmember Cassell stated he would like to see the occupation taxes
reviewed periodically and increased on a gradual basis in the future.
Councilmember Elliott made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Horak,
to adopt Ordinance No. 169, 1981, on Second Reading. Yeas: None. Nays:
Councilmembers Cassell, Clarke, Elliott, Horak, Knezovich, and Reeves.
(Mayor Wilmarth out of the room.)
THE MOTION WAS DEFEATED.
Councilmember Knezovich made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Clarke, to
adopt the following Ordinance No. 176, 1981, as an emergency ordinance:
ORDINANCE NO. 176, 1981
BEING AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 33
OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
RELATING TO ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS:
Section 1. That Section 33-5 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins
be, and the same hereby is, amended to read as follows:
m.]
November 17, 1981
33-5, License tax assessed
B. There is hereby levied and assessed for each year
an annual occupations license tax upon the business
of manufacturing orf selling malt,..vinous- or spirituous -
liquors in the City as such occupations are classified
_._ in Section 12-47-106 and Section 32-47-124 (46), C.R.S.,_
19.73., as amended„ as follows-
1. Retail liquor store license, the sum of seven
hundred fifty dollars ($750).
2. Liquor licensed drugstore, the sum of seven hundred
fifty dollars ($750).
3. Beer and wine license, the sum of seven hundred
fifty dollars ($750).
4. Hotel and restaurant liquor license and tavern
license the sum of one thousand five .hundred
dollars ($1,500).
5. Extended hours hotel and restaurant license,
extended hours beer and wine license, extended
hours tavern license and extended hours club
license, the sum of one hundred fifty dollars
($150).
6. Club license, the sum of seven hundred fifty
dollars ($750).
Section 2. That Section 33-17 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins
be, and the same hereby is, amended to read as follows:
33-17, License Tax Assessed
B. There is hereby levied and assessed for each year
an annual occupational license tax upon the business of
selling fermented malt beverages in the city as such
occupation is herein classified, as follows: for a Class
A, Class B, or Class C license, the sum of seven hundred
fifty dollars ($750).
Section 3. That the license taxes set forth in Sections 1 and 2 above
shall become effective on January 1, 1982.
499
1
I
November 17, 1981
1
Section 4. That the immediate adoption of the foregoing measure is
necessary to preserve, protect, and advance the general welfare and safety
of the residents of the City of Fort Collins. Therefore, the City Council
hereby determines that an emergency does exist, requiring the immediate
passage of this ordinance; and this ordinance is therefore enacted, pur-
suant to Section 6, Artiste II of the Charter of the City of Fort Collins,
as an emergency ordinance and shall become effective upon its passage.
Introduced; considered -.favorably- by-6 members of the. City -:Council,
- upon reading' finally passed as an emergency ordinance and ordered pub-
lished this 17th day of November, A.D. 1981.
The vote on the previous motion was as follows:
Yeas: Councilmembers Cassell, Clarke, Elliott, Knezovich and Reeves.
Nays: Councilmember Horak. (Mayor Wilmarth out of the room.)
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Following this item, Mayor Wilmarth returned to the meeting.
Ordinances Relating to Establishing a Storm Drainage
Utility Fee and a Storm Drainage Basin Fee
to Finance Capital Improvements
Following is the City Manager's memorandum on this item:
"A. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 170, 1981, Establishing a
Storm Drainage Utility Fee and a Storm Drainage Basin Fee to Finance
Capital Improvements.
B. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 174, 1981, Establishing a
Storm Drainage Utility Fee and a Storm Drainage Basin Fee to Finance
Capital Improvements.
The Council tabled Ordinance No. 170, 1981 at their November 3rd meeting to
allow representatives of the development community to further review the
ordinance in detail with staff. Staff has met with the developers; several
changes were recommended and have been included in the new version of the
ordinance. These changes include requiring the payment of basin fees as a
condition of issuing certificates of occupancy, deleting references to
bonding drainage improvements at the time of subdivision approval, and
clearing up the definition of a "developed lot." Minor changes in the
wording of Sections 93-9, 93-11 and 93-26 were made at the request of the
500
November 17, 1981 '
Finance Department to clarify accounting procedures for the Storm Drainage
Fund. And several minor changes to improve syntax have been incorporated
into the new ordinance.
These changes are substantial enough to warrant the introduction of a new
ordinance. The staff therefore recommends that the tabled Ordinance No.
- T70;::1981, be denied and. that the, revi.sed-version, Ordinance No. 174,.1981,.
- be approved on first reading.
The City Council', at- their October- 6th,meeting, adopted storm drainage
basin master plans for .the .Foothills, Fox Meadows, and McClellands-Mail
Creek drainage basins. These master plans represent a regional approach to
stormwater management; previously, storm drainage was addressed on a
site -by -site basis. The master plans contain conceptual designs of the
systems of drainage improvements necessary to provide safe and effective
storm drainage within the various basins. Cost -benefit analyses were
included in the master plans when improvements within existing developments
were proposed. Improvements in undeveloped areas were based on the adopted
design criteria, for which the 100-year storm is the major design factor.
In recommending the adoption of these master plans to Council, the Storm
Drainage Board also recommended an overall storm drainage financing plan to ,
insure their successful implementation. The attached ordinance establishes
a storm drainage utility fee and a storm drainage basin fee for capital
improvements; these fees are the basic elements of the overall financing
plan. The fees will become effective in the Foothills, Fox Meadows,and
McClellands-Mail Creek basin on January 1, 1982. Fees for the remaining
basins will be developed during 1982.
IMPACT
The average basin fees (for new development) will be:
Foothills - $2021 per acre
Fox Meadows - $1246 per acre
McClellands-Mail Creek - $1453 per acre
The average homeowners' utility fees will be:
Foothills - $0.41 per month
Fox Meadows - $0.33 per month
McClellands-Mail Creek - $0.81 per month
(The initial estimates of the monthly utility fees for the three basins
were $0.41, $0.83, and $0.63, respectively. These estimates have been
revised in the final calculations.) ,
501
November 17, 1981
' ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
The Storm Drainage Board considered a number of alternatives before
recommending the proposed fees. An increase in property taxes and special
drainage improvement districts were considered in the early stages but were
eliminated. Increasing the sales tax to support storm drainage had been
recommended to Council in 1977, but had been rejected. The Board finally
decided that a system of .user charges would be the.mostdependable and,
equi-table.apf b;acfi
Many. local governments, especially in the western., >,__;.
T -.
sing e--.purpose utilities foi managin9--a rrfi=financin �s-o y —
g •rt�rmwater::s stems: �
User charges for existing homeowners are becoming more common. Aurora,
Boulder, and the City and County of Denver all have monthly user charges
for capital needs. Similar financing programs have been implemented in
Billings, Montana; Tacoma, Bellevue, Vancouver, Steilacoom and Clark
County, Washington; and Portland and Corvalis, Oregon.
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION
The development of the proposed financing plan has been the focus of the
Storm Drainage Board's activity for the past six months. The Board and
staff have met a number of times with representatives of the development
' community throughout the process.
The developers are not opposed to the basic concept of an overall financing
plan, with a system -wide approach to drainage improvements and an equitable
division of total costs. Staff has amended the ordinance and drafted a set
of policies and procedures for administering the new ordinance to address
most of their concerns. However, the developers oppose the financing plan
because it creates a new plant investment fee.
After several lengthy discussions with the developers, it has become
apparent that their opposition is not directed at the storm drainage plant
investment fee in particular, but at all of the City's plant investment
fees in general. After reviewing many financing alternatives, the com-
bination of homeowner fees and plant investment fees was recommended as the
most fair and equitable method of financing drainage improvements. The
Storm Drainage Board and staff therefore recommend that Council adopt these
fees at this time. However, as the issue of plant investment fees as a
whole has been introduced in discussions, it is recommended that this
larger issue be examined by the City and the developers, working in con-
cert, at the earliest opportunity.
RECOMMENDATION
The proposed fees are an integral part of the overall stormwater management
program, and the Storm Drainage Board and staff recommend their approval."
502
November 17, 1981 ,
City Manager Arnold stated that staff has been working with the developers
on this issue. Staff is recommending denial of Ordinance No. 170 and
adoption of Ordinance No. 174, if Council approves this concept. Since the
1982 budget has been adopted with approximately $300,000 of storm drainage
improvements for three basins, funding will need to be found elsewhere if
Council does not approve this fee.
He further stated that the City has, been responsive to the'. developers'
concerns and is attempting to provide.for storm -drainage needs in an
equitable way.
•. K >. 1 4 r - r
' Councilmember Elliott made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Reeves,
to adopt Ordinance No. 170, 1981 on First Reading. Yeas: None. Nays:
Councilmembers Cassell, Clarke, Elliott, Horak, Knezovich, Reeves and
Wilmarth.
THE MOTION WAS DEFEATED.
Guy McCabe, 3012 Eindborough Drive, stated this program does not realis-
tically address storm drainage problems. Ordinance No. 174 establishes a
five year capital improvement program and also establishes a new storm
drainage philosophy. He stated that the cost to the City for the major
capital improvement program over the next ten or fifteen years would be '
about $78 million. In addition, the program would put the City at risk in
liability for all storm drainage improvements. He further stated that this
Ordinance circumvents the voters, and about 70% of the people are against
this program. He requested that Council reject Ordinance No. 174 and take
the issue to the voters, in addition to exploring other means of financing
storm drainage improvements. He commented also on the referendum period
for this Ordinance.
Councilmember Reeves asked if the City is already at risk because of
conducting basin studies.
Mr. McCabe stated the City may be partly at risk because of these studies.
He stated that, based on these studies, the City should pursue special
improvement districts.
Councilmember Horak asked about the City's risk under current policies.
City Attorney Liley stated that in the
past few years there has been
erosion in the philosophy that the City can
not be held liable if it has no
storm drainage program.
The City has been
sued in several cases for
inadequate storm drainage.
Under any new
program, the City would need to
operate in such a way that
it would not be
negligent to decrease the risk.
There is some liability if
the City continues not to have an adequate storm
drainage program.
'
503
INovember 17, 1981
City Attorney Liley also stated that this Ordinance would not come back for
second reading until December 15, and the referendum period would therefore
run from December 25 until January 25.
Bob Everitt, a local developer, spoke about the hardship this Ordinance
- - - _ would --create fort the. building: _-industry: - He stated that City fees have
contributed to a rapid increase in housing costs. He further stated -that
the-Foothtlls=. Basin needs to be studied yin.-cooperation,with.&S.U.;He.
_.also ;suggested' that= the �=p'rojected`-.costs--for the°"McClel`Iands dig Creek"
Basin are out of line. He asked that Council delay the Ordinance for two
more weeks to allow discussions about a partial self-help plan that would
involve the developers doing some of the work themselves.
Bill Bartran, a local homebuilder, supported the concept of financing storm
drainage improvements through general revenues since it should be a general
obligation of the City.
Justus Wilkinson, 429 South Whitcomb, supported Ordinance No. 170 over
Ordinance No. 174, and asked Council to table the issue to allow more
public input.
City Manager Arnold stated that the current program deals with three basins
instead of the 12 basins originally considered. Staff is committed to
working with the public on the remaining nine basins during 1982, since
storm drainage is a public perception problem. Special improvement dis-
tricts are a difficult mechanism since districts are based on assessment in
proportion to benefits received. A utility fee is the best alternative
compared to improvement districts or general funding. He recommended that
Council proceed with Ordinance No. 174 as proposed.
Councilmember Horak expressed concern about a public information program on
storm drainage.
City Manager Arnold stated that the City will hold public meetings in 1982
on storm drainage.
Roger Krempel, Director of Public Works and Water Utilities, stated that
the Storm Drainage Board has been involved in all steps in developing a
program, with Boardmember McCabe dissenting in this final stage. Mr.
Krempel stated that the Ordinance would be flexible enough to allow devel-
opers to do some of the work and be credited for that.
Councilmember Knezovich stated there are no easy solutions to the problem
and supported the Ordinance, noting that final reading would not be until
December 15.
504
November 17, 1981 ,
Mayor Wilmarth stated that staff has indicated the expense of this program.
He supports finding a solution for storm drainage problems but favors
taking the issue to the voters.
Councilmember Clarke asked about the ramifications should the Ordinance be
defeated. ---
.:City Manager Arnold replied .that -the money already, spent on, basin: studies._,
is minimal. compared`t'o the overall cost. of. the program. The decision has
already been made to go to the public with the next nine basins.
Councilmember Cassell made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Knezovich,
to adopt Ordinance No. 174, 1981, on First Reading.
Councilmember Horak made motion, seconded by Mayor Wilmarth, to add a new
Section 14 to the Ordinance stating that a citizen participation program
would be developed within two or three months and clarifying how the
citizens would be informed about the storm drainage program, with Council
to have approval over the program developed.
City Attorney Liley stated that such a direction could more properly be I
given by Resolution or motion.
The Mayor put the vote on the proposed amendment with the following re-
sults:
Yeas: Councilmembers Horak and Wilmarth.
Nays: Councilmembers Cassell, Clarke, Elliott, Knezovich and Reeves.
THE MOTION WAS DEFEATED.
Councilmember Horak suggested that the Capital Improvements Model could be
applied to this issue.
City Manager Arnold stated that a Resolution would be prepared for the
December 15th meeting to be considered with Second Reading of the Ordi-
nance, to set out a citizen participation program on storm drainage.
The Mayor put the vote on the motion to adopt Ordinance No. 174, 1981,
on First Reading with the following results:
Yeas: Councilmembers Cassell, Clarke, Elliott, Horak, Knezovich and
Reeves.
Nays: Mayor Wilmarth.
1
505
F
L�
November 17, 1981
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Clarke, to
direct that a Resolution be prepared for the December 15th meeting to
- ad dres5 he public: - input .issue. Yeas:_ CounciImembers--Cassel--1; .Clarke. t
E1"liott; Horak, Knezovich, Reeves and Wilmarth. Nays: None.
Request Denied to Waive the 1/6th Contiguity Requirement
for Development in the Urban Growth Area for a
20-Acre Parcel Located West of Shields Street and
South of Trilby Road
Following is the City Manager's memorandum on this item:
"This is a request to waive the 1/6th contiguity requirement for develop-
ment in the Urban Growth Area for a 20-acre parcel located at 7325 South
Shields Street. The applicant proposes to construct a cat and dog boarding
facility on the site and has requested Special Review approval from Larimer
County for this particular use.
The Larimer County Planning Commission reviewed the Special Review request
at their October 14, 1981 meeting. The Commission recommended approval of
the request subject to a number of conditions, among which was that all
Urban Growth Area application criteria be met prior to obtaining a building
permit,or a waiver be obtained for any criteria that could not be achieved.
The Commission also recommended that the 1/6th contiguity waiver be ap-
proved and that the requirement for public sewer be waived if the applicant
agrees to hook onto public sewer when it is available.
The proposed boarding facility is
consistent with the uses intended
application criteria for development
Special Review applications and must
permit.
urban in nature, and is, therefore,
for the Growth Area. However, the
in the Urban Growth Area do apply to
be met prior to obtaining a building
The site does not have at least 1/6th of its boundary contiguous to
existing development. This contiguity requirement may, upon applica-
tion, be waived by the Larimer County Commissioners after a hearing
with 30 days public notice, provided that:
I. Such waiver is approved by the governing body of the municipality
nearest the site for which a waiver is sought;
November 17, 1981 '
The County Commissioners find such waiver is consistent with
the intent and purpose of the County Comprehensive Master Plan;
3. Such waiver does not result in undue public expense for applying
governmental services to the site for which a waiver is sought.
Existing development is defined as follows:
1. County subdivisions- which were approved before January 1, 1980,
which do, not,_.have-,.a contract between ..the- devel.oper and the
Courrty for`speeific urban- improvements, must have building
permits issued on at .least 50% of the lots in the subdivision
before the subdivision can qualify as existing development.
2. County subdivisions which were approved before January 1, 1980,
which do have a contract between the developer and the County
for specific urban improvements will qualify as existing develop-
ment when the first building permit is issued for construction
within the subdivision.
3. Any City subdivision and any County subdivision finally approved .
after January 1, 1980, qualifies as existing development once
all engineering improvements (water, sewer, streets, curbs, '
gutters, street lights, fire hydrants, storm drainage) are
completed.
This area is essentially undeveloped. There is an existing residence
on the site and a furniture fabricating operation to the north. The
land to the east has been annexed to the City. Property to the north
and west is in the process of being annexed, leaving approximately 80-acres
outside the City limits.
In the past, several contiguity waiver requests have been reviewed by the
City. These requests were in areas where development already existed, and
water, sewer, and street systems were in place. Approval of this request
could set a precedent of allowing development in areas that clearly do not
meet the requirements set forth in the Intergovernmental Agreement of
developing adjacent to existing development with adequate public water,
sewer, and street facilities. These requirements are important elements of
the phasing aspects of the Intergovernmental Agreement and this variance,
if granted, could be used to justify similar or more intense requests which
could increase public costs of providing services within the Urban Growth
Area.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends denial of the Olinger 1/6th Contiguity Waiver Request. I
507
November 17, 1981
Planning and Zoning Board Recommendation
The Planning and Zoning Board voted 4-3 to recommend approval of the
Olinger 1/6th Contiguity Waiver Request (Case No. 80-81A)."
--Curt-- Smith" Planning .ctod:m-r, n
summarized the applicant's request and staff's recommendation. He stated`
that. -:staff's`--viewooint:is_that the'Dr000sed-usz' is temoorarv`in-nature anzt
........... the City. --
Doug Konkel, attorney representing the applicant, described the proposed
use and summarized County and City action on the issue. He stated that the
approval of the 1/6 contiguity waiver by the City is the only remaining
issue since the County has recommended approval.
Councilmember Knezovich asked for clarification of the contiguity issue.
Curt Smith stated that the Land Development Guidance System is more flex-
ible than the Urban Growth Area agreement as relates to the contiguity
requirements.
' Councilmember Elliott made motion to approve the waiver request. The
motion died for lack of a second.
Councilmember Cassell made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Horak, to
deny the waiver request based on the fact that granting the request would
set a precedent for undeveloped areas. Yeas: Councilmembers Cassell,
Clarke, Horak, Knezovich and Reeves. Nays: Councilmembers Elliott and
Wilmarth.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Elliott supported looking at such requests on a case -by -case
basis and urged flexibility.
Appeal from the Decision of the Planning and Zoning Board -
Home Federal Savings and Loan PUD Preliminary
Following is the City Manager's memorandum on this item:
"Nature of Review
Article V (Planning and Zoning Board Authority) of Chapter 2 of the Code of
' the City of Fort Collins authorizes the Board to take final action on all
M
November 17, 1981
planning items and, furthermore, sets forth the procedure for appealing of
decision of the Board to the Council. The appeal procedure requires the
appellant to submit written notice to the City Clerk and provides for the
Gity Clerk to send written
not.i.ce of_,the:,appeal,.,:to .the--appel:lant,,,-the
developer and`a71 landowners within 50G feet of'the.locat.V6n-of"the plank-
ing;,item. . Though the Board action: is. being. appealed,,_ Section 2-16.1:
(Nature of Review): of. the. Code .prov,,i_ f s, -
Section 2-16.1. Nature of Review.
a. An appeal from a final decision of the Planning and
Zoning Board shall be a new hearing which shall consist
of consideration of any relevant evidence or argument
based on the evidence.
In considering this appeal, the Council is, in essence, acting as the Board
and should
review the land use impact of the
proposed development, the
evaluation
of the proposed development under the
Land Development Guidance
System for
planned unit developments and any
other relevant evidence.
General
I
The applicants are seeking preliminary PUD plan approval for a 1.21-acre
site consisting of an existing 2,700 sf single-family home, 6,700 sf
existing bank, redesign of the existing 5-lane drive -through bank facility,
and construction of a new 180 sf 24-hour mini -bank. The site is zoned B-L
(existing bank facility - Lot 1 - 27,341 sf) and R-L (two existing homes
and one vacant lot - Lots 2, 6 and 7 - 25,496 sf). The existing home
(Lot 7) on Drake Road will be removed. The redesign of the 5-lane drive -
through facility will take place on Lots 6 and 7. The existing home on
Princeton Road (Lot 2) will remain. The property is located on the north-
east corner of Drake Road and College Avenue. The surrounding zoning and
land uses are as follows:
North: R-L - existing single-family homes.
South: H-B - various retail and commercial uses.
East: R-L - existing single-family home.
West: H-B - various retail and commercial uses.
509 '
' November 17, 1981
Site Data
Existing Proposed
-.Land-Area:,.-.-,-53,837.,sf .. 1007-.. 53,837 sf 100%,
Bank Building 6,700. sf 12.4% 6;700 sf i2C4% -
Envelope
House, on=:Princeton 2:;700 sf 5 a% '2000 tz_E
5:. ,1%
House on Drakes 2700 sf '` 5.1% `Removed
Parking & Drives: 15,950 sf 19.6% 23,000 sf 42.7%
Open Space: 25,787 sf 47.8% 21,437 sf 39.8%
Mini -Bank (within existing bank envelope): 180 sf
Parking: 31 spaces 39 spaces
Stack -Up Space: 15 spaces 25 spaces
Lot Areas: Lot 1: 27,341 sf
Lot 2: 8,670 sf
Lot 6: 8,149 sf
' Lot 7: 8,677 sf
Discussion
1. Relationship to Adopted Official Plans. Drake Road and College Avenue
are arterial streets as designated on the Master Street Plan. Drake
Road will be widened on the north side to include a right -turn lane
and sidewalks will be installed where they are presently missing.
2. Utilities. All utilities are available at the site.
3. Background. Lot 1 was rezoned from R-L to B-L in April 1968 with
the following recorded covenants:
a. Uses be limited to single-family residences and financial insti-
tution.
b. That
any
financial institution be limited to
one-story in
height
and
not more than 9,100 sf in area.
c. Site
plan
review by the City of Fort Collins
Planning and
Zoning
Board and
City Council.
In June
1969,
the City of Fort Collins considered
a unit development
plan of
the bank building and drive -through use.
The 6,700
sf bank
building
and
five lane drive -through facility were
approved
at that
time.
510
November 17, 1981 '
At their September 28, 1981 meeting, the Planning and Zoning Board voted
5-1 (Stoner voting no) to deny the preliminary PUD plan application. A
number of property owners in the neighborhood opposing the request were
present at the hearing (re£er.to.the- attached minutes and letters from the
publ.i.c.}
;Staff Gommertts.` 4
1 Land Development Guidance System EbaTuation. The project was reviewed
against the applicable criteria of the Land Development Guidance
System (LDGS) and all relevant point charts are attached. Briefly,
the points awarded were as follows:
All Development - Point Chart A
The project received the necessary number of points on Point Chart A.
The project earned the required points primarily through architectural
design, landscaping and pedestrian movement.
Business Services Category - Point Chart E '
The applicable absolute criteria of this category are being satisfied -
by the project except for Criteria #3 which requires that the project
score at least 50% of the points on Point Chart E. The project scores
47% or 16 out of a possible 34 points and therefore fails the cri-
terion. The applicants are seeking relief from this criteria and
justify their request in the attached letter from Tony Hughes of
Gefroh Associates, Inc. The staff concurs with the applicant's
reasons for the request and recommends its approval. The approval of
the variance would not be substantially detrimental to the public good
or substantially impair the purpose of that criterion.
All Development Category - Absolute Criteria
It is the opinion of the staff that all of the criterion of this
category have been met in the development plan.
2. Traffic
A. Trip Generation Impact on Princeton Drive and Kane Concourse
Using a standard traffic generation figure of 60-75 trips per day
per 1,000 sf of floor area, the bank facility could generate
approximately 400-500 trips per day. (Note: This figure assumes
that the facility is in full use. In reality the full use of the '
511
INovember 17, 1981
bank may occur only on certain days and the daily trip generation
average over an entire month would be somewhat less.) Of the
400-500 trips, approximately 10% or 40-50 trips would enter
the site from Princeton Drive or Kane Concourse with the remaining
vehicles _entenl,ng from Drake -Road. -or from the .::Princeton-Got-lege
-Avenue curb..cut.. Approximately~20% or, 80-100 =vehicles will: flow
nrAI'P-PnAri,-a.lnnn-Pri.nrotnn/WAr_varri -Ton. noront..nr:-.an-541_nf
neighborhood via Princeton Drive or Kane Concourse. The remaining
70% or 280-350 trips will exit from Drake Road or the Princeton -
College Avenue curb cut.
B. Proposed Street Improvements
i. Drake Road Improvements. Drake Road east of College Avenue
will be widened by the applicant to allow for a right -turn
lane to College Avenue. The two existing curb cuts to the
bank facility and single-family home (to be removed), located
110-feet and 200-feet east of College Avenue, respectively,
' will be consolidated into a single curb cut located approxi-
mately 275-feet east of College Avenue. Sidewalks will be
installed along Drake Road to replace the 50-feet of frontage
where sidewalks are presently missing. Drake Road will be
restriped to allow for a center lane which will allow pro-
tected left -turn movements in and out of commercial .activity
on both sides of Drake in this area.
ii. Princeton Drive. The two existing curb cuts to Princeton
Drive will be consolidated into a single curb cut. Sidewalks
along Princeton Drive where they are presently missing will be
installed by the applicants.
C. Traffic Impact - Summary
The improvements to Drake Road will significantly improve the flow
of traffic and increase its capability' to safely handle future
traffic volumes. The installation of sidewalks along Drake Road
and Princeton Drive will provide a more convenient and.safe travel
route for pedestrians and bicyclists. The project will have a
negligible impact on increasing traffic volumes on College Avenue
and Drake Road. The redesign of the existing fire lane drive -
through facility may increase the traffic using the drive -through
facility but any negative impacts would be offset by its improved
convenience, amenity and safety. The mini -bank would generate
little additional vehicles during the day but is more likely to
512
November 17, 1981 '
increase "after-hours" and weekend use when high use traffic
volumes are down. The traffic being generated by the development
should be easily absorbed by surrounding streets and will not
adversely impact the neighborhood.
Staff Recommendation
F The''staff recominends_`appravai .af the pre. im-Enary tar o ;the ttoiiie Federal
Saving and Loan PUD.
Planning and Zoning Recommendation
At their regular business meeting on September 28, 1981, the Planning and
Zoning Board voted 5-1 to deny the preliminary plan of Home Federal Saving
and Loan PUD (Case No. 68-81). The Planning and Zoning Board's decision to
deny the project was based upon their judgment that the traffic being
generated by the bank facility would have an adverse impact upon the
surrounding residential neighborhood and the design of the existing area
from the drive -up windows cannot handle the flow of traffic if all the
windows are in use. Therefore, the Planning and Zoning Board decided that '
the project failed to meet Criterion #4 of the All Development Category of
the Land Development Guidance System."
City Attorney Liley stated that Council could decide to deny any plan under
the Land Development Guidance System regardless of how many points are
accumulated, as long as Council decides the plan is incompatible, because
compatibility is an absolute criterion. Conversely, the Council could
approve a plan, even if the appropriate number of points were not scored,
but only if Council determines that a variance should be granted. In this
case, staff has determined that the plan meets all absolute and variable
criteria except for Point Chart E, dealing with the business services
category. If Council approves this plan, a variance would need to be
granted for that criterion. That variance would need to be based on two
factors: 1) that there is exceptional difficulty or hardship to the appli-
cant in complying strictly with all the requirements of the plan; and 2)
that the variance could be granted without substantial detriment to the
Land Development Guidance System. She further stated that the Planning and
Zoning Board found that criterion 4 of the All Development category was not
met and that is an absolute criterion which Council should take into
consideration. Since this is a new hearing, it is up to Council to make
the determination whether the points assessed by staff are accurate and
whether or not the Planning and Zoning Board comment regarding criterion 4
should be considered. Council needs to make findings in regard to this
matter.
'
513
November 17, 1981
Curt Smith described the project and summarized staff's position as de-
tailed in the City Manager's memo.
Gary Ross, Chairman of the Planning and Zoning Board, summarized the
Board.''s._-recommendat,i_on,_.wh ch;-was based ri_mariI ..on traffic roblems.in
__._p. Y P._._..
,_the.;de9elopment The Board felt it needed more informaion.and data'on_t.fie
Jim Gefroh, planner for the project, commented on curb cut locations;
access, berming, and landscaping designed to minimize the sound impact of
the development.
Councilmember Knezovich asked about the impact of the project on the
College and Princeton bikeway.
Mr. Gefroh responded that there will be no change in the bikeway as a
result of the project.
Councilmember Knezovich asked about the residence located next to Home
' Federal.
Mr. Gefroh stated it is a single family rental owned by Home Federal.
Garth Rogers, attorney for Home Federal, stated that opening the five
existing drive -ups would generate more traffic than the new plan. Addi-
tional data on traffic requested by the Planning and Zoning Board is now
available in the staff memo on the plan. The plan proposes a sidewalk and
widening of Drake Road. The new plan will also help solve drainage prob-
lems, and the berming and landscaping planned would have a positive effect
on the area.
Jim Vick, attorney representing Mr. and Mrs. Larry Clark, homeowers at 113
Princeton, presented various reasons for recommending denial of the Home
Federal plan. He stated that the P.U.D. failed the necessary criteria, and
that traffic generated would adversely impact the residential neighborhood.
Any variance would deny the land use system, and would create an adverse
environmental impact in terms of pollution, noise, loss of privacy, and
storm drainage. In addition, the plan would impact the value of homes in
the residential neighborhood.
Dennis Georg, a
member of the
Planning and Zoning
Board, who voted to deny
the Home Federal
proposal, stated
his reasons for
opposing the plan under
the Land Development
Guidance
System: 1) land use;
2) intensity of use; and
3) compatibility
of use. The
development would significantly intensify the
'
use and make it
incompatible in
this neighborhood.
514
November 17, 1981 '
Jerry Shuler, 108 Princeton Road, expressed concerns about traffic flow
resulting from cars turning onto Princeton because of the new Home Federal
plan.
Peggy Lindstrom, . 104, Pri nceton Road. stated that-. the. proposed. plan is an
example of'a commercial facility expand rnViintb'a're5fdehtfal- area__.
Councilmember.-,Horak .asked:,,about ,traffic, turning r.igirt from thYs;.,develop—
ment:
Bob Lee, Traffic Engineer, stated that there would be a good distribution
of traffic with the circulation pattern as established. About 10% would
turn onto Princeton.
Councilmember Clarke expressed concern about traffic flow on Princeton as
compared to a normal residential street.
Councilmember Elliott asked about ways to encourage left hand turns from
the development.
Curt Smith stated that a reconfiguration of the intersection was considered '
to alleviate traffic problems but is not the best solution. In addition,
signing will not really address the problem.
Councilmember Reeves made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Horak, to
refer the Home Federal plan back to the Planning and Zoning Board for
rehearing since additional data on traffic is now available. Yeas:
Councilmember Reeves. Nays: Councilmembers Cassell, Clarke, Elliott,
Horak, Knezovich and Wilmarth.
THE MOTION WAS DEFEATED.
Councilmember Cassell stated that hearings have already been held, and
complete information has been provided to Council, so a decision should be
made at this time
Councilmember Clarke made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Cassell, to
approve the Home Federal plan and to grant a variance to the Business
Services Category Point Chart E - Criteria 8 3 of the Land Development
Guidance System, and direct that a Resolution be prepared for the December
15th meeting setting out the Council's findings that compliance with the
Land Development Guidance System would create a hardship for the developer
and that non-compliance would not be detrimental to the Land Development
Guidance System.
515
November 17, 1981
Councilmember Clarke stated that the Council should be concerned about the
impact of this development on the neighborhood as relates to traffic. In
referring to the All Development Chart, traffic is an absolute criterion.
The traffic increase projected by staff would not have an adverse impact.
There are significant advantages to the City in realigning the Drake and
College intersection. The City has gone on record as supporting mixed uses
provided sufficient buffering is provided. This project provides
- - ....._
suffi-
from.the residential.ctnt:berming-aid _landsca in4 to _buffer_..ahe roJ
area:
from voting because of the nature of his business. He stated for the
record that he would not abstain because he did not believe this is a
conflict of interest.
Councilmember Cassell supported the Home Federal plan as being beneficial.
The traffic from the project will not significantly impact the neighbor-
hood.
The Mayor put the motion with the following results:
Yeas: Councilmembers Cassell, Clarke, Elliott, Knezovich, Reeves and
' Wilmarth.
Nays: Councilmember Horak.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
City Attorney Liley stated for the record that the Resolution making
findings would appear on the consent agenda on December 15th and no new
evidence would be admitted at that time.
Appeal from Decision of Liquor Licensing Authority -
Armadillo, 354 Walnut - Decision of Liquor Licensing
Authoritv Upheld
Following is the City Manager's memorandum on this item:
"During the operation conducted by the Fort Collins Police Department
on September 11, 1981, the Armadillo received a summons for selling liquor
to an individual under the age of 21 years.
On October 28, 1981, the Liquor Licensing Authority heard the show/
cause hearing for the Armadillo, 354 Walnut. After hearing testimony from
both the licensee and the Police Department, the Authority ordered a
one -day suspension of the Armadillo's license. There has been one previous
violation recorded for this establishment which occurred on April 27,
' 1979. The violation was serving to a minor.
516
November 17, 1981
On November 4, 1981, the City Clerk received an appeal from the decision of
the Liquor Licensing Authority to the City Council. These hearings are
conducted on the record, i.e., the hearing will consist of a review of the
transcript of the hearing before the Liquor Licensing -Authority (a copy of
the., transcript , accompanies. this-, memo,) , and,- a br.ie:f oraT.,_argume;nt, by_ the
.ap`pellant, based,
on tte record.
C4a-or Wilmarth withdrew from - on thls, natter.:bQcause
.n R o. ..
of a possible conflict o€:interest Ass,st'arrt.61"ayor CasseHl=`chaired';th'is '
portion of the meeting. Councilmember Knezovich also withdrew because of a
possible conflict of interest.
Assistant Mayor Cassell stated that this would be a hearing on the record.
Council needs to determine whether a violation occurred and whether to
uphold the Liquor Licensing Authority decision.
Rock Sorenson, attorney representing The Armadillo, stated that the estab-
lishment is appealing the decision of the Liquor Licensing Authority that
was made following a show/cause hearing. He stated that his remarks at
this hearing before Council would be based on the record from that show/
cause hearing. He stated that The Armadillo's policies on carding have '
been strengthened since the September llth incident. The establishment's
position is that the one -day suspension imposed by the Liquor Licensing
Authority is too severe under the circumstances. The Armadillo's policy is
to check ID's for anyone appearing to be under age 35, and failure to
comply with company policy is cause for automatic termination of the
employee involved. The Armadillo also intends to prosecute anyone attemp-
ting to purchase alcoholic beverages illegally. He further contended that
on September llth, the bartender was extremely busy and the underage
persons involved in making the purchase were well dressed and appeared to
be of age. The bartender involved was not terminated because he had been
employed for over a year and was a valued employee. In addition, the
establishment's new policies will remove the employee's discretion in
serving alcoholic beverages. This bartender had no previous violations of
policy. The Armadillo suggests that a letter of reprimand would be more
appropriate than a suspension.
Councilmember Clarke pointed out that a show/cause hearing was held by the
Liquor Licensing Authority on April 27, 1979, for sale of alcoholic bever-
ages to a minor, and a letter of reprimand was issued.
Mr. Sorenson clarified the situation behind that show/cause hearing and
stated that there were mitigating circumstances that resulted only in
issuance of a letter of reprimand. He stated that the City Attorney ruled
that that letter of reprimand should not be admitted into evidence at the I
Liquor Licensing Authority's show/cause hearing.
517
November 17, 1981
Councilmember Clarke asked why the bartender involved in the September 11th
incident was not terminated in accordance with the company's policy of
automatic termination in such cases. He questioned The Armadillo's com-
mitment to._this policy._,__
_Sorenson,_ commented on '.The -Armadillo's'` trathtng of personnel:, and
Councilmember Horak asked for clarification of The Armadillo's policies and
stated that it was clear that the bartender broke the rules of the estab-
lishment.
Mr. Sorenson agreed that the bartender broke the company rules and he had
been reprimanded by the firm. His position is not that the sale did not
occur or that the company policies were not violated. Instead, the estab-
lishment contends that it did everything possible to ensure that State law
would not be violated. The sanction of a one -day suspension will effec-
tually close the establishment for that day.
' City Attorney Liley stated that the recommendation made to the Liquor
Licensing Authority is a recommendation of the Police Department rather
than the City Attorney's office. She further stated that the 1979 viola-
tion may be taken into consideration by the Council. In addition, Council
should not accept as evidence any comments made off the record.
Councilmember Clarke asked if the Police Department makes checks on a
routine basis.
Assistant City Attorney Denton stated that monitoring is done on a con-
tinual basis.
Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Reeves,
to find that a violation did occur on September 11, 1981. Yeas: Council -
members Cassell, Clarke, Elliott, Horak and Reeves. Nays: None. (Council -
members Wilmarth and Knezovich out of room.)
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Elliott,
to uphold the decision of the Liquor Licensing Authority. Yeas: Council -
members Cassell, Clarke, Elliott, Horak and Reeves. Nays: None. (Council -
members Wilmarth and Knezovich out of room.)
I
THE MOTION CARRIED.
518
November 17, 1981 '
Councilmember Horak stated that he did not believe there were any exten-
uating circumstances in this situation. The establishments should take
more care to check ID's during busy times.
Appeal from Decision of Liquor Licensing, Authority
Jarrires- B. Whalen,, dba..Downtowrr- Liquor_Hart„._1:02 West, OTive:-
Issue Referred.Back_to Liquor Licensing Authority
Fohfowfng ts-the City Manager memorandum oiEthis
"In August of this year, James B. Whalen, dba Downtown Liquor Mart, located
at 102 West Olive, applied to the Liquor Licensing Authority for a Retail
Liquor Store license. At its October 14th hearing, the Liquor Licensing
Authority voted 2 in favor and 3 against on a motion to grant the license.
The Resolution containing findings and conclusions of that hearing and
denying the license was adopted November 12, 1981.
On November 13, 1981, the City Clerk received an appeal from the decision
of the Liquor Licensing Authority to the City Council. Upon recommendation
from the City Attorney, this hearing should be on the record, consisting of
a review of the transcript of the hearing before the Liquor Licensing I
Authority (a copy of the transcript accompanies this memo) and any present-
ation by the appellant.
The City Council has the following options
1. Sustain the decision of the Liquor Licensing Authority.
2. Reverse the decision of the Liquor Licensing Authority.
3. Return the matter to the Liquor Licensing Authority for further
hearing.
The Council's action should be based upon the needs of the neighborhood and
the desires of the inhabitants of the neighborhood. These criteria are
further explained in the following memo from the City Attorney."
Mayor Wilmarth and Councilmember Knezovich returned to the meeting at this
point.
Mayor Wilmarth expressed the following concerns: 1) the record on the
show/cause hearing appears to be incomplete; 2) some of the comments made
on the record seem to be contradictory; 3) the voice vote was not ade-
quately recorded; and 4) he had some concerns about the petitions that were
not admitted into evidence. ,
519
City Attorney Liley stated
December 15th at which time
censing Authority meeting at
_ _would be available..._ _.__.___
_..
John _Duvall, .:attorney; for_ th
the hearing on the appeal.
November 17, 1981
that Council could continue this hearing to
the record on the November 12th Liquor Li -
which. the Authority's Resolution was adopted
Mr. John Burk, co-owner of Danit2 Photographs at 104_West Olive, appeared
in opposition to granting of the license and stated that he would support
referring the matter back to the Liquor Licensing Authority for a new
hearing.
Councilmember Cassell made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Knezovich,
to refer the matter back to the Liquor Licensing Authority for a new
hearing. Yeas: Councilmembers Cassell, Clarke, Elliott, Horak and Wil-
marth. Nays: Councilmembers Knezovich and Reeves.
ITHE MOTION CARRIED.
Executive Session Authorized
Councilmember Clarke made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Elliott, to
adjourn into executive session to discuss land acquisition matters. Yeas:
Councilmembers Cassell, Clarke, Elliott, Knezovich, Reeves and Wilmarth.
Nays: Councilmember Horak.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
The Mayor re -convened the meeting following the Executive Session.
Resolution Adopted Authorizing the City to Enter into an
Agreement of Sale and Purchase for a 3.86-acre Electrical
Substation Site near Drake and Taft Hill Roads
Following is the City Manager's memorandum on this item:
"The Fort Collins Light and Power Utility's long range plan to serve the
projected customer needs within the urban growth area shows the requirement
' for an electrical substation near the intersection of Drake and Taft
Hill Roads.
520
November 17, 1981 '
The acquisition of this property will be discussed during the Executive
Session portion of the meeting. The attached Resolution authorizes the
City to enter into an agreement of sale and purchase for a 3.86-acre
substation site. Council needs to adopt the Resolution after making a
decision on the City's purchase price offer.
Funds for thi .;purchase have", been. appeopriated in�t'he 1981' Light".and.P.ower-
Budget.
Eounci.1'Rember-.Cassell," made. � a' matiiiri=;' sewn ded . 6y - Councilmember` Elarke , " �'
to adopt the Resolution inserting the payment price -or $64 680. Yeas:
Councilmembers Cassell, Clarke, Elliott, Horak, Knezovich, Reeves and
Wilmarth. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Ordinance Tabled on Hearing and Final Reading
Authorizing the Execution of an Agreement for the
Purchase of 60+ acres and the Option of 60+ acres
of Real Property from Fuqua Enterprises
Following is the City Manager's memorandum on this item:
"This Emergency Ordinance relates to acquisition of property for the
following uses:
9 Southside Service Center
0 Light and Power Substation
0 PRPA Switching Station
0 Bus Maintenance Facility
0 Fire Training Center
0 Community Park
Council has received detailed information on this proposal under separate
cover for discussion at the Executive Session portion of this meeting.
After making a decision on financing options and the City's purchase price
offer, Council needs to adopt the Ordinance as an Emergency Ordinance so
that closing can take place before the end of the year."
Mr. Theron McSay, 6422 Kyle Avenue, asked about the City's plans for this
property. His property adjoins the property in question,.
Councilmember Knezovich made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Reeves,
to table Ordinance No. 175, 1981 on Final Reading to November 23rd. Yeas:
Councilmembers Cassell, Clarke, Elliott, Horak, Knezovich, Reeves and I
Wilmarth. Nays: None.
521
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Adjourn
s Councilmember.,_Clarke_,made, -a,'motion; ;
adjourn the reeting to 1 OO.,p m , ;on .
members _Cassell;'Cl arke, ETl.iott,Hor
Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
The meeting adjourned at 12:45 a.m.
ATTEST:
City Clerk
November 17, 1981
I by.:Councilmember -Reeves '-to'
r ,23;., 1981., "„Yeas , Counci.l=
Maybrr T
522